Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624

Meetsandye keeps recreating deleted article

Above new user keeps on recreating this article (promotional/advert), even after it failed Article for Creation and being speedily deleted several times and being warned not to create it again. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And now we have Vishnu sree institute of technology(Hyd) as well as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Vishnu sree Institute of technology(Hyd). Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In these cases, you should ask on WP:RFPP for WP:SALTing of those pages. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagged. N419BH 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And a similar article created by Kunnakudisubb (talk · contribs) - an article. now deleted, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vishnu sree institute of technology(VSIT)Nalgonda. All on the 3rd. Looks like a sock to me. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The new one had the wrong tag but it was both copyvio and clearly advertising. Salted also. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the wrong tag. I'm not too familiar with the various categories with the exception of A7. N419BH 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked, and I've G11ed the remainder of their contribs. Taken independently I don't think the articles are quite as spammy as WP:CSD#G11 usually suggests, but the persistent creation and use of sockpuppets certainly reveals that the motive is unambiguously promotional. ~ mazca ^talk 18:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:76.172.80.36 making legal threats

Please block again — see Talk:Laurie Wallace. This is a clear violation of WP:NLT — and the IP user was informed on her talk page to e-mail OTRS using the address shown at WP:NLT. PleaseStand ^(talk) 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have explained the situation to the IP regarding either retracting the threat and working with us to exercise WP:BLP or contacting the appropriate emails. I have also revdeleted the personal telephone number. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Any US Soap Opera fans?

Resolved

 – Agreed - nothing left to see here.  7  22:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows these US soaps - please check out these contribs. I stumbled upon it because the author had tagged one of his own (pretty well created) articles as db-a1. However, looking at the editors other contribs there is an unfortunate trend of them creating articles, which someone else touches after about 10 edits, and then that author adds more content, which gets rolled back to the mid-point edit. I know less than nothing about these shows but it seems strange for them to be reverted only to the mid-point by the same author. They are either both complete hoaxes, or they should both have the authors recent edits restored after rollback. Thanks.  7  12:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I know about as much as you do on that topic, but you might be able to get enough information here to prove or disprove your theory. In the mean time, I'll see what I can come up with. —DoRD (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, per this cast list and this list of actor biographies, neither of the characters currently exist. —DoRD (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a sock-puppeteer who was abusively editing those entries? This sounds like a familiar MO. TNXMan 14:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There was TVFAN24 (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I speedied Casey Reed as there was no context, but it was pointed out that it had been blanked so I've restored it and added a couple of sources. This looks like WP:BITE to me. The initial speedy tag of {{db-people}} made no sense, and the blanking was aggressive and poor practice. It made little sense as the creator had provided a source in the form of Soapcentral recaps. Fences&Windows 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As I comment on my talk page, I blew it. I reverted what appeared to be a BLP issue, as the edit refered to someone as "psychotic"... so thinking I'd be a nice guy and not give out a talkpage warning, I reverted as "dubious unsourced" in the edit summary. That wiped out a number of edits but left a speedy tag. The speedy tag was incorrect, as noted. Confused, I waited to see what would happen instead of doing what I should have done, which was undo my edit. Unfortunately, I was then distracted. I pride myself on careful work in the the field of anti-vandalism, but this time I got it wrong. The fact that the new user was not using edit summaries contributed to the confusion, but it was my responsibility to dig deeper. Jusdafax 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is now a case of "nothing to see here, move along", right? I don't think this editor is doing anything in need of admin attention and the response to the articles, while not ideal, doesn't either. Fences&Windows 20:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is still reading this section, but I remembered who I was thinking about - User:Gabi Hernandez. TNXMan 02:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading, and a check of Soapfun10's contributions and the IP below shows no overlap. I think we might have a sock here. It also hasn't edited since the IP was blocked and confirmed to be Gabi. Dunno where to go with it from here. Might just ask her on the main account's talk page. N419BH 04:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

She has stated here that it's not her, and she's stated here that she doesn't have any undiscovered socks. N419BH 05:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Gabi Hernandez editing anonymously to avoid indef block

Resolved

 – IP sock blocked N419BH 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabi Hernandez (talk · contribs · block log)

User:24.34.144.92 is clearly the indefinitely blocked User:Gabi Hernandez (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez/Archive and this discussion at my talkpage). Despite what she might think, I do have a heart and am sorry that Wikipedia hasn't worked out for her. Unfortunately though, she persisted in actions that led to her being blocked (repeatedly abusing multiple accounts to game deletion discussions and GA nominations). Now she continues to edit anonymously and claims that she is allowed to under the terms of her "ban". The ip address was never blocked as a result of the SPI, and has been listed at AIV for over an hour now with no result. Am I missing some get out clause of being indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet? I realise that it would only be a temporary block, but it would stop further disruption. (I am not familiar with the Days of Our lives articles, and really have no intention of being, but it would appear that many of her edits are contrary to what has been agreed on by other editors in that area. I could be wrong.)--BelovedFreak 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, she shouldn't be doing that. (An admin or two might want to check AIV...bet there are a few other stale requests) N419BH 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the Days of our Lives articles are in better shape, is because of me. I personally went around and fixed all the problems pertaining to them. I have been a fan of the show for years, and if you look and compare each and everyone of them you can tell how much work I put into them. Ask User:Rm994, I already told you before I would leave if you would agree to leave Maggie, and Kimberly's articles alone. The point is, I have done MUCH more good than bad here. And you can check on that if you don't believe me. I know how to edit here, and I think it's ridiculous to be blocked for trying to help. I never doubted you had a heart, nor will I ever. You have actually been very nice to me, and I appreciate that. 24.34.144.92 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

She's been given a 2 week vacation. If the IP proves to be static and she resumes editing, she can take a longer vacation. AniMate 23:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on her talk page on the standard offer in the hopes of giving her some light at the end of the tunnel. We'll see if she sees it as the actual end of the tunnel or the headlamp of an oncoming train. Marking as resolved. N419BH 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping the autoblock would have nabbed the IP per the previous SPI; I suppose it didn't. That being said, she believes that users own articles (i.e. if you would agree to leave Maggie, and Kimberly's articles alone), and I'm not comfortable letting her back in if she still believes that. –MuZemike 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if she still does in 6 months. I directed her to read the policy pages while she's not editing. N419BH 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hopeful in regards to this user. She states that she is allowed to edit anonymously per her ban, when her last unblock request specifically said anonymous editing would result in her never being unblocked. We're five sockpuppets in now, here's hoping she doesn't go further. I'd like to note that she has a long history of adding decorative fair use images to articles against policy. I could use some help going through all of her socks edits to see how many images need to be removed. I found three on Maggie Horton. AniMate 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you got them all. Not sure if she added anything to the "minor characters" page. Also not sure on the one with two images. (If you haven't already guessed, I have never watched a soap or gone to any of the articles...until now). I officially turn in my mancard. N419BH 01:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma repeated NPA

Last week I blocked Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) for a slow motion edit war on Nanjing University after an ANI discussion. S/he requested an unblock which was denied by Jpgordon (talk · contribs) with a warning about personal attacks in the unblock request. GPM removed the declined unblock request with an uncivil edit summary, so I revoked talk page privs for the duration.

Now, GPM has continued his personal attacksin this edit referring to Dick Cheney in my list of quotations on my user page and has repeated his wish several more times in these edit summaries. It took me a bit to put the pieces together, but I am asking for an uninvolved admin to block GPM for continued WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The admin holds a grudge against me, and this is part of a personal vendetta against me, trying to keep me down, so I don't know what this is all about. Where do I attack Toddst1 personally? It seems that he has been attacking me instead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: what does the acronym "gfyT1" mean? Is the "Richard" you refer to Dick Cheney? And if this is an attack on you, surely the preceding edit is an attack by you? TFOWR 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

People aren't stupid here, you were the one who went to Todd's talk page in order to make sure he got your "coded" message and edit summaries. Dave Dial (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pretty obvious. GPM, you were blocked and the block was upheld. Please don't come straight back and go after the admin who blocked you. I'd suggest you just go about your own way in a hurry, and leave other editors alone. Dayewalker (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither is an attack on anybody, it is all construed by Toddst1. The first question I have is againnst whom is Dick Cheney's quote on Todd's page directed? I am no specialist in American history and did not know that Dick Cheney is actually also called Richard. gfyT1 is a personal code by which I am ordering my work, now I am at gfyT2, and there will be probably much more till I am finished with the draft. And that exactly what I am doing, going after my work, by putting up another page for WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page I am working, hope that suffices. I am certainly willing to get back to work. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the purposes of showing good faith, why don't you change your edit summaries to something that couldn't be considered as a shot at an admin? That might help. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I can move it to whatever page you like (have already done so). No problem at all. The final title will be List of early modern universities, but I have planned to let an admin delete the page anyway, so that the final article will appear so to say with a virgin history in the main space. That's how I have always worked. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I corrected myself above, it wasn't your page title that's an obvious dig at an admin. Stop with the "gfyT"-anything for your edit summaries. Dayewalker (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User Todd has been notifying Jpgordon. Nothing wrong with that but Jpgordon is certainly not anymore the "uninvolved admin" which he wants to block me. I hope admins don't start playing balls to each other, because the very first question is to whom actually refers the "Go fuck yourself" quote of Dick Cheney and the "krooks" quote on Todd's page? Don't tell me this is directed against noone, when immediately to the right Todd displays his blocking statistics with pride. Could you tell us that, Todd? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

PS:I'll let an admin seedy delete the page, if that helps, and set up a new one. Just give me time for the tag, I am not that quick at searching them. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm uninvolved. I'd never heard of you before the unblock request, and the only thing I know about you is that you made a remarkably rude unblock request. I didn't even indicate that I want to block you; I indicated that we generally don't unblock people who are being nasty. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an absurd explanation. All of a sudden you are going to make a comment referring to "Richard" on Todd's talk page, and then use the same letters in the quote directed at Toddst1(gfyT1) = Go Fuck Yourself Toddst1. Obvious. I would block you just for trying to play everyone off as stupid with these lame excuses. Just stop it, apologize and move on. Dave Dial (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) GPM, none of what you just brought up is relevant to this conversation. If you have complaints about an editor, take it to RFC or ANI, but don't pretend you're not trying to get his goat with your less-than-tricky edit summaries. I'm trying to help you keep from getting blocked again here, since you came back from your last block still angry. Knock it off. Dayewalker (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have put a speedy delete on the page and created a new one. I apologize to Todd for any inconvenience, and I would like to point out my willingness to move on, and put the dispute permanently behind us. This is a new week and I am looking forward to more contributions to Wikipedia. Regards to all Gun Powder Ma Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A sudden volte face, are you two going to be able to find spaces on Wikipedia where the other one does not frequent? Are you going to be able to take considering possible interpretations of your actions to the extreme in order to calculate what may and what may not be constituted as an attack or what-have-you on the other? If so, that will be worth a try. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a volte face? Anyway, Todd and me, we seem to work in completely different fields. I've never encountered him before and it is very likely that our different trajectories won't make us meet again. And if so, I would not have any problems at all working with him as with anybody else here. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A volte face is me trying to remember the French phrase for a sudden change. Not that it is not unwelcome. If the users are happy to let things go and move on amicably I don't think anything else is needed here? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-Thank you. I don't know if that ends things(it would/does for me), but I hope it does. Dave Dial (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Several spam accounts from Mumbai spamming for companies in Melbourne

Resolved

 – rangeblock and site blacklisting N419BH 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, 122.169.33.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 122.169.54.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 122.169.32.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), all from Mumbai, have been spending the last several days spamming for companies in Melbourne, Australia. Pretty obviously all the same person, or the same company, but they keep account hopping and article hopping. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Put the site on the spam blacklist. Reyk _YO! 06:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Did you read the contributions? It's more than one company, and they aren't just adding links, they're writing entire screeds on the companies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• The first couple I checked were all to the same payroll company. If there's other sites involved, request a blacklisting for them too. Reyk _YO! 06:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• How does that address the long paragraphs describing the companies? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Because AFAIK you can't save your edits if you've included a blacklisted link. I suppose the spammer could try again with the promotional screed sans spam link, but that would make the whole advertising much less effective and hopefully they'll think it's not worth the effort. Reyk _YO! 06:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also done a temporary anon-only rangeblock on 122.169.0.0/16, which should deal with the inevitable attempts to get around the individual IP blocks. -- The Anome (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Added some of the sites to the blacklist. EyeSerene^talk 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User whose Talk page is repeatedly being deleted

Resolved

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chantessy (talk · contribs) has been here for four years. Looking at the logs of their Talk page, their Talk page is repeatedly being deleted. Why would a Talk page for an active User be repeatedly deleted? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just their way of archiving ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then there should be links from the Talk page to the archive pages. How else is one to know that there are archives? And where is Archive 1? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And what happened to the information between December 2008 and June 2010? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK. Users aren't obliged to archive their talk pages. Have you lost something you sent him ? Other than looking down the back of the sofa you could just ask him. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, his talk page shouldn't be deleted. The edits from December 2008-June 2010 are all deleted on that page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

<- I guess it was deleted by the sysop under U1-right to vanish as there is a gap in the editor's contribs after the deletion

• 03:11, 30 June 2009 (diff | hist) m Paper Man ‎ (Quick-adding category Independent films (using HotCat))
• 19:41, 18 December 2008 (diff | hist) User talk:Chantessy/Archive 5 ‎ (top) [rollback]

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanish doesn't apply if they haven't vanished. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

History of main talk page restored, U1 doesn't apply to talk pages. I will check if any other pages need restoring as well. Fram (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And as far as I can see, nothing else needs restoring, all 5 archives are visible. Fram (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Ignoring laundry issues, socks are only bad when they're used for evil. TFOWR's left sock 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• While I was Surfing in Wikipedia, I came across User:Afran2's page.On the page and also in history it is written that "You can search (( user:Afran )) for meeting me".So, This user also owns User:Afran account.Thus, It's quite clear that this user owns multiple account.I think it is sock puppetry.Actions should be taken.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this be good at WP:SPI? Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing urgent about this, the user (Afran1, Afran3 and Afran4 exist as well) has made different accounts, but hasn't edited with any of them since June 2009, and then only their own talk page and user page. Multiple accounts are allowed, but I don't think these are a good use of them. However, nothing bad has been done with them either, and the user (apparently User:Sebastian Goll) doesn't seem to be a problematic editor at first glance. It's only sock puppetry when you edit the same article or discussion with multiple accounts, which hasn't happened here. Have you discussed this with the editor, or even posted a note on their talk page, as is required when you discuss them here? Fram (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Max: This is usually not an issue, if it is made clear. Such clear naming is obvious enough that it wouldn't be a very smart way to sock; WP:SOCK#LEGIT does say that socks are allowed. None of the five accounts seems to be doing anything much, so no action really required methinks. Maybe just a note about what alts are for. sonia^♫♪ 10:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Handicapper continues to mark significant edits as minor

As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Handicapper#Summary it was required the user stop this practice. However looking at his Contribs this has not happened. Particularly talk page marked as minor, article creation marked as minor , added significant information and this . I would like to request that User:Handicapper no longer marks any edit as minor Gnevin (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, you have; stupid me... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Warned user. –xeno^talk 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of references from Stephanie Peay

Resolved

 – No admin attention is required at this time; user has been advised to discuss the content dispute on the talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm in the wrong place (?). I have been contibuting to the entry 'Stephanie Peay' but another user seems to persistently alter/remove content inappropriately, and has recently remove references (again). If they agree the references are valid could an administrator please revert the recent removals? If you also agree this is ongoing vandalism can this user be warned/blocked from altering this entry?--Paulbryden (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed your issues with the edits with the user responsible? I assume you are referring to Idunnowhy (talk · contribs)? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't - I've been relying in the impartiality of admin persons to revert changes and hoping they would get the message that their 'contributions' are futile. I was hoping not to make this personal between me and them by using admin as intermediaries, in effect. Can we revert the last changes and I'll try talking to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbryden (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting edits and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, as suggested by Off2riorob. Please establish consensus to make changes rather than edir warring. No admin attention is required at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats made over article BBC blast

Resolved

 – per withdrawal of legal threats, I've unblocked Rodhullandemu 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked indef for general disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:789123man claims to be an employee of the BBC and threatened to sue wikipedia over copyright on my talkpage User talk:Yoenit, after I reverted his soapboxing in the BBC Blast article. I can hardly take him seriously, but WP:THREAT says I should post it here, so could somebody please look at it? Yoenit (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right to bring it here, but he's talking nonsense. "BBC Blast" is not copyrightable, it is far too short. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but I know this. You can't copyright a title or a name. You can trademark it, but that doesn't prevent others from mentioning the trademarked name, only from stealing it. I.e., Ford Motor Company is a trademarked company name, but I can discuss it all I want to (see there? I just did). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• User has retracted their legal threat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  Doesn't look like much of a retraction to me. The rationale for WP:NLT is quite clear, retracting to "I'm not, but my employer might/will" has the same effect, an attempt to force a point of view backed by a threat. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think we should go "benefit of the doubt" on this one. We can't assume the person works for the Beeb and we can't assume that if the user does, their supervisor will do anything. That would fall into WP:CRYSTAL territory. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  The point in the policy is not to stop people using legal recourse if necessary. It's to stop people using the threat to stifle other editors. If there is truth in the BBC being the employer and if the BBC go ahead or not is unimportant, the threat is still there and is still designed to try and force a point of view. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  We can't bind people by what other people will do. If person A says a legal threat, retracts it, and is unblocked but person B does the legal action person A was talking about, we don't block both person A and B, just person B. One person's actions can't affect another, we don't assume, per WP:AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  That is in no way a retraction, it is merely saying he will report to his superiours who will then take legal action. It is still a legal threat with a chilling effect and the user should be blocked until a full retraction is made. WP:NLT is pretty clear. Verbal chat 21:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No, but we can bind people to adhere to our policies. This is exactly the sort of thing that NLT is meant to inhibit, an editor claiming that unless an article reads and looks the way he wants, someone will be sued or arrested. Also, look at the editor's contributions and you'll see that we lose nothing by keeping him banned until he posts an unreserved retraction of the threat. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give the user instructions on how to get unblocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading his posts I find it very hard to believe that this guy works for the BBC or is representing them here in any capacity. (The BBC is a Television company??) That makes this an even more clear abuse of legal threats to "win" a content dispute. Verbal chat 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading his posts, I find it very hard to believe that this guy works for anyone or is involved in any other activities suitable for a person over the age of twelve, but I'm still willing to give him a chance to withdraw the threat and start contributing constructively. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on his recent edits, his talk page privilege should probably be removed and he should be directed to the appropriate email address to retract his threats. Verbal chat 10:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User has apologized and withdrawn the legal threat. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Moderators and supreme ones. As I am now un blocked please do not inter fear with me again, and Verbal - do not comment on my personal status. I am glad you unblocked me you can see my thanks and apology on my talk page. For the sane ones here, thank you for making wikipedia such a great place!! For the not so sane please stay out of my life--789123man (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not the best way to go about that, I would consider rewriting that statement. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this and other statements from this account, I suspect we're looking at a put-on regardless - this editor claims to be "a communications officer for the BBC", but also that their laptop "corrects to American spelling". Something smells. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

and he bought the computer while in the US? Something ain't right. Checkuser? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have nominated the BBC Blast page for deletion. This is not to aggrivate the situation or the user, I thought on this before doing so, I feel the article fails WP:N and WP:V and isn't necessary. This post is just for the sole point of disclosure. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of that? The Blast page is fine at the moment and I'm not going anywhere near it again. Your problem is not getting on with me and the fact that you are all out to get me. I am English and Work for the BBC as a communications officer. I do live in BANES which I have not made up. As you are all Americans I don't think you should be allowed to comment. You don't pay the BBC License fee and therefore do not have a right to use BBC Blast. Also how would you like it if I suddenly said, you can't speak American. We English developed the language after all. So stop commenting on it. --789123man (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"American" isn't a language and I can access BBC Blast from my Virginia home just fine. If you really are a BBC Communications Officer, you would have a WP:COI on the page regardless. Also, anyone can comment on any page here, worldwide. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for COI, and replaced the AfD template that 789123man removed - after he said he wasn't going near the article again. I should also note that use of BBC Blast has nothing to do with payment of the licence fee. I doubt that many users of it pay the licence fee because most 13 to 19 year olds don't have their own TV licences. A communications officer for the BBC should know that. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Without a doubt not an employee of the BBC working in an official function. One at home, maybe, but nevertheless it is irrelevant. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually BBC Blast is under the BBC Consultation for TV license fees and is facing cuts. Please get your facts right. If you look on the BBC spending section it will not say BBC Blast but BBC learning. It is payed for via License fee and is only available to UK Citizens. You can see all of this at BBC Freedom of Information. www.bbc.co.uk/foi --789123man (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter now, the page has been speedily deleted as a copyvio of this page by User:Rodhullandemu. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was busy dealing with copyvio elsehwere. In any case, I repeat, although the BBC licence fee pays for it, you do not have to pay a BBC licence fee or be a UK citizen to use it. EU citizens in the UK can use it, immigrants without citizenship, etc. By the way, there seems to be nothing on the FOI site about it. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I was able to get into the site just fine and I am in the US (Virginia to be exact). I think the site is worldwide, just focuses on the UK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

My bad, I didn't realise the article was so old, and it appears the site plagiarised from us rather than other other way round. Accordingly, I have undone my deletion and will reopen the Afd. Sorry for the inconvenience. Rodhullandemu 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because you can view the site does not mean that you have a right to use it and create an account for it. So you have removed it because of copyright violations. I thought you said that there were not copyright issues with it. That shows that you did not think it through properly. Not good for a Wikipedia Moderator is it? --789123man (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no website you have a "right" to use, you can either use it or you can't. There are no "Rights of the Internet" or "Rights of a Website". Where do you get your information? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No but to be able to interact with it (ie create an account, enter competitions etc) you do need to be currently living in the UK. By all means you can look at it but that is not what the site is about. Also you may not be aware that the site has changed a lot in the last year. Therefore the site did not plagiarise from wikipedia. Anyway as the BBC Blast site was the first website to right about BBC Blast how can you have put that information up first? Think it through --789123man (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Living in the UK, but not a UK citizen or licence fee payer. If the site didn't copy Wikipedia, the material in the article from the site is a copyright violation. Which is it? Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the terms of use for BBC sites also includes "No impersonation". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Important News

Hello Everyone, I am sorry about the fuss this has caused I would be grateful if everybody could just drop it now as there is some bad news. The BBC Trust has backed the plans made to cut BBC Blast. This means that Blast will close early next year. My boss has not yet told me if this will put me out of a job but I think that it will.

For that reason I am not going to bother chasing this up anymore as I think that it is pointless. You can chose to believe what you want but at the end of the day I think that you could cut some of the talk you give me as this is my job on the line. If you do not believe me then the documents saying this are here [1].

I will now continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a clear and constructive manner like I was hoping to do before this started.

Thank You

789123man (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's stuff like this that drives me crazy about Wikipedia's culture -- it's not really a good idea to elevate AGF over common sense. Whoever this person is, they aren't what they say they are, and they're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, so just indef block them and be done with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this looks more and more like a PBML sockpuppet, or else someone else mucking around. Please block. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Come on... I have apologised and I have said I don't want to cause any more fuss over this. If things on Wikipedia drive you crazy then you should not be here. How do you know I am not going to contribute to the encyclopedia? I am just here to contribute my knowledge to help people learn. If you do not believe me then that is fine but please do not block me just because you don't like me. 789123man (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not blocking you because we don't like you, we're blocking you because you're messing with us.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone ban this person?

Resolved

 – Blocked 31 hours by CIreland N419BH 05:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

205.209.74.196 (talk · contribs) - I tried being friendly.... and I got more vandalism in return. A little help? Beam 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was done before I had a chance to notify him of this. Beam 04:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Hey jerk, stop vandalizing articles" is an attempt at being friendly? Looking at some of your recent comments, I'd suggest a review of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL might do you some good. --Onorem♠Dil 05:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why we do not insult the vandals; it not only makes the vandals mad (like what might have happened here), but it also makes the good guys look just as bad as the bad guys. Not to mention, if you do something like that with an innocent user, you'd be ending up biting newcomers, which is what we also don't want. –MuZemike 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The best results are obtained by being firm but polite. Being rude will just make it personal for them and motivate them to keep vandalizing. (it works the same way in real life, by the way :-) ) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, WP:AIV is a better venue for reporting this kind of thing in the future. --Chris (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Paxcoder

Continuous, completely unprovoked insults in the face of civility by User:Paxcoder.

• User:Paxcoder: "I'd point you to something, but I'm afraid you'd vandalize it tbqh." [2]

and again

• User:Paxcoder: "You should be banned from editing this article. Do your own research, vandal!" [3]

I then asked him to please cease trying to insult me.

• User:Paxcoder: "I stand by my words to you." [4]

I posted on his talk trying to defuse the situation. I assumed the person was aggressive towards me on religious grounds so I made sure he understands I wouldn't dream of challenging his beliefs and that the issue at hand is completely unrelated to any such concerns.

• User:Paxcoder: "You are a troll, "Direktor"." [5]

Frankly I've had enough. I do not see why I should have to take this sort of abuse. I was attacked immediately and without provocation and then continuously several times, despite maintaining a civil disposition towards the User, and despite actually trying to calm him down and discuss in the face of his attacks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, this looks just like a content dispute — by the way, note that you're both engaged in an edit war on that article, so I'd caution you both to stop reverting each other and start discussing —, where the user got pissed and violated WP:NPA, but I think a stern warning, coupled with starting a DR method, should resolve this issue. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, on the other hand, it looks like I was provoked and called a vandal well before any edit-war or content dispute took shape [6][7], and then again after it had been resolved [8] (yes, the content dispute has been successfully resolved). And besides, it seems you think content disputes somehow excuse unprovoked abusive behavior?

Also, User:Salvio giuliano, considering our history I would appreciate it if you stopped making these vague comments on my posts here (even if you did not follow me around again). This is not an RfC on user behavior, but an administrator noticeboard. I fail to see what involves you in this other than your previous conflict with me personally? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any editor is invited to give their opinion on AN/I discussions, and the point is that these opinions are from uninvolved editors. Please refrain from making borderline personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the less-than-neutral ANI notification: "You have been reported on WP:ANI for continuous user abuse." Particularly the "continuous user abuse". I'm sifting through both of your contributions. Frankly I'm thinking you could both use a refresher on WP:CIVIL but I'll reserve judgement until I've looked into it further. N419BH 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have warned the user with uw-npa2 about the "troll" comment; I don't think a block is appropriate here unless the behaviour continues after further warnings. I'll leave it to an admin to close, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Salvio giuliano and I have a history and he makes a habit of following me about and opposing me without grounds. Commenting is fine, but malicious comments purely intended to hinder any effort I undertake amount to stalking.

Ah yes, "blame them both". Typical. Giftiger, I made no aggressive posts or comments to User:Paxcoder, and I challenge anyone to show grounds for your equal approach to both parties. I arrived at the page, opposed Paxcoder's edit in a perfectly non-aggressive manner, and was immediately attacked and called a "vandal" and "troll". Even after I tried to make it clear I harbor no ill-will with a post on his talkpage, and after the content dispute had been resolved, I was attacked yet again. This, I think, amounts to abuse.

Let me make it clear: the content dispute is over. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly very carefully worded; you realised, of course, that I am referring to your comment directed at Salvio as being a borderline personal attack. And frankly your attitude here and treatment of neutral volunteers trying to help with a situation you apparently feel strongly about and what help with, is inappropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Giftiger! Direktor, take a look at this page and you'll see I'm sort of an habitué here; I'm not following you around and, as far as I can remember, although we've met, here and there, a few times, but, to my knowledge, we've always been on good terms, even when we didn't agree on something. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, we are on good terms. My comment was misinterpreted. Its just that I always see you when I post on WP:ANI, and you always somehow seem to disagree with me. I get the feeling, if you'll pardon, that you have a personal bias or grudge against me. The feeling is, I admit, exacerbated by your contact with certain users closely associated with itWiki groups of banned users that have personally threatened me.

(edit conflict × 4)If you take a look at my suggestions here, you'll see that I tend to oppose blocking people, unless it's unavoidable. To make it short, I hate the concept of blocking people, but I know that it can be necessary to avoid disruption to Wikipedia and I myself support or endorse blocks, when I think that they're the only way to solve a problem. Well, in this case, I think that this issue can be better solved in another way: through discussion (on the talk page or requesting a third opinion, for instance). This user has been reminded that we don't take kindly to personal attacks. Should he continue insulting you, despite this warning, then I'll support a block. But, until then, I still think it would be premature. Hope I clarified my position. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"...considering our history I would appreciate it if you stopped making these vague comments on my posts here"? A personal attack? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(re: Salvio's first comment) Thank you. I am completely convinced this man has an agenda regarding the article Aloysius Stepinac. He has already pushed his POV - as evidenced by Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#New_edits. As it turns out, the community disagreed with him, and the article was restored, but not without a lengthy discussion he has provoked, in which he has been the first to accuse *me* of POV (now evident I was not to blame for) - apparently I tend to stand in his way. I think it is apparent that user Direktor is ideologically driven (a Yugonostalgic if you will) which is the cause for some of his edits there, and I also think he has an issue with Stepinac. As I've explained in the context of my comments that he quoted above, he used excuses with obvious intention to remove the title "blessed". His did not simply want to conform with rules - otherwise he'd modify, not remove information from the infobox - so I honestly do believe that he is, in fact, vandalizing the page. I have overreacted and perhaps I should've chosen my words more carefully, but I submit to you that it was not "completely unprovoked" as Direktor says - his edits, I believe, are not done in good-will. --Paxcoder (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)This doesn't help. You should assume good faith and try to talk things through, not make accusations. Right now, you should apologise or, if you don't want to do that, just acknowledge that you shouldn't have attacked him. And say you won't do that again.

And then try to come to an agreement with him, using WP:DR. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

LoL... as you can see, User:Paxcoder harbors a lot of negative sentiment towards me. I can't say the feeling is mutual as yet, but I'm sure his efforts will eventually create a nice quaint little feud. Interestingly, I've just been notified of my own post [9]...

(edit conflict) Uhh, Paxcoder, he removed "Blessed" per policy. We don't use honorifics because it expresses a particular POV. Hence we don't refer to Jesus Christ as "Lord Jesus Christ" and we don't refer to Muhammad as "Muhammed PBUH". N419BH 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my opinion, but since we do use "Saint", I think we should use "blessed" as well. But this belongs on a talk page... ^__^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) we only use saint if they're indistinguishable otherwise. I'd say blessed is out, but that's for a talk page. N419BH 15:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think this is for titles of articles and regular text? There's a whole category devoted to blesseds, and most of them are called blesseds in their infoboxes. The particular cardinal infobox in question - as it turns out - has a field devoted solely to this purpose. --Paxcoder (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Paxcoder, I was merely trying to point out that the "name=" parameter is for names. The "honorific suffix" parameter is also not really for "Saint" or "Blessed". Your aggression was completely unprovoked and I feel an apology would greatly help our relations and move things along to actual article improvement. I have nothing in particular against Stepinac, I mean yes I do not think he was a "divine messenger", but I don't think he was a bad person. That said, the "Blessed" prefix should definitely go. The article lead and main text both describe his beatification in detail. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(at Salvio)I did assume good faith at first. I have since come to a different conclusion. I might be wrong, as I can't see into hearts of men - I can only try and interpret their actions. It just seems to me Direktor likes to fight for his own views. I see no other explanation for his fascination with the person of Aloysius Stepinac - he has been reverted there quite a few times. Article's talk page made his views very clear to me. So I'm sorry, but I'm not buying his explanation (ie good wiki citizen who wants the infobox to conform to regulations). --Paxcoder (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(at Direktor:) Now, even the honorific prefix (note: not suffix) isn't good enough for you? I thought you said the issue was resolved? BTW. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you get into so many fights with people before you report someone to the administrators? That's right, you didn't call me a troll - you comply with WP, and use it to your own benefit against other people. As long as you play the game like this, you're safe and can do what you want to do. But hey, let me stop talking before I say something offensive like: "perhaps it's not everybody else's fault". --Paxcoder (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Before continuing with this, Paxcoder, you should read here. If you commit yourself not to attack Direktor again (well, any user), I think we could make this resolved. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I've already posted a response there, I've posted it now. I will try to rephrase my objections from now on.
Related: I'd like to know if a change is made is it ok to revert and then talk, or must one talk with the disputed change visible (the first option would seem logical as it is the original state of the article) - can one give me a reference? Thanks. --Paxcoder (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd point you to WP:BRD, bold, revert, discuss. That is to say: you are bold and make an edit; someone else disagrees and reverts; now, you should take the dispute on the talk page. If you revert, you're starting what may escalate into an edit war. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok now this is really too much. User:Paxcoder is edit-warring on my talkpage [10][11][12] and repeatedly reintroducing his malicious retaliatory "notification" where he "notifies" me of my own post here. Setting aside the "retaliatory" offensive nature of the post itself, the user was warned and informed of WP:OWNTALK twice by N419BH [13][14] and once more by Off2riorob [15]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A short block for edit-warring is in order now it seems. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fear so. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I appologize, I thought I should notify you every time I post something about you -which was 2 times (see my comment on the revert, maybe you realize my confusion). No harm intended. Can we conclude this now? --Paxcoder (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I might be inclined to take the above seriously had you not been explicitly warned about this, three times. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here - I really thought that notifying you was what I am obligated to do. --Paxcoder (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving comments to bottom

Moved to WT:ANI#Moving comments to bottom

Timestamping--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:69.181.249.92 and Deletions.

This is a Ip that otherwise does amazing work here on the pedia. I am however concerned with his interpatation of the deletion policies and would like a admin go and just explain how csd's work, afds and mfds. He's been told by myself and at least one other editor but doesn't seem to get it. This definitely isn't blockable but it just might help for someone to chime in that does have some authority to clarify.

1. [[16]]
2. [[17]] are the recent examples. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh. They're so close to right in the two examples above, I hate the thought of trying to argue the point with them... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Different example, but I've just been discussing another speedy with them. They'd tagged it, I'd ignored the tag and worked on the article a bit, meaning to come back to, and another editor contested the speedy. 69.181.249.92's seems to have a pretty good idea about at least {{db-a1}}, even if we don't completely agree. TFOWR 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For #1 above, the IP is correct - G3 can be used in userspace or articlespace. Probably not a point in your favor when you are using that example and it was being used correctly. I'm not sure I personally would use G3 in userspace, but it is one of the general criteria. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion (of #1). There's good reason to have some leniency in user space, but the editor should have the noindex magic words, a notice that it isn't a Wikipedia article, and probably some discussion explaining the rationale. Without that, it is a pure hoax and should go.--SPhilbrickT 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammy64000

Resolved

 – Indeffed by Sarek of Vulcan. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has made several blatant attacks over the course of several months. User inserts POV statements in to religious articles and edit wars over content against consensus. Has been warned multiple times for incivility and not assuming good faith.

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

[27] Possible hinting of legal threats.

Many more instances of incivility in the users contribs, but the recent ones seem to get worse and worse. SpigotMap 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, for unacceptable personal attacks and conspiracy theories (WP:NOTTHERAPY). I'm willing to consider that this may have been excessive, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI was suggested in #wikipedia-en. Would wikiquette have been more appropriate? SpigotMap 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think a block was in order, in this case. He repeatedly attacked you, even after being told to stop. So, I endorse Sarek's call. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the appropriateness of the indef block. See also this edit: [28]. Edison (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shoesquashfan5000

Shoesquashfan5000 (talk · contribs) is a borderline problematic user. In the past week, he has tried not once but twice to blindly redirect How Far Do You Wanna Go? to Gloriana (album), despite the fact that the "How Far Do You Wanna Go?" article clearly asserts enough individual notability for the song. He has also edit-warred over redirecting The World Is Ours Tonight and not once has he ever tried to invoke some sort of discussion. He also has a history of problematic edits such as censored profanity in an edit summary, use of ALLCAPS, and occasional chart position vandalism on Rain Is a Good Thing. I've constantly had to babysit this editor because he rarely puts categories on new pages, constantly forgets to pipe links, and has added several reviews to the now no-longer-functional "reviews" field in {{Infobox album}}. Also, said user never answers his talk page, which I consider a very bad thing. This user has many good-faith edits too, making the bad edits all the more frustrating. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To the list of problematic but good-faith edits, you can include adding an episode summary for an unaired episode with no source cited. I've just reverted that and left a non-templated message about it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dragonflysixtyseven has blocked him for 12 hours to get his attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Action required over User:Screwball23

For sometime now, Screwball has been pressing the inclusion of information on the article World Wrestling Entertainment. It involves the idea that the promotion has entered a new era called the PG Era - based on WWE's move in ratings to PG from it's previous rating. His additions basically appear as this latest edit from him. Initially, a small addition was made (as it appears prior to this edit) but that wasn't enough for him. He has forum shopped using RFC, Mediation and some canvassing as well ([29] and [30] for example). I refused to be involved in a mediation simply because Screwball just will not get the message. The consensus shown in both the RFC and on WP:PW here with some other scattered conversation makes it clear that Screwball's additions are in violation of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Despite being told this, Screwball accuses the project of bias and keeps at it. Already he has been blocked twice for 3RR violations and now with three more edits today trying to press the same issue, I've had enough. It's about time action was taken against him for disruptive editing against consensus. It has been suggested that he be permanently topic banned which I would support, because a general ban for a longer period than previously (24 hours and then 31 hours) has proven to be ineffective. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was involved with this earlier, and was requested to attend the mediation - which I did though it seems a bit of a joke and got rightly chucked. Screwball has in the past made coherent and logical arguments for inclusion, but consensus seems to be against him. I didn't have the knoweldge of the subject to do more than sample consensus and conclude based on that. I found several instances where such consensus was evident (which have all been included by Justa Punk above.) I don't think he is able to say "well, I still believe I'm in the right but if consensus says then consensus says" which is something one needs to say around here sometimes. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't care either way about this article, but in the interest of accuracy, there are a few things that JustaPunk left out (and, for full disclosure, I freely admit that I do not like him, and he does not like me): Consensus was frequently built through canvassing. The opening of a threat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Screwball says it all: "Alert to members involved in protecting the WWE article from Screwball23. He's canvassing again..." (posted by JustaPunk, who doesn't seem to care that fighting canvassing with canvassing doesn't make sense). When the option of formal mediation was presented, it wasn't given a chance because JustaPunk was the one who chose not to let it go forward. This could have been over a long time ago if people like him were willing to work toward a solution rather than insisting on either being 100% right or dropping the gloves. This seems to be a case for trouts or topics bans to everyone involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to other readers - the link provided was late in the piece when the majority of Screwball's behaviour (including the two 3RR bans) has already taken place. I never went to people's talk pages, unlike Screwball. !! Justa Punk !! 23:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

61.18.170.0 /24 IP subnet block needed

A banned user (User:Instantnood) who has been blocked from two previous ISPs in the last week is currently using random addresses within 61.18.170.0 /24 for each successive edit. I don't know whether this is because of some kind of abusive proxying by the user or just the way the ISP handles it's NAT, but it is impossible to follow disruptive edits when they come from 250 sources. Can an admin block 61.18.170.0 /24 for a day or so, anon-edits only, please? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to a few diffs from this range that you consider abusive? I am willing to place the block but don't have the time to check the entire range. --Chris (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Check my recent contribs for reverts. It is continuation/repeats of what has been blocked the last two weeks on other IP addresses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OPD for probably more. I've blocked it for 3 hours. The whole range has been an exit for an open proxy for about the last month. It's a fairly busy range to be blocking for long. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, this range has a long history of long blocks. 07:46, 14 August 2008 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) blocked 61.18.170.253 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 years ‎ ({{blocked proxy}}: Blacklisted by Sorbs; confirmed Zombie computer)

Maybe long blocks on the entire range aren't uncalled for if it is being abused by more than just my pet stalker. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Most IPs are blacklisted somewhere, especially dynamic ones. That two year block is fairly arbitrary and useless on its own on a rotating range like this one. It has to be the whole range or nothing. There's probably a few thousand IPs using it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thousand? A /24 subnet gives 253 addresses (61.18.170.1-61.18.170.254)--Rockstonetalk to me!

Only 253 if the same precise subnet is actually defined as such on a router somewhere (then .0 is the network ID and .255 is the broadcast address). But usually ISPs operate out of something between /24 and /16. --Chris (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an exit server range, like when an ISP channels all web traffic through their caching proxies. See WP:XFF. It's been used by their 61.10/16 range, and as far as I can tell also their 218.252/16 - 218.255/16 ranges. It's difficult to say who's using it now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Longer please

It's continuing as soon as the block lifted. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 in film vandalism

Resolved

 – Dealt with by block @ SPI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Recently there has been an individual removing an entry against consensus to 2010 in film (see this for discussion). The user Tdi7457 was blocked for IP puppet-ing on the issue and a new user Giordano Adams has recently done similar to identical edits. What should be done about this? BOVINEBOY2008 21:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Giordano Adams is Tdi7457, evading the block and making the same edit that Tdi7457 was doing against consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What the? Who is Tdi7457 and what have i done wrong?- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano Adams (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the standard location for reporting it. --Chris (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, passes the duck test to me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I opened the SPI now. BOVINEBOY2008 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu

I'm here after attempting to resolve an issue through discussion with editor Tariqabjotu, who blocked me for "slow-motion edit-warring".[31]. Tariqabjotu and I have recently been involved in a content dispute on another Israel-Palestine article, which included dozens of editors and stretched over three months.

• Tariqabjotu to me: ""We're not stupid...let's not play word games." / Tiamut to Tariqabjotu, after exchanges had become acrimonious: "Thank you for confirming (once again) that you are in no way an uninvolved admin when it comes to the I-P subject area."

I think Tariqabjotu misused his administrative tools per WP:INVOLVED: "editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved ... current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". Before Tariqabjotu blocked me, I had already said on the AN/EW page that I would step away from editing the article. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 03:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not follow your case, Roma, but I do not believe Tariqabjotu actions toward you had anything to do with their comments from January you refer to. Please see they blocked Breein1007 for 48 hours on June 1, 2010,and Breein1007 also complained about the block. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While I understand WP:INVOLVED was, in part, intended to avert these kinds of efforts to grasp at straws, I will continue, as I have done in the past, to refrain from giving them any merit. As I said directly below the aformentioned comment by Tiamut, I get accused of bias all the time when I do anything in any area that involves national or ethnic disputes (including, of course, the Israel-Palestine area), regardless of whether I have even edited in said areas (and I'm sure other admins have had similar experiences). Certainly, without a doubt, that's part of the reason why we only have a handful of admins kind enough to respond to issues in these contentious areas. And, as is usually the case, such complaints speak more about the biases of the editor making the complaints (whose only defense is the alleged biases of the admin), rather than the target of complaints. Now, just because in this instance, the editor can say technically, you violated WP:INVOLVED because X,Y,Z happened six months ago doesn't mean we should treat such complaints as worthy of concern or otherwise requiring some sort of action.

If we can return to the block in question, we see little in the way of impropriety. It was a short, sixteen-hour block (and we all know people treat sub-24-hour blocks as minor and inconsequential). RomaC made an unblock request -- not even citing this six-month-old, now-resolved dispute -- and it was declined (by one of the few admins, by the way, who frequents the Israel-Palestine minefield). She asked a couple other admins (HJ Mitchell and Shimeru) about it, and neither found anything wrong with it. RomaC also, of course, asked me about the block, and I explained in detail the reasoning behind the block, and why I continued to find it reasonable, based on her efforts to deflect the reasoning behind her block to this claim of retribution. All of this over a sixteen-hour block, which has long been over.

I do not have anything out for RomaC. The dispute she mentions (a bit over-simplified, I should add) is ancient history insofar as I'm concerned, and I'm sure insofar as everyone else is concerned -- until they're blocked, of course. RomaC had no problem when I blocked Breein1007 for forty-eight hours a month ago, in part at her request, for edit-warring, even though, according to WP:INVOLVED, I'm supposedly involved with him as we have edited in the same area. RomaC had no problem deferring to Shimeru, an admin and editor somewhat involved in the Caroline Glick article she was blocked for edit-warring on. But, now she has a problem with this block, not because there was anything genuinely improper about it, but simply because she claims some unfounded bloodlust. Again, there's no merit behind this complaint; it's petty at best. -- tariqabjotu 11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you are uninvolved in the ARBPIA topic area, but this wasnt an AE block (though you have made a number of those in the recent past as well). My reading of ARBPIA and of WP:INVOLVED is that you may be able to perform administrative actions in the topic area so long as you are not in active dispute with the parties or on the article that you are performing such actions, but that you may not enforce ARBPIA. WP:ARBPIA#Uninvolved administrators is a bit more strict than WP:INVOLVED, saying that For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. You certainly have "previously participated" in content disputes in the topic area. nableezy - 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Should I have put "Block Review" in the section header? Cheers, RomaC ^TALK 08:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring report was with reason and the block was not lifted by Sandstein after you requested it. Don't edit war and you won't have to deal with it ever again. Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Want to point out that the editor above commenting on the report is the same editor who filed it. But that's not my concern. Again, I'm here because I regard it as critical, particularly in the I-P topic area with so much emotional/partisan editing, that editors' use of admin tools is held to the constraints clearly spelled out in policy concerning WP:INVOLVED (see also ARBPIA per Nableezy). Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 10:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting further discussion on this. Per my Talk, I believe I can usually steer through the POV Warriors on Israel-Palestine articles, but if my restraint slips with one of them and I'm then summarily run over to the noticeboards, policy promises me an UNINVOLVED Admin. I'm not delighted when the only Wiki Admin who has clashed with me on an I-P content debate is waiting there with his gavel. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note in WP:INVOLVED where it states: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." We have three other reasonable administrators users coming to the same conclusion here, so its pretty obvious that the community is endorsing this action. So give it a rest, your block was good. Stop beating a dead horse. LK (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo, thanks for your input can you please explain: 1)If you think my actions were blatant vandalism; 2)Who are the "three other reasonable administrators" you refer to? Note please I'm not here questioning the block, I'm questioning inappropriate use of admin tools by an involved editor per policy. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 04:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Sandstein, Mbz1 and nableezy (the later two I assumed to be admins, but didn't actually check). Frankly, I think the block was good, but that Tariqabjotu is likely 'involved', given the comments highlighted on this page. It's not a huge offense to reasonably use admin tools in an area you're involved in, but it is against policy. So, like Ncmvocalist below, I'ld ask Tariqabjotu to be more careful, and to abstain from the use of admin tools when he may reasonably be seen as involved, as he is in this case. I should add that further admin actions in this area would be against policy. LK (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a totally uninvolved editor, yeah, I don't think the block is really an issue in this case. There's nothing to escalate, at this point anyway. Still, I'm concerned by some of the comments that have been made by tariq (I was looking at the ones on this page) - I'd ask him to reconsider whether he should be imposing sanctions in this particular area (rather than with respect to any particular user). I appreciate what you're saying tariq, that users are always going to try and pretend that you are involved in a dispute when you are not, especially in areas like that. A type of vigilence is needed against that type of behavior; I know that too well. However, I'm not convinced you had been making much effort to avoid involvement (even if it was 6 months ago); I'm seeing comments from you that go directly to the content disputes themselves - in all likelihood, those comments have nearly no chance of resolving those disputes as an uninvolved editor/admin. If you have had this sort of involvement in other national/ethnic disputes (from even 9 months ago), and you are imposing sanctions in those areas, then those concerns about involvement might be legitimate - you might not be fully appreciating the gravity of why this part of policy came into force, and that's affecting your level of compliance. Alternatively, this might have been the only area where you became somewhat involved, and it's just a matter of forgetting what seems rather ancient or something (in which case this is just a matter of one area). I don't (want to) know which it is, and it's unlikely I'll follow this discussion further but I trust that as an administrator, you understand that it's important to heed this feedback early on and review your own position in the matter accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cfm decision ignored

Resolved

 – User merged redundant categories in good faith. Discussion on naming needs to be on relevant talk pages. N419BH 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any mechanism to deal with editors who ignored recent Cfm decision? There was a recent decision not to merge Category:Banks of the People's Republic of China into Category:Banks of China, but User:SchmuckyTheCat simply ignored it and move the articles en masse [32] without even bringing the matter back to Cfm. He has in the past depopulated many categories then speedied them. 61.18.170.120 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Twice. N419BH 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits can be reverted per that discussion, although the user can open a new CfD if they feel there is a case. Although looking at that CfD, I somewhat doubt that the consensus would be overturned. WFC (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the CfD discussion when I did it. The category structure was a mess, with articles and subcats in both parent and sub-categories. I just consolidated the entire mess by up-merging. That CfD discussion does demonstrate the 'CfD is broken' Wikipedian mantra that some repeat very effectively though. The only opinion represented is fringe. Reverting my edits will return to a broken mish-mash of parent/child category confusion but go for it. (Also, it is interesting to note the banned user who stalks me is proxying.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that you are aware, and have acted out of process, please revert yourself. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Acting to improve the project at the expense of process is textbook WP:IAR, IMO. This should not just be reverted for no reason other than adherence to process wonkery. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Except this didn't improve the project- it was a decrease in quality, or the CFD discussion would have done this within the CFD process. Courcelles (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No it wouldn't because CFD is completely broken. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need two categories for banks in China? That makes no sense at all. Either call it "Banks of China" or "Banks of the People's Republic of China", but don't have both! Fences&Windows 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because China is a lot bigger, and a lot older than the People's Republic. (And the Republic, for that matter, even before the Civil War.) Courcelles (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's dumb, nationalistic BS that shouldn't be allowed to be played out within the project. Why should different categories need to be maintained for different governments or periods of a nation's existence? Should we do the same for the French Third Republic and the French Third Republic ? Tarc (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is neutral to say PRC, because we still have the Republic of China on Taiwan, which officially proclaims itself as the rightful government of China. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, we also have Category:Financial services companies of China and Category:Financial services companies of the People's Republic of China. How many more categories does this apply to?! Is the Republic of China/Taiwan the reason for this mess? Fences&Windows 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why. Hence Taiwan in Wikipedia is referred to as "Republic of China" and China is referred to as "People's Republic of China". Those are the official names of the two countries, and it is confusing. Before the split, there is just "China". The proper course of action is for PRC banks to be returned to their category, and ROC banks to be moved to their own category. That's the nature of the situation. We call it "Taiwan" but the actual name is "Republic of China". N419BH 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. There were no Taiwan/ROC banks in either of these two categories. Similarly, there were no China/PRC banks in the parallel (but not overlapping) ROC categories. The Taiwanese bank category is not a sub-category of the China bank category. It was simply an issue that the China/PRC categories were overlapping, and articles and sub-cats were scattered among both. Cleaning that up by upmerging was an obvious housekeeping task that was entirely tangential to fringey Two-China POV issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are banks established in China before 1949 that followed Republic of China's retreat and moved to Taiwan. Some of these banks have since been shut down or acquired by other banks. 61.18.170.64 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not the appropriate place to go over 60 year old history. The category name is just China. It does not define China as a geographic/cultural/political entity to the exclusion of any definition, but the obvious first definition is the current PRC. Did these historical banks fit in "China" by any definition? Great, include it. Does it fit in a Taiwan category? Great, include it there too. Wikipedia categories generally do not fine tune about historical conditions for any country/nation/state over the entire history of human civilization. That is just too bad for nationalist POV mongers, but works just fine for generalist readers. Now go away, IP sock, because your (anti-)nationalist POV pushing is what causes these arguments and that is why mongering got you banned, to save the rest of us from it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Reply to SchmuckyTheCat: That's fair. If it needs adjustment, we can just rename the category. But it's much better to have all "China" banks in one category. N419BH 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty off-topic for ANI and should be discussed elsewhere, but I would tend to disagree. Just because they both claim the name "China" doesn't mean their articles should all be lumped together. (You may be missing the word "than" as in "much better than to have" in which case we are in agreement) –xeno^talk 20:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparrently they're not. The PRC banks are now in a group under "China" and the ROC banks are in a group under "Taiwan". N419BH 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which are common names that generalist readers (who do not care about nuancies of sinology and ancient politics) would expect to find them at. Simplified navigation aids satisfy non-expert readers at the expense of super-accurate but obtusely named categories that would satisfy wonky editors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me; marking case closed. N419BH 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the merger the PRC category includes only banks that are/were unrelated to the Republic of China. If no action is taken it's bringing a bad precedence that Cfd decisions are to be ignored, and it's accepted that category mergers require no Cfd. An encyclopaedia is not a children textbook. And it takes only one more click for readers looking for PRC banks from Category:Banks of China. 61.18.170.16 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would that be bad precedent? There's a reason WP:IAR is more then just a policy, but one of the Five Pillars. If process leads to manifestly broken results, then the process is wrong. -- ۩ Mask 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Insulting Source

Recently an IP added this source to the Arsenal F.C. page. I immediatly dismissed it as vandalism as an Arsenal-hater page from it's name but as I looked into it here it seemed rather racist and insulting to people from Israel and supporters of Arsenal, so I'm requesting can we have this wiped from the history as I fear if someone found it there may be trouble and i believ it may violate WP:RD2. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would you mind keeping your odd opinions about 'racism' to yourself? (WP:SOAPBOX) Nothing here needs admin attention, & certainly not revdel, unless there's anything more to this? That said, there doesn't seem to be any need to put a call for a boycott in the article unless it gets a lot of independent coverage. Misarxist (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On that website I see criticism of the Israeli government and military, but nothing racist or otherwise "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" (though I didn't read the whole site, so feel free to point out examples if I've missed them). Also, WP:RD2 is about such material in the history of articles, not links to such material elsewhere. Unless there's a consensus I'm unaware of for revdelling links to such material, I don't see that any action needs to be taken. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user responsible for adding the source. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued contributory copyright infringement

(This was originally brought up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Youtube)

Resolved

 – Material cited without using copyvio link

Editors are continuing to introduce a YouTube video to Eve Torres that was uploaded by a user without any evidence of permission. You can see at the uploader's channel that he has another video already blocked for being a copyright violation. The guidelines are not always clear enough on this (which is why I proposed a guideline discussing the related guidelines) but in this case it is simple:

"...if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." WP:LINKVIO

The link needs to be removed. As explained already, {{cite episode}} without a link might work just fine. Both User:Justa Punk and User:Rick Doodle need to be blocked if they continue to insert the video until they make it clear that they understand Wikipedia policies with legal considerations.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand this. You Tube videos (no matter what the legal status) have been used in the past to prove certain statements to be correct. This video proves that Eve Torres is billed as being from Denver, Colorado. How else can this be proved? I ask for guidance as to how to prove that the TV content of Raw and pay per views are in conflict with other information (sourced or not). RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just cite the episode of the program, without the actual link. Use {{cite episode}} to do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah thank you! Please ignore the reply on your talk page. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. It all worked out. Apologies again for not realizing that I had not provided the info on your talk page, Rick Doodle. Here is a little bit of spam: WP:VIDEOLINK. Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Although I agree with the sentiment, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry only had a preliminary injunction with that "finding"; the final decision dissolved the preliminary injunction, leaving the legal reasoning as moot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Point 4 of the permanent injunction (incorporating terms agreed upon by the parties) seems pertinent here. Since the parties reached settlement on their own, the court did not firmly decide the matter, but by no means did their final decision indicate a reversal of their earlier inclinations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

LINKVIO even says that it is not clear . However, community consensus has been not to link to the copyright violations on YouTube since it does shed a bad light on Wikipedia and legal issues could arise. Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the preliminary injunction is vacated, so the reasoning is not considered precedent (even if district court reasoning were considered precedent). I don't know of any other copyright cases related to stable links to infringing web sites; Napster, etc., are/were dynamic links. Still, we don't link to known copyright violations, but we may link to suspected copyright violations. Further discussion should be in Wikipedia talk:Copyright, if anywhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, we try to avoid linking to probable copyright violations. 'Reasonable person' sniff tests are probably our working rule of thumb. I'm not sure what your policy basis is for the suggestion that we can link to 'suspected' copyright violations — it comes down to whether or not the suspicion is reasonable. Where suspicion is reasonable, we shouldn't link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The preliminary injunction is vacated, but the court's tendency there was clear. It was not vacated because they reversed their inclination, but because the parties settled privately. Do we really want for Wikipedia or one of our content reusers (the ones we encourage to copy us) to be a new test case? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor182 refusing to acknowledge consensus on edit

Resolved

 – Blocked again (48 hours this time). Create a new thread here if he does it again. N419BH 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor182 (talk) continues to disregard consensus formed over the images to be included in the article Paracetamol. He keeps removing an image of a generic version of the drug calling it "redundant" - however, this conflicts with logic as the article is on the generic version and there is no other image of a generic.

A talk page on image consensus was formed, and consensus was reached to include the generic drug image.

I ask for the image to be reinstated and Editor182 sanctioned as he is a repeat offender. In accordance with the rules of this forum, Editor182 has been notified of this page. --Kristoferb (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned about this several times, and I recently blocked for 24 hours because of it, so I've just blocked for 48. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

Assistance at UAA would be most appreciated. APK whisper in my ear 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:User 202.21.158.11

See the talk page, User talk:User 202.21.158.11: "instead, this user is using sockpuppets". Anyone we know? Only edits are to Republic Polytechnic. Or shall we just ignore? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm being dense. It is User talk:202.21.158.11 S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jezhotwells

I thought the decision to delete unreferenced BLPs was disapproved and that it was agreed it is best for editors to gradually work through them sourcing them. Why then are editors like Jezhotwells systematically adding deletion prods to old articles on our backlog for sorting anyway with often decent articles like Joan Puigcercós i Boixassa, just because they need a source. He doesn't give the orders and dictate to people what they should be doing. Wikipedia runs by volunteers doing work which is their own choice to do. Given that people are gradually working through articles and we are keeping up with our on going targers, I've done more than my share of referencing BLP's over the last few months what is the point in this course of action? Its almost as if he is threatening people just to get a job done. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How much is this being done by Jezhotwells and others? Repeatedly adding a prod when you know the deletion is likely to be controversial is disruptive, and sticky prod only applies to new (post-March) BLPs, not the backlog. He should be trying to source this kind of article not just forcing others to do the work. Fences&Windows 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He has added tons of prods to OLD articles and had them removed by another adminstrator already. Now he is not getting his own way he has persisted to take all of those with removed prods to AFD even if notability is asserted like Ólafur Haukur Símonarson and Marta Ribera to prove his point, whether or not they clearly meet our content requirements on not. From what I;ve seen most that he has prodded and AFD'd to date are clearly notable and are potentially good articles but need sources. Given that the issue is gradually being addressed I find his behaviour erratic and potentially damaging in that he is clearly happy to see notable articles deleted because he cannot be nothered to spend a minute or two saving them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I have not repeatedly added Prods, I have added prods to articles that have remained with unsourced tags for some time, in some cases over two years. As a result of my actions many editors have been prodded into providing sources for articles they created up to four years ago. I have provided sources for many articles that I have found, I have removed unref tags from artciles that have been sourced, however badly. Article authors have already been warned by Dashbot of unsourced BLPs that they have created, but many have chosen to do nothing about this. I will now stop going through the unsourced Spain artciles and leave their authors to provide sourcing. One assumes that responsible editors would watchlist articles that they create and not lazily rely on others to provide sources. Thanks to User:Fences and windows for notifying me of this thread. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You have my support to rerun Dashbot and renotify editors about their outstanding articles. But forcing people to do work is going to create a lot of resentment. Remember that a lot of the BLPs were actually created before a lot of people were even aware of the BLP thing and before the unreferenced BLP issue blew up into something large scale. A lot of people thought they were helping wikipedia with their article creations and merely just need reminding of the issue. I'll attend to more on my list over the coming days. A reminder to people would be more suitable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean "repeatedly" on the same article, I meant "habitually". The flip side of prodding without due care is deprodding without due care. "Saving" an unsourced article by adding a single reference (usually a bare link) to cite one fact is gamesmanship rather than article improvement. But too many prods and BLP prods overwhelm people and lead them into this unproductive response. I agree with Dr Blofeld that a re-run of Dashbot would be welcome, making it clear that unsourced articles on living people are increasingly unpopular and do need sourcing asap. Fences&Windows 20:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting in my oar because one of my older interwiki translations (Elisa Montés) was prodded in the same way. It took some digging, but I found what appear to me to be viable sources (including a dictionary of Spanish actors on Google Books). I was able to do this in about fifteen minutes this morning; it wasn't that difficult to find something using a Spanish-language search. And I don't speak Spanish, even... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

@Blofeld: Frankly, this isn't much different than creating one-line stubs about random villages and expecting people to add to them to make them actually useful, except that these BLPs have a far greater chance of causing harm. While he should exercise caution, your definition of "controversial" or "obvious" notability may not jive with others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh do fuch off, I've expanded more stubs on villages and made more DYKs than you've made snide remarks (which is tremendously high). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I second what Dr. Blofeld says. User:Jezhotwells' actions are disruptive - as much to his/her own editing as to anyone else's. S/He seems to be adding a large number of prod notices to easily-sourced older BLPs when it would take him/her far less time to simply add the references him/herself, as I have pointed out to him/her. While s/he is within his/her rights to add prod notices to such articles, in doing so s/he is engaging in editing which is far more destructive than constructive when less work could be done to actually add the reference. It could easily be construed as disruptive editing, as under those circumstances (in which the editor is deliberately making more work for him/herself) it is in effect a form of WP:POINT. At the verfy least, User:Jezhotwells needs to become acquainted with the points listed at Wikipedia:BEFORE - especially point 9, of which s/he seems to be unaware. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BEFORE is advice for users thinking of launching an AFD, it is not required for a PROD. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(←) Let's be clear that unsourced content has no place on Wikipedia. I support a proportionate attempt to clear out content some of which has remained unreferenced for five year. It is not up to Jezza to find sources for everything he comes across -- that was the responsibility of the original contributors. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear about something else: PROD is only for uncontroversial deletion. Using it to force mass cleanup and sourcing is an abuse of PROD, and is disruptive behaviour. And however much I agree with your cry against unsourced material, actually only unverifiable material (as opposed to unverified material) has no place on Wikipedia according to policy. Fences&Windows 19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can quote from it too: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed" and "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." You can't just suddenly interpret WP:V as banning unsourced content. A scorched earth approach to cleanse the encyclopedia of unsourced material might be satisfying, but it doesn't do anything to actually help improve Wikipedia. And are you going to concede that PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions? Fences&Windows 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I ever denied that "PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions". Unfortunately it seems that proposing a non-notable article, unreferenced since it was written five years ago, and tagged for two years, can still be made into a controversy by some people who never previously troubled themselves to improve the article. So who gets to say it's uncontroversial? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if an article hasn't been deleted in the five years it's been around, it's safe to assume its deletion is going to be controversial, so it should be taken to AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And there was me thinking it's safe to assume no-one cares enough to do the work required to keep it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though this thread appears to be resolved, I'd like to point out that Kenilworth Terrace is making an erroneous assumption here. One cannot assume that just because an article has sat untouched in an unsatisfactory state for a long time that it is fodder for AfD. There are over 3.3 million articles on Wikipedia, & in an increasing number of cases the editor who can improve an article from a one-sentence stub to a useful article simply doesn't know the article exists. Just a few days ago I stumbled across an article that had sat as a one-sentence stub for over six years. I spent the time to remove an obvious copyright violation (which had sat unnoticed for about 6 months), then properly expand the article so that it contains some useful content. And I have been actively looking for unnoticed Ethiopia-related articles for years in order to do the work that Kenilworth Terrace expects other editors to do. If I can miss these kinds of articles, so can other editors. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And WP:PRESERVE is policy too: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot.. . Instead of deleting text, consider ... doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself." Fences&Windows 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a project, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons and while I disagree with the timetable, it exists and has been met so far. And yes, even though we have some stuff going back this far (with plenty mis-tagged), people tried prod that way, and consensus wasn't there. Now, since there's a relevant wikiproject to actually discuss people's view on how to handle BLPs, can we drop the stick here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a secret to anybody commenting here that Blofeld has an extreme inclusionsist tendency, and his views about AfD and deletion in general need to be understood in context of that. This is a good example of it. Whether or not procedure's being followed is critical. I don't see a lot of diffs actually bringing up that point, just a whole lot of posturing above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I??? Actually I don't. I would quite happily delete thousands of our articles about non notable American academics and businesspeople, low league footballers, lists of fictional characters, TV episodes, Pokemon,YouTube personalities and bloggers. I regularly nominate articles for deletion. Yes I want wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible but if you think I am an extreme inclusionist you're full of BS and obviously know little about me. I'd love to have a cleanout of wikipedia as much as anybody but blindly deleting every article which may need a source or two without assessing it is a clumsy idea. Whatever you may think about stubs I've created in the past you'll see that I am very much a traditional encyclopedist in terms of content and am strongly against including a lot of topics we currently have articles for. Once again this has nothing to do with inclusionism or my views. Tagging thousands of articles (majority may even be valid) which may only require a few minutes work for deletion is silly. End of. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend and I was too blunt with my opinion. I am merely trying to respond to your first sentence, "I thought the decision to delete unreferenced BLPs was disapproved and that it was agreed it is best for editors to gradually work through them sourcing them." which I thought was conclusively dealt with by a stick prod (I realize these articles are also older than that arbitrary cutoff, but the unreferenced part is still relevant). Honestly, it looks like User:Jezhotwells has backed off somewhat, but there is still substantial pressure to reduce this sort of issue and I think that taking productive editors to ANI over it is a distraction.

I also have concerns that the BLP issues occasionally are swept up in a rush to add reference tags without concern for actual notability. For example, I've seen BLPPROD tags removed when the "reference" is a link to the person's personal website, or other primary sources. The wide community consensus was that we've got a lot of unreferenced material that violates policy, and in the case of BLPs, particularly potent cases of why we have WP:V, we need an additional procedure to deal with them. I don't think BLP-Prod foreclosed any of our other, more cumbersome methods (and I haven't seen BLP-PROD as effective as I hoped) for dealing with this issue, not just on BLPs but on all articles. Shadowjams (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted. Thankyou. I've actually endorsed many of Jezhotwell's recent AFD's which I think are perfectly valid. Jezhotwells is now dealing with the situation sensibly and maturely and is now taking the time to assess articles and either reference them or send them to AFD validly. This new course of behaviour is to be admired rather than rejected as we need as many editors as possible to assess articles properly and delete or improve inthis mass cleanup task. My point was that slapping tags on any article at random which needed a source however decent and firing off hundreds of warnings to editors was not the best way to deal with the situation and was initially highly concerning. As long as Jezhotwells continues to genuinely assess articles and take the necessray course of action I think an admin can now close this. Thankyou, all even Der Fucher. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Action required over St. Totteringham's day

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this moment. Take it to WT:FOOTY or start a request for comments. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Captmonkey has, for the last month and half now, tried to delete any mention of St. Totteringham's day from WP (see Arsenal F.C. supporters#St. Totteringham's day for details). Despite the fact that St. Tot's day has been mentioned by the media (BBC, Sun, Mirror, Mail etc...) and seems to be worthy of inclusion; this user seems to be on a crusade and has repeatedly ignored any discussion on the subject and has taken upon himself to unilaterally delete any mention of it. St. Totteringham's day is mentioned on two articles: North London Derby and Arsenal F.C. supporters, as it is an Arsenal F.C. custom. There has been an extended discussion, about whether or not the section should be kept, here, the consensus seems to indicate the section should be kept. Nevertheless Captmonkey keeps on deleting it over and over again with no regard whatsoever for WP procedures. This has been going on for almost 2 months now and some of us are losing patience. Is there a way an Admin could look into this? Thanks a lot. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but when I look at the content I see: non encyclopedic tone, heavy reliance on primary sources, and blogs and facebook used as sources. Best case scenario - It needs serious clean up.Active Banana (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; needs reliable sources. Whole thing probably belongs in the main article on the club. N419BH 16:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So The Mail, The BBC and The Mirror are all blogs and facebook? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys - please take whatever Saebhiar says with a large pinch of salt. He's the progenitor of this fatuous nonsense, and is aiming to keep it on Wikipedia in order to make it a self-fulfulling prophecy. It's a clear-cut case of circular referencing. Please read the discussion on the Talk page, which emphatically does *not* come to the consensus that a section should be kept. Indeed - the WP:3O which I instigated came to the conclusion that the section should not be there at all, and anything more than even a passing mention was probably too much.

Additionally, I wholly refute the claims I've been uncooperative - and anything more than a cursory glance at the Talk page will confirm this. Captmonkey (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment about the concept itself(I have now commented below). However you haven't exactly shown good faith by slinging around phrases such as "complete and utter fabrication, and is only being kept present on the article due to the antics of Arsenal fans", "crackpot internet-generated fabrication","puerile nonsense", "un-notable internet twaddle", "fatuous bumpf", "tripe" "Bullshit. Get this tripe off", "fatuous nonsense" etc. The comments "Are you being monumentally disingenuous deliberately, or are you just plain thick?" and "Ah-ha! Just thick then" directed at another editor are way over the line, as is "As trolls go, you're quite good, The C of E. I do hope that when you grow up, you read things like this back and realise just how remarkably silly you look. When can we get someone with a modicum of common sense to have a look at this and see some wood for the trees, then?". Your attitude is extremely combative, please dial it down. Exxolon (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistagging the page as an attack page, then issuing a NPA warning based on that is also a no-no. (See [33] and [34].) Exxolon (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As is calling someone a "buffoon". Wikipedia is not a battleground. Exxolon (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the actual concept - the section on it is currently too large and it needs pruning. The Daily Mail reference is reasonable, and while The Sun & The Mirror are not reliable sources for serious topics references to them are probably okay in this context. The BBC ref appears user generated and probably fails WP:RS. It looks okay to have a paragraph in the relevant article, I might draft a potential version and post it on the talkpage if I get time. Exxolon (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Exxolon. I freely admit that my tone has been, on occasion, somewhat colourful - however, it's usually only a product of my considerable frustration with the two editors involved in this dispute, who have been completely uninterested in attempting to resolve the situation and ignored my questions and requests.

I'd also like to clarify your comments about the mistagging of a redirect page - as they are incorrect. Saebhiar created a redirect page - St. Totteringham's day, which redirected to a section on the Arsenal F.C. supporters page - the content of which is a copy of the entry which was present on the North London derby page. I reverted this content, and then I noticed the redirect, and believing as I do that this has no place on Wikipedia, I - erroneously - tagged it as WP:G10. I realise this was incorrect. As to the NPA warning - I think you're confusing The C of E's actions with mine - I have issued no such warning.

Clarification - The NPA warning I'm referring to is [35] - it's then generic warning from the speedy deletion template you tagged with which includes the phrase "Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people" - a NPA warning. You mistagged as an attack page then issued a generic warning based on that assertion. Exxolon (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way - this is *all* fictional, fatuous internet-created bumpf, which just does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Shall I edit the Emirates Stadium page, just because a lot of non-Arsenal fans refer to it as 'The New Library' (what with Highbury being the 'old' Library)? Or maybe I should edit the page on Arsene Wenger, and add a section on how other fans call him 'A-hole W-nker' and that he is jokingly referred to as a paedophile in football chants? Of course I wouldn't - because it's not notable and not worthy of inclusion. The same goes for St. Totteringham's day. Captmonkey (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think an admin's going to do anything about it now. Take this back to the talk page and figure it out. I agree the sourcing needs MAJOR work if this article is to meet the general notability guideline. However, we don't debate that here. That's handled at the talk page. If reliable sources do not exist, the place to debate deletion is WP:AFD. N419BH 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I said it to Captmonkey on my talk page and I think I can say it again here: Take it to Talk:Arsenal FC or, if this does not work, to WT:FOOTY in order to get people to discuss the content itself (or start a request for comments!). Captmonkey seems to have understood now that they were not handling this issue correctly and hopefully WP:CIVILity will return to this debate. I think everyone involved is aware that edit-warring over this issue, as well as further incivility and personal attacks, will result in sanctions against the editor(s) involved in such behavior. At the moment, I see no need for any admin intervention - hopefully this will not change. Regards SoWhy 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:FOOTY will have to be the first call - going to either Talk:Arsenal FC or Talk:Tottenham Hotspur FC is hardly going to give unbiased opinion. Captmonkey (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would concur - go to WP:FOOTY and throw it open to the wider community or start an request for comment. Exxolon (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential legal threats, NPA violations by User talk:JonnyQ123

My initial phrasing in the comment directing the user to the WP:NLT policy was really really bad, I will admit that right up front- and after an edit conflict I corrected myself. [36]

However, after a more considered description of the policies and consequenses [37] the user still appears not to wish to take any steps to clearly retract statements which include "This is now bordering on harassment which is legally actionable " in a statement which concludes "This is abusive, disruptive behavior and it will be acted upon" [38] which I do not see as anything other than a legal threat, despite the user stating Identifying harassment and stating that it is legally actionable does not constitute a "legal threat." .

The user has followed those actions with [39] calling me "an editerrorist on this site".

I am fully aware that any comments from me directing the user to the policies will not have a good effect, and would like some third party intervention. Active Banana (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

People have responded. Thanks. Active Banana (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Salvio left a personal message and I provided the templated "no legal threats" with links to WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL. N419BH 14:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Now let's see if this helps some... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: user blocked for 24 h by Toddst1 for edit warring. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested that the block for edit warring be lifted due to my belief that such action is not needed at this time to prevent further edit warring. And I am hopeful that the comments from other editors will be effective in addressing the other concerns.Active Banana (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Slurs from Beamathan

User: Beamathan (talk) has been engaging in personal attacks against other users, both on Talk:Kosovo and on his own talk page. For example, he called another user "a joke" and "retarted" (sic). What's even more worrying is that he refused to apologize, indeed doubling down on his comment, by posting the following snide message: " Special note - The user whom I mentioned was retarded has now been banned for retardation." [40]

The term "retarded" is not just a simple insult; it is considered to be a very offensive slur within the disability community (which I am a part of, by the way). In fact, we view the term as equivalent to a racial slur, like the n-word. Likewise, using the term "special" as an insult (as Beamathan did in the title of that discussion thread) is considered offensive, just like using the word gay for the same purpose would be. Of course, it could just be that Beamathan is ignorant of how offensive that term really is; if so, he should probably be educated on sensitivity. On the other hand, if he knows full well that the term is offensive and continues to use it anyway (which seems like the case, since he was warned about his conduct and refused to apologize), I think there should be consequences. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

May have been involved eh? Thanks for that "notice" on my talk page. Oh and you may want to check out WP:SPADE, and may want to tone down your political correctness, as to not appear naive and foolish. I'll let my edits speak for me. Especially about Kosovo, for which I battled for almost a full year straight, defending the values of Wikpedia. Retardation is not a slur, it's a fact of life, and sadly a fact of Wikipedia. And LOL at you claiming that you're part of the disability community with Aspergers. Go talk to a family with a child with down syndrome, or perhaps a para-palegic, and THEN say you face similar burdens. You don't, and it's insulting to EVERYONE to think you do and also a sad trend among the current generation. Beam 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My younger brother has Down Syndrome. In other words, I am part of the family of a child with Down Syndrome, so your personal attack against me doesn't hold any water. And "current generation"? How exactly do you know how old I am? There are 80-year-old men editing Wikipedia, for crying out loud. I'm not that old, but I never told you or anyone else how old I am, so it seems a little odd to me that you would try to guess my age. And "the disability community" is an umbrella term that includes everyone who has any disabilities, not just the ones you think are worth mentioning. Kind of like the way the term LGBT includes both gay and transgender people. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See also this rude comment: [41] Beam left on his talk page after I posted the ANI-notice template there. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you want people to stop using the word Spade too? THIS is what I'm talking about. If people like you with your views are allowed to have their way than free speech will be worthless. And regarding my comment on my generation, the advent of increased Aspergers and to a lesser extent "actual" Autisum, has led to people self-diagnosing as well as having a little pity party for themselves regarding such things. "Have trouble in school? DON'T WORRY IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, YOU HAVE DISABILITY!" It appears to be similar to the way ADD was treated in the late 90s early 00s. But I'm no Doctor so that's just a personal opinion. I'm allowed to have one, right? Beam 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're allowed to have a personal opinion, just like Michael Savage (who more or less shares the view you just expressed). But if you keep expressing your opinions in such a combative and snide fashion, you're going to offend a lot of people. And we don't have absolute freedom of speech on Wikipedia; if we did, policies like WP: NPA, WP: BLP and WP: NLT would not exist. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just issued Beamathan (talk · contribs) a {{uw-npa4im}}. Beamathan, I'd urge you to stop attacking other people and I'd suggest Stonemason to stop taking the WP:BAIT. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I consider "retarded" borderline-acceptble considering its wide use here. (btw, Spade is not objectionable language when it refers to a physical spade, or the standard phrase to which WP:SPADE links. It is objectionable when applied to describing a person. But considering the wide acceptance of insult in WP discussions, where much worse is tolerated rom established editors, I'd take no action here, except suggesting the two acoid commenting on each other, as all editors should be treated alike. A 4im is in my opinion excessive. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I issued a 4im, because this is sort of a common behavioural pattern for this editor (unrelated to this issue, you can see here). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@DGG 'wide use'? I don't think it's acceptable to call another editor or their actions 'retarded'. –xeno^talk 17:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is in "wide use" doesn't mean it's acceptable. That's basically a peer pressure argument. That would be like saying it should be legal to do cocaine just because cocaine is in "wide use". Stonemason89 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beam, I would encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before commenting any further. Note that Wikipedia is both a community and a publisher. While you may have the right to freedom of speech in your country, do not construe this with the right to have whatever you want published by whomever you want. Wikipedia as a publisher is under no obligation to publish your opinion (either in article space or in talk space) and the community is under no obligation to put up with an editor that it perceives to be disruptive to the project. I would very carefully consider how you respond to other editors from now on. --Chris (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you DGG, I was beginning to worry I had been editing at a different Wikipedia for two years. And I had never even seen this editor before he made this incident report, seems to be a personal crusade with me as an intended victim. Beam 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack from this user, see: [42] Stonemason89 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack? Can I get a checkuser on him, is this someone from my past? I've worked on some tough articles including Israel and Kosovo so it wouldn't surprise me that this is someone trying to get me back for stopping their POV war. Any chance of looking into that? This is kind of silly.... Beam 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Because that is also a personal attack, and it is not true, since I've been registered since 2006. For the record, I have not been involved with either the Israel or Kosovo articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, and not unheard of. Otherwise it makes no sense, I have never interacted with you to my knowledge. Why would you, out of nowhere, start these proceedings? You either are on a personal crusade of some sort, or you are trying to harm me for some reason. That reason, on wikipedia, is all too often related to differing views on articles. I have never displayed POV Editing, and have worked on some tough articles in which I've had to "fight" other users to get a NPOV. Maybe you were one of those users, it would fit what you've done. Beam 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal crusade? Certainly not....I just think Wikipedia should value civility, so when I witness other editors who display long-term patterns of being uncivil or obviously breaking rules, I try to ensure that they should be held accountable for their actions. I don't think people should be able to slime other users (or vandalize, or push POV, etc.) and "get away with it". I'm just doing my part to ensure justice on Wikipedia, and in return I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet.. I was looking through your edit history because I have learned over time that users who make one personal attack generally have made many, so after seeing your out-of-line comments while wandering through Wikipedia, I decided to investigate further. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And started an AN/I about comments from a year ago? Given your alleged personal problems it seems to be a personal crusade. I'd relax, if I were you, and not try to instill your value system on everyone else. Anyway, unless anyone is going to pursue me for this, this will be my last comment here. Beam 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A year ago? The "Special note" you posted on your talk page was from two days ago. Likewise, your comment on Talk: Militant atheism was from five days ago. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not my value system I'm trying to uphold, it's Wikipedia policy. I'm just trying to ensure that Wikipedia policies are followed. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason89, don't take this the wrong way mate, but "shut up and stop arguing with him." When two users start arguing, everyone switches off and takes no notice of the underlying issue. Just give him enough rope - he's hanging himself as it is.

Beam, making cracks about mental health issues or learning disabilities is not acceptable, so give it a rest. If you have an actual disagreement to do with actual content on an actual article about learning difficulties, then discuss that civilly on the talkpage. Otherwise, I recommend that you keep your views on people with learning difficulties to yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat block issued

I've just blocked 70.132.202.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 55 hours for this edit. Never having encountered the NLT policy as an admin, I invite feedback. Assume there's not anything else we can do since it is a presumably dynamic IP. Courcelles (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat from a kid on summer break. Good block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I endorse your block too. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What's ACLU anyway? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(Something the user doesn't have? Or is that too convoluted? a_man_alone (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

HAHAHAHAHAHA, nice one. Heiro 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe American Civil Liberties Union? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Implying something along the lines of "I have the right to free speech and I can say anything I want on Wikipedia and if you try to stop me you are breaking my rights!" Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, since we're technically a private organization, we can remove whatever we want from this site. I've seen the free speech argument used on Facebook, and that was the answer. N419BH 19:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed shahi unjustly banned

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:SGGH for "block evasion". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On May 29, 2010, User:Ahmed shahi was indef blocked by admin MuZemike because another admin (Kevin Rutherford) stated "It looks like a duck to me" about User:Tasal on the Sockpuppet investigations form.[43] I have emailed MuZemike rightaway and explained that Tasal and me are not the same but MuZemike didn't want to hear it or do anything about it so out of anger I decided to make new names. It now proves with confirmation that Tasal was not me according to this check user done by admin User:Avaraham (Avi) [44] Let me repeat "I NEVER USED THE NAME User:Tasal" and therefore I should not have been indef blocked.

Yesterday MuZemike told me to write to Arb.com or something, I don't know how to do all that. I'm American on assignment overseas and this is why I created this new name so my IP location isn't shown, for my own personal protection.--ImAhmedShahi (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock, DUCK, rinse, lather, repeat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's your usual procedure, I think that explains your hair, Homer ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: {{ArbCom notice banner|Any private material intended for the Committee's attention should be sent to
arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org (mailing list info).
You may also go to User:Arbitration Committee and use the "Email this user" feature.}} You shouldn't, however, have created another account; and please be aware that it may be blocked as a block evading sock. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you weren't Tasal, but you were the other bunch of socks that Avi found? Syrthiss (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just illustrated all this on the user's talk page. This can be marked resolved now. Is there an ArbCom or ER page I need to update regarding the above? It's all marked and tagged. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I will note that PosePetal was created on 29 January 2010, WKTU on 4 November 2009, and Abluzmurno on 7 February 2010. –MuZemike 15:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, MuZemike, you and I are doing the same work on two different pages :D S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This is the second time in twenty four hours that I have been confused for an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that, according to WikiBlame, the first instance of "Land of Afghans" being inserted into the lede of the article Afghanistan came in December 2006, and was made by User:NisarKand, who was indef blocked in February 2007 for biased editing and personal attacks. NisarKand has an extensive history as a suspected sockpuppeteer [45],[46],[47],[48] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Rangersarecool requests a second chance

Resolved

 – We have a clear overwhealming consensus to unblock this user and offer them a second chance. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Today Programmer101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) announced on my talk page that they are Rangersarecool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user indefinitely blocked in 2008 for vandalism and sockpuppetry (see puppet list).

As per standard procedure, I've indefinitely blocked Programmer101 for block evasion, as well as an older account of the same person, Programmer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). But in recognition of their candor and of their spell of apparently nonproblematic editing since 2009, I would like to ask for community input whether they should be given a second chance and the block lifted. While their contributions to mainspace (Programmer13, Programmer101) are not impressive, consisting only of relatively few automated vandalism reversions, they are still a net positive.

For these reasons, I recommend that we allow Rangersarecool to resume editing as Programmer101. I'll be on semi-break starting tomorrow, so I'd appreciate it if another administrator would unblock Programmer101 after a day or so unless the discussion in this thread shows that the community is opposed to this.  Sandstein  20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• If their edits have been constructive and they have not engaged in further abusive sockpuppetry, I see no reason to maintain the block. –xeno^talk 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ditto. Fences&Windows 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Per WP:OFFER I'm inclined to agree. If they've been constructive, let bygones be bygones. (I would have appreciated a bit more up-front honesty from the user, but I understand that sometimes pretending to be someone else, doing good, and then revealing your true identity may actually be the only way to get people to trust you. Oddly enough.) --Chris (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Unblock Programmer101 and let him continue to edit constructively. If problems arise, reblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Xeno and Burpelson AFB. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock and monitor. Minor4th • talk 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the standard offer, and welcome him back. Dayewalker (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Why not? If they're going to be a net positive the community gains. If they turn net negative a block and rollback will fix any problems and the community ends up neutral. Let them back, especially concerning the positive contributions of the new account. N419BH 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ewawer

Ewawer has engaged in slow moving editorial conflict across a number of articles regarding the State of Palestine. He engages in WP:TEDIOUS edits in order to remove pertinent material and citations which say Palestine was a State. He replaces that content with unsourced narratives.

Although Ewawer has participated in discussions regarding the general sanctions in the Wikipedia:ARBPIA case, it appears that no official notification has ever been logged. [49] So, I am requesting that a notice be given.

Justification: A number of very high quality third-party verifiable published sources say that the British Mandate for Palestine was composed of two states, Palestine and Transjordan. [50] Both states were formally recognized by many other countries, including the United States. Here is an example:

"The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations Mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit. ... Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nation provision in treaties of commerce." See Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [51]

This is not a content dispute: Removing well-sourced references to the "State" of Palestine from State of Palestine article(s) is disruptive. The final decision in Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires editors to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. Editors who claim that Palestine was not a state are welcome to add opposing views from reliable published sources. However, Ewawer does not cite any sources to support his/her edits and engages in WP:Battle tactics that interfere with the Wikipedia goal of providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties.

User Talk page communications regarding WP:TEDIOUS deletions: [52] [53] [54][55]

Article Talk page good faith discussion of ARBPIA Sanctions: Bristish Mandate for Palestine [56] All-Palestine Government [57] [58]

Examples of WP:TEDIOUS deletion of sourced material: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] harlan (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified them of the arbitration statement on this. They've not edited for over a fortnight, and their focus letely has been away from Palestine/Israel articles. Why have you brought this here? Have you tried talking to Ewawer? Fences&Windows 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's it. I only wanted the user to be formally notified. Consensus is achieved through the editing process. I backed off on editing the articles for a while, after discussing the problem on user talk pages, article talk pages, and at WP:IPCOLL. I intend to resume editing the articles again to incorporate information on boundaries, citizenship, state lands, state property, LoN and UN decisions, & etc. harlan (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please - I need help

I just tried to move the article Public security bureau to Public Security Bureau (as I felt the elements of the name should be capitalised) but my computer started acting up and closed the file and the heading came out something like PublicSsecurity Bureau. When I tried to change this to Public Security Bureau I got a warning that there was already an article with the same name and now I don't know what to do to fix it. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved this back to Public security bureau, because I don't think the capitalization is needed, and I've marked PublicSsecurity Bureau for speedy deletion. If you want to discuss moving the article to Public Security Bureau, the appropriate procedure is described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 South Kivu tank truck explosion Stealing or taking

Resolved

 – Edit war ceased, discussion continues at Talk:2010 South Kivu tank truck explosion#Stealing vs Taking. –xeno^talk 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This article reports people 'stealing' fuel from an overturned petrol tanker. The media, almost without exception, call the act 'taking', displaying tact and a sensitivity to the human tragedy aspect of the incident.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR)"
There are survivors of this incident, some badly burnt and some unhurt. My feeling is that labeling their act as 'stealing' is legally prejudiced and insensitive, ignoring NPOV, and disregarding the complexities of law, both in the DRC and the US, regarding ownership of material which has spilled onto a roadway and to all intents and purposes has been abandoned.
Some guidance here would be appreciated. Androstachys (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While AN/I is loathe to get involved with content disputes, there are some problematic / very heated diffs on the talk page: [71], and in particular [72], which sounds like something one might expect to find on GameFAQs. Badger Drink (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out there is nothing disrespectful with using the word 'stealing', which best describes what they were doing. One person's stupidity caused those deaths, and it is accurate to report they were in fact stealing, not 'collecting', 'salvaging', or 'taking'. Survivors or not, there is nothing disrespectful with reporting facts instead of the bias of one particular editor. Wikipedia is not the 'Sensitive Encyclopedia anyone can edit'. Was this event tragic? Yes. Is it sad that so many people died because of one person's stupidity? Yes. Is it OK to misconstruct the facts to be 'sympathetic' or 'respectful'? No. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your view that the word 'stealing' is not disrespectful, is astounding. Androstachys (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I've nominated this thing for deletion. Tired of seeing the project be a dumping ground for every minor catastrophe across the globe. The hyper-inclusionists will have a kitty of course, but I hope for once this will start to gain some traction. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "At least 230 deaths" is minor? Woah, you need to go and read Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Fences&Windows 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I've already made this point on the AFD but will reiterate it here. The AFD process is designed to get community evaluation on whether the article in question meets our criteria for inclusion and to keep or delete it accordingly. It's not designed to generate a sitewide consensus/policy/precedent on 'news' articles or to deal with recentism. Exxolon (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the page is linked to from the main page, so this is a speedy keep. Fences&Windows 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That is bullshit, to be honest. Thanks for the abuse of process, but I can't say I'm really surprised anymore around here. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty obvious speedy keep as I !voted with diffs. You might want to consider WP:NPA. N419BH 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Tarc, you need to calm down. I'm happy for you to insult me all you like if it'll make you feel better, but it's not abuse of process to follow the long-standing rule that articles linked to from the main page should not be nominated for deletion. It's disruptive to make such a nomination and, frankly, you're grandstanding. First get the article out of ITN by posting an objection to its inclusion, and then nominate it. You can of course go to DRV if you honestly think my speedy close was incorrect, but my crystal ball tells me you'll get little support. My speedy close has no bearing on the outcome of any future deletion nomination. I would suggest that you delay a nomination by a few weeks to allow some editors some perspective. Fences&Windows 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• The edit war is resuming. Don't know if Full Protection is appropriate as it's a current event and information might rapidly change as it progresses, but some admin eyes on it would be extremely helpful. Probably best course of action is to warn/block primary combatants editors. N419BH 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like splitting hairs to me. They were taking fuel without permission. That's the definition of stealing.

Bottom line, they were stealing fuel, it was reported by the news so we have it as a ref.

I don't see an issue with wording it as such.

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable source uses the word 'stealing' ? –xeno^talk 16:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reuters. Well, actually they use trying to steal, but thats just playing semantics to say they don't mean the same. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

MikeHydro repeatedly adding personal commentary to articles

MikeHydro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly, over a period of about six months, added personal commentaries and unsourced additions to a series of articles. He has been warned on several occasions by several editors but has not ceased or even responded, either on his talk page (which he has never edited) nor on article talk pages (only one of which he has edited during his entire career as an editor). Virtually every edit he has ever made appears to be original research or personal opinion, often criticising the rest of the article's content. I have not found a single edit that appears to have any encyclopedic value. He appears to see Wikipedia as an outlet for his personal views on various topics.

Sample diffs of adding personal commentary:

• Corps of Royal Engineers 23:15, 8 May 2010
• Somerset Levels 20:41, 18 May 2010
• Neo-charismatic churches 19:43, 30 May 2010
• Sakurajima 00:11, 7 June 2010
• Fourth-generation programming language 23:29, 8 June 2010
• Lake Pontchartrain - 20:01, 9 June 2010
• Silurian - 10:00, 23 June 2010
• Climatic Research Unit email controversy - 23:00, 7 July 2010

Personal attack on another user's page:

• 14:35, 10 June 2010

His user talk page is full of warnings, dating from 20 January 2010 to today, none of which he has responded to. I see no sign that this editor has any interest in following Wikipedia's basic content policies, nor of heeding any of the advice and warnings that have been given to him over the last six months. I suggest, given the total lack of response and his persistent bad editing, that he be indefinitely blocked for carrying out what amounts to persistent low-level vandalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the edits given, I must agree, none of what the user has added is encyclopedic, some of it (like the first diff) is just mindless drivel that makes no sense. Recommend block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked him, Chris. His comment in February on Dawnseeker2000's talk page here makes it pretty clear he has no intention of complying with policy. Sarah 02:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be moot now that the user is blocked but in the link Sarah provided is the passage "they will receive their legal requisitions in due time". To me that reads as a legal threat. Even if the user wasn't blocked for anything, a block for legal threats would be necessary. So, if they are to request unblock, they will first need to rescend that legal threat. Either way, it is moot with the block but worth noting. Good block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a legal threat, but I'm curious about something. From what I can discern in his posts, the user claims some kind of college education. How is it possible that in the course of this he never learned to compose a simple declarative English sentence? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting temporary block of 70.231.254.152

Is it possible to block a particular IP just for a particular page? So far, [Special:Contributions/70.231.254.152 all of the edits from this IP] have been disruptive edits on the Sam Adams Award page. He had replaced Julian Assange (a likely contender, though without a citation) with Elmer Fudd (the cartoon character) and "Arnold Snarb". The editor even cited what appears to be the editor's twitter feed, on which the editor appears to be advertising the vandalism. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we can only block them for the whole site. If he's been warned, WP:AIV's the place to go. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 02:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you warn an IP address? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I've worked it out now. I didn't realise IPs had talk pages. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's as much proof that Elmer Fudd or the fictional character Arnold Snarb won this award. If there's no proof for those awards, where's the proof for Julian Assange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.254.152 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the IP donned a new sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not yet have a reliable source for the award winners in 2009 and 2010, which is why a "" tag is provided, but the two men listed are at least viable candidates. If you would like to discuss removing the 2009 and 2010 award winners altogether, I would be happy to do that on the relevant talk page. But replacing a viable candidates for the award with fictional characters is vandalism and if you continue to do so you will be blocked. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911

This user has, over the last week or so, continually reinserted poorly sourced or unverifiable negative material about the alleged sexual improprieties of a BLP Eido Tai Shimano. It appears that WP is being used as part of an external dispute about the man and his reputation. There are actually some very reliable sources about the allegations (which I myself mainly found and added to the article) but not they do not include specific additional material that Tao2911 and others have apparently wished to include.

In the past Tao2911 has regularly reverted to include primary sources (letters, unpublished drafts of articles) hosted on two web-sites which were viewed as not meeting RS standards on the BLPN- which is where I had become involved. Another website used as a source is under discussion at the RSN, but overall, Tao has received no support for his sources from any independent editors. There have also been several unverifiable edits, in which citations are given but do not contain the material claimed. Despite the problems having been explicitly and clearly have been explained several times, and several warnings given on Talk:Eido Tai Shimano [73][74][75][76][77][78][79]and at User talk:Tao2911[80][81][82][83][84], unverifiable material-about why Shimano left Hawaii- has been repeatedly inserted and reinserted in the last 24 hours.[85][86][87]

At this point, I believe administrator is required. It's worth noting that there are other problematic behaviours from this editor, including this personal attack to another editor on another subject. [88]. --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please carefully review ALL discussion on various boards regarding this page. Also review this editor's tone and pattern of editing. I believe this is primarily a personal attack against me - confirmed by the somewhat excessively vigorous activity demonstrated here, and elsewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel this editor is making personal attacks, please support that with DIFFs. An ANI report is not a personal attack. Dayewalker (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is up for interpretation - this kind of wiki-stalking could be construed as harassing, especially when the issues are in process of debate and discussion.Tao2911 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Below are some more diffs illustrating recent behavior by Tao2911. Most of you will not have heard of Tao2911 before as 85% of his edits have been to the Adi Da page and its talk page.

• July 3: Removes talk page discussion started by another user [89] with edit summary of "removed pointless section, no substantive issues discussed; just a distraction"
• July 4: Edit wars to remove Shawnee Free Jones' book from her page[90]
• July 3: uncivil remarks to a user on the Adi Da talk page: [91]
• June 24: accuses new user of being a sock puppet [92]
• June 19: changes section header title created by another editor [93]
• June 18: calls someone stupid [94] --Diannaa ^TALK 20:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen exactly the same edit patterns from User:Tao2911 as User:Diannaa outlines and have pointed the same issues out to him, edit pattern includes a refusal to listen to any position but his own. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa has had it out for me for months. Nice to see you again. I do actually still believe Norm Declavier to be a sock puppet, issued apology if mistaken, and was supported by stellar admin EyeSerene who thought my suspicions understandable (Eyeserene also showed that Diannaa's accusations that I had created sockpuppets was unfounded - nevertheless I was blocked for some days from editing). Editor Jason Riverdale consistently used adi da 'talk' headers to write lengthy defaming comments, all of which on arguments he subsequently lost. I abbreviated more than one of these after they led to confusion for visiting admins, explained as much in talk, and they stayed, undisputed. I didn't call editor stupid - I called particular phrasing so. A big difference, Diannaa. I disputed book listing on Jones page, removed it per wiki guidelines, proof was provided for listing, I conceded point and even wikified listing in keeping with sources. Etc. I'm not the most demure editor, but you've all encountered worse. But I will say Diannaa is about the worst admin I've yet encountered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Below are remarks Tao posted on my talk page; these are all from Feb 27, 2010. When Tao returned from his block for sock puppetry I did not return to the Adi Da page and have avoided this user and his topics of preference. Here are the diffs:

• Remarks I found insulting: name calling [95]
• Accusation of impropriety [96]
• Accusation of impropriety [97]
• accusation of a conspiracy [98]--Diannaa ^TALK 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

These are simply mischaracterizations. Maybe you did "conspire". There's no rule against reasonable suspicion, D. And btw, I think you have at times acted, and perhaps are acting, "improperly." But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.Tao2911 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Tao, it looks like no admins are going to respond to this thread, so excuse me if I give you a bit of unsolicited advice. Even though there are literally millions of registered users, the core community of daily users is numbered merely in the thousands, making Wikipedia the equivalent of a small town. People have fairly long memories and the more often you get reported here at WP:ANI the more likely it is that someday you will get blocked or banned, if your behaviour does not improve. Just take a daily reading of the ANI board and do the opposite of what you see people being reported for! Like George Costanza. As you branch out from Adi Da and into the wider world of Wikipedia, this will become more important. Good luck. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this and, as I still keep half an eye on Adi Da, recognised the names. Diannaa gives some sound advice, Tao, regarding the sort of reputation to avoid building up for yourself. My impression is that you'll argue hard for your position but will eventually concede points and compromise where consensus is shown to be against you. There's nothing really wrong with this approach, but obviously care is needed not to press argument too far and alienate other editors; WP:TENDENTIOUS is an easy line to cross. To put it crudely, if you piss off enough people you will eventually run the risk of being banned, and in the chorus of voices calling for your head not many will care if you were actually right or not. As you've accepted you are sometimes quick to jump to conclusions about other editors and personalise content discussion. To your credit you are usually also quick to apologise, but by then the situation has already been soured. I'd also note that continuing to insert controversial material, especially in a WP:BLP, that is resisted by multiple editors is most definitely a blockable offence. You've a habit of making edits while discussing instead of after discussing - this bypasses discussion, leads to edit wars and is generally unconstructive, and will lead to blocks if it keeps happening. I (or other admins) shouldn't have to protect every page you work on just to head off this kind of thing... I hope I'm not coming over as preachy - I believe you have lots to offer WP and you do generally good work so I don't want to see you going the way of similar editors I've known. It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic :) EyeSerene^talk 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I always appreciate your sane voice, Eyeserene. All points taken. Sometimes it is one's role to be the voice of sanity and reason; sometimes you have to be the muckraker. I will say that I quite simply found that if I didn't act the ass on Adi Da, the page was utterly dominated by cadres of whitewashing devotees - they are, in a word, crazy. I've been willing to be cast in the role of idiot or villain to get reasonable changes to stick. It ain't always pretty, but I think I play pretty much between the lines. I just check hard sometimes; and sometimes I get stuck in the penalty box. So be it.Tao2911 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Some help with an edit war.

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AN3

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:BRUTE and User:78.182.42.14 are currently involved in an edit war in a few articles about bulgaria such as Chveneburi, South Caucasian peoples, Bulgaria. Originally I thought the IP was just a vandal and he has been warned several times. However, his most recent edits seem to have proper sources, but are still ruthlessly reverted by User:BRUTE [99]. Both editors broke the 3RR rule [100]. Please help, as I have no idea how to handle this. Yoenit (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this report to WP:AN3. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:NPA by Blablaaa

Resolved

 – No admin attention required; the comments provided didn't seem to violate WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I draw your attention to Blablaaa for his repeated uncivil language and behaviour per WP:NPA at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history among other places. Please see the following diffs: [101] and [[102]]. IMO this is beyond a wikiquette alert, the bloke has been blocked on 5 previous occasions and received numerous warnings. Enough is enough. Anotherclown (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heho. The first edit was discussed at the milhist discussion. It was a very long and heated discussion. With many misunderstandings and so on. The problem was solved there with an apologize by me. Regarding the "kindergarden", in german this simply means that the discussion lost the point. Like i explained there already it isnt insulting or anything like that :-) . I also want to remind that i was called "twit" and stuff like this without even responding. So even though i was personally insulted by other editors i stayed "calm" and didnt respond. Admins like parceyboy, who watched the discussion there, saw no reason for blocking me. He warned me for the "erruption" and the issue was solved. I see that anotherclown raised the same issue there and got the answer that the problem is solved, but one week later ( there was no other conflict after this ) he comes to ani board to get a block against me. Hm thats not reasonable for me. I also question the style of anotherclown. When he raised his concerns he wasnt very objectiv. [[103]] . Why provoking the uninvolded editor caden? Why, words like "disguted" ? Why calling me "Bloke" ( sounds not kind for me ). Even if i get blocked, please reconsider your behaviour too. After one week u try to bring this to ani boards, while admin there said no need for further sanctions. If i will be blocked i guess its kinda justified with my "erruption". I apologized there for it and stayed calm after this ( and before ). But if u think its worth a block then i will accept. With regards... Blablaaa (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs of what you feel violates WP:NPA? I looked at the two diffs you did provide, but I don't see anything NPA-ey, and certainly not blockworthy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue why User:Another Clown is dragging me into this. I have zero to do with this. His cheap shot at me (you can read it in Blablaaa's dif above) is a personal attack against me. I've never spoken with Another clown so why is he attacking me? I don't even know the dude! He's the disruptive one who's being incivil, making personal attacks and being a hypocrite. Caden ^cool 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Diffs as below - if they don't a personal attack or uncivil behaviour I don't know what does. I have only drawn the administrators attention to the behaviour of Blablaaa, and what they now chose to do or not do about it says more about the WP processes than anything. I will point out that this behaviour is only the tip of the iceberg as this user has been blocked on 5 previous occasions. Apologising for your actions is meaningless if you keep doing it. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In specific response to Blablaaa, firstly a bloke is a man in Australian slang... I assumed you were one (if you are a female then my apologies). Secondly, how am I not objective? I haven't been involved in any of your previous blocks, ANIs or even discussions. I am however offended by your language and your behaviour. Thirdly, to say that you were warned and that nothing happened later is simply wrong. You first outburst here: [104], was followed by your apology and then you said this: [[105]]. That is the crux of my objection. Are you forgetting your "Kindergarten" comment already, or are we now allowed to belittle fellow editors and call them children? Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As for Caden, seriously... I didn't even mentioned you here (Blablaaa did and then you turned up as his defender). My single mention of you was and I quote "still waiting for his mate Caden to chime in and award him another Barnstar." Feel free to file another ANI about me if that makes you feel better - but it seems to me to be an attempt to reflect the attention away from Blablaaa. It is kind of funny that where one appears so does the other though, and I think you may have just proven my point. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Anotherclown, in what way is your first diff (repeated in the section above) in any way offensive, except to the humble exclamation mark? "Nr 1 allied suffered higher casualties!!!!! No quote regarding tactical victory and casualtie correlation" That's not offensive. Your second quote " Here the edit of another editor in the middel of a finished discussion: [[106]] . So i hope u are satisfied now, it wasnt me. Kindergarden..." isn't offensive either. Blaablaa did post something really offensive, but he struck it immediately when requested and apologised, and everyone moved on except you User:Blablaaa|Blablaaa's uncivil language and WP's gutless response. Effectively, this complaint is forum shopping. I can see that the talkpage discussion has been heated, and Blaablaa is annoying a number of people because of his pov, but the answer is to stick to the serious discussion, not make a complaint here because you didn't get what you wanted the first time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here; not even the "kindergarden" comment (despite being misspelt) was made in a way which could be offensive or considered a personal attack; there's no need for admin attention here so I'm marking it as resolved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the expletive-filled all-caps statement at the bottom of the first diff Anotherclown linked. That being said, I warned Blabaaa for that when he made it, and I can accept his explanation for the "kindergarten" comment. Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but it's already been dealt with and the user apologised (or so I've been told, I admit I haven't checked); no further action is required there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought Blablaaa explained the whole kindergarten issue already but it looks like none of you dudes paid any attention. Let me explain it for the record. It's not a personal attack nor is it incivil to say. In German, kindergarten refers to a discussion having hit a dead end. In other words, it means that a discussion has lost its direction. It was not used at all in a insulting manner. Regarding Anotherclown, he's forum shopping in the hopes of getting a block handed out because he dislikes both Blablaaa and me. Furthermore, it is he who has been incivil, made personal attacks and is being disruptive not to mention he's being a hypocrite. As for the slang term "bloke", most Germans have no clue what it means. Therefore it makes sense as to why Blablaaa was confused. I'd like to know why Anotherclown filed this report (and the other one) over a discussion that ended a week ago. Caden ^cool 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the "Kindergarden" comment was not a week ago - I raised this ANI in immediate response to that and anyone can see that from the timing of this [107] and this edit [108]. The matter was apparently resolved after he struck his previous expletives, however he then proceeded to label another editor childish - hence my complaint. Secondly, what in my comments are you objecting to? The part where I said you were a mate of Blablaaa or the part where I said I was waiting for you to award him another barnstar? Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What I object to is your dirty cheap shot that you directed at me. Your comment was done in bad faith so don't deny it. I asked you to strike it out and apologize but you ain't man enough to do that. Whatever. I'm done with your little games. Caden ^cool 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to make this about you. And no I won't strike the comment - raise an ANI if it bothers you. Nothing about it was rude or uncivil (and certainly not by the standards now being applied here)... Anotherclown (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude wake up to reality. YOU made this about me when you dragged my name into it. You're upset over your buddy Nick-D. Nick-D's 5 bad blocks (all on Blablaaa by the way), raised red flags on a previous ANI. The community decided that your buddy's blocks were bad blocks and that they were unjustified. So here you are seeking retaliation in honor of your friend, just because he was exposed as a bad admin. Come on, we both know why you're after Blablaaa. You have an agenda just like another editor mentioned on this ANI. Caden ^cool 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger wunsch and Elen of the Roads did either of you read the diffs fully? I am I now to assume that calling other editors "noobs", "children" (which is what the "Kindergarden" comment clearly implies), and swearing repeatedly is now acceptable? I quote:

FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ?

Here the edit of another editor in the middel of a finished discussion: 8 . So i hope u are satisfied now, it wasnt me. Kindergarden...

End quote.

As I said above I took offence to the "Kindergarden" remark because it was part of a pattern of behaviour which occurred 'after' he was warned by another user and apologised (which he did the last 5 times he has been blocked anyway) and 'after' my original post, not before as Blablaaa implies. So as far as I see it the behaviour has continued and the warning was ineffective, it is not a case, as Elen of the Roads suggests, of me not moving on (I wasn't even involved in the original discussion). Forum shopping indeed... must be my mistake I thought WP:ANI was indeed the forum to make such a complaint and I was advised to do so during the discussion in question... IMO this discussion is not resolved. Sloppy effort guys. Anotherclown (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a violation of WP:CIV, but in my opinion, nothing there is actually a personal attack. My strong suggestion to Blablaaa (talk · contribs) is to try and avoid such behaviour in future, since it may lead to blocks; and to you is to drop the stick. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No Salvio it is not a WP:CIV violation. Read my post above very closely. I'm not explaining this again okay?. Caden ^cool 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this

FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

for me is extremely uncivil. It's not enough to warrant a block (and it's stale, by the way), but it warrants a warning, IMHO. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, an admin at the time (Parsecboy) said "if you revert that NOW you may avoid a block". So Blaablaa reverted, and muttered something that looks like an apology. And he hasnt posted anything like it since. He is annoying people because he has some specific - and as it were from the other side - views as to the outcome of a battle where it is somewhat debatable what happened, and whether anyone can be said to have 'won' (battles are often like this it seems), and the debate did get heated. However, everyone else including Blaablaa moved on, found WP:RS and started debating those. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen the chronology of the complaint needs to be clarified - as I have already explained above the events occurred as follows. First the expletive filled comment by Blablaaa, then the warning and my post on MILHIST, then his "Kindergarden" comment, after which I made the complaint at ANI (as I was advised to). Neither did he immediately strike the comment - it was only in response to my original post there that that occurred. Regardless of Blablaaa's explanation of what he meant by "Kindergarden", other users at the MILHIST talkpage also took offence to this final remark. Not sure what agenda you think I'm pushing here but you should at least get the facts right. Anotherclown (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote kindergarten after another user opened a section only to discuss why i responed in the middle of an older section. Actually it was not even me who did this and it was totally unimportant. I responded with an explanation of the issue and said its kindergarten. And kindergarten doesnt mean i imply somebody is a child or has the intellect of a child. I imply that one or more users maybe act like children in some aspects. I guess this even includes me when i respond to such statements. When somebody calls me twit ( like happend there ) i not even bother to respond because its unimportant. When people start funny discussions about me on their talkpages it dont bothers me. So lets relax, nothing happend. The simple reason that i didnt "strike" my comments is that i didnt understand what people want. I said i didnt delete because i dont want do conceal my words. Then somebody told me how to "strike" and i did it then. Blablaaa (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911

This user has, over the last week or so, continually reinserted poorly sourced or unverifiable negative material about the alleged sexual improprieties of a BLP Eido Tai Shimano. It appears that WP is being used as part of an external dispute about the man and his reputation. There are actually some very reliable sources about the allegations (which I myself mainly found and added to the article) but not they do not include specific additional material that Tao2911 and others have apparently wished to include.

In the past Tao2911 has regularly reverted to include primary sources (letters, unpublished drafts of articles) hosted on two web-sites which were viewed as not meeting RS standards on the BLPN- which is where I had become involved. Another website used as a source is under discussion at the RSN, but overall, Tao has received no support for his sources from any independent editors. There have also been several unverifiable edits, in which citations are given but do not contain the material claimed. Despite the problems having been explicitly and clearly have been explained several times, and several warnings given on Talk:Eido Tai Shimano [109][110][111][112][113][114][115]and at User talk:Tao2911[116][117][118][119][120], unverifiable material-about why Shimano left Hawaii- has been repeatedly inserted and reinserted in the last 24 hours.[121][122][123]

At this point, I believe administrator is required. It's worth noting that there are other problematic behaviours from this editor, including this personal attack to another editor on another subject. [124]. --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please carefully review ALL discussion on various boards regarding this page. Also review this editor's tone and pattern of editing. I believe this is primarily a personal attack against me - confirmed by the somewhat excessively vigorous activity demonstrated here, and elsewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel this editor is making personal attacks, please support that with DIFFs. An ANI report is not a personal attack. Dayewalker (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is up for interpretation - this kind of wiki-stalking could be construed as harassing, especially when the issues are in process of debate and discussion.Tao2911 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Below are some more diffs illustrating recent behavior by Tao2911. Most of you will not have heard of Tao2911 before as 85% of his edits have been to the Adi Da page and its talk page.

• July 3: Removes talk page discussion started by another user [125] with edit summary of "removed pointless section, no substantive issues discussed; just a distraction"
• July 4: Edit wars to remove Shawnee Free Jones' book from her page[126]
• July 3: uncivil remarks to a user on the Adi Da talk page: [127]
• June 24: accuses new user of being a sock puppet [128]
• June 19: changes section header title created by another editor [129]
• June 18: calls someone stupid [130] --Diannaa ^TALK 20:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen exactly the same edit patterns from User:Tao2911 as User:Diannaa outlines and have pointed the same issues out to him, edit pattern includes a refusal to listen to any position but his own. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa has had it out for me for months. Nice to see you again. I do actually still believe Norm Declavier to be a sock puppet, issued apology if mistaken, and was supported by stellar admin EyeSerene who thought my suspicions understandable (Eyeserene also showed that Diannaa's accusations that I had created sockpuppets was unfounded - nevertheless I was blocked for some days from editing). Editor Jason Riverdale consistently used adi da 'talk' headers to write lengthy defaming comments, all of which on arguments he subsequently lost. I abbreviated more than one of these after they led to confusion for visiting admins, explained as much in talk, and they stayed, undisputed. I didn't call editor stupid - I called particular phrasing so. A big difference, Diannaa. I disputed book listing on Jones page, removed it per wiki guidelines, proof was provided for listing, I conceded point and even wikified listing in keeping with sources. Etc. I'm not the most demure editor, but you've all encountered worse. But I will say Diannaa is about the worst admin I've yet encountered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Below are remarks Tao posted on my talk page; these are all from Feb 27, 2010. When Tao returned from his block for sock puppetry I did not return to the Adi Da page and have avoided this user and his topics of preference. Here are the diffs:

• Remarks I found insulting: name calling [131]
• Accusation of impropriety [132]
• Accusation of impropriety [133]
• accusation of a conspiracy [134]--Diannaa ^TALK 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

These are simply mischaracterizations. Maybe you did "conspire". There's no rule against reasonable suspicion, D. And btw, I think you have at times acted, and perhaps are acting, "improperly." But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.Tao2911 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Tao, it looks like no admins are going to respond to this thread, so excuse me if I give you a bit of unsolicited advice. Even though there are literally millions of registered users, the core community of daily users is numbered merely in the thousands, making Wikipedia the equivalent of a small town. People have fairly long memories and the more often you get reported here at WP:ANI the more likely it is that someday you will get blocked or banned, if your behaviour does not improve. Just take a daily reading of the ANI board and do the opposite of what you see people being reported for! Like George Costanza. As you branch out from Adi Da and into the wider world of Wikipedia, this will become more important. Good luck. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this and, as I still keep half an eye on Adi Da, recognised the names. Diannaa gives some sound advice, Tao, regarding the sort of reputation to avoid building up for yourself. My impression is that you'll argue hard for your position but will eventually concede points and compromise where consensus is shown to be against you. There's nothing really wrong with this approach, but obviously care is needed not to press argument too far and alienate other editors; WP:TENDENTIOUS is an easy line to cross. To put it crudely, if you piss off enough people you will eventually run the risk of being banned, and in the chorus of voices calling for your head not many will care if you were actually right or not. As you've accepted you are sometimes quick to jump to conclusions about other editors and personalise content discussion. To your credit you are usually also quick to apologise, but by then the situation has already been soured. I'd also note that continuing to insert controversial material, especially in a WP:BLP, that is resisted by multiple editors is most definitely a blockable offence. You've a habit of making edits while discussing instead of after discussing - this bypasses discussion, leads to edit wars and is generally unconstructive, and will lead to blocks if it keeps happening. I (or other admins) shouldn't have to protect every page you work on just to head off this kind of thing... I hope I'm not coming over as preachy - I believe you have lots to offer WP and you do generally good work so I don't want to see you going the way of similar editors I've known. It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic :) EyeSerene^talk 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I always appreciate your sane voice, Eyeserene. All points taken. Sometimes it is one's role to be the voice of sanity and reason; sometimes you have to be the muckraker. I will say that I quite simply found that if I didn't act the ass on Adi Da, the page was utterly dominated by cadres of whitewashing devotees - they are, in a word, crazy. I've been willing to be cast in the role of idiot or villain to get reasonable changes to stick. It ain't always pretty, but I think I play pretty much between the lines. I just check hard sometimes; and sometimes I get stuck in the penalty box. So be it.Tao2911 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pdfpdf

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

Previous discussion at 29 June 2010

He's continuing personal attacks against me[135] [136] [[137]] [138], disrupting the article talk page after disrupting the discussions here. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Pdfpdf contributing constructively to the project with these snarky comments to everything. I recommend a short block (31 hours?) for at least personal attacks and disruptive editing. The user needs to also review the policies of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Neutralhomer (even if I'd propose a 72-hour block). Pdfpdf was warned by Fastily that "further attitude and/or disruption would result in a block" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#Personal attacks by Pdfpdf). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching all this take place for some time and also agree with the move to block. (Note: I am not an admin). Yworo (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And he continues [139]. Could someone undo this disruptive edit made after he was notified of the discussion here? --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the edit and posted a 3RR warning to Pdfpdf's page. I should remind Ronz though you are bound by those same 3RR rules. There are more eyes on the page now, let someone else revert so you don't get blocked as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Exactly my thoughts when I requested it be reverted rather than reverting it myself. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• You may as well also tag Pdfpdf with misuse of rollback feature. HalfShadow 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • TWINKLE didn't have a tag for that so I did a manual note instead. Just as good. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please explain to me why Ronz is permitted to alter my contributions on talk pages, and thus change the intent of my contributions and statements?

Would somebody please explain why when I restore the text to my original intent, I am persecuted and threatened?

I don't see Pdfpdf contributing constructively to the project - Well, please look at all of my contributions. I am trying to add value to WP. Ronz seems to be going to considerable effort to prevent me from doing this.

Ronz refuses to engage in discussion, ignores consensus, and will only countenance his view of the world. The ONLY "contributions" I see Ronz making are to disrupt me from trying to make improvements to WP.

I have five or six articles on the go to which I am actually adding value. I don't see Ronz adding any value to anything - just complaining, without explaining his complaints, and hindering me. Why isn't Ronz contributing to a solution to the problems he is complaining about? When I read Ronz's comments on talk pages, I see more about WP:Point than I do about anything positive or useful.

I could go on at length, and in the past have done so, but it was a complete waste of time and achieved nothing.

I am disturbed that the comments above, and previously, are so one-sided. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not of "value". It is a snarky personal attack intent on starting a fight and Ronz is right to collapse it as it is completely not necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. And what is your assessment of the following? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I find neither of the two responses above compelling reasons for inclusion. Neither address Johnuniq's WP:NOTDIRECTORY concerns.

I find neither of the two responses above compelling reasons for inclusion. Neither address Johnuniq's WP:NOTDIRECTORY concerns.

Editors can start an RfC if they'd like. Until then, I'm removing it. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, first don't add posts like that so it appears that a user has posted to this thread when they haven't. Second, I agree with Ronz's removal, which I thought I made clear above. It was a snarky personal attack that was completely unnecessary and brought nothing to the conversation. Your intent was to start an argument with that comment and I believe it still is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence appears confusing enough that this not a good candidate for action at ANI without more data. The dispute at Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows seems to be where this ANI post came from. Maybe some admins could take a look at that dispute and see if they can assist. Opening a WP:RFC about the article could be worthwhile. A temporary halt to all modification of the talk page by anyone except the original poster might be in order. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've demonstrated with diffs that Pdfpdf has continued the same type of behavior which he was told just a week ago to stop at risk of being blocked. Pdfpdf has responded as before, with further attacks on me here in this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's quite enough. Pdfpdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked 72 hours for violations of WP:NPA. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

With the block, shall we mark this resolved? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

94.18.113.246‎ edits on Foreclusion

Resolved

 – Short block + detailed advice from BWilkins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user is aggressively adding and re-adding a wall of gobbledegook to Foreclusion: see recent edits at [140] Please could an admin take a look and take whatever action they think appropriate. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I have blocked the IP editor for personal attacks and disruption, may I remind you of your role in this. First, if the editor does not know the rules, how can he abide by them? A Welcome template is always useful. Next, when an editor breaks policy you discuss it with them: escalating warning templates can be used, but discussion is best. Third, before bringing an ANI (or even a WQA), you are supposed to try and resolve the issue directly with them on their talkpage. Finally, after appropriate warnings, vandalism is supposed to go to WP:AIV - if it's a content dispute, there are other methods as per WP:DR. so, the 3hr rest I gave him will be enough for him to read policies and learn (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. Noted. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Some help with an edit war.

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AN3

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:BRUTE and User:78.182.42.14 are currently involved in an edit war in a few articles about bulgaria such as Chveneburi, South Caucasian peoples, Bulgaria. Originally I thought the IP was just a vandal and he has been warned several times. However, his most recent edits seem to have proper sources, but are still ruthlessly reverted by User:BRUTE [141]. Both editors broke the 3RR rule [142]. Please help, as I have no idea how to handle this. Yoenit (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this report to WP:AN3. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

91.110.*.*/17

This address range is registered to Orange. They are a mobile phone service provider in the UK. The edits coming from a particular user of this service have been extraordinarily disruptive for months. The earliest that I can find disruption is with this edit in December 2009.

Since then there have been multiple incidents with vandalism to Input/output, Input, and Solihull College. The vandalism has included apparent personal information including phone numbers and facebook accounts. Many of the individual entries have been suppressed.

The frequency of occurrence is right around every few weeks. This has been a bit of work to clean up. We're getting owned by this individual.

So what we have is some person using their web capable phone to insert rubbish in the encyclopedia. Is a block to this IP range justified? Dawnseeker2000 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The range would appear to be 91.110.128.0/17 by the way. Semi-protection would seem appropriate given the target concentration and usage by other users. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Soxred93's tool shows the most recent 50 edits from this range. The edits are about 50% vandalism since 1 July. I could see the logic of blocking this range for about a week each time there is a new outburst of vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Chances are good that this sockpuppet investigation is related. All IP users are from Birmingham. Juvenile vandalism is similar too. Dawnseeker2000 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone considered reporting this to the Wikipedia:Abuse response as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've started Wikipedia:Abuse response/91.110.236.9. Dawnseeker2000 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange is also in Spain too. Just a note. -Tommy! [message] 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for, well, some additional action

RBI - Tiptoety talk 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins, I request some additional action. This edit is not unique and over the past several months my user and talk pages have been redirected or subjected to vandalism making fun of a debilitating medical condition that I suffer from. I would like to request some additional action be taken. Possibly a checkuser to find who is making these edits and a permablock on all their accounts. I have a sneaking suspicion (without any proof) that there may be a goodhand-badhand account that is active. I am crying as I write this because it hurts so much to be made fun of, on top of all the physical pain and emotional pain that I suffer from the loss of my health. Basket of Puppies 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I see it was Alison that blocked that account - I believe she has checkuser access so you could ask her to take another look. Semiprotection of your talkpage may be another option. Beyond that, really the best strategy is to ignore as far as possible the provocation. It's difficult I know, but perhaps you can take some comfort in the fact that this type of behaviour merely exposes whoever's doing it as the worst possible sort of coward. Frankly, edits like that are beneath contempt and I think you should give it no more notice than you would a fart in a thunderstorm. EyeSerenetalk 10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) We can be fairly certain that it's a certain banned user who made the edits, but it's actually impossible to permablock them or anyone else. I'll semi-protect the userpage if you're happy with that; the talk page can be semi'd if it continues much. The best thing would be to completely ignore it. In short there's not much that admins can do about it, other than RBI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Just ignore the ignorance posted to you. It's not worth it to let yourself get so upset by things like this. Don't give them the satisfaction. As someone with serious medical problems I totally understand how you feel. Keep in mind that trolls like this are just out for attention and you are above it. If you'd like, feel free to email me. You can see on my talk page that we have some things sort of in common. Take care and don't worry about this. Just remember the revert button only takes two clicks. :) I'll put you on my watchlist to see if I can help at least make it so you don't have to see anything in case they get through the protection that is up. Hope you are ok now, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC) It just feels like a punch to the gut. I guess it's more acute and I'm more sensitive since I am going in for another surgery in a few months. I'll head over and ask for semi-protection. Thanks. Basket of Puppies 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Another punch to the gut. Can a CU please get involved? Basket of Puppies 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I've been quietly watching the scene for a while. There's very little I can do but I'll keep an eye on it and take whatever action I can. --Deskana (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK????

Resolved

 – User:Jack Merridew/History

I was recently invited to WP:3O at Paige Matthews over non-free images as discussed here here I saw this edit on my watchlist [143] and the edit sumary "agree w/AniMate, these are gratuitous usages that are at odds w/NFCC. will opine at talk, too" So I click on the user to see if it was an Admin bureaucrat etc. and too my suprise it says its a WP:SOCK! so i brought it here Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And the problem is?? Jack is a sock user since a long time. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a sock; I'm street legal per User:Jack Merridew/History. I'll see you on that talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok call me a noob and slap me with a WP:TROUT Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Until Jack Merridew replaces the unexplained "sockpuppet" notices on his userpage with a neutral statement, this kind of misunderstanding will keeping recurring. Fences&Windows 03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

At a shocking social cost, too. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a fairly strong suspicion those notices aren't going away anytime soon. N419BH 04:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

tehy could click the icon ;) Jack Merridew 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There was this notice for a year and a half:

	This account is a Street-Legal sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy may also be helpful. Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs – SUL – ec – fans – quotes
“The trouble with Wikipedia is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

(w/variations in its history;)

Jack Merridew 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

bonus point for understanding how I got the Sun in there; it's not an image ;) (and points off if you browser doesn't show it;)

"-moz-radial-gradient"? So, what bonus points do I get now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I get away with pointing out that "-webkit-transition" is moar-kewl, too, albeit unable to be used without moar access? Where's my prize?.^{Scene 15} Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to have a word with you about the "id="gw_sig" in your sig; teh rulz require that IDs be unique on a page and when you sign more than once on a page, you make that page invalid. (and someone should fix the dupe id="ANI_header", too;) Use a class, instead. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What purpose does this serve since it is confusing to editors who don't know your history? Why not just remove it now? You got in trouble for socking with multiple account and got indefinitely blocked. You made a recovery, good for you. Leaving this up serves no purpose anymore other than to cause confusion. I agree with Fences and windows, If you want just put a notice in prose about everything with difs. Not so hard and less confusing to editors who see the tmeplate. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is gone, and I believe the purpose it serves is WP:HUMOR. N419BH 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I was the only person that never found it confusing. Just clicked on the link, read the history and nodded in agreement. Just a lotta ado over nothing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

First time I saw it, I read it, got confused as he'd just commented on a talk page, read it again, and laughed all the way to the investigation page, where I read all about it. He certainly has his own unique tact and approach when dealing with his past. N419BH 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he does. But that is good in a person. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To be gruff the purpose is to be his gorram userpage. Not your or fences and windows or mine. We traditionally offer a lot of latitude around userspace for a variety of reasons. Chief among those reasons is that meddling is bothersome and pointless. Unless the content on his page is harmful or offensive, opinions from other people about the arrangement or display should remain just that: opinions. If you feel a userpage should be a certain way, permission granted to style your own page that way. I feel a userpage should be useful for me and informative for others, but those feelings inform only MY page. I don't demand that other pages do the same. If someone wants to have pictures or jokes or whatever else keeps them from sticking their head in the oven then so be it. As I pointed out above, the horrific consequences of someone being confused, asking about it and being pointed to User:Jack_Merridew/History are pretty minimal. Given those minimal consequences, what is the cause for action? Protonk (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start the above theme on my user page.

See Wikipedia:USERPAGE#Common uses of userspace

• Significant editing disclosures
  (voluntary but recommended)

  Things other editors may find helpful to understand, such as alternate accounts (if publicly disclosed)

That this account was *not* a legitimate use makes it all the more appropriate to disclose. This is about transparency (and humour;). There were a lot of variations, but for a long time it looked something like this. The text and images have changed and it's all in the history (mostly on subpages). I even got a barnstar for this and other such bits of work. nb, I plan to move the icon to another corner when I grab the brass ring for the top-right spot. This is my history, and I'll not sweep it under the carpet. That I've successfully returned is a rare thing and it gives me voice. Those who ignore a lot of what I say need to wise-up, as I know this project far better than most. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Elaborating on that, JM is a poster child for editors who have previously been indeffed for suckpuppetry (by the most official method available except Death By Jimbo) who have returned to productive editing. I would suggest that loudly advertising his successful rehabilitation is likely to be a bonus to our overall recruitment efforts. JM might consider a less opaque messaging system of course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks, misuse of warning templates, and general incivility by Bender176

Resolved

 – Bender176 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 24 hours for disruption and incivility. If this continues after the block please feel free to remove the "resolved" tag. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bender176 has been biting newcomers, misusing warning templates, attacking users [144] [145], and some more (Just look at his contributions). Despite warnings from several people, including myself, he says that they're "bogus", or thinks that they're send to the wrong user. Almost always after someone uses a warning template on his talk page he'll revert it, and call it vandalism. He won't allow users to edit his talk page without it being reverted/undid by him. if this should be at WP:WQA, feel free to move there if deemed necessary. Pilif12p :  Yo  06:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. The user's first edit was less than a month ago and has been questioned by an established editor with a cite. Some non-civil but accurate warnings to an new account, a l4 warning to a sandbox edit (an offensive one), a crazy edit summary to a user response that seemed relatively civil, and a few others to boot, and that's just from the above.

Frankly I wonder what's going on here. Clearly this behavior needs to be reined in. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's a very concerning set of diffs. Since warnings and friendly advice have not been well-received I've issued a 24 hour "shot-across-the-bows" block to drive home the fact that either users play by the rules or they don't edit. Please re-report if there is further disruption. EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest by Ender2070 (talk • contribs • logs)

My name is David Schlesinger, and I have become aware over the last week or so of repeated vandalism on the part of the editor Ender2070 with respect to the articles on ACCESS and the ACCESS Linux Platform.

With regard to the former article, first, this user first added several defamatory and unsourced statements, including that I operate a website purely to "harass the community". Beyond the defamatory inaccuracy of this statement, the website to which he refers has no relationship with ACCESS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_Co.&action=historysubmit&diff=370104816&oldid=361425085

After this change was undone—I reverted this edit myself—Ender2070 then disruptively added citation-needed tags throughout the article, in spite of the article's having a maintenance notification, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_Co.&action=historysubmit&diff=370104816&oldid=361425085

When this was reverted by editor Yworo, Ender2070 undid that reversion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_Co.&action=historysubmit&diff=371728441&oldid=371708569

That change was again reverted, and Yworo went through the work which Ender2070 should have done in properly sourcing the various statements. This was not, reportedly, difficult and shows that Ender2070's interests were clearly not in producing a better article on ACCESS.

At this point Ender2070 added a considerable amount of unsourced allegations to the article regarding ACCESS' activities with respect to the GNOME Foundation, again with several defamatory suggestions aimed at myself, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_Co.&action=historysubmit&diff=371752543&oldid=371744959

These changes were again undone by Yworo. In the course of the discussion over these various edits, Ender2070 attempted to "out" Yworo by (apparently) claiming he was me, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ender2070

With regard to the ACCESS Linux Platform article, Ender2070 limited his vandalism to the removal of two substantiated facts, that the subject of the article had be demonstrated at the GUADEC and Ottawa Linux Symposium conferences, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_Linux_Platform&action=historysubmit&diff=370107735&oldid=366501553

User Ender2070 has not revealed that he has been harassing myself, my employer and my family off-wiki for a number of months, and therefore has a clear conflict of interest in editing these articles in any way. I request that this user be banned from future editing activities, by IP address, since his sole contributions here have been to vandalize articles in pursuit of an off-wiki vendetta rather than to improve them.

A check by administrators will validate that Ender2070 uses the same IP address as was used for some of the improper edits, 174.89.137.12. My own identity can be verified by contacting me at my email address, [email protected]. I have notified Ender2070 of my intent to report this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.206.84 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified User:Yworo who is familiar with the user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching both articles. N419BH 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP address does not belong to me whatsoever. Check my edit history and what IP addresses I have been editing from. I gladly invite the administration to look into this. Ender2070 (talk) 10:51AM, 7 July 2010 (EST)

The preceding statement by User:Ender2070 is a falsehood, or at least, so the available evidence strongly suggests. Please see the article at [redacted]. Note that in the IRC log cited, a user, also using the name Ender2070, joins the conversation from an address ""bas22-toronto12-2925103372.dsl.bell.ca", which maps via DNS to the above-mentioned IP address, 174.89.137.12. Note also that, when his own edits to the ACCESS article are pointed out to him, he immediately denies any knowledge of them at all. I find it noteworthy that User:Ender2070 denies none of the other allegations, including the most serious, an unstated conflict of interest and bringing an off-wiki dispute into factual articles. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Err... WP:OUTING. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ender2070 attempted to out me as Mr. Schlesinger using Mr. Schlesinger's nickname "Lefty". I had TFOWR redact the edits and inform the user about our policy on outing. Since it was a mis-identification I was not overly concerned about it, but did begin to keep an eye on the user and observed the editing to which Mr. Schlesinger refers. I attempted to educate the user and he seems receptive to learning and observing our policies. Another user brought the issue of possible off-wiki harassment up on the article talk page a few days ago, at which point I advised the user that if the allegations were true, it would be best to avoid editing any articles related to Mr. Schlesinger. I've been busy with other discussions and haven't paid attention to whether the user heeded my advice.

However, looking back at the IP edits and comparing them to the edits of the user, my duck alarm is quacking loudly., FWIW. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I just redacted the link that claims to identify Ender2070, and removed the intervening edits. Can someone confirm whether or not I did that correctly?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Sarek. Live long and prosper. Yworo (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's gone. Dunno if you had to redact all the intervening ones though. I think you just have to redact the original one. Someone else with teh toolz might be able to confirm this. N419BH 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did -- when I used admin tools to look at an intervening version, I could still see the link.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, I just haven't seen that done before. N419BH 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For my own education, would it have been acceptable to simply link directly to the IRC log here? 68.126.206.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

I think not. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from involved admin: I've previously blocked Ender2070 for removing valid tags, and had cause to caution them about WP:OUTING very shortly thereafter. I redacted part of Ender2070's comment - that part suggested, as 68.126.206.84/Lefty notes, that Yworo was Lefty. At the time I did not extend Ender2070's block, partly because I did not immediately realise that "Lefty" was a noun (apologies, Lefty). As this appears to be part of a wider pattern of off- and on-wiki behaviour I would consider a block at this point as preventative, and a valid response to a serious problem. I am looking into this further, and encourage others to do so. TFOWR 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding alleged vandalism by Ender2070 (talk · contribs): I don't see it at all. Whether or not the editor has an axe to grind is another question, but it's not blatant at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The first diff is a pretty blatant personal attack/libel against the self-identified IP making the complaint. N419BH 15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It had, I think (Yworo, can you confirm?), been reported at WP:AIV, and I saw >3 reverts, removing what appeared to be valid tags, without any attempt to respond. A better explanation for the block log would probably have been in order, however... TFOWR 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The IRC log cited is a non verifiable and user modifiable source. In addition my previous block was due to my own stupid ignorance of the Wikipedia Rules. I was trying to protect the GNU article from being labeled as an 'incomplete' OS and was removing citations I believed were not needed but I was ignorant of the process to properly fix those issues. As for the Access Co article I added citation tags to areas I believed needed direct citation so that nothing would be missed. I had planned to go back and do research to fill them in but I ran out of time. I did go back and try to fix the misleading statement that ALP was an open source platform when most of it is proprietary. Yworo and I had a productive talk and we worked out a solution which worked for both of us. I am new to Wikipedia and I am asking that I not be banned just for ignorance. Ender2070 (talk) 11:45, 8 July —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

I would simply note that, subsequent to Ender2070's characterization of Yworo as "super biased", and his attempted outing of Yworo as myself, Ender2070 immediately embarked on a series of edits which (as noted above) constituted direct personal attacks, again directed at myself. This, I would say, provides some support for my saying that his activities here on Wikipedia are directly motivated by a grudge he holds against me personally, and by extension, against ACCESS. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the likelihood that 174.89.137.12 is Ender2070, this was a pretty blatant attack. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no verifiable evidence to indicate that the IP Address 174.89.137.12 is mine. Ender2070 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (EST)

'Cept for WP:DUCK. N419BH 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is hardly evidence at all. The irc logs sited are from a network called Freenode which allows users to talk in some channels without identifying their nickname with nickserv. In fact I was accused of this long before I made neutral 'citation required' edits and removing misleading statements suggesting they sell an open source platform. The harassment site run by the user complaining brought my attention to the issue and I noticed the article was incorrect and had all kinds of unverified information. Have I not complied with all warnings I've received since being blocked the first time? I would suggest if any action is taken at all, it would be to put restrictions on editing the ACCESS Co Article, and not by blocking me. I've done nothing to it in days and I was quite unaware of most of the rules, not all of them are common sense like most sites. I did quote a mailing list post because it's the only source I could pinpoint which said they didn't contribute to GNOME or GUADEC anymore. I could have referenced the Gnome quarterly earnings as a means to show the 'lack' of ACCESS support but I figured it would be just as unreliable. Ender2070 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2010 (EST)

Is it your assertion that the IP is not you? There's a big difference between "That's not me" and "You can't prove that's me".

In court, an attorney making that argument is one thing. Here, it's essentially an admission of guilt.

We can't force you to identify yourself, but you've put the question on the table.

If that was poor choice of words and you in fact actively deny any connection, you are welcome to clarify.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am, as we've seen, unable to provide external evidence of the unlikelihood that Ender2070 and the IP address in question represent two separate editors without running afoul of the "outing" policy. Perhaps some "non-outing" support for their being the same might be found by examining the IP address at issue, and the IP address being used by Ender2070, to see whether they're in the same general geographical area. If they were, this is admittedly not conclusive, but it would certainly be suggestive, I'd say.

I'd note, in passing, that Ender2070 both propagated the address of my so-called "harassment site" in one of his edits here, as well as immediately claiming that he was being "outed" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_Co.) when another editor pointed to precisely the same site as evidence of Ender2070's off-wiki vendetta. This seems rather inconsistent. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a poor choice of words. The IP address has nothing to do with me. That was what I was trying to imply by insisting that there was no proof to correlate that IP address with my userid and I am 100% confident that there is no direct link. In science, when you have no proof then it's not fact. As for 68.126.206.84, it's very reporting of this issue is a 'conflict of interest'. The outing I referred to is by linking Ender2070 to my real life personal name on his harassment site, not the unverifiable irc logs. Look at how many times my full legal name appears there, and how often that site harasses me. *If* It is decided that I am to be banned or blocked, so should 68.126.206.84 and I would not complain if that ban was equal towards us both. Ender2070 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (EST)

Regardless of what may or may not be going on outside of Wikipedia, I have simply brought a clear misuse of the site, one which has involved me directly, to the attention of the administrators. To suggest that doing so represents a "conflict of interest" is absurd, particularly since the policy regarding such conflicts related to the editing of articles here, not to contacting administrators with legitimate issues. Since I have not been banned, blocked or warned at any time for improperly editing articles here, Ender2070's call for banning me is likewise unreasonable. I personally view his apparent happiness at the prospect of my being blocked as further evidence that his activities here are simply and purely directed against me personally. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means then just ban me, it's not the end of the world.Ender2070 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (EST)

I think that the likelihood of a new IP editor and a new registered user making attacks against the same individual within a few days of each other is extremely low. The chances that they are the same person, possibly using a computer at work or at a friend's house thinking this will help them avoid detection, is extremely high.

It's possible that meatpuppetry could be involved, cooperation or coordination between two individuals, especially given the IRC chats, but that's also prohibited as being indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. While it is really unnecessary per WP:DUCK, perhaps a checkuser should be done. Both editors being in the same geographic area would be enough evidence to be sure, I think. OTOH, it might muddy the issue if meatpuppetry coordinated via IRC is involved.

It'd be best to confess and promise not to do it again if you and another individual coordinated these attack. Otherwise I think it likely that you will end up blocked as a result of this report. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually heres what is going to happen. If any admins are reading this, if you must either block or ban me just delete my account immediately. This person has caused me all kinds of emotional stress over the past year. If the people here are going to take the side of a serial harasser who got me fired over stuff he conjured up then I don't want to participate here. I am done with this discussion and I feel troll-baited to have even participated in it. Please delete my account.Ender2070 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (EST)

Accounts aren't deleted. Just replace the content of your user and talk pages with Template:Retired and walk away if that's what you wish. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding a serious personal attack against the originator of this discussion certainly doesn't help your case. Yworo (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to just reiterate here that I've asked for an IP ban on addresses which have been used by Ender2070 in his activities (as well as the disputed IP address), if the administrators agree that this is appropriate under the circumstances. Again, speaking only for myself, I see nothing which reassures me that this user will not return either anonymously or under another ID to attempt to pursue his "emotional stress" here in the future. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If Ender2070 is blocked, recently-used IP addresses should be automatically autoblocked. This can be done without the need to research or discover what those addresses are. Yworo (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. In that case, I don't think there's anything further for me to add. I'll leave it up to the administrators to determine what the appropriate response here is, now that everyone's had their say. Thanks for your consideration. 68.126.206.84 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UNC it is impossible to delete an account. N419BH 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. You cannot delete an account; you could exercise your right to vanish, but that is probably the most we can do for you. The easiest way is to just stop editing. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone please explain WP:RS etc. to fatcud

I am losing patience with fatcud (talk · contribs) who just doesn't seem to get the concept of sourcing contributions. He repeatedly posts the same youtube video to Amesbury. If the event is notable then it should be posted and referenced, but a grainy youtube video has no place in the article. I don't want to get dragged any further into an edit war with this person, and certainly don't want to trip over 3RR so would appreciate someone here setting him straight. --Simple Bob (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point it appears that fatcud has found 3rd party source in the Telegraph and added that, so WP:UNDUE may be an issue, but youtube links might be settled. Active Banana (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki harassment and threats by User:Hkwon

This is a request for an admin to take a look at a possible violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. User:Hkwon has been shadowing my edits, filing punitive 3rr reports and then threatening me.

I had originally been involved in an edit dispute with Hkwon at the kimchi article: [146].

However, rather than keeping our dispute confined to editing of the kimchi article, Hkwon has been subsequently following my edits and harassing me in articles that he has never participated in before:

• Hkwon shadowed my edits to the Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union and left this bogus warning in the talk page of the article[147] as well as in my talk page[148]. He then filed a punitive 3rr report that was rejected[149].
• Hkwon shadowed my edits to Byron Moreno and left me a bogus warning on my talk page[150] and also in the talk page of the article[151] He also filed a punitive 3rr that was rejected[152].
• Hkwon has also shadowed my edits to nureongi where I was involved in a different edit dispute and joined in editing against me.[153]. I was going to overlook this and give him the benefit of the doubt when he removed all doubt by making it clear that he has and will be shadowing my edits.
• He admitted to shadowing my edits and then threatened me with further harassment in my future contributions. "It's on. Your contribution list has been officially added to my watchlist. Try not to make any mistakes when editing articles."[154]

This is crossing the line from normal edit disputes and he has admitted and threatened future stalking of my edits. This is appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment: "pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Please take appropriate action as you see fit. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Hkwon that that last threat is not acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking of not acceptable, Hkwon called Melonbarmonster a Chinilpa, a derogatory term for a Korean collaborator with the Japanese occupation. Exxolon (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Melonbarmonster has not been a paragon of virtue either, if it's true what Hkwon (talk · contribs) is complaining about here:

1) Why don't you start by swearing at me in Korean this time like you did before? I guess you don't have the guts. Do you think you can fool other editors who can't read Korean? "또라이" is translated as a deranged, lunatic, and/or demented person, a word cannot be used in official Korean documents by government or mass media. And do you think if "또라이" means "nuts", it is a less vulgar word that does not violate Wikipedia:Etiquette? Don't try to make excuses but try to think twice before you swear at other editors.

I'm not justifying Hkwon's actions, I want to make it very clear; and, my personal suggestion to both users, is to try and avoid the other (in Hkwon's case, it's actually not to follow up on his threat of harassment). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio point taken but just to clarify Hkwon's complaint of that word is disingenuous. It is not a swear word at all.[155] and here are many uses of the word in Korean media: [156] (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was hoping Hkwon would heed admin suggestions but he has not and continued his stalking to yet another article, Korean cuisine, and left me another threat of Wikipedia:Harassment see [157]. I cannot avoid someone who has added my contribution page to their watch list and has followed my edits to what is now 4 articles. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What you describe is impossible, you can't add a special page to one's watchlist. Further, your insults are unacceptable. Another editor bothering does not give you the right to insult them as you have been.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible or not, that is what he has claimed he has done in his threat to hound my edits which he has followed through on rather than heed admin warnings. I can admit having played my part in the mutually heated talk page discussions on the kimchi article and I also understand calling someone's revert warring "nuts" or "crazy" can possibly be insulting but that's hardly "swearing" and doesn't condone threats and stalking my edits.(talk) 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't avoid someone who is determined to follow you. BTW do you speak Korean? It would be good to have translations from an actual speaker to determine if Melonbarmonster2 really is swearing - machine translations miss so many nuances, don't you think.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

btw I included examples of Korean news usage of the word in case you missed it.[158] to address this concern.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who can read Korean language, please hear me out. These are the messages User:Melonbarmonster2 left for me on my talk page and on talk:kimchi:

• 한심하네요. 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• 한심이 아니라 무식인가? 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• 장난하냐? 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다. 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• 야 나라 망신 그만 좀 해라. 넌 양심 도없냐? 19:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• 완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋ 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• 저질 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that "ㅋㅋ" is an echoic word for sneering laugh. Is this the way to talk to fellow Wikipedia users, even if many others cannot read Korean?

Even an uninvolved editor, User:Chrisrus left me this message after reading User:Melonbarmonster2's message on my talk page:

• 한심하네요. = You are frustratingly stubborn
• 한심이 아니라 무식인가? Are you being ignorant and not stubborn?
• 장난하냐? Are you kidding?
• ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다. A mutt walking by on street would laugh at that
• 야 나라 망신 그만 좀 해라. 넌 양심 도없냐? stop embarrassing your country and stop. don't you have a conscience
• 완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋ Are you totally nuts? LOL.
• 저질 low quality

Mind you these are comments collected from a long heated exchange. As I've stated, I definitely admit to playing my part in this dispute but these are not "curses", the heated exchange was mutual nor do these comments condone WP:Stalk.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Machine translation of this appears to be a personal attack. User Melonbarmonster2, See wikipedia:personal attack.

Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to take this matter to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but I didn't, because I wanted to solve matters by discussions.

And shouldn't I get a chance to defend myself if someone report me concerning such a serious matter? I found about this report just now, as there has been no warning message or anything on my talk page or anywhere I could see. Hkwon (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hkwon is not letting up on his disruptive stalking of my edits. [159] He is continuing his threatening tone in Korean cuisine talk page, "It is a waste of time arguing with User:Melonbarmonster2 until we get a real evidence...If the quotation from the book is true, User:Melonbarmonster2 will be in utter humiliation". Hkwon is also lying about not knowing about this report. He was notified when this report was filed. [160] Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note that Chrisrus is a user who had gotten into an edit dispute [161] with me at the nureongi. Hkwon stalked my edits to nureongi and joined with Chrisrus in the dispute. [162] Hkwon has threatened that this was what he was going to to. [163] He has ignored admin warnings. [164] And continued to hound my edits to new articles. Please take appropriate action. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That's fine, you still need to read WP:NPA your hands are hardly clean in this matter and you've been tossing around all kinds of personal attacks. Oh and in regards to the first "punitive" 3RR you did violate 3RR on the article. You didn't have 8, but you had 4 reverts. It was only rejected because it was stale, not because it was invalid. I would also note that your last diff above is wrong you quote it like he said it, but no where in the diff does he say anything about "it's on.."--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I posted the the wrong previous version that doesn't mean the threat wasn't made. Here's the correct version comparison [165] There was already an admin warning which has been ignored. That is not "fine". The so called personal attacks were mutual and I've already admitted my part in it. Hkwon has not. He has lied about my Korean comments as being "swearing" and is continuing to hound my edits. He has also lied about not being notified of this report. Even if my comments can be seen as personal attacks that does not condone WP:Stalk and threats. That includes monitoring my contribution page and filing punitive 3rr reports even if they are 'stale' violations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see, that was made in response to about 4 or 5 personal attacks from you. You don't do a very good job of trying to play the innocent victim here. There is nothing punitive about a proper 3RR report. It might have been a couple days late, but you were edit warring or do you deny that you made 4 reverts in 24 hours? It is clear that he didn't understand how a revert works and I've explained it to him on his page.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Melonbarmonster on this issue. The fact that I agree with Melonbarmonster (an editor, who I have criticized, filed ANI reports against, and vice versa) should make the gravity of the complaints against Hkwon quite clear.

[[166]] To User:Sennen goroshi: S**ks a**...I don't know why you need to use that kind of expression in public. Is it your sexual orientation?

[[167]] To talk: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet.

[[168]] User:Sennen goroshi Wow. A friendly advice to me from a wannabe-admistrator who is supposed to be "no longer interested in this bulls**t" and enjoying his/her social life. Did you want so much to butt in my conversation with another editor? I don't understand your obsession with me. Do you love me or something? Well, if you are a woman who fits my standards...Oh, and I thought you were busy wiping your minion's butt in 3RR noticeboard. Or are you out of tissue?

The above are just recent messages, if I could be bothered, I could dig up numerous similar messages that imply homosexuality, parental abuse, etc - I could also dig up threats to stalk me, and references of a racist nature. I don't care if I clash with an editor regarding edits, different opinions are how consensus is formed - however this editor is very abusive and talking about my sexual orientation and suggesting that I am doing something with someone's butt in 3RR is way beyond anything I should have to accept on Wikipedia. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All in response to you going over and unnecessarily poking an editor you've been wrapped up in disputes with for some time.--Crossmr (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I consider this matter closed. Let's move on. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now that you went and unnecessarily antagonized someone into a block, you wish to move on. I could see why you'd want to do that. Your responses to an editor that you've got a long running dispute with on his talk page in a discussion you weren't involved in were entirely unnecessary. Someone was already engaged in discussion with him.--Crossmr (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jmbernard86

Need an admin's opinion on something. The above named user edited en masse after not editing since August 2009. The user created several very poor redirects, an article for a television company exec, blanked and redirected several pages and then...gone. All the edits center around the West Virginia television station group West Virginia Media Holdings. I am not sure if the user is an employee or not, but the edits strike me as part vandalism and part COI. What do you all make of it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged his article Bray Cary as a 100% copyvio of the guy's company profile.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, never mind -- the OTRS permission just showed up. I guess that points toward "employee," though.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS or not, I don't think we should have what amounts to a press release on Wikipedia. The whole Bray Cary page needs to be rewritten. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation unenforced by Spartaz

Resolved

 – Spartaz was within his discretion, and there is no consensus to overturn. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war noticeboard section: [169]

Sorry if this is the wrong place, wasn't sure where else to take it. mikemikev (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Three editors have already answered your question at the 3RR board. If they have all ruled in the same way you may wish to take it as given that they are right? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They didn't "rule" in the same way.

• Mathsci is the 1RR violating party and has no business to rule.
• Spartaz is who I'm complaining about here.
• EdJohnston agrees that there was a violation. mikemikev (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One was indeed unambiguously a revert, the second edit is far more of a grey area. Yes, I could see an argument for blocking him over it under a strict interpretation of 1RR, but I think that personally I'd have given the benefit of the doubt here too - it was a substantial edit that happened to remove some of the content. This is less clear-cut than you seem to be making out - I'd caution Mathsci to be extra-careful with these things, but I'm not inclined to disagree with Spartaz's decision here.~ mazca ^talk 10:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no grey area. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with this project. mikemikev (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly at least 4 people disagree with you about there being a grey area, and just stating "there is no grey area" without explaining why you feel that this is the case, isn't constructive and certainly isn't going to persuade anyone that you're right. In any case, whether Spartaz' decision to give the user the benefit of the doubt is overturned or not, he was well within his discretion to make the call, and since it's Spartaz you're complaining about here, I think this thread can be closed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the revert rule was a bright line. There is no "benefit of doubt". There are no "grey areas". I have demonstrated with no ambiguity or possibility of interpretation that the rule was broken. Removed personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) mikemikev (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mike, clearly we're all incompetent and corrupt, you're the only one among us wise enough to pass judgement, with your extensive contribution history. Apologies for the sarcasm but there's little I can say about the matter if disagreeing with you automatically makes me incompetent. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll caution him (if it hasn't been done already) since it seems that at 3RR and here there is little consensus that a blatant problem needs fixing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mike, remember to tell people when you report them to ANI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• (several ec and a phone call later) There has been no notification on my talk page of this thread. Nor has there been any attempt by Mikemikev to discuss this with me on my talk page. I see that he continues to throw personal attacks aropund concerning me. Calling me incompetant and now alleging corruption. Can someone deal with this incivility please? Oh and Mikemikev, the reason I did not respond to you at AN3 is because of the personal attack. If I did miss the substance of the 2nd revert you lost all chance of getting me to review the close when you chose to attack me. I would have been more then happy to revisit had you simply neutrally pointed out the sentence removed twice and asked if I had picked that up. Maybe if there are any lessons here it would be that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, please review and apply all necessary restrictions to all parties. mikemikev (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The above comment suggests that mike has not taken on board your warning, so I have left him a final warning on his talk page. If he is not careful he is liable to get a "necessary restriction" of his own. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(more edit conflicts but no phone call this time)No chance. I'm not interested anymore. I have better things to spend my volunteer time on then helping users who behave in a nasty and agressive way. You reap what your sow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at this report upon seeing this. I pretty regularly handle AN3 issues and have nothing to do with this article or this dispute. Spartaz made unambiguously the correct decision. I would have done the same thing and I think any admin who patrols AN3 would have done the same thing. --B (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have seemed to have missed this party; but then I wasn't properly invited. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a witty comment, but I've got nothing this morning. ;) --B (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Mathsci got lucky. An administrator whose argument is: "I can't understand so there's no vio." mikemikev (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay you had your warning and you are still throwing personal attacks around. Can someone block Mikemikev please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agree GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Support block: enough is enough Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agree It's almost as if he has better things to do. mikemikev (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I'm glad to see you feel you deserve to be blocked as well. Good for you. HalfShadow 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Facepalm This is reminiscent of that legendary time when a user who shall not be named accidentally reported himself to AIV using igloo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm indeed... mikemikev (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support block Verbal chat 12:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support block as well. Also note the well-executed Plaxico does not mean Mathsci is quite a saint, the edit was a gray area, but only just. Still, no action needed in relation to the complaint, only towards the complainer. -- ۩ Mask 12:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster edit warring

• Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Korean cuisine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

For much of 2006 and 2007, this article was the site of a hyper-nationalist edit war until several members sought to put an end to the foolish conflict and change the article to a serious work on subject. After several weeks of work, multiple ANI reports and a spate of blocks on the worst perpetrators, including Melonbarmonster, we succeeded in our goal. Since that time, many contributors have worked tirelessly, devoting themselves to keeping the article stable and bringing it to the verge of good article status.

On July 4, an anonymous IP contributor posted a long winded attack message on the Korean cuisine talk page disparaging the article as racist, a posting that contained references to multiple policies and essays showing that the contributor had extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and it workings. I left a quick reply disputing the IP contributors assertions and explaining why the post was inaccurate.

A short time later Melonbarmonster returned to the talk page for the first time in years and entered the discussion declaring that he agrees with the IP editor and will fix all of the issues raised by the IP editor. This was in spite of more than 18 months of continuous improvement to the article and multiple contributors not finding any of the claimed neutrality problems the IP contributor was contesting. Melon proceeded to blank out the sections that he disliked the most and began to rewrite the whole article with a pro-Korean bias, eliminating what he percieved as racist. Almost all of the stuff he removed was fully cited and vetted in the GA review and had been accepted as factual and neutral.

My self and others repeatedly restored his deletions and contested his additions. It took a request for page protection to stop his repeated attempts to rewrite the article. Since that time he has begun a barrage of posts on the talk page claiming that the article violate multiple policies and accusing myself and others of ownership and generally violating civility and launching personal attack with thinly veiled accusations of racist agenda on the part of the contributor who did a majority of the initial work on the article, Chef Tanner. In these accusations he claimed, without ever seeing the source itself, that it did not contain any of the information about the subjects he claims to be racist and Chef tanner was making up the additions to demean the Korean people. When another editor, Hkwon took the time to go to the library and look up the research in the book Chef Tanner used, he found it exactly as Chef Tanner had stated it to be. Despite multiple editors telling he is in the wrong and telling him his methods and reasoning are flawed, he has continued to war away at the talk page. In his postings he has also claimed that there are multiple editors who have raised concerns over the content and that there has never been a consensus on the content he is disputing.

I am sure that once the block expires later next week, he will continue his assault on the article.

I need for an uninvolved editor to look into his behavior and see what can be don to stop his edit warring.

My main issues with him in this matter:

• He cannot accept that Wikipedia is not censored and is insisting that the article is racist and all that he feels to be racist must be expunged;
• He is disrupting the articles to prove a point, which this whole thing is really about.
• Articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view, which most contributors agree this article does.
• Assumption of good faith, in the posts on the talk page he has made multiple accusations that other editors have a racist agenda and have made up stuff to push that agenda. These personal attacks are what are riling me most in this issue.

My final and deepest concern is about the IP posting that reignited this whole issue. In the posting, the language the IP user contained similar arguments, phrasing and grammatical patterns that Melonbarmonster has used in past postings and arguments concerning these subjects. I am deeply concerned that this whole thing is a macguffin based on an IP posting that is nothing more than a sock message posted by Melon himself. I requested a check user, but the check was declined because CU requests cannot be used link specific users to IP addresses.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hkwon and Melonbarmonster have been engaged in hostilities with each other recently, and I did warn them both that the article and talk page are no place to attack each other. After that warning, Hkwon was fairly civil and provided a more balanced series of postings, including the trip to the library.

I don't understand why the IP edits on a talk page is even being discussed. It's a talk page, there are no questions of the IP being used to get around any Wikipedia rules or blocks. People often use an IP to edit Wikipedia, when they forget/can't be bothered to login. In addition to that, none of the other articles that have been edited by the IP, are shared with Melonbarmonster - plus a quick WHOIS check reveals that the IP is located in UK. As far as I was aware, Melonbarmonster is not located anywhere near UK. The chances of the IP being Melonbarmonster are minimal. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a concern, if is untrue, it is untrue. I stand corrected. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly not an expert on sockpuppets (apart from being blocked as one) - but I don't think it looks as if it is the same person. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of proxies all over the internet and Melonbarmonster doesn't state where he is from on his user page. --Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is grasping for straws. Inclusion of "dog meat" as a subsection along with common foods like vegetables and grains has been a chronic an issue in the talk page: [170][171][172][173] The complaints go much farther back into the archives and will continue to be a problem simply because it is factually untrue. Accusing editors for being a sock merely for the fact that they are disagreeing with you is a blatant violation of WP:GF.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing you working through a sock because I disagree with you; I am trying to ascertain if it was indeed a sock based on the pattern of speech contained in the post. See below for the full explanation. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to accusations

"For much of 2006 and 2007, this article was the site of a hyper-nationalist edit war until several members sought to put an end to the foolish conflict and change the article to a serious work on subject. After several weeks of work, multiple ANI reports and a spate of blocks on the worst perpetrators, including Melonbarmonster, we succeeded in our goal. Since that time, many contributors have worked tirelessly, devoting themselves to keeping the article stable and bringing it to the verge of good article status."

There has never been consensus on this. A cursory look at the talk page and archives will verify this. The last major dispute resolution attempt resulted in 'no consensus' [174]. I have never been blocked from editing Korean cuisine for "nationalist edit war" or for any ANI report. Jeremy did file a bogus ANI report in the past which came to nothing [175]. Also the language "we succeeded in our goal...have worked tirelessly, devoting..." reaks of WP:own: "I/he/she/we created this article."[176] and "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work":[[177]].

You're right, I screwed up on the block issue and I apologize for that. However, a close examination of the discussion starting in archive four and moving forward shows that whenever a compromise is suggested you work contrary to the proposed work around. Just because no action was taken in the ANI, does not make it bogus, my concerns about your edits and methods are still valid. You say you try to reach a consensus over the issue, but when we tried to involve you into mediation session to work through our differences, you refused to participate. And finally, please do not confuse pride in accomplishing things with ownership, I am happy that people came together to improve the article without fighting and working through their differences. As I have stated previously my problems are not that you wish to contribute to the article but the way in which you go about it and how you make borderline claims about the work of others. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"On July 4, an anonymous IP contributor posted a long winded attack message on the Korean cuisine talk page disparaging the article as racist, a posting that contained references to multiple policies and essays showing that the contributor had extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and it workings. I left a quick reply disputing the IP contributors assertions and explaining why the post was inaccurate."

Please see the latest complaint about the "dog meat" subsection yourself [178]. Rather than assuming good faith WP:GF, labeling editor comments in the talk page as "long-wided attack message" is further illustration of Jeremy's WP:OWN.

The post by the IP editor is a plain and simple rant against the article and the contributors. The structure and tone of it are openly hostile and easily qualify it as a rant. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"A short time later Melonbarmonster returned to the talk page for the first time in years and entered the discussion declaring that he agrees with the IP editor and will fix all of the issues raised by the IP editor. This was in spite of more than 18 months of continuous improvement to the article and multiple contributors not finding any of the claimed neutrality problems the IP contributor was contesting. Melon proceeded to blank out the sections that he disliked the most and began to rewrite the whole article with a pro-Korean bias, eliminating what he percieved as racist. Almost all of the stuff he removed was fully cited and vetted in the GA review and had been accepted as factual and neutral."

This is a groundless accusation. These negative comments, patronizing warnings for civility and false accusations are being made for the purpose of discouraging editors Jeremy disapproves of from making additional contributions in violation of WP:OWN.

"My self and others repeatedly restored his deletions and contested his additions. It took a request for page protection to stop his repeated attempts to rewrite the article. Since that time he has begun a barrage of posts on the talk page claiming that the article violate multiple policies and accusing myself and others of ownership and generally violating civility and launching personal attack with thinly veiled accusations of racist agenda on the part of the contributor who did a majority of the initial work on the article, Chef Tanner. In these accusations he claimed, without ever seeing the source itself, that it did not contain any of the information about the subjects he claims to be racist and Chef tanner was making up the additions to demean the Korean people. When another editor, Hkwon took the time to go to the library and look up the research in the book Chef Tanner used, he found it exactly as Chef Tanner had stated it to be. Despite multiple editors telling he is in the wrong and telling him his methods and reasoning are flawed, he has continued to war away at the talk page. In his postings he has also claimed that there are multiple editors who have raised concerns over the content and that there has never been a consensus on the content he is disputing."

I did not accuse Chef Tanner of "making additions to demean the Korean people". Furthermore, I asked anyone with access to the Pettit book to provide further information about the cited material [179]. I don't see requesting further information as being inappropriate. I also thanked Hkwon for providing information per my request.[180] Please see the details of this yourself[181] instead of Jeremy's word on this, or mine for that matter.

Not openly and not directly, but you have established pattern of making offhanded comments indirectly questioning the nature of the contributions he has made. This can be seen in the edit summaries you make when working around and commenting on his contributions (here and in the examples I list below). Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"My main issues with him in this matter: He cannot accept that Wikipedia is not censored and is insisting that the article is racist and all that he feels to be racist must be expunged;

There is a simple refusal to acknowledge reasons for edit disagreements in a constructive manner. Editors with differing opinions are seen as disruptions to HIS article and attempts at removing HIS work as blind attempt to "censor".

I don't care who edits the article as long as they can back up their edits with proper sources, maintain a neutral point of view and assume good faith.You unfortunately cannot do this, you come in and remove properly cited content and are reverted by multiple editors, not just me. You are told not to remove the cited section but do any way. When that tack doesn't work, you make comments alluding to deliberate misstating of facts without ever ever viewing the cited works. It was only after the article is locked down do you try to work with others, hence the RfC made days after the lock down.

Look at the very first edit you made after posting to the talk page. You blanked the dog meat section calling it "racist and inaccurate" - that is not a neutral edit and more than fits the definition of censorship. You blanked the section again and another editor reverted that. You did it a third time and I reverted it. You violated 3R right then and there and stopped and changed you tack. Three times you tried to remove the information, that is censorship. That was not the first time you tried to remove the whole section.Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

He is disrupting the articles to prove a point, which this whole thing is really about."

I have no idea what "point" Jeremy is accusing me of trying to prove.

That the article and contributors to it are racist. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"Articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view, which most contributors agree this article does."

False. I see this as being more an issue of verifiability and accuracy of reference being used not NPOV.

You stated that you doubted the source Chef Tanner used because you didn't read it. When Hkwon verified it by taking the time to go and actually read the book and verify that it said what Chris said it did, you attempted to hijack his statement and say it proved your point. Again you did this without ever looking at Dr Pettit's work or reading the full text to ascertain its full context. And because of Hkwon's temporary block, he cannot rebut your attempts to shanghai his comments as you tried with mine with mine previously (next claim). Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"Assumption of good faith, in the posts on the talk page he has made multiple accusations that other editors have a racist agenda and have made up stuff to push that agenda. These personal attacks are what are riling me most in this issue."

I do not recall accusing anybody, let alone multiple editors, of a "racist agenda". The only "personal attack" that comes to mind is Jeremy's insult at my comment, [182]. Again, this has to do with verifiability and accuracy of reference and information being portrayed in the article. Portraying dog meat as a common food item along with vegetables, beef and grains is factually false and misleading and Hkwon's reference check has further verified this.

These are your own words:

1. I doubt the offline reference actually state that dog meat is comparable to beef and pork in Korean cuisine. you just stated very clearly that you doubt the veracity of Chef Tanner's contribution.
2. I believe it was Chef Tanner who used Pettid's book as a citation for the claim that dog meat had its own section along with pork and beef in that book. Somehow I doubt the book categorizes dog meat as being a common ingredient along with pork and beef. That is a second claim where you insinuate that his contributions are less than honest.
3. From the Talk page on June 9, 2009 where we were discussing one of your earlier claims against Chef Tanner where you tried to use my posts to claim he was engaged in original research - Well considering the fact that original research and synthesis from personal research isn't allowed, I'm fine with that.

These three posts establish a pattern of passive-aggressive personal attacks attempting to discredit Chef Tanner in order to invalidate his contributions. This shows a clear lack of good faith in your interactions with other editors and proves one of my points. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

"My final and deepest concern is about the IP posting that reignited this whole issue. In the posting, the language the IP user contained similar arguments, phrasing and grammatical patterns that Melonbarmonster has used in past postings and arguments concerning these subjects. I am deeply concerned that this whole thing is a macguffin based on an IP posting that is nothing more than a sock message posted by Melon himself. I requested a check user, but the check was declined because CU requests cannot be used link specific users to IP addresses."

More of WP:OWN attempt to discourage contribution to what Jeremy sees as being his article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern that you might be sock puppeting this whole issue is most assuredly not ownership but a concern that you might be trying to game the system, like you have with the 3r violation I mentioned above. While going through the history I noticed that the IP contributor used the same argument about squirrel meat in American Cuisine that you have used two or three times in previous posts. The IP contributor also brought up the same talking points that you have espoused several times over the past few years. These similarities nagged at the back of my mind for a day or so before I initiated the CU request. Finally, I have to say the Admin who closed my CU request felt the same way. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

All of the points I have listed in the first section and rebutted here show that Melon has an extensive history of disruptive editing on this article. It is further verified by looking at the history of the article for the past three years and see his pattern of behaviors in the edit summaries. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy's ownership of korean cuisine

• Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please be advised that for several years now, Jerem43 has refused and is refusing to acknowledge the fact that wiki articles are edited collaboratively. It has come to the point that any editor daring to disagree with him has to face sarcastic retorts, such as this latest gem[183], warnings of civility, bogus ANI reports such as this rife with false accusations. Please note that Jerem43 tried to file a report like this to discourage me from participating in this article in the past which came to nothing.[184].

Far from there being a consensus, the dog meat subsection of this article has been a chronic point of contention for years. The last major dispute resolution attempt of this issue ended in no consensus [185]. In spite of the "no consenus" result Jerem43 engaged in revert warring to exclude even dispute tags from being added to the section in question [186]. Since then there the objections to presenting dog meat as a common food in this article has bee raised by independent editors.[187][188][189] In spite of these continued objections by independent and neutral editors, there is a stubborn refusal to even consider the possibility of an honest disagreement on this issue.

The actual arguments of both sides can be referred to in the talk page.[190]. What is certain and unquestionable, however, is the fact that this is not a stable nor settled issue but a chronically controversial one that editors have expressed honest edit disagreements on a fairly consistent basis.

I request admin action to curb Jerem43's WP:OWN and admin oversight so that honest differences in opinion can be acknowledged and disagreements reasonably and civilly discussed rather than WP:OWN editors suppressing and attacking editors with differing opinions. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

This accusation is untrue, and his link above contains an example of how Melon does not interact well with those he disagrees with. Melon has been blocked a dozen times for edit wars, including one time for his acts on this article in 2007. He is very adept at passive aggressive attacks, and has been found to repeatedly attack those he disagrees with. In the history of the article he has repeatedly ignored that consensus has been against him and ignored requests for mediation, as can be said in the example he cited. Going back [191], you can see multiple examples of his open hostility to other editors, his refusal to compromise and his attempts to discredit what others have done by accusing them of ownership, original research or bias. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history between myself and Melonbarmonster, you will find that we did not get on well together - however the fact that he has not been blocked for almost two years, shows that while he still pushes his point strongly, he is making an obvious effort to stay within the rules and spirit of the rules. The article in question needs uninvolved editors giving their opinions, nothing more. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He performed 4 reverts on July 5th and could have been blocked had the report been made promptly. The fact is he hasn't been blocked because it wasn't caught.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am making this request. This refusal to acknowledge honest edit disagreements illustrates Jeremy's unwillingness to engage in making reasoned arguments and convince regarding the subject matter: WP:CONS, [192]. Instead talk page discussion is stonewalled into a shouting match of disingenuous accusations, negative comments and aggressive attack and bogus claims of consensus aimed at discouraging dissenting editors from contributing further in the article in violation of WP:OWN. This has gone on for years and needs to stop.

Even if there was consensus, there hasn't been, Jeremy wrongly believes his 'consensus' is immutable. It is not, per WP:CCC, and consensus does not preclude reexaminations of edits that have remained even for years.

But to be clear, Jeremy's claim to consensus is starting to become outlandish. Jeremy's link above[193] where he accuses me of 'disruptive editing' in the face of 'general consensus' is dated January 4, 2009[[194]](his ANI report was ignored). That is right on the heels of the "no consensus" vote[195] which ended on December 29, 2008 with admin closing it on January 3 2009. Contrary to Jeremy's claims, a 'general consensus' was not reached merely 3 days after a vote of 'no consensus' among all involved editors. Furthermore, this claim of contrived 'consensus' is followed up on January 15th by yet another editor raising objections against this section.[196] It is plain as day that there was no consensus and that Jeremy is violating WP:OWN forcing everyone to accept his "consensus". Again, please take a look at the portion of the archives in question. It speaks for itself.[197]

Lastly, I was not blocked in 2007 for edit warring in this article. Please check my block log.

Please curb this WP:OWN so that honest dissent with the "owners" becomes a possibility in this article without having to face false accusations and these outlandish attacks and claims of forced "consensus".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny performing 4 reverts before the page was locked on July 5th?--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe he is gaming the system, Melon has removed that section at least five times over the past few years. That is a consistent pattern 3R violations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Handicapper still marking edits as minor

Following up this thread from the other day. Handicapper (talk · contribs) has already been through [RfC] where he was chastised about marking major edits as minor. He continued to do it and was warned here and here to stop. Regardless of that, he pretty much spits in the face of the warnings here and continues to mark major edits as minor...including a somewhat questionable page move and a redirect. It's becoming more and more obvious that the editor has no intention of working collaboratively. Due to his refusal to accept consensus, continued ownership issues and inability to edit collaboratively, I recommend an indefinite block until such a time that he shows that he is actually able to accept consensus and edit collaboratively. I would do it myself...but seeing as I participated in the RfC, that probably wouldn't be my greatest idea. --Smashville^talk 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified user here. --Smashville^talk 13:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indef blocked. Any admin can feel free to unblock if they feel the user is going to stop being disruptive. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Probably be more productive for everyone to just go over to Help talk:Minor edit#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default"  ?, chime in there, and lose the dratted setting once and for all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Um, wait... If we're willing to get rid of the setting altogether (and it appears nearly everyone commenting on this thread agrees), why are we blocking people for using it incorrectly? Just because he won't bow to our will? If you don't think the setting is useful, then don't pay any attention to it now. The only people who should be in favor of this block are those who think the little m has some use. I see other issues besides the minor edit one were brought up in the RFC; have those re-occurred since the RFC? If so, then modify the block rationale. If not, then this is a silly block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that minor edits have no use, but it shouldn't be a default setting. There's a perfectly valid reason for the "the little m" and they are misusing it, which is considered disruptive editing, especially after this editor has been asked numerous times to stop doing so. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I read too fast and misread Sarek's comment above, and thought the thread at Help talk:Minor edit#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ? was about simply removing the minor edit option completely. OK, I personally still don't see the minor edit option as useful, nor this issue alone as "disruption", but at least there's not the logical inconsistency I thought there was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If the option is removed (as seems inevitable), will the block be lifted? Just askin'. Propaniac (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The bugzilla has been filed, but they can take time - it would be swifter for the user to simply clear the setting and make it known that they've done so. –xeno^talk 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the feature doesn't really answer the WP:OWN issues and make him edit more collaboratively, though. --Smashville^talk 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the user has been asked to do so several times and has responded negatively. Perhaps now with a block they might. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Were that the only issue, of course: blocks are preventative, and losing the option obviates the need for a block. However, the user specifically ignored multiple attempts at a social rather than a technical solution, and editors who are unwilling or unable to follow simple community norms are not likely to be positive contributors in the long run. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite block is a bit extreme for someone with a clean block log, even if they've gone through quite a lot of discussions. It's about a preference setting; I really do not think an indef block is the best solution. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion of the preference setting, there's currently no way to enforce a solution anywhere between the extremes of "block indefinitely" and "do nothing". Hence, if there's a problem for which "do nothing" will not suffice, you have to use the only other option. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that this user was indef blocked roughly two minutes after being notified of this discussion... so much for his/her ability to defend themselves and/or show remorse for their actions. Though that may be common practice and ok by Wikipedia policy, it is not in good faith to be doing things like that and frankly that scares me; there are always two sides to things, I am not defending this user but I assume they have a side, whether it is right or wrong it deserves to be heard BEFORE things are done. Basically what was the purpose of this discussion then? To present one side and rubber stamp it? Perhaps in the future more consideration for the accused, yes some are guilty and annoying to listen to, but for the greater good of those who are innocent and brought her all must be treated the same.Camelbinky (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way: anyone supporting the removal of the preference option, please vote in this bugzilla (increase importance) in order to have it recognized and resolved quicker. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite block is just that... indefinite. It has no time stamp on it and can be lifted any time by any admin. The user has had previous chances to discuss this and chose not to. There's also nothing preventing the user from communicating via their talk page or submitting an unblock request. It's only been a one sided discussion so far, because of the user's choosing not to communicate. As far as the quick block after this report was submitted, since I followed the previous discussion on ANI a few days ago and therefore was aware of the user, the warnings, the RFC, it really doesn't take all that long to determine that the user has continued to ignore all warnings left on their talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Jauerback said, other editors (including myself, last year) have attempted to engage this user in discussion many, many times about this issue, and he has ignored it. When there's an RFC about your actions (which you choose not to participate in), and the conclusion of the RFC is that you should stop doing something, and you choose to keep doing it without even offering an explanation, I don't know how you can feel ambushed by the consequences. I believe the intent of the indefinite block is to prod Handicapper to communicate and resolve the issues at hand (because there seems to be nothing else that might convince him to do so), not to bar him permanently from the site. I personally hope he returns, despite his rudeness toward me in the past. Propaniac (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The entire purpose of this block is to get him to communicate. He has had numerous editors try to communicate with him, he has had an RfC, he's been brought to ANI at least twice...and the only response from any of them has been along the lines of, "You don't have the authority to tell me what to do." In fact, when I warned him that changing other's comments on a talkpage was a blockable offense, [he told me that I had libelled him. An indefinite block is the only possible option here because it means he cannot continue editing until he decides to communicate with us. --Smashville^talk 14:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this notable

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:FEED

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

For what it's worth, this has come up on other noticeboards. The proper venue is in fact Wikipedia:Deletion review, which handles discussing re-creations of salted articles as a matter of course. Everyone Dies In the End has actually been directed there at least twice already, by different people. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is those deletions are fine. The band wasn't notable at that time. They had very little press converse and the music was not getting airplay. Now it is. On June 29th (a week after the last deletion), they released a single which has gotten over 300 000 youtube view since, press coverage and significant airplay in Canada. So why would I go to deletion review. On June 23 (when the article was deleted) it deserved to be deleted. Now in a months time they are notable. I am not the creator of the June 23rd version nor would I have made this article then, No one seems to listen to me when I say this. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Youtube makes it notable? You're not being accused of being in the band but that because of your username you have some form of WP:COI. Pay attention a little better. Take this where you were told. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote Doc "and it's not personal to you or your band." That's not being accused? This is unbelievable. What does my username have to do with My Darkest Days. Please tell me?? Also, it's not just the fact their youtube video has over 300 000 views, but it's also the independent coverage and the airplay.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a request for feedback, WP:FEED. If it's an issue with an admin, WP:AN/I. Starting to get nasty and not relevant to WP:AN.

A simple yes or no would be nice. User:Everyone Dies In the End/My Darkest Days. This is a new band. They have over 300 000 views (for their first single which was released last week) on youtube, has significant radio play (in Canada) and independent source which are in the article. The Band has also opened for Three Days Grace, Default, Theory of a Deadman, and Papa Roach. So my question is is this band notable. Thanks I need opinions on this and thought this would be the best place.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Possibly notable. Looks like some serious possible COI problems, however. Anyone else? Opinions are being sought... Doc9871 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The page My Darkest Days is create-protected. In my opinion it shouldn't have being create-protected in the first place, but that's another story. The admin refuses to respond to my points that they are notable and ignores me and says take it to Deletion Review. Not to mention, the fact that he lied and said that the article which he deleted couldn't even muster a myspace (he said mybook) band account which he then later emailed me the deleted page which I have no interest in since I made my own. So that's why I'm posting this here. This admin ignored my points and couple that with his myspace lie, I am at a breaking point with this admin and needs others opinions before I go crazy. Thanks--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The fourth admin to delete this page per #A7 "lied" to you? I don't think this is going to happen. Don't go crazy over it, please... Doc9871 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, he clearly said that this band was not notable and didn't have a myspace page or a website, etc.. Also, this band was not notable during the November delete and the one before that. The other two didn't really explain notability . This band has been played 9 times on my local radio station the last couple of days. Sorry but, in Canada this band is getting major playtime. Their song has only been out since June 29 so it can't be on any charts yet, but 300 000 youtube views is amazing for that song and timeframe.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Three other admins denied it (first in 2008): all on the same grounds. Is there really an issue here? Certainly not for this thread. It's not RHaworth's fault. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Yes a year ago they weren't notable. There's no doubt in that. The point his he is ignoring the points that I make that they are now notable. That's the problem.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Please read WP:COI carefully. And please don't bother this editor as you have: policy is what it is, and it's not personal to you or your band. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Are you accusing me of being this band. That's totally uncalled for. Look at my edit history. I am a rollbacker a reviewer and AM NOT in any band. This band is notable because they are getting significant airplay. Can a normal non notable band get 300 000 in a couple of weeks of releases their single.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Is your issue specifically with this admin, really? Open an RfC/U if that's the case. It's been rejected for the fourth time - is that his fault? Not... Doc9871 (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Look I never created the page once. I'm trying to create a page for the first time. I don't care what other editors have done. I want to create an article that is notable. Also, why are you accusing me of being the band. Also, why are you trying you start a beef with me. First, by accusing me of being the band and not trying to accuse me of other stuff. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hm2k disruption

This user has been previously blocked for Wikipedia:Tenditious which including removing redlinks. Also just about anytime you address the content work the author will automatically accuse you of commenting on the contributer instead of the content. I've tried to asume good faith one more time [[198]] with this user and attempted a dialogue Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#smartmontools. Previously A few editors tried to explain to H2mk that WP:WTAF is a guideline and not a policy and unless redlinking is completely excessive serves a great purpose of organization and indicating where articles can be written. I've given examples such as State Park lists etc and nothing seems to get through. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs?

Please note I tampered with fixed two wikilinks in your edit. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The most recent block, [[199]]

doe the following instances [[200]][[201]][[202]] [[203]][[204]] [[205]]Basically anything with a redlink he is removing.

The mentatitly of the editor in disputes can be seen here in the Ani discussion (this highlites the issues of claiming people are attackign him when we are only talkking about his content work. [[206]] [[207]]

The last Ani discussion regarding redlink removal [[208]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest diff [[209]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In my defence:

• Review Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools: it does indeed contain redlinks, that this user claims I've removed.
• Review Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#smartmontools: The user is continually hostile and continually talks about me as an editor (previous edits) instead of my actual current edits on that article.
• Review Comparison_of_S.M.A.R.T._tools&action=history: You will see no recent edit conflict between myself and this user.
• This user will clearly go to any length to prove a point, even reporting previously resolved issues here.

--Hm2k (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because you are not modifying your behavior which means a block is warranted to prevent further disruption from you. Do please show me specific comments that are hostile to you and are personal attacks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I will be no longer be engaging with this user as per WP:TROLL. --Hm2k (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning you can't mount a defennse a resonable administrator would accept? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: I feel I've made my position here clear enough. I trust an administrator will make the right decision. Should an administrator require further input, feel free to drop me a message. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A vague wave isn't making your position clear. If you are to accuse someone of hostile actions, back it up with evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm2k was wrong about the standing of WTAF in the community, but it's good advice nevertheless, especially on Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools where we're talking about applications which people have re-added continually for over a year without thinking to try starting the article instead. What with bringing up hm2k's unrelated block log, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to win a content dispute by getting the opposition blocked. If more eyes are needed on the discussion, start an RfA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually his block log in this is key. His previous two blocks have had to do with lists. He was blocked for disruption at ANI after he created a completely unsourced list on Shell Providers. The link is above, he was then later blocked for edit warring and disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. The behaviors are related by the inclusion of lists and the disruption in edits between time in content removal and misguided policy enforcement. This is not a Straw man argument, this is saying the user has a history there is a lot of them but read the diffs provided above and then consider the "attacks" this editor has accused me of, in no way have those been uncivil or against a personal attack policy. I challenge H2mk to show me an actual attack a administrator would block me for, there are plenty out there that are block happy. Hasn't happened yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, his own behaviour is not really worthy of a block right now. If we blocked everyone that hovered over an article, or called people they disagree with trolls, then an awful lot of people wouldn't get a lot done. Okay, WQA is largely a waste of time, but far better to try to drag the content issue to a close with an RfC or the like than to take it personally. If that fails then it might be time for harsher measures. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I could care less about being called a troll. My concern is the removal of redlinks. My main work here has been a result of redlinked lists. Unless they are completely non notable or excessive they shouldn't all be removed. It indicates a need for improvement and also a focus for editors that have a focal point they enjoy. Consider work on List of Colorado state parks or National Register of Historic Places listings in Pueblo County, Colorado. Removing the links or info just because it doesn't have a article on it actually will make things be missed sometimes. It helps us fufill our goal which is to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, deleting things properly is not the problem it does and will happen regularly even in cases where I disagree. My question I pose to the community is after a history of the same issues does the rope get longer or shorter? In any of the diffs where H2mk has been told his actions were not in accordance to policy he insists we are attacking or refuses to agree. I understand not agreeing, I do it regularly but if I do it in certain ways it ends in blocks. This is disruptive the encyclopedia and whether the action is dealt with by words or a block is in the hands of a admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

These are still discrete instances which have not yet led to normal content dispute resolution. There isn't a current edit war which would necessitate admin intervention here. Again, if you want more eyes on the situation try an RfC. In general hm2k's behaviour has not broached the level at which admin intervention is required. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Review Personal Attacks by Hell in a Bucket

For those who are curious, Please review User:Hm2k/Hell In A Bucket for evidence of my "attacks". Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I must be honest, most of those are not personal attacks or even combative, or even... negative comments... or even comments. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic dispute resolution....What he fails to present is the edits between time where I clarify my remarks like here [[210]] or the very nicely worded request before the prior example [[211]]. This is classic disruptive behavior and the WP:NPA deals with this explicitly [[212]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to H2mk I was uncivil once. I left a edit summary he refactored anyways [[213]] I did apoligize for that too [[214]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• My advice to you both is to avoid each other. I will note however that the relevant guideline encourages the keeping of any redlink where it is plausible that an article could be created and that WP:WTAF is not a policy or a guideline, it is an essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hell in a Bucket tried to rope me in on this too, through comments on my talk page. It seems to me that Hm2k is not doing anythign wrong, the "comparison of foo" articles are almost all violations of WP:NOR and rammed full of everybody's Brand New Sourceforge Project That Will Really Shake Up The World. Pruning them of on-notable products is absolutely fine, and absence of an article is one of the ways we know it's not notable, because the chances of anybody failing to create an article on a genuinely notable product in these spaces is pretty slim (it tends to be rather the other way round: projects which are deleted as A7 dozens of times before the developer finally gets the hint). Guy (Help!) 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why we do not have a policy on removal of redlinks under WP:WTAF if they are non notable that's fine, however the deletion must be done correctly for the correct reasons. A;so consider what this paticular incidence was doing to the editor that just started, he was trying to add sources in good faith [[215]] and there is no explanation or even a attempt to discuss with the user. This often reduces down to [[216]]. There is reasons I've brought up the editing history, block log and previously edit habits. Redlinks is a issue where many don't agree that's why it's not policy. Consider the software the person was trying to add a ref for. I've found one review of it [[217]] and coverage in multiple languages found here [[218]]. How is this not a understanding of policy or disruptive behavior? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy on his talk page has refused to answer my counterpoint saying I am missing the point. If I am missing the point by proving that there is news coverage for the deleted product for a period of two years, then yes I have completely missed the point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Revdel/Block review

Resolved

 – firmly supported by the community Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I generally don't like acting on actions on my own user/talk pages but I couldn't find anyone around, so I protected my own user talk page followed by a few redactions and harassment blocks. I would appreciate it if some uninvolved administrator could look at these three deleted edits and confirm that redaction was in-process and blocks were justified, for transparency reasons. (I note that these attacks were not limited to me and have been going out to others as well, but this particular burst was directed at me.) Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• All three edits were easily within RD2 criteria, and blocking for them fully justified. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. —DoRD (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• For the benefit of anyone else, those three all say basically the same thing. I agree that block and RevDel were the correct approach. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pfacione

On the critical thinking article, the user User:Pfacione keeps adding his material after being reverted. I advised him to discuss his edits on the talk page but he will not. He just keeps making the edit and then I undo it. I do not want to break the 3 revert rule so I am making it aware here. Andrew Colvin • Talk 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, this Pfacione is also almost certainly the "P Facione" listed as the author of several works mentioned in their version of the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not even notice that. Thanks for the help though! :) Andrew Colvin • Talk 03:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that he has since created a COI bio of himself at Peter Facione. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A copyvio, a quick Google search seems to indicate. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as such (why wasn't this done already?), user warned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article wasn't created until after this thread was started. That might be why. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant by the two editors who had already correctly identified the page as a copyvio, but no matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted and had to go return a co-worker's errant iPhone. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

IP hopping talk page vandalism

Some IP hopping vandal is removing/copy pasting random old comments on various user talk pages ([219], [220]). Every time one gets banned, a new one seems to pop up. Would a rangeblock be warranted? Falcon8765 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

maybe. It sure is annoying though! --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

72.82.2.0/23 rangeblocked 3 months. There's a lot of abuse coming from this range since April.

71.161.224.0/20 rangeblocked 1 week. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic message in ani page?

Resolved

 – Juvenile vandalism removed. –xeno^talk 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed the following text inserted at the beginning of this page:

[redacted]

What's that all about? a_man_alone (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism... Where is it, I don't see it? –xeno^talk 14:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It was removed by Giftiger Wunsch. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to remove it myself in case it was part of some kind of elaborate marker system. a_man_alone (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. It's just juvenile vandalism (same text was used for some recent page move vandalism). –xeno^talk 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm at work so I removed it when I saw the report but had to run off before I could comment on it. It looks like someone failed at vandalising the page by putting the vandalism inside a comment, so it went unnoticed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor with 50 warnings on his talk page

User:RoyalPains11 persistently uploads images without source information and will not respond to warnings, of which there are a total of 50 on his talk page, broken down as follows:

• 1 vandalism
• 1 edit-warring
• 3 premature splitting of TV episode lists with insufficient content to justify split
• 28 image related - images have since been deleted because the requested information was not added
• 5 image related - images kept after somebody added the required information
• 12 image related - open nominations for deletion

In addition to these are two posts attempting to give him advice on uploading images.

His persistence in uploading images without required information, despite so many warnings, is causing a significant drain on the other editors who have to tag and delete the images or add the required information and, combined with his complete lack of response to anything anyone has ever said to him, demonstrates disrespect for the community. My question is, is there anything that can be done to get the message through to this editor? You'd think 50 warnings would have been sufficient. --13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)

I'd try with a short attention getting block, to see if that makes him more responsive... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; I've often seen editors with numerous image warning templates on their talk page and paid them no heed when issuing a different warning, but 50 is a lot of notifications / warnings to be ignoring. A 12-24hr block should get their attention. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor has zero edits to any talk spaces or noticeboards yet insists on doing what he wants to do. I'm sorry to have to say this but he needs to be somewhere else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgement I've given him a 48 hour block. If I'd seen this originally it would have been indefinite as that would definitely catch him the next time he tried to edit, and can be as short as a quick apology a few minutes after the block. And of course a commitment to stop. If he doesn't respond in 48 hours we'll have to escalate. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite your better judgment, DW, there's clearly some dynamics to consider here. A ban for an indefinite period might simply lead the user to create a new account & continue this unwanted behavior. Maybe a series of 24-48 hour blocks might just provoke this person to actually talking to someone -- which is what we want to happen. On the other hand, if several of these fail to work as a clue bat (in other words, no longer than 2 weeks) no one worth listening to will blame you for dropping the 14-ton "blocked indefinitely" on this person's head. (Why people think they can contribute to Wikipedia for more than a trivial period without exchanging messages with anyone continues to baffle me. Not all of us bite newbies.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

Aussielegend tagged him as a suspected sock on his userpage [221] back in June. Is there a socking issue also? Exxolon (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify this, although it's covered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RoyalPains11/Archive, RoyalPains11 prematurely and incorrectly split List of Castle episodes out into individual seasons.[222] The article was subsequently restored and I left a note on his talk page.[223] On 11 June he again split the article[224] but was reverted by another editor who directed him to a talk page discussion via his edit summary.[225] He continued splitting the article, each time being reverted, so I left a warning on his talk page, after which he stopped. Five hours later, 118.209.95.192 restored the edits made by RoyalPains11.[226] The similarity in the contributions of RoyalPains11 and 118.209.95.192 made it look like he had used his IP address to avoid a 3RR breach. Since neither RoyalPains11 or 118.209.95.192 had individually breached 3RR it seemed that the best option was to report him as a sockpuppet so that a clear link between the two could be identified. It's not the only time that RoyalPains11 and 118.209.95.192 have tag-teamed an article.[227] The IP stopped editing the next day, nothing further was done on the SPI and it was closed on 23 June because there was "no abusive sockpuppetry". Using the IP to avoid breaching 3RR was still inappropriate though and, of course, he never did comment at the talk page discussion he was directed to. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - we should watch for IP edits from that range on those sorts of articles during the block period then. Exxolon (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Behavior pattern seems strikingly similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007, can't quite place it specifically though. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, not Onelifefreak2007 again. Oh well. One of RoyalPains11's trademarks is that he copies episode tables from main episode list articles to the individual season articles that he creates, then strips out the episode summaries in the main episode list articles, instead of transcluding the tables as per Template:Episode list#Sublists. TyDwiki, who appeared a month after RoyalPains11 does the same thing and, like RoyalPains11, tag-teams articles with his IP and registered account.[228] I thought I must be getting paranoid in my old age, as PoyalPains11's IP is Australian and TyDwiki's is Brazilian but it's strange that they both appeared on my radar doing the same thing at the same time. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Kessler

Resolved

 – 2nd AfD was filed, no action needed--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this in today's AfD log? It was closed in October 2007. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be Shockoegrind (talk · contribs) is trying to nominate it now, but doesn't know what to do make it all line up properly for a 2nd nomination. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative is flaring up again.....

Small editor war flaring, people "SHOUTING" on talk page. Extra eyes and Admins putting it on their watchlists would be appreciated Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this may be resolved: see WP:ANI#Til Eulenspiegel - WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL issues. An editor is currently blocked. As far as I can see that stopped the shouting... TFOWR 16:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion there is ongoing, with accusations about atheistic editors trying to get rid of people. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Six Families of Berlin / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Families of Berlin

Resolved

 – Speedied as attack page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Racist article from a now indefinitely blocked user. Can we possibly speedily close (or delete) this? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the most egregiously racist and libellous material and PRODed this last week, but Wittsun, who has been accused of "advocating a strong white nationalist POV" removed the tag, defending this deplorable article making without any attempt to improve it. RolandR (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I speedied this as an attack page, since a German speaker confirmed that the many references did not actually speak about a "six families" group.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have formally proposed a topic ban for Wittsun; see [229] for more info, and feel free to comment. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a point of order, the user was blocked 31h, not indef. –xeno^talk 20:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin placed an "indefinitely blocked" template on the editor's user talk page. RolandR (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Counter slab and use of the word "unscrupulous"

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article was started on July 8 and was almost immediately tagged for deletion by Giftiger_wunsch, the reason being given as "Nothing more than a dictionary definition, and unlikely to develop much further." I have used the phrase 'unscrupulous fossil hunters and dealers' in this article, citing what I have assumed to be reliable sources. The word 'unscrupulous' has been repeatedly removed and I have been referred to NPOV and told that 'Inherently positive or negative' words should not be used in WP articles. I have now been warned by Giftiger_wunsch that I am engaged in an edit war and may be blocked. I feel that the WP guidelines on NPOV are being stretched by Giftiger_wunsch and ask for comment from a larger and disinterested group. Androstachys (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This matter doesn't require admin attention, but since I'm involved I'll leave others to decide that. Note that I already requested third and fourth unbiased opinions via 3O and IRC, and both users agreed about WP:NPOV, and told this user as much themselves. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to concur; this is just a content dispute; you should try a a method of dispute resolution; I see that third opinion has already been tried: maybe, you could give a go at mediation (formal or informal, it's your choice). However, there's nothing here requiring admin attention, as far as I can see. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy's ownership of korean cuisine

• Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Please note that this report has been brought back from the archives for admin assessment.[230]

Please be advised that for several years now, Jerem43 has refused and is refusing to acknowledge the fact that wiki articles are edited collaboratively. It has come to the point that any editor daring to disagree with him has to face sarcastic retorts, such as this latest gem[231], warnings of civility, bogus ANI reports such as this rife with false accusations. Please note that Jerem43 tried to file a report like this to discourage me from participating in this article in the past which came to nothing.[232].

Far from there being a consensus, the dog meat subsection of this article has been a chronic point of contention for years. The last major dispute resolution attempt of this issue ended in no consensus [233]. In spite of the "no consenus" result Jerem43 engaged in revert warring to exclude even dispute tags from being added to the section in question [234]. Since then there the objections to presenting dog meat as a common food in this article has bee raised by independent editors.[235][236][237] In spite of these continued objections by independent and neutral editors, there is a stubborn refusal to even consider the possibility of an honest disagreement on this issue.

The actual arguments of both sides can be referred to in the talk page.[238]. What is certain and unquestionable, however, is the fact that this is not a stable nor settled issue but a chronically controversial one that editors have expressed honest edit disagreements on a fairly consistent basis.

I request admin action to curb Jerem43's WP:OWN and admin oversight so that honest differences in opinion can be acknowledged and disagreements reasonably and civilly discussed rather than WP:OWN editors suppressing and attacking editors with differing opinions. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

This accusation is untrue, and his link above contains an example of how Melon does not interact well with those he disagrees with. Melon has been blocked a dozen times for edit wars, including one time for his acts on this article in 2007. He is very adept at passive aggressive attacks, and has been found to repeatedly attack those he disagrees with. In the history of the article he has repeatedly ignored that consensus has been against him and ignored requests for mediation, as can be said in the example he cited. Going back [239], you can see multiple examples of his open hostility to other editors, his refusal to compromise and his attempts to discredit what others have done by accusing them of ownership, original research or bias. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history between myself and Melonbarmonster, you will find that we did not get on well together - however the fact that he has not been blocked for almost two years, shows that while he still pushes his point strongly, he is making an obvious effort to stay within the rules and spirit of the rules. The article in question needs uninvolved editors giving their opinions, nothing more. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He performed 4 reverts on July 5th and could have been blocked had the report been made promptly. The fact is he hasn't been blocked because it wasn't caught.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am making this request. This refusal to acknowledge honest edit disagreements illustrates Jeremy's unwillingness to engage in making reasoned arguments and convince regarding the subject matter: WP:CONS, [240]. Instead talk page discussion is stonewalled into a shouting match of disingenuous accusations, negative comments and aggressive attack and bogus claims of consensus aimed at discouraging dissenting editors from contributing further in the article in violation of WP:OWN. This has gone on for years and needs to stop.

Even if there was consensus, there hasn't been, Jeremy wrongly believes his 'consensus' is immutable. It is not, per WP:CCC, and consensus does not preclude reexaminations of edits that have remained even for years.

But to be clear, Jeremy's claim to consensus is starting to become outlandish. Jeremy's link above[241] where he accuses me of 'disruptive editing' in the face of 'general consensus' is dated January 4, 2009[[242]](his ANI report was ignored). That is right on the heels of the "no consensus" vote[243] which ended on December 29, 2008 with admin closing it on January 3 2009. Contrary to Jeremy's claims, a 'general consensus' was not reached merely 3 days after a vote of 'no consensus' among all involved editors. Furthermore, this claim of contrived 'consensus' is followed up on January 15th by yet another editor raising objections against this section.[244] It is plain as day that there was no consensus and that Jeremy is violating WP:OWN forcing everyone to accept his "consensus". Again, please take a look at the portion of the archives in question. It speaks for itself.[245]

Lastly, I was not blocked in 2007 for edit warring in this article. Please check my block log.

Please curb this WP:OWN so that honest dissent with the "owners" becomes a possibility in this article without having to face false accusations and these outlandish attacks and claims of forced "consensus".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny performing 4 reverts before the page was locked on July 5th?--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe he is gaming the system, Melon has removed that section at least five times over the past few years. That is a consistent pattern 3R violations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor EENG

We had a dispute with editor EENG over a page we wrote, with permission from the principal (Joaquin Fuster) to use his material. In fact, he even added GNU copyright-free language to his site just for Wiki! EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work, and the entire page, which is fine. However, thereafter, EENG systematically went through ALL our articles and began adding numerous templates to all of them, including many that had been through entire editorial cycles, asked and answered. The behaviour has become a vendetta by EENG! This kind of "target the newbie" behaviour is beyond discourteous and disruptive, it is downright abuse of editorial power. It has nothing to do with articles, and everything to do with targeting another editor! Check his recent pattern of templates vs. our articles-- you will see a clear pattern of sequential disruptive editing (see WP:DIS). We have notified EENG of this behaviour on every page he spammed, the articles he deleted, his own talk page, and the editor he recruited to help him delete the Fuster page's talk page, who was courteous and not a problem.

EENG needs to be stopped, frozen, or disciplined for this conduct. The etiquette here is to help new editors, not target them! Thanks for investigating this behaviour. Phoenixthebird (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind, I've changed your original title for this thread to something more neutral and accurate, as there's no spam involved. The Talk:Joaquin Fuster page seems to show that the article was a substantial copyright violation, as pointed out to you by more than one editor. From there, EEng (talk · contribs) looks to have added templates to several articles you've edited in the past. Do you have a specific problem with any of those templates, or just the general addition of any material to an article you've worked on? Also, when you say "We had a dispute," what "we" are you talking about? Dayewalker (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Also, Phoenixthebird, it looks like you chased EEng onto the Phineas Gage article and left a bunch of retaliatory tags there. You don't have clean hands, regardless of what EEng may have done. In any case, copyright violations are a serious matter that must be treated seriously, so if he saw a problem with your edits elsewhere, he is supposed to remove them. That is not optional. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Going off the deep end in response to someone who has obviously just looked at Special:Contributions/Phoenixthebird isn't good etiquette, either, even though it's something that novices (and those who wish to defend the indefensible) regularly do. Look at your edit to Gareth Loy. Because you're so convinced that someone is stalking you over the the seven or so articles that you've touched, you've removed an orphan notice from an an article that … well … was and still is an orphan. Knee-jerk reversions and over-reactions are things to avoid. As, too, are lengthy rants about how other editors are not creative and productive, in defence of text that you just took from someone else and that wasn't creativity on your part, either. Yes, we do indeed turf people out on their ear. Some of the people that we turf out on their ear are those whose idea of "writing" is taking other people's work and passing it off as their own, copying it wholesale into Wikipedia. Those who come to the administrators' noticeboard drawing attention to lengthy and highly erroneous tirades on the subject tend to get administrator attention even more quickly than most. So think very carefully about what you say and do next. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Loy, but the page Gareth Loy that you created looks like something I'd expect to find on a promotional website, so don't be surprised if people tag it. You don't seem to have read WP:BLP and certainly need to read WP:LEAD, and it needs the promotional language and tone removed. When you write articles like this, and someone notices it, then you can expect editors to look at your other articles. You might want to read WP:OWN also. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified EEng - Phoenixbird, you should have done that, it says it clearly at the top of the page. Everyone else, you might want to see Talk:Joaquin_Fuster - the talk page of the deleted article on Fuster which the deleting Admin has deliberately left undeleted so people can read it. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but what you mean "we", Kemo Sabe? I've noticed that you use that word in a number of your posts. You also refer to "our articles" a number of times. Just how many people are editing from the Phoenixthebird account? You wouldn't be some kind of PR firm editing Wikipedia for pay, would you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One more question. If you're not a PR firm, do you have any WP:COI on the Joaquin Fuster article that you should disclose? Note that this does not prevent you editing such an article, but the fact (if it is a fact) should be disclosed and certain restrictions complied with. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one small point. Phoenixbird says "EENG recruited other editors and deleted our work". I see no evidence that EENG did any recruiting. Phoenixbird (not EENG) called for intervention by a "third party administrator", and I, as an uninvolved administrator, responded to that call. On the face of it this looks rather like "I want a third party to mediate, but only if that third party supports my line". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good comments all of you, except for "Steven Anderson." For Steven: I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing. If someone above used the word "we", (and, do you know what an editorial "we" is?, assume you do), and Anderson is now making accusations of Socking, will the person above please let Anderson know that you're just being supportive and balanced, not using some other account. We have one small account here, and are rapidly losing interest in that. PR is laughable, juried publications are where you cut your teeth in our field. I'm tenured, so what exactly does PR get you again? Young man's game, sir, no interest. In our opinion Watson acted much too quickly here, but then I guess he's got an agenda too-- we're happy and have no axe to grind regardless of the decision, just wish an experienced admin would have allowed more time, since the subject of the article was willing (and has) put free use language on his site, which negates all the copyright hullabaloo. You know, he was going article by article with us to be sure the ones on Wiki were juried! COI? We have no knowledge of this gentleman at all (Dr. Fuster) other than his wonderful credentials and contributions to the Neuro field. He wrote the leading text on the prefrontal cortex in the world, and if you check PFC on Wiki you'll see him referred to, and if you Google him, notability will be no issue. Other editors have contacted us who also are expert in Neuro, and our only motive is the hope that Wiki will keep up with special fields like this, given the many spinoffs like Wiki Neuro that are juried and represent a brain drain from the "real" Wiki. We'll stick to adding technical corrections to articles.

For the "insult" that "you've ONLY worked on 7 articles," hey-- that makes us a newbie, is there a little neuro circuit running in the PFC of that individual wanting us to tell him he's great because he's a veteran? Well, no biggie, our hats are off to you-- go ahead and allow yourself a little GABA and dopamine in that circuit. But, you don't have to blow the candle of another out to make your own seem to shine brighter, yes? And with a little more maturity you'll want to help newbies, not zonk em for beginner level contributions. I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here that are avid Wiki types, contributors and fans... they have the adrenalin for this ride, I'm just trying to add a few notable folks who seem to be missing for no particularly good reason! Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you're not a professor at MIT, you're a professor in the "MIT system". Can you help me? I can't recall what institutions are in the MIT system -- MIT State (Fullerton), MIT Stony Brook, MIT Champaign-Urbana? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why so hostile in the response? Today I don't think most law schools specify their JDs, even those that give concentrations. Which law school awarded you the JD in IP? Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly familiar with the editorial "we", of course, it's just not usually used in Wikipedia talk pages. You don't quite say that you're using it, so I'll ask again, directly. To whom are you referring when you use the word "we"? Additionally, you say "If someone above used the word 'we' . . . will the person please let Anderson know . . ." But, you know who used the word, it was you. Unless someone else was using your account, you're being too cute by half. Or are you just trolling us?

Further, if you'll take a more careful look at my prior post (while fully employing your prefrontal cortex), you'll see that I made no accusations of socking, express or implied. I am, however, concerned that your account may be violating WP:ROLE, even more now that you have mentioned the "dozens of young stallions" you say are working for you, so again, I'll ask directly. How many individuals have access to your account? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page or his, where he's replied to the same question that I put on his talk page. I think he's the only one using the account. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I withdraw my snark. I'll also mention that when I originally asked it was with the understanding that a role account is something that might be started in innocence by an inexperienced user. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anderson: Don't withdraw your snark, I AM an inexperienced user. At my age, and having been through gauntlet after gauntlet of juried publications and research submissions (more returned than accepted), the skin gets thick. I was just curious about process-- Eeng blanked our entire page down to a single sentence, is not an admin, yet effectively "deleted" the page. I tried the same thing and got crucified. He also removed our tags, just as we removed his, but he didn't get any "tag" warning as we did on our talk from some ShyFoot guy. To give you the respect you deserve, yes, I am just one old guy, and no, nobody has access to my lame little account! I wasn't being evasive in not answering this directly, just thick. It is really interesting to watch the tone of these threads. There are guys that cut new users slack, and even mentor them, and guys that are just brutal! I tend to want to return sarcasm for sarcasm ("what, did you get your degree ONLINE?" God forbid, that USED to be an insult! Now, with things like Microsoft certification, it's starting to mean quality!!!). I got my JD at the University of Detroit eons ago, which is not exactly Harvard Law, so the critic above you (sigh) is right... exposed again. Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is of course in the nature of a phoenix to consume itself in flames (see Ptb's posts above and elsewhere: Talk:Joaquin_Fuster [246] [247] [248] [249]). I note that:

• P.t.b. also edits as 24.117.202.139 and user Themedusacode (see [250]);
• the subjects of articles P.t.b.'s created or edited have a remarkable congruence to posts at http://www.sciencejournalnews.com (Fuster, The Medusa Code)and http://www.opedian.com/ (Gareth Loy, "Love of God");
• the one and only person posting to those blogs is a “Chess Bishop”; and
• Dr. Prof. Phoenixthebird (J.D., Ph.D.), after those long days corralling "young stallions" (above), commanding his "armies of grad students and PhD candidates" while "hanging around the supercomputing lab" [251], welcoming himself [252] to Wikipedia, and shooting the shit with quantum physicists [253], relaxes with... chess! [254] [255].

Despite all this, and contrary to Steven J. Anderson's suspicions (above) I can't imagine anyone paying money to P.t.b. for his activities here.

EEng (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to mention that P.t.b. unthinkingly let slip that he has "several other science and math user names for editing" [256], though he quickly changed to a less, um, interesting phrasing. SPI, anyone? EEng (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check required at Jumping the Shark - is this quacking I hear?

• Kb3777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheSharkisdead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kb3777 is arguing that the page Jumping the shark should contain an external link to BoneTheFish.com, on the basis that it is the "successor" to the site JumpTheShark.com. However, the only sources that seem to confirm this relationship are a wiki and a blog, and as another editor has pointed out, a user called Kb3777 is selling BoneTheFish merchandise online. Kb3777 has twice restored the link to the page [257] [258] (the second diff being logged out, but obviously the same user) using a misleading edit summary that implied that spam was being removed rather than added. An SPA User:TheSharkisdead recently joined the debate, repeating the points made by Kb3777, and when asked to read WP:SOCK they accused me of sockpuppetry. Then an apparently completely unrelated editor User:Hill of Beans made the same edit, apparently out of the blue. Considering that the bulk of Kb3777's contributions are adding dubious external links, that they have an apparent financial incentive to spam, that they're using policy links in misleading edit comments then claiming ignorance of how Wikipedia works, and the loud quacking noise from the SPA, I think a block may be in order, but having reverted the article text I will not do so myself - I am unwilling to provide grist to the drama mill. I also think TheSharkisdead should be blocked for sockpuppetry, and I am concerned about Hill of Beans's involvement.
As always, uninvolved admin help is appreciated. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

quack quack. And jumpingtheshark.com was never an appropriate external link anyway WP:EL. Active Banana (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This promotion has been going on in this article for quite some time. Remove it. And I'm all for a block of Kb3777 and TheSharkisdead as promotion-only accounts. ThemFromSpace 02:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If "Bone the Fish" is a webforum, it's likely there's a post there about this that led someone to create a Wikipedia account, rather than sockpuppetry.--Chaser (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you visit the website bonethefish.com you will see some interesting things such as this: "I don't know if this will work, but my advice would be for all Bone the Fish fans to get Wikipedia multiple accounts on different PCs: one for home, one for work, one at your friend's house. Be sure and make lots of uncontroversial edits to lots of other articles; don't just edit ONLY the "Jumping the shark" article or you will be accused of being a sockpuppet of somebody. Try to game the system; play by their rules and find a rule that works in your favor. Putting it references to other, unrelated websites that mention BTF is also a must." We actually have Wikipedia users called Chubby Rain and PYLrulz and the rest. Chubby Rain admits to posting here as Thesharkisdead.--Diannaa ^TALK 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?960 --Chaser (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like some website needs to be added to the global link blacklist? That would be a pretty effective way to combat organized meatpuppetry. --Chris (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's not a notable website, it's not a reliable source for references, and there are plenty of issues with promotion. ThemFromSpace 04:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think any site which tells us to "Go pass some slaw you d****e nozzles" is looking to cooperate with us at all. In any case the TVTropes article history shows a just as unnotable edit history of four edits from three IP's there (one of them seeing it for spam and cutting it down to size), and it'll probably be cleaned out in any purge of unlinked pages, so the non-notability is clinched beyond belief. Nate • (chatter) 08:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the flagrant COI, the utter lack of notability for the spinoff site and the call for sockpuppetry, an indef block and the blacklisting of both bonethefish.com and fishdeals.com (check the user's history) seems like the pretty obvious solution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Chris Cunningham. I had a similar issue regarding "successor" sites a while back, and the conclusion is that the successor site needs to establish notability of itself before being included - and then the issue of legitimacy of it being a successor is irrelevent - per Notability is Not Inherited (can't find the link). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed please remove all references to bonethefish and block the URL. Thanks. I thought it was a useful inclusion as an external link as it does have some of the old jumptheshark content and is relevant to that topic, but I guess I'm not well versed on what's appropriate as an external link. I figured if thousands of people who read the jump the shark article over the past year thought it was okay by consensus it made sense. I stand corrected. --Kb3777 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You really thought that it was correct to post on another site for supporters to game the system on Wikipedia? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are not the successor, then who is? You guys allowed Nuke the Fridge and it has even less reason to be here. Hill of Beans (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have nothing to do with these people other than the fact that I was a huge fan of Jump the Shark and since its demise, Bone the Fish is the only alternative. They said their page was being vandalized, so I thought I'd help them. I did this before the more inflammatory comments on their page showed up. I get the feeling that they don't moderate their posts like JTS did. Should you really hold the whole site responsible for what one or two idiots write on that site? Have you tried contacting the webmasters of Bone the Fish? I feel like this should be put up for a more public review before a blacklisting occurs. Hill of Beans (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What on the site would ever be suitable for inclusion of any kind in any article on Wikipedia? WP:EL / WP:RS ? There is no hurt to anyone becuase the blacklist only automatically enforces policies would enforced if a knowledgable editor found it anyway. Active Banana (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel - WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL issues.

This editor has been making disruptive edits to Genesis creation narrative and it's talk page. They disruptively added a neutrality maintenance template to the article three times (and were reverted) today, as well as adding a neutrality check template, which seems to be an attempt to game the system - [259], [260], [261] as well as multiple other edits against consensus which were summarily reverted. [262] - this edit in particular is in violation of WP:NOTBATTLE, and Til's mentality is not that which should be expected of a Wikipedian. Both this edit - [263] and Til's reply to my attempt to communicate concerning the issue on his/her talk page were in breach of WP:CIVIL - I was informed that I was lying - [264]. Til's numerous edits to the talk page are POV-pushing and approach infringing on WP:SOAPBOX. I request action to be taken against Til to prevent him/her disrupting Genesis creation narrative. Claritas § 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This user has also left me messages on my talkpage stating that there is NO neutrality dispute, since I am supposedly the only editor who thinks the article needs a POV check. This is a falsehood and a fabrication, the truth is that multiple editors have expressed POV concerns in light of the vast number of published theological sources disputing the POV OPINION that Genesis falls in the genre of "mythology". I have expressed several times that die process is the only way to resolve such conflicts, but the few editors who hold the "myth" opinion want to unilaterally the declare the case closed for all time, with no hope of recourse or due process. It's almost like they are afraid of due process. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See also

Before I knew about this I also reported Til for edit warring and gaming the system. Please see below.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Til_Eulenspiegel_reported_by_User:Griswaldo_.28Result:_.29

Blocked for 36 hrs for edit warring - [265].Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommend topic ban

This user seems to view topics related to biblical scholarship as a battleground and seems to be of the opinion that he has a right or duty to continue to harass editors at various pages including Genesis creation narrative and Book of Daniel. Please look over these diffs and decide whether the user should be topic banned from Wikipedia pages relating to biblical scholarship: [266] [267] [268] [269] [270]

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, its hardly appropriate for you to suggest this since you two have a history, I don't think he needs a topic ban. I have dealt with this user quite a bit. He may need to back down on this particular topic for a while and cool of but a topic ban is hardly appropriate. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly appropriate to suggest a topic ban when a user is disrupting pages across an entire topic, and anybody regardless of the perception of third parties of "history" should feel comfortable doing this as a step in the proces. Whether he backs down voluntarily or it is enforced by uninvolved administrators, I don't care, but something needs to change. If you can get him to "cool off", then that's a good start. Right now it looks to me like he's just escalating in his antagonism. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if this was a new user I'd think he was a simple, fanatical troll. Obviously, I know he's not, but I've been watching over that page (never edited it myself, but I've been looking at it), and there's clearly something wrong when someone keeps adding "dubious" tags to well-sourced material with what's basically an ILIKEIT argument. I suppose I'd support a fairly short topic ban if this resumes after his block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are now very few editors willing to stand up to the atheistic element here that insist on labeling Bible stories as fairy tales (or "myths" in their code). I'm sure they would love to eliminate everyone who stands up to them, and this is a step in that direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting insight by BB, with which I concur.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" doesn't mean the same thing as "fairy tale." It means a story which uses supernatural elements to explain something about our world. It applies to some (not all) of the stories in the Bible. I make sure all my seventh graders know that, so they won't be shocked and offended when they hear the word 'myth' used to describe a Bible story. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. How often have you heard someone say, "That's just a myth." A fable, an untrue story, a fairy tale. That's the standard meaning of "myth". You can hide behind a specific, secondary dictionary definition all you want, but you're only fooling yourself. The "myth-pushers" are engaged in POV-pushing to label Bible stories as being untrue, further "enhancing" wikipedia's reputation among the general public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a bit of ABF around today, which doesn't help at all. Still, it is true that there are some avowed Creationists who think the word 'myth' is inappropriate and have been removing it or trying to remove it, and some others, some atheists, some not, disagreeing. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, not all those angry at the use of the word 'myth' are avowed Creationists either, though I've yet to see an avowed Creationists stand up for the academic use of the word "myth". This is basically an argument of style and, while I think that people who are in favor of adopting an academic style as the most disinterested and dispassionate way of approaching WP:NPOV will ultimately carry the day, there are behavior issues here which are entirely separate from the actual content dispute. It's clear that Til is passionate about his editorial opinions with regards to this subject, but sometimes—and I speak from personal experience here—passion channeled into perpetual dispute does not advance the cause of WP:ENC. I believe that this is the case here. Hopefully he calms down after his 1.5 day block. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I want to see what he does once his block expires. I think that page in general needs some fresh voices. As to the atheistic element- myth is very much an academic term, and (if nothing else) is less verbose than other terms. I can't believe that whole debate didn't end up somewhere on WP:LAME, as I look through it. Of course, my opinion is somewhat jaded given that I'm an Asian history major, and I'm accustomed to hearing their religious myths being labeled as such without a problem. I'm not sure why there's a difference between Christian myths and the myths of Guanyin, but... I'm getting off track, I know. Anyways, I think Til Eulenspiegel is an intelligent person, and I hope he'll just take it down a notch when his block expires. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep discussion of the content of the article over at the right page - Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Til may well deserve a topic ban, not because of what they think about the GCN, but simply because they can't cope with the fact that they've got to work with editors with other views. I'm pretty much neutral though. If Til disrupts the page again, a longer ban or a topic ban will be in order. Claritas § 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just fyi

I'd like to point out the existence of this page in Til's user space. I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong (or right) with the page, but it seems relevant to this discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Marty Munsch legal threat

Don't know how else to report it best but a legal threat of cease and desist was made against Wikipedia and I wanted to make you aware. The page is constantly blanked and otherwise vandalized by IPs as well. Best Hekerui (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, page semiprotected for a week. --Golbez (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

New user page with BLP issues

Resolved

I encountered a new user page that contained potentially libelous material about a real person (I checked). There wasn't any other content so I blanked the page [271]. The content is, of course, still available in diffs, so I am thinking I should have taken a different approach. Should I have tagged it for speedy deletion or what? Thanks. Susfele (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That page was a candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page, so it probably ought to have been tagged with {{db-attack}}. Deleted now anyway. Thanks for bringing it up! NW (Talk) 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:McYel responds to User:Alison, User:Crazycomputers, and admins

{{resolved|community ban Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}} reopened by James (T C) 05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This unlisted video is for the administrators at Wikipedia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hmEDcZ4fSU --McYel (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble accessing Youtube from my location, but I assume this isn't a helpful link. Additionally, all of McYel's edits are tagged as minor. Not good. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have accessed it and your assumption is right. --Cyclopia^talk 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a video response as to why the deletion of my user page was unnecessary.--McYel (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And you posting it here is just plain trolling. Will someone please block this guy? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast with the blocking! He's not done anything wrong, really - Alison ^❤ 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, is the link a video, virus, fig newton? Should I redact the link? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow! Never got a video response before. Unfortunately, once personal information of this sort is divulged, I have to evaluate it and decide whether to suppress it or not. It's my job :/ I've no way of knowing who's details are who's and I have to act in the best interests of whoever owns these. In the video, you show that they're yours, etc, and I'm cool with that. These have also been suppressed on Wikimedia Commons for the same reasons. Anyways - you're free to do with your own proven personal information what you will & if you wish to put them on your website, Twitter, posters, whatev - then knock yourself out. You can even put them back on WP within reason (see WP:USER), but I seriously recommend you don't do that stuff. Identity theft isn't something that your neighbor in El Paso is going to do, it's going to be something some opportunist will do and once that genie gets out of the bottle, it's very hard to stuff it back in. In short; I can only do so much to protect you here, so over to you ... - Alison ^❤ 02:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the user has added the same information to their MySpace page, but I find is highly suspect regardless and would argue against it being readded to any site of Wikipedia due to the indentity theft concerns it poses. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY and all, but... couldn't help it. I had to comment. -- ۩ Mask 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the video of? I am afraid to click on the YouTube link. If it is bad, should it be redacted? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just confirming evidence that the user has posted the same material on MySpace etc. I think that doing such a thing is a really terrible idea, but I also think that the confirmation that this material is available more publicly than on Wikipedia, by McYel's own deliberate actions, removes protection of the user's privacy as an immediate reason for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Gavia immer. Just wanted to make sure so no one get a virus or something. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's more then that.. he documents his birth certificate, asks his mom about the rape that led to his birth, its... creepy. -- ۩ Mask 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is creepy and WTF inducing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Give the weirdo his userpage back. Beam 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Alison and Beam

--McYel (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Wouldn't the documents be considered the intellectual property of the US State that created them rather than whomever happens to have them in their possession? They aren't products of the Federal Government but a State Govt, so aren't considered in the public domain. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Property that derives from the work of an individual's mind or intellect should be afforded the same protective rights that apply to physical property. As long as property exists, it will accumulate in individuals and families. As long as marriage exists, knowledge, property and influence will accumulate in families (not in a State Govt).--McYel (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But the property was created by the state where you were born. Owning a newspaper or a photo doesn't give the owner the right to republish them in other media without consent. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite BoLLOCKs per MAXDRAMA week. Tim Shuba (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Tim Shuba. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NEEDS MOAR DRAMA - Per Lolcat. --McYel (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That right there shows me you aren't here to edit constructively. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why so serious?--McYel (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

' - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support likewise. Editor has much higher overhead then they are worth, also seems unable to deal with conflict correctly and instead amplifies it. -- ۩ Mask 05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Reopened this thread, I'm not in anyway sure how we could consider the above 3 votes close to a consensus on a community ban: 1. they are very quick succession (the first vote and the block are only about an hour apart) and 2. at least some of the votes appear they could be more in jest then anything else. I'm going to let Toddst1 know and haven't unblocked the user again yet, though to be honest I'd like to if others agree. James (T C) 05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - My !vote did have some jest to it with the "TEH DRAMAZ" but I removed that part (removing the jest). I am completely serious in my !vote, McYel needs to be and rightly is blocked. He wasn't contributing constructively to the community and the LOLcat and Dark Knight above posts show that clearly. Combine that with of images of personal information (since deleted and oversighted), I see no reason he should be here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Further Comment - I am only for a community block not a ban. Never was for a ban of any kind. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • To be honest that is fine though I agree more with Alison, but an hour of conversation and 3 users does still not a ban make ;) James (T C) 05:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys?? Are we that ban-happy these days that WP can community-ban someone on the say-so of three people and with very little justification. Sorry, but I oppose this heavy-handed action here. Good grief, folks, whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:BITE, etc, etc? Indeed, I thought we were done here. Let the guy alone - the issue is resolved. If he persists in low-level trolling or whatever, then consider blocking. But not a community ban- Alison ^❤ 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• ' Gone with the Wind? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Block yes ban no. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think he should probably be unblocked and allowed the chance to edit, but I don't think those documents should appear on his userpage. I don't see why anyone would want to do that anyway. They're not funny or cool they're just some boring government documents that could be copied and then used to steal his identity. Let him edit but make him promise to leave those off wikipedia. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good grief. Whether blocked, banned, or whatever, this user needs a stern lecture from someone in the real world about the dangers of posting so much personal information online. If he is unblocked at some point, it needs to be with the condition that he will refrain from doing it here. We can't stop someone from being stupid off of Wikipedia, but good grief, we can at least ask him not to do it here. I have trouble imagining a user who felt like that video was a good idea being mature enough to edit an encyclopedia, so I have no problem with a ban. But if someone does decide to unblock him, it needs to be with a stern warning not to engage in such behavior again. --B (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly, the user has posted this documents on a [redacted]. So they are out there with or without Wikipedia. But I agree with B, a very stern lecture about the real world is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this one of the situations where it is better discussed off wikipedia pages than giving more and more ideas of where to grab this guys personal information from and leaving those comments for longer and longer in public view? Theres real life consequenses here.Active Banana (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Redacted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The user's edits were not all bad. Misunderstanding about free vs not free images, clearly. Also the user is not a minor as age of majority in his state is 18 [272] and he passed that some years ago. If he wishes to disclose his personal information and the law considers him able to make that decision it seems a bit much to hide it, especially since he has it elsewhere and above linked video confirming it is indeed his info. As to it being appropriate for a user page, not really. To me this reads like a pothole that was turned into a mountain. Community ban was way too much. An explanation of why it is not appropriate to have on WP even with it being his info would have been better than a community ban. delirious and lost ☯ 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Just so that everyone knows: I unblocked McYel. I did this for a couple reasons: 1. I obviously was unsure the block made sense given the discussion at the time already and 2. Because the original "ban" (he actually said bollocks not ban) proposer (Tim Shuba made a comment on the users talk page saying that he did indeed mean his "vote" as a joke (NH also supported per Tim but he has since confirmed what he meant). I also decided that it would be right to do it now given that it appears Todd went to bed/away shortly after the block was implemented and I did not believe it was right to leave it up while we all wondered away. Obviously any admin is more then welcome to revert me based on further discussion here or disagreement with my actions (including Todd) I do not consider it wheel warring. James (T C) 08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you were right to unblock the user James, there was clearly no community consensus there, especially as the original mention was meant as a joke and the motion received a total of three opinions; and I don't think the user's actions could warrant a block at admin discretion, either. I don't think he should be allowed to upload such files again though (whether he can prove they are his own details or not, surely we can protect him from his own... perhaps naïvety is the least NPAey term?), and if he does reupload them then I feel that a ban or block may indeed become necessary. We may not be able to stop him uploading them elsewhere, but we can at least stop them being published by wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the first ANI thread about me! Umm, well, let's just put it this way -- for the protection of the project and yourself, we don't really want your birth certificate published on here. The reasons are simple:

• ID theft is quite easy if you have documents like this. Obviously people would not have the original, but usually places will accept facsimiles under the assumption that you're protecting the original document and any copies.

• If you are a victim of ID theft, and it becomes known that your birth certificate was published here, and we didn't do anything about it, guess who gets to be the topic of a scathing story on the 6 o'clock news? Ok, yes, it's on MySpace too, and we all know how much the media likes to poke at that site, but still. It's just not a good idea for Wikimedia to be hosting information like that.

In closing, note that the removal is supported by policy:

Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by Oversighters. --Wikipedia:User page

So I don't think there was anything wrong with the initial reaction to purge the birth certificate, and I will continue to support such action for the protection of everyone involved. --Chris (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the only issue with the user page was the birth certificate. I see no harm in allowing the diplomas to be published. But I would caution McYel to read WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Chris (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? It still strikes me as a pretty dangerous thing to be publishing... a diplomas is a pretty official document, and could very well contribute towards identity theft with or without the birth certificate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may be a rather unusual way of verifying his credentials. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

• Having had some of the earliest interactions with McYel, I watch him closely. My personal belief is that he is a sock of some other user and is using this account to make some point about minor edits, a point that would probably make more sense if I knew the history of the other account. That said, there isn't enough evidence of disruptive intent to block him. I'll continue to monitor him, but I don't think there is any need for further action at this time.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Note on birth certificates As a genealogy researcher, I can say that birth certificates are public documents in most jurisdictions including the UK and US, and it is perfectly legal to obtain the birth certificate of any individual in these jurisdictions (whether they are you or not, and whether living or dead - I have an account with the Office of National Statistics, and can obtain anyone's birth certificate for £7). Nor is it an offence to post anyone's birth certificate online - just log on to Ancestry.com to confirm this. However, McYel, I think you're barking mad mate :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just an addition to Elen of the Roads was talking about. You can get most birth certificates at either the county courthouse, the hospital of birth or the branch of service's Department of Records in the US. The prices range from free to $10. In most cases, unless you are law enforcement, you can't obtain anyone's birth certificate but your own or your child's (if they are under 18). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there are other ways to get a hold of someone else's birth certificate and other documents. Silly question, but has anyone any basis to conclude that the information this person is publishing actually pertains to him/her, rather than to some other unsuspecting person? Steveozone (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The video that remains linked at the top of this section is really quite conclusive. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steveozone. Unless there is a picture of this person actually holding these documents, documents you can clearly see, I am not convinced and do not think the video shows anything but someone repeated what is on a piece of paper. I could read off the life and times of anyone if I had their birth certificate, wouldn't make me that person. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[images added were redacted then deleted]. --McYel (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, McYel. I apperciate your posting those pictures for proof. While I don't feel it is a bad idea to have on Wikipedia due to the indenity theft concerns, that does convince me the user is the same with the documents. I would ask for some input. With the showing of the documents by the user to prove they are his, if the user wants the documents on Wikipedia, would anyone be against it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yes – I oppose the posting of birth certificates etc. This user may be of sound mind and fully informed, and consequently choose to post completely inappropriate personal details on their user page, and we may not care. However, other people will possibly encounter the userpage and think that it is somehow a good thing to emulate. Then we will have more timesinks where we debate whether or not to save users from themselves. There is no benefit to Wikipedia from encouraging/permitting the posting of such excessively personal details. Using Wikipedia to publish documents like birth certificates is disruptive because other editors will waste time wondering whether the information is an elaborate scam intended to attack the person named in the personal data, or will start dramas such as we see here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about this situation but can tell you those pictures need to removed and deleted from the database immediately. In the real world, I work with military records and personal documents to verify veteran identities. Just by the information displayed in those three pictures, anyone could get a fake drivers license, social security card, as well as several other fraudulent documents. A terrorist in another country could also use that information to obtain a false Visa. In my professional opinion, take them off now. -OberRanks (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Johnuniq ~ what possible benefit to us, the community, is it to have these items here? Again, in what way does it help improve the encyclopædia? None. I say remove them.

On the other hand, it is nice to see something a little less drama-ey on ANI than some of the more usual suspects. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this whole section is crazy - from the video and the images being here at all through to the brief ban. I can't understand what McYel thinks he's doing and I don't really care that much about what he reveals about himself, but there are BLP issues in his image descriptions. He can accept responsibility for posting his own information but he surely can't for his parents. I'm just about to go out for the evening and don't have time to deal with this further but I think these should be taken down and at the very least the claims in the image descriptions should be removed from all these image description pages and the birth certificate should go because it contains personal information about third parties. Sarah 06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we all still here?? O_o - Either way, I've suppressed the mention of what Sarah refers to here as not only is it non-public, personal information relating to someone else, it's potentially problematic as it relates to a criminal act. Not only that, but his mom was clearly uncomfortable in discussing it in the video above, so it's only right that it be redacted. So ... are we done here now? Can we all go home happy? - Alison ^❤ 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So he immediately added that again. It's suppressed again. I consider that highly inappropriate and unfair to the woman in question. He's been final-warned, far as I'm concerned. If he does it again, someone contact WP:OVER and block him for a short while. His userpage is now fully-prot'd for 24 hours - Alison ^❤ 08:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-edited my post. After I left home the other night, I thought I really should have emailed you privately instead of posting about it, because I've repeated the BLP violations by describing them. My apologies for that lack of common sense. Sarah 13:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I think this edit demonstrates that he can't take wikipedia or other people's privacy seriously; it's looking more and more likely that a block is going to be required, especially given the very serious BLP issues (and potential libel) demonstrated in some revisions of his userpage which have now been revdelled and/or oversighted, which he is apparently treating as joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK...obviously I have caused a fuss by asking for the images to be held up by the person in a picture (which I never really expected would happen...color me surprised) and asking for opinions. I am just at a loss of what to do with this user as they seem gung-ho about having this information on his page. If I have upset anyone by all this, I do apologize. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm just as puzzled & at just as much of a loss as you are, NH. I'm coming to this thread with little knowledge (& interest) of just why McYel decided to reveal all of this information & I'd accuse him of violating WP:POINT -- if I could figure out what his point is. The guy is obviously over 18, of arguably sound mind, so we really can't keep him from sharing whatever personal information he wants to. (Well, I'd appreciate it if he doesn't share the explicit details of his sexual history on Wikipedia, but I feel that way towards everyone who edits here.) I wouldn't publish even a tenth of what McYel has -- I refuse to share my social security number with my doctor's office, for example -- but if he's willing to live with the identity theft which will very likely follow, what can we realistically do? We Wikipedians can't keep someone from committing suicide -- although if they threaten to do so in a Wikipedia post we will do the reasonable thing & inform the local authorities. This entire matter has turned surreal. Either we find a reason to block this guy, or we close this thread & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Somewhat on topic, could someone make him stop tagging everything he does as minor? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How does holding up a copy of a birth certificate or diploma prove in any way that you are the person? I could photograph someone's diploma when I am waiting for him in his office, or I could create a fine looking fake one in Word. Others have stated above that they can purchase copies of birth certificates. I could easily make a photo of me holding a fake drivers license in someone else's name. It is a nonproof, which needs to be removed. Often I see new users create attack user pages where they claim to be someone else, then make damaging "admissions" on behalf of their target. Even if he is who he says, WP:BLP does not allow him to make accusations that other persons, even family members, have been the victims or perpetrators of crimes, based on his personal belief or knowledge. If the crime was widely documented and meets the guidelines for notability, then maybe there could be an article. Otherwise it is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia to use it as a forum or soapbox for venting one's spleen over nonnotable real or imagined wrongs. If the user cannot understand that and cannot comply with our policies and guidelines, then an indefinite block is indicated. Edison (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of POV templates

Resolved

 – Content dispute, advice given; no admin attention required. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an on-going discussion at the article Mass killings under Communist regimes about whether to remove the POV tags. This article has been moved once, nominated for deletion four times, has 17 pages of archived discussion pages and is under a 1RR restriction. However, two editors have removed the POV tags with the notations, "remove pov tag, no section in talk to support it"[273], "remove tags per talk, no justification given for them"[274], and "remove tags per talk"[275] (User:Marknutley) and "please discuss before revert"[276] (User:Darkstar1st). Another editor, User:Paul Siebert, and I reversed Marknutley's removal of tags. Is it appropriate to remove POV tags before these issues are decided? What is the correct way of dealing with this? TFD (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On 2 July 2010 User:AmateurEditor created a section in the article talk page [277] to discuss why this POV tag had been on the article since August 2009. Neither TFD nor Paul Siebert have engaged in discussion. Hence the tag removal. It was not until i asked [278] TFD why he was reverting the tags back in without discussion did he actually join. A POV tag is not meant to be a badge of shame, the tag was in place when i began to edit this article, with no section in the talk page to discuss it so yes i removed the tags. mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me, TFD, that if you feel that the POV tag should remain, you can simply start a thread in the talk page to give your reasons to this, thus nullifying the reason for removing the tags until consensus is reached one way or another. Since there is no consensus on the matter, WP:STATUSQUO says leave the POV tag until removed by consensus, but the important thing is to start the consensus discussion. This shouldn't need admin intervention so this was probably better for a dispute resolution noticeboard. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One editor set up four different discussion threads (one for each template) and I then set up a fifth thread, called, "Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates" where there is extensive on-going discussion. In order to resolve the dispute, another editor set up a discussion thread, "Formal mediation", which is still active. Paul Siebert has now set up the discussion thread, "Template". So it is disingenous to suggest that consensus has been reached, or that I failed to reply to the discussion. TFD (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes when you should have actually replied in the threads devoted to the tags you set up This I dare anyone here to make sense of that thread mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you made numerous postings to that discussion thread, I assumed you knew that you knew what the discussion was about. Incidentally the tags have been restored and now removed by User:OpenFuture[279]. TFD (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no ongoing discussion about the tags, in any meaningful usage of "discussion". There is a lot being written on the talk page, that's true, but that's all "We don't agree the tags should be removed" vs "So come with arguments and examples of how the article is POV and SYN then". Sections was provided for coming with arguments and examples of how the article was POV or SYN. After one week no examples has been provided, neither in those sections nor the other extensive debate. The tags clearly should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; restore them only if you can provide clear reasons for doing so on the article's talk page; I haven't actually looked at the article so I'm not going to get into who's right and whether there are POV issues or not, but you need to at least clearly explain what you feel the specific POV issues are if you're going to put a POV tag there; if you can't give examples and explain why it's a POV problem, why does it need a POV tag? Of course better still, you could just rephrase the POV-ey parts to be neutral and encyclopaedic per WP:SOFIXIT. This is a content dispute and doesn't require any (further) admin attention so I'm going to mark as resolved. If discussion fails, consider other routes of dispute resolution, and bear in mind that AN/I isn't for content disputes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

An article protection needed

Resolved

Moved from WP:AN

Hi, I am not sure, if this is the right place, but I would like to ask for semi-protection for this article Paul the Octopus. User:Invertzoo and me are working to make it DYK ready, but it is edited by way too many IPs and is not stable. If it could be protected for a week, I believe we could make a great DYK out of the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)‎

• For future reference, you can ask for page protection on WP:RFPP, but I'm certain a kind admin will drop by and take a look. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• The proper place for this is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where you'll no doubt be told that we don't protect articles just so that a couple of editors can own them. Nor do we assume that the majority of people in the world who don't have accounts are automatically editing in bad faith. People, with and without accounts, are trying to help, and (from the edit history) editing in good faith like this and like this. I, for one, am unwilling to use the protection tool to stop editors like those from making such edits. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Protection policy. Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I just asked a question, and I do not find your screaming response helpful. Sorry--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably best to try addressing the matter through the relevant talk page, and see if the gentler & coordinated approach works. billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for your kind advise, billinghurst ! I will try it, when the article will be ready for DYK.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no screaming there, kiddo. (There's no wikitext markup for it, for starters.) You just made a request. And I just answered it. Your assumption of bad faith here is as bad as your assumption that all of the people without accounts are out to destabilize the article, instead of, as they seem to actually be, to revert vandalism, correct your grammar, fix and tidy up links and markup, and in general help share the burden of otherwise tedious Wikignoming tasks. People are trying to help you. Stop assuming that they aren't. Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • In spite of more screaming, assumption of a bad faith towards my question and incivility by admin Uncle G, the article was semi-protected.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, there is no screaming here. We are a bit too grown up for lathering our texts with emoticons but take it as read that Uncle G, and myself, are :) :-) :D and :-D, or at the very lest :-|. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that a polite and helpful response is "screaming" (note for example, the use of lowercase, and the lack of bolding or italicisation) is definitely failing to assume good faith, Mbz1. I'm not sure why you're accusing someone else of not assuming good faith if you're accusing them of "screaming" when they give you advice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Unlucky Sixty-Nine

Resolved

 – Zzapped by Zzuuzz —DoRD (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would someone with the ability to do so kindly purge this little jackass's comments from the log? I tell you, I have just about had it with idiocy like this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the comment, as well as the swift revert and indef block levied. It could probably do with a revdel under RD2 or 3 though. I understand your frustration, but please refrain from making personal attacks, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you're an admin; can't you do this yourself? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the attacks; I was already burned up over another matter. I'm an admin,but I don't have the ability to purge the edit summaries; I wish I did. Thanks for helping me with this, by the way. Much obliged. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, admins can remove edit summaries now, with the new RevDel function. TNXMan 13:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism for numerous times

Resolved

 – User:Mazca blocked IP for a week. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP (User talk:202.137.123.32) ought to get blocked again. He continuously insert the name Tricia Santos basically on any pages he sees. He also continuously insert irrelevant names of actors at any upcoming television series. (IP's edits) The IP also seemed to have already been blocked before but didn't learn the lesson. Please do something about this. Thank you.--TwelveOz (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP again, for a week this time. Definitely seems to be suffering a serious, chronic failure to get the point. ~ mazca ^talk 13:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --TwelveOz (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today

I've cleaned-up Samuel L. Jackson filmography and this included making it sortable. She doesn't like this a) because she like rowspans and b) because it's me doing this. She reverted me, and I reverted it back. Then I got an email from User:Rossrs saying that WHL had agreed to the informal mediation that she's been evading clearly agreeing to or not for about two weeks, and I replied to him that I'd give it a go. [I'm not in anyway saying Rossrs is doing anything wrong here.] Some dispute enhancement IP jumped in and I revert them, too. And then she came back, and I've reverted her and told her that's it. I left her a message that if she reverted it again, I would go straight to RFC/U, as DR suggests. She then 3RR templated me and reverted my message to her with an edit summary of 'revert overt threat by editor'. I'm not touching Jackson again. I'll see what Rossrs says and begin the next step. Many have seen the edges of this, so I'm not going to go into detail here. nb: the best bit is that she's not even edited this page before ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All I can say here is "Wah!" Jack has made a habit of going about and reformatting filmography tables to make them adhere to his personal preference of sortability. This article was formulated using a standard, non-sortable filmography table. I do object to Jack imposing his personal preference on the page and I would object to anyone coming in to reformulate how an article evolved, which is precisely what Jack did. My rationale for reverting this originally was imposing personal preference over how the article was orginally formulated. Jack reverted it, stating Rv; you do not own this; take it up with Rossrs and I. There is no agenda developed for a mediation, however it isn't proper to edit war this way to retain his personal preference, especially when more than one editor has objected. His characterization of the IP that reverted him is an attack on that editor and it totally improper. I reverted Jack the second time and noted "how absurd to charge ownership to an article I've never edited before, meanwhile, you are charging in to edit war to protect your changes to the basic structure as it was originally formulated - now that would be asserting your viewpoint/ownership." Jack consistently accuses me of ownership if I object to his edits, even in this one where I had not edited before. Then note that he immediately posted to my talk page to threaten me again with opening an RfC/U. His representation of my having put off agreeing to mediation had been answered some time ago, and Jack kept trying to force me to comment on it in other talk discussions. Since his post to my talk page was an overt threat, I see no reason not to state what it was. I'm quite tired of Merridew turning around to threaten me with "escalation" to open a RfC/U. That actually is not part of a numbered series of steps in dispute resolution regarding content disagreements. His intent in threatening such a RfC would seem to be that he would like to see me get kicked around and open the doors to harassment, which mostly centers around Merridew persistently wikistalking me and picking disagreements. How ironic that he'd make an issue of disgreeing when I hadn't edited the article before, and he is the one who routinely shows up at articles he's never edited before when he wikistalks me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POINT for Livie.

I am WP:BOLD all the time in editing pages in ways that earlier editors did not foresee; some recent examples:

• [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286]

I've been doing this for years ;)

What does Livie do? She obstructs clean-up, blocks consensus, bites n00bz and most everyone else that touches her articles; she issues orders to one and all in embedded comments, she assumes bad faith, and pastes invalid code about; she likes blue.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to be part of an ongoing dispute with both of you throwing accusations at each other about past and current actions. It does seem some sort of mediation is needed. Is it possible for you two to avoid each other until it is clear whether mediation will sort things out? Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I believe an interaction ban between Jack Merridew and Wildhartlivie may merit consideration.  Chickenmonkey  06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that such a ban could lead to a situation where whoever "gets to" an article first will be able to lay "claim" on it. Without getting into the specifics of right and wrong, I think it could result in the articles WHL "gets to" first being presented according to her preference, and those that Jack Merridew sees first, being presented according to his preference. I think that would only cause further division and compound the problem of a lack of a standardised approach. It would mean no more quarrels, but I don't think it would help the articles and would make issues more confusing for other editors who might come along and "fix" one set of articles if they see that they don't comply with a perceived "standard". Remember that both editors are looking at style issues from a fundamentally different viewpoint; it's not a question of different opinions relating to article content. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've not heard back from Rossrs, about this; he did say that he's busy. I rather took her starting this today at about the same time as nominally agreeing to informal mediation concerning only "the current points of disagreement" as rather poor faith. I will ask him about the sequencing.

  I've been trying to sort this properly for some time, including by avoiding her. Much of her intent here is to eject me from her articles; i.e. actor bios and their filmographies. This dispute has already entailed one huge^¼mb and messy RFC on proper the proper formatting of filmographies and underlies the current RFC on consensus. I've not commented on the latter, yet, but I have commented on the page where it was proposed and launched: User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC (and I do appear in the RfC's history prior to it being moved from MRG's userspace). Rossrs is WHL's friend and I agreed to work through him as I see him as a reasonable editor who is familiar with the history of this dispute. I'd welcome your involvement, too, as one of the possible destinations for this mess is at your door.

  To be clear (to all), this is not about the blue, it is about her obstructing badly needed clean up of a huge heap of poor code hard-coded into tens of thousands of articles, her repeatedly obstruction of more than a year's efforts at addressing this, her view that WikiProjects are governing bodies concerning the articles in their topic area, her massive ownership issues, and the endless reverting of efforts by anyone trespassing on her turf.

  Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "the current points of disagreement" is quoted from an email I sent to Jack Merridew, and they are my words, not WHL's. I was attempting to paraphrase and condense what she had said to me. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, I like looking at tables, but hate editing them. You are going to hate the way colour is used in tennis articles (or any sports articles). When Wimbledon was on, I spent lots of time looking at the grand slam career records of lots of tennis players, and the colours (once you got used to them) were helpful in picking out how the players did in different tournaments. Anyway, back to the point. What administrative action is needed here if you both seem to be heading into mediation? I don't think ANI reports or arguing between you two will help any mediation start off on the right footing. You need to both talk to the mediator, not complain on this board about each other. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've not seen the tables you're talking about. For some situations, colour is warranted; I've never disputed that. My concerns focus on appropriate implementations of things, and endless markup baked-in to pages is never a good thing as it makes the editing of the tables considerably more difficult for most editors and it serves to cement things in place. Similarly, rowspan and colspan complicate editing and trip people up every day. In such situations, implementing things in a central spot is appropriate if the colour (or whatever styling) is warranted. A lot of the styling hard-coded into pages is simply unwarranted. Templates, of course, can serve to encapsulate implementations, as can the site CSS. This can take considerable work, and in order for anyone of skill to take it on, the styling in question needs to be warranted; a reasonable styling-rationale, if you will, is required. Too often, it's mere ILIKEIT.

  The form of filmography tables, and all manner of other tables (tennis, anyone?), varies greatly and robust template solutions of the scale of say, {{navbox}}, could be implemented. When is this warranted? Common.css offers an excellent mechanism, but is a class="filmography" warranted? Such local preferences need to be kept out of the site stylesheets, as thousands of others will seek their own classes; class="MileyCyrus", which would presumably involve a shade of purple.

  I brought this here because she was disruptively edit warring. I still see no indication that she's seeking any resolution other than continued obstruction. I'll drop this for now and await a reply from Rossrs (or WHL). I'll also pull my thoughts together for a statement in the current RfC; I saw your comment; you get it ;)

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We badgered the developers for sortable tables for, quite literally, years. We did this to make a more usable encyclopedia. It's really WP:CommonSense at this point to use them. If rowspan forgoes the option of allowing sorting, and serves no function to the table beyond subjective aesthetics of a few, then it needs to go in the face of increased functionality. -- ۩ Mask 12:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering a bit at this edit summary of "how absurd to charge ownership to an article I've never edited before, meanwhile, you are charging in to edit war to protect your changes to the basic structure as it was originally formulated - now that would be asserting your viewpoint/ownership". Unless it is a case of edits making a good or featured article worse (which this is not), why does how an article was "originally formulated" have any weight on future edits? Articles are not carved from stone. Also, how did Wildhartlivie arrive at an article they had never edited before reverting Merridew? This seems to be a clear-cut case of stalking/hounding, and misuse of an editor's contrib history to follow them around. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Jack Merridew said earlier, I did say I was busy, and I live on the opposite side of the planet to both Jack and Wildhartlivie so I'm not always available at the same time they are. I received an email from each of them, this morning my time, and although I had time to read them before going to work today, I had no time to reply to either, and now this has occurred in my absence. OK, so here's my take. Jack made an uncontroversial (IMO) edit to Samuel L. Jackson filmography. Adding sortability is acceptable as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables), so I think WHL was wrong to revert that. It doesn't matter that the article has used a certain format for a period of time. It's not illegal to make a change, and sortability is an issue Jack Merridew has commented on before, so if he makes the edit it can be assumed that it's a genuine effort for improvement, and therefore falls under "being bold". Added to that is the RfC filed by User:Moonriddengirl which is still current, and which is attempting to address the question of whether Wikiprojects have the right to determine style choices independently of site-wide guidelines. It's still underway, but there is an expressed view that site-wide guidelines take precedence over project guidelines, and it then follows that if a site-wide guideline states that sortability is an acceptable option, there is not sufficient reason to remove it, if someone adds it. Of course anyone can comment or object, but I think reverting it was the wrong approach. WHL says she would have removed it no matter who added it, and I believe that, but I think everyone needs to admit that everyone is watching everyone else's edits, and stop getting upset when someone appears on an article they've edited. I also see no value in either side pointing out that it's a personal preference, because clearly that comment applies to both sides. That argument is a lose/lose argument. I did agree to act as an informal mediator. Yes, WHL is someone I consider a friend and she has some valid points, and Jack Merridew is someone I don't know well, but I consider that he too has some valid points. I think both of them behave inappropriately at times. If this is the kind of drama that flares up over something that I consider to be a fairly inconsequential edit, it makes me doubt the usefulness of a mediation process. I'm bothered that both of them allowed this to happen while I have been making every effort to establish some kind of dialogue between them. Either of them could have, and both of them should have said to themselves that a mediation was pending and that walking away from a possible fight was the best course. Neither of them chose that course. I think Jack Merridew started out making an acceptable edit, but it ends up here with a header "User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today", which is not neutral and which is, even assuming good faith, retaliatory in design. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why Jack would post edits he made to articles about fictional characters as examples when they aren't a part of anything that is under dispute. Talk about tooting one's own horn. Jack's accusations are also largely unwarranted. I "obstructs clean-up, blocks consensus, bites n00bz and most everyone else that touches her articles; she issues orders to one and all in embedded comments, she assumes bad faith, and pastes invalid code about; she likes blue." I do not obstruct clean-up, except when Jack or whoever makes personal opinions and viewpoints a part of "clean-up". That I post disagreements with issues that Jack espouses doesn't make anyone block consensus. Yeah, I have been accused of biting newbies, but then there are issues that newbies are also biting about. I'm quite sick of Jack screaming "ownership", something he also did when I returned valid imbedded notes in an article that addressed proper formatting and dates as he did on Kate Winslet. Wow. A note that clarifies that Winslet did not win a certain award, but another one by an awards ceremony, a note to convey that "Academy Award-winning" should not be stuck in the lead sentence of the article, and a note to clarify that until Winslet and Mendes are divorced that no end of marriage date should be inserted. Wow. How is that ownership? It's more like trying to avoid repeated errors that are made. Way to be pointy there, Jack. And to be clear, I mostly assume bad faith whenever Jack Merridew's name comes up in an article history. I do not paste "bad code" around. At one time I used a table format that had errors, but Jack's contention seems to be that I did that knowingly, although when I asked him to explain to me what was wrong with it, his reply was essentially to tell me I'm too stupid for an explanation. I have tried very hard to work within what was approved at the RfC, which Jack flatly will not acknowledge all the while he continues to threaten me. No, Tarc, I do not wikistalk Jack. I was asked to look at the Jackson filmography via email. If you'd like, I can certainly give you a lengthy list of occasions that Jack arrives at an article, sometimes for the first time, soon after I edited it, though. You cannot substantiate that I wikistalk Jack Merridew, but I can verify that he does so to me. Constantly. I made one revert to that filmography, an IP made one and then I made another. But I am being disruptive and subjected to threats. Who is missing the big picture here? I'd also note that I was "warned" about my edits on that page while Jack, who took it to the edge of 3RR was not. Biased on the part of the administrator? I dunno, but it seems that way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole thread was done with bad faith assumptions. I volunteered to help in the mediation and was told no which is fine. That being said, there was an agreement that the tables would be left alone until the different RFC's were completed. The one major thing that is missing here is that these tables had no complaints for years. They were excepted by the community and othe editors were duplicating the tables to different articles, still with no one complaining. I see these different things as being different POV's. Jack has his preferences and WHL has her's. Both have editors supporting them. What I also see though is a very active attempt to make WHL disappear, either on her own or by blocking or sanctions. For example, if you look at Wildhartlive you will see a notice at the top of her user page announcing her retirement. Well after she sid this she went and blanked all of her pages and subpages. Jack took one page and unblanked it. WHL blanked it again, then an administrator made a comment and reblanked the page which Jack immediately undid and then his friend Chowbok put a template on it for a second deletion review even though Jack said he was planning on esculating through the DR process. Jack wants it rev deleted even though these are notes for WHL to use for further DR situations. [287]. To see more of what this is all about please see the following difs, sorry but you will have to look at the history too in some of these so you can see the comments made in the edit summaries. [288], [289] (I put this up because RL was and is still screaming for my attentions). [290] (this one shows the main problems along with the frustation being felt by all) There are more of these but the point is, imho, that these editors involved need to chill out and stop baiting each other. No one in completely right nor is anyone completely wrong. I say this should wait for the RFC before anything more is done. I also think that the editors, me included should try stay away from each other. This has gone on for way too long. WHL apparently comes off sounding too harsh to some so we were working together via email to soften her approach and it was working too. Well I guess this helps explain some of the history going on for those here that are not aware. I hope this helps calm things down and also helps uninvolved editors so that they can help calm things down. I'm done with this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Since Jack's first edit to the Samuel L Jackson filmography was before Wildhartlivie's, it is hard to sustain an accusation of wikistalking, at least on this particular article. I would also recommend to Wildhartlivie that she read WP:BOLD and WP:BRD before complaining about editors coming and having the sheer cheek to change articles. They're not set in stone, and Wikipedia is built on a principle of continuous improvement. Opposing all changes for the sake of opposing change is antithetical to that principle. As for the dispute over table formatting itself, it is clear to me that Jack's version is better. Being able to sort the rows is more useful than not being able to. Okay, so I can't see much point in being able to sort by the first name of the director, but being able to list them by the title of the film is definitely a good feature to have. Obstructing this functionality just because you're enamoured of rowspans is not helpful. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Easily fixed, as long as you've eschewed {{filmography table begin}} ;) Jack Merridew 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Replie on article talk page. Reyk _YO! 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I did not state at anytime on this page that Jack wikistalked me to this article. In fact, this may be the only time I've ever arrived at an article where Jack had just previously edited, and I was asked to look at the article by an editor in an email. However there are scores of articles where Jack has blatantly wikistalked my edits, where he was generally the very next editor, in a very short time period, to edit after me. My user subpage he is so keen to have deleted covers just some of the wikistalking he has done, and it is quite long with examples. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I find it astonishing that nobody seems to have actually bothered to evaluate the original two edits Jack made [291] (+ the previous), compared with the state of the article prior to his edit [292]. Go ahead, look at each of those two diffs and click on the sort button next to 'Film' in the first table. Look at the results. Before Jack's edits the table sorting was broken. He didn't introduce the sorting, or impose a new style, or a personal preference, but he fixed the broken functionality of the page. WHL was edit-warring to revert to a broken version. Here's the revision history of the page. Pick any of Jack's versions and check the sorting on the first table – it works. Pick any of WHL's versions – trying to sort creates a mess. Is anybody able to explain how an "even-handed" approach is warranted here when one editor is improving the article, and the other is reverting without even looking to see what the effect of the revert was? I apologise in advance for being blunt, and I have no personal animosity toward WHL – who is clearly a valued contributor – but if those reversions had been made by a new editor, they'd have been blocked for blatant vandalism by now. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC) added missing "no" - apologies, I really don't have any personal animosity to any other editor. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) struck an inaccuracy: Jack actually did originally introduce sorting, but that was a month earlier --RexxS (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I had assumed from what Wildhartlivie said that the original tables were not sortable ("This article was formulated using a standard, non-sortable filmography table."). I think I even checked that, but must have either been looking at the wrong page version or looking at the "TV work" table (which is indeed not sortable). I think the point here is that the table was at one time not sortable. Ah yes, here we go. Jack added the sortable class here (8 May 2010). It was somewhere in the intervening edits that the table got broken. I would assume Wildhartlivie wasn't aware of that. If there was less animosity here, it might have been possible for this to have been pointed out. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • You're quite right (the table got broken on 14 May), but was clearly broken when Jack returned to the article on 7 July. I can imagine his exasperation when he fixed it only to have it reverted by WHL's first edit to the article. Nevertheless, from a behavioural point of view, Jack went wrong there by reverting WHL instead of going to talk and explaining that WHL was restoring a broken table. It's the edit-warring that inflames tempers, because each side knows they are right and can't let the wrong version of the article stand. Only solution I can see is to have a trusted "middle-man" that either could turn to when they find themselves in that position. --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, the edits I made removed the sortability. You can't feasibly state that I messed up the sorting when I actually removed it, and reverted to the unsortable table. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Jack Merridew and Wildhartlivie

These two editors are not going to give up reverting each other and filing reports here and at other noticeboards until 1. One of them gets indef blocked, or 2. We impose an interaction ban. I'd rather it be the latter. This dispute has been played out on countless article, user, and project talk pages (including my talk page), and there is no sign of it abating. It is disruptive and is not helping resolve the dispute over table formatting. There's an ongoing RfC that should obviously be excluded from this interaction ban.

So I propose the following: User:Wildhartlivie is not to revert any edit made by User:Jack Merridew, and is not to comment on Jack Merridew except at the ongoing RfC, and vice versa. If either party breaks the interaction ban, they may be blocked. Is there support for this? Fences&Windows 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for any restriction on me. I've a thread and dialogue going on with Rossrs re mediation. There is a lot of support for the direction I'm advocating, and she's the obstructing party. Frankly, if any restriction is imposed on me, I'll take this straight to an RFC/U on her and then to arbitration. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is once again a blatant threat to me by Jack by saying if the community imposes an interaction ban, that he will then take it to a "beat up on Wildhartlivie RfC/U page" that he and his cohort Chowbok can just continue to attack and degrade me. That really to me seems to be what Jack wants to do - open something wherein he can simply beat up on me to his heart's content. His threats need to stop, much as his wikistalking needs to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still willing to have this mediated with Rossrs, if you're willing to "cowboy up", as Protonk, commented. Up to you. Jack Merridew 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm sorry but I think this would be a good thing for both of you. I'm sorry you can't see that Jack. I wouldn't mind if the meditation was added as something the two of you can interact in. Maybe this way the mediation would have a better chance. You can't really believe that you are not causing any disruptions too with all of this. Fences and windows, would you adjust proposal to allow the mediation to go on between these two editors and the mediator, Rossrs? I think an interaction ban maybe a good idea. At least it's worth a try. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support^withdrawn Oppose - (Another course of action may be more apt, even if I'm not aware of what it is) - I had hoped Wildhartlivie's recent retirement would act as a bit of a "self-imposed" interaction ban to perhaps let the dust settle, but she's apparently not retired (which is completely within her right, and I'm glad for it). As this "self-imposed" interaction ban has not come to fruition, however, I believe an indefinite interaction ban (with the noted caveats of the ongoing RFC and possible mediation) is the best way to go with this particular pair of editors. An interaction ban, we should remember, is to be used only as a last resort; but I feel the community has been more than gracious with its patience. I do, for what it's worth, feel this interaction ban (if levied) could be revisited in some predetermined amount of time. To the concern Rossrs expressed above, on either editor "getting to" an article first and essentially setting their preference: I believe normal discussion will deal with any such occurrences.  Chickenmonkey  23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  "Normal discussion" is a great concept, and we've tried that. To be blunt, it's failed. An interraction ban would preclude rather than encourage normal discussion. If Jack Merridew and WHL aren't allowed to talk to each other, how do we prevent creating two sets of articles according to their individual preference, who takes part in the discussions and where would they occur? The problem won't go away just because we put gags and blinkers on the two editors. I think it would be a nightmare to administer and it would decentralise the overriding disagreement and fragment it on to specific article talk pages. If we end up with what I refer to as "two sets of articles" I think that would encourage individual editors to take sides, and we've already got a group of editors vs. another group of editors. I think we would end up providing a framework that would encourage more of the us vs. them attitude. One of the main issues is about site-wide consistency and I think an interraction ban would work against this aim. I agree that the community has been more than patient. Perhaps it's time for the community to insist on a resolution, and I say that as someone who can see valid points from each of the editors in question. I think they each have something useful to contribute and I do not want to see either of them blocked. If keeping them apart could result in an immediate improvement at article level, I'd be more open to the suggestion, but I just don't see it. So I'm still saying I oppose, along with my comments earlier to your original suggestion. Rossrs (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Consensus appears to be against an interaction ban; so, perhaps mediation will work. The problem may not go away just because we put gags and blinkers on the two editors, but it isn't going away with the current approach either. I suggested an interaction ban may merit consideration because the hint just doesn't seem to be getting through (I assume Fences and Windows suggested it for similar reasons), and I would not like to see this eventually result in one or both editors being dealt with more severely. Hopefully this will clear itself up after another few months of back-and-forth arguments.^Humor  Chickenmonkey  01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  @both: What normal discussion? WHL booted me off her talk page four months ago; she's the one closed to discussion: I wrote most of the quarter meg of the first RfC. Where's her clear statement agreeing to discuss this at mediation, or anywhere, really? Mostly she talks @ me in edit summaries or to the peanut gallery in threads such as the one above. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that the avenues for normal discussion have not been blocked in a way that an interaction ban would block them. Normal discussion has been attempted and it has failed. We're here, aren't we? Rossrs (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Rossrs's comment in the section above. At least give mediation a chance. - Josette (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- I can't see it being helpful. As Rossrs points out, this has the potential to end up with both Jack and WHL scurrying around to as many articles as they can and laying claim to them so that the other can't edit there. Then one or the other will turn up here again going "That ratbag's just editing articles to block me!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" "No I'm not!" and the whole thing will turn into a big messy, time consuming and disruptive dramafest. It just won't work. Better to just tell both editors to crank down the hostility from "Obnoxious hysteria" to "Quiet grumbles". Reyk _YO! 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – given my views expressed above, I fail to see why Jack Merridew should be prevented from fixing problems like broken sortable tables, simply because WHL has recently edited there. Neither side has behaved well by edit-warring, but I still feel mediation needs to be given a chance first, since much of this concerns content issues. --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think an interaction ban here will be helpful. I see one editor being WP:BOLD and another editor reverting out of "it was formatted this way first!". Formatting isn't a native language to most of us. Those who know it can do all sorts of wonderful things that those of us who don't know the language can't do. My first article was reformatted several times by other editors, and the net result is much improved from my original version. A debate like this needs to be sorted on the talk page. An interaction ban is just going to prevent issues from being discussed and resolved. N419BH 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Interaction bans are silly. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  As I commented on F&W's talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Fine, but you'll see this dispute drag on as it has been dragging on for months, with Jack Merridew following Wildhartlivie's editing. Something has to stop it and I'm afraid I don't see mediation coming to anything. Jack Merridew can try to lecture about dispute resolution, but since when has AN/I been a dispute resolution venue? He just wants to get Wildhartlivie banned, and will keep pushing her buttons in order to get it, with the help of Chowbok. Fences&Windows 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • @F&W: JM's first edit to Samuel L. Jackson filmography was 00:02, 8 May 2010. JM's first edit this month to the article was 10:05, 7 July 2010. WHL's first ever edit to the article was 12:50, 8 July 2010 (all UTC). I can't see how that can be construed as "Jack Merridew following Wildhartlivie's editing", can you? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • RexxS, there is a lot more history than simply the Samuel L. Jackson filmography and I am sure that's what Fences&Windows is referring to. It goes back over several months, and across a number of articles. The times of the edits to this one article do not tell the whole story. You'd need about a week to sift through it all. Rossrs (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I think I've fully unravelled what happened at this article, and although I feel Jack was right from an article improvement point of view, I'm sad that neither side was able to take the high ground and start a discussion. I'll happily accept that there's a wider picture that I'm unaware of, if you'll forgive my earlier puzzlement at F&W's comment, which didn't make sense to me in the context of this thread. As an aside and to follow up what I've discussed in the previous section, is there any chance you could persuade Jack & WHL to talk to you first whenever they feel the urge to revert the other? --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
          • • That pretty well sums up my viewpoint on this incident too. Either party could have walked away and should have, but neither wanted to be the first to let go. This incident, in isolation, is fairly minor, but it's part of a much larger history and F&W's comment would seem out of place to anyone not familiar with that history. In fact, a lot of comments here must look odd for the same reason. To answer your question, I honestly don't know. Both Jack and WHL agreed to informal mediation. Jack suggested that I act as the mediator, I agreed, WHL agreed, and this has happened before the mediation started. I see what you're saying but I don't know if it would work. If they talked to me first every time one felt the urge to revert the other, I suspect I'd be kept pretty busy. WHL is a long-standing friend of mine, and I have been as welcoming of Jack as I can be, after admittedly a rocky start (which is another part of the history I refer to). They both know they can talk to me, and both of them do talk to me but this flared up just the same. There's only so much I can do, and only so much I'm willing to do. Rossrs (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Then permission granted to cowboy up and resolve the dispute as though it were between adults. Interaction bans are just added stricture so that down the road someone doesn't have to make a judgment call; they can just say "we made a little rule and someone pissed on our little rule". And we can pat ourselves on the back for having made a just decision which is completely at variance with how the encyclopedia ought to be run. Fewer rules, not more. More personal intervention if needed, not crossing the t and dotting the i. And preferably we might reach a mutually agreeable outcome between the two parties instead of having them sit in ever expanding separate corners of the room. Lets not mention the sterling record of mutual interaction bans. I'd be somewhat willing to endorse interaction bans as a general tactic if they worked like gangbusters, but they don't. They are prone to GAMEing, they don't make both parties happy, and they don't resolve disputes. They just create a paper trail and add more rules. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I do support the idea of an interaction ban in spirit (keep away from each other, you have no conflict), but I am swayed by some of the arguments above. I would normally be the first one to suggest mediation, but it's clear to me that both of these users have a serious mad-on for one another and I don't think they can assume good faith in one another enough to make a serious go at that. Jack brings up the idea of an RFC/U, and WHL has compiled her evidence against him... you know what? I say run 'em both and let the community sort these two out. Although, it seems that both have plenty of people with something negative to say about each of them, so it's certainly possible that neither will like the results. ArbCom may be inevitable, but right now I say dual RFC/Us might just help to avoid that outcome. (And if not, they'll speed it along, which might be just as well.) BOZ (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, the only thing I want is for Jack Merridew to stop wikistalking my edits and doing dumb and pointy stuff like removing valid imbedded notes from articles when they are placed to address concerns that arose in errors to the page. I'm really quite glad to see that someone else notices Jack's wikistalking and the resultant harassment he doles out in doing that. Yeah, I banned him from my talk page, which is something anyone would end up doing if they were subjected to the kind of harassment I've been dealt by Jack and his buddy Chowbok. Yeah, I retired for a while mainly because of Jack and Chowbok. That's mostly because the only adminstrator here who has been willing to try to tame the "bash and bad-mouth Wildhartlivie best" was Fences and Windows. And I note once more that Jack's statement above that if an interaction ban is effected, his intent is to immediately open a RfC/U bash-fest in an attempt to what? Get me banned from Wikipedia? Jack's history is rife with wikistalking and harassment of editors with whom he disagrees and because of which arbcom imposed a babysitter to guard against when he was allowed to return here. It's obvious his conduct didn't improve from his conduct toward me. It's also obvious that he was banned for sockpuppetry and he is still registering new accounts here. And finally, he has made on more than one occasion an intimidation post where he declares he is "experienced" in arbitration and blatantly states such that he is still here and others are gone, which is meant to intimidate me and anyone else who disagrees with him. A statement that I really don't want him to do that is meant to scare off those who don't agree with him. This sort of crap really needs to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What a load of shit as usual - like anyone intimidates you. You both wikistalk each other. Suck it up and go to mediation. - Josette (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Then go right ahead and try to establish that I wikistalk Jack Merridew's edits. I do not. Your comments are tendentious and assaultive, which is exactly what I would expect from someone who views Jack as just a harmless wiki-gnome. I didn't say I was intimidated, I said he has repeatedly tried to intimidate. This is the second time you have posted this sort of comment regarding me and your personal attacks like this one really need to stop, Josette. You don't have to like me, but you are supposed to curtail these sorts of posts and especially ones that make false statements like this one. Personal attacks aren't helpful anywhere and by the by, the person I said was a sock puppet was later blocked for... sock puppetry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think many of the issues here, i.e. wikihounding, WP:ABF implications, experience, etc., can be avoided by requiring a BRD talk and edit consensus under certain conditions. For example: when one of the two editor's changes are "reverted" (in whole or part) by the other, and the original editor reverts back, then it must accompany a prior talk rationale, and a notice in the summary that it is a WP:BRD reversion. This will require 3rd party comments and consensus before the original editor's changes are again reverted. The "consensus" should not simply be a raw vote count, but must include a rationale. Canvassing for support should be avoided to any previous non-editors of the article. This is not a perfect solution, but at least avoids hot-tempered summaries and requires an implied "cooling off" and calmer discussion. Any talk discussions that include extraneous POV comments, such as User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today should void that person's discussion as lacking a prima facie WP:AGF. It has mostly worked well in my experience.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Deviations

• WP:Deviations

  In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes.

It's part of: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)

So, why is all this still roiling on? The MOS says not to use inline styles for tables. I've been cutting that crap for years. It should all go. And the site CSS will only accept what's truly warranted per some solid rationale. Because Livie and some folks on WT:ACTOR say so? WP:CONLIMITED. She calls what's on WP:ACTOR *POLICY*. Really, and recently: "Please look into the policy on future films on actor biographies at WP:ACTOR."^4th¶

Seriously, Jack Merridew 02:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And here we have another example of Jack trying to make something out of nothing. There is a written explanation regarding inserting future films into articles without supporting references. And that is a valid statement that is supported by policy regarding sourcing statements. And the RfC on tables asks questions regarding WP:CONLIMITED. And there is content on Wikipedia regarding wikistalking, but Jack doesn't seem to adhere to that, either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

as I have before, I want to express my support for what Jack is trying to accomplish. It is better if we have consistent style. It is better if we fix spacing typos in tables; it is better if we avoid idiosyncratic use of color. It is better if we keep sortable tables sortable. It is better if we use sitewide css rather than hardcoding, because this both aids consistency and permits people to use custom css to meet their accessibility needs. Jack has from time to time fixed problems like these in my work, and I'm grateful for it, because I sometimes do not have the patience. But the question is whether the best way to deal with it is extended confrontations with individual editors with respect to articles they have done extensive work on, when they do not agree with what he and I and probably almost all of us think obviously required. Perhaps it would be better to deal with these as a systematic clean-up project to avoid individual hard feelings. I know what its like to have spent hours getting some wikicode or html just right for a particular effect, and then be told it wasn't not a good idea in the first place; people are not necessarily calm and rational at such points. We should try really hard to de-personalize it. I think Jack's going about reinforcing the policy here in the right way now with the RfC,and it might be well to postpone individual disputes until we could fix them by teamwork so no one person gets the blame for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DGG, the work is needed and it's a boon to the project Jack is willing to step in. Also concur that a systematic clean-up project is perhaps the way to go to avoid situations like, well, this. -- ۩ Mask 05:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• You guys both need to stop litigating the underlying dispute at AN/I. To be perfectly honest few people care about the specifics of whatever impetus caused this flare up. People care about getting it stopped so that both parties are reasonably happy or, failing that, both parties are not any unhappier than they need to be. If there is an RFC on the underlying content dispute, then that is the place to make the case. We don't need to hash it out on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And what precisely is Jack doing that allows for wikistalking, making overt threats and edit warring to retain his POV of how something should look? It is only his contention that he is doing massive clean up and that I am blocking it. That isn't true, it's only his contention. A lot of his "clean up" includes removing imbedded notes that are placed because some thing or another has been an issue and is noted to inform readers coming in to the article. Oh, and note that Jack has stated he has not made a post to the current RfC, so how is he reinforcing the policy? What policy would that be? And don't mistake anything, Jack will blame me if the ozone layer disappears. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can the hysteria. As if Jack Merridew would blame you for the hole in the ozone layer. From what I've seen his problem with you is that you obstruct his attempts to make the tables better simply because he's Jack Merridew and that you accuse him of stalking you by editing an article several hours before you; and he's correct on both counts. Admittedly he's gone close a few times to dickish behaviour in registering those complaints. This dispute doesn't cast either of you in a good light but, while I see Jack as being motivated by a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia, I've seen nothing from you so far but obstructionism, bizarre accusations and massive ownership issues. Reyk _YO! 08:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure WHL does not seriously expect Jack Merridew to blame her for the hole in the ozone layer. I also disagree that WHL accused JM of wikistalking an article that he edited before her, ie Samuel L. Jackson filmography. The wikistalking comment relates to previous history, and to suggest that WHL is saying it applies to the article that sparked this discussion, is wrong. Rossrs (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reyk, I don't know why editors here have repeatedly falsely assumed that I claim Jack wikistalked me to this particular article. At no time did I claim that and in fact, I clarified that above. However, there is a well documented history of his wikistalking me and harassing me. I do not practice "obstructionism", that is simply something that Jack has thrown into the mix here to make it look worse. I do not have issues with ownership, however Jack did remove valid imbedded notes regarding persistent article errors (putting in the wrong award won, adding "Academy Award-winning" to the lead sentence and putting in that she is divorced to the Kate Winslet article and misrepresented what it is by calling it "ownership". That is fairly typical. The "bizarre accusations" of wikistalking can be supported with diffs from scores of articles. It would be entirely helpful if you don't just "take a side" and cast aspersions against someone all the while being absent the facts. Jack can say whatever and people believe it but someone say something about Jack's conduct and they are making "bizarre accusations"??? Nope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For editors who are confused about things please see my difs here. I tried to pick difs that showed a fair picture of what this dispute is about. I think that maybe someone should close these threads already and allow the mediation to start. Hopefully that will be fruitful for resolving all problems. I know Rossrs will do his best in mediating a very difficult situation. I see no use for keeping this open any longer, anyone else agree? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I second that; there's a RFC re the code (which is important and far-reaching), and mediation going on re the interaction (which, frankly, is much less so). Interested parties should take themselves off to those venues.   pablo_hablo. 17:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Did we rip them off or did they rip us off?

In working on an OTRS ticket about Morris Pert I went hunting for some sources, and noticed some odd timeline mismatched between our article and his obituary posted in the Scotsman.

• The obituary - Last Updated: 28 April 2010 8:39 PM (I assume local time)

• Our article gets an expansion almost the same time, 11:26, 28 April 2010.

Thoughts? Keegan (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely that the IP copied the obit from the Scotsman rather than writing it themselves from scratch. The fact that the "Last Updated" doesn't indicate "First Posted" doesn't help sort it out any, though. –xeno^talk 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Very likely copied from Scotsman. The first line in the edit seems to indicate that the information was copied from another source, and the tone of the edit just doesn't feel like something a typical editor would write. The fact that it was pasted at the end of the article shows that the user did not spend at least a few seconds figuring out where to put the text, probably indicating that they spent little time on the text itself. If you were to spend, say, 30 minutes or more writing that text, you'd probably spend a few seconds to figure out where to best integrate it into the article to ensure that it doesn't get removed, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's all remarkably similar to the official biography as far back as three years ago. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is common for news agencies and PR firms to have pre-written obituaries for public figures, needing only details such as date and cause of death to be filled in before public release. As the obituary follows a similar format to a music site biography for Pert and copies of the obituary printed by the Scotsman are available from other other news sources,[293] I would guess that the text is based upon one of these pre-written obituaries and that the IP was copying from some unknown wire service report. --Allen3 ^talk 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The same biography was actually on his official site (presumably written by the subject) back in 2002.[294] The text was probably nearly identical when the news broke. Whether it was released as a press announcement and under what licence we may never know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the text, but I haven't deleted it yet. Keegan (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is "the dead rock stars club" a reliable source? It doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles Being Vandalized

Dear Wikipedia,

My name is Arman and I would like to talk to you about vandalism taking place in Armenian related articles. For the past year, Armenia related Wikipedia pages have been vandalised and continue to be by a specific group who keep on deleting the origins and information on a Armenian related subject. For example, the Duduk, an Armenian instrument, keeps on having its Armenian origins and and information claiming it to be Armenian deleted since the begging of 2009. I know people from Google have found information that 26 Wikipedia accounts have been targeting Armenian pages and deleting information or changing them and those accounts would support each other in doing so. And every time someone try to Add those information back, they would again change them. Google already blocked a very few accounts or just limited their use for only two months, but they are back and have been doing so for the past year. The specific group are people who's ethnicity's are Azerbaijani, or azeries for short. Azeri's have been hacking Armenian websites for the past three years and changing any information on Armenian related articles, even so more common on Wikipedia. Azeris and Armenians have a long bad personal and political relationship, and already, Armenians are trying to solve this issue. Armenians in America tend to use Wikipedia to learn facts about their culture because since anyone can add information on Wikipedia, you can also learn other facts about the subject or information that you can't find anywhere else because there are no websites to explain them. I'v been looking at the articles histories for the past months and those who keep on changing the information end up being the same accounts. If you even click on there user names, it leads to their user web page which ends up always being a pro Azerbaijan page. Please block the following accounts because when Armenians try to add their information back, those same accounts always delete, change, or vandalize them again. They even blocked my old account, and where its supposed to say why I was blocked, they wrote "Quake" which they are refering to me. Please block the following accounts that I know of. 1] Grandmaster 2] Interfase 3] Brandmeister Those are the top three who mainly do the vandalism and when I find out if there are others, I will tell you. So please understand my concern and those of other Armenian Wikipedia users. Please try to solve this issue and block those accounts, we [ the Armenian-Americans] are tired of these vandalisms. I've already sent a email to wikipedia.org and they said you should be able to help us . Thank you for your time and I hope to see this problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.187.4 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

here's how it's done. Do it this way, and you'll avoid tedious edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe try again :) --Tom (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the above IP is banned user Armoboy323 (talk · contribs) evading his ban. He may have had more accounts and IPs that he used to edit war. Grandmaster 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Armoboy323 has been indef blocked. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yepp. Had me fooled. Sorry, my bad, was just trying to help... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Very problematic image uploader

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Fences&Windows 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved; collapsing to discourage any further sarcastic additions.

3count (talk · contribs) has had a very problematic history of image uploads and other issues. He started out last November with edits like this [295], and then didn't edit for a while. In July, he started uploading new images as new versions of old images we already have (like here [296]) and uploading obvious copyrighted images and claiming he created them [297]. He's also uploading images without licenses of apparently non-notable people [298], [299]. In the case of the last image, he used it to vandalize the Steven Seagal article [300]. His talk page is a list of warnings and image upload notices, but he doesn't seem to "get it". I have notified them of this discussion [301]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC) From a cursory look, he's up to no good; I'd say indef as WP:VOA and be done with him... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC) <sarcasm>I propose a new policy. Any user with more uploads then talk page edits gets indefed, no exceptions</sarcasm>. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) What is new about this policy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender176

Resolved

 – Bender176 was admonished, given a holiday from Twinkle, thread now producing more heat then light. -- ۩ Mask 05:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Account likely compromised, indefinitely blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender176 (talk · contribs) was blocked a couple of days ago for randomly abusing any IP he happened to see editing (previous discussion). He's promptly resumed (You are anonymous so your opinions don't count, Don't question me I'm a registered editor so stop editing my page anon, Get a real account then you'll get some respect) and is deleting warnings from his talkpage as fast as they come in—can someone do the necessary? – iridescent 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Wikiquette alers: User:Bender176 is biased against anonymous editors and will revert them regardless of the merits of the edits. He also insults editors. He labels anyone who disagrees with him or her as 'vandals'. See his or her edits for the whole history. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

False all the way around ladies and gentlemen please check my other contributions. I may make some mistakes but I cleaned my act up since then. People may disagree with me but that doesn't mean they're wrong. He's trying to [hound me] because I reverted a few of his edits mistakenly [here] and it's not because he's an anon either, I revert vandalism from [registered editors] as well. I even agreed to bury the hatchet but he disagreed. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

you are anonymous and therefore you don't count You could at least say "I'm sorry for saying that". 129.120.176.206 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did by saying "[let's bury the hatchet]" but YOU [refused to], and I only meant that on my talk page because you have no right to edit war on it but on articles everyone has equal say. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I said I was sorry and vowed it wouldn't happen again. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not overlook his many, many false accusations of vandalism where none are present.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Yunus&diff=prev&oldid=372614588
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_First_Beat&diff=prev&oldid=372663402
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bette_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=372664721
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Teixeira&diff=prev&oldid=372668822
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Teixeira&diff=prev&oldid=372668822

...all within the last 8 hours. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and every warning issued on my talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I said I was sorry none of us are perfect okay? I even told them they could revert it if they wanted to and even tried to [make peace] with one of them but he refused. I mean if you 69 guy want to revert all my mistaken reverts then go ahead and do so I apologize for those all. And I told you numerous times to quit editing my page but you disruptively did so anyway so you are at fault too so those warnings were not mistakes.--Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out your violating WP:CIVIL with [this] edit summary so you are for sure at fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bender176 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You have not apologized in any credible way; in fact, your recent edits to your talk page demonstrate that you still think it's okay to discriminate against IP editors. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I have apologized, but you've hounded me numerous times tonight as well and that last edit summary was uncalled for too. See you're trying to track every little edit bad or not because you hate me. I only stated that IPs rank below Registered Editors on talk pages ONLY but in articles everyone has equal say. He is also disrupting my talk page just to try to [prove a point] which is disallowed. Check how many times he and other anons reverted my page and they clearly are trying to hound me and per WP:BLANK you can blank your page if you'd like. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, you don't get it. IPs do not "rank below Registered Editors". – iridescent 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See, that's not something that really qualifies as "only". All good-faith editors deserve good-faith consideration of their good-faith edits. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the exact point I'm subtly working into the converstion here. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do assume good faith most of the time. And IPs rank below only in talk page privileges and semi-protected articles. Other than that they're equal I'll give you that. I don't necessarily dislike IPs but the two above have been hounding me due to a small mistake I made. I even told them they could change it and I wouldn't stop them but they still refused. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IPs don't rank below registered editors because there is no ranking of editors. And IPs have the same right to comment on talk pages as do other editors. The only differences between IPs and other editors is that (1) IPs have chosen not to register an account but to edit anonymously, and (2) they cannot edit semi-protected pages (an unfortunate side effect of vandalism that, because there seems to be no other way to deal with vandalism, targets our many valuable IP editors). --RegentsPark (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(Bangs head) IP's do not "rank below you" anywhere. Bender, you're in a hole; stop digging. – iridescent 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop "digging" if you stop hounding me. And I don't want to repeat myself about my thoughts about IPs. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, for your own good...I recommend you take a ten minute break. Drink a glass of water, and please directly apologize to these people. Say you won't do it again, and that you will assume good faith, and treat IP's as if they're a cute creative math based user name. 69 is a good editor. If you want to move in the right direction, you need to point no more fingers, and focus on apologies - changed ways - and new found understanding. Realize you aren't being attacked, and assume good faith for all of these people here who have talked about you.--SexyKick 02:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, you are welcome to and free to have your own opinions about anonymous IPs. Just don't act on them for that reason alone, or even if you do, follow wiki guidelines when doing so. Need we point out that wikipedia is a community based project, and that you are but one user trying to pit yourself against countless anonymous IPs out there?Zhanzhao (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. At the last time I we compiled meaningful statistics, the vast majority of our content was contributed by IP users. Bender's entire schtick on the wiki seems to be one massive biting attack. He needs to demonstrate respect for his fellow editors, of any stripe, or his assertion that he 'has been civil lately' is false on its face. -- ۩ Mask 02:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To Mr. Mask, since a day ago I have been showing respect and only respect editors who deserve it and these Ip's and half of the other editors hounding against me don't deserve respect due to them not showing it to me. I know I've been blocked for incivility but let me clarify that "lately" is since I got unblocked except for a couple of bad edit summaries. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm trying to be calm, try harder to assume good faith, use Twinkle better, and I will apologize provided they do as well. And thanks for the advice to you two directly above. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What would they be apologizing for? Kuru (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that I have not reverted his talk page even once. If he had bothered to read what I was posting instead of blanking because I'm an IP editor, he would have seen that each and every one was about a different article and a different editor he falsely accused. By insisting on removing comments without reading them and compounding the offense with vandalism warnings, he demonstrates yet another aspect of Wikipedia that he fails to understand. I'm not saying this to "hound" him, but to try to drive home the point that he's just not getting it. I urge him again to not use Twinkle until he has a better grasp of policies and guidelines. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you kept posting and I told you to stop, so you should respect my wishes. And if you want to revert those articles then I said you could and I wouldn't stop you. And I did have every right to warn you for your disruption because that's clearly what you were doing (intended or not). Oh and to "drive home the point" you're violating WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT so stop. Ok, it's down to this. If you apologize, I will too, and we can resolve this issue peacefully. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing the disruptive edits on his part. Looking at the history of your edits, he appears to be making good-faith observations on your odd habit of declaring everything you see as vandalism. This also seems to be a continuation of the erratic editing that lead to your block 48 hours ago. Do you understand the points the IP was trying to make? Kuru (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do see some of the points, I made a simple mistake. However his disruption comes in when I told him to stop edit warring on my page. If he did it to you I assume you'd be annoyed. Look at it through my eyes. My editing has not been as bad no "f*** off"s anymore. So that's my case. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 03:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They should apologize for hounding me and taking it to the extreme, edit warring on my page WP:BLANK states you can remove comments, and not understanding that I made a small mistake. Then I'll do my share of apologizing. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.249.92 (talk)

Bender, here you removed the above editor's comments. I would normally assume it was a bug, but given your past behavior, it does seem a little questionable. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Given his past behaviour, I take it as a sign that he doesn't understand what an edit conflict is. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. Bugs happen sometimes. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 02:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You should BOTH drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Say you're sorry and move on. Otherwise a subtle adjustment to clue levels will be made. N419BH 03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what I told him, I said if he apologized I would too. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 03:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, N419BH is saying that you shouldn't set arbitrary conditions for disengaging, nor spin them into an attempt to blame the other party - you should just apologize. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If he comes back asking for an apology and agrees to do the same then I'll do it, even if he just asks for it but he has to post it explicitly below here. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 03:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not set conditions. The only behavior you can control is your own. N419BH 03:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given Bender a temporary holiday from using Twinkle -- his edits over the past day indicate a need to think through how he's tagging these reverts in more detail. After he practices not marking good-faith edits as vandalism for a while, he can request it back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarek. Now there's only the personal apology to go... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We all know this, we can see the behavior is wrong on his part, but at this point you just need to step back. He's probably not going to do that, you know he's not going to, and drama is best avoided by you not picking at it. Your reputation is secure, we know you arent a vandal, go back to editing, both of you. This has ceased to be productive. Im marking it resolved. -- ۩ Mask 05:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I somehow doubt you'll get your apology.

Bender, you need to apologize to this IP, and not with any pre-set conditions. Just do it, the IP clearly deserves it, and the IP clearly did not deserve your flagrant labeling of everything they contributed as vandalism. Only you are to blame for your edits.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether there is an apology is entirely up to Bender. The issue has been resolved. We do not indulge in forced apologies, which are worth the paper they are printed on (we don't use paper here).--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the late post, by the way, there is something wrong with the internet connection here, and the page hung for quite a long time just now, while I read the online newspaper ...--Wehwalt (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender at it again

I'm sorry, but this isn't over, Bender left a message on this IP editor's page saying "Vandalism won't be tolerated queer." The only edit that 70.134.229.58 (talk · contribs) appears to have made was this edit to the sandbox. Even if the IP editor made edits that were deleted, this isn't appropriate. I've left a uw-npa on his page linking and explaining WP:INSULT, and also asked that he try templates (with links to articles supposedly vandalized) instead of hand written warnings. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 72 hours. There's no excuse for that and I'm starting to feel this is an elaborate troll. Kuru (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block. And share your feeling. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia on top of everything else? I say we just change it to an indef block. NW (Talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still assuming good faith incompetance here, but he could be attributing the first block to misusing Twinkle, so now he has to realize that it was his hot-headedness that was responsible for the block. If he keeps it up after the block, I'll still act like I'm assuming good faith (or something approximate), but, yeah... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block, but ambivalent towards indef block at this time. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I weakly oppose indeffing him; however, once this block is through, I'd say to go with WP:ROPE. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account, or he just doesn't care

Check out this diff. He either doesn't care, refuses to get it, or his account has been compromised. I would suggest an indef block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

this one is better! a_man_alone (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've disabled the account indefinitely and removed his talk page access. As he has claimed a compromised account in the past, that may be the way he will try to rationalize this. I would just as soon close it out as we've spent too much time here already. Kuru (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good block, I would have supported an earlier indef in this case... Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed block for 80.125.173.55's edits

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Celine Dion

 – This should be taken to WP:AN3 if the edit warring persists, otherwise it should go through other dispute resolution procedures (but first, discuss it on the article's talk page). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Please see here: [302]

The user has repeatedly edited the article, Celine Dion by adding unneccessary info. The edits possibly violate WP:V, WP:VUE, WP:DE, and include major grammatical errors. The user is also on the cusp of violating WP:3RR. Being mindful of that rule, myself is why I'm writing on here, first. I hope something can be done, due to the fact that Celine Dion is a FA. BalticPat22Patrick 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I is not for content disputes; at a quick glance, the edits appear to be well-sourced, as the IP has stated in the edit summaries. This should be discussed on the article talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, despite the title you haven't given any details of a proposed block, but I oppose a block at this time unless you can come up with a better reason than you don't agree with his edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Worldventures

wikilaurent is continually posting false and personal attacke on the company "worldventures" if you look at the threads you will see false unverified information that wikilaurent continues to post that are attacking the company. The editing ability of this user should be restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.153.3 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted to the last version before edit warring began, where everything is cited, and semi protected the article. Now you can discuss it on the talk page. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IP sock of Jeff Merkey active again

As seen here, the IP address 71.213.116.225 (talk · contribs) claims in the edit summary to be the same person behind the account Linuxmdb (talk · contribs). Per the latest sockpuppet investigation, Linuxmdb was determined to be a sockpuppet of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs). Since the IP address is claiming to be the same person in the edit summaries for two different talk pages, it follows that this IP is a sockpuppet of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

SlimVirgin didn't want to get involved, pleading too little information about Merkey. So would someone who either knows the situation better, or is willing to do the reading, please take action against a very obvious violation of WP policy? Pfagerburg (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified per policy [303]. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who's behind this IP, I've asked Pfagerburg to stay away from the issue; see our discussion about it on July 7, when he seemed to agree that he would, and then again tonight. He has already been banned for a year by ArbCom [304] over the perception (as I understand it) that he pursued Merkey in some fashion, and he also initiated some form of legal action against him—I believe an application for a restraining order, though the application wasn't completed. That legal process ended in December last year. Pfagerburg has made 186 edits to articles in four years (551 overall), [305] many of them to do with Merkey. I don't know how this developed, but it's not good for anyone, so I feel that Pfagerburg really must cease all interaction with Merkey on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to not interact with him. When adding a section to WP:AN/I, it clearly says that one must notify the user being discussed. So, per policy, I did. That's the only interaction; notice how I'm not responding to the IP below?

I have recognized the modus operandi of this particular banned user, and I am pointing out a very clear violation of his siteban. Will the WP admins do anything about the blatant violation of a siteban? Pfagerburg (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

SV, the text of what I agreed to is very clear: I stopped reverting the edits that this banned user made in Mar/Apr 2008: " I reluctantly agree with you, SV, and will cease the reverts." Accepting the existence of a COI doesn't mean that I can't point out violations of WP policy. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is interaction, even if you hadn't notified him. Posting to him, about him, it's all the same. I asked you to stay away from the issue completely, because it constitutes the bulk of your interest in Wikipedia since 2006, and for your own sake it can't continue. I'm sorry to say that you risk being blocked yourself if it does. That's separate from the issue of who's behind the IP and whether that ought to be dealt with too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A blatant IP sock of a site-banned user is not blocked, but the person who points it out risks getting blocked for having a COI? Oh, that's just rich. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know who this creepy guy is. My name is Gaylynn Mitchell and you can call my cell phone to verify. Call me in the morning because I am going to bed right now. 71.213.116.225 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of the edits from this IP have been reverts of Pfagerburg, who has been deleting Merkey edits from 2008. If the IP has no connection to Merkey then I don't understand why he's taking an interest in Merkey's two year-old edits. IIRC, Merkey also used different names and encouraged us to call him to verify his (fake) identities.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If not a sockpuppet, this is clearly a meatpuppet. This file from Commons is described as "Painting of one of Jeff Merkey's lovers Gaylynn Mitchell". I'd say it's obvious the accounts are linked. AniMate 08:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

After further investigation I think it's clearly a sock/meat puppet, and so I've blocked it.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, Protonk beat me to it.   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked a week. I didn't check the contribs on the range associated w/ the IP, so I don't know how long the lease is or how easy it will be for Merkey to get another one. (edit conflict) Hah! Conflicted w/ Will's comment here. Protonk (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I reverted the edits. If he hops IPs, someone can deal with it tomorrow. AniMate 08:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• However, this was clearly provoked by Pfagerburg's quite unnecessary reversion of old Merkey edits, exactly as noted above. There is nothing in the least controversial about this: [306] for example. Given the past ban, if Pfagerburg carries this on then he should be banned again for trolling if nothing else. This is a blatant bit of WP:BATTLE if not WP:POINT. Virtually all Pfagerburg's article space edits this year have been reverting apparently uncontroversial material added by Merkey two years ago. Material that's stood for two years is not controversial. If you think there is an issue requiring WP:RBI then contact an administrator. There is no way this could possibly be seen as good fait, given their past history. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you were one of Merkey's most ardent defenders Guy. Perhaps if Pfagerburg needs to stay away from this, so do you. Is reporting a banned user to ANI really a blockable offense around here? Vigilant 64.139.4.129 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I asked user Pfagerburg on his talk page if the edits he was reverting were factually incorrect or somehow biased. He could not point out any reason for his reverts, other that personal dislike for the banned user. This would suggest, that although allowed by banning policy, his edits were done in bad faith. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting here for the record that I've blocked 64.139.4.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for six months for what appears to be a long-term pursuit of Merkey. I'm not familiar with the Merkey case, but this IP was blocked for six months in 2007, apparently for being Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account indefblocked in 2006 for harassing Merkey. I don't know what caused this to start up again, but it's best to nip it in the bud. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement only account

User:Ramchandra Acharya has done nothing but add adverts to Wikipedia. Has had quite a few articles speedied now (See talk page) including the same one twice. Constantly adds email address to articles. Has been operating since September 2009 and pretty much every single edit is advertisement. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I concur, adds brochure/leaflet like promotional information relating to some Youth Projects in Nepal to articles about places there. Per this edit reveals self to be related to the Youth Project as a/the project coordinator. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• I've just informed the user of this discussion; please remember to do so in future when filing at AN/I. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have just given them a strong message however I am leaning towards blocking the account. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I've noticed he has several speedy deletion notices and one advertisement notice, but no one has actually attempted to explain our advertising policy to him and encourage him to make constructive edits. We should try this before deciding that a block is necessary, I think. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I just think per WP:CIR that amount of warnings should show a user they need to click the blue links and actually educate themselves, just my own thoughts on it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You're probably right, that is a lot of warnings and apparently the user hasn't attempted to correct their edits. I would say wait and see if he acknowledges the thread here and/or stops making spamming edits, otherwise indef him. Basically, let the message you left him act as a final warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Agree . Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. It will do quite the opposite. A talk page that looks like User talk:Ramchandra Acharya, with the same boilerplate repeated over and over, actually serves to convince people that they are just receiving messages from mindless robots, that they can ignore. When I see such talk pages, and want to add more in the same vein, I often condense or blank the boilerplate and write in words that look like they come from a human being. (I avoid boilerplate talk page messages anyway.) That tends to be a better way of convincing people that this is not merely the Wikipedia equivalent of their car mindlessly beeping "Door open! Door open!" at them, but is something that they should pay serious attention to. If you want a pithy counterargument to the applicability of Wikipedia:Competence is required: Act like a 'bot and novices will tend to believe that you are a 'bot. So-called competent people experience machines giving them mindless robot messages on a regular basis. They are, after all, using a computer. Uncle G (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Having "door open door open" beep should be a good indicator that it would be a good idea to close the door lest something or someone fall out when you're going 65mph down the freeway. A better analogy for talk page warnings would be the "Check Engine" Light. Keep driving your car after seeing this without getting it checked out by a mechanic would not be a good idea. As annoying as talk page templates can be, they are not randomly slapped on talk pages for the hell of it. They are an indicator that there may be a problem with what you are doing. Maybe instead of ignoring them and continue doing "X", you could click some of those WP:FOOs that are quoted in those warnings and read the policies/guidelines they point to and/or ask the editor who added the template for clarification. That being said, more messages from "humans" on User talk:Ramchandra Acharya before coming to ANI might have been helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job I didn't use a template to give him his warning then, isn't it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• He's been doing this since last November. I'm not entirely sure what level of stupid you have to be to not once think to yourself "Hey, I'm getting all these warnings; I must be doing something wrong.", but he appears to have passed that point. HalfShadow 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Some people think if they remove the notices from their talk page, nobody will notice. Sometimes they're right about that. --Deskana (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You make my point for me. Xe's being doing it since last November. Nothing has come except more mindless robotic boilerplate. So xe's worked out that they are automatically generated warnings that can just be ignored. Think about it. You probably consider yourself a "competent editor". How many mindless robotic warnings have you learned to ignore in your daily life? How many warnings from your computer, from your WWW browser, and from the MediaWiki interface have you learned to just ignore? ("Yes, Mozilla. I really did want to send my edits over an unencrypted connection to Wikipedia.") This is what novices learn to do, when the sole communication that they receive from anyone is the same boilerplate over and over. It doesn't make them stupid or incompetent, any more than you would be stupid and incompetent to ignore "Door open! Door open!" when you know that its quite safe for it to be open in that particular situation. Think about how this sort of thing appears from the perspective of the novice. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Even when I was new, I never confused a message on my talk page from a message generated by a program but to be fair, aside from the "welcome message", (which looked a lot less "robotic" back in 2005 then it does today), I didn't receive any kind of templated message until 2008. Still I can't see how an editor, even new, can confuse a talk page message with a pop up error generated by a program. Even on my first day I knew that the "talk" tab on articles was where "people" talked. Ditto for the "talk" tab next to my user page. The big orange bar you get when you get messages says "you have new messages". It should be all but obvious when you see that that "someone" is trying to get your attention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Just to point out guys that this editor does not seem to read his talk pages, or ignores the contents totally, so all the warnings you guys made have been and in future will probably be to no effect Zhanzhao (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)