Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive528

Harassment

I signed up less than a week ago to edit an article that I felt needed improving: Oliver DeMille. I found there a caretaker editor with a long history of warnings for violations who has tried to silence me with two administrative actions--a baseless sockpuppetry allegation, and now an investigation into whether I am Oliver DeMille (I am not). He refuses to address the question of whether my edits are appropriate--only that I am not. I note that he was given a "final warning" for editing violations in September 2008, which was repeated again this week. The communications between him and me (you may see on my talk page) and involving DGG, and in defense of the allegations of sockpuppetry which were made against me, will demonstrate that I have been peaceful and tried to address the issues of neutrality, form and content of the article. I have only resorted to this request for intervention after TrustTruth's second administrative action against me. I hope you will consider not just my interactions with him over the past week, but his fitness as an editor in general, as I think he has demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard for the purpose and policies of Wikipedia.

I have a serious concern for my own security. Within two days TrustTruth has made two distinct requests (the sockpuppetry and on the talk page for GoodOlfactory) that an IP check be run on me. Will he have access to that information? If so, I object in the strongest fashion to this threat to my privacy and safety. He's starting to really freak me out.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The details of checkuser results are not made known to the masses here. All that's made public is whether the checkuser result came back positive or negative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There was one warning for me in September 2008 made by DGG. Ibinthinkin is running interference for himself here. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to a request by TrustTruth to ask Ibinthinkin if he is in fact Oliver DeMille, since some of Ibinthinkin's edits to Oliver DeMille appeared to TrustTruth to suggest that he was. I agreed with TrustTruth's assessment of these edits--that some gave that appearance, since Ibinthinkin had access to very obscure sources about DeMille's school days and knew where to find a scan of an academic transcript on-line, for example.

Ibinthinkin has made a clear declaration that he or she is not Oliver DeMille. I am willing to believe Ibinthinkin and assume good faith on this matter. We have to assume that other editors are honest about things like this. I suggest that all parties drop the issue of Ibinthinkin's identity and return to a focus on content rather than users. Of course, any material that violates WP:NPOV or WP:OR can and should be removed from Oliver DeMille. (If there is ever any future evidence that Ibinthinkin has been less than candid with us, then we can deal with it then, but I don't anticipate that that will be the case.)

The sockpuppetry case is a different matter, and I agree that the CU should be performed so we can put that issue to bed one way or the other. No invasion of privacy will resulted from the check-user, just a positive or negative match will be returned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The check-user was performed, and it confirmed that User:Arationalguy was a sock of User:4by40. Those two accounts have been blocked indefinitely. User:Ibinthinkin came back as "unlikely". So I hope we can put at least this issue to rest and try to begin to work together without the suspicion between the parties that has existed thus far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A rather inappropriate dressing down on an AfD discussion

Resolved

 – Resolved for ANI, per Oliver's last comment on this thread. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I have never complained before, but I just experienced a complete and unprecedented verbal tirade calling me every kind of moron under the sun, in very wonderful precise English, containing no vulgarity at all, but making me feel like a dumb school child. If it had appeared on my talk page, as a training tool (in a much more diplomatic way) I could understand, but I mean really... [1]. How can 3 words in a discussion (Delete: Original Research) provoke such a flood of didactic vitriol, that I'm tempted to grab a tissue. (just a bit of levity here) If this AfD discussion is archived, and this article were to be re-listed, this would be visible again, for all the world to see, perhaps even over and over. A wonderful tribute to the community. If the goal was to correct a mistake I made, the more appropriate place would have been my talk page. If the goal was to humiliate me, it succeeded. If the goal was to create a soapbox for a larger audience, I suggest Oprah. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the relevant discussion can be found here. I'll also inform Uncle G of this thread. TNXMan 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • UncleG does appear to have gone a little too far, especially as much of his point is an assumption of bad faith that people said to delete because of Harvard referencing (really?) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Uncle G was wrong to make those assumptions about how the delete voters came to their conclusion. But it wasn't an assumption of bad faith. WP:AAGF. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Quite right. I didn't assume that they were acting in bad faith. Indeed, I've already explained that I neither assumed that they were sheep voting nor assumed that they were ignorant of policy. I have no reason to believe that they have anything but the interests of the encyclopaedia at heart. But I have, in long experience, seen exactly this happen before, at AFD and at Proposed Deletion, time and again. People see an article that is badly structured, in whatever manner, whether it doesn't have summary style, or has Harvard referencing, is unwikified, and immediately say "essay". In many cases, all it takes is some cleanup, and then it's obviously a stub, not an essay at all. It never really was. It was merely an article in need of some cleanup, like this, for example.

        Ask yourselves a question: If you had first seen that cleaned up version of the article, properly wikified, with <ref> references, and the excessively repeated references consolidated, would you have concluded that it was an essay, or a simple stub in need of some stub tags, clarification, and expansion?

        Then ask yourselves another question: Why does Harvard referencing and bad structure make people think of essays? It clearly does, in my experience. The very ironic answer lies, in part, in this very subject at hand, a topic in social psychology known as source credibility, and its closely related topics of source values and source attractiveness. People do go by looks when presented with exactly the same information.

        Want to know more? Read the sources handily cited by the original creator in the article, the sources cited in the AFD discussion, chapter 11 (pp 180–183) of ISBN 9780761922537, and the works of Carl Hovland and others from as far back as 1953. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Why don't people realize that acting like that will get people to disregard your arguments? Do people really think that being nasty is going to change people's minds in a debate? Chillum 16:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Except that I was not nasty in the way that the start of this discussion would make one think. I said no such things. I said nothing about morons, schoolchildren, or even surrender-eating cheese monkeys. I didn't address the editor at all, but the argument, the rationale, and the application, and misapplication, of policy. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment There seems to be a tendency to misunderstand that discussions regarding policy consensus are not supposed to be terse invocations of WP:TAGS. They are, I believe, supposed to be forums where the applicability of said policies are argued for. I can fully sympathize with what I understand as UncleGs frustration. It is unfortunate that you understood his (somewhat brusque) explanation of why your WP:OR tag invocation was incorrect as a personal affront. When you then seem to change the argument to be about notability and frame yourself as having been accused of sinning, he points out what he understands to be errors in your argument. If you fail to explain your argument and just invoke TAGS then clearly people will either interpret what your argument could be or choose to ignore them; UncleG didn't ignore you. To avoid such misunderstandings in the future it would probably be a good idea to fully articulate your arguments. Unomi (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • There is no word count guideline on AfD discussions. I felt it was a clear cut case, with nothing more than a template needed for clarification of my position on the article in question. The only one advocating a keep on this is the admin who attacked me. The 2nd response he made to me was what went out of bounds. "Cardinal sin" was a euphemism, I didn't ask to be psycho-analyzed about my deep-seated insecurities and shortcomings. There were 10 words in that diatribe that were honestly related to the discussion at hand. It was the 2nd response that was completely out of bounds. Even someone who is an admin should not have the right to "credibly" tell people what their motivations for thinking are. Is he psychic? I have a right to defend myself (to the extent I tried) when someone is being unreasonable. Also, I was kind of hoping from some Admin input here. The above user has been on Wikipedia for 30 days, and has already been accused of being a sockpuppet. Amazing how he has grasped the subtle intricacies of Wikipedia guideline theory so throrougly and closely to Uncle G, that they are virtually identical in structure and content. You two should consider a collaboration. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Are you seriously now alluding to the possibility that I am a sock of UncleG? There may not be a word count guideline, probably because it should not need one for it to be understood that per discussion guidelines of the deletion policy that tag invocation is inappropriate. If you had read the policy regarding WP:OR and how it applies to reasons for deletion, and lived up to your responsibility to refer to the sources you would have understood that it was just plain wrong. I don't know how long you have been here, but that you have failed to read and/or internalize these policies is not a reflection on me. Considering your willingness to paint me in a negative light with the conjuration of 'sock puppetry' I also think that some Admin action is warranted here. That I may agree with UncleG in his interpretation of policy could just possibly be because it is the correct one. Unomi (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
            • While Uncle G's comments were definitely incivil and inconcise Oliver, there's really nothing to do here other than be the bigger man and let it slide. If he persists in incivility, WP:WQA might be an option. Otherwise this definitely isn't in need of immediate administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I should not have to install etiquette templates on the user talk page of an admin. I'm not asking for him to be stoned in the public square, I just want whoever it is out there in the Wikipedia ether who evaluates Admins to have this information. I've already cracked a joke or two on Uncle G's user page to show there are no lasting hard feelings. Elvis will now leave the building on this topic. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps somebody more subtle than I could nudge Uncle G in the right direction with a post on his talk page? Chillum 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Having also recently had a somewhat fraught interaction with Uncle G, I'm not too surprised to see this. A look over his contribs shows an admin with an idiosyncratic attitude toward sourcing rules, who tries to enforce it by giving condescending lectures to highly experienced editors. I foresee WQA or other measures in the not-too-distant future if this continues. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, what his contribs show to me is that he isn't really an admin but something much better: A content contributor (latest example). This takes a lot of work and dedication and offers a lot less instant entertainment and gratification than certain types of adminning, or arguing at AfD. And I think it's absolutely natural that when he sees a doomed article that he decides (or at least contemplates) to rewrite so it fits into the encyclopedia, with a lot of personal effort, he gets a bit angry with those who argue for deletion without at least giving a rationale that clearly makes sense. He shouldn't, but it's human. Both sides were wrong in this case. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The article seems to be a fork of Public speaking. Is there any need to comment on the merits or demerits of particular editors or administrators? Mathsci (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Having looked again, I think that User:Uncle G has made a valid point about the subject matter, despite the poor state of the article. He does argue forcefully, but so what? Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not angry at all. I keep pointing out that someone else is saying the things that are being asserted here, saying them about xyrself no less, and that I never wrote anything along those lines. It's someone else that is angry, too. If I were angry, I'd just go and do something else. I still have that food to buy, as a matter of fact. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• No Wikipedian's arguments are presented more cogently, forcefully, and, yes, didactically, than Uncle G's. I suggest to Oliver, Looie, and whoever else takes offense at Uncle G's manner, to learn from what he has to say, or if you disagree with him, simply engage him in the substance of whatever the dispute is. If you feel condescended-to, it's probably because your stance is indefensible. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone is free to their opinion, but Gs forceful and condescending tone are inappropriate, whatever his motivations. It is also self-defeating. Whatever the merits of either argument, Gs tone and argumentative edits are not helpful or of benefit to the project. Verbal chat 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The didactic style obviously fails to persuade editors like Oliver in the short run. Maybe, eventually, after Oliver's and others' feelings recover from whatever injuries they sustained in what their psyches perceived to be G's verbal thrashing, they will emerge with a deeper understanding of the ideas G tried to impart. Or maybe not. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you agree there was a "verbal thrashing" (although not directed at me, at least not the first one, and I don't think that's what you meant...), and such behaviour is against our guidelines. Sometimes G is right, sometimes wrong, but his actions are harming his argument. My feelings weren't hurt, and I don't think many will be hurt by my getting a thrashing. Is there a reason you don't use an account? Verbal chat 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • No reason in particular. Can you say which guideline/s G has violated? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G's arguments there are thought out, but thoughtless. He writes to defend, and does so well, (I voted keep after reading the deletion arguments), but he does write with either no regard, or deliberate disregard, for how his arguments will be received. He needs to learn to re-read his comments to be sure they not only say what he wants them to, but do so in a less derogatory and arrogant manner. that or learn to say 'and fuck you', at the end so we know he knows what he's doing. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• There wasn't anything derogatory in them. All of these derogatory ideas and names have come from OliverTwisted's own edits. I actually wrote nothing derogatory at all. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet they were uncivil, they were rude, lacked tact, and were thoughtless. Verbal chat 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you read what I said? clearly not. You have an attitude that is apparent to many others, which comes through your writing, or worse, you write with it completely oblivious to it. Your writings come off as arrogant and condescending to others. that you not only aren't listening to anyone in this thread, but actively behaving in an obtuse manner about this matter shows me that you may be doing it intentionally. You need to stop thinking you are 'right' about things, and listen to what a lot of other editors are tellign you they take away from what you say here. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Err, who are you talking to? :) I'll take it on board anyway! I think this has run its useful course. Verbal chat 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. He didn't call anyone names, behave coarsely toward anyone or act in a particularly cruel manner. As thuran said, thoughtless, perhaps, but so it goes. I get a little frustrated when I see this magical barrier being erected between AfD and other discussion pages, where somehow it is inappropriate to discuss other stated reasons for deletion on an AfD page. I find that interesting little interpretation invoked mostly when someone is upset at having their opinion questioned. AfDs are the kind of discussions where if no one had said what UncleG said, we would have gone five days with "delete per above" and "delete per nom". Comments are added and generated serially. If no one steps in to correct a particularly inaccurate nomination statement or deletion rationale, then it will go unanswered. If, instead, I came to your talk page and said "your reasoning in this AfD is flawed because of A, B and C", you might go back and modify it, assuming you agreed with me. Or you might not, and after 5 days of perfunctory responses, the article would likely be deleted. I see no problem with letting you know that you were wrong and why you were wrong. Retreating behind the veil of the user talk page doesn't further the overall discussion and frankly after a comment has already been made demanding that it be made in a different venue doesn't help matters. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also, will I get in trouble for telling Oliver that his complaint is baseless here, rather than on his talk page? Protonk (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• The complainant seems quite unfamiliar with our processes. Apart from his excessive response to proper debate at AFD, the matter of which he complains is not appropriate for this venue, being handled at WP:WQA per the rubric at the head of this page. No admin action is indicated or called for here and so the discussion should be closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Please Close: This conversation has taken on a life of its own, even in my absence. I have resolved my differences with Unomi, Uncle G, and have thanked those who gave me appropriate feedback. I have no desire to continue distracting anyone from the serious work that needs to be done here. If I posted my concerns on the wrong forum, I apologize. Letting me know earlier in the discussion might have avoided some unnecesarry typing on the part of several editors. Again, my apologies. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Moreover, as Oliver has stated that he no longer cares about the matter, is there any point to further dramatizing this situation? As other editors and myself have suggested above, WP:WQA may be more appropriate for this. Uncle G hasn't abused the mop in this situation, so Oliver's request that his conduct as an administrator be reviewed is unnecessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Repeated reversion of legitimate page move followed by profanity-filled outburst on talk page

I've been trying to keep C.A. Monarcas Morelia at that location, given the locations of articles about clubs with similar names (C.D. Guadalajara, C.F. América, C.D.S.C. Cruz Azul, etc.), but have run into resistance from Black N Red (talk · contribs). This is annoying, as I've tried to justify my move several times based on the fact that this is undisputedly the correct name of the article given the name of the club and article naming conventions for football clubs on WP, but it isn't the end of the world. I even left a comment on their talk page asking them not to revert without a legitimate justification. What followed was this, this, and this. I'm not a teatotaller or anything, but this is not discussion, and it is clearly rude and disrespectful. I've advanced legitimate reasons for my move, and they've been answered in this way, which is unacceptable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to reverse a move that was made in Dec 2007 as a result of consensus. Why didn't you discuss this on the talk page before you did it? Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned more with the outburst afterwords. There is no justification whatsoever for that behavior. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, two people constitutes a pretty weak consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in case anybody cares. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...and to think that I responded to the WQA filing on the same subject a couple of hours ago. Grant - please note that once filed at one location (WP:WQA was the correct one in this case) then please do not re-file elsewhere, as it's considered to be "forum-shopping", and uses a lot of additional volunteer editing time. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Back down to normal now. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If an admin or two could take a look, it would be much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 02:00

Seems to be over. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot getting it wrong

Resolved

 – Bot operator has acknowledged the problem and agreed to fix it. No admin action necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-bot has been approved (I found the page but can't find it again) to replace {{unref}} on living persons articles by {{BLP unsourced}} - BUT it is also moving that template to appear above any hatnotes on the page, as here, in contravention of WP:HNP which says "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)". This move doesn't seem to be in the Bot approval. I've left a note on the editor's talk page, but the bot is rampaging on. Can it be (a) stopped from doing this and (b) made to correct the ones it's got wrong? PamD (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the bot approval: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 5. PamD (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And at least one of the 100 examples in the trial makes this mistake: [2]

Why are you bringing this to AN/I? Just continue your discussion with the bot operator on his talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the operator appeared not to be online, the bot was still running and I hoped it could be stopped from making further mistaken edits. Was that not the thing to do? Discussion is now ongoing on his talk page, and he's stopped it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 failing to respond to copyvio notices, still continuing after last AN/I thread

Resolved

 – Blocked 1wk by Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 (talk · contribs) has persisted in uploading copyvios, even after the last thread on him, which was only from a few days ago. He is still failing to respond to copyvio notices, or engage in discussion about the images. I suggest a longer block. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

blocked 1 week, with blocknote. He can contest on his talkpage. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me steamrollering over this like that, but I've upped to indef. He was an obvious block-evading sock of a previously blocked user anyway. Let's delete all his images without waiting for the PUI process, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgent vandalism problem at Stormwater

Resolved

 – Template:Precision now fixed. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened, but the article Stormwater has recently been massively (and disgustingly) vandalised with a picture of faeces. I can't see how this has been done, as it doesn't even show up in the history! Could an admin please work out what has happened here, and revert it as soon as possible? Thanks. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template vandalism? The article seems OK now; I'd guess that a template used somewhere in the article was vandalised, and then fixed. Try checking the article again - and if it's still apparently vandalised clear your cache (Control-F5 on Firefox, I think) and check again. I saw a comment on WP:AIV about faeces pictures being used to vandalise a template - by the time I looked it seemed to have been fixed as well, so I'm guessing you may just need to clear your cache. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see it, even after pressing F5. It says 'Blame LOLiver' at the top, followed by text such as 'MURDER ALL GEORGIANS', 'THEODOR EICKE MASTURBATED TO THIS ARTICLE', and a large picture of shit-stained daipers. I can't see the 'edit' or 'history' tabs. Help! Robofish (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's gone now. And I still don't know what happened - must have been template vandalism, I guess. Robofish (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so - "THEODOR EICKE" was referenced on WP:AIV. Glad it's sorted out - that kind of thing is weird. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots

The name of the article was changed without consensus being formed. The claim made on the summary is clearly false. Maziotis (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(shrugs) Does it really matter whether it's "civil unrest in Greece" or "Greek riots"? What do people think it is, fraternity hazing? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I started caring when I understood the guy who wanted to change this to "greek riots" was a right-wing activist who wanted to make the government appear clean on this one. The fact is that, contrary with what both anarchists and greek conservatives were saying, the event isn't exclusively about crazy youths throwing rocks over a "dead comrade". All sources like to sell paper by talking specifically about the riots, but all of them are naming the overall event "civil unrest". If you want I can give you a list. Maziotis (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring your personal attack, it seems like the majority of users at Talk:2008_Greek_riots support a rename back to riots. In fact, it doesn't look like anyone other than yourself wants to call it a civil unrest. Perhaps work on finding reliable sources (probably more likely from scholars over sensationalist newspapers) and come back in a few weeks or a month? Create a user subpage and work on it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where have I made a personal attack? That was certainly not my intention. I do have a list of sources. And for a long time we were several arguing against just one editor. The problem is that those arguments were systematically ignored, and what took place just now was basically a head-count vote, with no respect for due process. Maziotis (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←This really doesn't seem to be an ANI issue or particularly need immediate admin intervention. And considering the editor who performed the move and subject area in which the move was conducted, I'm reasonably sure this is just an attempt to resurrect the collapsed thread further up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Your guess is understandable, but I can assure you this is wholly independent. In fact I suddenly found myself in full agreement with just those users I clashed with most strongly in the other case :-) This is a Greece-internal issue and the ideological frontlines are quite different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What do we do about suicide threats?

If anyone wants to be a big brother (in either sense ) here ya go. --NE2 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IP appears to be an exit node for Illinois Wesleyan University. This probably should be sent in to their Dean of Students just in case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional TOV

I've deleted Enrico Fermi High School, which contained a detailed account of a school shooting that supposedly occurred in 2005. Obviously, there was no such incident, but I've gone ahead and reported it to the Enfield, CT police and forwarded information to the school resource officer so they can look into it. No further action needed, AFAIK. Acroterion _(talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Glowsticking

Resolved

 – Resolved for now, continuations of this should go to AIV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, possibly Melvenorc121 (talk · contribs) keeps spamming a link to an online glowsticking community to the page, ignoring WP:ELNO points 4 and 10 (see [3], [4] and the page history). I'm at the 3rr limit today but I wouldn't mind some outside opinions. IP has been warned [5]. Refuses to review the external links guidelines ([6]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted again and gave final warning. AIV is appropriate if it happens again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...and now blocked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your block and raise you one semi-protection. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently rightly so; here's the off-wiki canvassing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've posted a note on talk:glowsticking. Hopefully it gets someone's attention and they'll stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Blame LOLiver"

Resolved

 – Template vandalism reverted, AbuseFilter filter added. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone have done serious vandalism to Elbe class replenishment ship and possibly elsewhere. I have tried to revert it myself but it is not evident in the source what's wrong (the proper page is behind a box filling the page with disgusting pictures). My best guess is that the vandalism is done in some template. Good luck to whomever tries out to solve it. Steinberger (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, It have not been fixed. F5 did not take it away, so I have looked at it from a separate computer. It is still there, the Theodor Eicke/feaces vandalism. Steinberger (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If F5 doesn't work, try adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) to the end of the url on the page. --Onorem♠Dil 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's gone now. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Mu (lost continent) has been vandalized in a way that I cannot fix. Apparently the hack is in some template included by the page, but I could not figure out which one (<ref> or {{rp}}, perhaps?) or who did it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the same "Theodor Eicke" hack as above.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's a very useful script available, User:Splarka/temused.js that can be installed in your monobook.js file; this script adds a tab labelled "Templates used" to the top of each page, clicking on this shows every template transcluded onto the page together with details of when the template was last edited and by whom. I would recommend any administrators without the script, and those who routinely report such vandalism install the script. Nick (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the resolved tag

This has just occurred again, this time to the People's Republic of China - seriously looking terrible. The whole page was red and the only part that was scrollable was the part at the left (i.e. the column that starts with the Wikipedia logo. It also removed the edit/last etc buttons from the top of the page. Also, I can't remember the exact wording, but it said something like "Nikolai has a 5 lightyear long dick".

I had a look at the history of the page and it didn't show the hack within the history previews, so I reverted the last edit, hoping it was that. It seemed to fix the problem, but I reverted my revert just to double check, and strangely enough, the hack was still gone. So now we're back on the version it was at before I touched it, yet it shows no sign of the hack.

I have since purged and the hack is definitely no longer present. This has only JUST happened so if someone has a bit of know-how, then seriously look into it. I'll watch this page.

Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research (rants) in Yahoo! and Criticism of Yahoo!

Can a neutral 3rd party please review the recent edits at Yahoo! and Criticism of Yahoo! by Optfx (talk · contribs), 79.226.56.248 (talk · contribs) and 79.226.57.76 (talk · contribs). I've been trying to keep out unsourced original research (rants) regarding the closing of Yahoo Briefase, and don't want to get into a 3RR violation. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Optfx (talk · contribs) is edit warring again, and responding to anyone who tells him his paragraph is original research by blowing them off with a line about "March 30, 2009 was NOT Tuesday." [7] [8] He seems to be wholeheartedly avoiding discussion and edit warring now. Admin attention seems to be necessary at this point, thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted him again. It is now little more than POV-pushing vandalism. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Resolved

 – indefblocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:AlanjohnsTheReturn is a sock puppet of User:Alanjohns (per user names and love of Eminem). Admin Spellcast marked Alanjohns as a disruptive sock puppet. — R² 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Inflamatory comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers

Resolved

 – Attack refactored.

Note this !vote and comment in the AfD. Since I voted to keep, and it's a delete vote, there is the appearance of COI. Will an uninvolved admin look and decide if it should be removed as inflammatory and/or WP:NPA violating? Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's definitely violating NPA and a host of other provisions we keep around to ensure that this remains a nice place to be. I'm less convinced it needs to be removed. Have you had a chat w/ the editor and informed him that his comment is being discussed here? Protonk (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've refactored the attack out. — Coren ^(talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  No I didn't leave a message, since he/she retired. There was an MfD on his/her talk page also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alkivar. — Becksguy (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  PS - I just left a message in case the editor un-retires, or checks in. Also tagged resolved here. — Becksguy (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TruHeir

It seems a bit odd to me that this shiny new account, TruHeir (talk · contribs), would go through and be randomly adding {{fact}} tags to some 500+ articles, all today, including things that don't need citations or are already cited. The article selection is extremely random, from fist guest...everything from films and media series to country/city articles to biography. Seems like someone should take a closer look at this, though maybe I'm just suspicious natured. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• That user doesn't seem to be doing anything seriously wrong. It might be useful to encourage them to actually find references, rather than merely generating work for others. They seem to be picking articles more or less at random, and they're finding ones that predate Wikipedia's modern "must be cited to death" standards. --John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ with you, but it is editors who add unsourced material to Wikipedia that create work for others. Placing a tag on unsourced material merely points out where there is a problem, and is perfectly acceptable if the editor doesn't know where to find reliable sources for the material. I am also not aware of any exemption for older material from the verification policy. Having said that, I do think that an editor's choice to add {{fact}} tags appears a lot more creditable if that editor also adds sources for new and/or existing material in other articles. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That is a true statement, but it fails to address the question of how a brand new user gets into this kind of work immediately. It suggests that the new user could be a sockpuppet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • ...or it may constitute a "valid" use of an alternate account. Nevertheless, it's seems fairly obvious that the user has been on Wikipedia before. That, or it's like handing a bunch of manuscripts and a red pen to a University prof for the first time - they will definately find a lot of things to circle. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It also appears more credible if he doesn't add fact tags to things that do NOT need an inline citation: film/series plot summaries and the lead where the statement is cited within the article proper, per WP:LEAD. The sheer quantity of it, the random nature of it, and it seeming to be the only purpose of the account also just seems odd to me...random editor see something and wants a source, yeah, fact tag. One on an apparent crusade of some description to tag it all? Almost wonder if its another one of those school assignments or something.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's little "citation needed" note is not a secret known only to those that have graduated to the inner mysteries, nowadays. It's quite reasonable to suppose that someone new to Wikipedia itself may have heard of it elsewhere. Here in The Globe and Mail, for example. So it's not the simple use of the tags that should raise suspicion, but how they are used.

    I agree with John Nagle. A quick sampling of several of the edits shows nothing actually disruptive, and this is barely 2 days' worth of edits, so far. Not even the randomness is of particular concern. People pick random pages and work on them all of the time here. It's a widespread practice. Just ask any stub patroller, recent changes patroller, new pages patroller, or AFD patroller. Indeed, there is even such a thing as random page patrol. I'm sure that the fact that I have edited Jewish mother stereotype and Digger slang in the past week appears random, too.

    We were all new, once, and we all, at one time, needed to learn that we could boldly make improvements ourselves, editing the encyclopaedia without mercy in order to make it better, instead of timidly tagging areas of attention for other people. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Collectonian, 500+ articles in one day WOW isn't that a bit much? I don't even think I've cracked 100 within the past 4 days. To Baseball Bugs I am not a sock puppet. This is my 1st account but I’m not “new” to Wikipedia. I use to make edits before I decided to create an account. You guys have clearly analyzed my edits and you can obviously see that it’s more towards geography and history. They aren’t as “random” as you think, history and geography are some of the things that interest me and there are several articles that’s I’ve come across with zero to little citations and references. That’s why I placed the tags. I’ve noticed that if you add or remove something from articles you can be blocked for vandalizing. I didn’t think that placing a tag that an article need references or proper citations was a problems. I really don’t think I have done anything wrong but please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.

Take care TruHeir (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops...talk about a typo (that no one noticed until now :-P; you're at around 200 or so now). I was just concerned at the sheer number and that seemed to be the only activity on the account. There really isn't a need to stick in specific tag on so many articles that already already tagged as needing more citations. Also, the plot summaries in television, book, film, manga/anime, etc articles do not need citations at all - the series is the citation.[9] - nor does the lead of an article need a citation if the statement is cited in the article proper. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I disagree with you. I find it hard to believe that the "plot summaries in television, book, film, manga/anime, etc articles do not need citations at all - the series is the citation". What if a person has never read the book or has seen the film? How will he or she know the information presented is correct? The reason I placed the fact tag on the Vampire knight’s plot was because everything from the characters, to the different versions, to the video game had references. And that was the only section that didn't have one. Same thing goes for the tag I placed in Dragon Ball. (one that you reverted) Looking at our edits I see that you are interested in anime and films etc. Maybe the edit I made upset you or something lol, either way please free to leave me a message on my talk page if you would like to discuss. Have a good day TruHeir (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is long standing consensus that a plot summary does not need a reference. See any FL/FA list/article, etc and you will see this is so. The source IS the book, film, etc. Adding an explicit in-line citation has long been seen as pointless and silly. It doesn't matter if a reader has read the book or seen the film. Other editors can easily view the medium if they question something added. And no, it didn't upset me, just screamed "new editor" at me and was reverted, then I noticed you were seemingly randomly doing this on many articles and was concerned about a sock being pointy or the like (has happened before). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they seem random to you, I can't change that and no I really don't care about someone thinking that I'm a sock puppet. I only responded to Baseball Bugs because he said something like I was two new to know who to place a tag. TruHeir (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I think I misread what you wrote, were you saying that you were worried of a sock? I thought I you meant I was worried of being called one. Either way it doesn't matter, but I still disagree about plots not needing references. How about this, Since your the seasoned editor if I'm about to make an edit that I'm "unsure" of I'll leave you a note. Take careTruHeir (talk)

That doesn't really work, I'm afraid. You seem to be in no doubt that plot sections should be tagged as needing sources, when the established consensus is that they do not. If you persistently make that sort of edit, when it's been pointed out to you that it goes against consensus, then you're likely to be blocked for tendentious editing, causing disruption, or vandalism, or something similar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not just plots, etc. Take a look at this edit to Askelon [10] -- given a choice of a lot of unsourced possibly controversial stuff, TruHeir decides what really needs citing is whether a hospital was opened in a certain year. Something isn't right here Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gut feeling is that you guys are overreacting here. I'm guessing that he's a good faith editor. Of course, I could be wrong, so feel free to keep an eye on him, but I'm not sure how much more discussion is warranted on here verses a talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jauerbach, I can't be as confident as you because I have encountered some puzzling edits by Truheir. Have a look at these edits TruHeir made to Atbarah River. The first asks for a source to the statement, "The Atbarah is the last tributary of the Nile before it reaches the Mediterranean." This is a statement that can be confirmed -- or denied -- by looking at a reliable map. Either it is the last tributary -- which is more than probable since from this point on the Nile enters the Sahara desert -- or checking a reliable map will show that it is a mistake, & should then be corrected. I don't think adding a tag here is the wisest solution -- it is disruptive.

As for the second edit, to a paragraph which contains two statements: the Battle of Atbara was fought beside the river in April 1898, & that it was dammed at Kashm-el-Girba in 1964. I am puzzled why someone would doubt that the "Battle of Atbara" was fought anywhere else than near ... Atbara? As for the existence of a dam, again I'd suggest this can be verified by examining any reliable map: either it exists, or it doesn't.

IIRC, established consensus is that uncontroversial statements -- like these three -- do not require a source. On the other hand, if TruHeir has found a source that shows one or more of these statements to be doubtful, Wikipedia would be better served if TruHeir shared this information, rather than flagging them with {{fact}}. So until TruHeir provides this information, I'm going to revert these tags, assuming this is simply a good-faith mistake made out of enthusiasm for accuracy. Reverting my edits -- or making similar edits -- would indicate she/he is not contributing in good faith. -- llywrch (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you all have clearly analyzed my edits you see that it focus mainly geography and history. I only made two edits to plots and I doubt that one edit to dragon ball and another to vampire knights constitutes as persistent tendentious editing. However thank you very much for the link, You are correct, I was in doubt about the plot sections. Collectonian didn't show me a link for the consensus he was talking about and I searched for it but could not find it, it’s funny to see this whole thing could have been solved with just a link. Thank you very much. It’s much appreciated like I said before no one should hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page, it's been a long chat and you all have a great dayTruHeir (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, I placed the fact tag on this entire statement"- "Ashkelon was soon rebuilt. It was an important Hellenistic seaport. In the period of the Hasmonean Kingdom, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach - Pharisee scholar and Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the First Century BCE - is reported to have on a single day sentenced to death eighty Ashkelon women who had been charged with witchcraft. Later, the women's relatives took revenge by bringing false witnesses against Simeon's son and causing him to be executed in turn" - claims that it was an important seaports and other claim but yet there were no refs to show . the tag was not for when a "hospital" was open, why the lies? Also that wasn't even the only part of article I placed a citation tag on. I'm really not going to do this back and fourth thing its like I'm pleading a case and people are trying to find something aganist me and I haven't even done anything wrong so I'm done TruHeir (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You've called me a liar, that's clearly wrong. And ironically, you seem to have forgotten where you put your citation tages. The ne on the paragraph you mention is dated July 2008, you added a tag to the paragraph below. If you knew why you added your tag I'm confused as to why you've forgotten where you added it. It's no good adding a tag to a whole paragraph as the citation needed tag should apply to the sentence you are tagging - see Template:Fact. Also please date your tags. A "refimprove" tag to the whole article in this case would have been fine and I've added one. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can or should anything be done about 666ismoney.com?

Resolved

 – Consensus is to ignore. Page is on CAT:TWU anyway, so should be deleted automatically after a time Tonywalton ^Talk 10:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

A couple of weeks ago Raquel Baranow was reported on here for soapboxing, POV-pushing, introducing inappropriate external links to her own website (http://www.666ismoney.com) and so on, mainly on articles concerning 9/11. Several editors, notably Georgewilliamherbert (to whom kudos for his patience), tried hard to explain WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:V and all the rest to her. Raquel's response was that she was "learning", and, eventually, to withdraw for a short period, citing ill-health. When she returned she resumed the contentious editing mainly on talkpages. Eveutually an Arbitration Enforcement was filed, citing WP:ARB911. After some less-then-productive input there she was today indef blocked. So much for the background.

Currently

Raquel, having copied pretty much all of the original AN/I discussion and the AE discussion to her talkpage, is linking from her website to that talkpage under the title "Wikipedia Censors Raquel Baranow: Orwellian Thought Control (April 2009)".

My question

1. While I realise that the talkpage she's linking to does contain a complete record of the block discussion (as far as I can see she's not redacted it to distort what happened, and it's all followed WP processes) the context of the link, and the possible readership of her site, are likely to combine to bring WP into disrepute as a "censor" (especially as many casual readers won't be familiar with WP processes).
2. Currently her talkpage is not protected; would protecting it so she can't edit it further be a good idea so she can't, in future, edit it to make herself look like an innocent victim of "Orwellian Thought Control"?In fact strike that, I've just full-protected it. Please feel free to remove protection if protection wasn't appropriate.
3. Is there any general policy for people setting up incoming links, particularly POV links, to WP?

Tonywalton ^Talk 21:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that hate-mongering troll has been blocked. As for incoming links? I don't think there's anything wikipedia could or should do about it. If there's objectionable content here, we delete it. There are tons of people ranting all over the internet about the leftist/rightist/fascist/communist/ etc... wikipedia. And that's fine. She's just another marginal voice among them.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of what is on her/his talk page is copied from elsewhere on WP, e.g. WP:AE, WP:ANI and Talk:Holocaust denial. It was an odd thing to do. The website has a lot of quite vile things on it which contradict what was claimed on wikipedia, e.g. the unequivocal self-identification as a holocaust denier there (amongst other things). However, the website is very badly set up and largely unreadable because of superimposed text. I don't think the link is problematic. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think any website can have a binding policy over incoming links (except one that evinces a desire to make mischief with those who hotlink images). that said, the user is blocked and will eventually tire of this particular avenue of protest. It is in our best interest to just ignore them. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't see us doing anything about it coming in; I'd have just left it alone, personally, until she started soapboxing, then blank and protect. Good block, though, she wasn't showing any indication of Getting It anytime soon. (And anyone who uses 'U' for "you" makes me grind my teeth painfully, so...) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this is a bad case of the soapboxes that should be blanked. We are not here to offer a platform for grievances from effectively banned users, and a talkpage is not meant to be a diatribe. They have their own website, let them host their own rants. — Coren ^(talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore - After looking at the site [11], the best option seems to be to ignore it. I can't see anyone taking that seriously, other than as an example of the worst web design seen since 1997. --John Nagle (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore Heck, by talking about it, we give it more credibility than it deserves. I was right though about this editor WAY back when, aw this block coming about a mile away. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your inputs. I'm flagging this as "resolved". Tonywalton ^Talk 10:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Good Mice Brigade when you need them?

Could some good mice perhaps keep an eye on Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Edit-war in full swing, and I'm tired of handling it. Thanks all you groovy guys and groovy gals, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a look through the last 20 or so edits and while there were a few reverts it seems that productive editing outweighs warring. I'll watch the page, for what it's worth. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's all settled now - see the talkpage. --Laveol ^T 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the other thread about Future was closed as no consensus, perhaps some good mice could also see what he has written in Talk:Greece/Naming_poll#Results_summary and weigh on whether this kind of categorization is conformant to Wikipedia policy and ethos? In the meantime, you can also look at him mass-reverting articles claiming that there is clear consensus.--Avg (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with noting that Greek editors are lining up on one side of an issue when that's the plain truth of the matter. On the other hand, there is something wrong with throwing around bogus accusations of racism, as some people have been doing in an apparent attempt to distract everyone's attention from the obvious problem of ethnic-nationalist point-scoring. As for reverting policy-violating edits, it's a disagreeable task but someone has to do it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cla68 and deliberate canvassing

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

---

One bad step does not a block make. If Cla68 persists, maybe there will be something to discuss. I'll leave a note on the AFD that some votes may have been canvassed. In the interim, go to www.freedrama.com for all your drama needs, the servers are running out of electrons. Love, WilyD 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cla68 is engaging in apparent deliberate canvassing off wiki to influence deletion debates. He did so here where he links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle and says explicitly "And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion." When I asked him about this he remained apparently unrepentant.[12] This is in direct violation of WP:CANVASS in the most blatant fashion possible. Whether or not one agrees with Cla68 that deletion of marginally notable BLPs is correct and whether or not one agrees with him that this is a marginally notable BLP in question, this is a clear attempt to violate basic policy and interfere with basic consensus forming mechanisms. This needs dealing with. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

feels like joshuaz is stalking/trolling cla68 to me. Even if cla was incorrect in canvassing for the afd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. Canvassing is still wrong, and Cla is wrong. Grsz¹¹ 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

but what does posting a drama note here gain? they had a conversation on cla's talk page where each position is made clear. Is cla going to get blocked over this? A quick read of the afd indicates that it's not going to be deleted. So the canvassing was to no effect anyway. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 warned to stop the canvassing and that this was intentionally disruptive.

Yes, this is a blockable offense. To my knowledge Cla68 hasn't been disruptive or otherwise abusive in any way recently, so block on first offense would be excessive, but it's a blockable offense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling this a "drama note" is completely underselling the offense. Looks like Cla68 is not only canvassing, but doing so to prove a point, and inviting people from a place that's not pretty much anti-wikipedia at all costs. Dayewalker (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not have another "Bash WR" thread - there are wikipedians in good standing who participate there, honest and constructive external critics, as well as some less constructive critics. Painting the whole site as hostile is not helpful.

There was no unanimous support for Cla68's position there in the thread, once posted, so it wasn't a knee-jerk response on "their communities" part either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

[13] [14]. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cla was just blocked for 48 hours by GWH. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs for blatantly violating WP:CANVASS, disruptive and pointy editing, immediately after warning not to... This was not constructive or helpful to the cause of convincing the community to reduce the number of lower notability BLP articles, Cla68. Please edit in a more constructive manner going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The WP:CANVASS policy doesn't seem to make any mention of off-wiki canvassing, and focuses only on canvassing within the wiki itself. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoth WP:CANVASS, "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications." But yeah, sure, maybe "off-wiki communication" means "only canvassing within the wiki itself." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Boris, what you quoted was in the "Stealth Canvassing" section. other off-wiki communication obviously referred to stealthy communication. There's nothing stealthy about a Wikipedia Review post. -- Noroton (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused. Could George or anyone please explain what specific part of WP:CANVASS was violated? When I first saw Cla68's post at WR, I took a look at WP:CANVASS and couldn't find it. The closest thing I could find was WP:CANVASS#Campaigning: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. But that sentence is immediately followed by this exception, which Cla68's Wikipedia Review thread is covered by: While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. He opened a discussion there. The matter was discussed there. He linked to the AfD, which is reasonable. He said he hoped people would vote to delete. I don't see the disruptiveness of that. I don't see that that's worth a block. Please enlighten me. -- Noroton (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He did so with the explicit purpose of getting delete votes. He was very explicit. He was aiming at a group of people he thought would be sympathetic to his viewpoint. WP:CANVASS is quite explicit: "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." Regarding Dan's claim: that's precisely why the policy has a section against so called stealth canvassing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Fozzie, below) I thought his I-am-canvassing statement over there was deliberately provocative and incorrect. I think what your arguing contradicts the spirit of WP:CANVASS. Your quote refers to "messages", but Cla68 began a discussion at WR, not a series of similar or identical "messages" cross-posted. Beginning a discussion, wherever you do it, is simply different from posting an announcement. And your quote is out of context. The rest of the first paragraph (the first half) reads, Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions I think it could be written with more clarity, but "messages" implies cross-posting, not starting a discussion somewhere else. Discussion is supposed to be what leads to consensus. It cannot be the intent of WP:CANVASS to squelch discussion but to squelch the disruption caused by spamming user talk pages and mindless, repetitive notices. Your reading is against the spirit of the guideline. -- Noroton (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First it was deliberate, outright canvassing, now it's stealth canvassing? Seems to be incompatible with each other, somehow (confuzzled)..... I really don't think GWH's actions are really beneficial. In short, it's an action that will raise drama, and not lower drama. I suggest that GWH undo the block. Note: I'm not saying that Cla68 is totally in the right here. He did admittedly canvass the folks on the WR thread. I suggest that instead, any !votes that would have resulted from the AfD (such as mine, if was logged in), be discounted. That probably would be more proper then an over-reaction (GWH) to an over-reaction (Cla68). (Fozzie, not logged in) 71.184.225.103 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my point. My point is that the notion that stealth canvassing is a problem only makes sense in a universe where off-wiki canvassing is problematic. In any event, off-wiki canvassing is not acceptable. It hasn't ever been acceptable. And Cla68 knew that. He responded to a formal warning about that with contempt for the admin making the warning. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your position would disallow, say, bloggers who are Wikipedia editors from discussing current AfDs or other discussions. The off-wiki prohibition concerns stealth canvassing, not open canvassing. -- Noroton (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Discussing open AfDs with the stated purpose to canvass for a specific viewpoint is not ok. That's not new and that's exactly how we respond whenever some SPA tries to do this on some random internet forum. Cla68 isn't any different simply because he's a long-time, very productive user. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if I were to open a thread at Wikipedia Review and restate what I've just stated here, I could be blocked for violating WP:CANVASS for trying to canvass about this AN/I discussion? If I left out the words "And I think you should all go to that AN/I page and help create a consensus on behalf of Cla68" then would I suddenly not be canvassing? Preventing discussions elsewhere is not workable, it furthers nothing that WP:CANVASS wants to promote, it discourages nothing that WP:CANVASS actually wants to discourage. And it doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way. -- Noroton (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. We're not talking about someone adding in a magical phrase. We're talking about someone who explicitly stated that they were posting it to a specific forum to get a specific result. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quit crying. You do seem to be arguing about someone adding a magical phrase ("I am canvassing"). What matters is not whether or not he states it, but whether he actually does it. -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In my view, WP canvassing policy is rather hypocritical as it seems to give a wink and a nod to certain types ("JUST SAY NO to FLAGGED REVISIONS" claptrap flashing away in the corner when you visit someone's talk page) while disapproving others. This block was not a good one, and I suggest it needs to be overturned forthwith. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lar, so you agree that GWH has correctly interpreted policy as it stands? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No. If I had, I would have said so. What part of "this block was not a good one" were you having trouble with? ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The part where you said that "WP canvassing policy is rather hypocritical " which only makes sense in this context if GWH has correctly interpreted policy. In any event, note that given Cla68's response it seems pretty clear he thinks that that's policy too. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Ok let me be more specific since you seem to be trying to misunderstand me. The policy is lame. The block is a bad block even under a strict interpretation of the policy as written. These two facts are independent of each other. The block should be overturned forthwith as it's not sustainable once a few more admins with clue turn up, would be my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider the issue minus the personalities: if this were an AFD for a biography of a knitter, and a participant to the discussion had posted in a similar manner to an online forum about knitting, what would our reaction be? What's good for the goose is good for the gander; same rules for everybody. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WR is not devoted to either knitting or removing BLPs, so the point is invalid. Now I wish I'd gone to that AfD and voted Keep, as I was thinking of doing. -- Noroton (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite valid; no online knitting forum is devoted to removing BLPs either. If someone had posted to any other open online forum about an AFD in exactly the same manner, what would the reaction be? Durova^Charge! 04:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Lar, below) Hopefully the reaction would be for thoughtful Wikipedians to get involved in the AfD discussion. This is no different from a blog posting. You have a blog. Should you be prohibited from commenting in your blog on a discussion on Wikipedia? You should be able to post your opinion off-site just as you should be able to on your talk page (flashing "JUST SAY NO to FLAGGED REVISIONS" or a long essay), which WP:CANVASS clearly doesn't forbid. If you get away from the spirit of what WP:CANVASS is about, you get tied up in all sorts of conundrums. Start asking yourself if this kind of policy of blocking people for this kind of "canvassing" can be good for Wikipedia. (I'm commenting too much here. I'll withdraw for now.) -- Noroton (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec's)Actually I have seen several threads over at WR which have devolved into "Wikipedia needs to delete all articles about living people" echo chambers. Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. The reaction would be a banner saying "if you were brought here, remember AfD is not a vote" and that would be that. This is BADSITES overreaction. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite simple. The specifics of who it was or which site it was are irrelvant: if it were anyone else, posting in the same manner to any other forum, how would we handle it? Durova^Charge! 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec's)IIRC, the Rama's Arrow et al. RFAR was based on off-wiki canvassing among like-minded editors, and a huge amount was made about Filll sending out a emails to people who had voted "no!" on Giggy's prior RFA. I didn't follow the RFAR, so I don't recall the outcome, but even though Filll was unaware that there were rules against canvassing, he was subject to some pretty serious hounding. So no, this would be a serious problem even if it were a knitting forum... Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I outlined, just above. Put a banner up on the vote and that would be that. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that the way they handle this at AFD these days? I don't participate there very often. BADSITES has been dead letter for two years; it seems to be a red herring to even mention. Whatever would be done in an equivalent situation with other editors and other fora, please do the same here. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're there. The banner is on the AfD already and the editor is not blocked. The only remaining cleanup is a trout for GWH and JoshuaZ. By the way, Cla's "canvassing" caused me to go read the article, think about whether the person is notable or not, and vote "keep" in the AfD. Some canvass, it worked really well, if it got me, a pretty hardline BLP deletionist at this point to vote keep. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Threads like this make me glad I don't spend more time at AFD. Not sure anyone deserves a trout slapping here. Seems to have been a good faith thread. Just a couple of old hot buttons converging. Heading back to Photoshop now; restoring an 1850s photo of the Suez Canal. It's much more peaceful. Durova^Charge! 05:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, comparing or associating things with BADSITES is my job! You guys are violating my patent, or trademark, or copyright, or something. (Hey, am I violating WP:NLT now? I guess I'd better call somebody a Nazi so I can violate Godwin's Law as well.) *Dan T.* (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked, just about the time that I was granting the unblock request (I do those first before the unblock, for whatever reason...) Clearly no consensus for the block exists. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok Lar, so may I ask how you reconcile Cla68 unblock request with his earlier replies to me and GHW? Because frankly it seems pretty clear to me that Cla68's unblock request was made after this novel interpretation of CANVASS showed up. It is completely inconsistent with his earlier remarks. If he thought it was ok, he would have said so then. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy Peasy. Don't believe everything you read, for starters, with a dash of WP:DENY for good measure. The other day, someone was demanding to be blocked for some supposed transgression. I didn't oblige them because blocking them played into their hands. Suppose Cla68 WAS making a POINT... you and GWH just played right into his "diabolical plot", and what's more, you can be counted on to do it again and again. But I don't think he was, any more than I would be if I posted on my blog that I thought a particular article needed to go. The policy, interpreted correctly, does not disallow public statements about AfDs, there was no policy violation. As I already said, above. Really JoshuaZ... think, man, think. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone, for your support. Let's not miss the real issue here, however, which is BLPs on marginally notable people. These articles are not watched by very many editors, and are thus extremely vulnerable to abuse. My AfD for the Waddle article was for that reason. I truly do regret creating that article on Bill May, now it will be hard to get it deleted, and it's my fault for creating it in the first place. He doesn't deserve having that bullseye painted on his back that that article represents under Wikipedia's current BLP system. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloody ridiculous trolling block. I regularly post to other sites discussing my AfD nominations and how the response shows the inherent weaknesses in wikipedia. Have I been blocked? Have I even been warned? And can someone please tell me how this block is any way preventative? Was there a Cla would do it again in the next 48 hours. NO. This was a trolling block intended to cause drama, make a point, and wage another round of the imaginary war against the Dark Forces of Wikipedia Review.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See [15] (a link to WR and it's not behind proxify) where Scott says:

Oh, I've just AfDd Gloria Chang who is utterly not notable.

Perhaps people here would like to vote in this discussion - I could use some deletion support.

Sorry for bothering you with my canvassing.

Yours,

Spartacus

So, GWH and JoshuaZ... make the case to block him too. If you don't, you prove the point that your block of Cla68 was ill founded and politically motivated. If you do, I'll be watching WP:RFAR where I predict I'll be seeing you soon enough. YHBT. HAND. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS specifically in intended to apply to articles and deletion arguments, but from the immediately above it seems to have wider applicability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is becoming a canvassing central for certain wiki-factions to increase their on-wiki power. Lar and Scott MacDonald are among those often using WR for that. WR-readers are well known to be BLP-deletionist. The only difference between this and canvassing for deletion of a Kosovo topic on a Serbian forum, is that WR member carry more on-wiki clout. BADSITES is an obvious red herring. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called "discussion", Apoc. It's public and can be read by anybody. Before I joined WR, I read it and sometimes went to AfD and other discussions -- as often as not to oppose what the person wanted who brought up the matter at WR. It's a discussion board, not a political party. We're all better off if we have more forums like WR where people interested in Wikipedia can discuss, trade ideas and learn where on this massive website there are important decisions being made (other problems with that website, which I've complained about loudly, have nothing to do with what we're talking about here). Shedding light makes skulduggery more difficult. It's not like a Serbian forum at all. The only way that discussions on that site, which is in English and is concerned with Wikipedia as a whole, can "increase ... on-wiki power" is the same way you do it right here: by making an argument that people find convincing. That's supposed to be what getting a consensus or prevailing at AfD is all about. -- Noroton (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to forbid WR. I do no want to, and it wouldn't matter if I did. I disagree with how it is sometimes used. Selectively inviting people to a discussion with loaded language to fake a desired consensus is the problem with canvassing. It is similar to having a popular culture inclusionists noticeboard where you can go to get those extra keeps needed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Lar and Scott MacDonald are among those often using WR for that" . Seriously, where do you get the idea that I ever do any such thing? Not that there's anything wrong with raising issues on an external public forum. When you say stuff like that, you come off sounding rather foolish, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Lar, "foolish"? If it wasn't for long, tortuous defenses of misbehaviour by the WR crowd (that and elections for whatever new position becomes available), I don't think I'd ever encounter your username. I can't say the same about Scott, I see him everywhere I turn. So while it's perfectly valid to ask Apoc to support his/her assertion, one doesn't look "foolish" when one's comments ring so true. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to throw around more of this, but I found it to be a bad block as well. Gathering that we have far too many BLP's and far too many BLP's with serious issues, perhaps it is time that we start throwing out the trash and focusing on what we can adequately fix and spend our resources on. seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is now moot but.. considering that AfDs are not actual votes but supposed to be discussion of policy any canvassing *should* only serve to supply more policy based evidence. If the AfD process is broken to the point that closing admins don't distinguish between simple votes and actual policy arguments then that should be addressed. Unomi (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True. But that has always been the case. Canvassing votes has always been frowned upon unless you make the effort to invite all sides. Outside canvassing has been unacceptable at least as far back as 2004 or early 2005 (when I became aware of a VFD via Daily Kos; that caused quite a shitstorm...and rightly so, I now realise). The issue of public or private canvassing is entirely beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I also feel this was a bad block. The better thing to do would be to abort the AFD and then restart it once the furore had died down. If the article is bad enough we already have a provision under BLP to delete it without discussion so no BLP vio need be tolerated by the approach. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not new and that's exactly how we respond whenever some SPA tries to do this on some random internet forum. - Wrong - We don't block when that happens. (of course, that may be because in those cases they're usually trying to get the article kept, and you're an inclusionist. But whatever.) --Random832 (contribs) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Henry Delforn

While patrolling pages from the "new pages patrol backlog", I stumbled upon Anna Baltzer. After initially tagging it for several perceived problems, User:Henry Delforn posted this rather nice "thank you" note on my talk page. Although I had initially not watchlisted the Baltzer article, I then decided to give a hand and performed an admittedly rather rigorous clean-up of the article. This revision was reverted to its original state by Henry Delforn without any comment. I then posted a message on his talk page, explaining what I had done (please also note that I had provided rather detailed edit summaries in the different steps of the cleanup) and re-reverted back to the cleaned-up version. This was met by (1) again a reversion to the original version, (2) this accusatory note on my talkpage, and (3) the same message emailed to four of my "real-life" email addresses, which does require (albeit perhaps not much) some Internet searching to find personal information about me.

I guess that opinions may diverge about my revisions to the Baltzer article, although I assure that I acted in good faith and could have been talked about. However, they certainly did not merit the above described personal attack. Given the severity of this attack, I have decided not to take this up with this user, but bring it immediately here. I will place a notification of this action on his talk page, but will refrain from further interactions with him and will not edit the Baltzer article again. --Crusio (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Message left (with welcome template) on user's talk page, your version restored (my message specifically referred him to WP:EL as well as WP:Civil. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, much appreciated! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dougweller - By simply reverting and not improving the article you are just taking subjective "sides". Do something to improve it.Henry Delforn (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did that by suggesting how you might use the 'Sponsorship' links that fail WP:EL but might (I'm not saying will), be useful within the article as references if they mention her. And I think my reversion improved the article or I would not have reverted. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism on Michael_Robertson_(businessman) article ..

This issue has now been listed at BLPN per Emacsuser's request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

"In 2005, Robertson stepped down as CEO in favor of Kevin Carmony. Carmony resigned from Linspire in July 2007, after several hundred thousand dollars went missing from the company. He continues to make slanderous comments about Robertson on the Internet. He was questioned under oath about a great many things regarding his actions and will not discuss publicly the answers he gave under oath", Leslieaudra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Robertson_(businessman) emacsuser (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to before the dispute, but this belongs on WP:BLPN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Lester Coleman help please

Nobody intervened on my last attempt to get administrators involved. Now there appears to be a possible threat of legal action (see talk page). I'd appriciate it if admin's intervene. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think an admin would be able to do? An implausible legal threat by an IP is not really actionable, except by blocking the IP, which isn't all that useful. Looie496 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Word of advice: provide diffs if you want faster results. "See talk page" isn't helpful and people passing by aren't going to help if you don't put in the slightest effort. Now, I'm going to archive the inappropriate sections as a violation of WP:TALK. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, note the fact that the IP address is located in California for a man supposedly in Lebanon with counsel in New York, to an IP address whose talk page has a long history of shenanigans makes me doubtful about its voracity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore it. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read a legal threat in the signed posting. If Coleman is indeed dead, then it is only natural that his interests are represented by a attorney. Claiming to be a laywer is not in itself a legal threat. It seem that Nrswanson is only trying to push a POV here, which just happens to be the same as the one pushed by the hoaxter. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - Whether the poster is Coleman himself or his attorney does not really matter. As a possibly living person this clearly falls under WP:BLP. Coleman has every right to object to the content of his article without being censored. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... POV? The same as the hoaxster? Both absolutely false. The only thing I am advocating is that the content be cited to reliable sources. Where exactly are my interests in line with the hoaxster? I removed all of the hoax content. As far as I can tell I have opposed every single piece of content not cited to reliable evidence. My only goal has been to rid the article of original research/false information. Further everything I have done has been in the interest of the guidelines at WP:BLP. If you are going to make accusations provide some evidence. Further, the IP address claiming he is Coleman's lawyer is located in California and not New York as claimed. You are making too many assumptions Petri Krohn about the anon IP's identity. Even if he were Coleman or connected to him in some way, then its a clear case of WP:COI. Nrswanson (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pietru

Pietru il-Boqli's editing [16] spicked with his edit summary pearls before swine. Is this alowed? Pietru think it is on grounds it being a perfectly respectable Hebrew idiom. In the previous link he accused me of being pointedly racist. What should I do? Advise me, please. These are not the only transgressions of Pietru against me, and I have come forward now.

He labeled other editors as racist [17] and described why this is not an offence but as he put it User talk:Pietru/Archive 1#Blocked, or, Why Wikipeda is full of Sycophants. For that he received 1 week block.

Imbris (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting he should say pearls before swine is a Hebrew idiom. This is from the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 7, verse vi: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet", meaning (basically) "some people don't understand how good what they're being told really is". It's a marginally uncivil edit summary and I'm warning him about it. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • What about he accusing me as being pointedly racist [18]. He has labeled one editor before as being racist. -- Imbris (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Your use of the word "spicked" in that diff appears to be a typo or mis-spelling, though from context I'm not sure what was intended. You may not be aware that the word "spick" or "spic" is a derogatory term for a person of Latino origin. As read, your post could indeed be seen as racist (though assuming good faith I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. I suggest you contact Pietru and explain this was a misunderstanding. 81.151.110.150 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) well who needs a CU? That was me, that was, not logged in on the secure server) Tonywalton ^Talk 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Obviously I meant spiced. What about his accusatory methods. -- Imbris (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ (a Jew, hence Hebrew) used the idiom, in a gently chiding and generally wise manner. Apologies if anybody here feels 'swine' is somehow derogatory. I referenced Imbris' racism in that he asked for details on my ethnicity, after using the argument that my edits were ethnically biased. He persisted along this line until things got to a head. I am still unclear as to why his revisions are not being looked at critically in hopes of consensus: I've listed many of my objections and points on the Maltese dog talkpage.

His blanket reverts of my work or simply removing what he doesn't take the time to understand (eg. the position of maleth v malat in Phoenician, a Semitic language).... I have never, since the page got cleaned up, tampered with his good work in the history section, for example. But tolerating random changes and insidious wording (possibly due to Imbris' lack of technical skill when it comes to English) flies in the face of making the encyclopedia truly useful. Pietru (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) You have not phrased your edit summary as: Jesus Christ said something and something which would be properly quoting someone.

(2) I have never asked for details about his ethnicity. His superb knowledge of the English language is what I have commented, and commented in a indubiously positive way.

(3) I have never said his editing is ethnically motivated, simply noted that his POV is using as much as wikilinks and names of the same locality in the article. This is his attempt of equalization of approaches (in editing and discussing) and laying the blame upon the other editor. Calling me a racist is the continuation of labeling editors with defamatory labels (such as vandal, racist, antisemitic, ...)

(4) I have not persisted anything. When offended I tryed to pass over it, and the sittuation has gone to a head better said exploded when the third editor agreed with me. Then a conflict was tryed to be provoked, the highest order of offence was prepared, and we have a smoking gun.

(4a) In the old days at Usenet we had Godwin's law. I think that his attempt to label me a racist qualifies for something.

(5) As to involving content into this discussion, Pietru has definitely not read the disclaimer about ANI not being for content disputes, we have dispute resolution for that.

(6) The article is of no importance here, Pietru denies every chances of a compromise by insisting on POV even if his POV had not been acquired at the RfC, etc., etc. I repeat this is not the place for DR.

(7) Pietru has not listed almost anything at the talk page, other than a lots of harsh language.

(8) Pietru has not made any work but shifted content in order it to seem working, edited against the RfC

(9) I have taken the time to understand that editing with false pretences, destroying the sourced statement by adding irrelevant data, which that source do not recognize thus distorting the original sourced statement.

(10) Attacking my grasp of the English language will not help you. Pietru thinks he could change the time line and accuse me of randomization.

(11) Pietru thinks he WP:OWN's the article. He has been proven wrong at all of my edits made at the article. Don't get me started. I must remember that advice I gave to Pietru, this is not the place to discuss content. But I must defend myself.

Imbris (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, what is with the list fetish? You have complied about a dozen already! In simple response, I would direct interested parties to the Maltese dog talkpage (and Maltese dog edit history) and Imbris' talkpage. Both are very enlightening. I'll add that the suggestion my contributions are limited to 'moving stuff around' is highly unfair and very immature. Is this another example of something Imbris says being lost in translation? As for attacking you, I have not, unlike your constant 'Pietru upsets Imbris', 'Pietru's vandalism' sections on the talkpage, discussing personal issues with me and not the content of the article. Regarding the RfC, you failed to act upon it or discuss it, and when changes were made, they were made tangentially and following your own modified initiative. Pietru (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You should mention your talk page and your block list, as well as [19] and that part where you admitt some blame at the talk page, then remove it from the talk page. I'll find it soon. -- Imbris (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please furnish proof before making scandalous accusations. You need to be a lot more careful Imbris. Anybody with the time should check out your blocks too, especially those you incurred as a result of activity on Maltese (dog). Pietru (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On the pearls before swine part

"Swine" is by no means a "gentle" insult, then or now. Hogs were and are considered "unclean" animals in Jewish law (and Islamic law also). "Casting pearls before swine" is an expression I have been known to use, and I assure you I do not intend it to be "gentle". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So calling somebody a ham is rude now? What's up with that. Pietru (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At least hams can be cured. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cute. "Ham" in this context is slang for "amateur", and has nothing to do with swine, generally speaking. Ham radio = amateur radio, as opposed to commercial radio. Hamming it up = amateurish acting, i.e. overplaying, mugging, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And sows make great silk purses. What's yer point? Pietru (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can.Pietru (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pietru - Please stop poking people like this. Our policy on civil and constructive editing and our policy against making personal attacks apply to everyone here. We ask that you assume good faith about other editors and not turn around and attack them when they criticize you.

Even if your initial transgressions were innocent mistakes of not understanding common usage in English, your responses now once you've been notified are not ok.

Please stop this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall examine my conduct, but the pig thing was hardly meant to suggest Imbris as somehow "unclean" (whether he is a gentile or otherwise). It wasn't my intention at all and the idea it may have been is getting rather.. boaring. Pietru (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Pearls before swine" is also attributed to Dorothy Parker, who was famous for her retorts, and sparkling and caustic wit in the literary world. In a supposed exchange with Clare Boothe Luce, when arriving together at a door, Luce said: "Age before beauty", to which Parker retorted "Pearls before swine" and swept through the door first.[20] The phrase is also the title of a comic strip Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) and other things, including a game and two bands, see the DAB Pearls Before Swine. So it's meaning and intention depends on the context. — Becksguy (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the edit summary, it was condescending and insulting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Pietru (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In this context, that response is also condescending and insulting.

Pietru - WP:CIVIL is not negotiable. You have to edit in a collaborative manner, not abusing those around you. Continuing to abuse people is a blockable offense, and users will be indefinitely blocked if they keep doing it repeatedly. Please reconsider your approach here.

You don't have to like people. We encourage constructive disagreements. But you have to edit in an adult manner and respect that the rest of us are human beings too. If you don't do that, you'll be asked to leave. Please don't push things that far.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your humanity, nor have I forgotten a basic duty to respect and honour that. Rather than blame anonymity and difficulties inherent in this medium, I'll reread WP:CIVIL. Pietru (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of Pietru calling me a racist

Direct from the talk page:

9 Pietru il-Boqli's editing spicked with his edit summary pearls before swine are not helpful. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

'Spicked'? Is the veneer well and truly off, are you being pointedly racist? Or is this another instance of Imbrisese (scan the article for various examples). Pietru (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Still no answer on the accusations of racism? -- Imbris (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have decided that you experience difficulty writing in English and I should forgive you. Pietru (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I do, naturally. Pietru (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He does seem to make a habit of such accusations out of the blue: [21] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mattisse

Can I ask, given how much trouble User:Malleus Fatuorum has been given for occasional losses of temper, why User:Mattisse seemingly believes it is ok to spread slander like He is not a very pleasant character. on the pages of third users with impunity? Spreading slurs and making personal attacks about users to third parties, even when you have a bad relationship with them, is surely unacceptable. It can do nothing but escalate ill-feeling, spread [whatever is] the dispute, and, if not dealt with, give the victim little choice but to "retaliate". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That someone uninvolved but preferably familiar with whatever personal dispute Mattisse has with Malleus deal with this in whatever manner gets behaviour like that to cease being acceptable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just went and started an essay and invited both Mattisse and Deacon to participate, only to see this on my next refresh of my watchlist. This is unexpected. Interesting, time will tell who is correct. I think it would be the essay's advantage to have people who disagree with each other work on it, I hope they both accept. Chillum 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think "not very pleasant" is a rather tame comment, and one I must agree with. My experiences with that editor have not been very pleasant. Is it suddenly slander to not consider someone "very pleasant"? Chillum 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the timing was certainly funny. :) For the reasons I gave, going around telling someone a third person is "not a very pleasant person" is a completely pointless violation of WP:NPA. At the very least do this sort of thing by email, where, although still libelous, won't at least escalate conflict. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How is the truth a violation of NPA? Malleus is not very pleasant. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First off The comment would have to have a real effect on his reputation for it even to be close to slander or libel. Mattisse was not really revealing any new information to me. Lets leave these legal terms for the lawyers outside of Wikipedia. I agree that particular turn of phrase could have been left out of that comment without effecting the point it was trying to make, but there was a relevant point there. Like I have said on my talk page I have not made up my mind about Malleus, but I certainly can see how someone would come to the conclusion Mattisse did. Mattisse simply needs to learn how to address behavioral problems with other users in a manner that is more acceptable. Chillum 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, while I respect your friendship with Mattisse, you are not addressing my concerns and thus not helping to solve the problem. Comments like that do effect reputations, and more to the point, escalate conflict. Don't know why Malleus is expected to be more pleasant if people are going around saying stuff like that. Wikipedia doesn't work on the principle of "one rule for the goose, one for the gander". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I barely even know Mattisse. The comment he made on my talk page is the extent of our communication. If anything I am far more friendly with you. This isn't so much about goose vs gander, it is about calling a quacking waddling bird a duck. Since when is withholding compliments considered an insult? Is what one considers pleasant suddenly not a personal choice? If someone acts to you in a way you don't find pleasant should that be kept a secret? I am a firm supported of NPA and enforce it rigorously but even I find this to be a stretch of the policy's spirit. Chillum 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I assumed this because of his presence on your talk page and apparent familiarity when making those remarks about Malleus. Anyway, what value do you see in calling a "quacking waddling bird a duck" if at the same time you are insulting another established user with whom you are in a dispute? I just don't get that, and it's not like this was a matter of a personality trait affecting article content. As far as I see, this is little more than a disruptive social attack, and serves no purpose beyond satisfying Mattisse's desire for reprisal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section to my essay about how even the mildest of offensive comments can completely discredit your defense against a user using bad faith ad hominem attacks. I am trying to point out the contradiction of such an action as well as its self defeating nature. It is rather poorly written right now, but I have gotten my thoughts out. Either me or a person with better writing skills will improve it later.

I don't really know enough about the surrounding dispute(if any) to tell if this is the case here, I don't know if Malleus is acting in bad faith, and I also don't know how much truth there was in most of Mattisses comments on my talk page. What I do know is that "not a very pleasant person" while uncalled for and inflammatory is neither false nor significant, nor actionable. Perhaps other administrators will feel differently, as always I welcome dissenting opinions as well as any other. Chillum 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It does need to be acted upon [meaning someone neutral needs to interfere]. Not by either me or you, but by another admin familiar with the situation. Besides being inflammatory, it's the context that makes it actionably unacceptable. If he says it on his own talk page, fine, but getting into a habit of going around wikipedia doing it is different. Anyway, I've said really all there is that I can say. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say it shows Matisse's ability to be neutral to be rather unimpressive. He's stated as fact that Malleus is unpleasant when in actual fact all he is doing is spouting opinion as fact. I find Malleus to be rather personable and the sort of person who makes it easy to know where one stands. Invariably the people who don't like Malleus come into two groups - those who have been told the blunt truth and don't like it, or the incurably politically correct who can't abide a spade being called anything other than an earth moving implement. It strikes me that Matisse has now opened the doors to allow people to pass comment about him, after all it's only fair that if he can do it then so can anyone. I'll take ticket number one and state quite categorically that Matisse is a prick. Now is that opinion or is that fact or is it a personal attack? Either way Matisse's behaviour and comments deem it to be quite okay to pass opinions like that on people he doesn't like so I feel quite happy to do so myself. Obviously others' mileage may vary. --WebHamster 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is just going to degenerate into a name calling contest, perhaps another venue is more appropriate. How about usenet? Chillum 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love WP to adopt Usenet rules, but your above comment demonstrates that you obviously haven't understood a word I said/meant. --WebHamster 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood "I'll take ticket number one and state quite categorically that Matisse is a prick.". I would like to point out the significant difference between saying some is "not very pleasant" and calling someone a "prick". You see one refers to the effect he has on other people in a manner that can only be determined by an outside observers(ie how pleasant he is), the other likens a person to a "penis". Surely you can see the difference? I also must disagree with your theory that someone making an insult opens the door for others to insult them, that sort of grade school logic does not fly here. Chillum 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Grade school logic"? You must be confused, again! It is something one learns in grade school and then applies for the rest of one's life... in the real world anyway. The world where being called a prick doesn't mean that one is being described as being a penis but as being obnoxious and unpleasant. Ooh, what a remarkable coincidence eh? The fact remains that if Matisse is comfortable stating opinion as fact as to how others should see another editor then it stands to reason that he is comfortable with others doing the same to him. That is of course unless you are now telling us that Matisse is actually a hypocrite? Once again though the fact remains there are two ways to go on this. Either Matisse is deemed to have made a personal attack on Malleus or he hasn't. If he has then administrative attention is required, if he hasn't then it has been deemed fine to allow others to pass similar comments on Matisse. --WebHamster 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your first mistake is thinking all personal attacks need admin attention. Your second mistake is that one insult not being actionable means it has been deemed fine to allow others to insult. Neither of these things are true. If you read what I say above I agree that it was inappropriate, and perhaps even a mild personal attack. What would you like to happen here? Should I block Mattisse for saying someone is "not very pleasant"? Should we just say "Okay, everyone can insult Mattisse now"? Well neither are likely to happen. This is a tempest in a teapot. Chillum 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, "If he gets away with this then I should be able to do the same thing" is grade school logic. A more adult way of thinking tells you that you are responsible for your own actions, and that other peoples indiscretions do not give you license to do the same. Chillum 14:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My "first mistake" isn't a mistake. It's already been brought to admin attention, therefore the bring of it is moot. What is relevant is what is likely to be done once it has been brought to the admins attention. My second mistake also isn't a mistake. If you will note I did not refer to WP's action to be to let the floodgates open. I was referring to Matisse personally. I stand by what I said. If he personally feels it's fine to make remarks like that then it stands to reason that he's fine to receive them himself.

Now we come to your mistakes. When did I refer to blocks? I don't think anyone should be blocked for something like this. What made you think I did? Your other mistake is to believe that people don't behave in ways that depend on others' actions. They sure as hell do. If someone sets the ground rules that suit themselves then it's perfectly acceptable to use those rules to put them into a corner. Where do you think the expression "hoisted by one's own petard" comes from? You must live in a cosy little world if you think most people behave like you seem to think they do. Perhaps WP is a perfect place for you to be. It's safe, it's virtual and it's politically correct. It's just a shame that real people come here with real world behaviour. As for WP:NPA, well I'm with Malleus on this one. It surely must the be the most abused 'rule' on WP. It's invariably cited when someone's losing the argument and doesn't want to go down without 'damaging' the other side. Or in my preferred vernacular it's the biggest load of bollocks that's ever been foisted on WP editors, unless one of course mentions WP:CIVIL. Anyway, for clarity, if someone sets the ground rules such as that which Matisse has managed to do then I'm all for using their rules against them. It's the way of the world I'm afraid. If one can't take it, then one shouldn't fucking give it, so sayeth the Lord! --WebHamster 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support WebHamster, and to Deacon for bringing the latest example of this long-running issue here. I have no idea what slight Mattisse supposes I have done to him/her to warrant these recurring personal attacks, but I have a pretty shrewd idea of what's behind them, and it's nothing to do with anything that I've ever done. Anyone who cares to look through Mattisse's contributions or RfC's may be able to see the same pattern that seems obvious to me. As for the details of this latest outburst, that I'm a "not very pleasant character " who "takes pleasure in using tactics to try to make people feel bad about themselves" I really couldn't care less. What does concern me though is the certain knowledge that if I'd made those comments about another editor the civility police would be knocking my door down. But nothing new there though either; honesty is in rather short supply around here.

PS. I entirely agree with your basic premise. If it's considered acceptable for Mattisse to call me what (s)he has, as it appears to be as no warning has been issued, then by the same token it must also be acceptable to call Mattisse a prick. That's not grade-school logic, it's the way of the grown-up world. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

As the inadvertent subject of this report, let me just briefly say that I long ago realised that WP:NPA was arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced, so no surprises on that score. Plus I'm really not concerned about whether Mattisse thinks I'm a "not very pleasant character " who "takes pleasure in using tactics to try to make people feel bad about themselves" or not, or who he chooses to inform of that opinion, because such behaviour reflects poorly on him, not on me. Of course, that Mattisse is allowed to continue unchecked in that behaviour reflects poorly on the way the project is policed. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:LOTRrules

Resolved

 – He won't be joining us for the forseeable. Mfield (Oi!) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules/Archive was to extend a block if LOTRrules' personal attacks continued. They do:[22]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, although that attack is so far beyond acceptable I am wondering whether I should have indefed it. Mfield (Oi!) 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose such an action.  GARDEN  08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked indefinitely by Bjweeks (talk · contribs) Mfield (Oi!) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That diff would be a good candidate for "Top Ten Ways to a Fast-Track Indef". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Some violations should get a burst of electricity sent through to fry their computer--a permanent block from getting on the internet. (Taivo (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeh, that's good. In fact, I'm getting a mental picture of the "Quickening" - the energy burst that arises when The Highlander lops off an opponent's head. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Two words, but in reverse. Orpheus (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to poke with a stick but, the user page is still active and currently contains quite the diatribe against WP. As well their talkpage only note the editor blocked for a short time. Just sayin' Padillah (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Any point adding {{indefblockeduser}} to the userpage or is this just fueling the fire?--DFS454 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It queues the page for eventual deletion (CAT:TEMP). –xeno (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

rklawton - admin making personal attacks

Resolved

 – warning was given

user:rklawton is an administrator on this site, and has now made two personal attacks towards my IP address. Often times when editing I forget to sign-in, so be advised that 98.220.54.37 is my IP address. The dispute started when I made an edit to an image on the Michael Monsoor page. Admittedly, I was in error, as I was confusing the image with a second, similar one. rklawton then posted on my talk threatening to block me (without going through any formal reporting process). I posted that there was no reason to get huffy and admitted my error. With this edit [23] rklawton says that I have "limited mental capacity," an obvious personal attack. Then, I post that he should remove the personal attack or I would be forced to report his behavior. He then posts this, with a second personal attack in the edit summary [24]. Needless to say, this is unacceptable behavior for anyone, let alone an administrator on the project. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The original claim isn't quite correct. The sequence is as follows:

• here the editor failed to exercise proper due diligence in his edit.
• here I corrected the mistake and explained in the edit summary how to verify its accuracy
• here the editor again failed to exercise due diligence, ignored my explanation, and reverted my edit.
• here I reverted back to the correct version, and...
• here I left a message on the editor's talk page where I explained the problem. Given that the editor failed to exercise proper diligence, ignored the explanation for why he was wrong, and reverted without edit summary, (that is, since the editor failed to participate as an editor acting in good faith) I threatened to block the user.
• here the editor made a personal attack on my talk page – where I responded in kind. The editor persisted in filing an AN/I.

If the editor continues this pattern, I recommend blocking him/her for disruption, but I'll leave that for a vote. Rklawton (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption for what? Editing? I admitted I was in error and since have no reverted have I? You absolutely fail to address your blatant personal attacks. As an administrator you're really willing to launch personal attacks like that then suggest that I be blocked for being disruptive? Additionally, there is no "pattern." Two edits does not a pattern make, no matter how much you want it to. Your personal attacks are more disruptive than my relatively minor editing mistake. You can't berate me for not following a policy, then turn around and violate one yourself. Removing the personal attacks in the proper thing to do. Saying that you got "huffy and butthurt" isn't a personal attack. Calling me a "whiner" and saying I have "limited mental capacity" is a blatant attack. If it would appease you, I will remove my comment saying you were butthurt and huffy if you'll do likewise and remove your attacks. Doing that we can dispense with this entire process. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that SpartanSWAT10 chooses to display such a series of errors and belligerence on his own part. Resolved, and please bear in mind that administrators are human: if you work hard enough at it, it's possible to irritate them. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

But I'm not, Bishonen. Yes, Rklawton was rude -- exasperate people by doing the same thing over & over will do that -- & if Rklawton were physically next to me, & within reach, I might just slap his wrist. (Instead, I'm going to settle for wagging my finger at him -- first moment I get a chance.) However, SpartanSWAT10 clearly was pushing the boundaries of permissible behavior for no good reason, & now complains that Rklawton is upset with him about it. Methinks we either have a contributor in desperate need of a clue -- or a troublemaker. If it's the first, then your response is sufficient, & I'm just wasting electrons typing this. If it's the second, then this user will try this again with another user -- & be handled accordingly, & hopefully quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pushing the boundaries by making an edit twice over the course of almost 2 weeks? SpartanSWAT10's edit was incorrect, although it didn't introduce any inaccuracies into the article, but not quite worth a block warning in my opinion. Comments like, "Threatening to block you got your attention where reason did not. Some people respond well to reason. People with limited mental capacity tend to respond better to threats - as in your case," aren't exactly the response I hope to see from an admin. --Onorem♠Dil 17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me how I was doing the same thing over and over? It was TWO edits! Not 10, not 20, not 30, it was TWO. If you could see the two photo's, they're very similar. It's not like I was disrupting the entire project, it was two edits! Who was being belligerent? I got a threat on my talk page, I pointed out where I had erred on his talk page, then I'm told I apparently have "limited mental capacity?" Get serious! I have caused NO trouble to this project at all. I have been the victim of a personal attack, which you two (Bishonen and Llywrch) glossed over without comment. I wasn't pushing any boundaries, I edited in good faith, and when I realized my error, I made no further edits. This "admin" is being quite rude and violating the NPA policy. I have suggested a resolution, whereby we both admit fault and remove our posts, but he has made no effort to accept it. Onorem is the only one here who sees the actual issue. The fact that an Admin is making blatant personal attacks about another user. I have a feeling he'll get away with it simply because he's an "admin." SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that their response was inappropriate, I don't see that any administrator action is needed here. Unless you can show a pattern of blatantly uncivil behavior, the most you're likely to see is a note for Rklawton reminding him to be more civil in the future. --Onorem♠Dil 17:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and can be dealt with thoroughly by any editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen said it before I could. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me add - from the starting read, yes, this should be WQA. However, now that it's been effectively dealt with here (rklawton has been advised of this thread, and has commented), further movement of this issue anywhere else should be unnecessary. Hopefully rklawton makes one more reply to "acknowledge" what has been said by his peers above. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I do not consider this closed, and I removed the "resolved" tag. Ideally this should go to WQA, yes, but rudeness of this sort from an admin is not acceptable, and if it is brought here we should pay attention to it. . An admin said "People with limited mental capacity tend to respond better to threats - as in your case. " and remains unwilling to apologize. Provocation is irrelevant. This should remain open until a apology is at least given. DGG (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. It's one thing to snap and say something in the heat of the moment but the correct response is an apology. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

People who are seeking a fight will find one. Likewise, people looking to get their panties in a bunch - whether due to some primal need to assert some form of vague superiority, or due to simply enjoying the sensation - will find ways to get said undergarments arranged in such a manner. Spartan behaved as if lacking a clue, Mr. Rklawton behaved as if somewhat irritated. Oh dear. If Mr. Rklawton does not feel an apology is warranted, demanding an insincere one - not to mention pretending to find comfort in such - is the utmost in useless, passive-aggressive moralist petulance. This is seriously elementary-school sorta stuff. Re-added resolved tag. Badger Drink (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No he didn't behave as if somewhat irritated he made a bloody personal attack! Something that is prohibited here last time I looked. I don't want an insincere apology I want a sincere one. Personal attacks are very unbecoming in an admin and should not be condoned. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a canny personal attack, he slipped. I can't get too stirred up about it, given what he was dealing with. I think it's most fit for WP:WQA because any editor can leave him a friendly warning about it, which I think is all that's needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's reiterate: What administrator action is required? None. seicer | talk | contribs 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen you are quite right. All that's needed is a friendly warning. Shame no one actually bothered to do it before me now isn't it? This board is the shits, it really is. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have done straight off, but couldn't, given his unhappiness over my PoV on Abraham Lincoln back in late 2007. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

..and a warning was given by User:Theresa knott. No more action required here or in WQA. I doubt that apologies will occur as stated in a previous thread. Let's move on and stop with the equine flagellation as a precursor to drama. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Meister_von_San_Vitale_in_Ravenna_004.jpg

Resolved

 – Local copy created and protected. Mfield (Oi!) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above file is currently on the main page... I suspect the point of the upload was to make it known that that particular image was not protected...

Someone protect it? :( --Izno (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a commons image... I don't know that we can do that here, other than uploading a local copy to en.wp and then protecting that... Anyone else know how?

It was fixed, but I don't know if there's a permanent fix available other than temporary local download and protect. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, that's what we normally do in these circumstances. Certainly makes sense so to do. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I did. Mfield (Oi!) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dang, the vandals are fast. Someone on Commons vandalized the image just 22 minutes after it appeared on the Wikipedia main page. Luckily, it wasn't a penis this time. --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes you wonder whether someone has a bot that watches out for unprotected images to mess with. Mfield (Oi!) 06:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

3 month block on me for no reason. No vandalism at all. Moderator abuse!

My screen name is Ericg33. I got into an edit war with a moderator so they feel that they can silence me for NO GOOD reason. I edited a talk page. Thats right. A talk page. I wanted some information added to an article and the moderator keeps saying i was there to talk to people when i just wanted to add some information. These moderators are definitely abusing their powers. --69.155.107.159 (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ericg33. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What a shame this account has not yet been indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the ip editor is possibly violating WP:COI, seeing as it likely to be a WP:SOCK complaining about the block on an editor who is promoting their theory on curing Ingrowing toenails on various talkpages. Anyway, something smells rotten about it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody call? I was taking a "power nap". I don't know who this guy would be a sock of in particular, but his talk page is littered with a year's worth of nonsense that makes him seem like a good candidate for the next Hanlon's razor award. Nuke 'im! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, it vague reminds me of User:Ericthebrainiac, who in his time here could easily be the poster boy for "clueless". As with this other Eric, I think he's just playing a game of some kind, or a social experiment, to see how annoyed he can get everyone. Me, I'm cool and calm. Nuke 'im! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's Ericg33 himself but on a dynamic IP, hence too "wack-a-mole" for a block to be much help. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A first-time block of three months is pretty irregular for a user making (some) good faith edits. We should either teach them via short blocks of increasing duration, or in more clear-cut cases, we ban them outright. In this case, I suggest voting on a community ban. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit torn on that one. I knew a short block wasn't nearly enough (because he was going for long stretches without editing at all) but didn't want to slam the door altogether. I was rather hoping he'd take the hint and say something helpful/hopeful so I could unblock him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

• Ban - editor is disruptive even after good faith attempts to advise and to warn. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Conduct here is not encouraging. This user may simply be fundamentally incapable of collaborating usefully with others. Friday (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I don't think this user rises to the level of a community ban yet. She just doesn't comprehend the difference between fact and opinion, and got upset when corrected. That's bad, but the long block is sufficient in my opinion, and maybe three months from now, she'll be older and have learned some skills in her English class that will help her here. Note that I am not advocating any shortening or lifting of the block, given that she doesn't seem to be planning to change her editing pattern. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and advise slight reduction of block with an admonishment to seek adoption or mentorship. We were all new once. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but only if they're willing to be adopted. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• After reviewing his edit history, and the astonishing number of warnings he has accumulated in a relatively short period of time, I'm dubious that this user can be salvaged. But I offer a weak oppose on an outright ban at this time; perhaps the three-month block Gwen has meted out will have an effect. However, the grandstanding on his talk page was over the line; I semi-protected it for a week so he doesn't use his IP address to evade his block. Horologium (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I agree with the other editors here. The user will hopefully either learn to accept Policies or Vanish.Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban but keep the long block. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban The person can still learn from his (numerous) mistakes and hopefully learn how WP works. Keep the 3-month block, and if the disruption continues afterward, make it indef. Timmeh! 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Province of British Columbia

Has anyone else noticed occasions when articles get vandal attacks by several IPs at more or less the same time, and they all turn out to be Province of British Columbia? Eg [25]. I'm not sure what to do in these instances -- often each IP gets warned but just once or twice, although the cumulative total of IP attacks is higher. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are actually school IPs routed through the provincial system, in most cases - they run from several different schools. I've e-mailed the admin listed in the whois before, and he's passed along information to the local admins; beyond that, not much that really can be done. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed BC in particular, but when this happens I just assume that several different schools are on the same chapter in the textbooks. A very short semi-protection works well; school vandals often have a short attention span.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. And thanks Tony, I noticed last night one of the IPs did have a BC school named in the template. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(newbie alert) Hack in HTML on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Spirituality page

Resolved

 – -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On the portal:spirituality page, there's a bunch of vandal text that is visible via 'view page source' in firefox, but doesn't show in any of the edit boxes. I don't know enough about the wiki software to know how the hack is done. I'm reporting it here, not the vandalism page, as nothing of the edit shows up in the edit history. The text follows:

Zack Heart AKA Outback Zack - An amazing Australian talent in Televison.

AKA Nicholas Zachary Heart. Born Nicholas Simmons to Janice Isabel and Ian Arthur in Melbourne Australia. A gifted child with a mind of his own. Zack suffered a difficult childhood. After his parents separated, Zack then lost his father in a car accident. He was 7 years old. Zack distanced himself from family and brought himself up.

Zack Heart, a gifted Television Host, Actor, Stuntman and Animal conservationist.

PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Csalmon (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the page's source code. It's not there. It sounds like someone messed with the default style sheet on your machine. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm seeing it too. Template vandalism of some sort? Deor (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Template vandalism occurred to me as a possibility, but with my limited knowledge of wikimedia (I'll have to d/l it and started exploring) I have no idea how to fix it. Csalmon (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was vandalism to Portal:Box-header/37.-- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Interesting that some could see it and others could not. Rklawton (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Embedded template expansion doesn't seem to always work reliably. For example, Warofdreams has added a number of links to Richard Pankhurst (academic) in footnotes with the piping symbol (to hide the part in parentheses), but these haven't been producing the expected result -- or become a link. (FWIW, I've never seen this feature fail in footnotes before.) I've been fixing these by hand as I encounter them as the simplest solution. -- llywrch (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm using Chrome if that makes any difference. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?)

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetteer banned and blocked for 18 months, all known sockpuppets (12 in all) blocked indef. Sock talkpages redirected to respective userpages, sockpuppeteer talkpage comments cleared, IP blocked 6 months

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

I am facing some difficult behavior from Monatanbw regarding the progress I am trying to make on Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States. She has insulted me several times, descends on the talk pages with an abrupt, bullying stance that I am not accustomed to, and has nominated one article for AfD only to have community consensus approve keeping the article. I have invited her to contribute to the articles but she has refused. She protests that she doesn't have the time to contribute but she daily drops unsettling messages on personal talk pages and article talk pages that essentially rehash her protests that she knows better than everyone else and everyone else is wrong. I'm finding her behavior disruptive. I cite high grade reliable secondary sources from university press publications, major news publications, and materials from respected publishers. Apparently, her personal observations and experiences with rodeo trump such high grade sources. I am afraid to access WP. I am afraid to contribute. My teacher and friends at school agree that she is "making life difficult". We are stymied. What can I do to relieve the fear I feel approaching WP and how can I make progress on these articles? What am I doing wrong? Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This archived section of this page appears to relate to this entry. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk has been impossible to work with and any attempts by others to improve those articles are quickly reverted. This editor appears to have an agenda and while going though the motions of asking for help and consensus, has not listened and continues to revert, move or change those articles at whim. - Josette (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see who the real bully is, see my talk page. - Josette (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That was one sad, sorry incident. I admitted my error, apologized and asked your forgivenss. I hope that one sorry incident won't be held against me forever. The issue here, however, is the ongoing situations created by Montanabw, the posts to article and user talk pages. This is the issue. I am afraid other editors wanting to contribute to the rodeo articles will read her posts and be "scared off". She has been invited time and again to contribute but she refuses. Instead, she explicably chooses to drop bitter posts our way. ItsLassieTime (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is ItsLassieTime?????? - Josette (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I have seen this user. What is up with this? - Josette (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am Angela's mother and I really don't like what you're doing to her. She wrote the above after I logged on. I'm going to supervise this business from now on. Her father died six months ago and she has found some little pleasure in writing her articles. She is depressed and not herself after being buffeted about by the likes of you. Someone on YOUR talk page told her to "shut the fuck up". I don't like that. Read my lips: I. Don't. Like. That. IMVHO, it reflects very poorly on you that you'd let anyone rant at a child in such a filthy manner on your talk page. I don't like having others threaten Angela with such filth. She apologized to you. Can't you forgive her? What do you need? Is it too much to hope an "experienced editor" will forgive a 16 child who made a mistake? Or is that too generous for you? I have followed Angela's course here and she is doing fine. And others think so, too. So. Knock. It. Off. You owe her an apology. Especially for that filth on your talk page. Don't come back at me with something like, "If you can'r run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." Your behavior as an "experienced editor" is absolutely disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. Now, run to the admins completely outraged that a mother would dare to defend her child from the likes of you and the filthy mouthed crowd you run with. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime, outing someone's real name and age, particularly regarding a minor, is probably not the best thing you could do here. Regarding the "filth" on the talkpage, could you please provide a diff? Tonywalton ^Talk 19:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because I don't know a diff is. The FILTH was somewhere near the bottom of the page the last I looked. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A "diff" is the "difference" between two edits; see Help:diff. It can be used to substantiate accusations made on here, such as the one you're making. What I'm asking for is basically (at least) the name of the page you're referring to and who made the edit. Is this on User talk:ItsLassieTime, User talk:Buttermilk1950 or what? Tonywalton ^Talk 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddness. LassieTime appears to understand a host of wikipedia policies (AfD, talk space, GA, etc), yet claims to not know what a DIFF is. Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing I did to your daughter - "In my years of editing on WP (since 2006), no one has ever spoken to me in the tone you have chosen to use. My good faith edits to these articles and to you have been appropriate, civil and beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am sorry if you can not see that." - Josette (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but for "experienced editor" you should be setting an example. Rather than slashing sectyions from article and changing article names, as an experienced editor you should be taking your concerns to the talk page. First. I must be crazy for having to explain this to a high falutin' "experienced editor". For you to allow anyone to bash a child with FILTH like the FILTH are your talk page is disgusting! Someone you run with bash my child with FILTH on your talk page and you should be ashamed of yourself. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime, every editor is responsible for their own actions and edits. Therefore, I would ask that each person use their own account, to avoid confusing others. Additionally, if there are any other accounts you want to tell us about, now would be a good time. This responsibility also means that anyone editing Wikipedia will have to expect conflicts with others, and be able to handle them maturely. Disagreements happen, and if users can't work together with others, then their potential to a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is in question. Failure to collaberate seems to be a common complaint against both of your accounts. Additionally, your comments above could certainly be construed as an attack, and I would ask you please consider how your comments will be taken. Additionally, Josette did not make the comment that you are offended by, that was Giano. You can't blame people for things they didn't do. Josette hasn't done anything wrong, so far as I can tell. If there is something you are saying she did wrong, please let us know. Prodego ^talk 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No accounts that I know of. Neighbors gave the computer to me after my husband died six months ago and they moved to San Jose. I am not really computer savvy so I don't know what's on this thing. I understand Josette slashed whole sections and title changed Rodeo articles without consensus. My daughter overreacted. But with everything she has suffered from others on the Rodeo articles I'm not surprised she reacted the way she did. Angela apologized for her error, but Josette has not found it in her hard little heart to forgive a child. Pathetic. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor is an editor. Period. Age doesn't matter. If someone makes an edit, and you disagree with it, talk to that editor. If someone disagrees with that edit, they comment on it. That is the way it works. Please tone down your comments, you don't want people think you are attacking others. Prodego ^talk 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, the best way forward would be to concentrate on the content. Both Montana and Buttermilk clearly care deeply about the article and they're both knowledgeable, committed, energetic editors. They got off on the wrong foot, and they're coming at the article from somewhat different angles, but I don't feel their positions are irreconcilable.

I'd encourage them to put aside all discussion related to personalities and past events, and to start to talk about where they'd like to see the rodeo articles going. Perhaps the balance between Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States could be addressed first, followed by discussion about the content and structure of each article. I'm sure there's common ground to be found, and I'd urge everyone to concentrate on finding it. --MoreThings (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Could a checkuser compare ItsLassieTime with Buttermilk1950, please? Someone seems to have made a classic error above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps MoreThings also wouldn't mind being checked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what a checkuser is/does. As I understand it, it's basically an ip check and you want to verify whether or not I'm Buttermilk1950/ItsLassieTime. If that's the case, please go ahead. If there's more to it than an ip check, please let me know before proceeding. --MoreThings (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP check's basicallly what it is. See Wikipedia:CheckUser. Tonywalton ^Talk 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a checkuser run against me. I'd like to point out that SlimVirgin's request was based on a misreading of the chronology of the postings. I'd also like to ask one of the admins to reformat this page to make the chronology more readily apparent. Please see my reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime for details. --MoreThings (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've posted a CU request — Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buttermilk1950. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 and ItsLassieTime are related; Checkuser investigation is continuing. Risker (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow! Super-sleuth! I admitted an hour ago my daughter and I use the same computer. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Having run into ItsLassieTime multiple times before, the ownership issues are seriously dead on. She did the same crap with all the Lassie articles, driving of every editor who actually wanted to improve them. So would not be suprised at all if both are the same people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there were two editors on the "Lassie" article. You and me. What distressed me was the way you pushed for AfD regarding Ruth Martin (Lassie). Under my "pen", that article attained GA status. No thanks to you. You were only to willing to see it and several other Lassie related articles deleted. Community consensus thought otherwise. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There were more than two, until you kept refusing to let anyone do anything you didn't like. But yeah, you got it to GA...and oh, wait, it was GARed almost immediately and to be cleaned up by many others to survive that. And please don't go around trying to claim you know anything about what I was "willing" to see or wanted to do. From all your responses here, I see your attitude hasn't changed at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From the histories, [26] [27] someone with a suspicious mind might think that the one simply forgot which signon they were using. Notice that the same mistake was made in the Rodeo article: [28] It's worth pointing out that Buttermilk1950 was created on March 11th. The third user, MoreThings, was created on March 25, and has crossover on the same subject, as one would expect. [29] The first two are going to show as the same IP, most likely, since they've already pre-empted that point with an explanation, both here and on the inquiring admin's page. [30] The third one is going to be the interesting one, given the inquiry by that third user above, along with the attempt by ItsLassieTime to get them to drop the checkuser - because who knows what it might uncover. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser... Kafka Liz (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• PLEASE! Don't waste you time! I've already admitted that my daughter and I use the SAME COMPUTER! Stop the investigation! We. Use. The. Same. Com. Pu. Ter. I logged on and after discussing the situation for twenty minutes with Angela, she used my account. Neither one of us paid any attention to whose account was up. Yes, GUILTY as charged! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can't stay. The timer went off on the dryer and the clothes need to be folded. This issue is about Montanabw so get your thinking caps on and tackle that problem. Leave my daughter alone, stop bashing her, and stop the filthy language. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• You could ask Buttermilk to fold the clothes for you, given that you've been so helpful to him here. :-D SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• You posted as Buttermilk using the word "I," the classic sock error. [31] In addition, it's been clear from the writing that Buttermilk is probably not 16 as claimed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• The user's begging for the investigation to stop suggests that the investigation should continue. There's no harm or time wasted to the user to have the investigation continue - unless it might uncover additional evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been an admission that the same IP is used - I can't see that the CU brings anything to the discussion. If not sockpuppetry though it looks a lot like (to be PC) WP:TEAMWORK. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that those Axman socks from last weekend all "admitted" to being his socks, when they were fake. Similarly, admitting to something that's true, too readily, could be an attempt to distract from other facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing that makes things easier is that MoreThings gave away his IP address 81.86.40.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posting on the SPI page a little bit ago: [32] That's a U.K. address, which squares with his identifying 17:31 as 6:31 his time (UTC minus 12 plus 1 for summer-time). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Joe Friday star of "Dragnet". ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and what type of car did he drive? P.S. How's the laundry coming? All the socks put away yet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • And it's true that I've got a nose just like a bloodhound. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • As for the Angela thing... let's see... Angela Cartwright... played June Lockhart's daughter in Lost in Space... June Lockhart played Timmy's mother in Lassie... Shazam! Kevin Bacon's ears are burning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• So fire me. Like I'm PAID to write GA articles for WP. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're fired. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop the Agatha Christie stuff for the moment

OK people, this seems like it's turning into a game of Cluedo. Let's get back to the basics, ignoring (for the moment) interesting issues of timezones, socks (puppet type), socks (in the dryer) and all the rest. We have an accusation of disruptive editing by Montanabw by Buttermilk1950 which perhaps should be addressed first, before we turn to the much more interesting issues of whether Buttermilk is ItsLassieTime, whether MoreThings is involved, and all the other nonsense above. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That issue was covered previously as well. Prodego ^talk 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When stuff is brought to AN/I, the entire circumstance should get examined, not just the initial allegation made. I think this thread is pretty clearly showing where the problem lies here with respect to interactions between Montanabw and ItsLassieTime/Buttermilk1950/etc. (I have to wonder if there are more accounts this user is willing to acknowledge... now that they have admitted the ILT and B accounts are linked, perhaps they will acknowledge others as well?)... Buttermilk1950's history of contributions since the Buttermilk 1950 account started editing has had some good stuff, but far far more of it has been wholesale change of articles with little or no consensus to do so, and other non collegial actions, including doing all the things that they accuse Montanabw of doing, and a far less cooperative (almost wholly uncooperative?) approach to working with other editors than we accept. Montanabw (and many others) have tried to work with this editor, unsuccessfully. As review of the talk pages will show. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I said "for the moment". We have an allegation which is being lost in "interesting" stuff about washing in the dryer, what timezone users are in... It's possible, even probable, that those are a deliberate attempt at obfuscating the issue and should, I agree, be investigated. The comment below by ItsLassieTime is a case in point. However, Prodego, it seems that the issue has not been covered. Had it been, this lot wouldn't be happening. I have two alternative suggestions (without prejudice to further action against Buttermilk and/or ItsLassieTime for disruption here).

1. A 7 day topic ban on Buttermilk950 on editing anything equestrian
2. A similar 7 day topic ban on both Buttermilk950 and Montanabw, who does seem to show signs of wishing to own articles.

Personally my view would be "block the flaming lot of them except Montanabw, who seems to have been targetted unfairly", but consensus is always a better idea than blusher. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you forgot to number that third one. :) It's my choice as well... ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• And I'll thank you to quit hassling my daughter! She's 16. You and your wife should be ashamed of yourselves. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A few points... 1) there has been no "hassling" of Buttermilk1950, or this ItsLassieTime account, or any of your other accounts (whatever they may be), by me or my wife. The hassle has flown the other way. Pointing out behavioural or POV issues is not hassling anyone, although what you did on my wife's page, was, as MBisanz rightly pointed out to you. 2) If you have an issue with Giano II, the editor who admonished Buttermilk1950 for their unacceptable behaviour, you should take it up with that editor on their talk page. Do not hold anyone else accountable. 3) Wikipedia welcomes all editors who wish to calmly abide by the norms, rules, and policies of the site, regardless of age. However, it does not make special allowances for age. Everyone is expected to abide by the same policies, regardless of their age, and if they cannot act in an adult manner, they will be asked to discontinue editing. It comes down to this: Stop the personal attacks, and begin editing collegially, or you may find this account asked to discontinue editing as well. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would go further than that, Lar. I will not ask ItsLassieTime to discontinue editing disruptively, I will tell her. ItsLassieTime, please cease your disruptive editing in this thread. Refrain from issuing personal attacks in the form of accusations which you are not prepared or able to substantiate. Refrain from disrupting the formation of consensus by the introduction of irrelevant material. If you have germane, substantiated additions to make please do so. If you disrupt this thread further I will block you. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea what's on this computer. It belonged to neighbors and the kids used to play on it. So who knows what's on it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What was the date of the supposed transfer? ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• So fire me. Like I'm PAID to write GA articles for WP. And my investigation of the talk pages reveals Montanabw is a ... well, I'm not going to say it because I'm a Christan woman. ItsLassieTime (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At the very least, aside from resorting to the various classic copouts used by sockpuppeteers, you've actually admitted to having compromised accounts, which typically would result in indef-blocks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Montanabw is a ..." ... saint???? ... for putting up with someone coming in and playing havoc with the articles she's worked hard on for many years, (doing things like leading compromises in wording where there was contention, sourcing unsourced material, reverting vandalism and the like), and for offering, repeatedly, to work with other editors, including this one... there are repeated offers in the history to work with Buttermilk1950, to incorporate new material and new ideas, but Buttermilk1950 spurned this, POV forked things, made large numbers of somewhat disruptive edits and then asserted ownership of their own, and in general has been a rather disagreeable editor to try to work with. Many have tried, and I have in the past done things to try to help, but my patience is rather exhausted. Montanabw is not perfect, none of us are, and perhaps has a bit too much pride of authorship sometimes, but Montanabw is not the problem editor here. This initial claim (the one that started the thread) should be dismissed. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If Lassie (who biologically is a... well, never mind) comes out and confesses to being Auntie Em, it's time to shut this down and block some socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a ban on Buttermilk1950 editing any equestrian-related article for 14 days (expiry 18-19 April; I'm not getting snarky about timezones). This ban not to include article talkpage edits or edits on user talkpages regarding such subjects, as long as overriding policy is followed. During this period I would ask Buttermilk1950 and Montanabw to engage in discussion rather than conflict about edits and the rationale behind them.

I would urge Buttermilk1950 and Montanabw to take any further disputes to mediation immediately they occur, rather than allowing them to become out of control.

I would note that any further sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, harassment and/or WP:TEAMWORK from User:ItsLassieTime will lead to revocation of editing privileges. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think I'd come back after a 14 day ban? I don't need WP. Bye! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is the song that never ends... MuZemike 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• (non-admin) Support - behave or begone, a simple rule a parent should comprehend. //roux   7:38 pm, Today (UTC−4) I posted this over an hour ago, not sure when or how it was removed. //roux   00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser results found 4 other socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So that must mean that CheckUser confirms that the user is a socker mom. MuZemike 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WOW! If there was a barnstar for puns, I'd be pinning it on you right now! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WHAAAT?? I never thought of you as a barnstar affixionado. *slap* MuZemike 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The affix is in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MoreThings

For the record, I'd like to lay out the details of this fun-filled evening as seen from my point of view.

• user:Buttermilk1950 opens a thread regarding her relationship with user:Montanabw. She notes this at the rodeo articles, where I have been participating.

• I post to the thread when it contains exactly 3 posts, none of them by user:ItsLassieTime. This is how the page looked after my post:

• user:ItsLassieTime now posts—after me but above me—making it look as though my reply came after hers. This is how the board looks now, with my post below hers.

• In her post, ItsLassieTime has spoken as though she were Buttermilk1950 raising suspicion that she is a sockpuppet.

• user:Josette sees what has happened and makes a couple of posts raising the alarm.

• user:SlimVirgin now misreads the thread and assumes that I posted after ItsLassieTime. As my post made no mention of the sockpupet allegations (which were not there when I posted it), she appears to conclude that I was attempting to muddy the waters and cover ItsLassieTime's tracks. She files a CU request: "I've posted a CU request..." and "Perhaps MoreThings also wouldn't mind being checked" [33] and raises a checkuser request naming me and ItsLassieTime as suspected sockpuppets. [34]. In the request the implication is that ItsLassieTime made a mistake, and I came along shortly afterwards to make an obfuscatory post. As described above, my post was made before ItsLassieTime's. I respond to the request pointing out that SlimVirgin is mistaken about the chronology.

• On the incident board, I respond to Slimvirgin asking for clarification of exactly what a checkuser entails [35]

• Back on the checkuser board, this causes to user:Baseball Bugs to observe "MoreThings is an intersting angle" and speculate that I might be asking for clarification because I'm worried. [36]

• Having read WP:checkuser, I confirm that I'm happy to have a checkuser run against me.

• Baseball bugs makes a reference [37], which I find incomprehensible, to something he claims I have said - "that was MoreThing words". I can make neither head nor tail of his reference.

• I post asking him for clarification.[38]

• 11. That's it.

The checkuser on me has come back negative. That result has been posted on the checkuser board, but not here. I have had no contact with any of the admins involved. My questions on the checkuser board are unanswered.

So, good fun guys. I can see why it looked suspicious at first glance. But surely you could take a couple of minutes to check the facts before diving into filing reports and asking for checkusers. And it's not particularly cool of you to carry on conversations about me on the checkuser board, which I was obviously reading, and totally ignore my input and requests for clarification.

Cheers, --MoreThings (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, MoreThings, that I did not repeat here that the checkuser came back as "unrelated". Having looked at the SPI page, I believe that your questions were directed to BaseballBugs, and hope that he will respond to you there. Risker (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse MoreThings statement of the order of events, and apologise if I caused any of the confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, guys. I'm going to get some kip :)--MoreThings (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant Lassie was worried, not MoreThings. Lassie seemed desparate to stop the investigation. And MoreThings made reference to sockpuppets as if it were a given, which sounded odd. That's what that was about. Meanwhile, I see Buttermilk has been indef-blocked, so hopefully dat's dat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mom, get you and your daughter off the computer now and find a new hobbie. My I suggest collecting stamps? Good luck. Tom (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you noticed that with "Daughter" indeffed, "Mom" has now picked up in the rodeo article where the "Daughter" left off. "Mom" should count her lucky stars she wasn't indeffed also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That appears to be incorrect, unless something was permanently scrubbed. As of now ItsLassieTime's last edit is before Buttermilk's. [39] [40] PSWG1920 (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right. I was getting time zones mixed up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ItsLassieTime

She's requesting relief from the autoblock associated with User:Buttermilk1950's block. I've read back through this discussion, but I'm not seeing consensus on whether we think that she is the other user's mother, or the same person. Can we get a few voices on whether Lassie should get to continue editing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd vote no, given that the CU came back with four accounts, not just the two. //roux   21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Five. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ItsLassieTime we're talking

•  Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 =
• ItsLassieTime (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ReverendLogos (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IndianCaverns (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ShaShaJackson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EatNoPig (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

I too would vote no. As for blocking these sox, has anyone any thoughts? The only one that I've seen causing disruption (above) is ItsLassieTime, though I've not looked at any of the others in any detail. I see that ItsLassieTime has now been blocked for a month; it's worth keeping an eye on the others, at least. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see they have all now been indef blocked, except ItsLassieTime (seemingly the puppetmaster, as the oldest account), who has been blocked for 1 month. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like "nothing to see here, please move on". Buttermilk blocked indef as a disruptive sock, the other four blocked as sox, and ItsLassieTime blocked 1 month for puppetry. Any objection to me marking this as resolved and archiving it, anyone? Tonywalton ^Talk 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still curious to know if there's any connection between these and TimmyTruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Overjoyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Presumably the checkuser would have found it, if there were?? Otherwise, yes, it seems to be over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the link, or any mention of those in the discussion above. I agree those two seem to be linked to each other but Overjoyed seems to make contributions exclusively to Superman-type things and TimmyTruck to the same things plus a few edits on protective sports clothing. If you have evidence I'd say add them to the checkuser. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I went into it in a little more detail on the SPI page, but it was ignored and it was reviewed after I did it right. :) The strongest topic interconnection from those two seemed to be with ReverendLogos (jockstrap, Andy Griffith); IndianCaverns (Gidget); and ItsLassieTime (Lassie series). There's other crossover as well. The jockstrap thing is what caught my attention, sandwiched amongst the kiddie stuff. That, and the imaginative autobiographies of the various users. May all be coincidental, but may be worth keeping in mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A "Timmy Truck" is a classic children's toy (picture). MuZemike 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tonka! Meanwhile, user TimmyTruck confirmed sock of ItsLassieTime. [41] Overjoyed rejected as stale, but it was indef-blocked over a year ago. I always figured they were the same user, but it doesn't much matter at this point. Other than an admin deciding what to do with Timmy, I'm good with the results now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, hi (?) Been busy this weekend. Sorry to miss out on the discussion. Is this over now? Anyone need anything from me at this point? If so, let me know, otherwise I will consider the matter over before I ever got here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than the admins decided whether to also indef Timmy, it's pretty much over. Let's put it this way: This was one major "Plaxico". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Timmy actually preceded Lassie by quite a few months. Timmy then basically stopped about a year ago, except for a few entries early this year. So it's a little hard to say who's the puppet and who's the master - but as a practical matter, Lassie could probably be characterized as the master at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Timmy now indef-blocked by an admin. And dat's de end! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only loose end is how a 99-going-on-100 man happens to have a 16-year-old daughter. Some things are just miraculous. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

These other socks have been confirmed due to the common link of the IP address to the Lassie accounts:

• Overjoyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaSylphide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.244.189.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That pretty well wraps it up. We hope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, there is one last loose thread here: could someone provide a brief timeline explaining what happened when? As an uninvolved nosy person, it appears that ItsLassieTime responded here after she/he/it was blocked for a month! (ILT either has been twiddling with the signature times, or posting at the bottom of pages without concern to which thread the response should go to.) Just the Cliff Notes version of a timeline -- or even briefer if possible. (In other words, no need to include details about the health of elderly neighbors.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lassie was blocked at 20:16 on the 5th, and from that point on its only edits have been on its talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, ItsLassieTime is now coming clean on many other socks he has used if anyone wants to review and update the report accordingly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Consequences of block on other project

Resolved

 – hamiltonstone stepped up to the plate, Kudos! Tonywalton ^Talk 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lassie was the main reviewer working with us at Talk:Nancy Drew/GA1. Now that this editor is blocked, how does that effect that GA review? Is it on hold now, do we need someone else to come in and review the article? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there no one else capable of that work? If not, I have a thought: Lassie could post ideas on his talk page, and you or another interested party could judge those ideas on their merit. I don't think that violates any rules. Blocked users can post pretty much anything on their talk pages as long as it doesn't personally attack, or violate other rules. In fact, that would give Lassie a chance to demonstrate some good faith, which has been fairly much shattered by this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The block on ItsLassieTime was for 1 month, not indef, though obviously that may change.

I suppose the key question is: "which will cause the least damage to WP - putting the GA on hold or allowing ILT to edit". Putting it on hold may also include recruiting someone(s) to continue where ILT left off; is ILT really the only person available? Bugs' "editing by proxy" suggestion also seems good, though possibly cumbersome.

Blocks not being punitive, there's a case to be made to unblock ILT immediately given that (s)he's swearing blind on hir talkpage that "lessons have been learnt". There's also a case to be made that since this behaviour appears to go back some time, with no lessons learnt despite several blocks on the socks and a 6-month IP block for sockpuppetry an indef block is appropriate. I would tend to the latter viewpoint.

Is there any way ILT could be unblocked with restrictions on editing and creating accounts? Tonywalton ^Talk 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the person working on the Nancy Drew article. It's been under review (not on hold) for over 2 weeks now. I would really appreciate having a new reviewer take over. Ricardiana (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably a little bias because of our previous clashes, but if she/he (since that seems unclear now) is really repentant, wouldn't she have shown it by first admitting, oh yeah: here are some more of my socks? I also notice that while claiming she is "repentant" she's yet to actually apologize directly to the people she used the double accounts to attack (though in her last note she at least apologized to Tony and the "community at large." Considering it isn't her first time doing this kind of thing, though, I say let the current block stand, same as anyone else. Ricardiana, I've posted at GA asking for someone to pick up the review.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Collectonian. I appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The vibe I get is that it's male. Its early edits in this guise and others centered on the "Lassie" TV series, as well as "Gidget", "Andy Griffith", "Leave It to Beaver", and other 50s/60s TV, as well as "Superman" (where I first ran into one of its original socks over a year ago). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a party to this at all. But if i understand -- a disruptive user was operating 10 or so socks, using some of them to attack other authors, lying and claiming to me a mother daughter editing team (or a "bad" daughter being reined in by her "good" mom), trying to head off SSP.... and the outcome is this liar and deceiver has a one-month block? If I understand all that, this seems.... unwise.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be a permanent community ban, period. Self-serving "I've learned my lesson" statements are immaterial when the abuse is that widespread. //roux   02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it continues in a month (or sooner, I guess, if they get caught using more socks), that's probably the way it'll go, isn't it? Lychosis ^T/C 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I guess my point is -- you can waste dozens of hours of volunteer editor time dealing with what inevitably will be the same problems again leading to an indef block (someone crazy enough to pretend to be a housewife defending her daughter then rushing off to get laundry out of the dryer and talk to the fictional neighbor across the street who just had a stroke is a very bad bet for behavioral change) or you can save that time now. Cost benefit analysis? Indef now is the screaming winner.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Too much drama. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a ban on ItsLassieTime

Resolved

 – 18 month ban Tonywalton ^Talk 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose a ban. Baseball Bugs invited ILT to "out" some more socks on its talkpage (I'm using "it" as I have no idea whether ILT is male or female; it uses avatars of both sexes). Apart from the ones already confirmed by CU or strongly suspected by WP:DUCK, ILT is now claiming User:MayfieldForever to be another sockpuppet. So we have LaSylphide, a confirmed sock, which claims on its talkpage that I am a senior, I don't understand all of this...it's obvious that WP discriminates against seniors while MayfieldForever claims to be a 24-year-old US Marine. MayfieldForever is also graced with a barnstar for work on Leave it to Beaver from ... User:ShaShaJackson, another CU-confirmed sockpuppet. ILT is claiming that it has had "hundreds of accounts" in the past; what is to stop ILT reactivating one and using it for more "fun and games"? Tonywalton ^Talk 10:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think there are likely to be plenty more socks used, but out of the reach of CU due to age. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple more (self-admitted by ILT) are FlippFlopp and BeethovenFidelio, both now indeffed. This diff is interesting. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• 1-year block at least BAN - I seldom vote for bans, and this one is really troublesome because the user seems capable of good work and cooperation when it wants to. The user is interested in fiction articles, and following that lead, has made up endless and contradictory stories to try to justify its behavior, including the bogus explanation of using different accounts to separate topics, which the editing pattern shows is not the case - it's just another fable. I support a long block for one particular reason: The user essentially admits to being addicted to creating multiple accounts - and blames wikipedia for feeding that addiction. I don't believe one word this user has said about its past and intended future behavior - with this exception: The "bowl of candy" comment posted here [42] which 1/2 hour later was withdrawn here [43]. Most users wouldn't think that way, would they? To me it suggests some weird kind of addiction, and the only cure for addiction is abstinence, and wikipedia is the wrong place for a sockpuppet addict. Maybe citizendium would be the right place, as their rules about user ID's and behavior are much stricter and would force the user to stay in line. With that user we've experienced various attitudes in addition to the "candy" thing: belligerence, compliance, contrition - all childlike behavior. Which fits with the subject matter the user likes to edit. I cannot figure out where that user is coming from, but that's not our problem. The integrity of wikipedia is our concern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on this offensive comment, I now support a ban: [44] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That little rant they put on their talkpage seems like a fair summation of their activities to me. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Eventually their true character comes out. I got my first glimpse of it in Overjoyed, a year ago February. That was the real deal, and that user was indef'd within a month. Nuke 'im. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• 1 year or indef - I'll admit, I still had a little good faith left and almost (again) fell for ILT's apologies and promises to get it together, but seeing the continuing avalanche of socks, the misuse of them, and the multitude of lies told under each...I just can not see them as being capable of truly being able to contribute here in an appropriate way. I know personally, I'm now feeling the need to question all of their GA articles to make sure they were passed by validated editors and not other socks of theirs. This is particularly in light of seeing them awarding a sock a barnstar, and how ITS continues to note they "won" GAs (showing a total lack of the fundamental meaning of what a GA is about). Because of the lies told about him/herself, I also seriously worry about what other "lies" have been told in their sourcing (all from books) and article edits. Its things like this that really do undermine the integrity of Wikipedia, as BB noted.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you reminded me of the GA awards thing. Here's another probably truthful comment - that its "greedy" for the awards: [45] withdrawn just one minute later [46] probably (rightfully) realizing how it would look. The final straw for me is this: [47] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Indef and be done. This person is an abusive, lying nut. Such people don't get cured when they get caught. The problems with the whole GA process can't really be brought up here -- but Baby Jesus theft per this discussion involving one other editor [48]?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ban. Seal the vault. This person (we're not even sure of their sex at this point) has lied to us all constantly for no apparent reason. Too much drama for his/her worth. Sorry if this slows down the GA process for another article, but someone else will come along and help in place of the habitually disruptive editor. Dayewalker (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• 18 months per Collectonian; we've tried, there's no apparent interest in working constructively. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support A very clever user who knew all the likely weaknesses: teenagers at AN/I almost always draw supporters no matter what the behaviour, a Marine, and an elderly senior with limited computer skills? Impressive gaming of the system needs a longer time to let the tongue loll and cool off. Besides, with this many personalities, it will probably take Wikipedia a year to catch all the current ones. --KP Botany (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I don't think I need to say much beyond that as Buttermilk1950, this user personally made my wiki-life a living hell for about three weeks and practically ran me off wikipedia altogether. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support this is too much- and no doubt we still don't know all of the socks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Indef. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban - having watched from the sidelines for a while, it's obvious ILT purposely uses socks to create disruption and has caused various good editors here significant grief; having lied consistently, it is difficult to assume good faith any longer: ILT will not change behaviour, and the problems caused far outweigh any constructive editing Gwinva (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban with no opinion as to length. It is completely unacceptable to jerk the community around for such a length of time in this matter. The trolling, as clearly observed on this ANI page and the offender's talk pages, is particularly damning. MuZemike 13:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef ban. I've never interacted with this user or the multitude of socks, but after reading through this and digging into the contribs a bit, I'm not convinced that any potential good their continued presence here would outweigh the certain disruption to follow. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please block Lassie from its talk page

The user is now engaged in various offensive and disruptive postings. I would ask that the user be prevented from editing its own talk page until all this is settled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I intend to give it a few more hours in case anyone can come up with a good reason not to ban, BB, but currently a ban is looking like WP:SNOW. I also think, following the posting implying the existence of at least one more sock ("my fictional Gretchen Dusseldorf") on the ILT talkpage an IP block will be appropriate. I've changed ILT's block now to remove the capability of talkpage editing, as any chance of ILT voluntarily outing any more socks seems to have gone. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rogereeny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Might as well go the "full monty", while we're at it, and either redirect the talk pages (of all the socks and master) to the user pages, or outright delete them in order to deny recognition. MuZemike 13:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Suicide ideation

Resolved

[49] Not sure how we deal with stuff like this these days. –xeno (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. Get the IP and call the cops if you really must, but, really, this just seems like cut-and-dried vandalism. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

eh, I did the "R" part, figured I would just post here per can't someone else do it?. –xeno (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I have done the block part. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore it, so it's all done; marking "resolved". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase the great Henny Youngman, we could go to that guy's page and tell him that if his doctor gives him only 3 months, tell the doctor he can't pay his bills, and the doctor may give him another 3 months. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course that wouldn't be a good idea at all. Interacting with trolls encourages them, hence the I in RBI. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hence the phraseology "could" go. :) It also depends on the situation. Sometimes engaging a troll can reveal useful information, such as helping expose a sockpuppet drawer and such stuff as that. Sometimes, though not often. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Venue shopping, retaliation, etc. from User:Ryan4314

Resolved

 – Images removed from WP:PUI queue, please comment at WP:IFD

A week ago or so, I had started a thread on this user at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive525#Possible_merge_discussion_canvassing.3F. The user naturally did not take this thread well. In any event, his sole edits from April 7th through April 8th has been to go after various images I had uploaded or articles I had attempted to rescue. Please note the following:

• I tag an article for rescue at 1:44 and he votes to delete 8 minutes later at 1:52.
• I played a major role in rescuing Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture, which he wants to merge.
• Those are his first edits on the 7th. The next swath of his edits on the 7th through today have been to go after images I uploaded in multiple venues. He first comments at Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_deletion#NFCC.231, then tags them all for discussion (Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_7#File:Super_Nintendo_light_gun_games.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_7#File:Playstation_light_gun_games.jpg, and Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_7#File:Light_gun_games_for_PS2.jpg). With none of these discussions being resolved has now just tagged them all for deletion (see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_8#Super_Nintendo_light_gun_games.jpg, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_8#Light_gun_games_for_PS2.jpg, and Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_8#Playstation_light_gun_games.jpg). Why start these discussions without finishing out the other discussions?

Now I find it disturbing that someone would devote the entirety of his edits for two days to trying to delete or merge articles I hoped to rescue and then going after only images that I uploaded. I am deeply concerned that this borders on some kind of wikistalking or wikiharassment if not needless escalation of tensions, especially as I actually tried to reach out to this editor after the aforementioned ANI thread as seen at User_talk:DGG#Support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies I actually intended to nominate those images for deletion initially but my Twinkle tools sent them to the "Possible unfree files" section first instead. This is not a personal vendetta against you, those images violate our policies as stated in the nominations. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking and harassment require evidence. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

as I told A nobody off-wiki, his original rationale was not correct. Taking a photograph of a game box does not make it an original image. Whether they are justified otherwise meeds to be discussed. DGG (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems to be a case of jumping the gun- why was no attempt made to directly ask Ryan what the double-listings were about before making an ANI post? As Ryan has offered a reasonable explanation, I suggest the PUF threads be closed and this thread be marked archived. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the PUI threads. Marking resolved. Black Kite 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

IP spoofing Talk page posts

Resolved

 – User blocked. hmwithτ 16:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP has been pretending to be me atTalk:Shane (film) [50][51]. Request administration action in the form of block and semi-protection of talk page. Stetsonharry (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning on his talk page. If he does it again, I'm sure he'll be blocked. If he's blocked (or stops), the talk page won't need semiprotection. hmwithτ 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back into the article history, I see that there is actually not one but three IPs at work here, two additional ones on the article itself adding inaccuracies and nonsense to the article[52][53]. The one that spoofed me has been adding back in a lengthy unsourced trivia section [54]. Given that there is more than one IP here, whether or not it is the same editor, perhaps the best solution is to semiprotection and maybe that should be both the Talk and the article space. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

They're highly unlikely to be related, looking at the whoises for those IPs. The first two you mention are both registered to U of Florida (so probably are related), the second is an ISP registered in Uruguay and the third a high school in Texas. This is a case for WP:RBI, in my opinion, rather than semiprotection. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One of these IPs has spoofed me twice on the talk page within a period of several hours, so RBI (at least the R and I parts of that) has already been tried to no avail. I don't believe that a warning is going to work either, with all due respect. OK, user blocked. Let's see if that works. Thanks, guys. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Psb777 telling new editors to game the system/incivility

Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest that everyone read this particular diff, where the editor in question, as stated, tells a new editor to game the system.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have already made all the correct responses. Prodego ^talk 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Psb is now personally attacking me, claiming that I have broken several policies without backing up the accusations with diffs or any sort of evidence. He is also now out right denying that he did what was cited in the last diff. In my opinion, it looks as if he's trying to piss me off or frustrate me, and that in itself is disruptive. Can an admin please warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me Daedalus ought to start another thread, as the topic of this thread seems to be about something else entirely. I note Daedalus is rather quick to assert he is being personally attacked (and did so recently when a newbie called him a hypocrite), but this is not the thread for it. I ask Daedalus to make his mind up. Does he want to discuss this here, in a new thread, or on my Talk page. I will do one or the other. He has initiated a discussion on my Talk page and has contributed to it there very recently again and again and again. If here, in a new thread, then I suggest we copy all that discussion to that new thread. But I think better not here, as this would be an abuse of process at this stage. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I deny that I have advised anybody to game the system, and understanding that I have done so requires a lack of a sense of humour, or at least of irony. Also, I abhor the way Daedalus and others treated a newbie, but my comments were not personal, and should not have been understood to have been so. Please, I say this only for the record, claiming merely a right of response, and would very strongly prefer not to continue here. Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have to say though, that humour aside (and I did find it rather amusing), that the assessment given is pretty damn accurate which is probably why it ended up here... after all ANI does tend to be a large calibre! --WebHamster 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Aside from a completely neutral party) A quick scan of the aforementioned editor's history, is illuminating. There appears to be few actual contributions other than verbal parries and thrusts with other editors; is it a case of someone who dotes on confrontations? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

For the avoidance of doubt, to whom do you refer? If you are refering to Daedalus you need to know that far less than that is taken by him to be a persoanl attack. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the reference was not to Daedalus969. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

I can be prickly but I think that is undeserved, if not confrontational in itself. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake I was referring to the 'guide to gaming' as being accurate as well as humorous. As far as Daedalus969's threshold for assessment of personal attack, well I have no personal experience so can't comment, but the very nature of WP:NPA and its interpretive nature (not to mention political correctness quotient) is a gift to the naturally thin-skinned and emotionally sensitive... oh, and gamers too ;) --WebHamster 12:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

PSB is the guy who came here a week or two ago and griped about how Axmann8 was handled, while at the same time agreeing with his indef-block, so it's hard to figure exactly where he's coming from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see that my lack of transparency (or otherwise - I do at least post under my real name) is a matter to discuss here. One can still applaud the execution of a murderer, or the fining of a litterer, while being concerned about due process. The execution of a litterer? I voted against the banning of Axmann8. If you would like to continue on my home page, or yours, would be a better venue than here. Of if here, please start a new thread. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, I might just continue to do things my way. As do you. :) And FYI, I voted against Axmann's indef-block, and once it became clear that the socks were fake, I would have voted against the ban also, if it were re-voted. However, his departure was clearly no loss to wikipedia. The mystery over your complaint was just what admin action you expected to be taken. Likewise with your mysterious complaints on that other page, which started this thread. What triggered that? Was it the Axmann case? Was it other things? Was it all the above? What exactly is it that you want to happen or to have done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that Paul didn't actually start this ANI whine-a-thon, your question re what he wants done is pretty much a non sequitur. Wouldn't it be more appropriate that the thread instigator be asked that question? --WebHamster 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, Psb accused several people of breaking several policies, and as seen Psb has refused to back up said claims, hence, as per WP:NPA, they are personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems childish to me. The initial substance of the complaint seems to be that a humorous note about how to speak unpleasant truths in a civil manner offended someone - mainly because the words 'gaming the system' were spoken. I would assert that the note in question doesn't encourage gaming the system at all. What it really does is suggest using civil language and refraining from personal attacks when making a complaint about someone else's behavior. What real crime has been committed here? Brain Rodeo (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

←Moreover, what action is necessary here? Paul does not seem to have deliberately broken any rules, if he has at all. I understand that he has some thoughts about social issues on Wikipedia, but for the most part those thoughts probably belong off ANI at this time. Taking umbrage is generally not a good reason to escalate a disagreement to ANI, and I would suggest that WP:DR has not been adequately followed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, by having the initiative, however inappropriate, of bringing this action here, and despite his complaint not being upheld (so far), has nevertheless obtained a first mover's advantage. What has escaped being remarked on here is the series of events which led me to advise a new user how to point out hypocrisy without breaking WP etiquette. The giving of that advice is what, purportedly, led D969 to raise this ANI thread. That all seem agreed (thank you) that it is legitimate to pass on such advice has meant that I have not been asked to explain why I did so. Maybe that's because everyone has read the interchange at TPTanque's talk page and at D969's talk page and already knows what happened, and how the accusation of hypocrisy became apposite. A quick summary: TPT, a very new user, attempting in good faith to provide material for the encyclopedia but failing to do so correctly, is curtly and abruptly admonished by more than one administratoruser. It would not be correct to say that the admins users were civil to TPT, and they quickly lost any semblance of assuming good faith. TPT reacted in a way that broke WP etiquette conventions. He was threatened with a block for marking edits "minor"! He was threatened with a block for breaking WP:CIVIL. At which point TPT called an admin D969 a hypocrite. I believe that was fair, but it was no surprise to me that D969 then threatened TPT with a block for breaking WP:NPA. The whole process seemed like two teenage thugs slapping a toddler about. It is that behaviour that is worthy of attention here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PSB, your interpretations are your own, but you should at least get your facts straight. Up until the apology by Henrik, no admin has been involved except me and I gave two warnings, neither of which "slapped" him about. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your (Jauerback's) comments show very clearly, but still cordially and civilly, that a certain behavior is problematic and needs to stop. I have no problems with that; the main problem was earlier interactions by others, which in my humble opinion, needlessly escalated the situation. Those were however not done by admins. henrik•talk 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I may have misunderstood Daedalus969's use of "another admin" here to be a claim by him to be an admin. I've made corrections which might satisfy Jauerback. Now that my account is more accurate, Jauerback, what do you think of the behaviour which I describe? Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't read through the entire interaction between all the editors involved prior to yesterday, but I would say the above assessments are accurate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Daedalus969 would like to acknowledge the consensus which has emerged here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul, your attitude strikes me as smugly self-satisfied. Brain Rodeo (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes. I was brought here for no good reason, I didn't raise this ANI thread, D969 did. Now its not going D969's way he is strangely absent. I'm left with an ANI thread with my user name in the title over an issue which should never have been raised, and D969 has falsely accused me half a dozen times here and on my user page of breaking WP:NPA. I'm not happy. Small beer. Nobody is moving to close this spectator sport ANI. I think we're all interested in what D969 now has to say. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But what now? I suggest the important issue is whether or not, in future, the behaviour towards TPT which has been agreed here to be, let's say, less than welcoming, is repeated or not. I'm just trying to salvage something from this whole unpleasant business by prompting Daedalus969 to acknowledge that things could be done a whole lot better in future. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand by what I have said three times now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't notice until now, but you even accused me of gaming the system, and what's more, again without diffs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Psb is now apparently lying about me to others, along with stalking my edits. He says I have inappropriately wanred a user about personal attacks. Well Psb, I would really like to know, especially since you continue to refuse to respond, how the following are not personal attacks. So far, even the admin, Henrik, agrees with me about how the following are personal attacks, and are not okay: "Are you nuts. Can't you see the source that is added?, User is total nuts, and Personal attack. Iam sorry even if adding reliable source is not reliable then you are total nuts"— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

attempting to use your knowledge of wikipedia and weasely wording in a attempt to reach a personal biased objective is unworthy of wikipedians. . try to calmly deal with it yourself before running to mummy..preceding comment is directed at User talk:Daedalus969 as he is the one actually gaming the system by bringing this here.. and Paul Beardsell you should be more polite and less confrontational or you will get brought here by anyone who can be bothered. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

If you bothered at all to read through my contributions, you would see that I tried to do exactly that, and that Psb reverted every single question I asked him without a single response. Your assumption that I haven't tried to calmly fix this before is wrong, so I would suggest you read all the relevant material before you make any further comments. Secondly, you said that I'm gaming the system by bringing this here. Do describe how exactly I am gaming the system.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE of a newbie, modifying other users' comments, and possible racism from User:Nukes4Tots

there is currently a WP:Wikipedia alert on Nukes4Tots, with evidence submitted by 3 users, myself included, involving all different articles and different interactions with him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Nukes4Tots

• WP:Bite he permanently scared away a new editor here, after deciding to stalk her to a new article he's never edited before and kamikaze edit warred with her until they were both blocked. the new editor never returned, and Nukes4Tots went back to business as usual. [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] [[58]] [[59]]. Nukes4Tots 4RR'd to edit war on a talkpage to include the insult "are you blind?" to the new editor [[60]] but was never reprimanded. [here] is the article Nukes4Tots stalked the new editor to just to revert them with the message "your use of this colon offends me" [[61]] and [i dont like your grammar]. they never came back.
• WP:Bite today: a few minutes ago Nukes4Tots decided to bite this new user who only had one edit (this edit [[62]]) by calling it a ["vandalism account."] one unsourced addition that nukes4tots doesn't like, and this is a vandalism account? really?
  • If you knew anything about the subject, the MG42 is a WWII machinegun, designed in Germany after Browning's death. The .50 caliber is not a caliber the MG42 could be chambered in. This type of intentionally incorrect statement is Vandalism... BY WIKIPEDIA'S definition. If I were to assume it was good faith and fact tag it, what good would that do? It's obvious to me if not to laymen that this was vandalism. Demonstrate it was otherwise! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• racism? well, it's uncivil language, to say the least: how many times can Nukes4Tots call every IP (from many different ISPS) that attempts any mention of the phillipines in a gun article "filipino bandit" before it's uncivil? how about 24 times going back just a few months? [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]] [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] [[73]] [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]] [[78]] [[79]] [[80]] [[81]] [[82]] [[83]] [[84]] [[85]] [[86]] Theserialcomma (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Left a warning on Nukes4Tots talk page regarding biting today, and left a message on the newb who was bitten encouraging them not to be driven off by Nukes. Whether Nukes deserves a block to halt his disruptive behavior I leave to admins, but thought the sooner someone left a message for the newb the better chance of keeping them from being driven off. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • William M. Connolley had already been in conversation with that user, on the 19th of last month. Furthermore … Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I had written a lengthy explanation, with diffs, of how this is not, in fact, as clear cut as you paint it, that you had skipped over several edits where Nukes4Tots explained xyr behaviour on talk pages, and that the problems with Nukes4Tots were somewhat otherwise ("gramer" corrections that are in fact introductions of punctuation and grammatical errors, use of sarcasm and hyperbole on talk pages, and an unfounded assumption that one person is behind multiple accounts), when I came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nukes4Tots/Archive. Apparently, this is already in the hands of the Arbitration Committee, via Nishkid64, and has been since February. You're scatter-shooting the same set of diffs across multiple pages (here and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, for starters). Stop. Resolve your issue through the Arbitration Committee. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Racism? That's a new one. I call it like I see it. If the post is obvious vandalism to me (though it might not be obvious if you do not understand the subject matter of the article) are reverted with a "rvv" comment, as Wikipedia guidelines tell me to. My comment is standard, "Vandal IP" denotes my reversion of vandalism from an IP. "Vandalism Account" denotes a reversion of vandalism from a registered user. Further, the "Filipino Bandit" comment is my way of noting to other firearms editors who have dealt with this that the person editing has added the "Phillipines" as a user of said firearm without a reference and I know it's dubious. Why? Hmmmm, hard to call me a racist if you don't know my racial or ethnic background, isn't it? So, is calling vandalism, uh, vandalism bad? I don't know. Perhaps one of the dozens of reports the user "Theserialcomma" has been hounding me with will come to a different answer. That's what scatter-shot is all about. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots abusive sockpuppetry is in the hands of ArbCom. i don't believe that gives him carte blanche to abuse other wikipedia policies, however. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nukes4Tots is currently in an edit war on an article discussion page (5 reverts in more than 24 hours), feeling justified in edit warring because he is modifying/removing "offensive hate speech". sounds serious, right? it's the word "POV" in a discussion title that is the hate speech. [[87]][[88]][[89]][[90]][[91]]

which is similar to the situation where Nukes4Tots, violating 3RR in 24h) continually revert-warred the question "are you blind?" on a discussion page until he got himself and the other editor blocked, and the other editor never returned. [[92]][[93]] [[94]][[95]] [[96]][[97]]

Okay, is there anything new here? I am de-POVifying the name of a section on the Talk page because it offends me. That's what you're reporting me for, correct? Why are you tossing in scores of "diffs", many of which you've reported me for before with no outcome, some I've been punished for, and some that are quite perplexing. You personally attack me calling me unbalanced and a racist, among other things. Wow, somebody tried to add unreferenced material 24 times and I reverted it 24 times... that makes me a racist? We know where you stand and your disdain for firearms-article editors... so what have you contributed to Wikipedia, EVER. Now, what, I'm supposed to defend myself more? This is the latest in a series of harassing personal attacks you've made on me with no new information. You are trying to get me banned because you got your feelings hurt and you didn't get your way... that's the best I can figure. You're chasing windmills here, Don, drop the stick already. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling the "POV" in the header hate-speech is stupid, and N4T should be reproved for it. But why are you bothering to edit war it back again? You too should be reproved. Is there any more to this? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Although the sock investigation is closed as defer to the arbcom, I see no link to any open arbcom case. Even assuming one were pending, are admins and the community disempowered to enforce 3RR, civility, edit warring, and other policies? If so, point me to that? If not, why no 3rr block especially given the history here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit-warring at Talk:Firearm is excessive. I've given User:Theserialcomma a final warning, since apparently they had not been warned and their block log is clear. I have blocked User:Nukes4Tots for edit warring, the duration being 48 hours since they have previously been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. I hope that both editors will in future avoid reverting back and forth when they find themselves disputing content. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems appropriate; I just don't like it when someone tries to escape community scrutiny be contending that someone higher up is looking at their behavior already. Maybe too much of my practicalism mixed with Catholicism. :-? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom has been asked to comment or provide some information in at least one previous instance recently. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a sentence in ANI counts as asking Arbcom. If you really want to ask, file a request for clarification. (I started to after the previous thread, but wimped out.) Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

La Raza article

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Council_of_La_Raza#Locked.3F Is it really acceptable</a> for an administrator to go around like this?

Looks like Camw/Georgewilliamherbert are carrying out their own personal vendetta here and don't even want to see discussions on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User Against Racism (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but is it possible that this person is an alternate account of User:PorLaRazaNada? I hope no one minds that I've placed a little block on this account until that's a little clearer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FQ just indefinitely blocked the OP as a sockpuppet. Good work! - Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for some quick action while the account status is clarified. I'm more than happy to see and get involved in discussions on a talk page, but when someone comes in and starts throwing around bad faith accusations across multiple comments then it can (depending on the specific situation) be a strong indication that they don't want a discussion toward building consensus, but rather are trying to start an argument or disrupting moving the encyclopedia forward. Camw (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Bobbykhawk

Creating multiple short articles that all seem to be copyright violations. Can someone nuke all their new articles asap. Exxolon (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User editing his own article

Miami Beach Mayor Alex Daoud is obviously inserting self-serving comments and advertising his own book on the wikipedia article about him. see here [98]. What are we to do? Silk Knot (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, improve the content he added? Although, I must say, this is the first time I've ever seen a subject insert details about being indicted into their own biography... Daniel (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the mayor is still advertising his own self-published book in the article though... Silk Knot (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Then edit it to make it less advertisement-like and more encyclopedia-like? Daniel (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say we get an admin to leave an official warning, then block him for a short time (7-10 days). Silk Knot (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say we don't. Firstly, there's no such thing as an "official warning". Secondly, editing ones biography isn't actually a blockable offence, only if they act disruptively in doing so. All that needs to happen is to gently explain Wikipedia's standard for inclusion, verifiability and neutral point of view policies, and emphasise that all future additions must be neutral and this is extra-important because they are the subject.

Wikipedia should do all it can to encourage subjects to edit their own biographies, in a responsible manner in line with Wikipedia policies, especially as the scope of the biographies of living persons problem becomes bigger and bigger. Knee-jerk reactions such as the above only discourages this, and causes more problems than it solves in addition to being a gigantic case of biting people who aren't yet as understanding of our content policies as us. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd mention our neutrality and conflict of interest policies to him, but there's no need for any harsh action yet. If he edits non-neutrally in contravention of said reminders, then it might be time to bring out the warnings, but for now, no. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Might have a problem here

Resolved

 – indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking this, this smells too much like a sock to me. Not to mention the threat involved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to bring attentions to this new editor who has copied another editors user page. User:Ronz has all this on his user page but I am unsure if this is Ronz's page but I doubt it so I am posting here for more qualified eyes to check it out. User:Rcnz has posted to Ronz's talk page here and signed by a bot. I don't know the policies/guidelines about this but if I remember correctly this isn't allowed. I appreciate any attentions to this matter. I have not notified either editor about this post, should I? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, have a good day. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be a bit more to this than meets the eye. Besides the obvious username mimicry, I translated that single post the user made to Ronz's talk page: Once again podotresh a link from my article, pidaras, and you will be trouble.(google translater, if anyone knows what that mystery words mean, feel free to put in their english meaning as a replacement for them). Seeing as the user only has two contributions, I do not know what article they are referring to. All of this information noted, this user smells very much like a sock to me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably just an anon IP who created an account after Ronz removed its link from organizational chart. See where it reintroduced links. Probably same as this one especially considering contributions is from St. Petersburg. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"пидорас" means "faggot" in Russian. Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that in the nice Somerset delicacy sense, the useful fuel sense, the somewhat archaic mensurative sense, or the abusive sense? DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. It's explained in the Russian mat article. The whole thing would be something like "Remove a link from my article once more, faggot, and you'll have some trouble". Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamish Ross - urgent help needed

Resolved

Jthuggett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalism spree, including vandalizing the report on him on AIV. DuncanHill (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Pedro. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gjr rodriguez

Gjr rodriguez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They're having some issues over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball regarding the creation of many many articles of non notable baseball players. Lots of these have gone to AfD and have been deleted but new ones are still being created by the dozen. The user does not appear to have engaged in any meaningful discussion regarding the creation of the articles. I am sure that some of the articles being created could be deemed notable but the vast majority are not. At the moment the actions of this user are causing disruption and taking up lots of time in AfD. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's this ongoing debate that somehow minor leaguers are "notable", which if taken to its logical extreme could add somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 articles to wikipedia, nearly all of them stubs. The debate is good. The unilateral creation of these articles, ignoring discussion, needs to be stopped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the user to stop, and told them of this discussion. Bugs, where is this debate taking place so i can provide them with a link? Thanks. --GedUK  13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, or that's where I've seen it anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor has started creating articles again despite three (or more - I haven't scrolled up) requests on his talkpage to stop. I've issued another request warning him that I may have to consider blocking him if he continues - he's just creating work for other people if the consensus is that these players are not inherently notable. (Not to mention that he's practically copying the articles from the MiLB website - there may be a copyright issue here as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 21:59, April 8, 2009

• Blocked for 48 hours per WP:IDHT. If they don't wake up and start paying attention to the reams of "Please stop" posts and advice they've been getting, I suggest the next block should be indef. EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Something very weird just happenned. After I leftthis comment on an article talkpage, I was unexplainedly unlogged and the edit was attributed, instead of me to Palaboys (talk · contribs). I haven't a clue how or why but could someone fully block Palaboys? With the recent block and disruption regarding Barney Frank I'm concerned about a technical hack. -- Banjeboi 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds...wierd. Maybe you should bring it up on WP:VPT and/or ask brion about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll repost there. Could that account be blocked until we have an explanation? -- Banjeboi 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You made the actual post but it attributed it to another logged in user?? With all the drama surrounding certain editors lately, that user account should definitely be blocked until it's figured out what happened. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit attribution is the only edit in User:Palaboys's contributions, and it is a new account. I have blocked for 24 hours just to give time to figure out what is going on. Perhaps a checkuser could look into it? LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Palaboys did anything wrong. See the thread at WP:VPT. He's probably as innocent as Benjiboi, except he's just been blocked. I don't understand what you think you've prevented by blocking that account? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread at VPT didn't really tell me anything new. I did it as a precautionary action. I alerted the account to this thread and my action. If anyone (Palaboys or otherwise) can convince that it's just a fluke, I will unblock myself, or have no objection whatsoever to another admin's unblocking. In fact, if other admins disagree with the block, they are welcome to revert me now. LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, I guess it's up to Palaboys. I'm just imagining how I'd react if I was a newbie, minding my own business, just created my account, and was suddenly blocked with a pretty-hard-to-figure-out-if-you-haven't-been-here-a-while message on my talk page. I might just leave and not come back, feeling, somewhat justifiably, unwelcome. So to be clear, you think he somehow has the ability to take over other people's accounts, but blocking his account will stop him? Just seems like "quick, do something! Even if it's wrong!" --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some to what I posted on his/her page to try to make it a little less intimidating if it is just some innocent fluke. Anyone else watching this page have any ideas??? LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm off to bed now, and the more I think about this the more I can feel myself becoming annoyed, so it's probably time to log off anyway, but I have to say I'm quite disappointed that the instinctive reaction from three separate people to a situation they don't understand is to immediately assume bad faith and block a newbie. I didn't think that's how things were supposed to be done. Too late now, of course, as Palaboys is likely long gone, but it sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I defy any of you to tell me how you think he intentionally accomplished this technological marvel, why he would use this amazing power for the mundane purpose of claiming that particular edit as his own, and how blocking someone who has this amazing technical ability is going to stop him. Blocking out of fear, because you don't know what else to do, is bad karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Have I got this right? Benjiboi made an edit which the software apparently altered. Palaboys gets blocked for it. Is that the gist of it? DuncanHill (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, either the software or someone, but yes, otherwise that's it. I may have been in error. I'll unblock. LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, with an apology to Palaboys. LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, LadyofShalott, I believe that was the right thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the recent history of Wiki-Battle going on, of which Benji has been involved in as well (not saying that as a bad thing, just showing you're a likely target), Lady did the right thing. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• • DuncanHill, it was an alarming alter; and in the context of the contentious editors I'm dealing with I was concerned some corruption of my account or some cyber attack may have been at play. Blocking may not have been needed except on my account, or the IP but as of yet no one has a reasonable explanation of what happenned. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Here is link at VPT, Checkuser came up with some puzzling results so this is being looked at further. -- Banjeboi 11:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Swamilive, yet again

Resolved

 – Blocks reset for three months. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A one month range block was previously placed on 216.211.0.0/17 and 216.26.208.0/20 due to indef blocked user Swamilive continuing to disrupt using them (seen in this ANI thread:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Rangeblock_notice). It's now been one month, and on schedule, he has returned and is doing the same thing on Winnipeg Folk Festival‎ that he did last time (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Winnipeg_Folk_Festival_vandal). Compare some of the diffs there with these [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] and it's obvious that it's him again.

For the most of the history here, see:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_rampage
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive168#Yet_another_Swamilive_sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive_-_Sockpuppeteer_and_harasser_wrapped_up_and_ready_to_go

As of right now, the IPs that I've seen him use this time are 216.26.222.216 and 216.211.115.115. Could someone please re-block him? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone might wish to block recent Swamilive sock User:Garydaniels in the meantime. If I recall correctly, I think there's also another (non-216.X.X.X) range that belongs to the same ISP. Someone should check the collateral damage, though, of blocking an entire ISP in a fairly small city. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaishnav93 repeatedly removing AFD template from article

Resolved

 – Reporting to WP:AIV. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaishnav93 has been repeatedly removing the AFD template(for an ongoing discussion) from MES Pattambi. He has been warned numerous times, and has now done it again after a final warning was given. He has been told that he should instead take part in the AFD discussion, but he has completely disregarded that advice, and continues to remove the AFD template(with no reason given).WackoJackO 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho violating OUTING

Resolved

 – CENSEI indef blocked, Allstarecho OUTING block lifted due to offsite harassment/baiting etc. -- Banjeboi 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I want to bring even more attention to it, but Allstarecho has posted my email address three separate times now [104][105][106]. He needs an immediate block as he does not appear willing to stop. CENSEI (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Get real. Posting an e-mail address that consists of your (anonymous) wikipedia user name "@" a world-wide free e-mail domain such as yahoo hardly counts as outing. And the content he quoted from the mail consisted of a single sentence. Why don't you instead comment on your own nastiness as displayed in it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bull, posting my email with my real name, all be it just the first, is a textbook violation. My taunting aside, he had no god damn right to post it. CENSEI (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You seem to be unwilling to stop your harassment of me and need the immediate block, as evidenced by sending me the email boasting about a 3RR block you were responsible for. All I did was present the email as evidence of your harassment and frivolous 3RR reports. If you don't want to be "outted", you shouldn't have emailed me. End of story. For anyone interested, this is the content regarding where he and User:Ejnogarb baited me into a 72 hour block a few days ago, that makes it obvious CENSEI's agenda on Wikipedia and at 3RR:

This report, as well as his others, have been nothing more than retaliatory reports in line with his conservative agenda on Wikipedia. Again, if you didn't want to be "outted", you should have just left me alone rather than, in the middle of a current 3RR report you just filed on another user, emailing me to harass me and "rub it in". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, it could be an imposter but smells like ASE got that one right too. That certainly doesn't add to CENSEI's credibility as that other editor was on this board for problematic editing and CENSEI injected themselves there as well. Then proded that other editor to enable their email. And if CENSEI is doing offsite harassment them ASE deserves support. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Echo -- don't know you but you should desist. Censei is right on the letter of the law. Continually posting someone's email (no matter how anonymous) after they've asked you to stop is, uhm, block generating. But as to the spirit -- censei is an unrepentant, overall drain on this project who is only interested in two things: Stirring drama here and pushing a political agenda. Usually when scrutiny swings towards him, he scurries back into the dark for a few days and we all forget. So while echo may be the one afoul of the "rules" here, the real problem editor is the "offended" editor (who was so worried about his email address being used he posted to a high traffic forum guaranteed to get maximum eyeballs on it.)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bali. Neither party comes out very well. Although it is only technically outing, it still is wrong to do anything of the sort. And the same with posting email. Yes, he is harassing you, but posting the mail is not the way to complain about it. (& This discussion should be blanked when finished) DGG (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. What should ASE do about the harrassment? They were baited and fell for it so now what? -- Banjeboi 04:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI does seem like a drama-inducing edit warrior. It seems like she/he has been discussed here every week or so lately. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget how this happened in the first place - with CENSEI using 3RR as a tool to try to get people he disagrees with blocked. This time, it was my turn to suffer his special attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI comes up a lot in WP:AN/3 3RR reports I've closed and although he's never been on 4 reverts, I've seen him at 2 or 3 quite a lot (where other editors have gotten blocked) and I've considered blocking or warning him. The content of the email, though reported in the wrong way, has been noted by myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecX11) Agreed that CENSEI is initiating collateral disputes with respect to the above issue regarding ChildofMidnight. After this report opened CENSEI filed a bogus 3RR report against Scjessey regarding the Barney Frank page. Allstarecho posted the private email that seems to show CENSEI gloating over an earlier, successful 3RR report. Per WP:OUTING, "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence". I believe it is legitimate for allstarecho to call CENSEI's behavior to people's attention. Otherwise we allow people to harass with impunity by forcing a muzzle of silence on harassment victims. CENSEI, having sent the email, is in a weak position to complain. Nevertheless, the email address and any other personally identifying information should have been redacted even if there was no explicit policy on that. Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• As usual, FutPerf has dropped the science: AllStarEcho 'outed' the incredibly anonymous email of CENSEI. The anonymous email that CENSEI used to harass and taunt AllStarEcho. How are we ignoring this? A known edit-warrior who was recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CENSEI&oldid=279750111#Topic_ban topic-banned[ for outrageously offensive comments (and indeed adding even more outrageously offensive comments in response to the notice of the topicban) is now harassing another user via email. Could somebody pay attention to this please? //roux   04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

AllStar went about it entirely the wrong way. If he'd forwarded me the email, for instance, I would have acted upon it. No, the email address is not exactly private and CENSEI didn't actually seem to care as he linked the diffs here, but one doesn't need to edit-war technical violations of crucial wikipedia privacy policy to get this sort of thing dealt with. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My previous encounters with CENSEI were disturbing and he was confrontationally working with User:Bushcutter who turned out to be somebody's sockpuppet, so i was already prejudiced against him, then he became hostile and uncivil and simply tried to shove his viewpoint on various political pages where he saw opportunities such as the hornets' nest around ChildOfMidnight editwarring Barney Frank's BLP. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's information about CENSEI's edit history. Can anybody find something constructive that he's done? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah blah. If All Star doesn't shut up about his right to violate other's privacy, I will move to have him indefed and banned. Likewise, I expect that CENSEI prostrate himself and throw himself on the mercy of the community for using the e-mail function to taunt other users. I would like grovelling, I will accept sullen silence and a private e-mail saying "I'm right, but I'll never ever do it again.--Tznkai (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to sleep. If I did not need to do so, and thus be unavailable for discussion, I would be blocking CENSEI for a week for apparent abuse of process and abuse of the e-mail feature. I will note for the record I fully support a block of CENSEI and oppose any unblock requests unless there is a significant mea culpa.--Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Process updates

To keep track of process:

• CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has filed a 3RR report against Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[107]
• allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for posting CENSEI's email address in the 3RR report.[108]
• Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected for a week as a result of the dispute referenced above.[109]

- Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Outing and e-mail misuse

I should note: as someone who is altogether unfamiliar with this situation, I blocked exclusively for the email address reposting; I know nothing of the merits or lack thereof of CENSEI and his/her edits, so I'll not participate in that part of this incident report. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please lift the block. I will do so myself, if necessary --unless there is some kind of weird consensus here to the contrary. R. Baley (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copying a request posted on my talk page by Scjessey: "I second the request to unblock AllStarEcho. ASE suffered off-wiki harassment and is understandably upset about it. I do not think a person should be blocked for trying to do the right thing, particularly since this matter is currently being discussed at WP:ANI and the user is unable to comment". I will not unblock (although I'll not wheel war, and if a consensus develops here to unblock, I'll not complain), because in my eyes, repeated posting of an editor's personal email address by anyone other than that editor is altogether unacceptable, regardless of the behaviour of the editor whose address is posted. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as my name is mentioned above, I'm going to state for the last time that there was no collusion between CENSEI and me; he advised me to use mediation and to not anger well-formed groups. Allstarecho is complaining about harassment, but just in the last week he's brought up a frivolous ANI thread against me, slandered me on his talk page, and hounded me afterward by tracking my contributions and inserting edit changes and dissenting opinions. In my opinion, block him.  EJNOGARB  04:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suggested on ASE's talk page just now forwarding the email to ARBCOM. CENSEI's email is harrassment, and needs to have consequences. Posting it publically was not, of course, the way to effect the needed results. LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest an unblock. This taboo of posting e-mails makes no sense at all if taken to these ridiculous extremes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be wikilawering. The complaining user apparently sent an e-mail message which was somewhat obnoxious ("Still smarting from that 72 hour block, ehhh? Tee hee"). The recipient posted the entire message, as one sometimes does with unusually stupid e-mails. I'd suggest putting a {{behave}} template on both accounts and ignoring the parties for a while. This is too silly to send to Arbcom. --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A series of escalating antagonisms against various openly gay editors, culminating in petty off-wiki email harassment, is NOT too silly to address right here. Is that the sort of behavior you really think it's okay to allow to go unabated? Are we going to watch people get pestered via abuse of the email feature, and just dismiss it as too silly? How many irritating emails should one hypothetically accept from the gayhating editors before it becomes considered "not silly" so i can bring it up somewhere to be addressed properly? The email taunt came after a couple weeks of the bigoted and steadily contentious editing, editwarring, and unCivil stuff which the queers have been doing as much as possible to ignore, and when the WP:ADVOCACY issues were brought to ANI they were never resolved because we (queers) were supposed to just "try harder to assume good faith". Meanwhile, no less than five different people working hard on LGBT_project articles have been complaining of the way those contentious edits were an obvious attempt to portray gay people as nothing but vile diseased mansluts whose buttsex and promiscuity deserved to be propagandized in every possible way, whether it was on the articles for Promiscuity, Men Having Sex With Men, Homosexuality, Prop8, Barney Frank, and anything else remotely related. You can read last week's AN/I archives for all the gory details. I realize it's probably difficult for some of those tendentious editors to hear our pleas through their closet doors, but we have been begging them to give it a rest. The taunting email was really just the last straw, and although i don't condone AllStarEcho's posting of the email without obfuscation of email addresses (as those should have been sent only to the admins, not publicly posted) i must say that he was just doing us all a favor by forcing the situation to be dealt with more directly. When is CENSEI going to be blocked? He was warned repeatedly for Civil and Tendentious transgressions. When is Ejnogarb going to be asked by admins to please keep his WP:ADVOCACY out of all the buttsex [110] manslut [111] articles? Why should we Assume Good Faith toward the tag-teaming gayhating editors who team up with sockpuppet User:Bushcutter to skew LGBT articles, when we've already complained repeatedly? Do we give Good Faith to people who repeatedly rewrite comments over other editors' signatures? I thought Good Faith was an assumption, and when it is so clearly proven to be inappropriately assumed, certainly it's time to move past Faith, and into Consequences. If any of the gay editors had sent off-wiki emails taunting Ejnogarb, CENSEI, Bushcutter, THF, or any of the other WP:ADVOCACY warriors, would the admins be sitting here telling the warriors that they should just "try harder to assume good faith" and "forget about this because it's just too silly"? I'd like to know what sort of "tolerance" is expected in this community, because it seems to be demanded of some people while it's not expected of others. If an editor is blocked for editwarring, and is then immediately unblocked when they promise to desist, but then they continue WP:ADVOCACY right along the same pathway, why are we tolerating that while jumping all over AllStarEcho. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your mudslinging and name-calling are too much. LGBT groups are not the only groups that can edit LGBT articles, and to assume that I'm a gay-hater and a closeted homosexual is a serious personal attack. If you want to see abuse of the system, please see your most recent AN/I thread against me. The first thread lapsed because it was a ridiculous attack, and the second one brought up by you was primarily syrupy rants from you until finally an admin had to close it down. The admin told you to assume good faith because you were overreacting (as was I) to legitimate concerns on those pages. So CENSEI snubbed Allstarecho offline; is that worse than openly calling me a closeted homosexual and a gay-hater?  EJNOGARB  15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 sums up this whole issue reasonably and accurately. The rash lately of agenda-driven conservative editors who either a)ignore all rules or b) wikilawyer the rest of Wikipedia to death, has made this house an undesirable place to hang out, which is obviously their goal so they can have the place to themselves. Which is also why, unlike usual process where good editors finally throw their hands up in the air and leave forever, I'm making sure to rough it and fight through these ridiculous battles. I wont' be driven away again by tendentious editing veiled in "stop picking on me" rants and wikilawyering. The only leeway I can muster for any of these editors is the simple reality that people edit what they know. These editors know nothing about the real gay community. They only know the inside of their walls. Ejnogarb's edits have been taunting, baiting and at times outrageous, all veiled in "Please make this POV!" while at the same time screaming his own POV edits are "neutral" when they really aren't. So when many other editors point this out, he then trys the "picking on me" defence. The same goes with CENSEI and Bushcutter. I'd implore admins that if you don't do anything about these editors now, including looking at their current edit history and patterns, at least watchlist them and youll eventually see the pattern of their editing that has stressed so many other editors out lately. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling?

This is ridiculous. I'm blocking CENSEI for trolling. Complaining about being "outed" because someone revealed you use yahoo mail (gasp) and then going on to give your surname in public is pretty obvious behaviour. I hate wheeling, so may I strongly suggest the admin who blocked Allstar consider reverting his actions? yandman 08:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure if this even falls under the definition of "trolling" in its traditional sense, but rather it's a simple case of being immature. It just saddens me that there are people who would actually do something like this, you would expect editors to act mature if nothing else, but things like this is ugly as it can get on Wikipedia. 山本一郎 (会話) 08:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I see a consensus here to unblock ASE and I have done so. R. Baley (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is likely to be attended by more drama, some tools for editors and admins:

• [112] 8/14/08 AN/I complaint of partisan, battlefield type behavior. Ended up blocked for 48 for edit warring at The Obama Nation.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• [113] 10/10/08 AN/I. Censei blocked for edit warring across multiple political articles. Also complaints of incivility and filing frivulous 3rr complaints against "opponents."
• [114] 3/25/09 AN/I. This was when he said Obama is Chocolate Messiah (who) sounds like an extra from the special Olympics leading to his Obama topic ban. Also, extensive discussion of battlefield behavior by Censei.

He of course has popped up all over the place in other disputes where he wasn't the center. I wish there was a tool to search 3rr archives that actually works, as i bet he's on some kind of record for reporting other editors at 3rr who had not in fact violated 3rr (at least 7). This talk page archive of his is also instructive. [115] Bali ultimate (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate that CENSEI has been blocked indefinitely? Is this a mistake? I don't see any discussion of why this would be appropriate, although it's clear his e-mail wasn't very nice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that an indefinite block is out of order.  EJNOGARB  17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course you would. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am the admin who issued CENSEI's topic ban. I was notified of this issue here, though the terms of the notification now appear moot. In the past, after I took an administrative action against User:CENSEI, I received a charming email which I read as an invitation to settle things via physical altercation. I know that he has sent similar emails to at least one other person. I chose to ignore his email, because a) I don't post private correspondence here, b) I'm no longer in middle school and so didn't take it very seriously, and c) I recognize the need to blow off steam occasionally.

  But if you consistently abuse Wikipedia's email function - and this is abuse of an editing privilege - then you can't be surprised when someone calls you on it. If one were to weigh User:CENSEI's contributions to Wikipedia, I see very little of any value to the project and an exceptionally high amount of negativity, drama, and unpleasantness. This editor isn't a good match for this site. This may as well be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or we can keep going another few rounds - whatever. I don't see any reason to lift the indefinite block, which I think is manifestly preventing further disruption of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block: with this post from MastCell, we know of at least three people (2 by username) who have received harassing emails from CENSEI. This is not acceptable. Was Censei's ability to email users specifically disabled with the block? LadyofShalott ^Weave 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Censei emailed me and asked me to come to his hometown for a fight.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse indef block and removal of user's ability to email users. Lychosis ^T/C 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note I have re-blocked CENSEI in order to disable the email feature. This seems uncontroversial and appropriate under the circumstances. I didn't prevent them editing their User Talk page, so there is still an available appeal mechanism for what it's worth. Consider this an endorsement of the block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I think his e-mail was silly and inappropriate. But I think something along the lines of mandatory apologetic groveling and/or a shorter block would be more fitting. As indefinite block seems pretty radical. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: same as above, the email was silly but hardly offensive. Others have said far worse in the open.  EJNOGARB  22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You 2 seemed to have missed the part just a few above that said his email to me to was the 3rd such harassing email he has sent. Not his 1st or 2nd, but 3rd. The indef block is most certainly warranted and appropriate. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I only saw the one prior incident that Mastcell mentioned. And Mast said he "chose to ignore it". So it seems a bit much to me to go from ignoring an instance of inappropriate behavior to an indefinite block. How about one week block, a stern warning that next time an indefinite block will result and a suggestion that an apology is in order and that CENSEI should closely adhere to policy guidelines. It seemed that the consensus was for something between a stern warning and a one week block until an Admin decided to indef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You misread. Mastcell chose to ignore the one email he got. There have been other instances of Censei harassing editors via email, if you read through the messages above again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I reread the thread and you are correct. My mistake. On the other hand no one has indicated that a warning or a shorter block was excercised in regard to any of those instances. And I think escalating responses would be preferable to an indef block as the first action taken in regard to misuse of e-mail functions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Indefinite block, per Mast.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• oppose per CoM. Make it clear to him that he is going to be on a very tight leash. The next bit he steps out of line, indef. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Blocker's comments: As Ejnogarb says, people have done far worse without being banned. But Mastcell sums it up: "very little of any value to the project and an exceptionally high amount of negativity, drama, and unpleasantness". Why would we waste our (and others') time and patience managing this troublesome user, when it's pretty clear that he's only here to create conflict? Maybe it is harsh, maybe editors in better standing would have got away with it, maybe etc... but this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. Anyone whose net contribution to the project is not positive is expendable. yandman 07:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support if it wasn't clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. Too long have we let CENSEI run around here pushing his fringe and POV views. The e-mail was not the only incident resulting in the block, simply the final nail in the coffin he'd been laying in for some time. Grsz¹¹ 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block of course. 3 harassing emails that we know about have been sent to other users, by CENSEI - one of them obviously a threat of violence and one of them showing his true agenda on Wikipedia as well as proving how he games the system by filing frivolous 3RR reports. Now he's accusing me on his talk page of spamming his email with "GLBT spam mail". And I'll say definitively here that I have done no such a thing. He is a drain on the project and that drain has been plugged. Let it be. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - the straw that broke the camel's back. CENSEI should have been blocked a long time ago. Experience shows the editor does not improve after blocks or warnings. I personally didn't mind his calling Obama liberals' "chocolate messiah" (it was kind of funny in a homoerotic bad taste way) but I can see how someone might be offended, and beyond offended feel victimized, by that kind of language. Edit warring then taunting a legitimate, openly gay over the sexual promiscuity page, then filing a bogus 3rr over the Barney Frank page, all while topic banned from a different set of political articles... the bottom line is that Wikipedia is far better without CENSEI, and CENSEI has been around long enough and gone through enough process that it's safe to conclude he is not going to get better any time soon. He's been on his short leash for some time now. He's had his second, third, forth, fifth, and tenth chances already. At some point we have to respect the project, not just everybody's right to edit it.Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the indefinite block, and suggest a community ban. Not because I, too, received unsolicited email from him. (All it said was, "I warned you not to be a prick to me. So be it." Implied threat? You decide.) Not because he has distasteful POVs or an abrasive way of interacting with other editors. Not because, from his very first day of edits, he showed himself to be a seasoned editor looking for conflict. I witnessed him perpetrate, in my opinion, a much greater crime here. I watched him fabricate untrue content, inject it into a BLP article, and then attempt to disguise it by citing it to legitimate (but difficult to access) sources. Worse, when caught and confronted, he was allowed to slink away. This is insidious behavior; far more dangerous to Wikipedia than all of the more observable incivility and disruption problems described above. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

if it's a sockpuppet account, who do you think might be behind it? Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the same behavior at Martin Luther King, Jr.. In this edit, he flat-out lied about what the source says, and in other edits he was selective about what he read from the source. See Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Tag'n what not for details. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The issues raised here are too grave to ignore. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I'd say I'd miss CENSEI, but that would involve lying. He appears to be here for no other purpose than making legitimate editors' lives miserable. HalfShadow 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• I suppose, now that it's done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm a staunch believer in redemption but this behaviour is what drives away the editors we do need here. The ammount of time and energy unraveling damage won't get back the volunteers who were also driven away. Cyberstalking is completely out of line, this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. -- Banjeboi 11:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as ASE has unclean hands with respect to CENSEI. Between the options of blocking both, blocking neither, or blocking one... I recommend we block neither. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What does ASE's behavior have to do with the serial edit warring, personal attacks, game-playing and disruption displayed by CENSEI without ever, as far as i can see, contributing useful content. If ASE has been a similiar long-term drain on the project there might be a case to be made (separately, not in this thread) that he should go to. But the two things should not be linked -- and you've set up a false set of alternatives above. The only alternative to be considered here (in this thread) is "Community ban of CENSEI or not."Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Someone neutral and fair may wish to take a look at User talk:CENSEI. Although there is some useful discussion, some editors seem to be using CENSEI's talk page for statements that seem a little unhealthy, and are certainly not going to increase the chance that CENSEI would turn around... Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhydfelen@gartholwg

Hi. I placed a speedy delete tag on this article Rhydfelen@gartholwg about 10 hours ago but nothing has happened! I am pretty new to placing deletion tags and wonder if I have made a mistake? The aticle already has a page at Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg but because some pupils at the scholl are unhapy with the school name and are campaigning for a change they keep on creating pages for all the alternative possible names.

Another editor or admin asked me to watch the page whilst he went on Easter holidays and told me to come here if it gets too bad. [[116]] I didn't mind but I am now finding it hard work to keep up and seem to be the only one who is trying to protect the pages. I feel like packing this in to be honest. I also put in a sockpuppet check request but nothing yet.

If someone could also watch and delete these pages I would be greatful.

Rhydfelen Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen Rhydfelen@gartholwg Thanks for your help, Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy deletes get horribly backlogged. I've redirected the article to the school and protected it. If this board thinks it would be better deleted and salted, i've no problem with that. --GedUK  07:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I full protected the other redirects as well, although I'd also have no problem if others thought they should be deleted and salted. If and when the school changes its name, an administrator can move the article to the new name. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for helping so quickly. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading to characterize this as "some pupils at the school" "campaigning for a change". This is not on the WP:NFT level of schoolchildren vandalizing the encyclopaedia with stuff that they've made up, for starters. The campaign is to undo a change, and is verifiable. Read these:

• "We like our name, says school". South Wales Echo. 2006-05-18.
• "Please don't change name of our school!". South Wales Echo. 2006-05-19.
• "New name for valleys Welsh school". BBC News. BBC. 2006-06-04.
• "Effort to save school's name gathers pace". South Wales Echo. 2006-06-17.
• "'We won't wear the new uniform'". South Wales Echo. 2006-06-27.
• "School name protest". South Wales Echo. 2006-06-25.
• "'Don't change historic name of our school'". South Wales Echo. 2009-03-25.

You have a neutrality problem, and rather than addressing it by making Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg#Background and History less one-sided (The above are some sources that can be used.) you are addressing it by escalating this into a cycle of creation and deletion, edit warring and protection. Fix the article! Have it describe the whole dispute. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I wish the warring would just stop. I actually would like to keep the old name (Rhydfelen) the same as these pupils do as I went to that school myself. But in reality the name already changed to Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg 3 years ago! If the name does indeed revert back to Rhydfelen or whatever the article must be changed. The name change has been mentioned in the article and I'd love to see someone add more to it, thats what Wiki is all about. But the only things that I am seeing get added are dates of forthcoming meetings like they think Wiki is some sort of notice board. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that this is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It sure is a lot quicker to type! and I think its got a ring about it. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP is quicker again. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP. Thats a word processor innit. This is what me and my group of friends calls the Wikis. You've got Wiki (English wikipedia), Wiki commons, Wiki Dict and Welsh Wiki. Thats the only ones we use at the mo! Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, wiktionary.org doesn't really fall neatly into that, while some non-WMF wikis do, which is reason enough to avoid referring to WMF wikis as "Wiki". The original wiki remains unconnected to the WMF, for example. "Wiki" is a type of software, and that's why some editors (me!) face mental anguish when they encounter "wiki" as an abbreviation of "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia" ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of getting sidetracked, "wiki" is a type of software that enables a website to be edited easily by contributors. Wikipedia is one type of wiki. You wouldn't call every coin a penny, so why do you call Wikipedia "wiki"? Stifle (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was only pulling your leg as I thought you were mine! But I type wiki into the explorer bar of Mozzy Firefox and it brings me straight to Wikipedia. Sorry if I offended anyone! I'll have to be more careful in future. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

:-) I have Firefox set up so that if I type "w searchterm" in the URL bar it searches Wikipedia for "searchterm". I use it more than I use "g searchterm" (search using Google). In fact, sometimes I find myself wondering why Wikipedia doesn't have articles on "book, seller, uk, -site:bbc.co.uk"! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Analogy doesn't quite work. "Wiki" is a type of software. Wikipedia is one type of wiki. Coin is a type of currency. Pennies are one type of coin. The analogy that follows calling Wikipedia "wiki" would be that you call pennies "coins"...and that's perfectly acceptable when the context is clear. What's up with the recent push to stop the abbreviation when context is perfectly clear? --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Danan

Resolved

 – Semi-protected. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to the Paul Danan article features in this week's Popbitch mailout. Given some of the recent edits to that article, I would expect a lot more of the same. -- The Anome (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now semiprotected following a request at WP:RFPP Tonywalton ^Talk 16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Modernhealthcare

Resolved

 – Blocked. Next time, WP:UAA will do the same thing faster.  Sandstein  17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, gang. This is a strange one. The username is clearly blockable as a spam account, all the edits have been to either the company or the CEO...yet both appear notable. I just warned the user about some edits he/she made to the article on the CEO. There's never been a response to any concerns either. So, how do we do this? I don't want to block a legit account, but this person seems pretty determined and unwilling to work with the site. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Start at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The fact that they are notable is fine, the name isn't appropriate at all. It should be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of Betacommand?

Discussion closed and moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Return of Betacommand?

Why? --Conti|✉ 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was it moved, or why was it closed? It was moved because that appears to be the common practice once these things have run their course, and it was closed because no one spoke up to support the unbanning and it was just a piling on. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the close. But AN/I subpages usually are created solely due to size reasons. Unless I'm missing something, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is not the noticeboard to discuss everything related to Betacommand. By now, it's an archive, just like all the other archives, and this thread would have been archived automatically soon anyhow. --Conti|✉ 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a not unreasonable fear of unnecessary drama? Wiggy! (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

eh, I was under the impression that's where these threads went, so that All Things Betacommand can be housed in one place so people don't have to poke through the AN/I archives to find each block-unblock-ban-unban-etc discussion. *shrug* –xeno (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much now, anyhow. That page (and all the others like it) should probably get a big, fat "This is an archive!"-tag slapped on it, tho. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Theadrock13

• Theadrock13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This new user has been causing trouble right away. He immediately made several unsourced additions. Then when he was warned he started calling people "Wiki-facists". He is confrontational and his comments show that he disagrees with WP:V. Also, I don't deal with biographies much, but this edit seems inappropriate. Thoughts? swaq 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say block away. Surely the above diff, along with the rest, clearly indicate that the user is not, and will likely never be, productive nor constructive. Calling other "fascists" or "Nazis" is surely bucking for a block, no? MuZemike 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this user also has at least been utilizing two other IPs before this. Going to SPI. MuZemike 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines unblock request

Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently posted an unblock request [117] with an unequivocal statement about legal threats. He was unable to archive his talk page to remove previous discussions. Please could an uninvolved administrator consider his new request? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was rejected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Thomas de Quincey is an administrator (and on closer inspection they are currently blocked and definitely not an administrator) so it looks like the rejection was undone. The policy says that "involved editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block." after a legal threat is resolved. I'm not familiar enough with the case to know if there are other issues, but hopefully there is someone here who is. Camw (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look but it looks complicated. Could you fill us in a little on the background please. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Indef block of User:Alastair Haines from about a week ago; there was a consensus to uphold the block until he withdrew his legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Theresa. There was a previous thread on WP:ANI last week, where - as a condition for an unblock - Alistair was to post an unequivocal statement in any future unblock request that he "withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future". That is exactly what he has now written. Over a period of two weeks since his first block, after discussions with many administrators and editors on his talk page who have all encouraged Alastair to take this course of action, showing his recognition of this core WP policy, he has now done so. Cailil and Buster7 have helped particularly, urging Alastair to take this course of action. The formulation above of the unblock request was Durova's, who said she would support an unblock if an unambiguous statement like this appeared in an unblock request. There seemed to be some consensus. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so he made a legal threat and was blocked for it and has since withdrawn the threat. In which case I intend to lift the block in a couple of hours unless someone gives me a good reason not to. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, is this a good idea? Ordinarily I'd support your move, but if you (or someone else) don't quiz him sufficiently prior to an unblock to demonstrate he understands what he is promising and why it is necessary, I'm not sure it is a good idea. A legitimate point was raised in the previous discussion that the underlying problem may be that Alastair doesn't truly understand that legal threats are a no-no, and that it can resume at any time for the umpteenth time. But as a content editor, I don't want to see him site banned at any time either over legal threats. When I say "demonstrate he understands what he is promising and why it is necessary", I'm not talking about grovelling, nor is a response that says "as it's the only way to get me unblocked" satisfactory. It needs to get to the heart of the issue on why he should not make legal threats, and indeed, why they are not permitted. Working through the ArbCom decision would certainly help him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's only fair really The way to demonstrate that you truly understand that legal threats are a big no no is to stop making them. Obviously I will tell him very clearly that if he starts making them again he will be reblocked but surely once the threat of legal action is removed we really don't have the grounds to keep him blocked?Theresa Knott | token threats 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have grounds after that. Okay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would urge you to tell him that he will be blocked indefinitely if he ever makes a legal threat again. If that isn't clear, he will probably carry on passive aggressively hinting at legal actions to get an upper hand in editing disputes, as has been the very recent pattern. It becomes like serial edit warring or incivility or anything else. At a certain point, there should be no more chances or time wasted by volunteer editors dealing with someone who insists everyone's out of step but Johnny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree and have every intrntion of leaving a very clearly worded warning on his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I have done it. I also left a pretty clear note (IMO) on his talk page spelling exactly what will happen if he does it again. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite Theresa's copious good faith, it turns out that Alistair Haines had an agent resume the legal threats via OTRS instead. I've reblocked; and I would request that nobody undoes that block without confirmation from an OTRS agent, the Foundation, or the Committee. — Coren ^(talk) 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the phrase "own worst enemy" spring to mind? Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one that comes to mind is "D'oh!" He lasted, what, roughly 1 shift before being re-blocked? Though I'm fairly certain I've seen worse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. It's a shame but some people clearly don't belong here. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmm... well I for one have some questions about this. My understanding is that the 'no legal threats' policy prohibits any participation in this project whilst a legal process is specifically threatened or is actually ongoing - is this the case? might well be of course, but this isn't clear. I think you're right about some people just not getting on here, Theresa, but we've got to be very clear where the boundaries are, and I can't really see that there's been enough rigour applied in this case. It'd be great, Coren, if you could put a bit more flesh on the bones of the 'agent has resumed legal threats' thing - what's happening? Privatemusings (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the editor who is said to have acted as his agent and made a legal threat on his behalf SkyWriter (talk · contribs). If you go to this version of Haine's talk page [118] and scroll to "Unresolved Issues" you will find SkyWriter prattling on about "defamatory statements" that need to be deleted and generally prattling on about damaged professional reputations etc... So, as long as skywriter was acting on haines' behalf (i trust that coren is telling the truth. Don't you?) Nothing further needs to be clarified. Throw away the key on both and be done with it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SkyWriter has anything to do with this reblocking. From User talk:Alastair Haines, it appears that his publisher has made threats on his behalf through the OTRS. --Onorem♠Dil 13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this [119] sure makes it look like he was involved somehow.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You do appear to be correct. I didn't notice that. Interesting...I thought that SkyWriter had been intervening as an interested fellow wikipedia editor. I didn't realize that he was also his publisher. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PM, the wording in WP:LEGAL specifies that it is the "chilling effect" of the legal threat that needs to be countered, not the specifics of how the threat is couched. There is no difference between "link to that site again and you will hear from my attorney" and "I would advise you that papers have been filed at X Court in respect of this matter" where the intent is to deter other parties in editing Wikipedia otherwise in compliance with rules, policies and guidelines. Specifically, in this matter Haines has opened an OTRS with an accompanying legal threat in an apparent attempt to have content reflect their preferred version when discussion has not achieved that aim. It doesn't get much more clear cut, I should think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah - you could well be right - I'm just trying to make sure that legal action has been specifically threatened here - I mean we're all up for removing any and all defamation wherever it may be, right? - There's no requirement (as I understand it) for a wiki editor to disavow the concept of legal action to protect reputation, just the clear policy that while any such action is threatened or under way, the protagonist shouldn't edit the wiki. Maybe my addled mind is being slow (or cynical) but it's not clear to me at the mo. that we're dealing with the later (slam dunk, very clear) rather than the former (less so) here... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) LHVU explains it quite succinctly. The point of NLT is to avoid editors using legal maneuvering (or threats of legal maneuvering) in order to bully or intimidate other editors into complying with your demands. Whether or not the threats are sincere, explicit, veiled, or bluffing is immaterial— they are still used as ordnance in "battle".

Besides, at this point, I'm not sure that unblocking Haines would be wise even if they did manage to stop the legal bullying: the cumulative amount of disruption has, IMO, reached the tipping point. But regardless, complete and unequivocal (and definitive) withdrawal is prerequisite to even examining the possibility of unblocking. — Coren ^(talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... that's not entirely the emphasis I'd place on the legal threats policy, but that's moot, I guess.... I think you've answered my question anywhoo in this post - you seem to me to be saying that the OTRS ticket contained a specific legal threat which is currently being actioned, and must be unequivocally withdrawn prior to any unblock - is this correct? Privatemusings (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, the email reiterates the "deadline" approach, and restates that "defamation" must be removed lest legal action be taken at its expiration. Threat of future legal action is also threat of legal action. — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In a related point, I really wish they did talk to a lawyer who could take the time to explains the legal basis for the concepts of defamation and libel. They keep using that word, but I'm not sure it means what they think it means.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok I'm throwing in the towel here. I tried, god knows I tried, to help explain to Alastair, and indeed to Tim/SkyWriter, how WP:NLT works, but if Coren is right (and I have no reason to doubt that he is) then these blocks are sound. As I understood it Alastair wanted certain diffs posted by Abtract to be examined under BLP. He also wanted us/wikipedia/the poster to apologize for posts that were made about him that he doesn't like. I have no idea what Tim and Alastair think they are doing. They were begged to read WP:LEGAL and WP:NLT. I give-up--Cailil ^talk 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shakes head* What else am I going to say other than I told you so? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing? Mathsci (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep (obviously excepting this reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have had recent contact with SkyWriter at List of converts to Judaism. During the discussion there, I very definitely came away with the impression, possibly unfounded, that SkyWriter is very possibly a rather precocious early adolescent with an exaggerated opinion of himself. I can very easily believe that SkyWriter might have intentionally misspoken regarding being an attorney and acted in a way which many youths with ideas about being "big men" behave. I cannot for a second believe SkyWriter is an attorney; for that matter, I have trouble believing he has yet graduated high school. If SkyWriter did arrogate to himself the position of attorney without Haines' approval, which I think very possible, perhaps Haines should not be penalized for the unwelcome intervention of others. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

John AFIK Tim/Skywriter is an Engineer - he is not a youth and I would suggest you reconsider some of the above remarks. He's a very passionate poster and lets leave the discussion of him to that--Cailil ^talk 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both users were blocked for the same OTRS ticket. SkyWriter was certainly extremely disruptive and outspoken on Alastair's talk page, even when warned by Cailil. He seemed to want Alastair to continue on the defamation tack (he and User:LisaLiel continued to bicker after the second unblock request was posted). So you could well be right - he might have tried to wreck the unblock. Quite a mess, really. Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It might just be worth mentioning that per the RfAr I've banned LisaLiel from posting on Alastair's Talk page for 6 months[120]. Though I think it has become fairly pointless right now--Cailil ^talk 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

We have more legal threat nonesense within 24 hours after a number of admins wrote a retraction of the legal threats for alastair and spent days begging him to cut and paste it (which he finally did at their urging) so he could be unblocked. He has consistently treated almost every editor who has disagreed with him with contempt and worse (the evidence page from his arbcom case is instructive [121]). And he has shown no indication that he intends to change the underlying incivility and IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems. This is the indef discussion from late March [122]. I have never encountered alastair while editing, and am completely uninvolved. Having looked at this, I'm convinced that enough time has been wasted, legal threats eventually withdrawn at this point are irrelevant. I support a community ban.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The retraction was at my urging too, a common-or-garden editor. I also have never edited articles with Alastair, although I was aware that he had made valuable contributions. I am extremely disappointed by the legal threat by proxy. Coren has given Alastair the chance to retract and/or explain the threat off-wiki, so at the moment it seems best to wait to see whether any response and/or explanation is in the pipeline. I am not at all optimistic. If Alastair doesn't have a thicker skin, wishes to edit with his real name, claims to have been defamed by remarks uttered in the rough-and-tumble of editing and feels that it his right to take legal action, then, as Theresa rightly points out, this is regrettably not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents in, I see this two different ways. If this is a case of someone acting on his behalf, but not with his wishes, then he just needs them to contact via OTRS with a "I'm sorry, this was an error, and we retract any and all threats." If this is the case, then I don't see why any ban discussion should take place. However, if the response from Alastair is in the vein of 'I retracted the threat, but the specific wording I used did not preclude having another pursue legal action on my behalf', then I think a ban is most assuredly in order. I think the ban discussion should be delayed until a response comes out, though. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He knows exactly what he's doing, and the ban should go forward. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a good point there. I stumbled into this recently, and I just got to the earlier parts of his talk page. I'd say this is definitely the second case, and if his talk page wasn't blocked off, I'm sure we'd be hearing the 'but I didn't threaten it!'. Fully Support Ban. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not endorse ban proposal. I don't think this is helpful right now. I like to assume he is confused/angry/upset rather than deliberately being difficult. Lets leave this to OTRS/the Foundation - if there is something happening they will not unblock him and this conversation is moot. If however he is unblocked I do think we should investigate what exactly Alastair Haines thinks is wrong with the RfAr findings - I'm not saying we NEED to overturn the ArbCom ruling, I'm saying we need to figure out what his issue with it is so we can get through to him or in the worst case scenario consider a restriction/sanction. Personally I feel exhausted from dealing with this (and I've been here from the beginning last July) but my patience is not exhausted - not yet--Cailil ^talk 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Do not endorse ban proposal - There seem to me to be some questions about whether other people presumptively acting on his behalf were either doing so with his knowledge and approval, and whether the actions of that/those people had an effect on the outcome here. I think this matter needs to be looked into a bit more deeply before a final decision is made. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Friday

Hi, Some user just went past the 3 revert limit there. I only have 2 reverts there, and do not want to start an edit war. Therefore please issue a warning. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, but you can warn someone about 3RR yourself. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it is also User:CapitalElll who has passed the limit on Good Friday, and it is no longer a question of warning, but block perhaps. Real question: how seriously is the 3R rule enforced? Is it just there as a warning item, or does it get strictly enforced? If so, CapitalElll's edits should be reverted. Shall I break the rule and revert him, given that he has broken the rule? Or do I assume that he can break the rules and I can not? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The "myth" stuff is the same kind of POV-pushing snobbish lecturing that Noah's Ark is frequently put through. The editor knows full well that "myth" is an ambiguous and charged word. "Narrative" or "story" would work just as well. And what amazing timing - the eve of Good Friday! I told that editor that I'd like to see him post something in the Muhammad article about Muhammad being part of "Islamic mythology", and see how long that would last. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the 3 revert rule for real?

Hello, I posted above, but no action yet beyond warning. User:CapitalElll is clearly breaking the 3-revert rule on Good Friday. Is any admin going to do anythig, or shall we all assume that 3-revert rule has been removed from Wikipedia policies? I did 2 reverts then stopped. Is that rule forgotten? Please clarify. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have more luck at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which is "used to report violations of the three revert rule, and edit warring." Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:CapitalElll hasn't been warned about WP:3RR - you should probably do that before reporting them on WP:AN/EW. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, CapitalElll (talk · contribs) has not formally violated 3RR, so a report would be declined even if he had been warned. Second, CapitalElll seems to be pushing the Christ myth theory in a very disruptive way. This editor popped into existence on 18 March 2009 and immediately began to edit in a highly sophisticated way on skepticism-related topics. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars usually start because people are a bit to committed to an agenda. Check Talk:Good_Friday#The_Real_Debate and you'll find that his opponent, who reported him, is just as good a used car dealer in this department. He had a go at me as well for imaginary 3R violations. Anyway, the rule is you can make 3 reverts. Hence the name. -Duribald (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CapitalEll and Duribald have both been warned for 3RR. CapitalElll has removed the last two admin warnings from his talk, so you need to look in the history to see it. History2007, since he opened this complaint, doesn't need a warning. It takes four reverts to break the rule, but people who are not editing in good faith occasionally get sanctioned even before four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have been involved today in reverting L's POV-pushing stuff from various articles about Easter weekend. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

I know 137 isn't that huge in the grand scheme of things, but it hasn't gone much below 100 all night (EST). Anyone want to help clean it out? StarM 03:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

down to 68, pretty good especially given the time. Thanks all StarM 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to unban a VERY helpful editor

Resolved

 – No admin assistance needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:48

I noticed that User:FUEL TV was banned for "advertising" after he expanded the Fuel TV article by like 2000%. This makes me very angry. He should have gotten a medal, not punished. The way the article was before, it was grounds for AfD,; it was only like 5 sentences. I propose he be unbanned so he can help build better articles like he did in this case. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The user name was blocked for contravening the user name policy. They can create a new user name and continue to edit. – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Will I get blocked if I try to edit the F-14 (codename Tomcat) article? TomCat4680 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Being that he was making the article seem like an ad brochure and even required a quick post on WP:TVS about his actions, I think it is a good block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:32

Well if you compare what it looked like before he began editing it (5 very vague, general sentences) and after (in depth, detailed descriptions of every single show on the channel), I'd say it went from stub quality all the way up to at least B class in less than 24 hours. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the person is blocked for advertising and a username policy, so I don't see them coming back...so this is really a moot discussion. Like Ukexpat said above, they can always create a new username and continue to edit the page, so if they want, they will be back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:49

The content was lifted directly from the channel's website. The editor was quite properly blocked, and I've removed the copy/paste additions. Acroterion _(talk) 04:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK the plagiarism was removed, and the user isn't permanently blocked so I guess end of discussion. i still disagree with the username policy though. It makes no sense at all. Am I not allowed to edit the F-14 article because my name is Tomcat? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If your name was User:Northrop-Grumman, you could expect to be blocked as an apparent representative of a real-life organization with a conflict of interest. Acroterion _(talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another oxymoronic policy IMO. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a judgment call, but this was obvious. Blatant spam is frequently added by people who choose the name of their organization. On the flip side, we don't actually know that the person purportedly representing the organization really represents that organization or its best interests. Best if they don't use the name. In this case, even if it wasn't somebody working on behalf of the channel, they were violating copyright like nobody's business. Acroterion _(talk) 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The user may not be "permanently" blocked, but he's "indefinitely" blocked, which is the next best thing. :) Here's the distinction, as I see it: I call myself by a name that suggests topics I like to edit, as does TomCat4680. If I instead called myself User:Warner Brothers and spent all my time posting sales puffery taken directly from their website, I would rightly be shut down faster than you can say "Th-th-th-that's all, Folks!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't edit articles about fighter jets (though I do think they're cool). I stick mostly to TV and sports related articles. My name is Tom, I like cats, and my birthday is April 6, 1980, that's how I came up with it. I may be biased about certain topics, but I try to stay as neutral as possible. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

<--outdent: Read the section at WP:SPAMNAME - it clearly explains the rationale for the policy.  – ukexpat (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree he was plagiarizing, but he was banned because of the username policy, and it wasn't PROVED he has a conflict of interest, only ASSUMED. BIG difference IMO. What ever happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, look at it this way; there are two possibilities:

• contributions is a role account, which is specifically disallowed
• FUEL TV is not a role account, in which case he/she is using a misleading username, which is also specifically disallowed

As said above, the user who operates that account, if he/she wishes to contribute constructively, is invited to make a new username that does not violate the above policies. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently even if his name was Iamuser9999, he would have been sanctioned for copyright violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He's also free to contest the block, i.e. to explain himself, if he cares to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm his defense attorney, since he's pleading the Fifth. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the job is paying well. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm acting pro bono. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose Bono's attorney does likewise? Or maybe he works on commission. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rimshot. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And since we're obviously like cinnamon, i.e. "on a roll", consider this: Cher was also once pro-Bono, but things didn't work out. He later went to Congress, but his career ended abruptly when a tree told him, "I got you, Babe". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok that crossed the line. Good comedians never make fun of dead people, especially those who died tragically. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Skiing into a tree, while tragic for Sonny's family and friends, also has a certain comedic touch at the cosmic level. I can just imagine Sonny, at the Pearly Gates, telling St. Peter, "I never saw it coming!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so. Do you ever watch Inside the Actor's Studio? He always asks the guest what they want St. peter to say when they arrive at the Pearly Gates. most of them say something serious but some say humorous stuff. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it from time to time. Good, evocative questions. Now imagine that it's Barbara Walters at the Pearly Gates subbing for St. Peter, and she asks Sonny, "So, what kind of tree would you like to be?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, while I'm glad this issue is largely resolved and we're moving on to less serious matters, I'd like to suggest you converse on IRC or your own talk pages. Wikipedia is not Myspace, after all. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What??? This has turned into a thread about bad jokes now? :) You two have a nerve, ignoring WP:FORUM right here on AN/I. Let's stop this here, ok? Chamal ^talk 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Archive it up. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! "Bad" jokes? That's POV-pushing. That's a personal attack. That guy will hear from my lawyer (oops, legal threat) grandmother about this! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Binarygal: personal attacks, incivility and legal threat on Information technology infrastructure library

This is ongoing at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Binarygal, where you will now find the rest of this conversation. There's no need for multiple parallel discussions. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Grapheus is apparently back.

85.93.199.4 (talk · contribs) See [123] & [124] - both from Luxembourg, typical Grapheus style edits. As I'm involved here and from elsewhere, I won't take any action on this, although his last edit is clearly vandalism, his others his usual original research. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And signing as Marie-Rose, [125] although not from an account. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD of unrelated articles needs closing

Can someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations? Two previous bundled discussions have already been speedily kept because notability varies widely among bilateral relations, and discussing some many disparate articles in a single discussion is impossible. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations for two previous train wrecks created by bundling such articles. WilyD 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same at all. Argentina has 100x the population of Malta, and Chile more than 30x. Even Leeds has almost twice the population. And the articles are hardly unrelated. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The creation of these state relations articles, though probably well-intentioned, was extremely disruptive if we now deal with them individually. This is a case for WP:IAR if ever there was one. I think the right thing to do is to delete all those which don't contain any interesting information, with no prejudice against recreation if and when there is evidence that they are notable. But we don't need articles such as Malta–Peru relations consisting of gems such as "Peru is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Rome (Italy)." --Hans Adler (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The creation of these articles was not disruptive; it was the extraordinarly lengths to which some have gone to delete them that has provided all the drama. That some of them have closed keep only serves to demonstrate that these are not wholesale commodities, but must be treated individually - just like, well, every other article here. What a concept. Reminds me of the creation of Foo at the 19XX Olympics series about 1/2 of which contained "Foo competed at the 19XX Olympics" and about 1/2 contained "Foo did not compete at the 19XX Olympics". All unreferenced. If memory serves, some of the former were kept (of which, perhaps a few have by now been expanded), and nearly all of the latter were deleted (though a few "boycott" noncompetes were kept). Net effect: positive for WP that we got some more information. We do want new articles, don't we? If we don't want people to create articles, someone ought to make that explicit. And other than WP:CSD if the community cannot decide a priori which new articles are keepers and which are not, it is certainly not disruptive to create them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at whom the "extraordinarly lengths" comment was directed, but I resent the charge if I'm one of the targets. I made a nomination of related articles (and 10 isn't, you know, a huge number) and participants unanimously favoured deletion. One individual (who didn't even attempt to argue for keeping) came here and created (I suppose) drama. Apparently, he has decided that the only acceptable way to delete these silly "articles" is by individual AfDs for each and every one -- no prods, no bundled AfDs, regardless of their absurdity -- that is an "extreme" measure, not my own very rational nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have closed, and suggested individual renominations, especially since one article was already specifically defended at the AfD. DGG (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, at nine votes for deletion and zero for keeping, isn't that a clear indication of the way the discussion was headed? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one !vote was to delete "all but one", which I think is the defense DGG is referencing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, i've opened up an SPI on the creator of this latest spate of "X-Y relations" articles, which is reminiscent of indeffed-blocked user Plumoyr (talk · contribs) and his sock Groubani (talk · contribs). It's here [126] if anyone cares to review my reasoning.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that prodding all of them would be the best way. Editors can rescue specific articles if they find sources showing notability --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody replied, I prodded all of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of guideline pages for nationalist agendas?

In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) there is a dispute about using the example of Vilnius (Russian: Vilna; Polish: Wilno) to illustrate wiki practice of using "historical" names for certain cities in historical contexts. The example of "Wilno", the Polish form of the name, is being used along with Danzig and Constantinople as examples of historical usage of place names. This was cited in a current WP:RM,Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), where this very matter is under contention. The initiator of the RM and author/maintainer of this example's presence in the guideline is the same user (Piotrus). There have been at least four attempts by at least 3 different editors (including me) to remove it or replace it with a less controversial example.

When the example has been removed, 4 times, it has been reverted Diffs with edit summaries

Text added:

• [127] (Piotrus)

Removal of this example reverted

• putting Vilna/Villnius/Wilno back in since it belongs there (Radeksz)
• please don't change examples that gained community acceptance w/out discussion or add new (Piotrus)
• restore useful example, please gain consensus on talk before changing the policy per your liking (Piotrus)
• no consensus to remove (Piotrus)

Application:

• move 1 (Piotrus)
• move 2 (Piotrus)
• list for RM (Piotrus)

All participants in restoring and removing the text voted along the same lines at the Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Here is the text:

For example, we have articles called Gdańsk, Istanbul and Volgograd and Vilnius, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Danzig, Constantinople, Stalingrad or Vilna or Wilno) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Free City of Danzig.

I'm concerned that, even if done in good faith, this kind of thing doesn't adhere to the purpose of guideline pages, i.e. to reflect widespread consensus on editorial practice, not to add extra weight to advance an argument. I am baffled as to why, given the thousands of available examples, anyone would dispute using a less controversial example, which is what I tried to do.

Opinions?

Needs good-faith mediation from users, default pref. seasoned admins, who are not from the area and who aren't already friends of any of the users. It'll surely just become an edit-war if no-one does, and people will get in trouble, and we don't want that. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to mention the full and chronological context (readers are highly advised to look at timestamps of the above diff). Here are chronologically ordered diffs from the last few days (the oldest diff cited above is from 2005...): Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey, a RM initiated by me, is opposed by Deacon; after I cited I cite the naming policy, Deacon attempted to change the very policy: [128], [129] (and was aided by another user who also supported his position in the vote: [130]). I would appreciate input on whether it is good editing policy to attempt to change a an estabilished policy (which as Deacon's diff show was challenged once in the past 4 years) one's opponent cited in an ongoing discussion (vote...)? In any case, input from neutral editors both at Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#No_consensus_to_remove_the_example would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why can't this be easily solved by replacing this example with one not under dispute? I just can't understand this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It was stable and uncontroversial for months, if not years, until some users decided to make it into a controversy. Should we remove the Instanbul/Constantinopol or Stalingrad/Volgograd example next time somebody makes them an issue? The proper way is to take this issue to the talk page of the policy, ensure that there is a consensus for the removal of an example, and remove it then; certainly trying to edit the policy the second time after it has been made clear on talk that there is no consensus to remove them is not the best idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered it above, second sentence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting outsiders here, please. And Piotrus, you didn't answer my question. Why can't this be easily solved by replacing this example with one not under dispute? Wilno is not a former name anyway. It's just the modern Polish way of writing it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered. The example was stable for ~4 years. If we were to remove an example every time somebody challenges it, we would have none left very soon. In particular, removing an examples that are used in a discussion you are engaged in and that weeaken your argument is not the best policy, I am afraid. Further, Wilno is a former name, and is not only a "modern Polish way of writing it". First, you can find it used in English sources dating as far back as 18th century (thanks, Google Print!), so it is hardly modern. Second, it was certainly an uncontroversial official name for the interwar period (see Wilno Voivodeship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The example is no more controversial than Danzig/Gdansk. It's a matter of historical periodisation versus modern usage - see Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) for further details. This is a content dispute. There are Polish users on one side but, so what, there are Lithuanians on the other. --Folantin (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deacon may be right that the guideline page is being used for nationalist agenda but he's confused about which side is engaging in it. The situation is simple: there's an RM and a naming dispute. The guideline, which has been around for a long time, is cited as part of this discussion. Deacon goes and changes the guideline as if to pretend "what guideline?". Guidelines are there to help resolve disputes. Hence they cannot just arbitrarily be changed every time a dispute comes up because the guideline does not support ... a particular agenda. Let me address Deacon's statement that "Wilno is not a former name anyway. It's just the modern Polish way of writing it." as well. This in fact is the crux of the matter. Deacon assumes that this is true (whereas it's just his POV) and then argues that the guideline regarding Wilno is not needed. But obviously quite a number of editors, myself included, disagree with this characterization of the name "Wilno" (and so do sources) - it is a former, historical name. Hence the need for the guideline for when it should be used - which means it belongs in the relevant text as it was in there originally.radek (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Radek. This btw is the other Polish user mentioned above who once against joined Piotrus in yet another nationalist dispute. So I have a nationalist agenda? Being Scottish and having no family links to eastern Europe? Is it Russian nationalism this time? Polish nationalism? Lithuanian nationalism?

At everyone else, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS are totally unworkable, and WP:GUIDELINE non-credible, if nationalist editors with a conflict of interest are allowed to muscle neutrals out of guideline pages to gain an upper hand in a nationalist dispute in article space. I've noted this here, so everyone can say I at least tried to get more outside involvement. Not much more I can do. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a neutral. I'm neither Polish nor Lithuanian and I wasn't "muscled out" of the debate. I didn't even cast a vote either way in the Battle of Vilnius (1655) naming dispute. Instead, I tried to steer it away from mutual accusations of "nationalism" onto something more scholarly. It's simply a fact that the name of Vilnius has been through the same kind of historical periodisation (i.e. Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna/Wilno/Vilnius) as Gdansk/Danzig/Gdansk or Lwów/Lemberg/Lvov/Lviv. The Lithuanians of the city of Vilnius were almost completely polonised by the 17th century (see Henri Minczeles' Vilna Wilno Vilnius referred to in the debate). It's very hard to disentangle "Lithuanians" and "Poles" for a great deal of the history of Lithuania (in the widest sense of the term). It's impossible to present an "ethnically pure" view of Lithuanian history (which possibly offends some editors). --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish became the main language of social life and contacts in Vilnius during the 18th century, while the rural population around the town continued to speak the local Lithuanian vernaculars. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Past and present, 2001. End of story. M.K. (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And Minczeles talks about Wilno being a "centre of Polishness" in the 17th century. Besides which, Polish replaced Ruthenian in the city, not Lithuanian. --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be "centre of Polishness" and without language domination actually. I am sure that scholar, who I cited, knows what he writes. M.K. (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, this is not in fairness my point, and doesn't address it even marginally (historical arguments are for somewhere else). The point is that a controversial name is being included when it doesn't need to be, a point missed per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and its inclusion used by by the same editors who introduced it to gain leverage the Polish POV in nationalist debates with Lithuanians. Three Polish editors are reverting to keep it included, and are the only ones doing so. It makes a nonsense of the wiki system as I said; and shielding these users from reflection on their conflict of interest is just as nonsensical -- the connection is not coincidence. I have now tried "compromise" with the Polish editors in the page by retaining their beloved authorisation of "Wilno" but focusing its range to make it less misleading. We'll see how this is accepted. And yes, I remember you were were supporting Piotrus is many locations regarding the matter, though I never figured out why other than love of him or Frost. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The names on that page are likely to be controversial by definition (what's "uncontroversial" about Gdansk/Danzig)? Your other accusations are unfounded. The evidence is quite clear: I didn't vote for Wilno and I didn't vote for Vilnius. I merely pointed out that the issue is not as clear cut as some might like. I brought Frost up because I knew it would "offend everybody" (Wilno/Danzig). I'm the one who also brought Stone's naming rationale to the page - and he uses Vilnius. Stop personalising the issue and resorting to ad hominem arguments, please. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually gonna address the point, or do I have to constantly repeat myself only to get accused of "personalising" and "ad hominems" (point to one please)? Maybe you got the wrong end of the stick on the last sentence (I guess humor doesn't work for everyone), but false accusations of ad hominems are as bad as "ad hominem"s themselves. Cheers. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"I remember you were were supporting Piotrus is many locations regarding the matter, though I never figured out why other than love of him or Frost." Sounds pretty personal to me. Besides which, I don't think I'm the one with the obsession with Piotrus. If you take your blinkers off you'll see I've already given my reasons at great length on the Battle of Vilnius page. Obviously, for some people it's "Vilnius or death". I'm not that invested in the issue (which is why I didn't vote and why I brought Stone to the page). I merely pointed out that the matter was not as cut-and-dried as some editors might like.--Folantin (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These attacks are just noise. Anyway, the sentence is quotes was a joke and is indicated as such by ";)", and wouldn't be an attack even if it weren't. Blinkers? Your "Vilnius or death" comment does however demonstrate your "neutrality" truly. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I voted for Wilno and tried to hide the rationale for using Vilnius I'd found in Stone. Very one-sided of me. --Folantin (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, remember that this place is not for solving content dispute. Please stick to the original problem. While I was involved in those discussions, I understand, that WP policies should represent community consensus as noted in WP:GUIDELINE. However, adding Vilnius example on WP:PLACE, then there is no consensus (as shown by recent developments), is unfortunate and unproductive approach. Moreover, it misleads of existing consensus. Therefore examples with Vilnius should be replaced wit non controversial ones on WP:PLACE. M.K. (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to be problematic content in the guideline pages for nationalist agendas being used to support a nationalistic agenda. True there is an editing dispute, but the issue of non-neutral content in the WP guideline seems to take it well beyond the borders of an ordinary editing dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Giambs0099

User:Giambs0099: (talk - contribs) Abuse and threats hurled at User:PMDrive1061 as seen here. Probably tied to already blocked behaviour of User:Giambs009, a suspected sockpuppet acting in a similar fashion. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giambracy's speedy close rationale for a complete picture. MLauba (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked to prevent talk page editing as this sort of thing isn't acceptable. TNXMan 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter target my quacking friend?

Resolved

 – Tnxman307 had a shotgun handy... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked editor, with a penchant for socking. Normally this involves IP socking, but Nimbley6 will occasionally register a username in order to create (or more likely recreate) articles and do other fun things that IPs can't do. The most recent Nimbley6 sock, Liam McNeil (talk · contribs) was blocked a few days ago, and with a disappointing lack of subtlety or imagination the replacement sock is called... Liam Nimbley (talk · contribs).

Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter deal with Liam Nimbley as humanely as possible?

Thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. TNXMan 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 9

Resolved

 – Page fixed, Lambmeat (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. the wub "?!" 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Something has gone wrong with it. It was OK at this revision. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. User:Lambmeat vandalised the formatting. I gave them a 4im warning. – ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I accidently copied the wrong code from a webpage I was working on instead of the code that would transclude my afd. Lambmeat (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this was a complete accident. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when no AFD was made soon before by you (nor were any pages tagged by you). FunPika 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat reverted that only seconds before I did, it looked like vandalism to me then and still does. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor needs to go bye-bye quickly. Erratic edits, vandalism, move-vandalism, blanking of warnings on talk page, etc. Look at User_talk:PMDrive1061#Hello. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lambmeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Take a look at his various entries and see whether it's time to sacrifice that Lambmeat for Pesach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Duly reported to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears that your AIV report is going to be rejected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What is up with this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he's a vandal, and since I told them at AIV that it was being discussed here, they wouldn't block him from there. So I guess an admin reading this section here will have to take some action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And I reported that note to AIV. How does a newbie know about AIV anyway? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm researching the evidence now, in consideration of blocking.

In the meantime, a clarification of what website the user was working on, might be helpful. (Per: "I accidently copied the wrong code from a webpage I was working on instead of the code that would transclude my afd.") - jc37 03:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is one - it was a lame "reason" for the vandalism. – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have to say that this looks like one of two things (if not both). It looks like someone who's using wikipedia as a game to play. And someone who clearly doesn't appear to understand the policies and guidelines, yet is out handing out templated warnings, and placing CSD and other tags on articles, among other things. (If I were to be cynical, they seem to be following the "advice" I've seen elsewhere on how to game the system in order to attempt to speedily become an admin.)

Among quite a few other things, there appear to be quite a few cases of WP:BITE. And I see a potential for civility issues in quite a few edit summaries, especially those of their deleted contributions.

The following diffs from just their talk page seem interesting at least. (The last is how it looked before the last time it was blanked.): [131], [132], [133].

While I hesitate to block at the moment, I strongly suggest that this individual be banned from "vandalism work", and in particular the placing of templated messages (whether handwritten by the user, or just using existing ones) on talk pages, or notices/tags on articles.

If they continue along these lines, I think it should be considered intentional disruption, and at that point, deserves a block.

That said, if another admin wants to hurry this along, I won't oppose someone else blocking now. - jc37 04:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were an admin, he would be indef'd blocked already, based just on these two edits: [134] [135] which tell us which high school he probably goes to, and what he thinks of the racial mix at that school. I'm also pretty sure he's a sock, since he knows too much for a newbie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's kind of an interesting history. His first day, March 13, he spent doing seemingly useful tasks, mostly vandalism reversions, while also being obviously not really a newbie, as I said. Then nothing again until March 25 when he again seems to be doing useful stuff. Then nothing again until April 7, where he immediately starts screwing around with things, like renaming "Prince George County" to "Pretty Ghetto County" and such, also telegraphing where he lives. I don't know what to make of this guy: newbie, sock, compromised account, whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I misread that, probably because I looked at the deleted revisions first. There is shows him tagging the redirect for deletion. Didn't notice that he created the redirect through the move, I thought it was the other way round at first glance.

Now I'm more convinced than ever that this is some sort of "game".

And with that diff I now support blocking. That said, with blocks to be preventative rather than punitive, it's merely a question of whether we think that this trend will continue. I'm leaning in the direction of "yes", so blocking now might not be inappropriate, but personally at this point, I won't myself block unless I see additional disruption on the part of the user. - jc37 05:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Some gnomish edits, followed by disruption of back office functions (as reported here) and tagging indef-blocked users as indef[136] sounds like our friend Fila3466757 socking again. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Somd disgusting troll vandalizes pages about all the disgusting "niggers" at some high school or other and it still isn't indef blocked yet? Lambmeat should be gone already. There is nothing to consider.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the edit Bali is referring to (note edit summary) and the other clearly disruptive edits, I'm blocking this user indefinitely for disruption and trolling. He's had enough warnings, they just keep getting removed. I get the impression he's trying to see how far we can be pushed before we react despite his constructive edits. If any administrator feels as though the block should be removed or reduced, feel free to do so, but do please contact me to let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Lambmeat#Blocked_indefinitely Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)