Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive591

User:Spiritualism socking for blocked IP editor?

Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International got semi-protected because an IP hopper continued to make claims of terrorist activities by the person and the organization and continually slapped an NPOV tag on the article (which is still there since I, as an IP editor, can't revert). Spiritualism (talk · contribs) has repeated those edits, repeating the BLP attacks on the person and the organization and re-added the NPOV tag without explaining on the articles' Talk pages what makes the articles POV. Is Spiritualism socking for the blocked IP editor, or is he/she the IP editor who has finally created an account? In addition Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi should be protected, and Spiritualism needs to be blocked and the NPOV tags removed from the articles. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Advised Spiritualism (talk · contribs) about unexplained {{NPOV}} tags. Editor has been around for quite a while, not a new account.Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but Spiritualism's edit summary is worded exactly like those of the IPs. Woogee (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you requested a Check User investigate at WP:RFCU? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate alternate account?

Resolved

 – Reasonable editor was using an account for chess. No real need to do anything, though we don't allow accounts for the purposes he is using. However, no harm done and editor has said that they have stopped playing, so no admin intervention required. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MC10 Chess (talk · contribs) is an account used by MC10 (talk · contribs) for the purposes of playing online chess in userspace. This is clearly not a legitimate use of alternate accounts; should it be blocked? (I've nominated the several chess-pages themselves for deletion anyway.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to block, since blocking it would not prevent any damage whatsoever to the encyclopedia. I've seen a few chessboards on various userpages. I would say: if that's pretty much all they're using Wikipedia for, delete. If they're Wikipedia editors taking a short break, then leave alone. MC10 chess has 69 edits; MC10 has 9700. I'm really pretty sure there are bigger problems to solve out there somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no harm in it, no need to stir up a hornets nest--Jac16888^Talk 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I do have to wonder why they needed an alternate account for it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably so that playing the game doesn't clog up their contributions I would guess, misguided but far from harmful--Jac16888^Talk 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MC10 has been notified of this thread... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've stopped playing the game. The account won't be of any use anymore. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User won't discuss

(It was suggested at the HelpDesk that I ask here.) User:Ashrf1979 keeps making edits stating that Nebuchadnezzar II was Bahrani at Bahrani people (and previously at the Nebuchadnezzar article itself), and simply will not take part in any discussion or provide any response to requests for a source. I have requested that the user provide a source at User_talk:Ashrf1979#Nebuchadnezzar_II, Talk:Bahrani_people#Nebuchadnezzar, and in edit summaries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like both of you are in danger of violating WP:3RR, so, rather than continuing to revert, you may want to make a report at WP:AN3. Until someone violates a policy, there's not much that an admin can do. —DoRD (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since you didn't notify the other user of this discussion (see the top of this page), I took the liberty of doing so.—DoRD (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the article again, before seeing the advice above. I'll try WP:AN3.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessarily Graphic Photo?

This has been resolved. For image related policy matters, please take to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved  – per WP:CENSORED; it may be ugly, but that's life. HalfShadow 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I realize that an article about a massacre is going to have disturbing photos, but does anyone else find the image illustrating Nanking Massacre#Rape to be a bit over the top? Or am I just being a prude? (I considered bringing this up on the article talk page, but the article seems to be prone to POV issues, so I thought I'd get more neutral opinions here). 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I'd say 'tis a little of column A and a little from column B. It does, at first blush, appear to be rather disconcerting, and may not at first seem to aid or abet the section its in, but at the same time it actually describes the horrors inflicted better than the text can. Then again, I get yelled at every now and again for my watching Smegma, so take that as you will. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I do say I agree. That is extreme. I'm actually kinda offended by it. If possible can we remove? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTCENSORED. It may be disconcerting, but if it's an actual photo from the event, it's appropriate, disturbing or not. Like said above, in a way it describes the event in a way the text cannot. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I was waiting for someone to bring up WP:NOTCENSORED. 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Its hard to tell. On one hand we have an image that on the surface is very disturbing to look at, but on the other hand, wikipedia is not censored, so we may have images like this from time to time. If it was an image of some college kid in his bathroom, I would say go ahead and remove it, but this article in itself is controversial, and any removal of this historical image, may be construed as POV. This era of Japanese history is very disturbing, but I don't think we should hide from it, we should lay it all out on the table and let the readers decide.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Also, keep in mind that the photo isn't just showing an abused corpse, the photo is depicting how they killed women after raping them (according to the article). 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Are you now arguing against yourself? You just gave a pretty good reason for keeping it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No, I found the image more offensive upon learning that it was depicting the method of woman's death (initially, I though it they had just abused her body after she had died). 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I think the issue of historical images which are potentially "too graphic" belongs on their respective talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC) It's certainly a harrowing image (but that's no reason to remove it) and is very relevant to the article (which is a very good reason to keep it). I think it comes down to 'if you don't like, don't look'. raseaCtalk to me 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC) It's one thing to talk about or even describe the horrors of an event. Words just lay there. Photos smack you in the face with the reality. Revolting as it is, it should stay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Consider File:TrangBang.jpg, the iconic photo of Vietnamese children fleeing a napalm attack; certainly disturbing, but also certainly encyclopedic. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC) This discussion doesn't belong here, there is no admin action required here. Woogee (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) So the next time someone rapes somone we should ask them to photograph it so we can list it here? Get real people, that image is a disgrace to wikipedia and invades and violates the woman pictured there again. I am truely sickened by this rationale. Which woman would that be? The woman in that picture is completely unidentifiable. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC) And because we don't know her name it makes this exposure ok? Without pointing fingers at anyone in paticular I find this to be perverse and the logic behind keeping it fundementally flawed. I don't know who is getting a perverse thrill by posting it here, but it really needs to go, this is a public forum however there are children that can see that photo. Under US law I believe that pictures of that type have to have a over 18 disclaimer with age verification, otherwise it makes pornographic material available to minors. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Hi, I was merely responding to your comment that the image is a disgrace to Wikipedia and violates the woman, which was proceeded by a sarcastic comment that we should ask a rape victim to provide a photo to Wikipedia so we can "list it here". If I misunderstood the nature of your argument, I apologise. However, while the act that was perpertrated against the woman is definitely a disgrace, the fact that we have an image of the act on Wikipedia showing what was done to the victim to illustrate the historical context of what went on is not. Wikipedia does not censor images such as this one, the only requirement is that graphic and disturbing images are appropriate and relevant to the article itself. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC) What's your take on the Pulitzer-prize winning photo of the Vietnamese girl running from the flames? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) @ Bugs, there is a difference in a little girl running naked from a bomb and a brutally raped and murdered woman with sticks in her genitals. One has a distinctly sexual flavor the other depicting someone running away. I have no issues with the vietnamese pictures. I have no problems with a human body, even porn (Thank you YOUPORN). I do draw the line at reproducing a rape, no matter how significant we re-victimize the poor woman. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Do minors have to submit age verification to see a statue with boobs on it? Because that is far more sexual than the picture being discussed. --Golbez (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Take your head out of the sand, what statue has sticks coming out of it's cunt? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) AS said above, if you dont like it, DONT LOOK. As for being porn, I seriously doubt kids will flock to wikipedia to look at that pic, plenty of racier things elsewhere. Pack it in, discussion over.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The horrors of war are not pornographic except to the few who fantasize about being serial killers. And this is not a new complaint. When Mathew Brady showed his photos of the dead of Antietam, there were similar complaints. But the real agenda was that it presented the war stark and unsanitized. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I'm absolutely fucking amazed with the callousness of the views here. What the fuck is wrong with people that images like this are ok? Seriously what fucked up shit have you seen or twisted thought processes even make this image even halfway justified? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I know I'm riled but in this picture I se my family and your family. I would hate for either to be remembered this way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for toning it down a bit. The image is meant to illustrate the brutality of the event, and it does that very well. Take a gander at Holocaust for more examples. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED--we include whatever will make for the most informative article. Our aim is not to ensure that the victims are remembered and honoured, our aim is to provide an informative article to the reader. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The picture is disturbing, true. But as we don't know who they are and there is no way of ever knowing there is no way they will be remembered in a terrible way. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Sanitizing the past, or an encyclopedia entry, wont make it go away. If we don't remember the atrocities of the past, we'll be doomed to let them be repeated. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Sanitizing the past? So we should take a photo of a rape to display it's ugliness? By your own reasoning this is the case...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No, what's wrong here is you're displaying a one-size-fits-all attitude. This is useless for most subjects, as many are going to be obviously less notable than others. The Rape of Nanking is far more notable than any rape taken in isolation. Likewise, Bounty Bowl is far more notable than any Philadelphia/Dallas game before or since. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No, by my reasoning, an encyclopedia entry about a war atrocity shouldn't be censored because of your delicate sensibilities..Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No you are justifying why one image is ok and not another. Answer the fucking question, how is this picture of one woman's raoe aftermath different from adding another on the article Rape? You aren't showing multiple women you are showing one. Get real. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC) If you can't calm down, maybe you should take a break from this discussion. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC) WP:SOAPBOX somewhere else, this is an encyclopedia. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Good idea Golbez. Taking a quick breather. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC) It is kinda funny though that I can't get a straight answer to the flawed logic here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC) It tells the truth about the event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC) So would inserting Child pornography. Sometimes it isn't censorship to remove victimizing material, no matter if we know who it is or isn't. I am in no way a prude, I love porn, but showing a raped and murdered woman no matter how you slice it is wrong. That isn't trying to write a encyclopedia it's making it a slaughter house. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Child porn is illegal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) So is posting sexually explicit material without age verification. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Online Age Verification and Child Safety Act, I believe this is the most recent. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC) If you think that photo is somehow in violation of the law, I recommend that you take it to the wikipedia legal eagles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC) < because bucket and I have just had a mini-chat on my talk page, I wonder if those interested in this thread might also be interested in the related, though fundamentally different concerns raised by a short video presentation I've just thrown together outlining my concerns with sexually explicit images on wmf projects - if you're over the age of majority you can view it here (explicit content - seriously - it's likely illegal to view if a minor - please don't). Privatemusings (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I saw you two were cooking up something. Who appointed you the wikipedia nannies? If you've got legal concerns, take it to the legal department. Otherwise, drop it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I know that it is agonizing to see photos of this sort, whether in a documentary or an encyclopedia. However, as someone who lost family in the Holocaust, I never want those images of Nazi evil to ever disappear. While I do not want them to be trotted out so often that they inure viewers to the horrors wrought by man, I want the power that they have of driving home the point that is the evil of genocide. Similarly, my Chinese spousal unit, while finding it difficult to view such pictures of the Rape of Nanjing, understands fully the weight of such photographic evidence. They may be harrowing to view, but without these photos, the narrative of the Rape of Nanjing lacks the full effective of the massacre. My only suggestion stylistically is to show the photo at thumbnail size so that the detail is less discernible. Perhaps the alt caption could be used to provide a content warning like they do on the nightly news. — SpikeToronto 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Not too interested in legal threats.....Nice bait, however I would like to point out that I put my money where my mouth is and now everyone can't find a way to dispute it. I understand not everyone feels the way I do, but do we really need children to access this? I am a big believer that those who forget history are doomed to repeat, but this is some hardcore snuff here. Can we at least make it to where we have to have someone click a link? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC) You've already made a legal threat of sorts, stating that it's in violation of the law. Unless you're a lawyer yourself and an expert on this particular subject, you're out of line and are merely trying to intimidate people here. If you want to talk about something that's in-line, talk about wikipedia policy matters, such as notability, added value, consensus, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC) If you don't like WP:NOTCENSORED, get concensus to have it changed, otherwise drop it. There were quit a few arguments above for why this image is appropriate for the article, enough WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I know you didn't hear that. It's pretty obvious. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I was refering you to that section. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC) That's why a admin rushed to block me. Spit it out, you can't argue with this, I've made good points and now all you are able to do is attempt to bait me into something stupid. Not hapopening. There is a issue and it neds resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I don't need to bait you, you've already tried to make an intimidating legal threat. If admins want to block you for it, that's their business. But there is no issue here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) please point out where I made a legal threat and to who. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) You said this image is in violation of the law, and unless you're a lawyer and an expert in the field, you are in no position to make such a claim, and any attempt to do so is an attempt at intimidation. Which, by the way, ain't working. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) If you consider that to be trying to intimidate anyone you are sadly mistaken. Pointing out it is a possible violation of US law is the same thing as copyright. The key difference is I never threatened you or anyone else on this project. I would likewise tell you ayour attempts at intimidation haven't worked either. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (RI) The issue being, chummer, that you want a double-standard. Ohh, so it's not okay to show an image of a victim of the Rape of Nanking, alright, then, then how about we remove all images of Xenu, all images of sexual acts, all images of football teams someone *may* dislike, and, while we're at it, sanitate the whole damn thing so that it won't offend a mother who doesn't understand the damned concept of watching her own children even if it mugged her at gunpoint?! —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) An admin already marked this issue over and done with. Maybe someone could box it up for us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Yes run away, your threats aren't working. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Hell in a Bucket, shut up. You're starting to cross into trolling now, and it's torquing me off. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of administrative action by Malik Shabazz requested

Resolved

 – No administrative action required. The user in question has removed the previously struck comment. Oren0 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At an AfD, a topic banned user and a friend of the article's subject both commented. I left a short comment regarding the COI, providing a link for proof, and struck out the comment of the topic banned user, leaving a short note including the link to the topic ban [1].

• User:Malik Shabazz reverted with the edit summary "don't add comments" [2]
• I asked MS to provide a rationale for his rv at his talk page and asked him to self-rv or take respective administrative actions under his own name [3]
• MS answered on my talk that only the blocking admin should strike out the topic banned editor's vote, that my edit was creating a "hostile environment" and that I'd treat the AfD as a battleground [4].

I strongly disagree with Malik Shabazz' handling of this:

• I have not in any way contributed to a hostile environment or battleground by pointing out the COI and striking out the topic banned user's vote, providing the respective links.
• Malik Shabazz is now aware of the COI vote and the vote in violation of a topic ban, but not only refuses to take action himself, which he should do as an admin, but actively surpressed these informations.
• Malik Shabazz may have a COI of his own at this AfD, since he had commented and voted there already.

I request that impartial admins review the situation, clear me of the battleground allegations made, restore my edit or take likewise action at the AfD, and advise Malik Shabazz to not act that way in the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At the same AfD, Shabazz also made this inapproriate comment. The only way to interpret it is that he is accusing me of lying. He is denying this, but refuses to modify his comments although I have asked him to do so.[5]. Note that other than this inapproarite comment, I don't have anything personal against Shabazz and do not wish to have a conflict with him. I just wished to provide this diff to review, as it may be relevant to what Skäpperöd is saying above. Offliner (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Offliner and Skäpperöd doth protest too much. Offliner started things on the wrong foot by announcing "there is strong suspicion" that canvassing had tainted the past AfDs for Richard Tylman, but this time would result in the much-desired Delete. Now Skäpperöd is trying to poison the atmosphere further by adding editorial comments to other editors' !votes.

If Offliner has evidence that canvassing took place, I'm sure she/he would have presented it to ArbCom at the time. Since no such evidence exists, Offliner's "strong suspicion" is a groundless accusation.

If Skäpperöd wants to offer an opinion about another editor's !votes, she/he can do so the same way everybody else at AfD does: by posting an opinion underneath. Skäpperöd is not in charge of deciding who has and who hasn't a COI in the matter. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is the administrative action of mine that is under discussion here? Last time I checked, any editor could revert any other editor—what makes my reversion an administrative action? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't particularly like the style and tone of Skäpperöd's note with respect to Biophys, it's formally a normal part of threaded comment, and your intervention of removing it (in your role of an editor involved in the content dispute just as much as he is) is at least as much against normal protocol as his striking out of the other user's comment. I would recommend leaving such decisions to uninvolved administrators. (Not saying that I am one here, as I voted myself). As for striking the vote by Pawel, I would recommend leaving it to the admin who imposed the topic ban to determine whether it should be stricken (Moreschi), noting that in a parallel case (Tymek/Sandstein) an admin did in fact judge such edits to be in breach of a similar ban. Note that I blocked Pawel, but not for this particular edit, so I'm not taking a stance here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I left Moreschi a note, though I still consider it to be in every users right to strike out or even remove edits violating topic bans, there is no primacy of imposing admins in this regard. Regarding the style of my comment to Biophys, I wrote

COI: Biophys is a friend of Tylman/Poeticbents, see WP:EEML for details.

I think that is as concise as can be, where do you see problems with style and tone? I pointed out the problem and provided the link in as few words as possible, and neither attacked Biophys nor Tylman/Poeticbent. Just a pointer to the connection inappropriate for mutual support in an AfD. What kind of wording would you have chosen instead? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:EEML canvassed several AfDs, as was confirmed by ArbCom. Therefore there is strong suspicion that they would canvass this one too—especially as the article is about one of the EEML members. I'm not saying that canvassing took place. All I'm saying that there is suspicion; as has been presented by several editors. How is this a lie? Your comments and hostile attitude are inapproriate from an admin. Offliner (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, describing the issue of canvassing as a "strong suspicion" is certainly legitimate and by no means "groundless", given the multiple findings in the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that past agreement among certain editors is not going to become an endless litany of implications of meatpuppetry accompanied by express denials of such implication. If someone is not saying something, the implication is then also better left unsaid and the topic, whatever it is, be dealt with on the merits of editorial positions.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin? Is every user entitled to strike out comments of topic banned users in an AfD, or is this only to be done by the imposing admin? Has Malik Shabazz handled the case as expected from an admin? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Polish lobby (Skapperod, Future Perfect, Offliner etc.) at work again. The reason of this complaint is clear, to punish every admin who dares to oppose their continued attacks on Polish editors.  Dr. Loosmark  17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And right on cue, out come the usual tired complaints about racism. Varsovian (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And right on cue the usual misrepresentation of my words. For the record: I have not accused anybody of racism.  Dr. Loosmark 

If accusing editors if being "The anti-Polish lobby" and making "continued attacks on Polish editors" isn't accusing people of being racist, I have no idea what could be accusing people of being racist. What would you describe it as an accusation of being? Varsovian (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread neither is about Poles, nor is there an anti-Polish lobby. Your comment is inappropriate and displaced. I hope someone remove this and uninvolved admins comment on the actual issue at hand. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right, because the article which was AfD-ed for the third time is about a person from Antarctica...  Dr. Loosmark  19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits suggests that anyone can remove comments made in an AfD, or anywhere else, if those comments are clearly in violation of a ban. Striking the comment out is showing more restraint than what our policy allows. -- Atama頭 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that point of the policy. I've removed the !vote. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have warned Loosmark not to continue making such comments.  Sandstein  06:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange peerage edits

125.166.172.253, 222.124.122.32, 125.163.21.201, 125.163.23.125, 110.136.151.69, 110.136.137.241 and User:Towsuw have been making very strange edits to peerage articles, linking redlinked articles and using strange html coding within the article. This is similar to the actions of now-banned User:Max Mux, as seen here and here. The behavioural links seem clear; I thought I'd bring this to the attention of AN/I and the wider community. All the IPs resolve to a set of core locations in Indonesia, so it seems to be the same chap. I did get the impression (I may be wrong) that Max Mux was German, however, but the behavioural links are odd. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is something odd about this, and the linking does seem rather indiscriminate. However all pre-1999 UK peers were entitled to sit in the House of Lords, and as members of national Parliaments they have a presumption of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. (That's not the case for baronets, the majority of whom are non-notable). So what's the problem with redlinking the peers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, except that it's an odd way to spend your time. The problem is that the account and IPs are obviously the same (cue WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK), and they seem to be incredibly similar to Max Mux - who is currently under a community ban. The question is whether there's enough DUCKish evidence to indicate these chaps are socking (sorry for not setting it out clearly the first time around). Ironholds (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this section-title come up on my watchlist; heart sank. Of course it's Max Mux, who has socked around using IPs before, anyway. Block 'em. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to write articles first and not create long lists with only red links. I also think think that English peers should be viewed as an exception regarding WP:Politician. Yes, they were entitled to a seat in the British legislature but many never attended the House of Lords or were involved politically in any way. If every peer was considered automatically notable we would end up with hundreds on articles with only basic biographical information, who they married and what children they had. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If a new article on a peer is created, a wikilink can then be created in the peerage article.

As for the mass edits made by the IP-adresses above. This person, who is obviously familiar with the peerage articles on Wikipedia, came here with a very special agenda. He/she made no effort to discuss this with other involved users and there was nothing constructive about the edits. There are obvious similarities between the edits made by the IP-addresses and User-Towsuw and those made by the now blocked User:Max Mux. I therefore hope Towsuw and the anonymous IP-adresses are blocked from editing Wikipedia as well. Tryde (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with userpage

Resolved

 – Not an administrator issue, see WP:Help desk for questions like this in future. –xeno^talk 14:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good day. I've been directed to this page to set up a new use page. Can someone tell me how to do this? Leicester17 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Rather, I should say user page. Leicester17 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Leicester17 ... I see the problem — you've redirected your user page to an article (which should not be done, as you have been informed on your talk page). All you need to do is edit your user page, and replace that redirect with the text you want there. Do you need more instruction on how to do that? Proofreader77 ^(interact) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Tutorial. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Webley455 sockpuppetry

{{resolved|User indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving as Webley455 (talk · contribs · block log) remains unblocked. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Following this request, I performed a CheckUser on Webley455, and stumbled upon an odd case of sockpuppetry. It involves at least one ongoing AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Keller (televangelist) (second nomination)) and one of the accounts was also blocked for threatening behavior earlier today. These are the accounts that are very likely to be the same person as Webley455:

• Chimro
• RucasHost
• SMRyaacresitaenr
• SnakeStomper
• WinslowML
• AttackVector

Administrator attention here would be appreciated. :-) Dominic·t 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC'd the AfD as speedy keep. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No other ongoing AfDs that I can find. Also, User talk:RucasHost#Vandalism of Live Prayer is...concerning. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Was anyone able to connect this sockpuppet to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some. The accounts have the same pattern of voting at AFDs as Torkmann. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball unblock proposal

A proposal for unblocking User:Wiki Greek Basketball is available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball, where previous discussion has taken place.  Frank  |  talk  22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please no! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Tbsdy... let him stay blocked for some 6-odd months... I've voiced my opposition on the page. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nomoteticus

This appears to be a sleeper sockpuppet of a banned or topic banned Romanian user, who is inserting unreferenced BLP material, and recreating articles that fail WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Started editing in 2005, no edits for 5 years, and now returned. See Special:Contributions/Nomoteticus. Pcap ping 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that he uses a static IP address in Romania: 89.36.62.72 (ASSIGNED PA). Pcap ping 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Silverlife's userboxes

Silverlife's has userboxes that attack two groups of people. The two userboxes say "This user hates Librans so much. Because they are the worst, the most terrible, the most horrible and the most disgusting kind of people on Earth (almost, and including Zac Efron)." and "This user hates Geminians. Because they are the weirdest, the stupidest, the "suckest", the most "priceless" kind of people on Earth (almost)." Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Probably the best course of action is to CSD them. ConCompS talk review 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, very informative dialogs. And I can't believe: Who can nominate this thing? Only loser does, It can be the only one, Mr. Joey. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I did not attack 2 groups of people. I attacked nearly 2/12 (1/6) people living in this world. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• You, ConCompS can't help anything, Just delete. It makes me sick and bored - please don't say any word else. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only know how to get the images deleted, not the userboxes themselves. The images can't be speedy speedy deleted, so either admins will have to take care of this or there will have to be a deletion debate for the images. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• These images actually were just made for fun, I wasn't serious yet - because I didn't have time. My original idea was: Libra and Gemini signs upper the water closet. That will be really fun! and also humorous Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• A zodiac racist? Aren't we getting a little bit over the top in getting offended? Obviously, these userboxes aren't meant to be taken seriously. Come on, folks!--Ramdrake (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, I do. I'm "zodiac racist" like you said. It was my experiences about people born under these zodiac signs. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not taken seriously? Silverlife gave me this comment a few days ago, "What a most clueless, nut speech I've ever heard in my life. You can't find, doesn't mean It will be deleted. Sucks!". I don't assume good faith towards Silverlife. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's because you nominated the OptiPNG article for deletion very stupidly, I didn't want to repeat twice: "...I can't find significant coverage...". And then I hate, sorry! Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• That Silverlife was rude to the point of personal attack is a valid point and he should be warned about it. However, I still fail to see the connection with userboxes which I take as being mostly humorous (although they could use some toning down and shouldn't name names, ever).--Ramdrake (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I used userboxes for attacking, use them as weapons. Nothing homourous here.

• They are all personal attacks. You don't know that they are meant as humorous. If they are meant to be humorous, I guess I just don't get a joke about how calling people names are meant to be funny. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Personal attack... and then what? You can't change my mind, my thoughts about anything. And I keep writing and uploading until somebody blocks me. And the film ends. You're the person who likes to join pointless things and waste of time Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• They're attacks on zodiac signs. While the incivility should not stand, the userboxes themselves are harmless. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an attack on Libra and Gemini, so it isn't an attack on zodiac signs hence the ns. Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, there is an attack on Zac Efron. Woogee (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The userboxes are clearly not attacking zodiac signs. They are clearly attacking people who fall under particular signs. Further, there is no way they could be taken as humorous for several reasons: 1. The user has a history of personally attacking others. What evidence can you provide they meant the userboxes to be humorous and not an attack? 2. They could possibly be taken as humorous, if the user was making fun of themselves. However, given that a person cannot be born in two separate months, I fail to see how such would be possible. Speedy delete them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• "...The user has a history of personally attacking others...": You don't know. Only Joe, was the first one, I ever "personalled" attack! :). Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Joe had a history of receiving personal attack. He deserved it, he gets it - until now. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Zac Efron actually added for fun. Only because he was born in Libra Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I personally find it hilarious that this editor hates people born in certain months and Zac Efron. He's clearly a discerning individual! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that cracked me up too. GJC 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• He's also moved usernames from User:RegularBreaker without WP:UNC or attribution - I haven't had the chance to check out the previous edits ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• What a kind of dirty person, who spied on other people's past. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us that we might need to dig a little more into your contributions, Silverlife. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

H3ere's a interesting diff....[[6]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The user replaced the userboxes; I removed them again. If they replace them again, I will issue a short block. As far as I see it, there is absolutely no reason for these boxes to be there - and they are obviously offensive, non-collaborative, and could have a chilling effect on the collegiate nature of the project. Tan | 39 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed this? Please note that both accounts are still live, though he hasn't USED User:RegularBreaker since July. Should we let that stand? # 02:09, 19 July 2009 (hist | diff) N User:Silverlife ‎ (←Created page with 'Silverlife is a new name for RegularBreaker, introduced for newer, fresher experience.') GJC 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What did I use, What will I choose ARE NOT YOUR JOB. Whatever someone notices or not. Silverlife (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken: such issues are very much my job, particularly if you have two live accounts and haven't articulated a good reason for having them. Additionally, your tone could do with a bit of moderation; it's not wise to appear combative on a noticeboard full of admins. Please consider refactoring your comment above, which skates perilously close to rudeness. GJC 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree force removing the userboxes. If he continually re-add them block him. This is a racist userbox and according to the WP:NPA personal attacks is disallowed. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Racist? What? That's a strong accusation to make against another editor. I thought we were talking about zodiac signs. And I thought they were funny (as a Gemini myself), though names should not be mentioned of course. Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Making fun of someone's zodiac sign is not racism in any way, but it can be a personal attack, which is sufficient to get some action... especially as, see below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Part Two, The disruption continues.

The user has again reinserted the userboxes.[[7]] I opened az sockpuppet case (Duck Test) And I was greeted with presumably called a ogre and "shit" [[8]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [[9]]

Silverlife has already admitted that they used to be RegularBreaker (and still implies this on their current user page). However, the previous account doesn't have any blocks associated with it, or other serious problems.

Currently, I think we're being trolled. Just look at this person's responses throughout this whole noticeboard discussion, every reply seems intended to escalate the problem, there's no defense presented at all. I say, WP:RBI and forget this whole thing. -- Atama頭 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that "B" means "Block"? Because there's trolling, which usually has at least a component of being slightly entertaining (at least, to the oppositionally-inclined like myself)--and then there's just being rude, immature, dismissive, and profane, all while acting in contravention of at least two accepted Wikipedia guidelines (namely WP: UBX and WP:SOCK.) And while I'm being humorless--this article seems to need a friend. I'll stop by the Sociology Wikiproject, or some other suitable place.... GJC 10:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

B most definitely means Block, and I fully support llywrch's indef block. -- Atama頭 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, because of the response on HiaB's Talk page, & the general tone of his other responses, I indef'ed Silverlife -- that account alone -- but left him an opening to appeal my decision. (You guys seem to expect the cranky old Admins to do all of the blocking. No one here will ever believe I'm an easy-going softie ever again.) Since I'm intermittently on Wikipedia, I have no problem with another Admin overturning my block for good reason. Or blocking the other accounts associated with this user, if abused. -- llywrch (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP concerns at ongoing AFD

Three editors have expressed concerns about a suspicious contribution by an IP (Special:Contributions/81.156.64.209) in the first few comments of the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hari_Dhillon. Is there anything to be worried about here, and can something be done about it before the AFD closes? Holly25 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP only made a single comment a week ago. There'd be no benefit to taking action on the IP, even if it's comment had been problematic. As to within the AFD itself, any admin closing it will certainly judge the comment on it's merit. As it's thin in any policy, no doubt the admin will focus on the more substantial debate in the discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But if the IP's connected to the first-commenting user (which seems to be the concern), wouldn't that be a problem? The IP only made one comment, but the other user has quite a few. If it's a dynamic IP there might be other problematic comments, so would it not justify checking on the IP to see if it's connected to a user account? Holly25 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually that sort of thing is moderately common for AFDs. Unfortunately for them, IP votes are generally given lesser value because of this. HalfShadow 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeblur0

Threeblur0 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sleepydre, but was unblocked in March 2009 by Versageek with a promise to not use multiple accounts and to discuss things on talk pages and work with other editors. Here is the diff of their agreement.

Threeblur0 has, as far as I know, not used multiple accounts. However, Threeblur0's behavior in editing has been fairly disruptive. S/he edits mostly the Akron, Ohio article and related articles - see here. Threeblur0 does not seem to have learned much from nearly a year of editing here. S/he keeps adding material which is trivial / crufty, keeps adding material from sources which are of doubtful reliability, and engages in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Recently Threeblur0 has made edit summaries which approach personal attacks - diff. Please see the Talk:Akron, Ohio page for more details.

Several users, including JonRidinger and Beirne have repeatedly tried to point out where Threeblur0's edits are wrong or could be improved. Threeblur0's behavior was cited by Stepshep as the reason he left Wikipedia - diff.

Threeblur0 is not a vandal, but his or her editing seems to be getting more and more disruptive. What should be done? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Threeblur0 to take a break from editing the Akron page and he's agreed to do so. --Versageek 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But it should be noted that Threeblur agreed to only take "the rest of the week off" according to his talk page. Not much of a break for someone who's made over 800 edits (just with that specific username) in less than a year to one article nor does it indicate that there will be any difference once he returns. I'd say suggest a longer break and hold him to the original agreement. Along with that, despite numerous and lengthy explanations from myself and other editors citing Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and examples about a number of topics to help him improve the article and just be a better editor, he has continued to add or restore unsourced, poorly sourced, and/or trivial information. Being a new editor is one thing, but he isn't a new editor anymore. This is in addition to the personal nature of many of his comments and edit summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see how they go after a week. They sound like they had resolved not to edit the page so much. The comment of a personal nature was a bit uncivil, but really not that bad I think. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this discussion from the archive. Threeblur is back from his four day break and has reverted a lot of trivial and dubious content that I had deleted. In doing so, he said that he was restoring material that was deleted without discussion. As I deleted the cruft I created new sections on the discussion page explaining my deletions, so the only reason there was no discussion is because no one replied to me. This is his typical behavior, reverting and misrepresenting. And I'll add a reply to User:Tbsdy lives, "The comment" should be plural. We have been putting up with his insults and assumptions of bad faith for a long time and it really makes editing difficult. --Beirne (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Already back from a four-day break and has restored significant amounts of trivial info and poorly-worded edits. He basically demands that we have to explain every removal of info, but is unable to justify its inclusion (see WP:BOP), nor does he try beyond comments like "just like NYC's" (which most times it isn't at all like the NYC article). And no, the personal comment was one example; it was hardly simply one uncivil moment. Editors that have not had to work on articles with Threeblur for more than a few edits have no concept of how difficult he has made the process of improving the article. Not only do we have to constantly have to make revisions, but then we have to explain our every action and get in a drawn out discussion about it. This is not a case of simple disagreements here and there; this is a case of blatant disregard for policies and guidelines by one editor despite an enormous amount of help. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile blocking then. Clearly is not showing consensus-based editing, Wikibreaks should be used to destress and reconsider ways of editing that don't step all over other editors. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but after being back i have put data with references and used talk pages on both articles i edited. The little amount that i restored was encyclopedic information with references that was taken out and is reformed to fit properly in the article. I havent come to a consensus on edits yet cause the only edit i made i felt needed as soons as possible cause the tag at the top of the page which is still there. Im willing to keep discussing edits in a more civilized way regaurdless of other editors actions.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on the parts that I had removed that Threeblur0 reverted (See diff here: [10]). One was most of the film and section. A large portion of it was a list of characters that were born in Akron. I removed these following WP:IPC guidelines as these say nothing about Akron itself. I also removed the movies filmed in Akron that only had IMDB, a tertiary source, as a reference. Threeblur0's revert did not add any significant references, if any at all. Another effect of the reversion was to change "Simon Perkins Mansion" back to "Simon Perkin's Mansion". Perkins was the man's last name, and I had corrected the typo. The fact that the apostrophe reappeared showed the wholesale nature of the reversion. Another reversion was to bring back the claim that the Menches brothers invented the waffle cone, caramel corn, and possibly the hamburger. While popular in Akron, these are unsubstantiated claims. It's fine if they come back in as long as they are documented. No references were added in the reversion, though. Threeblur0 also restored a statement saying that northern migration has introduced Southern and African-American English to Akron, using the original source that talks about migration but not language. Threeblur0 added a reference for the obscure term Akroness, but the source is a 27-page non-searchable article, so I can't tell if the word is in there or not. Also, he did these reverts without replying to the topics I created on the Discussion page. --Beirne (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i did put a reference for the Menches brothers claim, it's still there if you didnt remove it. The source given supports the arival of dialects. I thought it would be proof enough since from all signs the page existed at one point and contained Akroness, plus the statment is known to be true and can be typed into google and get over a thousand hits. The edits on the revision page were one right after another and edit summaries didnt include the words "see talk" or similar, plus after figurng out you did, alot of the edits you made didnt have a discussion and some discussions you didnt really give enough time for replies. Beside all that, im really tryng to focus on the rest of the vast knowledge Wikipedia has this year and not have debates leading to nowhere with you two.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the Menches reference. Unfortunately it is to Jay Fox's No-More-Mr.-Nice-Guy Dining Guide, which appears to be an some sort of blog, not a reliable source. Making inferences about language from an article about migration is original research. The page existed for the reference to Akroness, but I wasn't going to read through 27 pages to see if the word showed up there. The reference should include a page number. Google hits don't mean much. I had discussion areas for Menches and the film & TV edits and they still don't have replies as I write this. --Beirne (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was pointed here...never understood why the sock was unblocked. §hep^Talk 07:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As the comments above demonstrate, despite countless explanations of what constitutes a reliable source and countless referrals to the policy, Threeblur continues to add information with unreliable, synthesized, or just plain incorrect information. The term Akroness is a great example. The only "sources" if you Google it, come from blogs, personal websites, promotional websites, and other unreliable things like the Urban Dictionary. The source cited in the article links to a study from Ohio University on dialects in Southern Ohio. The only mentions of Akron I could find are maps in the appendix (pp. 198-200 of the study, p. 24-26 of the PDF file) that show Akron as being in the North Midland dialect or possibly Northern dialect and a brief mention where Akron is "excluded" from the southern Ohio dialect reach (p. 193 in study, p. 18 in PDF), yet somehow this source appears to support the use of the term Akroness in the article when, in fact, it doesn't. Then, as usual, it becomes our responsibility to explain why it needs to be removed in a long, drawn-out process rather than how it should be as explained in WP:BOP. And yes, Threeblur tends to do a wholescale revert first, so restores not only the info in question but also any grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors that may have been corrected. Sometimes he catches them, but usually he does not. Taking a "break" from an article, particularly one like this where the user has made an enormous amount of edits to, needs to be longer than 4 days. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

<-Shep, as I explained last year, Threeblur0 means well - Allowing him to edit and hoping with some guidance he'd learn how to edit in a collaborative environment was better than range blocking the entire public library system in his area to prevent him from editing. He has added worthwhile content to the article, and some decent photos - once we helped him understand the whole 'image copyright' issue. I suppose at this point it does come down to competence is required. Threeblur0, an encyclopedia isn't intended to be a collection of every single thing that may be related to a subject. It's suppose to be something that one can read for a quick overview of important facts about a subject, a starting point for research.. at this point the Akron article is almost TL;DR. --Versageek 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0 may mean well in terms of wanting to add content, but he does not Assume Good Faith with us other editors and makes personal attacks. I could deal with the Wikipedia process for handling incorrect information, bad sources, and trivia with a reasonable editor, but Threeblur0 often makes things personal and pretty much just wears us down with attacks and doesn't stop with the bad content in spite of our repeated advice on what is expected in Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The odd thing is that Threeblur0 has learned about photos and copyrighted images, but shows little sign of progress in article writing. His edits to the Akron article tend to be inclusion of whatever odds and ends related to or mentioning Akron that can be found on the internet, with little use of books or print resources, and almost no attempt to put things into context or see the big picture. There is also a tendency to boosterism. The mention of Menches Brothers Restaurant, which claims to have made the first hamburger and ice cream cone, has only a tentative Akron connection. The original Menches brothers were from Canton, Ohio, their first hamburger was made in New York state, their ice cream cone was made in St. Louis, then they made waffle cones in Akron. Their business died out, great-grandchildren revived the hamburger restaurant in Uniontown, Ohio in 1994 and eventually opened two more burger joints, one in Akron. The refs for this are the burger chain's own website and a news article from 1995 about the Uniontown restaurant that mentions Akron one time.[11] For another example of Threeblur0's work, try Crime history of Akron, Ohio - moved by Threeblur0 to a name which has no parallels in other articles (despite the objections of others), full of unrelated bits, some of which run afoul of WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT and lacking any sort of crime statistics. There is also a user who has edited it only 3 times with a compund name followed by a number, Vegasbaby33 (talk · contribs), who might be a sock. Almost any attempt to clean things up is reverted and editors get bogged down in lengthy talk page discussions that never seem to go anywhere. Not vandalism, buit certainly not productive. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point with the photos, though I think there it was a case of being pretty cut-and-dry (only upload pictures you took yourself) and having quite a few photos deleted here and on the Commons (and getting his Commons account blocked indefinitely...all his recent photo additions were uploaded to Wikipedia). On top of that it takes a lot more effort to "undo" a file deletion than it does a text edit. For me, working with Threeblur has been very difficult because in addition to making edits, I end up having to explain everything in great detail like I'm asking for permission, not to mention repeatedly. If we have a major disagreement, he will occasionally go over to the Kent, Ohio article (one I edit fairly regularly, have put a lot of effort in, and have a close connection to) and will make some kind of disruptive edit like: [12],[13], [14], [15] (which contains info in the edit summary that isn't true about the section being "one sentence"). None of them are vandalism by definition, but none served a direct purpose other than to divert attention from the Akron article. These are along with some interesting justifications for actions such as the move of Crime in Akron, Ohio to Crime history of Akron, Ohio without any discussion as seen at Talk:Crime history of Akron, Ohio, which came during a drawn-out debate about the former and related "Meth Capital of Ohio" section in the Akron article Crime section. In reading WP:CIR from Versageek, it sums a lot of this up really well. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct would help ? --Versageek 00:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What would restarting in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct do? --Beirne (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had the same basic question. I've never done this or even an AN/I before, so what are the benefits for all involved by going this route? --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time im replyng to this only because the accusations are serious, but regardless of what is said after this - im moving on.

Administrative Wiki Probo Versageek, you are clear.

Editor Bernie, As thought by Adiminstrator Tbsdy lives, my comments of personal nature are not that bad, also i can point out some of yours but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Editor Ruhrfisch, what you're experiencing actually is, me re-forming data and being retarted from the sand boxes progress, which are indeed encyclopedic. The mention of the menches brothers came from thembeing a well known resident of Akron, the mention of the food on the page's cusine sections comes from identifying what the person/thing is most noted/notable for. The explanation for crime can be found on it's talkpage. I am not Editor Veagsbaby33 neither, and any one with the power may check.

Editor JohnRidinger, i was only blocked there because the same administrator who blocked me from here had something to do with it. I feel the same, as i repeatidly state, when im in disscussions with you. I do to Kent exactly what i do to Akron, base it upon other articles that have been corrected and also state why in the summary.(i confused and really meant to say one topic, which is Kent University. I also really dont have Akron in my mind as much you think when im editng the Kent page. I show competence, with my revision page and explained and forgiven "sockpuppets" as proof, most pictures and sections on the page came from me such as, roughly two thirds of the history, roughly half the topography, environment, almost all the cityscape, notable residents, culture, economy, part of the demographics, half the government and politics, crime, alot of education, sgnificant amount of transportation, and some of sister cities. The benifits of my route is a direction to peace and increased productivity.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0, are you moving on in the sense of not working on the Akron article anymore, or will you just be ignoring the rest of this discussion? --Beirne (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but under this account I do not have any admin rights. My old account does, and I'm currently in the process of trying to retrieve it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked on the Commons because of "abusing multiple accounts". You could've easily started over as you did here. Do not blame others for the consequences you brought on yourself by repeatedly uploading unfree images despite warnings and explanations. As far as the edits on the Kent article go, say what you want, but they only came up while you and I were having an edit dispute on the Akron article, and no you did not simply do to the Kent article what you do to Akron, especially considering most of your edits to Kent involved removing info while you rarely removed info from the Akron article. Yes, you did add a lot to the Akron article, but as this discussion has shown, a lot of what you added shouldn't be in the article at all. Despite our best efforts to work with and help you understand what should and shouldn't be in the article and why, you continued to add more and more info that had no place and hampered the efforts of other editors to improve the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In case there was any confusion, edits at the Akron article indicate Threeblur "moving on" wasn't in reference to that article as he in once again restoring questionable info and sources along with poorly-written or awkwardly-worded prose ([16] and [17]). Statements such as "major meth problem" and "mainly due to Akron" are not supported by any of the sources and many of the sources are actually referencing statistics from Summit County, Ohio. All of this has been discussed in detail on the Akron talk page beginning here and most recently here. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give him some credit; he is working somewhat with me on the section, but only if he makes the edits himself and I explain the problems with his wordings and what the sources actually say (which I have done multiple times already) in each successive edit on the talk page. If he finally learns, great, but if not it simply causes me to spend time explaining (and less editing), get in an edit war over it, or just walk away and let the article remain with improperly sourced information. I mainly see problems with WP:OWN and WP:OR. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that overnight Threeblur0 reverted back his version of the meth paragraph.[18] The problem is that when he did it he put "Copy edited" for the description, something I would use for punctuation and spelling. There has been plenty of discussion on the meth paragraph but he did not add anything to it, he just reverted. --Beirne (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, it does seem like he's trying somewhat to follow *some* the suggestions I have put on the talk page, but not completely and only one at a time. Even then he the only things he's removed have been some of the blatant POV words, but the section still has a lot of material more relevant to Summit County and makes assumptions that aren't supported by sources. Just since last night he's already made 12 edits to the same section and has not contributed to the discussion on the talk page about it. And while I give Versageek lots of credit for patience, Threeblur has been referred to the WP:SYN and WP:OR pages multiple times and had the concepts explained to him on the Akron talk page. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cartoonbook

Resolved

 – blocked MW talk contribs 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cartoonbook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has uploaded a lot of copyvio images, like:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_Toons_Christmas_Kiss.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mr_Toad_Walt_Disney_World.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cartoonbook#Possibly_unfree_File:Original_mr._toad_ride.jpg

These are just a few. --MW talk contribs 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Cartoonbook (talk · contribs) was blocked last year for repeated copyvios. Since then, he or she has done -- surprise! -- nothing but upload more copyvios, such as File:Tiny_Toons_Christmas_Kiss.jpg, which he is claiming his his own work under GFDL, but a.) it's a screenshot of a copyrighted show, and b.) he ripped it off here. Literally every one of his edits since unblock has been to upload improperly licensed material. He clearly should be indeffed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeffed, suggest no unblocking without a total ban on uploading images being imposed. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Mjroots. --MW talk contribs 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The only one I'm able to see is the Mr. Toad thing, which is a random snapshot of the exterior of a ride or something. How is that a copyright violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it appears to be from here. He didn't 'create' that picture, he took it. HalfShadow 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Took" as in "ripped off". Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the user should be unblocked, but with editing restrictions, like to do not upload images ANYMORE. --MW talk contribs 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mattmartinelli8

The above user created a promotional page about the company for which they work for on their user page. When I noticed this, I left a message at their talk page, explaining CoI etc, and asking them to remove the content.

When they continued editing it, I nominated it for Speedy Deletion.

They proceeded to remove the SD tag three times, and got warnings for that from me after I restored the tag. The user page was deleted last night. (They also created a subpage of the same kind of material, which was also deleted).

They have now started to re-create the page. Could an admin look at this, and consider blocking them? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The user has been notified of this thread on their talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor was given a final warning about creating inappropriate pages, and hasn't done so yet. If they were to do so after the final warning I would consider a block. -- Atama頭 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Diane Leek

I don't know anything about the subject of this article or the history of it, but it appears that Atama deleted an article about a politician named Diane Leek back in November (!) and someone just can't let it go. Earlier this morning I encountered 195.166.131.85 making some point-y and incorrectly formatted deletion nominations on other British politicians. At first I thought an IP was attempting to nominate the article in good faith (again, I don't know anything about the subject), but after looking at the recent history of both Jackie Drayton and Roger Davison, I figured someone was screwing around. After several warnings, I received this lovely legal threat on my talk page which has yet to be retracted. I responded (albeit in not the most civil way) that I'm not an admin, I didn't delete the damn article, and to just stop incorrectly nominating articles. I don't know if they missed my terse message or just have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I got this as a response. I went to bed shortly after leaving my last message to the IP and woke up to find this from a "new" user, User:Cornilicious, on my talk page. They've stopped for now, but Cornilicious started right back up with the point-y nominations and informed the user that created Diane Leeks that people are vandalizing "their" articles. Ordinarily I'd ignore the legal threat and disruptive behavior as a one-off kind of thing, but considering the legal threat is still out there and another (now blocked) IP started this stuff up yesterday, I'm going to guess this won't let up anytime soon. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP/Cornilicious should have just talked to me. It was deleted via PROD, which means it was an uncontested and uncontroversial deletion that can be restored by request from anyone who wants it restored, no discussion needed. So much drama over nothing. I'd have no problems restoring it if I was sure this was a good faith request. By the way, although the deletion happened a while ago, I vaguely recall doing a quick search for coverage of Diane Leek and didn't find enough to convince me that the proposed deletion was valid and the subject didn't meet our notability standards. So nothing untoward happened. -- Atama頭 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, the person who proposed the article for deletion had left this message on the talk page of the Diane Leek article, explaining the proposed deletion:

I examined this article which has remained "unpatrolled" for a month; it seems to me to be a very borderline case of notability and I find the lack of reliable sources quite remarkable. Her tenure as mayor is hardly mentioned at all (which to me is about the only reason she would meet WP:POLITICIAN), either in the article or in the press sources, and my brief search revealed nothing that added any notability. If someone wants to work on this article to improve it, taking out the more self-promotional aspects and adding some solid references, I would welcome that.

My own search confirmed this, which was why I deleted it. -- Atama頭 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Jgharston (talk · contribs) and Cornilicious (talk · contribs) might be the same person; it's also possible they're friends or otherwise know each other outside Wikipedia. I've left involved users/IPs notes advising them of WP:WMD. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I advised the IP to contact Atama or WP:Deletion review after they claimed it was my responsibility to own up to something or other, but they continued the same behavior today anyway. If they didn't understand the process, they could have politely asked for assistance which I would've gladly helped with. Threatening to sue someone usually doesn't make someone go out of their way to help. Did I mention that legal threat has yet to be retracted? Pinkadelica^♣ 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm hoping for a calm resolution, but if they keep barking up that tree I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That'll work. Odds are they might get it if more people explain it to them. Thanks for dealing with it. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Really dull personal attacks

Resolved

 – User cautioned. –xeno^talk 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Over here I've been accused of being a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" – and I think I've remained civil throughout. Would someone mind issuing a reprimand, please? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to open an AN/I thread for the occasional random insult from the occasional editor. WP:WQA is probably a better avenue. --Cyclopia^talk 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he should receive a warning for making personal attacks, not be reported somewhere ineffectual where nothing will happen. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, just seen the warning. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like fair comment. Treasury Tag may not like it but boo hoo, such is life. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that calling another editor a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" qualifies as fair comment, you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've fundamentally chosen to ignore them both as utter shite. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make comments of a personal nature. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's commenting on the policies. Which does not bode well for his future here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RMHED, can you confirm that this is true? If so, I would strongly advise you under the strongest possible terms to follow policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, in all fairness, just because someone says they ignore a policy, that doesn't mean they don't or won't 'follow' it by not breaking it. The two concepts are exclusive from one another. Ignoring the policy that humans cannot fly doesn't mean anyone is going to fly. Sure, some mighty ruler can lay down the law that human flying is not allowed, but when he looks down around upon his subjects and views them as not flying simply because of his mighty rule against it, he's fooling himself big time. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the oddest analogy I've ever heard. Ignoring the policy that man cannot fly is irrelevant because it is physically impossible for man to fly unaided. If the editor ignores our policies, for instance NPOV, then they should not be contributing to Wikipedia because it is quite possible to follow the policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What can I say; I like to point out the weirdness of things. However, I really do think it's a good analogy for the point I was trying to make which concerns some confusion over an editor's perceived intent based merely on a simple statement made which itself expresses no distinct ill will toward the purpose of the rules. I personally believe Garibaldi Baconfat was expressing exasperation at being 'forced to follow' a rule which could quite possibly be something that would be foreign to his nature to violate. Assuming somebody is a bad guy just because they said something like that is something I consider kind of vicous, but maybe that's just me. I think the sad (& shitey) thing here is that there is need for such rules as WP:CIV and WP:NPA, because that means ... --Neptunerover (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "boo hoo, such is life" is a very deep and neutral statement about life and the fact of our existence and how it is what we make of it. (for the good sake of clarity) --Neptunerover (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User Nicholas-Ball-Wiki making violent theats towards me and vandalizing my talk page

Resolved

 – WP is not Therapy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can wikipeida please try to prevent which I feel is a urgent matter involveing User Nicholas-Ball-Wiki as he(I know of him) is making violent theats towards me and vandalizing my talk page[19] can. Can the wikipeida community please try to stop this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen-Lord-Wiki (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Stephen-Lord-Wiki (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he sitting beside you, or two rows back and to the right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an open and shut case; just give him the money. You only have a couple of days left so it may be best to stop trolling and go earn some cash! raseaC^{talk to me} 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's your debt, you sort it out. Or you could ask the government for a bailout, that seems to work a lot these days. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that two famous actors wouldn't need Wikipedia to resolve their money problems! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am proud that I missed that! raseaC^{talk to me} 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Truly bizarre behaviour. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI case filed. Marked resolved. DNFTT. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They gawn. –MuZemike 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User Stephen-Lord-Wiki has be confirmed[20] to be a sock of User Mcjakeqcool. However User Stephen-Lord-Wiki is in denial about the allegation. 86.144.59.219 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77 Established record of continuous unrelenting Disruptive Editing

Resolved

 – Editor might be annoying according to some, but nothing is immediately actionable by admins. Try WP:RFC/U for full community input, and the WP:HORSE is put away for the night —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 January 2010

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

Standing on the fifth pillar WP:FIVE I remove the premature archiving of this ANI. Given the time I put in, and others and the prior ANIs before it, and the threats and notices being flaunted of future Admin actions, and the true problem being raised I strongly feel a full disposition need to be generated for this ANI. If ANI is going to fail, let it fail, that is at least a result. But archiving it away does nothing, moreover the residual effect is more harmful than allowing the ANI to run its course, and run its course for longer than 24 hours if necessary. My removing of this abortive archiving is proper, the 5th pillar supports --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

discussion top|Seriously. There is no hope of a satisfactory resolution to this. This has devolved into pointless sniping. I recommend everyone just chill for a few days and let this blow over. Closing it as nothing useful is going to come from this. --Jayron32 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Proofreader77 has a long track record of disruptive editing, some of which have been actionable others which have simply frustrated other editors. Proofreader77 fancies himself as a rhetorical master, which most often translates to confusing communications, and wiki-lawyering on every matter. Proofreader77 tends to tag team with others in reverting and lobbying to administrators. Proofreader77 tends to not contribute to articles but instead acts as some sort of vigilante who reverts, removes, and debates content changes made by others.

Proofreader had administrative restriction placed on him as a result of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman_Polanski_interpreter_or_referee_needed

Hans Adler summarized Proofreader77 with a strong warning "I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

I raise this ANI because the evidence is clear his is unwilling to change his communications style.

Proofreader77 was told clearly about his problematic editing style by Gwen Gale after he asked, however instead of accepting the feedback he fought to show he was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive16#Loan_me_a_besom_:.29

When issues were raised about concerns about Proofreader here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=331489616#Roman_Polanski_article_again._Editor_refuses_to_stop_inserting_information_to_whitewash_case he proceeded to write Sonnets and argue his editing was appropriate.

Another last warning to Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#last_warning

Gwen Gales gives up on restrictions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=334252314&oldid=334170535

After his restrictions were lifted because the problems remained, but the restrictions were not curtailing his manners of interaction. Proofreader77 went about promoting himself on Jimbo Wales talk page SEE Oops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#.22Disturbing.22_comments_:-.29

Next he begins to riddles Jimbo Wales TALK, see his flurry in response to Arbcon 2010 appointments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Arbcom_2010_appointments including a Sonnet.

Proofreader77 then takes WP:OWN of Jimbo Wales Talk page and says that other comments are "Out of Order" and a abuse of public space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#A_Two_Tier_Administration_System_and_division_of_responsibility_is_what_is_required

Proofreader again takes over Jimbo Wales page, to conduct some sort of policy polling, which is carried away in some sort of juvenile graffiti which Hans Alder already raises concerns about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Congrats Further making this abuse is Proofreader77 saying that after he donated to Wikipedia he is now afforded more rights than others.

Proofreader77 is blocked, but immediately defends his actions, showing total unwillingness to change his style of interaction as he has been repeatedly asked to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07#Postmortem_.28open_unsent_email_to_all_concerned.29

Proofreader77 is warned by an Administrator, to which he ignore the substance, and immediately "warns" the administrator for making false aspersions, he is then blocked by another Admin, to which Proofreader77 immediately appeals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Proofreader77 uses the Administrative noticeboards as a playground, given his disruptions on the ANI boards such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=333062600#Proposed_admin_commandment:_Thou_shalt_not_block_..._for_being_mocked is it reasonable to expect that his actions on project pages is not being disrupted. If he does it on the ANI boards, and Jimbo Wales pages, you can imagine the difficulty of standard editors to his style. See how aggressively he attacks Ryulong

Following interactions on ANI, Proofreader wiki-lawyers the admins on their own pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_4#Your_closure_of_an_ANI_thread Proofreader77 is even shown as taunting other editors.

I raised my concerns with Gwen Gale when she removed all the restrictions from Proofreader77. Here is some of her comments from this:

"When he asked me the other day that they be lifted, I did so more or less "knowing" he'd either settle down (which was my hope) or stir things up even more. As it happened, I'd say he ran amuck on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. I'd say PR knows what he's doing and could stop whenever he pleases, but I can't say I know why he's been so disruptive. I always found his way of putting things slightly unsettling, a bit time wasting, but harmlessly so, hence I more often than not didn't bother to read what he had to say too deeply. It was only in the last few months that I saw his talk page meanderings and sonnets grow out of hand. When I saw warnings from 2 other admins on his talk page last night, followed by a wanton taunt at Jimbo (which PR has already wikilawyered as having been a friendly go at a chat about fund raising), I blocked him. His unblock request was swiftly declined." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive16#Proofreader77....Again

Proofreader77 readily states he is edit warring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self-notice_.28acknowledgement.29_of_2RR_on_Roman_Polanski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Roman_Polanski_3RR_acknowledgement_.28documentary_edits.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_Roman_Polanski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self-acknowledgment_of_.5B3.5DRR_on_Roman_Polanski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_WP:AN_reverting_improper_actions

When a RFC was opened for the Polanski article, on the topics which Proofreader has been edit warring on, he placed his views on, then Archived the Topic. Preventing outside eyes to review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#RFC

---

These continuous and ongoing problems of Proofreader77's interactions persist. Administrative restrictions are bypassed. The problems of Proofreader77 continue, and are problematic for editors he interacts with. His style of communications is grounded in rhetoric, which is anything but productive for collaboration.

Prior administrative actions are incomplete, and the problem is only growing. I am requesting the restoral of the previous restrictions placed upon Proofreader77, because they were so willfully circumvented by Proofreader. I do not believe it is good policy to place restriction on, and remove them solely for their lack of ability to curtail the problems of this editor.

Otherwise, I am requesting a continuation of Admins to solve this problem, as their previous actions have failed. Proofreader77 remains a willful and constant disruption to content and other editors on Wikipedia. Prior actions of Administrators need to be followed up upon.

There needs to be a new admin response to Proofreader77's conduct. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed them of this discussion. Please make sure that this happens in future, Tom. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tombaker321 already did so one minute before you. Did you even look? Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

His post is right above yours/ User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mathsci, I did. Just a case of unfortunate timing. He must have posted it just after I looked at the talk page. Then when I clicked on new section it was there, but I didn't realise. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Many of Proofreader77's contributions just seem to be trolling. He's also using his talk page to collect the reactions of others to his trolling with his own commentary here and here. Quite a lot of what he writes on WP seems quite hard to decipher. Mathsci (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• We all know a person or two like this in real life; someone who thinks they are far smarter/wittier/cooler then they actually are, and after awhile it becomes a sort of running gag or bad punchline. Sooner or later you just stop calling, stop inviting to the parties, etc... Think it's time to do the same here, as this is way to much disruption and intolerable behavior to allow to remain on the Wikipedia. my lone interaction with this person came at the above-mentioned ChildofMidnight RfC, where he tried to post some not-so-witty prose in support of CoM. Birds of a feather.... So if it is coming to it, block for a significant period of time. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. See the section below about the original poster. We should not condone this sort of head hunting by a disruptive account. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Proofreader77

No response warranted. (Wrong forum: improper use of ANI).

Note: Issues mentioned will be addressed in Arbcom case I am preparing for submission for consideration.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What Proofreader77 writes is incorrect. His actions can be discussed here. On the other hand, if he were to table a frivolous RfAr, that would obviously be regarded as disruption on a larger scale than previously seen. If the "documentation" in the links I gave to his talk page is for that purpose, for example, then he could probably expect further blocks. If he thinks there is some kind of dispute, he should probably mention what it is here and explain how he has tried to resolve it so far. Needless escalation to RfAr is usually not a good idea. Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I read this right, or does this editor write sonnets on talk pages? Just when I thought I'd seen it all on Wikipedia... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He might, but that's not the point. The RfAr is probably about his recent blocks [21]. He did write a sonnet instead of a statement in the RfC/CoM. It was removed by various users. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it any good? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Proofreader77 wrote a Sonnet with an overflow of more intelligible garble, as some sort of communication on Jimbo Wales talk page, which completely sidetracked and squashed the communication by the author.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Arbcom_2010_appointments This is typical of Proofreader's ongoing communications on Wikipedia --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Objections by Mathsci noted. Response: Submission for RfAr is warranted by complex history of issues. No further comments by me (Proofreader77) here, but if there are editors who believe a "historical" pattern of editing is to be discussed in a forum for "Incidents," they may, of course, do as they wish.
  -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The need for this to be addressed in this forum, is that we have been here before, and restrictions were placed by this administrative body. The tenants of those restriction were gamed and worked around, which caused the restrictions to be removed for pure frustration with your interactions. The level of disruptive editing went up significantly. All amounts of warnings given to Proofreader77 have been ignored and wiki-lawyered against. There is nothing that even suggests that Proofreader feels he has any issues or needs of improvement, even given the large amount of admin warnings.
• Most recently Proofreader77 manually archived a RFC on a topic, instead of letting feedback come in, which may be counter to your POV.
• You have a Yellow Banner Box, stating you have donated to Wikipedia, and then proceed to disparage two Administrators by name, this is a misuse of the banner and give some sort of false authority to your gripes against Gwen Gale and Prodego http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77 see top
• In relationship to your abuse of Jimbo Wales talk page, you are now referencing how you made the LA newspaper for being a side-show character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#See_also Whether or not you are intending to create a tantrum to recreate some sort of personal press or notoriety is an Open Question. Using the donation request by Mr. Wales, then Jim Wales' own talk pages, then advertising about being abused by administrators for donating, then taking the entire affair to Arbitration....all seems like gorilla marketing by an "artist" Irregardless the Yellow donation banner has been improperly repurposed into something it was never intended to do.
• This is the correct spot to readdress the prior restrictions placed upon Proofreader77, the incidents are recent, and ongoing. Before this forum is bypassed, this forum would need to fail to resolve....I believe resolution is still available here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just don't get this report, Proofreader is under no restrictions at all, he has just come off a three day block and is back editing a little but he doesn't appear to have done anything worthy of this or any report since then in any way. I also find it very excessive that User Tombaker has now notified twenty one editors about this report? I don't think it is correct to do that, is it ok to mass notify editors like that? Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the report and widespread notifications does appear to be a disproportionate response. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A. Off2riorob this report is of a continuous and continuing stream of disruptive editing as outlined above regarding your teammate Proofreader77. You have before spoken to Proofreader77's restrictions and the recent change in them. As far the list of editors notified, it was a set of editors that directly interacted with Proofreader77 in specific regards to the issues I have raised, notification to them was proper and required by etiquette and process. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's Proposal

• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Proofreader77 is hereby restricted from writing sonnets. They may however write haikus or limericks, but not in article space. Proofreader77 is also advised to avoid pissing off people who dislike P77's idiosyncratic form of humor. Please choose carefully which pages you post to. Certain pages, such as User talk:Jimbo Wales are honeypots for catching disruptive editors. Flippant comments there may cause people to think you are one. Additionally, please focus somewhat more on productive mainspace contributions, lest people draw the conclusion that you are only here for teh lulz. These restrictions and advices are not exhaustive or exclusive. Other administrators are free to modify, add to or change these conditions. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the problems raised here, are greater than, a response to use haikus and limericks vs Sonnets. Here for the "lulz" is no justification in actions or acceptance of them (which is what your response conveys). Advising to "select pages to post", just pushes the known problem down to others. Which is why this is being raise now. The prior administrator actions were abandoned, to this result. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than adding unwelcome humor or noise to some pages, did Proofreader77 damage any articles, or seriously hinder any community process? I think we need a measured response here. You can't seriously want to community ban somebody who's had exactly two short blocks on an account that's 18 months old, and has a record of many productive article edits.[22] Jehochman ^Brrr 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should topic restrict him either. Let him know that the WP:OWN issues won't be tolerated. From there let him dig his own hole if he chooses. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tossing this off with a chuckle and a wink is certainly not what I would expect. I have raised a fairly detailed list of the problematic issues. I honestly don't think you have read them, and you certainly are not wanting to address them beyond advising to use limericks instead of sonnets. I expect that the Admin noticeboard will refer to there prior actions, and restrictions, and the comments of what admins said then, and how the disruptive patterns persist and expand. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about your repeated WP:BLP violations at Roman Polanski. You appear to be head hunting an editor who was calling out your misdeeds. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, it lovely that you are much more concerned with me...but why? Can you just admit you have no interest in looking at the substance of what is being raised on the ANI. That you are here for the lulz only. Limmerick instead of Sonnets...I get it...you think this is a joke.

I do not have repeated BLP violations you seek to condemn me with. I am sure you are aware that just because something is not flattering to a BLP, that it not reason for its omission from Wikipedia. Yes? I stand behind my edits, despite your knee-jerk assessments of them. If you want to address me, for your misrepresentations, do so. Find that content forum, I will stand behind my edits there. But its not proper to derail this ANI with bemusement. --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the type of problem Proofreader77 represents takes time. I think Jehochman's advice is fine, and forms the basis for further action if Proofreader doesn't quite get the hint. Proofreader77 needs to realise that Wikipedia is a serious project, not a forum. That doesn't mean all humor and idiosyncratic behavior is prohibited, but you build up some latitude by participating in other more useful ways. If Proofreader continues to spend most of his time building operas or Westerns or whatever in his userspace and making witty comments in projectspace, that problem can come back here for a more forceful solution. Nathan ^T 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Proofreader -- or anyone -- writing sonnets on Talk pages; I trust everyone is capable of removing such contributions. Further, I am strongly dubious that anyone could effectively own Jimmy Wales' Talk page: there is strong evidence that he belongs to a powerful cabal at Wikipedia, which can effectively handle any such attempts.

That said, there are a number of points that need to be kept in mind concerning this case:

• As I understand it, Gwen Gale lifted the restrictions on Proofreader not to give him further freedom, or because he was innocent, but because he -- like all of us -- should follow the rules, which clearly forbid him from disruptive behavior. (If I'm wrong, Gwen, please correct me.)
• Proofreader does have a tendency to wikilawyer -- as exemplified above with his "Wrong forum: improper use of ANI" comment above. I should warn everyone that excessive wikilawyering on Wikipedia will result with sanctions for barratry -- er, I mean disruption.
• We all have better things to do than to discuss how to appropriately handle a disruptive editor, no matter how valuable her/his edits. Either the party concerned stops being disruptive (avoiding contentious subjects is one popular solution; another is staying away from the Admin Noticeboards), or ends up receiving an indef block.

I can't see that there is anything constructive that I can say about this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the OP too

• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Tombaker321 account appears to be a single purpose account for editing Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a highly contentious BLP. Could we have some additional eyes look at this account's activity and see if the above report is perhaps related?

• Proofreader77's activity there seems to be quite useful.[23][24]
• Tombaker321's, not so much. Here Tom edit wars to restore scandalous material to a BLP, sourced to an opinion piece in the LA Times.

I think this matter bears closer scrutiny. Perhaps Tombaker321 needs some sort of restrictions to prevent further egregious BLP violations, and maybe a checkuser to see if they match any of the other single purpose accounts or IPs that have been attacking the article. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking through this list] of contributions, I am pretty confident this ANI thread is a means of retaliation to eliminate an "opponent" in a content dispute. Additionally, there is a strong possibility that Tombaker321 has been engaging in violations of WP:SYN, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Can some other uninvolved editors look into this and comment? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are you serious? Instead of looking at the merits of the issues raised, you pass off a joking "result" then when I say its insufficient, you want to turn this to me? Shoot the messenger AND ignore the message at the same time? If you want to raise concerns about me fine, do that independently instead of the retaliatory manner offer out now. The concerns I have raised about Proofreader77 are not content. Your umbrage at me is clearly content focused at best.

• Jehochman if you spent the time to read topic you would see...that I clearly reference Admin content that includes the historical interactions with Proofreader77 and myself. If you want to shoot the messenger do so in an independent topic, and don't conflate and obfuscate...its truly unprofessional, especially as scamper to list off violations you think I am engaging in. If you don't want to address what I raised about Proofreader77 ON ITS MERITS, then don't...but don't get your jollies by going after me, because I raised a problem to the Admin noticeboard. FWIW I stand behind my edits, and the Op-ed you reference is from the first party involved in the incident, not some conjecturing interloper --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[limerick removed]

To be more direct about it, Tom, WP:BLP doesn't make exceptions for WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. Samantha Geier never had her day in court. Nobody remains a BLP forever: at some point it'll become legit to specify exactly what her allegations are, and the circumstances of why she never got her day in court will speak for themselves. Her letter to the editor of The New York Times would be much better to quote, though. It was more detailed. Now let it rest. Durova⁴⁰¹ 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the validity of the original complaint

Proofreader's antics are spread across many areas though, not just one article in which you point out he reverted some vandalism. The OP could turn out to be hagger for all I care; it does not diminish the validity of the filing. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up, I've watched Roman Polanski for a very long time. I think Tombaker321 has strayed beyond the bounds of BLP many times and I think Proofreader77's ways of trying to handle it have done more harm than help. The mix those two have brought in their back and forth has driven editors away from the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So the best thing is to restrict the interaction between both of these editors? Proof is far from perfect, he has many issues he has recently paid the price for. Without furthur instances though those matter should be considered over and closed. We don't need to drag up every bit of dirty laundry we can find in hopes that someone will descecrate his userpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's resolve this with warnings on both sides. The BLP issue is more serious than Proofreader's quirky style. But a quirky tone doesn't match well with a hot button BLP issue...in this instance, not even one that's more than thirty years old. Durova⁴⁰¹ 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always found Proofreader to be rather irritating. The sonnets were disconcerting even when I agreed with the points he was trying to make. It basically comes down to sarcasm and disrespect for your opponents in an argument. It's inflammatory and on contentious issues it always makes things worse. Singing your retort back at your opponent doesn't help in any situation. You might as well be laughing at them. I think the sonnet issue is more serious than the people responding here are taking it. If you ever have to be on the receiving end of it, or even have to deal with having someone backing up your argument with a sonnet, you'll see just how counter-collaborative it is. Talk pages are not for rhymes and riddles, or an outlet for creativity. Talk pages are for communicating as clearly and directly as possible, and that's all. We already have enough misunderstandings even when people are trying their best to do that. We don't need to make it worse by suddenly condoning the use of poetry in lieu of direct language for public collaborations. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Better tell Newyorkbrad to stop supporting RFAs with poetry. ;) Seriously, do you really think the sonnet issue overwhelms the delicate BLP matter here? Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The complaint was about Proofreader's general demeanor. Maybe there's a BLP issue somewhere too, but I don't see the relevance. I'm commenting on what was originally brought here. If anything, yes, it would make it easier on everyone arguing any "hot-button" issue (or any serious issue), including BLP, if the participants would stick to non-poetic forms of argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:07, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Durova, after your sonnet, my take away is that you enjoy as you say Proofreader77's quirky style, and that is the only take away.

Gwen Gale, I am unsure of what BLP issues you have with my actions in Polanski, but I think your remarks about Proofreader77 in the past have been very clear. The fact that you gave up, and removed Proofreader77s restrictions because you felt them to be not effective, remains a problem. The original ANI had an outcome that generated restrictions, those restrictions had goals and consequences. When they were removed Proofreader77 disruptive editing expanded greatly. I don't know if you have issue with the Donation Banner that features a slighting of both you and your administrator role at the top of Proofreader77 page, but I can say I think it weakens the fabric of Wikipedia. Stepping this to be a side vs side argument is a disservice as well, Proofreader77s conduct is over many areas of Wikipedia and not just with me.

Hell In A Bucket, I am aware of your closeness with Proofreader77. Again the problem is what is outlined above. See the remarks by Hans Alder and Gwen Gale that are bolded.

Yes it may be easier to kick this can down the road and hope that someone else will address it, I do not think that is fair. Proofreader77 has a constant and unrelenting disruptive impact. This is beyond a POV content issue. There is ample statements by others showing the problems with Proofreader77....I don't think it should just be passed away, and left to other hands to address. --Tombaker321 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova's poem is a limerick, not a sonnet. You can tell by the AABBA rhyming pattern, the rhythm, which is not iambic pentameter, and that it has five lines, not fourteen. I've permitted limericks and haikus because they are shorter, and thus less disruptive to the flow of a discussion. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Only at Wikipedia would an administrator attempt to assert jurisdiction over the relative merits of sonnets and limericks at a discussion of scurrilous content at Roman Polanski's biography. Will the encore to this be an executive declaration whether Sophocles or Shakespeare was the better playwright? Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been alerted to Tom Baker's contribs before, and they do seem strange. If you're at all familiar with some of the Polanski article controversy you'll know that this is at least interesting. However, even if there is a problem with the complainant, that doesn't mean his complaint isn't valid. Pretend it's me who brought the ANI originally if you like. Does it really matter? There is a general problem with Proofreader's behavior, of which this BLP issue is just a tangent. Proofreader will cause further inflammation on this and other issues if he continues with this form of communication. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:16, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

• • redent ... With respect to link of "unlawful sex with a minor" the legal papers use this as terminology, including the filings of Polanski's own lawyers. The specific law at issue is specific to minors, which if you think about it is the only thing that makes sex unlawful, in the absence of other conditions. I provided links to the specific law and its language when the redirect and language was used by Polanski's lawyers, and am able to reconstruct same. Equazcion, I very much appreciate your consideration of the case at hand, as presented, rather than limiting this to a single content page. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POETRYISALWAYSWRONG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That essay is 14 minutes old. But let's hope Proofreader gets the message about tailoring one's style to the audience. Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Poetry is always wrong in a serious argument where everyone is already on-edge. Responding with poetry in that instance comes off as flippant disregard. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:28, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Apologies in that case. If a warning isn't sufficient we can structure restrictions for bad poetry. Limit him to Petrarchan sonnets with three hour blocks for masculine rhyme, twenty-four hours for trochaic meter, and indef for rhyming "kiss" with "bliss". Durova⁴⁰¹ 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To Tombaker, if that's the only takeaway then you're likely to return to this board and get page banned for WP:BLP and several other serious policy violations. Proofreader's interactional style is relatively minor by comparison. I've recommended a warning principally because s/he took it into a hot button issue where it muddied the waters. If you straighten up the BLP issue then come to my user talk later and we'll discuss the difference between limericks and sonnets. Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Durova, "that" is my take away from what your comments were including your Limerick, I responded to others beyond you. If your comments had any significance or relationship to the topic, it is and remains lost on me. Whatever you want to assert regarding BLP is ill-defined and not communicated. I understand that you enjoy Proofreader's quirky style. But suggesting with what has been brought here and detailed out, to this ANI, is a case of "two sides" is wrong. While I notice your chest thumping and bolstering that I will return to this forum and get banned for serious violation and such....again, all of that does not hold water. Durova, if I may can I request that you have some attempt to stay on topic, or give fully thought out remarks. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Initiation of a noticeboard thread does not entitle an editor to dictate its scope. One dynamic that occurs with regularity at Wikipedian noticeboards is that the primary aggressor in a dispute starts a complaint against the other party in an attempt to gain tactical advantage. That tends to backfire. We even have an essay for the phenomenon: WP:PLAXICO. Jehochman offered evidence that this was such an instance and sought community input; I agreed. If you wish to seek further input on the BLP issue it would be a good idea to consult with other editors at the article talk page. Specific questions that remain unresolved can go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Durova⁴⁰¹ 02:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear on how the statements of the very person that Polanski plead guilty to having sex with while she was 13, is somehow not relevant to a topic that relates directly to her and Polanski...and this is the evidence offered? As Proofreader77 and his tag team have gone about bringing me to prior ANI, it kinda messes up the primary aggressor theory. Nonetheless, what is raised here is NOT a content dispute. If something of mine is ever raised to a BLP noticeboard, I will surely address it there, as of now, its never happened. The exposure of sunlight does not trouble me --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehoch and Durova: I don't think I need to tell you this, but the differences between the poems that technically either make them sonnets or limmericks or whozees or crumpets is really completely irrelevant to the issue. Long or short or whatever, poetry, while great where appropriate), is a way of communicating in a less-than-direct way. That's what makes it bad for serious issues. If this is to be resolved with a warning, I'm not sure what warning would help. Open to suggestions. (Ps. Durova, I've always found it to be insensitive to engage in the thing being complained about in order to show you disagree with the complaint, and no it doesn't matter that yours was a "limmerick" rather than a "sonnet".) Equazcion ^(talk) 18:47, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Limerick has one "m", not two. How do you like my warnings below? Either they will be heeded, or next time the outcomes will be less friendly. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And I like my spelling better. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:56, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

To sum up:

• Proofreader77 is warned to be earnest when dealing with serious matters, such as sensitive WP:BLP articles, and not to overdo the merrimaking. (As an example, the humor account User:Bishzilla normally posted in dino-speak, but she somehow switched to plain English when giving warnings to newcomers, thus avoiding the risk of confusion.) Know when clear communication is essential. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• To Tombaker321, please edit something besides Roman Polanksi to learn how Wikipedia works, or else you may wind up with a topic ban or site ban for repeated biography of living persons errors. WP:BLP is a very serious policy which tends to be enforced strenuously with minimal warnings. You're fully on notice now. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Needs one amendment. Jehochman is warned against suggesting limericks in the context of BLP discussions. Now I'll go blank my limerick before he notices the double entendre. Durova⁴⁰¹ 19:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're behind, Mae West. I already noticed. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[haiku comment] Would the New York Times / say there are too many words^(5000+) / in this ANI? ^;^ Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Psst...your second line has nine syllables...) HalfShadow 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Are you counting the superscript parenthetical?!? That doesn't count!) LoL -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Get thee behind me, Satan." Durova⁴⁰¹ 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If Proofreader77 does in due course present his threatened RfAr, hopefully certain administrators will stop using WP:ANI as some kind of cheap slapstick comedy. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that more as Peter Sellers than Mack Sennett. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was trying for Dorothy Parker. Mabel Normand would be hard to emulate in text. Although there's the intriguing suggestion that certain admins act like Keystone Cops... Durova⁴⁰¹ 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC) non-admin ducks and runs

I happen to have a book Mabel once owned, with her margin notes and underlinings in red pencil and all, she was quite the reader after she and Mack broke up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm like Peter Sellers as Merkin Muffley, or as Inspector Clouseau? Jehochman ^Brrr 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...Are the grown-ups coming soon? --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Proposed Result and treatement of ANI forums as "a Joke"

1. The resolution by Jehochman for Proofreader77 is laced with unrelated garble such as "dino-speak" It does not address any of the points raised, and simple ignores the prior ANI forum results.

2. Jehochman is in no uncertain terms flaunting and abusing his administrative privileges, by threatening the OP with a topic ban or site ban to Tombaker321 for the act of raising an issue to the ANI forum. Whatever BLP errors Jehochman is referring to, remains unstated. His refocusing of this ANI topic to be an assessment of my editorial content is the wrong thing to do. It is also an empty charge used solely to intimidate people who raise up issues for Admin review. Jehochman's initial response to this ANI was some sort of joke about restricting Proofreader77 content to only Limericks. Jehochman is treating this entire ANI as a joke, to which others happily followed down the path. Treating the ANI process as a jokefeast, and using it as means of intimidation is simply an abuse of process and privilege. Jehochman zealously proclaims that I am "fully on notice now", to what am I on full notice of, to what content or edits am I so treated with promises of consequences. How are the items raised treated with any degree of review? Is ANI a serious process?

3. There is a previous ANI which is the cause of this current ANI being created. That ANI resulted in the following restrictions of Proofreader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#restrictions_widened Proofreader as shown in the original post has consistently broken these rules and/or gamed them and worked around them. As Gwen Gale statements readily show.

4. Gwen Gales was gamed and baited and ultimately frustrated enough by Proofreader77 to simply give up the previous ANI actions, even though she clearly states that problems continue with Proofreader77. Gwen Gale's name is hung up as a trophy on Proofreaders User page within the Wiki-Donation stamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77 I certainly do think this an abuse of the Wiki-stamp, especially considering Proofreader77 is using that donation to suggest he has better access to Wikipedia, pay to play.

5. Gwen Gale has improperly given up on a problem, as opposed to handing it off to others to resolve. The restrictions were to be lifted by a consensus, where as she did it unilaterally. While I appreciate her frustration with Proofreader77, it is little help remove the restrictions out of personal convenience. Gwen should have redeposited the issue to ANI and let it to other Admins.

6. Gwen Gale give Proofreader77 a LAST WARNING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#last_warning to which Proofreader77 promises and begins documentation for a full ARBCOM request.

7. It is after this LAST WARNING that the restrictions of Proofreader77 are removed, without consensus. Proofreader77 treats this win-fall of removed restriction without any change in conduct....how? Proofreader77 goes about defacing Jimbo Wales page, to which he is blocked for.

This is how we are here, this is why I brought this to ANI. The previous ANI, the restriction, the continued conduct, the removal of restriction, and then the abundant disruptive editing that resulted afterwards. This ANI is not, and should not, be treated as a referendum of content disputes on Polanski, as is the offered resolution.

There needs to be a continuum of Admin actions, to which bureaucratic memory is not erased out of convenience. If the ANI forum has become just a figurehead function, and that issues raised are not considered, and that this is forum is just a seat at a bar, with the regulars joking about new patrons coming in....well just say that. At this point I still expect reasonable consideration and treatment of what has been brought to ANI. The proposed disposition is a failure for all of the above. The entire treatment of this ANI as a joke is shameful (with exceptions to editors treating it with due diligence). Do I have a right to say this, or will selective admins toss out promises of sitebans and blocks. I will see, however I stand by my edits and content contributions. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tombaker, you are rapidly approaching WP:HORSE territory. Your own actions--as I have reviewed them as well as Proofreader's--are very far from blameless indeed, and frankly, seem far more actionable than any of the issues you've cited against Proofreader. We get it. You don't like the answer you've gotten. Raising the question again and again, when you don't like the answer, is NOT a recipe for getting the answer overturned; it is a recipe for having your OWN actions scrutinized by a group of people who, even those who HAD been inclined to help you, are now beginning to find your unwarranted persistence tiresome. Now. Is that free enough of "unrelated garble" that it breaks through this veil of misguided perseveration which you have brought to this discussion? GJC 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to get this Admin forum to review the substance of the ANI topic. What I have raised is not a content dispute, which you and others seem to want to recraft it. I find it troubling to have an axe of ramifications held over my head, for content that is not part of this ANI, and to which remains entirely an unsubstantiated charge with no specifics. If this were a content forum I would be happy to address your content concerns, but its not. I stand behind my contributions and edits.

Pushing this ANI to an oversimplification framed as a "content dispute"...serves nothing. And speaking to process, Proofreader77 archived a RFC without justification because he disagreed with it. Closing of RFC by Proofreader77 is an example of what I would like this ANI to address. Asking for this ANI to function as intended without reducing it to be a big joke is something I remain seeking.--Tombaker321 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You mistake me, I'm afraid. I am not conflating this into a content dispute. This is what I am saying: 1. Your concerns re: the behavior of Proofreader77 have been noted; however, other admins--not just Jehochman--have found that they require no administrative intervention at this time. 2. Your continued repetition of these concerns, along with your accusations of admin abuse, have led other admins--not just Jehochman--to examine your own conduct, particularly in regards to your interaction with Proofreader77. In examining those interactions, concerns of a more-serious sort have been discovered re: your interpretation of our BLP policy. 3. Simply raising the same concern again and again is not going to change admins' judgement re: Proofreader77; however, the more admins that examine your interactions, the more likely you are to encounter one who is NOT willing to give your BLP violations a pass for the moment.

Again: There is no administrative nor community consensus for action to be taken against Proofreader77 at this time. Absent compelling new information, this outcome will not change; what WILL change will be the degree of patience shown by the admins and the community toward your repeated posting of these concerns. Whether you accept this advice or not is up to you; I urge you to consider it carefully, however. GJC 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As frankly as possible, what are these BLP problems of mine??? Can I say put up or shut up, and still live to see another day, is that politically correct enough while in the company of admins? Jehochman deleted content of Proofreader77 on this forum so other admins would not read them....it is what it is..now you see it now you don't. I see no consensus of any action in this ANI, and I see more views than just Jehochman's proposed result. Jehochman's proposal did receive a few chuckles from others, so I guess its in the lead. But that was prior to Jehochman went about deleting. My expectation is that this ANI can close this topic with an actual disposition, as opposed to simply passing the buck and closing it without. I raised this topic because of the restriction being removed by single admin for which the ANI determined were necessary, the conduct problem has only grown since, and Gwen Gale states that. If this ANI can not come up with a resolution on the merits for the well documented disruptive pattern of Proofreader77, it is something that I need to know. And yes, it will be a referendum on the competence of the ANI process as a whole. --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jehochman's deletion (and for the record, it is "deletion" in the singular--he deleted exactly one segment of the discussion)--the material he deleted was a humorous aside between Proofreader77 and HalfShadow. Regardless of your assertion that this is somehow a nefarious plot to undermine the integrity of this report, if you would first assume good faith and second, if you would attend to the edit summary Jehochman provided, you would see that this was an effort to remove irrelevant chatter from the conversation, probably in an effort to reduce the ponderous length of this report.

As for your other questions: Your efforts to include BLP violations on the Roman Polanski article have been documented by several editors and admins. In the interest of thoroughness I'll gladly provide diffs, but not til tomorrow, as it's quite late here in Chicago. And finally, re: the "actual disposition" for this AN/I report--"No administrative attention required" is a perfectly valid disposition, and unless I'm completely blind to consensus here, it seems to be where this AN/I complaint is heading. You can consider this a referendum on the competence of AN/I, I suppose, but it appears it will be a referendum of one. GJC 08:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heavy handed abuse by Jehochman

a. I am dumbfounded by this. Jehochman is proposing a result for this ANI. The topic is not content, but the interaction and disruptive editing and interactions of Proofreader77.

b. Proofreader77 comments on this ANI topic, in a style which is exactly what is being raised by myself and others as a problematic approach to collaboration on Wikipedia.

c. Seemingly Jehochman does not think Proofreader77's remarks as being supportive of his result that Jehochman is advocating....

d. So Jehochman goes about deleting the contribution of Proofreader77 by himself, on his own accord.

e. Removing from view, sweeping under the rug, manipulating the data of Proofreader77 comments here is highly inappropriate, and removes the content away from all other Admins who may be trying to disposition and draw true consensus result.

f. Jehochman has simply gone about fudging the data, to get the result he wants.

g. Jehochman has made the decisions for other editor and admins of what they should or not see, even when the remarks he deletes are truly germane to the ANI in process.

h. I have restored the information Jehochman deleted, which can also be viewed here.

i. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=337667316

Do I have to shoot myself in the leg to get a fair review of an ANI? --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No... but by pursuing this, against the advice of a number of editors, you are most definitely shooting yourself in the foot. It's unfortunate that you feel you've not had a fair treatment, and although I don't agree with you, to some extent I understand why: you brought a genuine concern to ANI and the response has taken a direction other than the one you had hoped for (and in places given the impression that your concern was being treated in a light-hearted manner). However, reading the above thread I think Jechoman has been trying to save both you and Proofreader77 from yourselves. As Durova notes, once an issue is brought to ANI the history of all parties is routinely examined, and yours has apparently thrown up content issues that overshadow Proofreader77's behavioural issues. If we take further action against Proofreader77 then we must also examine the BLP concerns more closely, and this is unlikely to turn out well for you. Arguing that this isn't relevant to the original purpose of your complaint won't hold water - ANI can be a dangerous place to post to if the complainant is also at fault, and admins tend to define their own scope for investigations regardless of the initial issue. By issuing clear warnings to both you and Proofreader77, Jechoman is offering both of you a way out of this dispute without admin action needing to be taken. Proofreader77 should be left in no doubt that flippant talkpage behaviour will attract sanctions, and community patience is not inexhaustible. You need to take notice of Jechoman's BLP warning above, and it would also be helpful if you could assume that commenters have been trying to work in the best interest of both parties here instead of further damaging your cause by jumping to conclusions of corruption and dishonesty. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User re-posting an article that was just deleted via AfD, then posting db tags to competitors

I think we have a problem with Akamman567 (talk · contribs), first re-creating material that was recently deleted via an AfD, then when the re-created article was tagged with {{db-g4}}, they made some pointy edits in nominating what I believe are two competitor's articles for deletion [25] and [26], then began edit warring over the nomination on one of them [27], [28]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Other articles contain much less references, look like advertisements, and contain links directly to press releases. Yet, you won't let me even start a *discussion* on their notability, while you have no problem deleting the SimpleCDN article - even though it contained more links to more references, and NONE were to press releases. Akamman567 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem with me - I just want the rules of Wikipedia to be applied fairly. If SimpleCDN can just be deleted, why can't I even question the notability of other companies who do have listings... when those listings *clearly* look like advertising themseleves, and would FAIL under the same standards which you used to judge SimpleCDN? Akamman567 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly bad faith attack on other compettitors wikipedia articles. Clearly Akamman567 (talk · contribs) also-204.10.169.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a Spam / advertising-only account for SimpleCDN.--Hu12 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for an editor to okay SimpleCDN article before posting - no more action is needed, will not post again until okayed. Akamman567 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Akamman567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 204.10.169.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Threats of disruption;

• " Will continue to replace SimpleCDN "
• "will continue to refine and add to the SimpleCDN article"

Disruption

• Bad faith deletion nomination of Highwinds Network Group
• Bad faith deletion nomination CacheFly I
• Bad faith deletion nomination CacheFly II
• Bad faith deletion nomination CacheFly III
• Vandalism of noticeboard (blanking)
• Talk page vandalism (blanking)
• Talk page vandalism (blanking again)

--Hu12 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock account

• OI87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• blanking same pages

--Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It also appears the sock accountOI87 (talk · contribs) is attempting to joe job some company called Aflexi [29][30]. CreatedWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akamman567--Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Xavier bowl games

I hesitate to bring this matter here, but I'm not quite sure where to turn and would appreciate some guidance. I participated in the TfD for Template:Xavier bowl games. This template was nominated because, at the time, it was orphaned a contained one redlink and was therefore quite useless. During the TfD I wrote the home article for the template so that it was no longer an orphan, and opined that the template ought to be kept. One other editor participated in the debate, and he believed that the template was "not even minimally useful." Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), the closing administrator, agreed, stating in his closing rationale that "The result of the discussion was Delete. Navbox with just one link is not very useful."

Now, I have searched in vain for a policy which supports this outcome. Whether a navigational template is "useful" or not is an editorial decision, and these templates are quite common on college-football related articles. I queried Ruslik0 about this, and referred me to WP:NAVBOX, which isn't even a policy, let alone part of the deletion policy. I therefore took the matter to deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30), where I again stated the case (and I must say I grow weary of reiterating the facts). Consensus there seemed to be that while no guidelines were violated, TfD often deletes templates like these (!), so the close was valid. Shereth (talk · contribs) endorsed the close on these grounds. I visited his talk page, where he kindly elaborated on his rationale but was again unable to point me to any kind of policy.

Getting to the point, I have two articles which I want to link with a navbox. I believe that this is the purpose of a navbox. I contend that no policy prevents me from creating such a navbox, except that the our deletion machinery has produced a contrary outcome which I cannot fathom. If I re-create the navbox, am I acting reasonably or am I going to find myself accused of wheel-warring? I'm not particularly interested in policy outcomes at this point, I'd just like to finish up what I'm doing with Xavier Musketeers football and 1950 Salad Bowl without putting myself in the wrong. Again, I would appreciate any guidance on this matter. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wheel-warring unless the template was protected to prevent re-creation. We don't have a specific policy for every conceivable situation, but I would say that two articles are better than one and I don't think it could be speedy deleted as a recreation since you have rectified the matter that caused the first deletion. On the other hand it appears that they only participated in the one bowl game, so it probably would be deleted again if it went back to TFD. What about skipping the template and just making sure the article contain appropriate internal links? (As a side note I'd just like to say thanks for bringing this here, my sister went to Xavier, and I didn't even know they had ever had a football team, so if nothing else I learned something today.) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, my issue with that outcome is that most bowl articles contain navboxes for both teams--it's a curious trick of history that Xavier participated in a bowl game at all--so it's notable by its absence. I think in this case completeness and standardization are fairly compelling arguments in their own right. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute here beyond "Go Muskies!". TNXMan 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. There's little use in creating a navbox for the sake of "completeness" when there's nothing to navigate to. The whole point of navboxes is to have a place to collect a large number of very similar articles. Navboxes with only one or two links aren't really worth it. --Jayron32 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but the navbox by itself conveys the fact that Xavier had only one bowl game. The absence of the box implies incomplete information; as I said, it's notable by it's absence. You may not think it's worth it, but it's a long way to "not worth, and you're not allowed to do it." Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of rules by which you are "allowed" to create certain things and "not allowed" to create others. Where a need is seen, WP:BOLD applies. Where people disagree with that need WP:CONSENSUS applies. No one has once said you are "allowed" or "not allowed" to do anything. Regardless, this doesn't involve admins to solve. If you need a review of the deletion, and you think it was closed with the wrong result, WP:DRV is the correct place to go; not here. --Jayron32 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with how this place functions. Had you read my initial post, you would know that I already went through DRV, and I'm coming here to ask about what I see as two contrary-to-policy outcomes, and the improper use of a deletion venue to make an editorial decision. As the action I'm contemplating involves (in theory) the undoing of one administrator's actions by another administrator, it is most certainly of concern here. Consensus is most definitely at issue, and I'd love to hear how there was consensus, rooted in policy or not, to close the TfD that way. I'll wait. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a little input from myself. The OP's fundamental issue here appears to be that the original closure (TfD - delete) was not based in written policy, and frustration that the second closure (DRV - endorse) appears to have upheld that discrepancy. Technically that's right, as there is no policy that states "Templates with only a single link may be deleted", and therefore arguments to the effect of "Delete, not useful" do not have any weight in policy. Again, technically correct. The problem is that, unlike article inclusion criteria which are fairly cut and dry (must be sourced, must be verifiable, etc), the "inclusion criteria" for lists are far more vague. In the absense of written policy to guide these kinds of discussions, an administrator is left unable to "weight" arguments and they must all be treated equally, those arguing to delete as well as those arguing to keep (neither argument has a basis in written policy in this case). Discussion was minimal and thus the OP was within their right to contest the closure at DRV, where the argument to delete was shored up with the observation that templates of this nature are typically deleted. On my talk page, the OP makes the observation that "[I] upheld an outcome [I] knew to be procedurally invalid." I believe that my comments were misunderstood. If that were to be rephrased to the effect of "I upheld an outcome I knew to have no grounds in policy" I might agree with that; the problem is that either outcome - deletion or retention - has no grounds in policy because there is no policy to guide us in this instance. Again, in the absense of clear policy guidance upon which to help "judge" a debate, simple consensus rules and the simple consensus in the DRV could only be interpreted as an endorsement of the closure. Shereth 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a circular argument. We wind up stating that these templates are typically deleted...because they're typically deleted. In the absence of clear policy to the contrary you don't delete. Look, I don't think I'm especially dense and I like to think that after six years I have some shaky grasp on Wikipedia's mechanics, but it seems to me that no one can actually justify the outcome of this debate, except that it took place and that similar debates (similarly unjustified) come out that way. If there were no dissenters that would be one thing, but when a discussion splits evenly down the middle on the central issue surely you need a written policy backing you up to completely ignore one half of the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that we don't delete when there is a lack of clear policy. In any event, and because I do not want to belabor the issue, I will grant you that the initial TfD argument was fairly split down the middle, which is why referring it to DRV was a reasonable step to take; the discussion at DRV was less ambiguous in terms of endorsing said closure. Would you have me completely ignore the majority of the participants in that discussion with no written policy to justify said action? Yours was, after all, the only argument in favor of overturning the deletion. I can find no basis in policy that would allow me to close the DRV in any way other than a strict endorsement. Shereth 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have you do so, and I would have done the same. I would have looked at the original TfD and said that the close was incorrect, that the closing administrator failed to apply the relevant policies. I would have looked at the DRV and realized that it was a re-hash of the TfD, and that no one could actually defend the outcome. I mean, here we are debating, because no one can actually come up with a sound reason why the TfD closed this way. If DRV were about head-counting we'd have a bot do it. Why did DRV endorse the closure? What policies did the participants cite? What is their evidence? If you can't answer that question, and tell me why their arguments are superior to the ones I advanced when I challenged the deletion, then your close was in error and you should reverse yourself. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple : the consensus opinion at the DRV was that the "utility factor" of a template is a valid argument for deletion. The fundamental nature of Wikipedia is that consensus drives policy and not vice versa. If the consensus says that "utility" is a valid deletion rationale and the policy does not say otherwise, I would be remiss in my duties as an administrator to ignore said consensus. CHeers, Shereth 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with copyright, admin user

Resolved

 – Admin concerned has resigned. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

• Richardshusr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

If this were not an admin, I'd handle this on my own with a block issued for repeated copyright violations and a WP:CCI, but under the circumstances I felt more eyes would be appropriate. The long story (and it is a long story, with diffs) is at User_talk:Richardshusr#Copyright_concerns. The short story:

• In March, 2009, I responded to a WP:CP listing involving a 2007 copyvio by Richardshusr. See here. I reminded of copyright policy at that time.
• Today, another CP listing leads me to discover that in July, 2009, he made a series of edits pasting content into Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States. Some of this is simply too closely paraphrase, but there were multiple paragraphs copied verbatim (or nearly so) from [31]. See [32].
• In response to my note, he acknowledges copyvio.

My concern is that this issue may be much larger and that many of this contributor's text contributions may be pasted from previously published sources, without regard for copyright. CorenSearchBot has picked up several problems, I have documented more at his talk page, including noting sentences and paragraphs copied with minimal or no alterations on January 10th and January 8th. (Specific examples at his talk page.)

I think some action is necessary to prevent the risk of ongoing copyright violations and to facilitate investigation into past edits. My note in March doesn’t seem to have helped the situation; nor do CorenSearchBot’s several notices. As an admin, Richardshusr should have already been well aware of WP:C and should know that he can't copy text from previously published sources that are not public domain or licensed compatibly unless he does so in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Serial copyvios by an admin? I'm shocked, shocked i tell you!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Richardshusr is making incremental changes to fix the issue, so I would not be willing to block here. However, I believe that violations of the copyright policy – probably one of the two most important ones on the project (BLP being the other) – is fundamentally incompatible with adminship. Administrators are supposed to uphold policy and retain the trust of the community. These incidents show that Richard has not done either. Richard, I would ask you to resign your admin bit and fix the copyvio issues that Moonriddengirl pointed out. NW (Talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no good defense here except to admit the copyvios and assert my willingness to fix the past copyvios and do better in the future. If this is not enough, those who wish me to resign my admin bit are welcome to start a section on my Talk Page which I will take under advisement. I don't remember if I put myself under the list of "admins open to recall" but I will consider doing so resigning my admin bit if there are enough requests to do so. ("Enough" being, I guess, a number that I will determine unless someone wants to take this to ARBCOM) --Richard S (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion that you should resign. You really shouldn't need to be asked. You repeatedly plagiarized, one of the worst things you can do in this environment. I have no confidence or trust in you as a consequence. Arbcom? What a waste of time. "Enough" requests (definition of "enough" to be determined by you later) on your talk page? No. Do the right thing, take responsibility for your actions and recognize they disqualify you from holding a position of higher authority.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested at his talk page that resignation is probably best, unless there's a good reason for the copying. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit harsh... if he has stopped and we monitor over a month, then sounds like the problem is resolved. Also, he will need to find all plagiarised material and excise from the articles. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not raising this from concerns about plagiarism; I'm concerned with copyright violations. I think at minimum we should be able to expect our administrators to refrain from violating our copyright policy, which is mandated by the Foundation. At the bottom of every edit screen, it says, "All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." If we can't expect administrators to abide by that, how we can expect anyone to? Particularly when he was reminded of policy a relatively short time before an egregious violation, pasting multiple paragraphs from a copyrighted source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. We are tough on editors who do this, we need to be particularly tough on Administrators. I've posted to his talk page asking him to resign. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He should resign. That is not about some ancient edits but some of the copyvio's only happened three days ago. Garion96 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resignation would be appropriate. Durova⁴⁰¹ 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LessHeard vanU's reasoning on Richardshusr's talk page: resignation is possibly best right now. Once everything has been cleaned up and trust restored, the mop might well be in reach again. - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I've heard from "enough" users. Here is my request to have my admin privileges removed. --Richard S (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know this must have been a difficult decision for you, and I sympathize. Perhaps in a few months, after this has blown over and the copyright issues are fixed, you would be willing to run again at RfA? NW (Talk) 10:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That Richard has voluntarily and graciously resigned his adminship speaks volumes to his character. I only hope that we haven't scared off a decent editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Question about blocking warning on IP page

I apologize if this is not the right place to ask this question, but I am wondering about the warning that recently appeared on the IP userpage from my current IP address, 65.96.161.79. The warning threatens that "In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc NEW-ENGLAND to report abuse... If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc NEW-ENGLAND, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time... If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log)."

There are less than two dozen edits from this IP address, over a period of six months. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of edits have been made to talk pages, and while some of the posted arguments are longer than most posts, they have not attacked other users, been off-topic, or vandalized anything. In the few times that I have actually edited an article, I have placed an explanation on the talk page, since I know that anonymous users tend to be reverted these days randomly, unless edits are justified. Again, as far as I know, those contributions have been received positively, and in fact have sometimes responded to an issue already raised on the talk page of the article.

Basically, I was a rather active (registered) contributor to Wikipedia about five years ago, but left because of harassment and dealing with editors who already back then seemed to have staked out a claim on certain topic areas, and new contributions were criticized, debated endlessly, or viewed with suspicion. I have better things to do with my time than to deal with such petty internal squabbles, so I left. I still use Wikipedia sometimes, and when I see a problem, I sometimes put a note on the talk page. When I see that other users have already mentioned it on the talk page, I have made a couple actual edits.

And then this warning shows up for my IP address, which sounds like I'm being accused of vandalism or inappropriate conduct or something... along with a warning that my ISP could be contacted to inform them of my "abuse." Yet there is no explanation for why such a warning appeared. If there is something I've done wrong, I believe the blocking policy generally requires that I be informed. Could I ask what I've done wrong?

If, on the other hand, this is just some generic warning that is triggered when an anonymous IP makes more than 20 edits or something, it strikes me as incredibly draconian-sounding. The mentioning of "persistent vandalism," "abuse," and "reports of inappropriate conduct," implies that at least some such action has already taken place. Yet there is no explanation of what that action was. If nothing has been done wrong, there should at least be an explanation or disclaimer (or a link to one) that explains that this is an automatically-generated message and is just a general warning against abuse. But if there is something wrong with the edits that have been made, there should be a clear message explaining that.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The shared IP note should not have been placed. They are typically only placed for problem IPs, and your IP does not appear to such. I've deleted the page. Sorry for the inconvenience. –xeno^talk 19:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left the user a message instructing them on the proper usage of the {{whois}} template and also nuked all the IP talk pages they created contrary to the same. –xeno^talk 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, xeno. I appreciate your prompt response. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that I was concerned about a block of another IP address the other day. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive590#Legal threat by IP editor, but I was assured that the IP addresses for ComCast don't change... anyone able to tell me if I'm missing something? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance that has. –xeno^talk 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Language

I was suggested by one of Wiki Admins to post one problem here, so I will just copy from his talk page:

" I wanted to ask for your help on fixing this problem. There was recent edit war on question of Montenegrin language. Until now, articles had written "Montenegrin language" on every Montenegrin articles, but now Serbs reverted it and adding Serbian. Their argument is that Montenegrin doesn't have ISO code. Montenegrin is official language of Montenegro, therefor is used in Government, school, TV etc... ISO standard is expected in one or two months. There are a lot of admins who reverted for them without knowing anything about Montenegrin language. Here are e.g. of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcinj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgorica Not to mention that battle was won a lot of times before with Admins agreement, but ever few months appear some clone to remove it."

So can you please answer and help me here? So for 2 years it was ok, but suddenly the ISO is the problem, which by the way will be done in couple months. Can Admins please help us with this?

Best regards! Rave92^(talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ISO? That would be more or less meaningless. This sounds like but another edit war over an eastern European topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but Serbs use it a lot as the argument. Language is offical of the state, government files are written in Montenegrin, All the web sites in Montenegro put in Language selection Montenegrin as language of choose beside Eglish (if there is multiple choice), in school, books and all is written in Montenegrin... only here, there is "Serbian". None one says that those languages are much different but we must respect the most important set of rule in the country, and that is Constitution of Montenegro. It's not the Eastern Europe though :-). Rave92^(talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC may be relevent here. --Jayron32 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to discuss this in a central place, more suitable for the issue. I suggest WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Rave for seeking the high road on this. I think EJ has the winning suggestion. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for suggestion. I will post this on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, so I hope your post will contribute to stop this vandalism once for all. Thanks you all once again!

@Toddst1, Thanks on that compliment :-).

Rave92^(talk) 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Montenegrin_language

Rave92^(talk) 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dako1: Unresolved issue

Resolved

 – Yes, it was resolved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How come this thread was archived when the issue at hand is still unresolved? Amsaim (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on these two final posts in that thread:

Yes, he does so above, as he was asked. Dako's behaviour is no longer an issue--Jac16888Talk 04:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. I would suggest that this is a very unfortunate misunderstanding, now that the editor understands a bit more about how Wikipedia functions I think it would be foolish to block them. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

...looked resolved, anything else was WP:HORSE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BCCWebTeam

Resolved

 – See comments below, but essentially at this stage WP:RFCN is the best place for name issue and WP:COIN for COI issues. NJA (t/c) 10:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BCCWebTeam appears to be a user set up by Birmingham City Council. First of all can I just say that their contributions have been excellent; they have tidied up many dead links, linking to the old version of the council website. I'm just a little concerned that firstly, "webteam" would tell me that more than one person is using the account, which to the best of my knowledge is frowned upon - they have had an informal post put on their talk page to that effect with no response. Secondly, I'm just wondering if their could be any conflict of interest here when adding new information rather than tidying up deadlinks? Thirdly, I notice that Birmingham City Council research and post their own statistics for the city on their own website. Would "BCCWebTeam" adding or citing these be use of a primary source; their own original research?
I'm not trying to get anyone blocked or in trouble here! They have done some much needed work, as previously mentioned, on deadlinks. Was just a thought I had when I saw some of their edits deviate from repairing deadlinks to their website (www.birmingham.gov.uk).

Any thoughts? Thanks _Will^dow (Talk) 10:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, sure, and I think they should be notified of that. Webteam might suggest a shared account, which .. should not be done, if it is shared, also that should be mentioned to the editor and a solution be found. However, having a conflict of interest does not have to be a problem, if the edits are good, and the editor discusses when edits are challenged.

The primary source/original research may be a problem, but that is a case-by-case thing, some figures generated by the organisation are indeed primary/original, but also the only and best one can get (probably). As long as the whole of the article is not solely based on primary/original data. And they may actually be helpful in finding better sources for some of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The best place for community discussion on the name issue would most likely be WP:RFCN, not ANI at this stage. Any COI issues would be best addressed at WP:COIN. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've alerted them of a discussion I opened at RFCN and I also alerted them on conflict of interests. Specific COI concerns should be taken to WP:COIN if they can't be addressed otherwise. NJA (t/c) 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

Resolved

 – A1DF67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked and Bowei Huang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I still haven’t finished discussing with you yet. A1DF67 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The above user has requested unblocking at User talk:Bowei Huang#Blocked promising to use on the Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) account. The problem is not that the user has two accounts (or three User talk:Bowei Huang#User:Brickfield Brickfield (talk · contribs)) but that the editing history is at A1DF67 (talk · contribs). Of the two accounts only the Bowei Huang is blocked meaning they can still edit with A1DF67. I have no objections to the Bowei Huang account being unblocked but only if a clear connection is made between the two or, if possible, the editing history is restored. I thought that it would be a good idea to bring this here for further review and will inform Bowei Huang that they can comment here as A1DF67. If it's felt to be OK to unblock Bowei Huang then go ahead and don't wait for me to notice as I will be in and out during the day. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) You should leave the Bowei account blocked and tell him to use the A1DF67 account; or else revert A1DF67 to Bowei and block A1DF67. It appears that he wanted the account renamed just to hide his past problems. He doesn't need two accounts. Given his contentiousness, one is more than enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Based on the most recent information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67, it appears that Bowei Huang's intent was always to hide his edit history.[33] His unblock request is disingenuous at best. He didn't change his mind, he never intended using A1DF67. He just wanted to use it to dump his edit and warning history. When his name was change went through he used the new name only to post a thankyou for the name change and then immediately went straight back to editing as Bowei Huang. I don't think that his deception should be rewarded by allowing him to edit as Bowei Huang, which is what he always wanted to do. And now we have another editor, who is obviously well aware of what's going on, suggesting he has another, undeclared identity.[34] That needs to be cleaned up before any consideration is given to an unblock. --AussieLegend (talk) We give people the ability to start again as a productive editor after having a shady past, see WP:CLEANSTART, but it explicitly states (in bold text, bold!) that "no active deception is involved". If there is active deception this shouldn't be allowed. -- Atama頭 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Block all the accounts for disruption with only one talkpage free for an unblock request and let's move on. The editor can either use one account or he gets none. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I agree, Good faith has been given to the editor but they have only given us bad faith in return. Changing username's to hide there history is one and another is editing another users comments! Really User:A1DF67 shouldn't be editing (other then the talkpage) after what they have done, and I've seen user who have socked get both accounts (meat and sock accounts) blocked but it has no been so in this case. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I have moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto the user talk page of the account with the new username before the username change back into the account with the old username. A1DF67 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I would keep that account indefinitely blocked, this seems like they did want to hide their previous edits before. That's bad behaviour and not something we want to encourage. That this has backfired on him is really his own fault - the phrase that comes to mind is "hoist on his own petard". - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I note that example edits such as this one will still look like it comes from User:A1DF67 and not User:Bowei Huang. Unless another user rename occurs, I don't think that User:Bowei Huang should be unblocked, they should continue editing from User:A1DF67. Has anyone asked why they wanted their username changed? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Returns to edit AussieLegend's comment above...Not good. Auntie E. (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I think you actually meant above. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC) @ Tbsdy lives - According to the name change request it was because he wanted a more obscure name,[35] but immediately after the name change he re-registered Bowei Huang and used only that account. 23:09, 15 December 2009 GMT Name change requested 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz moves Bowei Huang to A1FD7 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz reports name change completed 23:58, 15 December 2009 GMT Bowei Huang re-registered Note that all of this happened in a 49 minute period and, for some added insight, he had previously been asking about hiding edit histories the month prior to the change.[36] [37] [38] --AussieLegend (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Aussie, my hunch is that he misunderstood Mysdaao in this discussion specifically "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)" regarding RTV, yet missing this: "The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity." I'm thinking he was trying to erase his old contibutions by RTV, use the old screenname, and then pretend he's never been here before. Wow. Auntie E. (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Why do you often refer to me as they, rather than he? Sorry. I am very sorry about editing comments. I promise I will never ever do it again. Sorry. I am very sorry for this whole thing here and everything I did that was got to do with it. Will you let me edit from User:Bowei Huang again if I be completely honest and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I swear and promise that from now on, I will only tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine. My intention to change username was NOT to remove the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. That was not my intention! My intention to change username was indeed to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang. Although I did intend to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, I didn't intend to remove them from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I only really intended to remove them from my Special:Contributions. I only wanted to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, not from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I removed the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account not because I didn't want others to look at them but because I didn't want to look at them myself. My first question before my username change was Removing Records From Special:Contributions. If it were possible and easy, I would have only done that and not removed any records of my edits from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. If it were possible and easy, I would have only done that, only asked that, not asked any more questions, and not changed my username. I have no problem if User:A1DF67 is now redirected to User:Bowei Huang or if User talk:A1DF67 is now redirected to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have no problem letting others find and contact me through them. I am sorry, very sorry, that by doing this, I have also removed the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account and others can't also see the records of my edits through my Special:Contributions any more. I didn't change username to escape from the messages posted onto my user talk page by others. As I have said before, I have already moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto my user talk page before the username change back there. This is also a sign of good faith. Although I created User:Brickfield, my purpose and intention to change username from User:A1DF67 to User:Bowei Huang was not to sock puppet. After I changed my username, I didn't use User:A1DF67 and only used User:Bowei Huang so I wasn't using multiple accounts at the same time, or trying or intending to use multiple accounts at the same time, after I changed my username, by changing username. I wasn't trying or intending to use multiple accounts by changing username. I wasn't a sock puppet, being a sock puppet, or trying or intending to be a sock puppet by changing username. You yourselves said that, of the two accounts, I only used and tried and intended to use one account, User:Bowei Huang. So I didn't sock puppet and I didn't try or intend to sock puppet by changing username. I did indeed misunderstand "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)". I thought that it meant that I could get rid of an account by changing username and continuing editing in my account with the old username at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I thought that it meant that I could continue editing in my account with the old username after the username change at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I read about the right to vanish. I was asking two separate different questions then, not one single question. One was about changing usernames and the other was about getting rid of accounts. The right to vanish was about getting rid of accounts. I thought it meant that to get rid of an account, there were two possible ways. One was right to vanish and the other was requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers) and then not use the account with the new username at all. I didn't think that it would be sock puppeting if I changed my username but did not and did not intend to use the account with the new username at all and only used the account with the old username. Would you unblock the account with the old username if I do the following things or agree that and let the following things be done? Can you please tell me if there are more things that I need to do? If there are, then can you please tell me what are they? 1. Redirect or agree and let you redirect the page User:A1DF67 so that it goes to User:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it? Redirect the page User talk:A1DF67 so that it goes to User talk:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it? 2. If it were possible, move or agree and let you move all the records of edits in the Special:Contributions of User:A1DF67 before the username change back into the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang. 3. Put the Template:Retired on the page User:A1DF67 so that nobody, including me myself, could ever edit from it ever again. A1DF67 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) A quick check of the edit history of United States shows that you were editing that article in December 2009 as both Bowei Huang and Brickfield.[39] Between December 10-12 there was very active sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I'm wondering (1) Why isn't the Brickfield account blocked also? and (2) Is it technically possible to merge the A1D account back into the new stuff from Bowei, as if the A1D never existed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Because there's never an admin around when you need one? Auntie E. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Regarding the namechange, so he'd want the old Bowei and the new Bowei patched together? Is that correct? Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Yes. That is correct. I want to fix this whole thing that I've done. A1DF67 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I know. But I was NOT talking about User:Brickfield in that paragraph. I was just talking about User:Bowei Huang, User:A1DF67, and the change of username from User:Bowei Huang to User:A1DF67. I was saying that the username change wasn't sock puppeting or done because I tried or intended to sock puppet. I didn't sock puppet or try or intend to sock puppet by editing as both Bowei Huang and A1DF67. A1DF67 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC) But you did sockpuppet anyway. That's a bit too important to gloss over. Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I have redirected User:Brickfield to User:Bowei Huang. I have also redirected User talk:Brickfield to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have also moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto User talk:Brickfield into User talk:Bowei Huang. [40] [41] This is also a sign of good faith. A1DF67 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Pretty disruptive. You should really have considered what you were asking for first. I say keep all accounts except A1DF67 blocked until someone can sort out this mess. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Isn't this all a bit too much fuss? I've blocked User:A1DF67 and User:Brickfield indefinitely, and unblocked User:Bowei Huang. I suggest we just leave it there for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Well, no. Now it looks like User:A1DF67 made all the edits to all those articles, and User:Bowei Huang has no history that shows disruptive editing. Could you please undo this? Your action here has caused problems I'm afraid. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I don't really see what you mean, since User:Bowei Huang has a block log and is linked from the various noticeboards, etc., where conduct is discussed. However, I'm not invested in my solution. If any admin/crat wishes to undo it, they should feel free to do so, and need not discuss undoing the action with me first. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) If someone looks through the history of an article, they won't see that it's Bowei Huang, they will see that A1DF67 has been editing. This is now confusing enough. And this, in my opinion, is what the editor wanted in the first place - to hide their edit history. That's why I said indefinitely block Bowei Huang and keep the other account unblocked. An admin did this, you have just undone something that was already settled. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Kiernan, you are the only admin watching this dicussion. Can you re-block Huang and unblock A1Df67 please? Auntie E. (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Is there an administrator that might have this page watchlisted that can help us? Can't find a goddamn cop in a fricken police station I swear...where is the admin equivalent of a donut shop around here? Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC) No!!!! Please, don't reblock. Can you please let me explain first and give me time to explain first before you consider reblocking? I have redirected User talk:A1DF67 to User talk:Bowei Huang. Didn't I explain to you? My intention to change username was NOT to remove the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. You shouldn't be editing A1DF67's pages at all.[42][43] Please accept my apologies if the IP is not yours, but even then, that still leaves you with one edit. I'm with Tbsdy lives and Auntie E. on this. If Bowei Huang is to remain unblocked, A1DF67's edit history needs to be merged back to Bowei Huang. However, I think that Bowei Huang should be reblocked as he still hasn't learned.[44][45] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I have learned. Let me explain. I thought that its messages weren't important any more now that I am not allowed to edit from it and that it was time to redirect now. I was trying to make a clear connection between User talk:Bowei Huang and User talk:A1DF67. That was what I was trying to do. I was intending to fix things. It was because of what User:Tbsdy lives said after I was unblocked that I tried to fix it. I hope I am not trying to fix things only to make them even worse. Is there a reason why you want me reblocked because of the edit history thing? Is it because I have made some or many specific edits in the past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable that you don't want and don't like me removing records of edits? Is that why you want my edit history remain exactly the same as before? Is that why you want me to be reblocked so that my edit history remains exactly the same as before? Is that why you think I changed username to remove records of edits? That was NOT the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits. That was not my reason! If you think it is so, then what are those edits? Are they the edits on the articles Australia and the United States? That was not my reason for the username change. I was trying and intending to help or improve Wikipedia then and I was not intending to deliberately make bad edits then, if not all of the time then at least most of the time. I caused trouble with automation because I didn't know or forgot about sandboxes. I now understand that I should now try formulas in sandboxes. I have begun to decide about improving my edits on those articles. If they are not the edits on those articles, then what are they? Bowei Huang (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Is there an admin here that can help? Please help us here. Auntie E. (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) A1DF67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked and Bowei Huang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC) If I might make a suggestion... If Bowei/A1DF67 wants to sign their edits as Bowei Huang, let them. There's no problem with that, and in fact it helps with transparency. But I agree that shoving a bad editing history over to an alternate account to hide one's past misdeeds shouldn't be allowed. I would have done exactly as Toddst1 had done, but I didn't catch all this in time. -- Atama頭 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Todd. I have no problem with the editor making his signature what he wants to be, although he does need to link to his temporary BH account on his user page. Otherwise, I think we're done here. Let's hope the editor will stay out of trouble from now on. Auntie E. (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with this. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I still haven’t finished discussing with you yet. Let me discuss and explain further. What about all the stuff I’ve written in the case? I hope it is not a waste of effort. Hello! Didn’t you read my comments on 00:59 11 January 2010 and 02:10 12 January? Haven’t you read them? Why haven’t you answered, replied to, or responded to those two comments? Why haven’t you answered my questions in them? I think you should read them again. Can you please do that? This time, can you please answer, reply to, and respond to my comment? I did not say that the reason I did that was to hide my past misdeeds. I did not say that! I did not even say that I had a lot of past misdeeds. I did not even say that! I was just asking if that was the reason for all that or not. Please do not misunderstand me! The reason I changed username was NOT because I wanted to remove records of edits because I have made many edits in the recent past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable. That was not my reason! Why didn’t you even answer my questions in that second comment? Why haven’t you even answered my question about what those edits were? If you think that I have made many edits in the recent past that were bad AND that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please show those bad edits to me and everybody else? Show them! If you think that that is the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? If you accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? Prove it! Please do not accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits unless you have got proof of it! I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If I didn’t make many edits before the username change that were bad, then would you still continue blocking me? If I changed username because I wanted to remove records of edits, BUT the reason why I wanted to remove them was NOT because I made many bad edits in the recent past, then would you still continue blocking me? Is it possible to restore my edit history? Is it possible or not? Why haven’t you even told me that yet? A1DF67 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No one is blocking you. I don't know why you wished to erase the page that shows the history of your contributions. All I know is that you tried, and it didn't work. Now at this point, I suggest you make a link to your blocked Bowei Huang account on your user page to avoid confusion. If you wish to change your signature to your old name, go to "My Preferences" on your menu bar and it will let you do so. If you wish to merge the two accounts, I suggest you make an appeal to WP:CHU and see if they can do anything there for you. Otherwise, I don't see why you are continuing this. I suggest you take my advice above, just continue working on the Wikipedia and just let this go. Auntie E. (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I can tell anyone interested right off the bat that requests for merging edit histories from two usernames are usually rejected at WP:CHU as technically impossible, so Auntie's suggestion will not work. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 15:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow and WikiProject dabbling

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

This editor has been going about, arbitrarily archiving the talk pages for WikiProjects, and spinning off membership lists on to separate subpages. In looking at his contributions page, he is going about this in alphabetical order by project name. In the case of WP:CRIME, his talk page edit removed the Mizsabot auto-archiving code and set up his own definitions of archive pages, removing even very recent talk posts. He is not a member of the projects, nor has he proposed his edits for project consensus. I objected to his actions for WP:ACTOR here. Tonight he popped up to make these edits on WP:CRIME, again without approaching the project and defining things as he wants them. When I posted my objection to his talk page [46], I noticed that people from other projects have also objected to his edits [47]. I'm certain as he goes on, more largely populated projects will object to this also. This editor does not seem inclined to stop and help would be appreciated. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you let them know that they should stop doing what they are doing? Perhaps they are not aware that they are doing any damage. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I informed him of this here, which was at 02:43, 7 January 2010, another editor told him similarly here, about 7 hours later. He did not respond to either talk page post or let it deter him from continuing his WikiProject dabbling. He saw those posts because he deleted them from his talk page. Something needs to be done to stop him from all of "help". Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an extra bit of input, I also questioned Mikhailov regarding his edits to WikiProject Airsoft, asking why he split off the members list to a new page and badly archived the talk page, and got the reply "What I have done based on meta.wiki." Link. He didn't offer me a link as evidence, and i've been unable to come up with anything that corroborates this. RWJP (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man - check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Members. He split off a wikiproject page, but nobody wants him to. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that on his talk page. I'm not totally sure, but I believe that other people apart from me and Wildhartlivie have questionned him about his actions. Perhaps contacting the "leader" of the Wikiprojects he has edited would be a good idea, i'm sure some exta comments from them would add a little more weight to this issue. Sadly i appear to be the only active editor in WikiProject: Airsoft, so i'm all you've got in that respect.

I also noticed your particularly amusing edit on my talk page Tbsdy. Slight case of mistaken identity there?

RWJP (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been advised to stop. Hopefully he'll stop on his own. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

? QUERY:  In the meantime, have all of his disruptive, destructive edits been reverted? Have these pages been properly restored? If someone could generate a list, I could get to work on some of them. When I check his contribs I see that many of his edits are still the “top” (i.e., last) edit. Or, should correcting Kusserow’s edits be left to the members of the various WikiProjects? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about other WikiProjects, but i've not reverted the member page edit for WikiProject Airsoft as i'm not aware of the procedure I need to go through to do so. I presume i'd need to submit an article for deletion request on the member list page? RWJP (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I would think a project co-ordinator or even well-respected project-member could simply tag as {{db-g6}}. –xeno^talk 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the bad archiving and, in some cases as outlined above by Wildhartlivie, the scuttling of properly set up automated archiving? Won’t all of those have to be undone? Should something be coordinated with the project coordinators? (Don’t laugh at coordinated/coordinator. I couldn’t think of another word!) — SpikeToronto 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Misza settings should definitely go back on there. If the talk page hasn't changed since they visited perhaps just a revert and g6'ing of the improperly created pages, but yes, you may want to ping project co-ordinators to see how best to proceed. –xeno^talk 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P.S. I propose using Popups to revert the talk pages back to their state before his last edit. But, this would have to be done soon before new threads are added to these pages. Also, the archives he created could be deleted and the ones to which he added to reverted to their state before his additions, with the material being placed back into the main talk page for the bots to archive when the time comes.

Are there any tools that administrators have at their disposal that can deal with a talk page that has been added to since the archiving? Some tool that can revert to the pre-archive state plus add in the new material since?

Finally, someone needs to point out to our well-intentioned, but misguided, editor the following statement at WP:ARCHIVE: “Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to consensus for each case,.” [Emphasis added.] — SpikeToronto 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed WP:ACTOR and WP:CRIME but I'm not bold enough to go in and fix other projects, to which I don't belong. Thanks for dealing with this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just anote to say that this editor saw the notices because he archived them and then moved on to start archiving article talk pages. While that might not be a problem in and of itself, some of the archiving has involved recent discussions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Astrology - he's split off the member list and archived the talk pages, at least two unanswered threads have been taken off, I think. I watched it but never actually joined and I'm not familiar with proper archiving so I wouldn't know how to fix this. Could somebody help? MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He has now started archiving article talk pages, sometimes making them appear completely empty (e.g. Talk:Braille). I have asked him to stop archiving activities on pages he doesn't otherwise edit. I guess he wants to be helpful, but I don't think he is helping at all, rather the opposite. —Кузьма^討論 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, he's creating way too many archives for too little content. As little as one thread on some of the archive pages he created. I merged them and deleted the excess pages he created and strongly cautioned him to stop. –xeno^talk 13:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m a little confused: (1) He is not participating in this ANI, despite being alerted to it. (2) He is continuing to archive pages incorrectly, despite being informed that he is doing so, and being asked to cease and desist.  Question: Why, then, has he not been given an indefinite block with access only to his own talk page to permit him to finally deal with this issue? — SpikeToronto 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They haven't done anything further after 3 of us piled onto their talk page to ask them to stop. A block would be premature. –xeno^talk 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He was warned with this edit at 03:46EST on the 11th. With this edit at 02:06EST on the 12th (24 hours later), he removed those warnings, without response, and continued apace. A look at his contribs shows that he was still disruptively archiving 24 hours after his initial warnings and request to cease and desist. With these edits, he was given three more warnings, albeit superfluously since he had already been warned, had removed and igonored those earlier warnings, and had then continued in the same fashion. I am not a gambling man, but were I, I would make book that he will continue to perform more disruptive archiving tonight starting sometime around 02:00EST or 03:00EST.

Good faith edits or not, you are being too nice. You are giving him yet another day to remove your warnings, not respond, and start disruptively archiving more WikiProject talk pages at a time when you won’t be around to stop him. This will result in that much more work that will have to be undone. If he were to be blocked until such time as he is willing to discuss this matter, then at least there would be no further upheaval in those areas of Wikipedia. Don’t you think that delay makes us complicit in his disruptive actions? — SpikeToronto 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He moved from archiving WikiProject talk pages to archiving article talk pages - which are typically fair game - except he was still doing it in a strange and inefficient way - which he's now been warned about that as well - and yes, we can leave the ball in his court without blocking him. –xeno^talk 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, now that he has been given additional warnings, it would not be very fair to block him until we see how he responds/behaves. My earlier comments were motivated by a belief in a basic behavioural modification precept: “Positively reinforce positive behavior, negatively reinforce negative behaviour.” Or is that, “Spare the rod, spoil the child?” :) Thanks Xeno. — SpikeToronto 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, negative reinforcement is not punishment per se. And yes, my child is plenty spoiled =) –xeno^talk 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I thought I’d start undoing some of this mess. So, I started taking a walk through his contribs to figure out where to start, thinking I would begin where he began and work my way through to his edits from just shy of 24 hours ago. Only my little walk turned into quite the hike when after reviewing the last 1,000 of his edits — back to 23:46 November 23, 2009 (he always seems to work in the wee hours of the morning EST) — I still had not got to the beginning of the disruptive archiving!

So, I am open to suggestions. How do we parcel this task into manageable portions? Any ideas? And, as I asked earlier, are there any tools available to Admins that can make this task easier? Is there a bot that can undo the edits? How about AWB for those who are approved for its use? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone block this disruptive editor?

I went looking for my warning (and a lot of others) but it appears that they have been blanked and the behaviour continues. There has been no response to the numerous warnings made to this editors. Someone please block them - perhaps one of the seemingly innumerable editors they voted support for adminship? :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we now realize:

1. there have been 1,000 questionable edits since last November, and
2. even this month people have been complaining to him since 7 January, and since
3. he's been removing block warnings and continuing to do his peculiar archiving while this ANI thread was open, I've blocked him for 48 hours. Other admins may lift or modify as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:  I just want to clarify that I did not say that all 1,000 edits were questionable. What I said was that even after I had gone back 1,000 edits, I could still not find the beginning of the disruptive archiving. Having said that, though, I would say that an enormous number of those edits are of the nature that we have been discussing here. — SpikeToronto 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand why blocking the editor was necessary. They had received two warnings from administrators (including from the one who faciliated his return to editing after a sockpuppetry case). They hadn't edited since. These edits were not so disruptive as to see what they did on their return. –xeno^talk 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

14:15, January 11, 2010, they were warned to stop or they would be blocked for disruption. 07:06, January 12, 2010, they archive said notices. 07:09, January 12, 2010, they continue their disruptive archiving the very next day. Seems like a block was quite warranted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They were warned to stopmucking about with WikiProjects and they did. What you have shown is that he moved on to article talk pages and that is a different matter altogether. –xeno^talk 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the very essence of a preventative rather than punitive block. The editors needs to show they have read and understood the content of the requests and warnings on their talk page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced title change

The user User:Radiojon moved the Frankenhole (TV series) page to Mary Shelley's Frankenhole without providing any source to support the name change [48]. A subsequent edit has been made so my attempt to undo that edit didn't work so if any admins can revert this it will be appreciated. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to be correct. "Well, first of all, I changed the name from “Frankenhole” to “Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenhole’” which I think took it from crappy title to the best title ever.". This is from November 19th, so... HalfShadow 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'll put that link into the article. That would be the second time they changed the name of that upcoming series. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note on this. I read this very quickly (and without any caffeine in my system) and tried to "fix " that by removing the redirect and copying the talk page and the article over. I caught my mistake and reversed it.

My bad!!!! That won't happen again! _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat about a jacket

A threat to take legal action against Wikipedia has been made by 69.237.227.99 (talk · contribs) on Eisenhower_jacket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is an allegation of plagiarization of a (claimed) yet to be published manuscript. The material has been removed by the same person, see this diff, under their other account SRELY&P (talk · contribs). Previous fashion related conflict of interest and possible SOCK issues were also highlighted during Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wall_Street's_Iconic_Power_Shirt:_The_Gekko_(2nd_nomination) where (applying the QUACK guidance) Andy stinson (talk · contribs) appears to be the same user making the same claims to be the same author of the unpublished work in question. Other contributors to Eisenhower jacket have held off reverting the article content due to this threat of action.

Can someone independent of the articles in question investigate the claim of plagiarism, the legal threat and potentially deal with the WP:SOCK issues that the user has already been warned about?—Ash (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not noticing that your account has logged out is not sockpuppeting (for me) unless there's use of other accounts. In this case, an IP editor threatening to get lawyers is kinda funny, ooh 192.168.1.100, my own router is going to sue me, what are you gonna do, get your buddy 255.255.255.255 to come round and beat me up too? Just ask the named user if it is their edit, advise them of WP:NLT and ask for a retraction, and point to WP:OTRS or at least ask for a link to the supposed previous publication (which I didn't see anywhere). Franamax (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If the claim involved were made in good faith, I think it would fall within the copyright exception to WP:NLT. However, as I look over the article history quickly, it appears that the user involved himself added the now-disputed material to the article, therefore both publishing it and releasing the copyright; that he is now unhappy with the changes others have made would not allow him to reassert ownership, even to my rudimentary understanding of licensing law. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering how his "manuscript" was copied into the article in the first place? Did he add it himself? If so, does that mean he can no longer publish that info in a book? I think he really screwed up if that's the case. -- Atama頭 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's getting more interesting, new user Andy stinson has just weighed in. If they all between them can agree they are the same person and they made a genuine mistake thinking their original work wouldn't be edited, the nice thing might be to blank it for them. It's been cleaned up but nothing novel added that I saw. Franamax (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or how about not? Once they post something here, it's not their's anymore, it's everyone's. HalfShadow 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak gotcha. If they made a genuine mistake, it doesn't hurt us to put it right. If the information is notable, it will get written anyway. Obviously we can't put right the copyright claim, that's toast no matter what, the mirrors have what they have. We can only make the difference on how well the person feels they've been treated. Franamax (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To quote the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Not our problem. HalfShadow 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It would set a bad precedent to allow this editor to remove his/her edit and not let anybody else to do the same thing later on. The warnings when editing are clear. Woogee (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, being nice to people making mistakes would set a seriously bad precedent on Wikipedia. They might get used to it. --Conti|✉ 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Is the stuff he added WP:OR? IF so, we could delete it for that. If not, he published it under the GFDL here, and it says under his submit button just like it does mine "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Should be end of story. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That assumes that the license is legitimate; Stinson is claiming the account which posted that content is operated by his assistant, who I doubt has the authority to license that work. Either way, I'm thinking we might be better off reverting to this version from 12 July 2009; even ignoring copyright considerations, it seems to me that it might be more suited to our needs as an encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Sounds like the way to go to me. Maybe he should be suing his assistant, LOL. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious we know that it was the original author who submitted the material in question? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In this diff SRELY&P adds the material for the first time and in this diff Andy stinson notes that SRELY&P is his assistant. Generally, User talk:Andy stinson seems to make the position clear. Ash (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After noting on User_talk:Andy_stinson that legal action has been started against Wikipedia by Stinson/R. Ely & Partners, the account user:Andy_stinson has been blocked. Should the account SRELY&P (talk · contribs) also be blocked as we have been told that Andy Stinson's "assistant" has been using this account on behalf of the same company (and similarly any other account that may emerge as a sock puppet or used by employees of Stinson/R. Ely & Partners) whilst the legal action continues? Ash (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SRELYP indef blocked by Nihonjoe - usernameblock. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Razón

I'm informing admins who would be closing this AFD to weigh things carefully -- it seems that the nominator (and another user, it seems) has a "motive" for deleting the article. I suggest to exercise extreme caution when delivering a verdict on the discussion. I'd actually prefer the discussion end now in lieu of what else could happen if the discussion is extended.

Disclosure: I also participated in the AFD and wanted to keep the article. –Howard the Duck 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A motive other than the stated one of thinking the subject fails the notability guidelines? Are you suggesting some kind of conflict here? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out one link I gave out in the AFD (a link to a talk page). I suspect something is fishy is going on here, perhaps Shannon Brown is a member of one of the religious sects that is on a (not-so-doctrinal) dispute. It's like Scientology vs. the psychologists in the States. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any poor motive for nominating the article. What I do see is a bit too much participation (and borderline incivility with their sarcasm and snap) by someone who needs to tone down their signature. Tan | 39 14:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec2) Who? Shannon or Howard? Both need to back away slowly and let AfD do its magic, and let admins do their job when the time comes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I wasn't talking about both editors ;-) Tan | 39 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What I see, if I counted right, is only 3 participants in the discussion, which might or might not indicate anything about the article's notability. It does appear, though, that the majority of two is bound and determined to get it deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see seven people. Tan | 39 14:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, have been in many AFDs before, and people do want a certain article to be deleted. But once most people "see the light" they either let it go, withdraw the nomination, or let others think about it. This one is different. –Howard the Duck 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this link doesn't work for anyone? It doesn't work for Shannon Brown, hence his/her frequent reversion of this at the Daniel S. Razón page. –Howard the Duck 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The link works fine for me, but why do you keep referring to User:Shannon Rose as "Shannon Brown" here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I got confused with the LA Lakers player. Sorry. :-O –Howard the Duck 14:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It works for me, too. It seems like you both kind of have a lot invested in this AfD. If the two of you are viewing it as "epic", you might need to step back a bit. :) (I refer to edit summaries here and here). I can see why you might be frustrated to have the content removed, though, once you supplied the link. If the link didn't work for Shannon, it would have been better to get somebody else to check it than to accuse you of making it up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my fault why the link won't show up. I screwed up the syntax. Shannon Rose didn't help either when he simply deleted the entire thing without giving it a chance. That article was a pain to look for, since the Manila Bulletin's website doesn't archive their articles only until recently, the web archive didn't archive it, but it did had a link and a date pof publication and tasked an intern to look for it in a dusty place. If I didn't find the link, I would have had photocopied the page where the article appeared. –Howard the Duck 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'll echo Moonriddengirl and suggest that you step out of the discussion. It doesn't appear that the article is in any danger of being deleted due to this AfD. —DoRD (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did step out and had no intention of getting back, but User:ApprenticeFan had a "keep and move" "vote" but s/he left out the diacritic and I am particularly against diacritics in Filipino names post-1900 (I did mass moves some years ago with consent of the original guy who moved them to article names with diacritics) so I had to butt in. Shannon Rose then had a another lengthy reply that accused me of voting twice. Like seriously, I've been in AFDs before I know that I can't "vote twice". –Howard the Duck 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)i did

I'm surprised that the discussion has been allowed to actually get this incivil, to the point where it began spilling onto edit summaries. At any rate, I have not seen any concerted effort by Shannon Rose to prove unnotability through notability. He/She seems only hellbent on getting Razon's article deleted. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'm closing the AfD; I think there's enough there now to form an opinion, and prolonging the discussion further may be counter-productive. EyeSerene^talk 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly submit to the closing admin's decision, whatever it be. But if the article is not deleted, then please do consider merging it with UNTV. 'You have all seen the matchless ordeal Howard went through just to get one questionable RS to support this guy's presumed "notability." Someone who is truly notable wouldn't be that difficult. Howard and other pro-keep editors are from the Philippines and naturally want their people represented in WP. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch ... was that last sentence really needed? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and there was no need to repeat it on my talk page. You had your say in the AfD (although note some of the comments above about civility and badgering other participants), and your views were very seriously considered in my closure. It would help if you could assume that other editors are just as concerned as you are about the neutrality and quality of our encyclopedia. The article isn't exactly a puff-piece, so there's no reason to assume bad faith. As for a possible merger, that should be discussed on the article talk-page (and WP:DR pursued if necessary); ANI isn't the place to settle content issues. EyeSerene^talk 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but is it also a place to request that the closure be speedily done during a time that pro-delete editors aren't usually around to have their say? I barely caught-up with the discussion and I doubt that you truly took note of my final comments as they were written 17 or so seconds after you tagged the discussion as being closed. Why did you give in to Howard's request for a speedy closure, which he requested immediately after he dumped his non-RS "epic fail" links. How can someone be notable with only one RS in his support and a limp one at that? One that took an experienced editor an entire week to find. Your sweeping action in favor of this request: "I'd actually prefer the discussion end now in lieu of what else could happen if the discussion is extended." hasn't been explained and is highly-questionable. Why didn't you let the extension afforded the discussion run its full course? It would allow more editors to vote and have their say. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, this isn't the place for this discussion. Ask on the closing admin's talk page, the article's talk page, or WP:DRV. Also, you may want to look into toning down your signature. It's a bit... obnoxious. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As Jauerback says, I'll be happy to explain myself further if my closing rationale doesn't seem adequate, either at DRV or on my talkpage. I can assure you though that I read your last comments carefully; they edit-conflicted me so I could hardly miss them, and if you look at the timings you'll see I spent the best part of 45 minutes evaluating the discussion. Both you and Howard the Duck made an impassioned (at times, too much so) defence of your respective positions, but unfortunately you couldn't both be accommodated. EyeSerene^talk 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'd want to add is... Is it too much to ask for Shannon not to have a 10-foot-tall signature, per WP:SIG#Appearance and color? It's a bit distracting. :) -- Atama頭 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:75.69.240.186

User 75.69.240.186 has made persistent uncited additions to Benelli M4 Super 90. Specifically, the users list in that article. The section he is editing has an edit banner stating that all additions need citations and warning that any additions without citations will be removed. He has also been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page] not to make additions without citations from a reliable source. He did add a citation once for this claim (Italy as a user) in one of his edits but it cited another Wikipedia article. After being informed in my revert edit summary that Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, he again added the same claim without any citation. He has not made any attempt to explain his reasoning either in edit summarys or at his talk page. Looking at [his talk page], this user also has recent messages from other editors about his uncited additions to various articles. ROG5728 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that it's controversial to say that Italy perhaps might have used a weapon that was designed/manufactured in Italy. I added a {{citation needed}} tag to the flagicon, so try and find a source! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not controversial to say that Italy 'perhaps may use the weapon'. It is, however, speculation and not necessarily true. There are numerous weapons designed in the United States (for example) that have never been used in the United States military. We also know that this editor is taking his claim from Wikipedia. Without a citation from a reliable source the claim doesn't contribute anything to a section that is not speculative in nature. The section also already has an edit header stating that citations are needed for entries, so I don't see anything accomplished in adding another tag. ROG5728 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1991 Punjabi landslide

Please could an admin fix this mess [49]? I was unable to move the page back to the original location. Not sure if's just vandalism or a very pointy way of claiming the article's a hoax? Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The article may well be a hoax, but this is not the way to deal with it. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) After a quick search in Google I believe it could be indeed a hoax ... I have requested a review on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax that has escaped attention for a while. Our G3 condition is a bit too easy on hoaxers, if I may add. -SpacemanSpiff 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've WP:PRODded the article, with reasons. There's just nothing to pin down this event (if it occurred). Rodhullandemu 23:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The references in the article are all fake (i.e., irrelevant), and cut-and-pasted from a previous version of wikipedia's Landslide article. I too could find no confirmation that such a landslide occurred. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to tag it with the speedy deletion template right now as this is obviously a hoax. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User: LoveMonkey

I have been engaged in intermittent discussions at Talk:Militant atheism for almost three years - though I must confess that I (and others) have not made much progress with the article itself. It's a tricky article, on a potentially divisive subject - basically a phrase that has various meanings according to who is using it, in what context. There have been previous attempts to slant the article very strongly towards one particular usage, in one particular context, and I (and others) have pointed out from time to time over a long period that there is a danger of turning the article into a coatrack for anti-Soviet and anti-atheist propaganda. Excessive cataloguing of the evil deeds of the Soviets has in the past been deleted (by consensus, as far as I can tell) as irrelevant and POV-pushy. Faced with a recent spate of such POV-stuffing, I made the mistake of just exceeding three reverts to the article - though of different kinds of material - within a 24-hour period: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Around the same time, and in the couple of days since, I have been posting various comments on the talk page expressing my concerns (e.g. [55], [56], [57], [58]). But in response to these attempts to discuss the content of the article, I and others have been subjected to a torrent of long-winded and inaccurate accusations by LoveMonkey - on my user page ([59]); on the edit-warring noticeboard (e.g. [60], [61], [62]); on the article talk page (e.g. [63], [64], [65]. [66], [67]). My latest attempt to communicate with LoveMonkey simply gets deleted from his talk page and reposted in an inappropriate place, accompanied by further groundless accusations. And note that these are just examples of many similar postings by this editor. In addition to the accusation of breaching 3RR (which I now realise was – just – technically correct), I have been accused of edit-warring, being disruptive, not assuming good faith, making inflammatory comments, whitewashing, tag-teaming, etc, etc. I can see no basis for any of this. I have tried to argue my point, and at all times I have been civil. I have commented on the issue, not the contributors. I am finding the constant attacks extremely trying, and tedious. Could someone look at this, and comment on User:LoveMonkey's behaviour? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Snalwibma violated the WP:3rr with another editor. User talk:Snalwibma continued to engaging in revert warring even after I posted the vio. This lead to the article being protected. User talk:Snalwibma refused to discuss their repeated policy violations with concerned editors on the militant atheism talkpage. User talk:Snalwibma has associates whom protect various articles within the subject of atheism and engaging in tag team edit warring. User talk:Snalwibma has a history of edit warring and edit abuse within the militant atheism article history before I ever engaged the article.[68],[69],

[70] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second the experience concerning Lovemonkey that Snalwibma relates above. I ended up on Militant atheism via Atheism which is on my watchlist, I read the article and noticed the many instances of grievances expressed by different users of concern about a proper definition (a quick glance at the talk page will show that this has been a recurrent albeit fruitless concern for as long as the article has existed). I posted my concerns and attempted to get the discussion going about a consensus agreement of a definition.

Out of the blue Lovemonkey appears with accusations and personal attacks. I cautioned him on his tone and tried to direct the discussion back on track, but his personal attacks continued. Unfortunately his accusations succeeded in diverting the discussion. When I later tried to get into the actual discussion of the topic by supporting Snalwibma's post the personal attacks and groundless accusations by Lovemonkey continued.

As I had by now realised that this was likely an attempt to withdraw focus from the discussion of the article subject I made it clear that I would not let myself be dragged into a mudslinging and that I would only reply to posts by Lovemonkey if they were related to the discussion of the improvement of the article (which did not stop his personal attacks). This also led to Lovemonkey posting this on the Edit warring noticeboard for some reason. While I realised that as his complaints had nothing to do with edit warring he was not likely to get the result he was looking for, I still felt the need to correct his obvious falsifications in his post with this reply.

Lovemonkeys behaviour seems extremely disruptive in that he actually managed to turn focus away from discussing article improvement and derailed the debate entirely by mudslinging and personal attacks. As stated I would second some outside comments on the situation and especially Lovemonkeys behaviour on the encyclopdia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have publicly apologized to Saddhiyama under the WP:3RR I opened on User:Snalwibma [71] Even when I apologize to the tag team they ignore it and the concerns about edit warring and my posting diffs of those edits that are violations and continue to either ignore my posted concerns or label them attacks or extreme some other term inappropriate and then continue to justify policy violations and edit war. They have done this type of thing as a group to other articles on wikipedia. If you look at the history I have with this collection of editors (you will notice them in the militant atheism edit history for example). I have a short and truncated history as their tag team tactics force a 3RR. I refused to edit war with this group on the article anti-theism as you can see from the talkpage there. This group of editors is wholesale deleting content and justifying their edit warring. This behavior is very destructive to the spirit of co-operation that is essential to having a functional and working wikipedia community. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I had not noticed your apology for that comment and will strike out the part in my post above that relates to that. However persisting even here in making false accusations that we are a "tag team" and "edit warring" does not exactly help your case. I state again for the public record that I have never had any communication nor even the slightest knowledge of User:Snalwibmas existence before coming to the talk page of Militant atheism. That we happen to have the same opinion about the article should come as no surprise, as it seems a lot of different users share that opinion judging from the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have struck out part of my defense from Lovemonkeys persistent and false accusations that I should have been edit warring, I will repeat it here: My purpose from the start of my involvement in this was to establish consensus for the major changes that seems necessary before making any edits. Thus I have only made 1 edit to the article, and noone have contested that edit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been on a wikibreak for a month so and came back and checked my watchlist. I haven't actually edited the Militant atheist recently (my last edit was in september '09 [72] removing minor vandalism, but LoveMonkey has explicitly singled me out in their comments where they said, "Snalwibma and crew here know that the other atheism based articles and their page edit warring buddies (note the presents of Ttiotsw for example) will delete content wholesale and deny that the content they delete is appropriate from their understanding of the subject" (my bold) When someone else (NBeale) removed [73] these LoveMonkey comments LoveMonkey reverted this [74]. Anyone knowing NBeale and my edit histories knows that we both agree to differ and the basis for our compromise are the Wikipedia policies. I'm indifferent to what LoveMonkey says but I do agree with NBeale that the comments by LoveMonkey are uncivil and not in good faith, though I can't actually care directly what LoveMonkey says about me. Personally the LoveMonkey editing style shows poor thought in that they repeatedly correct what they say in the talk e.g. [75]. It makes it rather difficult to get a word in. I don't expect a block of LoveMonkey but I would like it if in their edits they did not refer to any user. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

gadfium

He has been rude to me on my talk page and the Whanganui talk page. He is an administrator. I have continued to be polite but this has failed. Could somone please overlook this and verify my issue? Cheers. Wipkipkedia (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

His warnings look entirely appropriate to me. Stop doing things without consensus and you won't have people giving you warnings. Please read WP:PLAXICO. Woogee (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, when you bring a discussion here about another user, it is your responsibility to notify the other user that this discussion is occurring. Woogee (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on that end. You're going to have to show us some diffs of his rudeness; he's dealt with you politely from everything I could see there. No admin powers have been abused and there's not much that admins can do at this point, so this isn't really the best place for this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From this exchange, you have initiated discussion on gadfium's talk pages, and then rudely demanded that he not reply to you there. I cannot find anywhere where gadfium behaved rudely to you. You however, are clearly rude to gadfium. Perhaps you could apologise and stop trying to draw attention to yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gadfium has taken no admin action and has treated Wipkipkedia with nothing but respect. Wipkipkedia, on the other hand, has not treated his fellow New Zealander with the same respect. Please, if you have a problem with the addition of an "h", confine your arguments to the article talk page. Also, please don't jump to conclusions about other editors' motives. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback abuse?

Resolved

 – WildHartLivie has agreed to be more careful with using edit-summary-less reverts in the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:41, 15 Jan 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I am concerned that User:Wildhartlivie is abusing her rollback privileges. Since I have been granted rollback rights, I have become more aware of when editors use rollback and frequently check to see why rollback was used with articles on my watchlist. User:Wildhartlivie has had her abuse of rollback addressed by an administrator here [76]. She responded to the admin's concerns here [77], the admin then responded here [78]. Wildhartlivie then responded by stating she understood what he was saying here [79]. This editor has, however, continued to use rollback when there was no evidence of vandalism. While there have been many more incidences of her use of rollback being questionable that I have noticed, I am providing examples from just the last 24 hours below: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]

In the above examples, not one of the rollback reverts (that I can see) were obvious vandalism. The editor in question has been notified of my complaint here. Thank you for looking into this - if you have any more questions of me regarding this report, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk)

I didn't look at them all, but this one[92] looks like either vandalism or someone making up a story. Most of those reverts seem to be of unsourced trivia and the like. It's not appropriate to use rollback for that, or even "undo". It's necessary to say something in the edit summary that explains the reason for the reversion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits were also inappropriately rolled back by Wildhartlivie: [93] and [94].—Chowbok ☠ 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Chowbok, those are not rollbacks, so your complaint is moot. Because you were reverted doesn't make those edits rollbacks. Secondly, I am sick and tired of SkagitRiverQueen stalking my edits and trying to get me into trouble. She contacted GTBacchus by email to make her complaint just after her rollback was removed for what she blamed on her cell phone. She has stalked me from page to page and has instigated battles over everything. For the record, I did not report her rollback abuse nor did I instigate her rollback being removed. I am fed up with her self-appointed role of "get Wildhartlivie" busted mentality. This is the last straw as far as I'm concerned and a request for comments on user behavior will be forthcoming regarding her conduct toward me. In looking at what was done on edits, I considered this, this that added random names to the victims list, this (Dex Dogtective?, this, this edit that changed her date of divorce to 9/11/2001 (Trade Towers), this which changed author names with inappropriate spacing, this edit which rambles on about a disabled child and states "This is wrong" in the middle, this which is basically rambling, and this which was in a line of 3RR violations that ended up with the editor blocked, vandalism. If the others two were not, I apologize. Please ask SkagitRiverQueen to stop stalking me around Wikipedia and filing harassing reports here and on WP:WQA about me. This is clearly a complaint geared toward getting me in trouble and it is time for it to stop. Do something about this before it ends up at ArbCom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a complaint geared toward someone who has been entrusted with rollback privileges and has been abusing them for quite some time. Below are more examples of blatant rollback abuse when no vandalism was involved. The list is very short. [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]

Regardless of my history with Wildhartlivie, the fact is that she has abused her rollback privileges *even after being advised to stop by an administrator* - whatever is between her and I does not have any bearing on her choosing to continue to use rollback inappropriately. If one wishes to do the research, it's easy to see Wildhartlivie has been abusing rollback for way too long. Further, if she now files a complaint about me based on her anger at me for filing *this* complaint, wouldn't that be blatant retaliation? (I'm seriously asking) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's rollback or undo, an explanatory edit summary is needed. The reverted edits looked like they were revert-worthy. They just needed an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't retaliation when it can be clearly shown the RfC/U has been under formation since the last time you tried to rag on me and you've accused me before of posting something out of retaliation (at WP:WQA). This has openly been discussed on GTBacchus's talk page. The majority of those posts are in response to illicit editing by a known sockpuppet account or IP related to that sock puppet, per WP:Rollback#Mass rollbacks, and the Alex Baldwin one was reverting vandalism from when a chunk of article content was cut. Despite what she contends, these mostly came from December 22, long before the admin approached me after her email complaint to him, which she does not deny. I was not aware that "undo" required an explanation. She is determined to make me pay for continued disputes with her, even when I was not involved in her rollback fiasco. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• User:Wildhartlivie, a few of those edits shouldn't have been reverted without edit summaries, so if you're going to use rollback, please carefully review WP:ROLLBACK and in the future, be more careful about using rollback only to revert straightforward vandalism and other blatantly unhelpful edits.

• User:SkagitRiverQueen, if you meant to help the project, I'm wondering why you didn't bring this up on Wildhartlivie's talk page first. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up with her because (a) she has already been warned by an admin about this behavior previously and returned to the same behavior, and (b) she has been repeatedly abusive and uncivil with me in the past (as recent as today, in fact) and I didn't feel trying to bring this to her attention would be seen by her as anything other than harassment, possibly causing her to retaliate by filing a complaint against me for harassment (which, as you see above by her own statements, she is going to do because I brought *this* to AN/I). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this isn't about rollback at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All due respect, Gwen, but you are incorrect. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Rollback should only be used for blatantly-obvious-to-everyone vandalism, like clobbering a page, random deletions, and stupid "Hi Mom" kinds of stuff. Most everything else, even if it's reverting a known sock, should carry an explanation, to help other see what's going on and to avoid having to account for it later. I use rollback sparingly, and sometimes have even reverted myself and re-reverted "manually", with an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't retaliation for this. It's an effort to make you stop wikistalking and harassing me. The RfC/U has been under development for sometime now and widely discussed. Thanks, Gwen. I will. And it's acceptable for removing massive sock puppet posts, Bugs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And I don't consider challenging your statements that called other editors "people [who] are drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid and declaring your "life is too full" to bother to answer questions from a mediator or stating that Wikipedia "equals little - if anything - of real, meaningful importance" to be "abusive and uncivil" [106], but then, you know, that's you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether the motivation for this thread was truly concern for the encyclopedia or more like an opportunity to retaliate for Wild's WQA posting regarding SkagitRiverQueen. Nevertheless, Wilhartlivie should provide edit summaries for these kinds of edits in the future, since they aren't blatant vandalism. I'm sure Wild can appreciate that and agree to be more careful in the future? The drama doesn't need to escalate any further than this. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 15 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I told Gwen I would. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if this is all it will take for WHL to stop using rollback improperly, I will certainly be satisfied and happy that it ends here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Harassment by IP

Resolved

A deranged IP editor [107], presumably the indef blocked Lceliku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps re-posting the same threats he got banned for on Talk:Albania, as well as trolling my talkpage [108]. Can someone semi Talk:Albania or better yet block the IP? Thanks. Athenean (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He is now going around serially undoing all my contribs. Can someone indef this psychopath already? --Athenean (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IP is hardblocked for one week, since this is clearly evading the original block, which seems at first glance to have been sound. I'll happily abide by consensus if anyone feels convinced unblocking the account and/or IP is a good idea, in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

I wanted to ask what, if anything, would be appropriate to say or do about Bot-iww (talk · contribs) edits today (January 11, 2010 ~08:00 GMT until ~10:30 GMT). The user made a string of edits with an edit summary of: "-born. in "Soviet Union" - absurdum...". On the user's talk page is what appears to be a nationalist rationale (unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is entirely possible). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not unless the edits are vandalism. If the edit summaries are bothering you, you can leave a message on Bot-iww's talk page; otherwise, there really isn't any administrative action necessary. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about the username. Is this user approved as a bot? I can't see anything on Wikipedia:Bots/Status. If they are not a bot, then the username is inappropriate. We should also ensure that if the editor is not a bot that they aren't using the account as a bot. Can we get some confirmation here? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the guideline that names cannot end in "bot"? Oren0 (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true. However, I'm still concerned about whether they are using their account for bot-work. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it appears as though Altenmann (talk · contribs) has gone through and reverted the earlier edits by User:Bot-iww. I'm honestly not cognizant of why this content issue matters, but someone probably ought to say something relatively soon. I suspect that User:Bot-iww is a non-native English speaker\writer, which may be a component of the issue here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with edit summary, since it seams reasonable once you understand what it is about: the word "absurdum" does not refer to wikipedians, so it is not an attack. It refers to the opinion of Baltic editors that since Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union, this annexation is not recognized, and the persons from the bio articles should not be described as born in the Soviet Union. I reverted the edits made based on this logic and explained in the user talk page that he cannot do massive changes in hundreds of articles without getting consensus first. Concluding, I don't see this as gross violation, unless the user starts edit war. - Altenmann >t 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) As for being a bot, can it be that he merely used some tool like AWB or Twinkle? - Altenmann >t 18:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a bot. I had another look at the contributions. They are changing any references of Lithuania SSR to Lithuania. Of course, he's being promptly reverted... he's not edit warring though. Still, seems to be pushing a POV. Not sure which way to turn on this one... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's wierd. I got an edit conflict, but couldn't see what, so I submitted... now I notice that Altenmann added a comment! But it wasn't there before, and I didn't overwrite him. Very, very strange. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/candidates#Solar eclipse of January 15, 2010

Resolved

 – ITN admin handled the issue. --Taelus (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please post this ITN canditate? This is literally millennium-class and time is of the essence but everybody on ITN/C fell asleep before I added something to the article, the final hurdle to consensus. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Not needed anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any admin action is needed here. This is a WP:ITN/C matter. If it gets at least two supports then it will be considered. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, only admins are allowed to post ITNs to avoid vandalism appearing on the Main Page. But the usual ITN admin came by anyway. (after like 5 hours) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood the purpose of the post there. When I looked at ITN/C I wasn't sure that consensus had been gained to include it. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

External link spammer

I believe editor Nt351 (talk · contribs) exists only to introduce external links to "documents" on his personal website into articles. All of his contributions (except an occassional talk page entry to complain about removal of his links) reflect this. I've made no judgement as to the authenticity of the documents stored at that personal website, or whether they are reproduced with permission - but I definitely doubt that website qualifies as a "reliable source". I've considered reverting his entire list of contributions, but I'm not sure that would be appropriate. He insists the documents on his website are reliable sources because "he scanned them himself". Could someone take a closer look? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User has been notified of this thread. -- œ^™ 07:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a COI violation, as well as possibly being spam and original research. I don't see how any of these edits are helping Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely also copyright violation, at least in this case: http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/hapgood_charles/path_00.html. Revert all edits, ban and blacklist? Fences&Windows 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears he has also added his own bold, italicized and colored print in many of the documents, to emphasize certain portions of text over others - a minor form of editorializing. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think storing and offering for public distribution of texts like this (ext-linked in "Lawrence Dennis")constitutes copyright violation, unless done with permission. If I am right, all contributions of this editor must be reverted ASAP and the website blacklisted: we cannot link to copyvio webpages. - Altenmann >t 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That was published in 1936, so that's now out of copyright. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright on The Coming American Fascism was renewed in 1963 ([109]), which means copyright will expire in 2031. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the documents linked are clearly PD, but I've now removed two others which had copyright renewals and are still in copyright. I've left the contributor a note of explanation, and am still looking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed several others that I have confirmed were renewed and a couple that may have been (see Wikipedia:Public domain for more info, and the very useful Wikisource:Help:Public domain). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall removing some links to this site, can't we get it blacklisted? Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given an evident disregard for copyright, that may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DeKoning and Governors Island

Briefly: DeKoning (talk · contribs) continues to add material to the Governors Island page after repeated requests on the article's talkpage not to do so. The material pertains to what he calls the legacy of the island as a birthplace of American freedom - it smacks of POV and of puffery. It's been removed, on and off, for a couple of years now; looking back on article history, I see that I myself actually removed it back in 2007. Each time, DeKoning comes back after a few days and replaces it. Efforts to remove it have been stepped up over the past couple of months, but each time the same thing happens: nothing changes for a while, and then DeKoning comes back and edits it all back in. The last time this happened, I stated on the article's talk page that I would take the whole case to ANI. That was on December 29. Today, the material was re-added, and here I am. User:Dudemanfellabra suggested blocking DeKoning and his IP address (from which he has also edited the article on occasion), and at this stage I'm inclined to agree. I had considered suggesting protecting the article, but I'm not sure if that's necessary at this point. What do you think? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amantio; protecting the page would in effect penalize users that have done nothing. Why do that when there is only one user causing the trouble? If the edit history of that article is not sufficient grounds to block the user, I point you to the user's contributions. He also did a lot to the New Netherland article, one closely tied to Governors Island. He clearly has an agenda/bias that he's pushing forward. If not an all out block, then I would at least suggest a topic ban or at the very least a page ban. Despite any warning and reasoning, the user continues to add the same information, verbatim. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's a single-purpose account, editing sporadically for nearly 4 years, and looking at the reference he cites, it seems like he's trying to promote his own book. Even forgetting that, he's putting way too much detail in the article - probably lifted straight from his book. He's a one-note editor, but he's been around so long that either (1) the article would have to be fully protected; or (2) he and his IP should be given a lengthy block to encourage him to find another hobby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears he promptly readded the removed material again since this notice was put up here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-generic4 and told DeKoning that any further insertion must be discussed on the talk page first for consensus to be gained. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'll keep an eye on things and see what happens. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And he just returned. Literally just now - I've reverted again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported him to AIV. We'll see which gets the job done first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one month--with an additional warning that if he starts up again after his return, the next block will be indefinite, and I'll also be moving for a community ban. Blueboy96 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - should anything else crop up, I'll make a note. I've got the article on my watchlist at the moment. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something was said about an IP address occasionally doing the same stuff, so the article will remain on my watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Darthchess

Resolved

Darthchess (talk · contribs) appears to be a vandal. From his contribution history, it can be seen that he changes dates on articles to false values. He recently created two hoax articles, now both on AfD.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You should try reporting this to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). That is the usual first stop for vandalism reports. — SpikeToronto 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That process says something about recentcy. I didn't think it qualified, since it's hours old for the hoaxes, and the false dates are days old. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked as a vandal-only account; I can't find any constructive edits. Thanks for your report. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(55636) 2010 TO300 & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch, Prifysognol II closed.

However, new editor Darthcheckered (talk · contribs) seems familiar... — Scientizzle 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Now Darthcheckered (talk · contribs) is blocked. — Scientizzle 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Why did this guy get blocked when he wasn't actively vandalizing, but nobody will block Enax99? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside view from a quick glancing of things, but creating hoax articles in short order and already deleted is not pleasant, but running to the user page of the editor that gave vandalism warnings from legitimate vandalism before you took a break away from Wikipedia over the holidays... and in (literally) less than 20 minutes of logging in are vandalizing that user's page? That's not so good. RPP, AIV and 3RR violations are what tend to be most time sensitive, you are correct. Anything that extremely vindictive is hard to ignore. OH, then there's the whole sock thing Scientizzle brought up. That's pretty important, too.

Enax99 was not in violation of 3RR or disruption after a final warning since no one actually gave any warnings. This is a fair defense on an alleged first offense since we have to assume they just don't know our policies. It's quite true that blocks aren't issued after the fact for vandalism. What good would that do? Block are preventative, and the admin here looked at the whole edit history of Darthchess in the past several days and considered a pattern ever after large numbers of warnings. Enax99 stopped but has a really pointed final warning withstanding that at least potentially means that any disruption whatsoever in the future could result in a block... since there would then be an established pattern. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

***** Overload

Air Guinée has alot of asterisks in the article, "blanking out" words and such. I can't make sense of what exactly is going on here. I did leave a note at DYK, but I think this needs urgent attention from more experienced editors..--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, someone has censored all the usages of the term Soviet, Soviet Union and Moscow, which I have now undone. However, all the plane types have also been censored, and I lack knowledge on the topic to work out what should be filling in those spaces. --Taelus (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff which added the info here. [110]. I have contacted the contributor to ask them if they could help us out by uncensoring these terms. --Taelus (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that they've censored it. Russavia (talk · contribs) has added a pile of info, particularly about the aircraft, but has only included placeholder wikilinks instead of proper ones. I could understand it for the aircraft if these are waiting to be looked up, but I'm not sure why they have also written Soviet Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russavia as S***** U**** --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the censorship, all names spelled out in full. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I had talked to Russavia about this earlier, and encouraged him to simply spell it out normally. However, he was afraid of violating his topic ban (a broadly construed Soviet/Russia discretionary topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN), and did not wish to get blocked for writing Soviet Union. While I told him it was rather silly and that they should just write it out in these cases (which probably do not violate his topic ban). Can we get a quick consensus to just say that writing "Soviet Union" is not a violation of such a topic ban? NW (Talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Russavia does a lot of work on Aviation related articles. Therefore it is natural that in doing so the Soviet Union, its successor countries and its aircraft manufacturers are going to crop up from time to time. Mentioning these when legitimately occurring in an article does not need censorship. That is far too tight an interpretation of the topic ban. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, Russavia should be allowed to use the correct names in these cases, without fear of breaching the topic ban. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also have no problem with him editing Hockey and Soccer articles where the Soviet Union is mentioned - except where they link politically. The words "Soviet Union" exist outside of the WP:DIGWUREN-banned areas. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Russavia can edit this stuff. The ban was to prevent disruption to "History of Russia" and related material, and this is a clear example of an area that would only be covered by the topic ban if we made a overly legalistic interpretation of it. It would be at odds with the spirit of the restriction. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of ban would prevent saying Soviet Union but not S***** U****? That would make absolutely no sense...unless it was the words and not the topic that was the problem. Apparently due to wikilawyering, the topic ban had been extended to include anything that involves Russians or Russia. I have no opinion on whether the ban was meant to extend this far, and don't really know the background...but if they were worried about the ban, they should ask for clarification, not write articles full of ****. That seems almost a bit pointy. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If an editor has a ban on a general topic and uses **** to clearly refer to it and "avoid" it, it would violate his ban as well as WP:POINT. Crum375 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an open appeal regarding this issue at WP:AE#Appeal by Russavia right now - whether his topic ban should be lifted in part or altogether. You might want to comment there rather than here. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Block Evasion by User:Kashifpisces

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as a sock by MuZemike. -- Atama頭 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kashifpisces was blocked for article ownership issues on Dawood Group. He created another account, User:Kashi786 to evade the block. The editting pattern and note left on my talk page [111] indicates this is the same person is now trying to evade the block and continuing to attempt to edit the article. There is also a COI issue put up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dawood Group. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• SPI report is here; I have semi-protected the article for a month. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator:Jehochman

Resolved

 – Re-closing and archiving. The proper venue to pursue this further is either RFM (recommended) or to file a RFC. Persistence in other venues will be treated as Disruptive editing. MLauba (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jehochman has not offered any explanation for his deletions, which this ANI asks for, close without that is simply premature, and a double standard --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Resolved|No admin abuse. And Peter Sellers's best role was Duchess Gloriana XII}} Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jehochman is an administrator who is abusing his administrative privileges. I raised an ANI topic found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive591#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing Jehochman quickly directed the topic into a series of side jokes and proposing a solution for the editor to communicate on talk pages using haikus or limericks vs the Sonnets they have been using. When I challenged the result on its merits, Jehochman quickly turned the ANI to become a referendum on my contributions to Wikipedia. Jehochman said "Any thorough investigator looks at the person filing a complaint to assess their credibility before checking the substance of the complaint." Yet Jehochman proposed final result first, then afterwards began a sub thread called "Let's look at the OP too". Using Jehochman's logic, this means he proposed a solution before he looked at the substance of the complaint. By proposing a solution, Jehochman gave other administrators the perception he had done a review of the substance. The problem was Jehochman was more interested in slap stick, that the functioning of ANI as a process. As he writes in the ANI: Are you saying that I'm like Peter Sellers as Merkin Muffley, or as Inspector Clouseau? Jehochman Brrr 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Jehochman, then saw fit to go about deleting comments away from review to other Admins involved in this ANI. But not just anyone's. Jehochman deleted the problematic communications style of Proofreader77 in the ANI topic. The topic was about Proofreader77 disruptive communications, and Jehochman removed them, while still calling for his proposed result to become the concensous. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=337667316 When repeatedly asked why he snipped out communications by the subject of the ANI, before other Admins could review it....Jehochman was silent. He was asked multiple times. What is clear is he only wanted Proofreader77 comments removed, as this was his only action in the vein. Lastly Jehochman made this loaded remark at me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=337995020 Jehochman, is abusing his admin privileges, by not conducting ANIs with respect, but deleting content to deliberately skew the outcome of an ANI, and then by using his Admin pulpit to bully and characterize editors. I ask for more eyes on this. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I've let Jehochman know about this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Everything that needs to be said here can be summed up by WP:NOPONY and WP:PLAXICO. Since arriving at the project, User:Tombaker321 has done nothing but attempt to defame Roman Polanski by repeatedly inserting dubiously sourced material (sources such as opinion pieces [112]), and then edit warring and battling with the editors who seek to remove his WP:BLP violations. This is a classic, disruptive, single-agenda account. For diffs and evidence, see these contributions. Prior threads of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=337754164#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=338004152#New_ANI_topic_created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321&oldid=338001565#Polanski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321&oldid=338001565#Roman_Polanski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321&oldid=338001565#Polanski_2 How much more disruption should we tolerate? Despite repeated warnings, Tombaker321 continues to whip the horse carcass. Jehochman Brrr 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Is this "admin abuse"? I don't see the use of any admin tools. Admins don't have "pulpits"(our union has been trying for them for years), just buttons. Peter Sellers was best as James Bond in my opinion. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I think there has been abuses to JeHochman/s admin power, although I don't see any in this case. Thst being said the poster is try to fight fire with fire. Right now running to Ani after a big thread is shootimng your own foot. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I see no abuse here. Speedy close anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I believe its Admin abuse to make threats of sitebans to a person raising an issue to ANI, and to snip out selective remarks during that ANI. He is accusing me of defaming Polanski, which is false on every level. The issues I raised in the ANI were not content issues, and to that regard Jehochman is biased. The previous ANI is closed. I am raising what I earnestly feel is an Admin abusing their position, and disregarding their duties as an Admin. If Jehochman wants to be a content warrior, he should do such as an editor, rather than manipulating as Administrator. He manipulated when he went about deleting content from the ANI. What Jehochman is calling a dubious Op-Ed, is a well sourced record by the first hand party to the event surrounding Polanski. The edits and content that I have done on Polanski are proper content contributions. --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Neutralhomer Can you tell me why Jehochman deleted remarks away from other Admins? If not, please leave this open. --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) The only diff you provided of Jehochman removing any comments showed that he deleted some irrelevant drivel, which is mandated by our policy on discussion-pages. Do you have anything else in mind? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Urban XII, Hans Filbinger and Hans Adler – Request for feedback

Did I harass User:Urban XII? Perhaps it is OK to run to WQA or ANI when a user doesn't retract an unfounded attack, but not OK to postpone this until the user repeats the same behaviour against someone more vulnerable, and to advise the user about the intention? Then I need to rethink my approach to this kind of situation.

• [113] (note the Twinkle abuse)
• Talk:Hans Filbinger#The party parameter
• "rv harassment"

Hans Adler 12:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have answered this user at my talk page. I urge him to cease his wiki-stalking of me, and find something more productive to do than going on and on about a dispute that has been solved as far as the article is concerned. I reserve the right to remove threatening comments from my talk page. Urban XII (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you (1) accused me of vandalism for something that was very obviously no such thing but a genuine POV dispute, and then you justified it instead of retracting. This makes it appear likely that you want to continue behaving like that. I was waiting for a clear statement that you now understand you shouldn't have used Twinkle to revert me, and instead I got (2) an additional accusation of "harassment" that I consider to be similarly problematic (but I came here to ask for feedback on this). Now you have added (3) an accusation of (even ongoing) "wiki-stalking", both here and on your talk page [114]. Needless to say, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. While I have in fact noticed that some of the Filbinger related articles that you have edited recently have severe POV issues, I have not started work on them yet, and so far our interactions have been very limited in time (4 days) and space (Hans Filbinger, Talk:Hans Filbinger, User talk:Urban XII and here).

I am afraid you have maneuvered yourself into a situation where the best way out is to openly acknowledge the fact that you are not supposed to dish out obviously unfounded accusations in this way. Hans Adler 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm stating a split opinion here. On one hand, Hans Adler adding that Filbinger was a member of the NSDAP is not vandalism, but a conflict over content. (Adding that membership to someone for whom it is impossible for it to be true -- say, Dick Cheney -- would be vandalism.) On the other, from reading the current content of the article & the Talk page, I agree with Urban XII that Filbinger's affiliation with the NSDAP does not need to be in the infobox. (Adding further information to this article could change my opinion.) But to repeat myself for emphasis, there is no instance of vandalism, & that term is best limited to only explicit examples of destructive edits; misusing that word can lead to a person being blocked for disruption. -- llywrch (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your split opinion might be a bit influenced by the current general state of the Filbinger article (and some related articles also edited by Urban XII). There is serious whitewashing going on here, of a political movement that tries to erode the (West) German anti-nazi consensus and establish a "respectable" far right that would include a large part of the Christian Democrats up to unsavoury characters such as Horst Mahler. Other articles affected by this whitewashing (which does not exist on the German Wikipedia) or severely underdeveloped are Neue Rechte and Studienzentrum Weikersheim. When Filbinger died, another CDU politician claimed that Filbinger had not been a Nazi, which earned him an accusation of pseudohistory by a historian and a rebuke from Angela Merkel. Hans Adler 09:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note here in support of User:Hans Adler. It seems that Urban XII's style of interaction is a bit of a problem. He is extremely quick to accuse other users of vandalism; this has been already noted repeatedly by other people in the Wikipedia alert pages [115], [116], [117], [118]. He also deletes warnings left by others on his talk page (and labels them as vandalism [119]), so evidently that is of no use. Note that I am not involved in any of the links I've just given, except in so far as he kindly mentions me in one of them. Feketekave (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't consider them all equally convincing, but the first is certainly worth closer examination:

• Urban XII edit wars with Verbal on Frédéric Mitterrand to introduce a borderline BLP violation. One of his edit summaries reads "Rv vandalism." [120]
• In a bizarre edit on Talk:Frédéric Mitterrand, Urban XII duplicates part of Verbal's signature and a comment by Off2riorob, while adding his own comment. [121]
• Verbal reverts with edit summary Don't vandalise the comments of others, and in the following minute restores Urban XII's latest comment. [122]
• In the same minute, Urban XII uses edit summary "rv vandal" when removing 3RR warning and pointers to WP:NOTVAND and WP:BLP from Verbal.
• Verbal tries again to educate Urban XII about what is not vandalism [123] and is again called a vandal [124]. Urban XII increases "vandalism counter". [125]
• Urban XII leaves bogus warning on Verbal's talk page. [126]
• WQA about Urban XII, opened by Verbal [127]

The "vandalism" counter on Urban XII's talk page is also worth further inspection. Urban XII first introduced it after he reverted a warning from Wilhelm meis concerning a BLP issue on Roman Polanski. [128] He increased it to 2 after Verbal's warning. He increased it to 3 after a silly personal attack warning from DD2K. [129] He increased it to 4 after a justified 3RR warning concerning Angels and Demons (film), where he had edit warred to include unsourced trivia. [130] [131]

This user needs to be learn to be more careful with accusations, and I doubt this can be achieved without (threat of) a block. Hans Adler 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To Hans above -- that was my intent.;-) Instead of back-n-forth bickering, the article would be improved, & this dispute resolved, were the parties involved in proving the necessary cites that explain his relationship to the NSDAP. (IIRC, after the war the Allies engaged in an extensive de-Nazification program in Germany, so if Filbinger was a member of the NSDAP more than just in name the reliable & verifiable sources are out there. I would assume that his experience with the Occupation authorities would be relevant to the article.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Feketekave, Loosmark are both well-known disruptive Polish POV pushers of the sort who routinely follow me around and who don't contribute to Wikipedia with anything else than edit wars. Hans Adler has just revealed a political agenda, which is of no interest to this page, and I urge him to push his personal point of view somewhere else than the English Wikipedia. I'm used to disruptive users abusing WP:ANI to attack me; however, unlike most of these users (some of whom have since been banned), I'm a user in good standing who has never been blocked for anything. Hans Adler's excessive abuse of this page to attack me, even over unrelated disputes that took place months ago or the fact that something went wrong in the process of saving a page and MediaWiki duplicated some text at a talk page half a year ago, constitutes both stalking and disruption of Wikipedia and warrants a warning or block. Urban XII (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that i considered the case (i.e. the disagreement over the Filbinger article) closed after we found a solution that Adler stated that he was happy with. Instead of moving on and concentrate on doing something productive, this user has spent the last couple of days harassing me like he is doing above. I'm not going to "retract" any past edit summaries. I have explained to Adler that the edit summary in question primarily referred to the edit-warring after it had been pointed out that the content was inappropriate. I consider this to be a dead horse in any case and I am certainly not going to waste any more time on it. Urban XII (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the user under discussion has found a new technique: when it is not enough to call his opponents disruptive, he calls them Polish. Needless to say, I hope and expect that this strategy will have no effect. Feketekave (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also consider the original dispute resolved. My main remaining problem was a suspicion that you want to reserve the right to call anyone who doesn't agree with your extremist political views a vandal. That's not at all acceptable, and the suspicion has now been confirmed by other evidence. You can resolve this case by conceding that you had no reason to call me a vandal when we were in a POV conflict, and that you had no reason to call Verbal a vandal for reacting in a not-too-optimal but still acceptable way to your talk page mistake. (Verbal shouldn't have called you a vandal either, of course, but that's not relevant here.)

The point of asking you to retract past unacceptable edit summaries is to make sure you understand that they were unacceptable and will not repeat them. I am not going to insist on any particular protocol so long as you make it clear that you got the message and will stop this kind of disruption.

"I have explained to Adler that the edit summary in question primarily referred to the edit-warring after it had been pointed out that the content was inappropriate." You do realise that you continued our little edit war after I pointed out that the content was necessary, right? Pray tell, what exactly gives your words more authority than mine?

By the way, have you found the time to read WP:NOTVAND? Hans Adler 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler and others that the accusations of vandalism should not be thrown lightly as Urban_XII seems to be doing.  Dr. Loosmark  15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add that Hans's assessment of Urban XII's agenda seems extremely sensible to me; I had reached similar conclusions independently. It does seem to be the case that extremists who do not fit in de.wikipedia sometimes come in here and go a long way before tying themselves into knots: if you don't speak German, it can take a little while longer to figure out someone's stripes than if you do. At any rate, I should point out that Urban XII seems to be very good at projection; other than the little things (it is he, for example, who has clearly been following others around, as pointed out in [132]), there is the fact that he is very ready to accuse others of being similar to Nazis [133]. Loosmark's (very measured) response [134] to that is the only time I have seen Loosmark comment on Urban XII's actions, by the way; so much for Urban XII's being "followed" by him.

It is also noteworthy that, while Urban XII seems to be a relatively recent editor, he is always very ready to speak as if for wikipedia, rather than on his own; see [135] again, for instance. Feketekave (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Urban XII was now using a WP:POINTy BLP violation on a different article, Horst Ehmke, in order to force his preferred version back into the Filbinger article. Not good. I have blocked him 48 hours for an overall pattern of disruptive editing and treating Wikipedia as a Battleground. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please move and merge Talk:Phil Popham to User talk:CRICKETLtd?

Incidentally CRICKETLtd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may benefit from new editor mentoring. They're having a lot of trouble with making edits that follow our guidelines and are completely uncommunicative. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it, I believe. The history of Talk:Phil Popham is now part of the history of User talk:CRICKETLtd, and I've reverted the page back to how it was before the move. Please let me know if anything is screwed up because this is my first page history merge. :) -- Atama頭 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've blocked CRICKETLtd indefinitely for spamming and username issues. Cricket-Ltd is a branding company that has Land Rover as a client. This editor was likely paid to promote those Land Rover executives. -- Atama頭 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – Blockified. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/74.4.126.141. –MuZemike 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

fairly clear myspacey, vapid legal threats. Blockify! Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blockified. Tan | 39 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankify. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that these people were responding to an SPI where they were impersonated? They were only reacting to what they saw as an injustice. I don't think a block is warrented here if you read the SPI. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying "do what we tell you or my mate's dad will have you arrested" is never appropriate. Responding to outside stimuli does not justify their actions, and WP:NLT is very clear. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I also don't think they will edit here again though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Cleared--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This board is backlogged...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One left. I'll mark as resolved.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fusion request

"Fusion request" The merger of two almost identical articles: Calbuco Department, Llanquihue and Calbuco Department, Chiloé. Ccrazymann (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of those articles are redirects, I don't see what has to be done. -- Atama頭 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ídem Atama. --MW talk contribs 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the request had already been resolved by the User:Anthony Appleyard. Regards. Ccrazymann (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:69.141.140.192

Resolved

 – Blocked for two weeks for edit warring and incivility. Fences&Windows 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:69.141.140.192 has a long history of blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policies (namely WP:V and WP:NPA), and has recently started an edit war on the Sniper article in which he broke WP:3RR and made more personal attacks[136][137]. He refuses to cite his edits because he apparently thinks it's the other editors job to do so. He also removed sourced material from Battle rifle after making another personal attack[138][139]. Here are some more recent examples of his disruptive editing[140][141]. It is quite clear the this user cannot contribute to Wikipedia in a civil or non-disruptive manner. — DanMP5 22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved administrator

Resolved

 – Fences&Windows is taking care of it for the most part. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have recently been involved with an SPI here. I offered help to Stephen last night. Then, I get an e-mail from Brangifer that detailed some things that disrepute Stephen. I then got an e-mail from Stephen that counters all of this and calls Brangifer a fraud. I didn't publish the fact that I received the e-mails anywhere, so it's rather odd that they were sent. I was wondering if an uninvolved administrator would be willing to sift through all of this and figure out what is happening here. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Manson and SkagitRiverQueen

Earlier today, SkagitRiverQueen posted a put down of the efforts of all the other editors on this page, characterizing them as "drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid" and said her life was too full to mess with the Manson article. Wildhartlivie posted a reply, with only a small comment that could be considered "rude and incivil" (a comment about her having a photo of Jimbo Wales popping up on her talk page) as she claimed at WP:AN/I. JohnBonaccorsi posted a short and terse reply as well. This was her response. There is nothing in that post but vicious personal attacks, rudeness and incivility. There has been little in her posts about various editors that can't be characterized as hostile and aggressive in content and completely unacceptable, over a wide variety of articles. I reverted it as a "overt and hostile personal attack", which she reverted, saying "No, leave it there - if everyone else's personal attacks stay, then my comment should also stay", and reverted the NPA warning with "Please - *do* get over yourself and stop being such a hypocrite.", whereupon I left her another NPA warning and removed the attack, stating that if it is returned again, it will go to WP:AN/I. Soon thereafter, she removed the post by JohnBonaccorsi, calling a personal attack, although in fact, his words, "They balance the effects of the editors like you, who don't try at all." were terse and short, but merely echoed her own statement that she "Like Eaglizard, I have now come to the same conclusion and am just as disinterested as he/she is. I'm not in the least interested in "slow and painful" right now - as my life is currently quite full." After reconsidering the tone of these posts and edits, I decided it should come here anyway. No one should be subjected to this sort of treatment. Granted, there has been considerable contention on that page, and with her against various editors, but this crosses the line from being short and snippy into out right personal attacks with no hedging or excuses. This editor needs to be stopped. She stalks the edits of editors against whom she is battling and does so in a retaliatory and vindictive manner. LaVidaLoca (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I had just issued a blanket warning on the page [142] to everyone involved before seeing this thread, I know there's been some problems with this editor before, and her comments were a personal attack. However, the page (and that section) appears to also contain an incendiary comment about her, as well. (Both of those have been removed, which is probably best.) LaVidaLoca, you've removed Skagit's attack multiple times while leaving the personal comment that angered her, then left multiple templated messages on her talk page [143] [144]. None of that is going to help smooth things over. At this point, admin eyes are probably needed to cool things down. Dayewalker (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't see his response as a personal attack, and with her, it is very difficult to know what sparks her flames. I read his comments as a direct response to her statements that put everyone down and said she was disinterested in the article because her life is so full. Yes, I left a template after that attack upon JohnBonaccorsi, and I removed the attack twice notating that I would come here if she did it again, and I left one when she told me to get over myself and stop being a hypocrite. The level of personal attack, especially with John, who has basically bent over backwards to work with her and did not deserve the scathing put downs included in her post. I felt she needed to be reminded. Then I decided to bring this here. Her behavior is becoming a frequent problem. And I realize that bringing this here will probably invite her wrath to be turned upon me. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

JB's response was a personal comment, although perhaps not an attack (I've corrected myself above). It was the kind of comment that will provoke an angry response, especially from an editor known for doing that in the first place. From there, it just seemed like editors getting upset their warnings were deleted, and throwing up more templated messages where all that will do is make the recipient angrier. There's no need to put up two templated messages in a half an hour to a user who's been blocked before, she's aware. (For that matter, her warning here [145] was likewise unnecessary.) It seems emotions are running hot on that page, and everybody could use a cup of tea. Dayewalker (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't upset that she removed my warning, I expected that. I did not expect to be told to "get over myself" and be called a hypocrite. If anything upset me, it was in the disparaging words she used to John. There was nothing retaliatory in putting up a warning to someone who said what she did. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for weeding through and recognizing this mess for what it is. If you add the fact that I have been receiving very disturbing and harassing emails for three days from someone who is either involved in or watching this whole scenario from a lurking standpoint (and is also vandalising my talk page again), you could say that I am just a little "on-edge" and hypersensitive. LaVidaLoca seems to think they should not be subjected to the "kind of treatment" they have been getting? I guess LaVidaLoca doesn't realize that no one should be subjected to the kind of treatment I am getting at that talk page including the further insult of having them condone JohnBonaccorsi's blatant incivility in this example [146] and him replying to WHL's "thanks for the laugh" here [147]. From the response to what JohnBonaccorsi wrote, it's not only acceptible to be intentionally uncivil, it's funny. What amazes me is that they all act appalled and have a "who me?" attitude when I react in anger after what they have been "subjecting" me to. I'm glad to see everyone invovled being addressed this time, Dayewalker, rather than just the "accused". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hum. Seems this topic is toxic to a lot of outside replies, so hey I like some abuse. This isn't directly related to this today, or the mess a week ago, or anything scattered about talk pages between any random combination of about 5 users and 2 admins I went to read, and nothing to do with the WQA, but I'm actually going to point to the suggestion given to SkagitRiverQueen while protesting a 48hr block last week... which was to voluntarily give a verbal agreement to an uninvolved admin to a limit of 1RR for any article where mutually flustered editors happen to be working. Extend that to 1 talk page posting to any flustered editor per day, also. Just that at least 2 need to give verbal agreement to that, though. Start there and it's like musical chairs of watching editors fall one by one as they decide to stay disruptive or hounding. Any volunteers can sit around with the aforementioned tea to sip and watch people imploding on their own incident reports.

Of course, I'm a ridiculously passive on warring of any kind since it's not worth time volunteering to do, but advice from the WQA of "leave each other alone and go away for a few days" is actually pretty good, as well. I self-enforce a 1RR limit on myself for any article where the person I might be reverting was already a content contributor there. Any more than 1 and re-reverted and obvious it needs article talk page work. It all sounds like shooting yourself in the foot by "weakening" your editing privileges. Not true. Choosing to agree to good faith restraint versus forced restrictions feels reeeeealy good when someone else slips up and shoots themselves in the foot instead. It's a scientific fact that 90% of editors who file the last incident report in a string of disputes is the first or only user blocked for any reason. Just don't ask for a citation, please. Really though... if even 2 of the 4-5 primary discussion editors that have been involved in posts in the past week, it starts the ball rolling to grind others into shaping up. I'd suggest 1RR on co-edited pages, 1 article talk pages reply, 1 user talk post per day. Set the bar high.

Then again, just backing away from all such articles disputed would be even better, but that's a bit much given since others' edits are out of your power. I really wish you all the best. If you truly feel you've done nothing wrong in this all and deserve no preventative sanctions, lead by example. (And agreeing to me wouldn't count, which is good since it gives me a head start on escaping) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you're trying to convey, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Without passing comment on any of the substantive matters raised here, I want to point out that LaVidaLoca (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has just been blocked as a sock. It may be best to close this report without further action, I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Asim Butt (artist)

Resolved

 – Death of subject now verified. R.I.P. Ty 04:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Several different IPs have added material that the subject has committed suicide, but there have been no references for this and nothing comes up on google searches. I've semi-protected the article in the short term, but feel free to lift this if there are more eyes on the page. Ty 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there could be some confusion. A cricket player named Asim Butt died, but that was last month. But people could be confused. Semi prot should be sufficient. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of mistaken identity, people are confusing the cricket player with the artist, I agree with sephiroth storm semiprotect is sufficient, I have also added a note on the article talk page. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it seems like he may actually be dead, there are no reliable sources as of yet, but this does not, as I previously thought, look like mistaken identity, some more eyes on the article for the next day or two would be greatly appreciated. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it may actually be true, but I haven't found a reliable source that says it, yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} It appears that a reliable source has been found and the article has been updated. There is no longer a reason for the page to be semi-protected, can an administrator unprotect the article please. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. Ty 04:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Enax99

This user has created what looks like a pretty obvious hoax at Natha Records. Their other edits are suspect, but the subjects of those edits (primarily Def Jam, Jay Z etc are outside of what I consider my expertise. Those edits don't seem to have attracted any attention so I could be way off. Could someone else check them out? Thx! I42 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have speedied Natha Records as a blatant hoax and removed the reference to it from Nathan Kress, but I did not revert the rest of this user's large edit to Kress as I too would prefer someone with more expertise to check it out. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits to Nathan Kress. Clearly vandalism, no sources for the claims of this 17 year old white actor being a famous rapper. Besides, it's not true. Woogee (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Every single edit by this user is vandalism and an attempt to create a hip hop career for Nathan Kress. I've given them a final warning about disruptive editing. Woogee (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in the process of checking Enax99's edits, I came across a slow-motion edit war going on at Def Jam South. Somebody with more knowledge of the subject needs to take a look at that article's edit history to see all of the reversions going on there. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Enax continues to add offensive BLP violations, after final warning. An IP editor reported him to AIV, and the report got removed with no action. How many hoaxes, BLP violations, vandalisms does this guy get? Woogee (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case tells me that vandals don't get blocked unless they're currently in the act of vandalism. Since when is this a rule? This guy has a final warning on his page.Woogee (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are protective of the encyclopedia, not punitive to editors (as punitive blocks are counter-productive, and "cooling down" blocks disastrous). So if a vandal has stopped (which is what we want, and all that we want), that's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between registered user vandals and IP vandals. IP's are often dynamic, so blocks on IP's are typically short-term unless there is a persistent pattern - and admins won't usually block unless they're currently active, again because of the dynamic nature of IP's. Registered users are typically cut less slack, in that it's more like "have they edited recently". But it's always up to the whim of the admin who finds it. Some will just block the guy, others will say keep an eye on him. So keep an eye on him, and if he does it again, go straight to WP:AIV and report him, and there's a good chance they'll bring the hammer down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy and Bugs. To clarify on my position: If a vandal has stopped vandalizing since the report, that's what we want. Remember that the page began as "vandalism in progress". And whatever some people think, it's still about stopping vandalism by whatever means necessary. It is not Wikipedia:Requests to have other users blocked, for a reason. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is vandalizing, it's best to post at least one warning on their talk page. If they ignore it, and appear to be running amok, take it to AIV. I've found that the admin's action is usually a function of the type of user and the frequency and type of vandalism. The admins usually want multiple warnings, especially for IP's. But if the vandal is in high gear, the admin will usually put a stop to it regardless. And as you say, if you warn them and they stop, you can assume they got the message and hopefully they've moved on to some other website. But they also bear watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But they got a final warning, continued to make BLP violating edits, and quit. So they get to come back tomorrow and do it again, then quit, then come back the day after that and come back and do it again, ad nauseum, because they aren't currently vandalizing. This is certainly a new way of assuming good faith. Woogee (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's annoying. As I said, it's often at the whim of the admin, or another way to put it is which admin you get. Some of them are more likely to indef than others. If he does it again, at AIV just say that he's been warned repeatedly and won't stop. If all his edits are vandalism, point that out also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from what I'm seeing, the final warning was made late on the 12th of January, after his recent problematic edits. So, no, he didn't make any more BLP violating edits after the last warning. Any more such edits, and I'll block the editor. Seeing that they haven't had a single productive edit since their very first one last month, that block would probably be indefinite. But if they've stopped, they've stopped, and a block isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically you're right [except for one thing - the "final warning" was issued BEFORE the final vandalism], but this brings up a sore subject. Certain admins are really reluctant to block even vandalism-only editors. They compel someone else to watch that editor's every move (if any) and then report them again, and they also spend time here arguing about it - as opposed to punching one button on their screen. It's a very ineffecient approach. To my mind, admins who take that approach are not doing their jobs properly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter? One edit out of line and they're gone. If the edit never comes, everything is good. If the edit does come, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. If they edit productively (like their first edit) then that justifies the restraint. Also, I don't see that there was vandalism after the warning. This was the final warning made at 15:31 of January 12, and their last edit that could be seen as vandalism (a hoax) was made at 13:10 that day (more than 2 hours before); it was at a now-deleted article. Only two edits total were made after the final warning, one which was an article creation deleted as a test page (which I wouldn't call vandalism) and this edit which is questionable but not vandalism. I'm not willing to make a punitive block on this, or any account, sorry. -- Atama頭 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to continually watch that editor's so-called contributions for further useless edits? Or are you expecting others to do your work for you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my "job" to do anything, Bugs. I've volunteered to mop up nasty stains on the encyclopedia, not be someone's hitman. I'm not afraid to block people if it's warranted in my judgment, and I've blocked a handful of people even though I've only been an admin for a bit over a month now. Your objection to my decision not to block this person yet is noted. And no, I don't promise to babysit this person, but as I've said, if I happen to catch word here or anywhere else that they've made what looks like a hoax edit or clear vandalism, I'll block them. -- Atama頭 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're not willing to block, and not willing to watch, then someone else has to, and it's a waste of their time. It's the OP's "reward" for bringing it here instead of taking it straight to AIV where it should have gone and been done with. If you're a new admin, you'll learn over time not to fool around with these characters. If they come here and vandalize, that's all they're going to be good for. I had a similar discussion awhile back with another admin, and I've observed that he's come around to my viewpoint. I predict you will too. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. I'm new and I'm cautious. Maybe overly so, but I'd rather screw up by being too careful with the tools than screw up by being too careless. We'll see if I start shooting from the hip in the next few months or so. -- Atama頭 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with caution. I use rollback cautiously. Maybe that guy won't come back, and then everything will be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, fine, in other words, this user can vandalize all they want and then quit without anything being done about it. Thanks for letting me know, I won't bother to report people about vandalism any more if they aren't currently vandalizing, if nobody is willing to do anything about it. Woogee (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is someone blocked if they stop being disruptive? The answer is no. Blocks aren't meant to punish people for what they've done wrong, they are meant to prevent future problems (see WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goal). Absent any particularly awful conduct that would result in an immediate block, the general practice is to give escalating warning messages, and if the editor persists after the final warning they are blocked. -- Atama頭 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Atama's comments. The function of blocking is not to punish, it's to protect Wikipedia. We want to encourage people to contribute usefully, and I think that we should always be cautious when blocking editors. Woogee, I understand you are concerned with protecting Wikipedia, and I applaud you for it. If you are concerned that the editor is trying to get around the system by not editing for a while when warned and then comes back again, then it might be worthwhile filing a user RFC. Please don't stop noting things at AIV though - we need people like yourself here! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Chanie

Resolved

 – Speedy G10 was declined. --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like another admin set of eyes on this. It strikes me as negative and lacking RS, a borderline G10 candidate. I don't want to tag the article or unilaterally speedy it in the middle of an AfD, so I'm asking for another set of eyes or two: Is it so egregious we should G10 it, or should the AfD run its course? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd speedy it under G10 if it was up to me. So, lacking that bit, I tagged it. —DoRD (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ...and had it declined. Back to AfD. —DoRD (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given it has references (can't say they are that great...) I'd let AFD run its course. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Username or other block: Here2Disrupt

Resolved

 – Username blocked with standard template recommeninding another name

Here2Disrupt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should really have been blocked under username policy. Needless to say, this account has not proved productive to the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This should be reported over there. —DoRD (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed UAA, but nevertheless I've blocked this account with the standard template recommending another name. This one is really not appropiate. Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And before anyone moans AGF the post script on this comment does not indicate a new user. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And just for your amusement, he also created User:Personalattacksonlyaccount. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus

Resolved

 – User warned.

Let's not compound the problem.

Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user despite requests and warnings persists in inserting BLP-sensitive, prejudicial and potentially libellous content at user talk:Jimbo Wales. I recommend an indefinite block until he agrees to abide by the biographies of living persons policy. --TS 12:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I have linked to news articles that refer to Roman Polanski is a [redacted], one of them a CNN article where the District Attorney calls him that. Wikipedia is not censor! And you do not have the right to remove someone's message, nor edit it to say something different. Please look at this edit, and note the last part please. [148] Dream Focus 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Having taken a look at this (I'm totally uninvolved), I agree with Tony - a block is definitely required here. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Also agree with Tony, I've seen the edits made by Dream Focus (Jimmy's talk page is on my watchlist) on going and DF's refusal to stop adding undue comments against the BLP policy. District Attorney are not the court nor the judge or jury, therefore he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I've left a (last) warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) A District Attorney's job is to try and prove that someone is what the charges say they are. If he was charged with being a child rapist, then the DA says again and again that he is a child rapist. That does not mean that he is a child rapist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify, he was already proven guilty in a court of law, then left the country to avoid jail time. He also admitted in even wrote in his biography that he had sex with the 13 year old child. Dream Focus 12:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC) You've been soapboxing over the most extreme, non-neutral terminology used to describe some of the background on this topic and I think you know what you've been doing. As I said elsewhere, there may indeed be a way to cite that terminology in the article itself without going astray of BLP, but you haven't come close to doing that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Oi! Let's not have another pith-on-Elmo incident! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I think it's safe to say, Cindy Brady never uttered that word on the Brady Bunch. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC) As he seems to have stopped there seems to be no urgent need to block. If he resumes there are now enough eyes on him to handle the problem. --TS 12:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Polanksi was convicted of statutory rape, and there is no question whatsoever that he committed that crime. Calling him a "child" rapist, however, is a question of definition, as his victim was 13 years old, not 5 or something. So it's best to stick to what he was convicted of and avoid emotionally-charged terminology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC) On what grounds is Jimbo Wales a rapist?! Let's not jump to conclusions! Ok where do we start? WIKI: Duck or WIKI: Beans? 86.136.73.76 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The above IP is either a sock or is pretending to be:[149] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson album discography

Not sure if this is the right place!! But i was wondering if a lock could be put on Michael Jackson album discography..there is an edit war going on and i think locking the page until its resolved would be the best thing!! see history here ..Sorry if this is the wrong place..cant imagine how a new editor ever finds this places to post at... anyways Looking for a third opinion here ....Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make a report at WP:RFPP. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani to save space here and to centralize relevant discussion. Note that Arbitration has been requested (see WP:RFAR). Please wait about a day or two before timestamping and allowing the bot to archive. –MuZemike

I'm time stamping this. Neither the subpage nor his page has had much added to it in the last couple days since his indef.--Crossmr (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Database server lag

Resolved

 – It's actually resolved, after a brief meltdown and talk of a meltdown amongst the editors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is something going on that there is a database lag of 1407 seconds? Every time I mention a concern about tidying up unwanted odds and ends at bots, people assure me the servers are robust and nothing could ever slow them down. So, how do we go from there to a 12 minute database server lag? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Try asking over at WP:VP/T. —DoRD (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, this is being discussed at WP:VP/T#Database lag. —DoRD (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, it's a pretty good discussion. Please come and join the fun. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it hit over 9000 for me last night. <g>. Collect (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? 9000?! THERE'S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT, CAN IIIIIIIIIIT?! HalfShadow 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone has possibly tried to get in to my account

I just got an email indicating that someone at the ip 189.87.236.6 asked for the password to my account. The email said I could safely ignore it if it wasn't me, but I find I'm having trouble just ignoring an apparent attempt to hack my account, inept though it may have been. I feel like I should do something, but I don't know what that something is, so I'm posting here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had another person tried to ask for/change my password before, I was told then that all they can do is ask and the emails come to me. So no worries. If you have a password that is a combination of numbers and letters (something really hard for you) then you already have a great line of protection. If you don't, I recommend changing it to something with numbers and letters, this will make cracking it difficult. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP traces back to a very rural region in Brazil. Oh well, I guess there is nothing to do down there than hack Wiki accounts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any contribs under that ip either. I wonder if it's a proxy or something. My first impulse was to ask a checkuser to look into this, but I wasn't sure that would prove anything even if they did find an account. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the proxy might explain why it was originating out of a farm town. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by Zzuzz as an open proxy. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

*Shrugs*. I've got a special folder in my inbox where all the "Someone, probably you from IP so-and-so, has requested a new password" mails end up. At a rate of almost one per week for almost five years, there's quite a collection, and it has never caused me any issues. Mike (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you have a strong password, I wouldn't worry too much about it. —DoRD (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

125.26.*

Hello. An IP series (and the user account "Silvermannen", probably also the retired user "Aleph") has been trolling the Swedish Wikipedia for some time now, and is being dealt with by the "reverting, blocking, forgetting" method. You should know that this has been brought to the English Wikipedia, so watch out. Blocking this particular IP would hardly help, but locking my talk page from editing by unregistered users would be nice. Plrk (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk page protected.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Someshkirar

For about twelve months, User:Someshkirar (contribs) has repeatedly created a series of articles, apparent on their talk page User talk:Someshkirar, all of which have been deleted, most under speedy or PROD, after warnings. The only source for these articles that I can find is a self-created website (http://dharampalkirar.com/). One of these articles was creation protected as well after a request. The reason I have come here is because I'm reluctant to brand this as outright vandalism, because of comments such as this, as well as other comments made after deletion requests, which potentially suggest good faith. However, none of these articles have any apparent basis at all. I'd like to point out this website I have come across as well. This has been going on for a long time now, and I'd like other people involved in it. Jhbuk (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you already gave him a final warning on 7 January against creating inappropriate articles. He's been creating such articles since February, 2009. Ignoring your warning he went ahead and created Dhanak samaj on 16 January. Since the message is not getting through, he's had warnings, and he is not here to build the encyclopedia, it could be time for an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Threat against a user?

I report a possible threat against a user here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rydberg matter. An IP talks about gas chambers and then says: "Be careful (username suppressed)."Xxanthippe (talk).

Kinda vague to be a specific threat, and the gas chamber is a method of state-sponsored execution or genocide, not of personal violence. The IP has only edited that AfD, so I'd suggest keeping an eye out for other problematic issues. This looks like it could just be someone who doesn't express themselves well in English. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have actually been intended to support the person it mentions, by warning him that though his ideas were good, they were likely to be suppressed. It's more an example of Godwin's law than a threat. ` DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your points that the statement is ambiguous. I was erring on the side of caution, as urged by policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Help needed at Shon Harris

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked

Stephen! ^Coming... 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an editor who is determined to get the Shon Harris page deleted. I declined the original request, as notability was asserted. The anon editor has continued to add speedy tags, and has now taken to commenting on the talk page as well. This editor has also raised a request for editor assistance which means that I am no longer an impartial editor and cannot block for disruptive editing. Would an admin not involved please pop over and decide what should be done? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor blocked Tiderolls 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope no-one thinks I'm out of order - I have sent to AfD. All 'references' are to Shon Harris's column in a technical magazine, and I cannot find anything significant elsewhere. Article has been tagged for this since 2007. This should settle the matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Misty Willows problematic images

Resolved

 – User blocked, do not unblock without emailing arbcom. SirFozzie (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

This user (claims to be a 16 year old girl) uploaded a nude picture of herself masturbating (on Commons) and used it in a userbox on her userpage. The image was deleted by Fran Rogers from commons. (Misty then changed the userbox to personally attack the deleting admin).

I gave this user a stern warning that, not only is this grounds for a permanent ban, but that young people her age have been tried as adults (for distributing child pornography) for posting nude pictures of themselves online, and that it is a seriously dangerous act. I recommend a permanent ban for this because this goes well beyond policy violation and compromises the legality of this site.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notified her. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That user has been skating under the radar since the fall of 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the images have already been oversighted and the user has been asked not to upload this sort of material again. If it stops there, I don't see that anything remains to be done in the on-wiki sense. Unless there's some other problem, pursuing this further seems to needlessly antagonize the user, and will probably only make things worse. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. Look at the userpage and indef the user now, who i'm much more inclined to believe is a paunchy middle-age male pornhound than a 16-year-old girl. Here are your options: It's an old creep who likes to pretend he's a 16-year-old model who is a lesbian, yet likes to share her bust size and masturbation habits at wikipedia OR it's really that 16-year-old. Either way you're indefing a creep or indefing an under age girl who we can't be responsible for. I'm voting for number 1, but either way, step up and get rid of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be a first, but I agree 110% with Bali ultimate. User indef'ed for starters. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The probability of the photo on that page actually being of the editor is about as likely as this being my photo. Either way, indef is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt is right--this is not a question of policy or decency, it's a question of the law. And, for the record, incidents like this are why I don't believe minors should ever be admins. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to SuaveArt and Jclemens; bullshit (still assuming good faith and civility though). If it's a kid, and they want to be exploited (although very unlikely), let them (but delete it from here). If they don't have any parents, then let them. Tell them to go somewhere else though. Now, since I'm probably overreacting now, let's press the panic button on me. If the law only says that only the criminals can get charged, then basically the child (if they don't have any parents) can take any picture of nearly anything (except Area 51). Either way, if they don't have any parents or they have a separate house they live in (unlikely though), tell them to go elsewhere. If it's a criminal or if they live with their parents, then we may have a problem.

Besides, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. That's a key policy that should be in this debate. ConCompS talk review 02:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles are not censored for content. A user page is not an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True, however in a situation like this, it is a point to keep in mind, however it's with a user page. ConCompS talk review 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How's that again??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really a point I think we should be keeping in mind when it comes to user pages. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles for a reason, since they must be reliably sourced. Userpages do not, and should not have that policy. Dayewalker (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Or instead of the implicit double negative, I assume you mean "user pages CAN be censored". And often are. Some users forget they don't own their user pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's an issue of law that the image should be taken down. The user page is also rather dumb. But 16-years-old's sometimes do stupid things (I'm assuming the age is accurate), and sometimes people who are older need to set clear boundaries. That said, unless there is some larger issue here, I don't see enough reason to block the user. Her contribs appear to show a long, ongoing, and productive history of edits. So I'd favor cleaning up the current issues, marking it down as a bit of childishness that we ask her not to repeat, and moving on. Obviously it would be different if it becomes an ongoing disruption, but I am in favor of giving youngsters leeway to improve and learn. Dragons flight (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What foolishness, We can do without the reality tv show edits and the uploads of allegedly underaged female pudenda (this wasn't the first time). We can do without the lies (this isn't a 16-year-old girl). If it really is a child so foolish (don't believe so, but i'll play along) let's not enable the danger the child is putting themselves in. This is a no-brainer. 86 the account. It's not like it isn't a sock of some other user or nothing.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is a child (and I've known teenager girls who really do behave like this), then there are far worse things for her to be doing that writing about models and reality TV shows. Giving her a productive use for her time would generally put her in less danger. Assuming she wants to be a productive contributor (and hasn't already been driven off by the storm created here), then I would be happy to let her continue to contribute. Obviously it depends on her cooperation, but there are many valuable underage contributors on Wikipedia and it is generally to out mutual benefit to encourage productive collaboration rather than stomping on every youngster who does something childish. Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The userpage has now been suppressed, as is only right under the circumstances, as it contained far too much personal information relating to a minor - Alison ^❤ 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, look at the Big Schlong Barnstar award thing. Oh look! A naked person! How come that image did NOT get deleted?! ConCompS talk review 03:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which item you're referring to, since there's no link - but does the image violate any laws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it, but I remember it was on an admin's page. And no, but how does WP:NOTCENSORED apply to that image? ConCompS talk review 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean why isn't it censored? Possibly because either (1) it doesn't break any laws; or (2) no one ever complained about it; or (3) both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it claim to be a minor? No? Well, then. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the belief that uploading what appears to be child porn is a large enough issue to warrant an indef in its own right. However, from a simple preventative standpoint, the user showed no evidence that they understood what was wrong about their actions, as displayed on Fran Roger's talk page. On this evidence, I see no reason to assume that that the user won't do this again, so providing leeway at this point seems more than a tad unwise. - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED means that we host anything that's appropriate for an encyclopedia, regardless of whether it offends anyone. We have an article on "nigger" and pictures of Mohammed, because that's what encyclopedias do. Letting users post allegedly child porn is neither supporting the encyclopedia nor within the bounds of what's legal in Florida, USA. And that should be that. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Succinctly and well put. – ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the user has actually vandalized wikipedia, there is little grounds for a indef block. We can't assume the person is a male pervert, and then act on that. I would suggest a block for a period of two years, which will supposedly bring the user to the legal age of majority. If the user still wishes to contribute, without harming the encyclopedia, then per the spirit of wikipedia, we must allow her to do so. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative and can be imposed by individual administrators at their reasonable discretion per policy. That's what I did. Bans are topics for community discussion and input, which is what's happening here. I would be perfectly fine with a 2 year ban, but being the blocking admin doesn't give me any special say in that. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I support block for at least two years. This is for their own protection. As pointed out teens are getting nabbed taking pictures and all of a sudden they're lumped into the Cho-MO catergory. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh... are you User:Hell in a Bucket or are you User:Sephiroth storm? Or both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? No I'm me. I guess all socks say that but I'm in Pueblo Colo. Not too sure where Seph is...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wondered why he was editing your comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm him, too. Oh damn. HalfShadow 04:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got him confused with Spartacus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know what to say.....Cool beans, for the record anyone can checkuser me at any time. I actually find it a matter of pride what I do here. (Most of the time anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not phrase my original question very well. I should have said, "Why is Sephiroth storm editing HiaB's comments?" I'd still like to know the answer to that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sephiroth storm edited his own comments, and added a signature to Hell In A Bucket's. My thoughts on why tend first to go towards it being an attempt at being helpful. --Onorem♠Dil 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen too many editors mess with other editors' comments, so my antenna were up a little bit. But HiaB doesn't seem concerned, so I won't be either. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking Misty

So Misty is at her talk page. She claims that the image that started this was merely a detailed pastel drawing and not a photograph (and hence not technically child porn). Personally, I think that's largely irrelevant since we wouldn't want illustrations that might be confused for child porn either. However, she also says she is willing to follow all of Wikipedia's rules going forward and would like to be unblocked. As I noted above I am generally in favor of giving her a second chance. Dragons flight (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I painted this possum with pastels, too... Fran Rogers (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Misty's basic argument about that illustration holds legal water. However, Misty claims she/he/it will abide by all policies henceforth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm split on this one. It's serious but you can't just turn people away. Flip of a coin either way and if she's really determined blocking won't help. Make sure it is known very little latitude for this in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, posting a link to the illustration that's on a different website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to endorse a ban because there's no way to verify whether it was or wasn't a "real picture" - just because now she says it was "just a drawing". Also the fact that she changed the userbox to attack the admin who deleted the picture makes me less sympathetic. Futhermore she's now blocked on Commons for reuploading it. No sympathy here, sorry.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the image from "Misty"'s talk page, because the same image was recently deleted on commons as illicit CP: Fran Rogers: "Child porn run through a photoshop filter is still child porn." I'd strongly suggest deleting "her" talk page, and changing the block settings to disable talk page access. Az29 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Especially after viewing "her" latest responses on her talk page.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock per the last couple of sentences on this diff. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with uploading child porn (breaking the law)?--SuaveArt (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with unblocking this user. Since they are now blocked, they have no voice for their advocacy here. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse 2 year Ban per suggestion upthread, as blocking admin. I just don't see any upside to unblocking her at this point, whatever assurances are made. 2 years gives her time to attain majority, and if not really a 16 year old girl, should give the troll operating the user account plenty of time to get bored and go away. We don't need teenage exhibitionists and sexual rebels (or people who claim to be such) to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock There is little to suggest that the user will continue to upload potentially offensive or illegal images. It the user does so, they can be punished for that. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Question Is the first incident from this user, or has the user done other disruptive things in the past? Doc Quintana (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Baseball Bugs, this isn't the first, but I'm not aware of the earlier incidents myself.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant simply that the user has been online since 2007. Before the user page was zapped, it seemed to be not much changed from early on. But I think the controversial image was fairly recent. The problem now is that the user states they will obey the policies, but then is wikilawyering over it. The user should not only stay blocked, its talk page should be disabled and cleared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any diffs outside of this issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you missed this one - the last couple of sentences appear soapboxy to me, and is my reasoning for keeping this user blocked. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No I saw it, just because the user doesnt believe they were wrong doesnt mean they cannot edit in line with our policies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Probation if this the first time, keep the block in place if it isn't. Either way, the deletion of the picture in user space was the right move. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock because I actually doubt they'll try this again having seen that they were almost kicked off WP. If they do, I'd support an indef ban. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Statement User has stated that they will abide by all editing policies in the future. The user does feel that they were within their rights to upload the image, but I do not believe the user will violate any policies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin) Unblock Man... what's a block for? For a solution to a problem, not for punishment per se. User promises believably that she will abide by policy. Problem gone. Without problem, no is solution needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You find it believeable I don't Viridae^Talk 07:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • May I ask why? WP:AFG? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good faith has been exhausted by the disruptive comments she made on her talkpage. She's essentially turning the discussion into her rant about why "teenagers taking nude pics of themselves isn't morally wrong". Most of her comments are very sarcastic and show that she doesn't take her actions seriously. She even said basically that it's Wikipedia's fault because she "never read a policy that 16 year olds aren't allowed to upload nude pics". So there's not much room left to assume "good faith" here.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • • We have two options here. One is a user with such bad judgment that they would repeatedly upload images that can get people who view them put in Jail (and her in jail for uploading them), or we have a troll/honeypot operator. In either case, I am urging people to act VERY carefully here and to consider the consequences. SirFozzie (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • She lied about the photo being a pastel, she re-ploaded after it was deleted. Viridae^Talk 07:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
        • OR we simply have a kid that didn't know what's appropriate, and has now been told what does and doesn't fly... ah well... enough of that. G'ahead'n block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
          • At this point, I've changed the message on the block log to make it clear that unblocking this user should not be done without discussing this with ArbCom first. SirFozzie (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Arbcom

Huh? SirFozzie, is this a collective action of Arbcom (i.e. by motion) or an action of you, individually? It is very unusual for Arbcom to simply shutdown what seemed to be a productive community discussion, so I would like to understand why you feel it is necessary to shut things down in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The email address comes to the Arbitration Committee as a whole. As it turns out, there are only a couple of us online right now, and this is a fast-moving situation. At this point, it is important to allow time for some additional, privacy-related information to be processed and reviewed before a final decision is made. Right now the account is indefinitely blocked; that doesn't mean forever, it means until there is reason to believe that the situation is resolved. That may take a bit of time. I anticipate that the salient details will be brought to the community presently. Risker (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It bears asking and is in no way a legal threat. What happens if this comes up in some obscure investigation and we don't report it. Ethically are we required to do anything about it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. A. we cannot verify the image was indeed CP. B. Doing so could cause an intense media backlash against wikimedia for not somehow blocking the original upload. C. major issues for the user. Technicly, it could be illegal, depending on how the image was found, for the user to even possess the material. In addition, I dont know if you ever took any pictures of yourself when u were underage, but lets assume for the moment you did and posted them online foolishly. What would you want someone to do in that situation? Is there a link to the Arbcom discussion? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Shon Harris

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked

Stephen! ^Coming... 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an editor who is determined to get the Shon Harris page deleted. I declined the original request, as notability was asserted. The anon editor has continued to add speedy tags, and has now taken to commenting on the talk page as well. This editor has also raised a request for editor assistance which means that I am no longer an impartial editor and cannot block for disruptive editing. Would an admin not involved please pop over and decide what should be done? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor blocked Tiderolls 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope no-one thinks I'm out of order - I have sent to AfD. All 'references' are to Shon Harris's column in a technical magazine, and I cannot find anything significant elsewhere. Article has been tagged for this since 2007. This should settle the matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Misty Willows problematic images

Resolved

 – User blocked, do not unblock without emailing arbcom. SirFozzie (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

This user (claims to be a 16 year old girl) uploaded a nude picture of herself masturbating (on Commons) and used it in a userbox on her userpage. The image was deleted by Fran Rogers from commons. (Misty then changed the userbox to personally attack the deleting admin).

I gave this user a stern warning that, not only is this grounds for a permanent ban, but that young people her age have been tried as adults (for distributing child pornography) for posting nude pictures of themselves online, and that it is a seriously dangerous act. I recommend a permanent ban for this because this goes well beyond policy violation and compromises the legality of this site.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notified her. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That user has been skating under the radar since the fall of 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the images have already been oversighted and the user has been asked not to upload this sort of material again. If it stops there, I don't see that anything remains to be done in the on-wiki sense. Unless there's some other problem, pursuing this further seems to needlessly antagonize the user, and will probably only make things worse. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. Look at the userpage and indef the user now, who i'm much more inclined to believe is a paunchy middle-age male pornhound than a 16-year-old girl. Here are your options: It's an old creep who likes to pretend he's a 16-year-old model who is a lesbian, yet likes to share her bust size and masturbation habits at wikipedia OR it's really that 16-year-old. Either way you're indefing a creep or indefing an under age girl who we can't be responsible for. I'm voting for number 1, but either way, step up and get rid of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be a first, but I agree 110% with Bali ultimate. User indef'ed for starters. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The probability of the photo on that page actually being of the editor is about as likely as this being my photo. Either way, indef is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt is right--this is not a question of policy or decency, it's a question of the law. And, for the record, incidents like this are why I don't believe minors should ever be admins. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to SuaveArt and Jclemens; bullshit (still assuming good faith and civility though). If it's a kid, and they want to be exploited (although very unlikely), let them (but delete it from here). If they don't have any parents, then let them. Tell them to go somewhere else though. Now, since I'm probably overreacting now, let's press the panic button on me. If the law only says that only the criminals can get charged, then basically the child (if they don't have any parents) can take any picture of nearly anything (except Area 51). Either way, if they don't have any parents or they have a separate house they live in (unlikely though), tell them to go elsewhere. If it's a criminal or if they live with their parents, then we may have a problem.

Besides, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. That's a key policy that should be in this debate. ConCompS talk review 02:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles are not censored for content. A user page is not an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True, however in a situation like this, it is a point to keep in mind, however it's with a user page. ConCompS talk review 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How's that again??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really a point I think we should be keeping in mind when it comes to user pages. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles for a reason, since they must be reliably sourced. Userpages do not, and should not have that policy. Dayewalker (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Or instead of the implicit double negative, I assume you mean "user pages CAN be censored". And often are. Some users forget they don't own their user pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's an issue of law that the image should be taken down. The user page is also rather dumb. But 16-years-old's sometimes do stupid things (I'm assuming the age is accurate), and sometimes people who are older need to set clear boundaries. That said, unless there is some larger issue here, I don't see enough reason to block the user. Her contribs appear to show a long, ongoing, and productive history of edits. So I'd favor cleaning up the current issues, marking it down as a bit of childishness that we ask her not to repeat, and moving on. Obviously it would be different if it becomes an ongoing disruption, but I am in favor of giving youngsters leeway to improve and learn. Dragons flight (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What foolishness, We can do without the reality tv show edits and the uploads of allegedly underaged female pudenda (this wasn't the first time). We can do without the lies (this isn't a 16-year-old girl). If it really is a child so foolish (don't believe so, but i'll play along) let's not enable the danger the child is putting themselves in. This is a no-brainer. 86 the account. It's not like it isn't a sock of some other user or nothing.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is a child (and I've known teenager girls who really do behave like this), then there are far worse things for her to be doing that writing about models and reality TV shows. Giving her a productive use for her time would generally put her in less danger. Assuming she wants to be a productive contributor (and hasn't already been driven off by the storm created here), then I would be happy to let her continue to contribute. Obviously it depends on her cooperation, but there are many valuable underage contributors on Wikipedia and it is generally to out mutual benefit to encourage productive collaboration rather than stomping on every youngster who does something childish. Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The userpage has now been suppressed, as is only right under the circumstances, as it contained far too much personal information relating to a minor - Alison ^❤ 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, look at the Big Schlong Barnstar award thing. Oh look! A naked person! How come that image did NOT get deleted?! ConCompS talk review 03:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which item you're referring to, since there's no link - but does the image violate any laws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it, but I remember it was on an admin's page. And no, but how does WP:NOTCENSORED apply to that image? ConCompS talk review 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean why isn't it censored? Possibly because either (1) it doesn't break any laws; or (2) no one ever complained about it; or (3) both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it claim to be a minor? No? Well, then. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the belief that uploading what appears to be child porn is a large enough issue to warrant an indef in its own right. However, from a simple preventative standpoint, the user showed no evidence that they understood what was wrong about their actions, as displayed on Fran Roger's talk page. On this evidence, I see no reason to assume that that the user won't do this again, so providing leeway at this point seems more than a tad unwise. - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED means that we host anything that's appropriate for an encyclopedia, regardless of whether it offends anyone. We have an article on "nigger" and pictures of Mohammed, because that's what encyclopedias do. Letting users post allegedly child porn is neither supporting the encyclopedia nor within the bounds of what's legal in Florida, USA. And that should be that. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Succinctly and well put. – ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless the user has actually vandalized wikipedia, there is little grounds for a indef block. We can't assume the person is a male pervert, and then act on that. I would suggest a block for a period of two years, which will supposedly bring the user to the legal age of majority. If the user still wishes to contribute, without harming the encyclopedia, then per the spirit of wikipedia, we must allow her to do so. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative and can be imposed by individual administrators at their reasonable discretion per policy. That's what I did. Bans are topics for community discussion and input, which is what's happening here. I would be perfectly fine with a 2 year ban, but being the blocking admin doesn't give me any special say in that. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I support block for at least two years. This is for their own protection. As pointed out teens are getting nabbed taking pictures and all of a sudden they're lumped into the Cho-MO catergory. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh... are you User:Hell in a Bucket or are you User:Sephiroth storm? Or both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? No I'm me. I guess all socks say that but I'm in Pueblo Colo. Not too sure where Seph is...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wondered why he was editing your comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm him, too. Oh damn. HalfShadow 04:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got him confused with Spartacus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know what to say.....Cool beans, for the record anyone can checkuser me at any time. I actually find it a matter of pride what I do here. (Most of the time anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not phrase my original question very well. I should have said, "Why is Sephiroth storm editing HiaB's comments?" I'd still like to know the answer to that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sephiroth storm edited his own comments, and added a signature to Hell In A Bucket's. My thoughts on why tend first to go towards it being an attempt at being helpful. --Onorem♠Dil 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen too many editors mess with other editors' comments, so my antenna were up a little bit. But HiaB doesn't seem concerned, so I won't be either. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking Misty

So Misty is at her talk page. She claims that the image that started this was merely a detailed pastel drawing and not a photograph (and hence not technically child porn). Personally, I think that's largely irrelevant since we wouldn't want illustrations that might be confused for child porn either. However, she also says she is willing to follow all of Wikipedia's rules going forward and would like to be unblocked. As I noted above I am generally in favor of giving her a second chance. Dragons flight (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I painted this possum with pastels, too... Fran Rogers (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Misty's basic argument about that illustration holds legal water. However, Misty claims she/he/it will abide by all policies henceforth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm split on this one. It's serious but you can't just turn people away. Flip of a coin either way and if she's really determined blocking won't help. Make sure it is known very little latitude for this in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, posting a link to the illustration that's on a different website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to endorse a ban because there's no way to verify whether it was or wasn't a "real picture" - just because now she says it was "just a drawing". Also the fact that she changed the userbox to attack the admin who deleted the picture makes me less sympathetic. Futhermore she's now blocked on Commons for reuploading it. No sympathy here, sorry.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the image from "Misty"'s talk page, because the same image was recently deleted on commons as illicit CP: Fran Rogers: "Child porn run through a photoshop filter is still child porn." I'd strongly suggest deleting "her" talk page, and changing the block settings to disable talk page access. Az29 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Especially after viewing "her" latest responses on her talk page.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock per the last couple of sentences on this diff. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with uploading child porn (breaking the law)?--SuaveArt (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with unblocking this user. Since they are now blocked, they have no voice for their advocacy here. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse 2 year Ban per suggestion upthread, as blocking admin. I just don't see any upside to unblocking her at this point, whatever assurances are made. 2 years gives her time to attain majority, and if not really a 16 year old girl, should give the troll operating the user account plenty of time to get bored and go away. We don't need teenage exhibitionists and sexual rebels (or people who claim to be such) to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock There is little to suggest that the user will continue to upload potentially offensive or illegal images. It the user does so, they can be punished for that. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Question Is the first incident from this user, or has the user done other disruptive things in the past? Doc Quintana (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Baseball Bugs, this isn't the first, but I'm not aware of the earlier incidents myself.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant simply that the user has been online since 2007. Before the user page was zapped, it seemed to be not much changed from early on. But I think the controversial image was fairly recent. The problem now is that the user states they will obey the policies, but then is wikilawyering over it. The user should not only stay blocked, its talk page should be disabled and cleared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any diffs outside of this issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you missed this one - the last couple of sentences appear soapboxy to me, and is my reasoning for keeping this user blocked. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No I saw it, just because the user doesnt believe they were wrong doesnt mean they cannot edit in line with our policies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Probation if this the first time, keep the block in place if it isn't. Either way, the deletion of the picture in user space was the right move. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock because I actually doubt they'll try this again having seen that they were almost kicked off WP. If they do, I'd support an indef ban. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Statement User has stated that they will abide by all editing policies in the future. The user does feel that they were within their rights to upload the image, but I do not believe the user will violate any policies. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin) Unblock Man... what's a block for? For a solution to a problem, not for punishment per se. User promises believably that she will abide by policy. Problem gone. Without problem, no is solution needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You find it believeable I don't Viridae^Talk 07:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • May I ask why? WP:AFG? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good faith has been exhausted by the disruptive comments she made on her talkpage. She's essentially turning the discussion into her rant about why "teenagers taking nude pics of themselves isn't morally wrong". Most of her comments are very sarcastic and show that she doesn't take her actions seriously. She even said basically that it's Wikipedia's fault because she "never read a policy that 16 year olds aren't allowed to upload nude pics". So there's not much room left to assume "good faith" here.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • • We have two options here. One is a user with such bad judgment that they would repeatedly upload images that can get people who view them put in Jail (and her in jail for uploading them), or we have a troll/honeypot operator. In either case, I am urging people to act VERY carefully here and to consider the consequences. SirFozzie (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
      • She lied about the photo being a pastel, she re-ploaded after it was deleted. Viridae^Talk 07:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
        • OR we simply have a kid that didn't know what's appropriate, and has now been told what does and doesn't fly... ah well... enough of that. G'ahead'n block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
          • At this point, I've changed the message on the block log to make it clear that unblocking this user should not be done without discussing this with ArbCom first. SirFozzie (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Arbcom

Huh? SirFozzie, is this a collective action of Arbcom (i.e. by motion) or an action of you, individually? It is very unusual for Arbcom to simply shutdown what seemed to be a productive community discussion, so I would like to understand why you feel it is necessary to shut things down in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The email address comes to the Arbitration Committee as a whole. As it turns out, there are only a couple of us online right now, and this is a fast-moving situation. At this point, it is important to allow time for some additional, privacy-related information to be processed and reviewed before a final decision is made. Right now the account is indefinitely blocked; that doesn't mean forever, it means until there is reason to believe that the situation is resolved. That may take a bit of time. I anticipate that the salient details will be brought to the community presently. Risker (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It bears asking and is in no way a legal threat. What happens if this comes up in some obscure investigation and we don't report it. Ethically are we required to do anything about it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. A. we cannot verify the image was indeed CP. B. Doing so could cause an intense media backlash against wikimedia for not somehow blocking the original upload. C. major issues for the user. Technicly, it could be illegal, depending on how the image was found, for the user to even possess the material. In addition, I dont know if you ever took any pictures of yourself when u were underage, but lets assume for the moment you did and posted them online foolishly. What would you want someone to do in that situation? Is there a link to the Arbcom discussion? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Block evading IP

75.34.51.152 is pretty obviously blocked puppetmaster Gerryh7 (see sockpuppet reports here and here (same geographic area, same article interests). Not sure where to go with this; since it's not an account I didn't think it belonged at WP:SPI. Is ANI an appropriate venue, or should I be posting this elsewhere? Thanks in advance for any assistance, TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good place, and you could also try WP:AIV to see which produces faster results. The response at either place will depend on which admins are keeping watch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening the SPI and adding the IP to it is another possibility, but that could take awhile for any action to occur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to get to you on my talk page as I've been busy IRL lately. (I was also testing some bot scripts.) At this point, I don't see what blocking is going to do as the IP hasn't edited in a couple of days. Given his history, I doubt that this IP is going to be static. –MuZemike 16:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Reenem

I want to point attention towards the editing of Reenem. This user has a very long history of editing with almost complete disregard for sourcing. As recent examples, see the last four articles he was active at: [150], [151], [152], [153]

Unfortunately, this is not a one-off. Check almost any of his edits, only in the rarest of cases does he give a source for his additions/changes. I am also not the first one to notice this, take a look at his talk page. Still, I hesitated for a long time about filing this complaint, because Reenem seems to be a quality editor otherwise. Very active, rarely any disputes, the material he inserts looks valid most of the time. However, the sheer amount of edits he does, makes a mockery out of WP:SOURCE. And it also makes it very hard and extremely time intensive for other editors to later check which parts of the article are sourced and which are not. It would be best if he could somehow be convinced to source his edits, but given that he very rarely edits talk pages, and almost never answers his own talk page, I am at a loss about how this can be achieved. --Xeeron (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked three days to force his attention; can be unblocked if he responds constructively. If he just returns to the same pattern of editing after the block he should be blocked for longer periods. This has indeed been going on for much too long, and it seems he systematically fails to get the message otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about overlinking of articles

This User:Andycjp makes many minor edits a day. Most involve adding or changing links between different pages. And most IMO are nonconstructive. I have posted a comment here [154] to which he responded here [155]. Wondering if someone could give us another opinion? Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly edits like this violate WP:OVERLINK. ^Bongo_matic 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've warned this editor at User talk:Andycjp#ANI discussion of your edits that he risks a block for disruptive editing, since he's been asked not to do this by so many different people since 2008, and has been at ANI twice before on the same matter. This feedback does not seem to have affected his practices in the slightest, and he is making cleanup work for other people. His reply "I believe I have been referred to the admins because of my views rather than the edits themselves" suggests an unwillingness to get the point. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He continues here [156] after warnings and here [157].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been given a {{uw-mos3}} [158]. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this is fair. Disruptive, maybe. Vandalism? No. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the tag on his talk page it says "please stop using disruptive formatting". If you look back at his history you will see that he / she has made many similar edits over many months / years and been asked to change a few times in the past. No one has made an accusation of vandalism.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone used twinkle and the edit summary at the link I point to says it was reverting vandalism. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Over linking is disruptive. It may not be vandalism per se, but if he won't stop he will still have to be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah, I know :-) My only point is that it isn't vandalism. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop user from stealing photos and putting them on Wikipedia

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. User informed about WP:FFD.  Sandstein  21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurice_Clemmons.jpeg

This photo was stolen. No copyright information given. No written permission from the author of the photo.

This user, SchmuckyTheCat, even vandalizes property (see the user page) by spraying the user name on a building. Wikipedia cannot condone this kind of behavior. In fact, someone should remove the photo from the user page. At least do this, if you don't block the user.Goldamania (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This file was approved by an admin, and even has an OTRS tag on it. What is your evidence to the contrary? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And now it seems that you are not assuming good faith [159] without knowing the entire story (re: the OTRS permission). ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was approved through OTRS, and has a note saying that it was released anonymously. Does this photograph belong to you? If you're asserting copyright, since OTRS has already looked into this, you should contact OTRS to explain to them that this is your own photograph and that you did not, after all, release it. They'll probably ask for some verification that it's your photo. I'm not sure why you assume that SchmuckyTheCat drew the graffiti that is on his userpage; if he had, wouldn't he have written his whole name? I assumed that he saw the STC graffiti and took a photo of it because of its similarity to his own name. Of course, if you have some evidence that he has vandalized property, it would be reasonable for you to take that evidence to the local police where the graffiti is. Assume good faith is a rule that would seem to apply in both cases, cxu ne? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since most images have metadata, this should not be hard to do. If you have the camera, take a picture of, say, today's newspaper and upload it (not to Commons), the metadata will show that it was taken with the same camera. If you do not have the camera, do the same with images that the uploading editor could not possibly have (say, family photos or the like).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The explanation on how/why I uploaded the photo was made available to OTRS. It has no metadata.

The StC graffiti was something I saw and snapped a picture of. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldamania, if you believe that the image should be deleted, the process to request deletion is WP:FFD. Personally, having read the OTRS statement, I believe that it is currently sufficiently likely that the photo is correctly licenced, and should be kept.  Sandstein  21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hostility and attitude from 98.248.32.44

Please note I posted this at WP:WQA and was advised to post here for faster response.

Earlier today I noticed 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · block log) tagging a number of articles for CSD, PROD, and AfD. I noticed his AfD nominations were going incomplete, as the WP:AFD subpage for discussion was not being created. I completed several (three I believe) of his nominations by creating the appropriate pages. It is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Bone and the Hidden King that the anonymous user has decided to take offense to my assumption of his lack of knowledge. Please note this diff, which in my opinion borders on, if not constitutes, a personal attack. He soon removed this comment and replaced it with another. Of course all page history is available.

He edits and talks like a user with experience, reverting vandalism and removing unreferenced/poorly referenced material, but at the same time shows a remarkable disrespect for the ideals of civility, discussion, compromise, etc. I have been tracking this user's edits, removing speedy deletion tags from a couple articles that do not qualify for speedy deletion. In the process I have noticed him removing redlinks from articles potentially against the guidelines in Wikipedia:Red link, which state that red links serve as notices that new articles can/should be created. I have further seen him be sharp with other anonymous editors (see this talk page) over the issue.

I placed two notices on his talk page, one in regards to personal attacks, another in regards to treatment of newcomers. Both were removed, as I was labeled a "sour grape".

While this user may know how to click his way around Wikipedia I feel he really needs a break to review ALL Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:CIVIL, and work on interpersonal skills. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments are brusque but not exactly uncivil, and the diff you provide is by no means a personal attack against you. Removing notices from your own talk page is fine. Redlinks can be created, but filling lists with redlinks isn't a good idea, they are only appropriate if an article is likely to be created. Redlinks in "See also" sections are also not appropriate. Fences&Windows 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Boring vandal at RfA

Resolved

 – Troll blocked and users are reminded to use common sense and the duck method. Killiondude (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block. User:Brazilnode Relevant link here. Single purpose account, but not entertaining enough to warn, etc. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say boring - just a new editor who didn't make a good judgement call on an RfA question. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, indef blocked? That seems a little extreme. Assuming good faith, this was a new editor who didn't realize how serious jokes are taken by some people. At worst, this is an example of "silly vandalism". Even so, they should have at least recieved a level 4 warning. Especially considering the fact that the edit was removed, they re-added it (04:00), then they were warned (04:53), with their last edit being, "Ok it wont happen again. Sorry." Even assuming ArcAngel's message to them is a valid level 4 user warning, they didn't edit at all after the warning before being indef blocked a few minutes later. Because they're not entertaining enough to warn? They essentially made two unconstructive edits before being labeled as either a sock or a single purpose account. What the hell happened to AGF and WP:BITE? Swarm^Talk 06:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This admins actions seem to be massively disproportionate to the amount of trouble that Brazilnode has caused. An explanation would be appropriate. Weakopedia (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's nearly certain that this person has another account somewhere, because very few people would go to an RfA and start asking questions that imply that he has been reading the RfA all along, as one of their first edits. Let alone voting in one. The block seems appropriate to me. (I do remember that he had a userpage at first but don't remember what was on it.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. He was clearly purely joking. Why not handle our "hunches" that someone is a sockpuppet with a sockpuppet investigation (assuming someone can actually produce any evidence), rather than assuming bad faith and taking the chance of blocking a newbie. Or give them a chance after they've received a warning, instead of giving them none at all. Again, this might just be vandalism, in which case an indef block without warning is completely over the top. Swarm^Talk 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware this kind of "joking" was considered appropriate. I guess we should assume more good faith when an editors fourth edit is to attack an administrator, cause obviously they are new here and are just making some "test" edits worthy of a level one warning. Honestly, lets use some common sense here and ignore some of the needless bureaucracy associated with level 1-4 warnings. What first time editor makes edits like that to an RfA? What first time editor cites an administrator by name and then makes a degrading remark about them? Oh, and lastly, while it was deleted...the "editors" first edit was to add a picture of dildos to their userpage. Yeah, clearly here to build an encyclopedia. Tiptoety ^talk 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Common sense is needed for this kind of vandalism, not a fancy warning template. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• moved to user talk page*Swarm^Talk

Blatant troll. Although "not here to build an encyclopedia" as a criterion for blocking would probably eliminate half the people at ANI, the thread is ready for {{resolved}} as far as I'm concerned. Recognizance (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Europe

Some eyes are needed here. Apparently, Wikipedia is being used as part of a political campaign of some sort (if it's not plain trolling). Lots of WP:SPA users voting keep on a rather incomprehensible article about some EU memo. Pcap ping 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, article is just one giant mashup... Checkuser might be warranted in this situation, although I'm not acquanted with WP:SOCK that well. It's also just possible (as you said) they could be individuals from a political campaign, but what the heck are they trying to get across? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think checkusering is really needed, unless a pattern of these build up. I assume that the AfD may have been linked on a forum somewhere, as there are many forums about the place which are either pro or anti-EU. With the template in place, I don't think they will affect the AfD outcome, as many of their keep !votes are playing along the lines of "We should keep this because it will be important" and other such things. --Taelus (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, per WP:CRYSTAL :P Anyways, I mass tagged the single use accounts. All should be well now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bo.talks And User:65.88.88.126 Edit-warring on Jiddu Krishnamurti

Now, I neither know nor care which one is 'right', and I can't report it to 3RR for exactly that reason as well. Protecting the page, while possible, would still result in one 'wrong' version of the page being set, which would piss one of them off. Suggestions? HalfShadow 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IP a 3RR warning and Bo.talks has received one too. If the edit warring continues, just lock the page (it's always the wrong version). Fences&Windows 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Resolved

I reverted what I took to be an unexplained (i.e. vandalistic) mass deletion from this ANI page:[160] If my reversion was incorrect, feel free to revert my reversion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, it looks like someone was looking at an old revision, clicked edit to reply to something, and thus accidentally saved an older version of the noticeboard over the current one. Seems to happen every so often, almost certainly a mistake I would say. --Taelus (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be OK, then, and he can always re-enter whatever his question was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Chamber of Commerce/Sydney Business Chamber

Resolved

 – Done, old page moved to the new name, deleting the duplicate in the process. Fences&Windows 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a history merge is needed (or something). 98.248.32.44 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant harassment

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

Resolved

 – A community ban has been established. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This complaint goes to:

• Constant harassment from a cabal of anti-Chiropractic POV editors who attack everything chiropractic.
• Specific harassment and vandalistic tagging by User:IP69.226.103.13 of a BLP Stephen J. Press(and see edit warring on the talk page thereof);
• And, now User:Bongomatic's Violation of WP:OUTING of another editor on my talk page; and finally
• Slander by User:BullRangifer out and out calling me a liar. I do hope this gets resolved amicably here.

[Explanation] I was accused of sockpuppetry once before; a discussion was held, and I was away while it occurred, and not given an opportunity to even respond. I vehemently deny that I ever intended to violate any Wiki policy in that regard. I admitted that, under the circumstances it must certainly looked like that to those who "investigated". The guy in Arizona whose account was in question was blocked. NOW, there is another individual, who supports my position in various venues, and HE is being outed, they claims that "trivial investigation reveals that" he's my son. Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant, and MUST not be allowed to contitute sockpuppetry. My son is an indivdual with a Master's degree in Computer Science, who is a separate entity, and has a right to his own opinions. If Wanyethegoblin is my son, it's by the way, a surprise to me too. I have never controlled his account in any way, and no one can demonstrate to the contrary. You may certainly CU to prove that we do not have the same IP address EVER. Frankly I would like to just contribute to the volume of information in Wikipedia in my field, but this cabal of harassers has made that nearly impossible, and VERY unpleasant. Please help me!!! ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the fact that Waynethegoblin acts as a co-sysop at your wiki, I find it hard to believe your denials ("if", "a surprise"). You must have known that he was your son all along. His contribution history at WikiChiro and here tells a very different story. You would never entrust such a project to a stranger. Taking chiropractic articles from Wikipedia without attribution and then "chirofying" (your word) them so they are no longer NPOV is a chiro propaganda project which you now expect to use to promote your wiki here by adding attribution/spamlinking of your wiki here. No wonder your template is nominated for deletion. This all stinks. Presenting chiropractic here in an NPOV manner is fine, but so far all you've done here is to attempt to promote yourself and chiropractic in a non-NPOV manner. Such promotion is improper. You follow in the advertising/brainwashing tradition of B.J. Palmer (who practically invented mass marketing), and Wikipedia isn't designed for such advertising. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's relevant if it is your son. It's called meatpuppetry....see WP:MEATPUPPETHell In A Bucket (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A "cabal of anti-Chiropractic POV editors who attack everything chiropractic"? Your use of language seems faintly ridiculous. However, it might be better to be more specific how you are being harassed, and by whom. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Bongomatic

I am not an expert on the WP:OUTING policy and if my edits are inconsistent with them, I am happy to have them oversighted. After I suggested on the talk page of Drsjpdc (talk · contribs) that he and Waynethegoblin (talk · contribs) were potentially involved in meatpuppetry in violation of the sockpuppetry policy, I received this message on my talk page that included significant personal details of the posting editor. That information when combined with widely available (Google searchable) information was sufficient to identify the editor. Without using names or providing any additional detail, I provided the nature of the connection between the two editors on the talk page of Drsjpdc, the possible "meatpuppet master", as part of the ongoing discussion. I have refactored my original comments and (as stated above) would be happy to have the original information oversighted. ^Bongo_matic 04:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We have an anti-chiropractor cabal now? When did that happen? How do I get on the mailing list? Bongo, just because it's on google doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. That being said, nowhere in WP:OUTING does it say that claiming a familial link, with no other identifying information, constitutes outing. I'd say it's something of a grey area, and would advise you to excercise more caution in the future, but it hardly seems actionable. Drsjpdc, coming on AN/I and claiming to be the victim of a vast conspiracy seldom endears the editors here towards you. If there is ongoing disruptive editing by a particular editor, then provide diffs and we'll see if there is a problem that needs addressing. Otherwise, if you simply object to the content of an article, feel free to open an rfc on it, and uninvolved editors will take a look and see if there is in fact a problem. Try and be cool, collected, and polite when doing so, as your claim will get a great deal further. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that other information has been released than just a familial link, including the city where the editor goes to school, and the name and profession of User:Drsjpdc I would say that it is a clear case of outing. But then, I take a hard line against the release of any personal information. DigitalC (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that outing must be strictly prohibited, but who posted the other information? It seems as if Drsjpdc himself provided most of the personally identifiable information. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The information has been provided by Press and "Wayne" themselves. Note that yet another SPI is underway, and in the process of such proceedings it is allowed and necessary to go very close to the identity of a person, including their location if it has been revealed by their IP edits, or in this case the comments of Press himself. The only thing they have not told is the actual name of "Wayne", well, that's not even true, since Press originally named him in his autobiography! Note that edit histories are fair game for information here unless a ban against using such information has been given for safety reasons. In that case, courtesy is extended by other editors to protect the editor from endangerment, and violations of the ban are met with banning for outing. Such requests for privacy (like at the top of my talk page) are respected and enforced very strictly. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not the name of Press's children, the issue is that an editor is attempting to out User:Waynethegoblin, and attempting to establish a relationship between the two editors which has not been established, and is basically being denied by one of the editors. Coupled with other information which IS already available, (such as in the Stephen J. Press history and in the SPI) it seems to me to be a violation of WP:OUTTING. DigitalC (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to futher clarify my comments here. Again, the issue is that an editor has attempted to out User:Waynethegoblin by alleging a relationship to User:Drsjpdc which would identify User:Waynethegoblin. The other previously self-released information makes it easier to determine that identity. DigitalC (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

First, as I said at the outset, I have no interest in any inappropriate information staying onsite, so if anyone cares, just oversight the original edit. Second, since my original edit, Drsjpdc (while signed in and through an IP address he acknowledges is his actually provided considerably [information] that could be considered OUTING or making correspondence likely than I ever did. ^Bongo_matic 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by BullRangifer

I have always wondered why Stephen Press, DC wasn't blocked for his sockpuppetry at the last SPI. At that time no message was sent to him that he should change his behavior, and so it has been. (Well, he was told not to do it again, which is pretty lame. Socking is a blockable offense, and he should have been blocked!) Since then he has continued his constant promotion of himself and chiropractic, and it takes the constant vigilance and work of numerous editors to clean up his work to make it non-promotional and acceptable content. His sources are often unreliable, and his images almost always need to be deleted. Irritating! Yes. During the last SPI and even before there were a number of editors who noted and accused him of using Waynethegoblin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet. He vehemently denied, and he never acknowledged any connection. (Meatpuppetry from family members and friends is strongly discouraged here.) It appeared that there was votestacking going on at an AfD, and so it appears to be happening again. Note that their editing histories here and at Press' wiki, it appears they are the same person. Look here and compare with the other identities Press uses there as the sysop of that wiki.

If Wayne isn't really a sock, then it's still meatpuppetry and he should have been open about the possibility and warned Wayne to back off to avoid causing problems. If I'm wrong, then I am truly sorry, but the suspicion is very logical, and since Press has been known to be deceptive before about the previous sock, it's hard to believe him now when he denies another sock accusation. Just on behavioral evidence alone, the suspicion is very strong, so a CU should be done to clear the air.

As regards what he terms me calling him a liar (I haven't used those words...), they are in connection with the fact that a CU at that SPI showed that he edited from the same IP as someone whom he claimed was another chiropractor and editor whose article he was creating, and who was now helping him. Well, Press lives in NJ and this other chiropractor lives in Arizona, about 3,000 miles away from each other. I asked him how this could be. How could they share the same IP, live so far from each other, and he just happened to be creating an article about this other chiropractor? Now if that's calling him a liar, obviously some type of deception is involved in the way he has denied the connection. That's not "slander", but a plain statement of deception that was exposed by the CU. Before the SPI, his denials were just as vehement as they are now, but after the SPI he has claimed that he did not "intend" to use a sock, but he admitted that it could appear that way. To use an analogy, I guess a woman could appear to be pregnant, but not really be pregnant, except that a sonogram (a CU check ;-) shows that she is pregnant. Okay, it wasn't her "intent" to be pregnant, nor her "intent" to deny being pregnant even when she knew she was, but unfortunately for her, she was proven to be pregnant, so she explains that she didn't "intend" to be pregant. This is the wacky world of editor Press. Any wonder why we have a hard time believing him? I'd like an honest explanation from his own mouth of how he could share the same IP as another editor, yet not "intend" to violate our policy against improper use of sock accounts. On top of that, he vehemently denied doing so, and didn't give any explanation before the CU, that might explain how it might appear to be a violation of socking. It appears that he only tells the truth in this type of situation after being forced to do so, and even then he doesn't admit wrongdoing, but only that he didn't "intend" to do anything wrong. That stinks. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is more to this than meets the eye. Drsjpdc actually got Ktr101 to in good faith attempt to help him. Note that Ktr101 was the one who opened the first SPI which proved that Drsjpdc did engage in sockpuppetry. Ktr101 was so gracious that he offered to help Drsjpdc become a better editor if he promised to stop denying he had used a sock. Unfortunately Drsjpdc's "admission" is one of the most twisted examples of devious waffling and weaseling I've ever seen. Read this and judge whether he actually admits wrongdoing, or if he is just making excuses:

• "I have already said, when I tried to reconcile with the "anonymous number guy", who refused my rapprochement, that I can understand why it seemed that way to whomever "caught" that. And, I suppose in retrospect that it is possible that after all the facts were actually known, it may have been so technically, but I will maintain to my death that it was not intentionally so; and INTENT is really the crux of any such law. I have many times apologize for my initial ignorance when I first came online, and the errors I made then. I am not spending my life apologizing for stuff that I never intended to do incorrectly. I will apologize for any such perception of wrongdoing. I hope that you can accept this as sufficient (if you really want all of the facts, you have permission to call me; (my phone number shouldn't be hard to find from the external links), as it is from my heart. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Source

Here we have his claims about "intention", admission that the sockpuppetry "may have been so technically", and yet he denies any wrongdoing. That is no way to treat Ktr101, who was doing so much for him. HOW can this happen innocently? No, in this case intention means nothing. He has used several accounts here, one of which has been indef blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts or IPs", and another sock which is also indef blocked, yet he's still editing here. Since he has engaged in such deceptive behavior before, he can't be trusted here.

Now yet another sockpuppetry case has been opened. Whether it's actual sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, he has been deceptive in this case also, as borne out in my comments above about the User:Waynethegoblin account. His whole history here is about self-promotion, improper promotion of chiropractic while having a COI, and gross violations of NPOV, all while being deceptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done some poking around and find that his POV about Wikipedia and its editors is less than savory and is more evidence of his disdain for our NPOV policy. Note that his statements there are filled with conspiracy theory allegations that are libelous and far from accurate, so don't believe them. After all this time he still doesn't understand our sourcing policies and he misrepresents them there. No wonder he constantly needs a cleanup team following him around. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[Comment] Ktr never lifted a finger to "help" me. He moved an article which really didn;t didn;t need moving and called that one act "help". Then quit. 68.239.180.104 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I never completed helping you because I have a life on here other than helping you. I'm not going to be sucked into the articles that I have no clue about since I could then be at risk of being a meatpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave me out of this, please. His writing and deleted contributions say volumes no other words could possibly convey. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The amount of AfDs and other deleted material does say volumes. His work here keeps lots of editors busy just cleaning up after him. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[Comment] Like anyone staring out, one make errors. When properly explained I try to fix them. MOST of the "cleaning up" is me cleaning up totally biased articles against any form of alternative medicine, and pedantic stuff like always leaving spaces between words and the next This is ridiculous. How is anyone to learn to edit articles if they spend MOST of their time defending such accusations? This leaves the established anti-chiro clique in charge. The fix is running the henhouse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.180.104 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, you have already had run-ins with most of us in this discussion. You have written articles about friends and colleagues. If you look at your current SPI, it is brought up that you aremoving articles from your Wiki project to this one. It is getting out of hand, and you are even using sockpuppets to further your cause. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a third party

I have had a good deal of experience with drsjpdc, and have tried to help him as much as my time will allow. I have also had some experience with IP69... and find him to be less than civil at times. (Other examples here and here and here.) However, I believe drsjpdc's accusations here are unfounded as he seems to be the more guilty party in this dispute. What he perceives as a "systematic bias" against chiropractic is really just a wider world view than his own. As a chiropractor, he is deeply rooted in his profession and feels that that those issues and people that are notable to him should be notable to a wider audience. The problem is that the Wikipedia community holds chiropractic-related articles to the same standard as notability and verifiability as it does all other articles, so topics have to rise above being notable to the chiropractic community to the level of being notable to the community at large. (The same is true in any field.) I believe drsjpdc to be a very dedicated and passionate man, whose contributions to Wikipedia in the chiropractic area could be very valuable. However, I feel that his POV, which is so deeply entrenched that he is unable to even recognize it, makes his contributions questionable, and keeps too many editors busy policing his work. His insistence on the inclusion of his own autobiography over the advice of several editors, and his dismay at the direction the article took once it was released (even after a similar experience with his earlier Howard Press article) should indicate that he is not ready to approach the Wikipedia project with a neutral point of view. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Ktr101

I have offered to help Drsjpdc with his article. A condition of this was to stop denying his sockpuppetry, which he did. I was alerted of a possible dislike of IP here. I have filed a quick sockpuppet report on his new sock, and I am done with helping him as I have told him that I would only support him when he renounced his sockpuppeting activities, which he has clearly resumed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, I have added some comments above about how your good faith attempts to help him were treated so badly. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot for doing that. Hopefully this can help in resolving the issue with him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started another sockpuppet investigation of this user here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The cabal of bullies here is absolutely unprecedented. Even those who seemingly are uninvolved in the Chiropractic v antiQuackery people are being swayed by this organized group. One apparently works for a notorious antiQuackery figure who has been discredited in Courts all over the country and the other two follow his lead everywhere in a really clever conspiracy to avoid charges of meat-puppetry themselves. It's appalling that dedicated experts in fields like Chiropractic cannot produce objective articles in their fields without them being vandalized by this group. This is the reason for the organization of alternative wiki's which they are not also attacking under yet another heading. And the one I started is not the only one. Another has the backing of big names in MEDICINE in NY and higher ups in Wikimedia. People who oppose this conspiracy are set up to be blocked or banned wholesale to further THEIR biased agenda. I understand that this is one step from the federal courts, where the banning of a vociferous voice against this tribe is concerned. They are just adding fuel to that fist adding fuel to that fire by this outrageous attack. I apparently have threatened their mission enough that they are coming after me on every front. Do as you please. I am nearly finished with what I came to Wikipedia to accomplish. Unlike some of these pedantic children I have a life outside of wikipedia, and plan to follow it. Some of you made promises to me, a failed to keep them. So who's word is questionable here?

One final word about waynethewhatever. I do have a son in Chiropractic college, who is also a Computer scientist. Even assuming in arguendum that this is my son,(you want ME to out this editor? - NO!) this is certainly NOT sockpuppetry, or even meat puppetry. Are any of you old enough to have children of your own? My son is 25 and living in the midwest on his own. How many of YOU are puppets of YOUR father's ? The whole premise is absurd. If this were my son, he is a separate individual and has a right to his own opinions and his own voice. If he supports mine then that too is his Constitutional right. And I am very proud of him. I have NOT at any time EVER even had his login and PW, much less ever used them on Wikipeda. You are free to CU to prove THAT. And THEN I demand an official apology. There are many many Chiropractic students and faculty out there whom I would love to educate as to how to start editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps that should be my next avenue for International lectures (and I could). Hmmm...Hundreds of drsjpdc's (I love it) But then certain people will call ALL of them my meat puppets???

(CAVEAT) I am a scrupulously honest person, and have made sure to never give certain vultures the ammo to say otherwise, as my reputation has financial implications, which I have and will zealously guard in whatever venue and by whatever means it requires. If I have been careful with my wording, it is because anything I say on Wiki is routinely twisted beyond recognition. There are efforts underway in other venues, to put a stop to this. I laud and support them. 68.239.180.104 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Press, you wrote above: "I am nearly finished with what I came to Wikipedia to accomplish." Just what is it you "came to accomplish"? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If this was your son, truly he would have other interests than that of his father. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat, "(CAVEAT) I am a scrupulously honest person, and have made sure to never give certain vultures the ammo to say otherwise, as my reputation has financial implications, which I have and will zealously guard in whatever venue and by whatever means it requires." Like the constant shouts of slander?

Every time he says something he makes himself look worse. No anti-chiropractor cabal could ever do the amount of damage his participating in wikipedia is doing to the reputations of chiropractors whose articles he writes and posts. They seem like non-notable, poorly written, promotional autobiographies by dc's desperate for publicity and attention. Most American chiropractors, on the other hand, are community members and dedicated health care professionals. Two different worlds: the desperate and poorly written about, and the guy next door. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It does sound like a legal threat since he also refers to legal threats made against Wikipedia by an editor who has been indef banned by the Arbitration Committee itself. He also makes libelous claims about editors here, well-knowing that they could sue him for saying such nonsense, IF they so wished, but I'll refrain. Needless to say it would be easy to disprove his claims. His source also uses very cloaked language because he has even admitted under sworn deposition his false claims are just "euphemisms", not fact. The problem is that gullible people like Stephen J. Press believe these lies to be true! The rant above constitutes a serious and libelous violation of WP:Battle and WP:BLP. He has just made a similar rant elsewhere.

As to his claims to be a "scrupulously honest person", his actions here at Wikipedia and his proven sockmaster status say otherwise. Even his website boasts a "Top chiropractor" award that is from a dubious organization which even gives such awards to animals. They are basically a company which sells plaques for self-promotion, which seems to be the big theme in his life. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For the curious, the dubious organization is Consumers' Research Council of America [161][162] It has been exposed by Forbes and others: [163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172] There is plenty of material for a good article about this business that fools people who are interested in self-promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion can be marked as resolved as there seems to be sufficient evidence that the editors in question have done no wrong. We're just getting off topic now. Most of this is better left at the investigation page as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, did you add this to the wrong section, since there is plenty of evidence they've (Press and Wayne) done plenty wrong, or are you referring to those whom he has complained about. In that case you're right, but Press still needs to be dealt with, so the thread needed be closed until he is dealt with. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Drsjpdc and related accounts

Based on the above discussion, incessant tendentious promotion of some aspects of the chiropractic profession, sock puppetry, outing (since oversighted), inappropriate promotion of an outside website (see e.g. Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Attrib-WC), rampant incivility, and general failure to hold the goals, norms, and ideals of the encyclopedia highest while editing here, I would like to propose a community ban of User:Drsjpdc and related accounts. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Drsjpdc acknowledges stealth canvassing and votestacking concurrently with the SPI and this discussion. ^Bongo_matic 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support a community ban. There is no evidence that he's here to build an encyclopedia, but plenty that he'll do just about anything, including being a sockmaster for more than one sock, in order to misuse Wikipedia for self-promotion. Let's end the misery he's causing. This should of course include socks, meatpuppets, and blocks of the related IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support a year long ban. After a year if he wishes to come back and contribute great....If not here's the door. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Wiki is not a soapbox. Auntie E. (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Has attempted to replace current reviews with older reviews to support his profession.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The editor has never edited other than to advance a POV and has run roughshod over policies and guidelines in the process, wasting the time and attention of many editors otherwise engaged in productive content creation and improvement of the project. ^Bongo_matic 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support having tried to help Drsjpdc months back during his first unblock, I feel it's now a futile attempt and his editing does more harm than good. Aditya Ex Machina 12:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban - seems to me like a tendentious editor. The large rant that I read above doesn't give me much confidence that they will be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive and harmonious editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to have done little more than soapboxing and POV pushing. HJMitchell You rang? 13:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban I've given up on him. The e-mails that I have received have cast doubt on him and another user, and I just don't want to get overly involved, so I outsourced the help to another editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support focused ban: There is still a small chance that he could be a positive contributor to the project. Topic-ban him from any biographies for 1 year, and topic-ban him from Chiropractic (broadly, broadly, broadly construed) for 1 year. See if he can make any positive contributions to the project. DigitalC (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, but focused ban okay. I think if he was willing to use the time to establish he's here to contribute while under a broadly construed topic ban, one that included all discussion pages, including user pages on the topic, it would be okay. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, preferably permanent. Given the evidence presented above, their singular agenda, their combative and unhelpful response, and their editing history, I'm most uncomfortable with this person retaining their editing privileges. EyeSerene^talk 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban It is clear that the user will forever attempt to use Wikipedia to promote their profession; it requires too much time to manage. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban for at least a year. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Boring vandal at RfA

Resolved

 – Troll blocked and users are reminded to use common sense and the duck method. Killiondude (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block. User:Brazilnode Relevant link here. Single purpose account, but not entertaining enough to warn, etc. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say boring - just a new editor who didn't make a good judgement call on an RfA question. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, indef blocked? That seems a little extreme. Assuming good faith, this was a new editor who didn't realize how serious jokes are taken by some people. At worst, this is an example of "silly vandalism". Even so, they should have at least recieved a level 4 warning. Especially considering the fact that the edit was removed, they re-added it (04:00), then they were warned (04:53), with their last edit being, "Ok it wont happen again. Sorry." Even assuming ArcAngel's message to them is a valid level 4 user warning, they didn't edit at all after the warning before being indef blocked a few minutes later. Because they're not entertaining enough to warn? They essentially made two unconstructive edits before being labeled as either a sock or a single purpose account. What the hell happened to AGF and WP:BITE? Swarm^Talk 06:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This admins actions seem to be massively disproportionate to the amount of trouble that Brazilnode has caused. An explanation would be appropriate. Weakopedia (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's nearly certain that this person has another account somewhere, because very few people would go to an RfA and start asking questions that imply that he has been reading the RfA all along, as one of their first edits. Let alone voting in one. The block seems appropriate to me. (I do remember that he had a userpage at first but don't remember what was on it.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. He was clearly purely joking. Why not handle our "hunches" that someone is a sockpuppet with a sockpuppet investigation (assuming someone can actually produce any evidence), rather than assuming bad faith and taking the chance of blocking a newbie. Or give them a chance after they've received a warning, instead of giving them none at all. Again, this might just be vandalism, in which case an indef block without warning is completely over the top. Swarm^Talk 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware this kind of "joking" was considered appropriate. I guess we should assume more good faith when an editors fourth edit is to attack an administrator, cause obviously they are new here and are just making some "test" edits worthy of a level one warning. Honestly, lets use some common sense here and ignore some of the needless bureaucracy associated with level 1-4 warnings. What first time editor makes edits like that to an RfA? What first time editor cites an administrator by name and then makes a degrading remark about them? Oh, and lastly, while it was deleted...the "editors" first edit was to add a picture of dildos to their userpage. Yeah, clearly here to build an encyclopedia. Tiptoety ^talk 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Common sense is needed for this kind of vandalism, not a fancy warning template. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• moved to user talk page*Swarm^Talk

Blatant troll. Although "not here to build an encyclopedia" as a criterion for blocking would probably eliminate half the people at ANI, the thread is ready for {{resolved}} as far as I'm concerned. Recognizance (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Europe

Some eyes are needed here. Apparently, Wikipedia is being used as part of a political campaign of some sort (if it's not plain trolling). Lots of WP:SPA users voting keep on a rather incomprehensible article about some EU memo. Pcap ping 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, article is just one giant mashup... Checkuser might be warranted in this situation, although I'm not acquanted with WP:SOCK that well. It's also just possible (as you said) they could be individuals from a political campaign, but what the heck are they trying to get across? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think checkusering is really needed, unless a pattern of these build up. I assume that the AfD may have been linked on a forum somewhere, as there are many forums about the place which are either pro or anti-EU. With the template in place, I don't think they will affect the AfD outcome, as many of their keep !votes are playing along the lines of "We should keep this because it will be important" and other such things. --Taelus (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, per WP:CRYSTAL :P Anyways, I mass tagged the single use accounts. All should be well now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bo.talks And User:65.88.88.126 Edit-warring on Jiddu Krishnamurti

Now, I neither know nor care which one is 'right', and I can't report it to 3RR for exactly that reason as well. Protecting the page, while possible, would still result in one 'wrong' version of the page being set, which would piss one of them off. Suggestions? HalfShadow 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IP a 3RR warning and Bo.talks has received one too. If the edit warring continues, just lock the page (it's always the wrong version). Fences&Windows 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Resolved

I reverted what I took to be an unexplained (i.e. vandalistic) mass deletion from this ANI page:[173] If my reversion was incorrect, feel free to revert my reversion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, it looks like someone was looking at an old revision, clicked edit to reply to something, and thus accidentally saved an older version of the noticeboard over the current one. Seems to happen every so often, almost certainly a mistake I would say. --Taelus (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be OK, then, and he can always re-enter whatever his question was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Chamber of Commerce/Sydney Business Chamber

Resolved

 – Done, old page moved to the new name, deleting the duplicate in the process. Fences&Windows 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a history merge is needed (or something). 98.248.32.44 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/Disambiguation issues on Ricky Wong

Disambiguation issues on the Ricky Wong article as User:Dangerousrave insists on replacing the content about the Hong Kong entrepreneur with details about a Malaysian businessman of the same name. I created a separate article "Ricky Wong (Malaysian businessman)" to distinguish the two, however the editor continues to replace the content with that of the Malaysian businessman. -Reconsider! 03:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the article currently named Ricky Wong be renamed Ricky Wong Wai Kay? That after all is his name. A disambiguation page would also help.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is sorted now. I've fixed (most) of the redirects, although we need to perhaps fix Ricky? Reconsider, do you want to do the honours there? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor Ancient Observer banned for six months & now restoring article to his last version

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by User:LessHeard vanU

AncientObserver (talk · contribs) was one of several editors banned for six months from editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Shortly after his ban expired, and as one of his first edits this year, he reverted the article to his last revision [174] with an edit summary 'revert to version before disruptive edits' (which in effect calls all the editors in the last 6 months disruptive). It's my opinion that his ban should be reinstated and lengthened. I'll notify him of this discusion. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account, with the rationale that such disregard for consensual editing is disruptive. I suggest that a topic ban discussion proceeds on the basis that they are only permitted to edit under such a sanction. Is there an Arbitration page where this action should be recorded? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is the place. Such action is disgraceful, particularly on such a controversial page, and AncientObserver has well merited his ban. Moreschi (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Block noted there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (Further) Can we continue a discussion on whether an indefinite topic ban, or one of limited duration, or some other restriction would be required to allow the account to continue editing the encyclopedia? I am sure that there will be a block appeal, and the reviewing admin will likely be guided by this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since this is a single purpose account, it doesn't matter whether we impose an indefinite topic ban, or a site permaban. Both will have the same effect. Moreschi (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Per Moreschi, leave the account blocked and let that be an end of it. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Dougweller's paragraph tells me all I need to know about the matter to strongly endorse LHvU's indef block. Ancient Egyptian race controversy is one of Wikipedia's equivalent of a honeypot for contentious editors. -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Blocked for six months, then immediately reverted to a revision from 6 months ago? Indefinite block was the correct course of action. Not really someone we want or need on Wikipedia I'm afraid. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DocKino

May I ask you to have a look at this edit by user DocKino: [175]. There is a content dispute concerning Elvis Presley, but I think that these and some other insults are not in line with Wikipedia policies. Onefortyone (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate language, but it is being dealt with on the article talkpage - as is your nonconsensual editing. Unless you are going to take the matter to WP:WQA, this is a content dispute only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You also forgot to notify the editor that you were discussing him here. I have now informed them. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Requsting an RFC close

Not sure if this would be better put somewhere else, but if so by all means move it. I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin (or other appropriate party) close this content RFC if and when they believe a consensus has been reached. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary -- the RFC nominator can close it whenever they want (i.e. if they feel consensus has been reached) or it will be automatically closed in 30 days. They close it simply by removing the RFC template. If a consensus has been reached you can ask them on their talk page to close it. Swarm^Talk 07:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ad account

User:Nitinsinghalmca has recreated that one after it was speedied per db-promo. Please someone block the account and delete the article. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As a purely technical note for your own information in the future, CSD G4 does not apply to articles which were previously deleted via CSD. G4 relies on a deletion discussion, i.e., XfD. However, the article is a copyvio so I retagged it under G12 and we will be on our way. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User never got a {{uw-create}} warning, and copyvio warnings were not explicit (most were "your article may be deleted", not "stop violating copyright or you'll be blocked). I'm issuing uw-create now, but I have salted the article so we're not likely to see any more activity. If he starts recreating it under modified titles then I'll consider blocking. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why User Mcjakeqcool should be unblocked and my reasoning behind the theory

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 months by Tanthalas39. –MuZemike 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page restored - how to speedy delete?

Resolved

 – Page deleted Ale_Jrb^talk 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised I missed this, but Johnfos (talk · contribs) re-created a page, Nuclear 9/11, shortly after it was deleted following this discussion. He re-created the page with the false statement that he had "substantially revised" the article; as people noted in talk; his revisions included substantial copyright violations and basically turned the article into an advertisement. Can we speedy delete the article or do we need to go through the deletion debate? I will note also that this is not the first time that this particular user has re-created deleted pages shortly after the page was deleted in the appropriate manner; some sort of warning should be given to him that such actions are entirely inappropriate. csloat (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's sufficiently similar, it can be speedied under G4, yes. I'll take a look. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read it; it is virtually identical to the content of the page when it was deleted via AfD, and I have therefore speedied it per G4. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to make a big thing out of this, but the article was substantially revised and updated from the version that went to AfD. For example, a lot of material on the position of the Obama Adminsitration was added that was not there before. And there are many more useful references in the most recent version which addressed the central problem raised at AfD. I would respectfully ask that someone take another look at this please. Johnfos (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're distorting how much was changed. The big problem is not that you added different words but rather that your changes never bothered to address the reasons it was deleted in the first place. In any case, as I noted on your talk page, the appropriate way to address this is deletion review rather than unilaterally creating the page against consensus. csloat (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your views, csloat, but I disagree and am asking for someone else to have another look at the situation please... Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in the AfD. Why don't you just include some material about this in Nuclear terrorism? Recreating an article that was deleted at AfD is not respecting consensus: go to DRV to argue your case if facts have changed since August. Fences&Windows 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to go to DRV if that is what is required, as obviously the matter needs to be cleared up. My understanding is that if an article is deleted at AfD that doesn't mean that the article cannot be recreated with substantial revisions, so there should not be a problem here. The consensus at one AfD should not preclude an article with that title ever being created again. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it. 'Substantial revisions' means adding more than two short lines. If you disagree, however, please go to DRV. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I will have to go to DRV, which is fine. For the record, my recollection is that this is some of the new material added to the article, since August 2009:

The Obama administration will focus on reducing the risk of such nuclear threats and aims to strengthen homeland nuclear security.[5]

President Obama has reviewed Homeland Security policy and concluded that "attacks using improvised nuclear devices ... pose a serious and increasing national security risk".[5]

The Obama administration will focus on reducing the risk of high-consequence, non-traditional nuclear threats. Nuclear security is to be strengthened by enhancing "nuclear detection architecture and ensuring that our own nuclear materials are secure", and by "establishing well-planned, well-rehearsed, plans for co-ordinated response".[5] According to senior Pentagon officials, the United States will make "thwarting nuclear-armed terrorists a central aim of American strategic nuclear planning".[17]

Other parts of the article have been substantially reworked, and I doubt that there is a single paragraph that is the same as it was in the August 2009 version. At least one section heading has been changed. And there are many more references, 17 in total now, including plenty of scholarly sources. There is just no way that this is "virtually identical" to what was deleted at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did add some material that you directly copied and pasted from another article on the internet without attribution. Material that doesn't even mention "nuclear 9/11," by the way, and which would be deleted as irrelevant or as a WP:OR violation were the article itself to stay. You did not in any way address the actual reasons that the article was deleted in the first place. You say that you disagree and that is fine but you never state why you disagree and I fail to see an argument on the talk page of the article (or anywhere else) addressing these points. You have been here a few years now, Johnfos; it would be great if you could familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even if you consider yourself "semi-retired." Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but please assume good faith. There is nothing underhanded going on here. I have been quite up front with what I've been doing, even revising the draft in my user space for all to see. I think the next step is DRV (when I get the chance). If I had a copy of the version of the article that was deleted in August 2009 to refer to, I would be able to discuss the improvements made in more detail. Johnfos (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. I've put it as an article in your user space so that you can review it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell

Resolved

James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user just won't give up their crusade to have admin Gogo Dodo blocked or desysopped. I don't think diffs are really needed here, one can simply check his contributions to see his tl;dr rants about Gogo was abusive, all the while being abusive himself, calling other sockpuppets, meatpuppets, neo-nazis... the list goes on. Gogo has been nothing but polite, and frankly, I'm sick of this user's abusive and disruptive tirade. Also note that I have notified the user of this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to be under the mistaken impression that his bio is there for him to broadcast his own beliefs and ideas, and he is ignoring WP:SOAP and WP:OR, while making personal attacks against other editors, particularly Gogo Dodo. Unless Jim Bell can calm down and edit within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I see no reason to not block him. Then he can post about his new theory on global warming, the government, and how we're all Nazis somewhere else. Fences&Windows 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he seems somewhat intransigent in that position as well. This essay comes to mind while reading his posts. —DoRD (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Dodo has been 'nothing but polite'? Ha ha! Actually, he has: 1. Repeatedly and rapidly deleted my posts, preventing a consensus. 2. He has ignored my objections, OTHER THAN his simply posting templates, as if those templates are somehow 'writ from God' in this very matter. Actually, it's easy to PRETEND to be 'polite': Simply delete somebody else's stuff, and then DON'T SAY ANYTHING in response to complaints! That's (basically) what Dodo does! Then, when I object, and when I am very DETAILED in my specific objections, meat puppets say, 'Oooh! That's a RANT!!!!'. (In other words, anybody who actually takes the time to craft DETAILED, NON-template objections and arguments, is automatically guilty of a 'rant'!!!). See the problem? I have tried to solve this situation, but Dodo will not participate in any sort of ACTUAL discussion. (throwing a template or two does not constitute a 'discussion'!: A template may, hypothetically, be wrong, inapplicable, or quite imcomplete.) Even the meat puppets won't actually address the problem, which is this: Dodo is taking the position that if he can assert that there is ANYTHING wrong with somebody's edit, he (Dodo) can instantly delete it, not wait for consensus, and then virtually ignore all objection and challenge. His meat puppets (who, I strongly suspect, engage in very similar behavior) have a strong vested interest in seeing that Dodo gets away with this behavior.

James dalton bell (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, desysopping him won't prevent your edits being reverted if they are against policy. Second, consensus for something that is against policy is hardly obtained, so, your edits wouldn't prevail, and Gogo would not be desysopped. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been editing an article on a biography of a living person (I am not assuming it is your own biography.) WP:BLP, one of the top policies on the site, requiers that all material written about a living person must have a realiable source, so that information can be verified and that there is no original research. Please address this concern and your edits will prevail. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

More unfounded claims without evidence of meatpuppetry, which qualifies as a personal attack. I'll be warning the user after this message.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is silly. I'm blocking indefinitely. This is a disruptive and incivil editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded a bit of this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User has copied my user page in near-entirety including barnstars

User has copied my user page in near-entirety including barnstars: please see revision. Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a policy against that somewhere, but I surely cannot find it, at least not in WP:UP. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS? -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, your page isn't copyrighted or your property in any other way. While it's a dumb thing to do, I don't think there's a rule against it (false barnstars are no difference to the false edit-count notices which have been found to be allowable in the past). ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the editors who awarded those barnstars would feel the same way. It's not the same thing as a false edit count, he's alleging that 16 real editors have given him barnstars. Looking at his talk page he's close to being blocked, he's accumulating warning notices (including a final warning) rapidly. I'm removing the forged barnstars. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Yes, there is a policy, as in "do not alter others' comments". The barnstars were given by other users, and their remarks including signatures have been copied out of context and placed into a different one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (that was, obviously, an edit conflict)

Was the bold text really necessary? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

about as necessary as your question Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The conditions for re-use given by CC-BY-SA were not met so I removed the text as an obvious copyvio. CIreland (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who issued all those warnings, and I was about to come here if the editor's erratic and bizarre behavior continued, which so far it seems not to have. He edited an odd variety of articles generally to add or remove maintenance and deletion template, generally for no discernible reason, and often while cutting out some content and leaving a misleading or false edit summary. FWIW, I agree that fraudulently copying a barnstar to your userpage that was given to a different editor should be impermissible for about the same reasons that copying an editor's "keep" comment from one AfD to another would be.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same user is now at User:JaimeKnopfler, making questionable edits.--Cam (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of this going around. Another example: me but (for admins only) not me. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That ones pretty old. I remember User:HamishRoss socks had a habit of doing this, although these don't seem to fit his profile--Jac16888^Talk 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of copyvio, it's just a rude thing to do, I think we can all agree to IAR and remove stuff like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked them why they have the same first paragraph on their user page as User:JaimeKnopfler. If I don't get a response in, say, a day then I'm going to block indefinitely for suspected impersonation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of which appear to be an adaptation of the first few sentences of Mark Knopfler#Life and career. Superfans obviously :) Nancy ^talk 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copy vio on Jyoti Basu

Resolved

Contributor currently on 24 hour block, which I hope will resolve the problem. If not, additional steps will be taken as needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not. WP:CV does not mention how to handle repeated copyvios. user:59.93.240.49 has repeatedly added copyrighted information to Jyoti_Basu despite being warned on his/her talk page and the article's talk page. CS Miller (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's the same contributor every time, we block. If it's multiple IPs, we semi-protect. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. On the article's talk page, it appears that the anon user has created an account, Anshuva Sanyal, talk. CS Miller (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect you're right. More previously published material was added and has subsequently been removed. I have cautioned the named contributor (the IP received a notice, but I'm unsure if the contributor saw it). If the material is restored, further action will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JRG/Corey Worthington

Resolved

 – Deleted per G6, WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and prior concensus by User:NuclearWarfare

I posted the following over at WP:EAR and was sent over

This article was moved per a user request into userspace. Now, I'm not sure at all what is going on. I reverted one edit that was unconstructive by an IP, but now many IPs are editing the page, and I can't find the policy for editing in userspace. I'm also sure to what version you would revert and whether protection is necessary. Thanks NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It now appears that the author has retired, and the article is being used as a sort of testing ground. (making fun of the person, etc) I reverted one edit, but have no idea what to do in the long run and stopped trying to revert. I am not sure what kind of a resolution path needs to be followed. Best Regards --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A BLP violation is a BLP violation whatever space it's in. I suggest it be speedily deleted as an attack page or as general housekeeping. – ukexpat (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, speedily deleting an attack page is housekeeping.--Ryan Fair (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:BLPs in user space are an atrocious idea in the first place. Nuclear Warfare moved it to the Article Incubator. I think /dev/null is a better place, but then I think vain publicity seeking socialites are of less benefit to society than dog turds. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait! The subject in question appears to be notable for inclusion and the page is well-referenced. A second glance at the situation and I disagree with my earlier suggestion of deleting.--Ryan Fair (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. NW (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya. He was an Australian who is notable solely for taking the mickey out of a current affairs program. Personally I thought it was hilarious, but I don't think it was ever going to be notable enough for Wikipedia. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to agree with JzG. After cleaning up the article slightly, I cannot see any way that the article would ever be able to move back into mainspace. Perhaps what is in the Incubator should be moved to Corey Worthington and the page deleted. If he ends up attaining notability some other way in a few years time, we can always undelete the article. NW (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with NW. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, on another thought I can't see the deletion discussion, but from what I can see... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can see the AfD via the history tab. I think everything said there still applies - he's a child who when aged 16 did a silly thing, and per BLP1E we should not hang it round his neck for the rest of his life, even if he does seem to be trying to cash in on his notoriety. This should be deleted WP:CSD#G4. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion per JzG, move to Corey Worthington and delete. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it this is resolved? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say, G4 unless the article can find a new champion who would update it and check for BLP problems. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is in userspace. Leave it alone. I also agree with Ryan Fair.--The Sobbing Huffy 23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's in the user space of JRG, who isn't here any more. An un-owned draft of an article should be deleted, in my opinion. (There is no one who is taking responsibility for improving it). Are you volunteering as a new owner? You have very few edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack, indeed. Anyway, since this has been sitting here untouched for some time, I'm going to go ahead and move it as suggested above and tag it G4. —DoRD (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Well, never mind, the target is create protected. —DoRD (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All 3 possible names are blocked. Admin, por favor. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the incubator page back to Corey Worthington, deleted it per G6, and then salted the page. NW (Talk) 07:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Related, highly enjoyable reading (cough): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Corey_Delaney_discussion --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, not again

Yada yada content issue yada.

we had a complaint a while back about an IP who is fiercely determined to give parity to an attendance figure at WrestleMania 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from one Dave Meltzer. The editors of that article, after much badgering, included a comment that Meltzer had disputed it, but that was not enough for the IP. The dispute has been going on for over a month, and looking back it first started in, I think, April 2007, so this is not your typical revert war content dispute. My concern is that all the argument has been based on the primary source itself, and there is no obvious authoritative root source for Meltzer's figure (at least that I could find via Google) other than Meltzer himself. Now, I closed the everlasting circular debate but then, prompted by the IP's comments on his talk page, went back and looked again. I found that the evidence even for including the sentence was almost exclusively volume, not quality, of argument. I have removed the sentence and started debate again, but of course I know what will happen, it will be another months-long battle from the people who think WWF is committing the hideous crime of pretending to have the highest attendance ever at some random venue I've never heard of before, when actually it should be the second highest based on what some guy said because he Just Knows. Or something. Anyway, it will be controversial, I expect the IP to edit-war, I suspect the only wat we will ever get the IP to shut up is to block it, and I have nointention of becoming any more involved in that fight than I already am. The more I hear about it the less I actually care. My rationale is at Talk:WrestleMania 23#A final thought on the Meltzer attendance figure, please, some admins with the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon, lend a hand. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I might get involved, I've intervened over there before for something else. The IP even asked me to get involved on my talk page some time ago but I never did. By the way, I think you mean WWE, as WWF is now solely the World Wildlife Fund. ;) -- Atama頭 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that included in WP:LAME? Fences&Windows 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that, by definition, if it involves rasslin', it is lame... --Jayron32 02:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure you're correct and I cannot believe that I have actually allowed myself to become involved in something which is, in the end, a debate about trivia related to trivia in a trivial subject. However, assuming good faith of the IP editor concerned I read back through the debate (which goes back years) and was very surprised to see that the entire case for the disputed content always rests on the primary source, I could not find a single reference to a reliable independent source which dealt with this dispute and the basis on which the one individual concerned made his claim in respect of the attendance figures. It seems he has a habit of this, which may well be a legitimate fact to include in his bio, but I don't see any sign of sources to lift this above WP:OR, or to show that we are not violating WP:UNDUE by including a counter claim made by one commentator, especially since it's not clear where he gets his figure whereas both the venue and the organiser base their figure on the gate receipts. I think editors on the article have also forgotten that a consensus formed on the basis of trying to shut up relentless badgering is only really legitimate if supported by normal editorial policies as well. It's an easy mistake to make, you have to step back to a position where you forget your own personal passions and these guys are obviously pretty passionate about this particular form of theatre. It's kind of funny being accused of vandalism for a good-faith action supported by extensive rationale on the talk page, I pointed out to GaryColemanFan that I was blocking vandals before he made his first edit :-) Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of sourced material and will treat any further efforts to remove it as vandalism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In which case you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what WP:VANDALISM means. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As another administrator had already warned the IP to lay off that page or get blocked, I've formalised it as a permanent topic-ban from the article and its talkpage. Any edit by that anonymous contributor or any suspected sock/IP of his may be reverted on sight from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

During the month-long discussion, every editor agreed that including a mention of the fact that Meltzer arrived at a different figure. This is verified by Meltzer's statement; whether it is true or not is irrevelant. Meltzer's newsletter, though self-published, is a valid source because he is a recognized expert in the subject area. The claim was included. All subsequent discussion related to whether or not an additional footnote should explain how he arrived at the new total. The idea was unpopular. The article currently includes a brief mention of Meltzer's claim with no additional footnote. This reflects the consensus and is in keeping with the policies mentioned by JzG (Undue - it is a brief mention, which reflects its status as a minority view; Reliable sources, as explained above; and Original Research, since the edit included no original research from a Wikipedia editor and was a simple portrayal of what was in the source material). JzG felt it necessary to overturn the decision of 15 or so editors unilaterally, which is completely inappropriate given that he did not discuss his rationale in advance and his reasons violate existing policies and guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[177] and [178] - bad idea. Reeeeeeally bad idea. Vandalism warnings are not to be used in good faith disputes. [179] is not better since I was already discussing this on Talk. It's really simple, though, all you need to do is provide some reliable independent sources which discuss Meltzer's claims - absolutely standard Wikipedia practice, and given how fired up you are about it that mustr be absolutely trivial to achieve. Fix it, please, rather than simply re-inserting material sourced fomr a primary source whose validity is in dispute. I note that you and Curtis23 have tag-teamed to avoid 3RR. Well well. What a good Wikipedian you are, with all that experience. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)}

GaryColemanFan, are you the same person as that IP editor? (Just an honest question from somebody utterly unfamiliar with that whole field of editing) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. I appreciate that you asked rather than accused, but I honestly have no connection with the IP editor other than believing that he/she cited valid policy points during the discussion and was dismissed by editors who were unable or unwilling to discuss the issue. Policy vs. "Just drop it" means that policy wins. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• This has become really stupid. He's slapping template warnings on my talk page and tag-teaming with Curtis to re-insert the content which was only put in after the POV-pushing problem started in December 2009, but making no effort at all to provide a reliable independent source for this being in any way important. That's all I've asked for. We have a factoid which a few people have eben stridently demanding for over two years, which has not gone in because there is no reliable indpependent source for its significance, there are forum activists who seem to think that this is some huuge big swindle perpetrated by WWF, and these two fools don't seem to want to get involved in the simple and routine matter of getting back to reliable indeendent secondary sources as required by policy. You wonder why some random trivial comment b y some random commentator about the attendance at some random wrestling match is worth two and a half years of agitation and an edit war when the text gets challenged - we can forget all about the WP:ONUS being on those seeking to include disputed text, of course, because it's sourced. Albeit to a primary source and without any indication of how the hell he comes up with his figures disputing the ofificial gate receipts. Anyway, I'm done here, I can't stand idiots like that. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • After your message on my talk page callimg me a "fuckwit" [180], I have no idea why people would see that you are capable of rational discussion. The problem is solved, so your "help" is neither beneficial nor appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Now let me see. You calle dme a vandal. I advised you not to do that. You called me a vandal again. I advised you not to do that and told you why. You templated me with a vandalism warning. I told you that was a really bad idea and why. You then templated me with another warning so I called you a fuckwit. The definition of a fuckwit is "one who is impervious to Clue". I think that describes you admirably. Feel free to prove me wrong by, for example, sourcing the issue to a reliable independent secondary source. You know, like it says in policy. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I can see why Guy would be sorely tested, but Guy, calling someone a fuckwit is never helpful! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm Gary, no one agreed to included the note. The fact that Meltzer is the only source to ever dispute the official number and the fact that there aren't any independent sources to have ever covered this so-called attendance number dispute (because its THAT trivial...) makes it pretty clear that the simple footnote isn't even that important.... not notable IMO ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There were 11 involved editors. Two of them (JzG and Darrenhusted) opposed the inclusion altogether. As stated here, Curtis23 and I support the inclusion. In addition:

• "This note establishes two things. 1) Dave Meltzer reports a different number than other sources. 2) His number was reported After the other sources reported their number. Isn't that what you've been fighting about this entire time? We'll do this... I'll split it into two sentences." - User:3bulletproof316 [181]
• "I still don't see what's wrong with saying: "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687." It's simple, it's effective, and it's accurate." - User:Hazardous Matt [182]
• "Above we had a clear discussion of the issue and compromises suggested and a gradual view was established, indicating that a consensus has been reached." - User:sephiroth storm [183]
• "This isn't about being accurate. We have a reliable source which states something. We aren't the ones who determine what is correct and what isn't. We publish what reliable sources say, that is all." - User:Wrestlinglover [184]
• "All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result (WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:RS and any others that I might have missed). That's where the consensus is." - User:Justa Punk [185]
• "I'd support a footnote, too. In fact, I suggested that seven days ago." - User:Nikki311 [186]
• "As I stated above, I can live with that (I don't like including the claim at all, but as long as it is made clear that it is just Meltzer's claim and not factual I can accept it). " - User:TJ Spyke [187]

So yes, many people (yourself included) agreed to include a brief mention in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting that agreement of a tiny number of editors trumps policy. Policy says that unless we have reliable independent sources indicating its significance, it's undue weight, original research or both. Just get the sources, there's a good chap. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey JzG can you stop insulting me as I said on your talk page. Oh by the way I know it wasn't direct but I can infer. Also there was a consensus off adding the footnote.--C23 C23's talk 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to know two things about consensus: first, it can change (and you're screwed if it can't since the consensus right up until December this year was not to include it); second, it can never overrule policy. Now, what you need is reliable independent secondary sources that cover the discrepancy in the figures, ideally telling us where Meltzer got his figure form (assuming he didn't just pluck it out of thin air). Otherwise we are taking a primary source and making up our own minds about it, which is WP:OR and absolutely forbidden by policy. It's very simple, though, all you have to do is find the reliable independent secondary sources. I didn't find one in the few dozen unique hits Google offered me but I don't give a rat's ass about professional wrestling so I don't have any of the offline sources, I'm sure you do. Until you have reliable independent secondary sources I'm afraid you don't actually have a leg to stand on. But don't worry, you're not the first person to make such a mistake and I'm sure you won't be the last. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the point, and I agree.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This interpretation of policy is baffling. I would like to see a quotation from a policy page supporting such a position. Original research refers to the synthesis of reference material or providing a personal analysis of a given situation. Clearly, that is not happening here. The statement in question is simply that Dave Meltzer reported a different number. The source provided states exactly that, so there is no original research going on. Nobody is making up their mind about anything other than the fact that Meltzer stated a different attendance figure. If you don't believe that Meltzer did so, the problem is clearly more serious than I initially thought. In this case, the demand for independent, secondary sources is also based on a misunderstanding of policy. Certainly, if the article were to claim that Meltzer's total is correct, additional sources would be needed. To simply state that Meltzer's statement exists is, obviously, best sourced to the claim itself. Along the same lines, it would be ridiculous to insist that an article about a novel requires independent, secondary sources to substantiate the "Plot" section. Obviously, the information is best sourced to the original text. If the article about WrestleMania were to state that there has been a huge controversy or outcry, a source would be needed for that. Nobody wants such a statement included, so that's not an issue. As for your question about how Meltzer's number was determined, that has been discussed several times throughout the discussion. You are advertising your ignorance of this situation with such a question. If you believe that you can issue the decisive statement about this discussion, you obviously need to at least glance through the discussion first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not baffling at all, it's not even mildly surprising. You're just looking at it the wrong way round: the onus is on you to prove that your preferred text meets policy. On the matter of the text, what we know is that the venue and the organiser claim a record attendance and Meltzer said on his show that the real figure was 74,687 - a very precise figure which, correct me if I'm wrong, is actually an estimate based on the sales at concession stands and the average spend by fans at events like this. I would be astounded if the cumulative margin of error in this estimate were less than 10%, which would put the official figure within the range of accuracy of his estimate, but he states it to five significant figures. Did he say it was an estimate? Your preferred text says that he reported it, that's a long way form saying that he estimated it, especially by a process that is not actually directly coupled to attendance (this was record attendance, a figure based on merchandise sale could very easily be skewed simply by shortage of stock). Actually, though, we don't know any of this for certain because it seems it's not covered in any reliable independent secondary sources. The whole reason for the dispute appears to be that he once stated a figure which fans seized on as an accurate one because it ends with a prime and because everybody loves a conspiracy, in this case to claim a record attendance at $RANDOMVENUE. Even that might be significant if it were covered as a notable bit of fan controversy in the sources, but do you know something? In all the pages of argumentation on this, I have yet to see the proponents of the figure produce any source other than Meltzer himself and some fan forums discussing this figure. You know how Wikipedia works: we do not take primary sources and set them against sources which have been passed through the filter of secondary reportage, however much we might want to believe them. All you have to do - and forgive me for saying this yet again - is produce a reliable independent source discussing the dispute. Otherwise you could equally argue that anyone who plucks some figure out of their ass and publishes it in their magazine should have that figure set against the official attendance figures for any event, and that would be just plain silly. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As per your request, here is your correction: The figure is not, in fact, an estimate. It is based on math. WWE released the total amount collected from merchandise sales. They also released the average amount spent by fans at this event, not similar events. Therefore, the attendance figure stated by Meltzer is not an estimate, as it is fairly simple math. You would know this already if you had actually read the debate on which you claim to be an expert. Here's one for you: If some people spend an average of $5 at a store for a total of $35, how many people were there? Give up? You think 7? Actually, the real answer is that it can't be answered, because the math would give you a prime number...or so you and 3bulletproof16 seem to think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're hearing what is being said. The WWE figure is 80,103, if there were actually 80,100 or 80,000 then some would question it because it is too perfect, or say that the number had been rounded. 80,103 may not have paid (and WWE are know for comping to fill venues especially WM) but the venue and WWE claim the figure as the "record attendance", I have no doubt that they leave out the crew and wrestlers who didn't wrestle and they include those who got in for free but who took a seat (like Mickey Rourke at WM25, I doubt he paid to be in the front row). Metzler then takes a number of figures from WWE and applies an average (I'm not sure if it's the mean, mode or median) and does some math. His math may be impeccable, his average may be weighted (to cancel out a $0 spend), his number may be certified by MIT; doesn't matter. He's the only source, until someone else takes the same data and gets the same number independently then his figure (however precise, and believe me the 7 at the end is deliberate) is still just an estimate by Dave Metzler. The footnote was proposed to try and close the endless thread which finished up at 120k before it finally went back to the article talk page. In summation; find a second source. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making absolutely no sense. Obviously, he is using the mean if he is talking about average, since that is the only one that is related to averages. There is no weighting involved. The average (mean) of 0, 1, 3, and 24 is 7, whether you like it or not. Sometimes quotients have 7s. To summarily dismiss any statistic containing a certain number is absurd, and that would certainly constitute a violation of No Original Research. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to simplify; Metzler knows the amount spent on merchandise (from WWE)= A, he know the "average" spend (something to do with money spent on baseball caps) = B, he takes A and divides it by B and gets C, the amount of actual people in the building. Nowhere does this explain where the other thousand fans went, this doesn't explain if he thinks people who were members of the McMahon or Trump family count, it doesn't explain if he's taken $0 spend in to account. In short, his maths may seem well worked out but we don't know. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary I seriously think you have misunderstood this entire argument. The factuality of Meltzer's claim isn't the only thing now being questioned... It is primarily the importance of the note that is being questioned. Can you legitimately justify the inclusion of such a trivial note when it was deemed non-notable due to the fact that no reliable independent source...or any source for that matter...to cover Meltzer's attendance dispute actually exists? I mean the whole thing is that trivial... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It is a verifiable statement that is in keeping with Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Having appeared in a reliable source is sufficient to establish notability for the claim. As was stated by an administrator when this was first brought to ANI: "Obviously you should use sources representing both figures." [188] For an encyclopedia to bill itself as "the sum of all human knowledge" and then dismiss facts that are in keeping with the encyclopedia's guidelines would be stupid and hypocritical. There is absolutely no policy or guideline to support your view. I can prove that it meets RS and V; you can prove nothing. Therefore, the information must be added back. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a self-published source and thus fails to meet both RS and V for this particular subject... Thanks for proving my point! You got this so wrong its not even funny!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Meltzer is an established expert on the topic and thus is considered a Reliable Source and meets the criteria for Verifiability. Next! GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that then you have absolutely no understanding of our policies and guidelines. Might want to read up. WP:SELFPUBLISH is the very reason your entire argument fails!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the guideline you are quoting states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Meltzer, as an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (see [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], and [194] for some of his books, not to mention many other books in which he has written forewords, sections, or has been credited as an invaluable resource—see [195]), seems to be a valid self-published source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take discussion of the content dispute somewhere else. ANI isn't the place for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a discussion as such - he's simply repeating himself and then sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "laa laa laa I'm not listening". A bit disruptive, I'd say, when you consider that he's been told rather a lot of times that all he needs to do is cite some reliable independent sources. I wonder why he's not done that? Guy (Help!) 08:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, do you have a reliable independent source for the figure, other than Meztler's estimate? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG - incivility

This issue has spun off of another thread at ANI, but I would like to see it addressed separately. JzG ignored a consensus on the WrestleMania 23 article and deleted content that was attributed to a reliable source. I left a templated warning message on his talk page ({{subst:uw-delete2}}). He responded on my talk page to not place templates on his page because he has been editing for several years. I am aware of DTTR, but it is merely an essay that I chose to ignore because his edit was, in essence, vandalism. I restored the content to the article page, and he removed it again. Once again, I issued a templated warning ({{subst:uw-delete3}}). He responded with the following message:

Please stop being a dick. If you continue to be a fuckwit, as you did at user talk:JzG you will be slapped with a large wet fish. Now never ever post a template warning on my talk page ever again, thanks all the same.

This was done with the edit summary "Idiot template for an iddiot". I am not looking to discuss the article itself here, as the discussion is going on in several locations already. I am, however, upset at the complete lack of civility on his part and would like to see this addressed. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"JzG ignored a consensus on the WrestleMania 23 article and deleted content that was attributed to a reliable source." Actually, the consensus shows support for the removal of the trivial text. The source was also deemed unreliable per WP:PW @ Talk: WrestleMania 23. Ahem... Continue...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be lost. You're clearly looking for a different discussion. This one is related to civility. I have addressed your statements in various other locations. Please reply there instead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You could have, you know, a) Not called his editing vandalism when it wasn't and b) not issued a template on his talk page when he asked you not to. This does not in any way excuse Guy's use of the words "fuckwit" and "idiot" and "dick", however, had you not insisted on slapping templates on him when he asked you not to, and instead typed your concerns about his editing in your own words, this could have all been avoided. Agree, he should not have called you names. But your were certainly pushing his buttons, and baiting him by leaving him templates when he specifically asked you not to was not a good idea. --Jayron32 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, in all the various arguments you've used during this sorry affair the only onw you've not tried as far as I can see is reliable independent sources showing the significance and context for the content you are edit-warring over. Why is that? Is it that there are no such sources, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 08:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yes, JzG made an uncivil post with an uncivil edit summary. Unless you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour (in which case it should be at WP:RFC/U, it should be at WP:WQA because at this point it's merely a red-herring in the whole issue, and your distraction from the real issue is actually working. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise the OP to try that as it's unlikely that his repeatedly slapping vandalism template warnings on my talk page, for a dispute that patently was not vandalism, will go down terribly well. Unfortunately he seems to lack a sense of humour about this particularly trivial dispute - it should be plain to anyone that my faked-up "warning" copied from the template he slapped on my talk was intended as humorous. Apparently he has s history of this kind of thing, I guess if he really wants to continue escalating this then he's welcome to do so but he should be aware that whatever he does will inevitably lead to scrutiny of his own actions, and I'm not sure they will stand up to it. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt about that Guy...I was just saying that we needed to exchange a herring for a trout :-) ... fish or cut bait. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the template was JzG's attempt at a joke, but nonetheless, I think it was inappropriate and suggest that he doesn't use such obscene humour again, since it clearly causes offence to some people, and drama at ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, if Guy put that exact message on my talkpage, I'd laugh about it. Maybe he should have used the word "fuckface" - after all, as Russell Peters says, "it cannot be an insult: it's simply the face you make when you fuck" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have a warning somewhere that "if you poke this dog enough times, it may bite". Guy (Help!) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help though, but under the circumstances I can see that you were sorely provoked. But... difficult as it is for me to say, if I was called a fuckwit by an editor who I had a disagreement with, I'd be pretty upset. Mind you, I wouldn't have slapped vandalism tags all over the other editors page during a content dispute... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

JzG is just this guy you know? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a reasonable suggestion for JzG to apologise for the fuckwit comment, and for GaryColemanFan to apologise for placing inappropriate vandalism templates on JzG's talk page? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If both sides are willing, that would probably be best. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always ready to apologise when my attempts at humour misfire. I think it's the "u" in humour? It doesn't seem to translate well. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)