Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623

User:Thisisaniceusername

Resolved

 – User blocked GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Thisisaniceusername currently has an article at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection. He is repeatedly removing other people's valid comments from the AfD and accusing them of harrassment - see [1], [2], and [3]. This is despite several warnings, even from an admin or two, on User talk:Thisisaniceusername. Please note that he has also already been blocked once for WP:3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that - just went to deliver a {{ANI-notice}} and I see he's already been blocked. That was quick work folks, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely typed up though. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 13:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear he's contesting the block. N419BH 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request was turned down. Last I saw there was further contesting occurring. I believe Thisisaniceusername may suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. TFOWR 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I expect more unblock requests and demands to be pointed to the exact letter of policy as well. – B.hotep •talk• 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's there now. The AfD is a bit of a mess, quite a few unsigned edits and he's edited it with an IP and two usernames. No socking, just not logged in and he had to change usernames. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no socking. He started with an IP, then when he and I had a disagreement he registered as "Youdontownwiki". That was blocked as an unsuitable name, so he changed it to "Thisisaniceusername". And he might have forgotten to log in once or twice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Ten Commandments

Resolved

 – Send it to the edit war noticeboard. Shadowjams (talk)

There are three lists of Ten Commandments in the OT; the TC article has listed them side-by-side for comparison for the last 18 months. There's now an edit war starting up on deleting one of the three as inappropriate, and that somehow acceptance for a year and a half does not count as consensus. That list does have its own article, but IMO the main article should include all POV's for comparison, even if one is mostly covered elsewhere. Anyway, the point is obtaining consensus to change a stable article, not demanding a new consensus to restore it to its stable state. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask God to add commandment 11: Don't edit war. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Pharoah edit war with Moses, and that ended with an indef block for him?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thou shalt not edit war. –MuZemike 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like this is something set in stone. Oh, wait... Anyway, why is a content dispute being posted here? To the extent there may be an edit war problem, the original poster who is reverting with edits marked as minor doesn't appear to hold the high ground. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, take two tablets and pray to me in the morning. And evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, weren't the Ten Commandments written on two tablets? –MuZemike 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Errm, weren't there Fifteen Commandments on three tablets, but Moses dropped one and smashed it to smithereens? Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quiet, you. –MuZemike 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Send it over to WP:3RN unless for some reason (that I don't see) there's something egregiously bad or urgent about what's going on with it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The current block on User:Ryan kirkpatrick

Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jersay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay. However based on the edits of 109.154.73.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since the block being a duck match for Ryan kirkpatrick that would seem to suggest Ryan kirkpatrick is not a sockpuppet of Jersay, unless he happens to have moved several thousands miles. I have discussed this with the blocking administrator and this discussion is not a cricitism of his good faith block based on the evidence at the time, and he has no 6objections to a wider discussion about what should be done with this editor.

Traditionally block evasion has done no favours to the blocked editor responsible, however I ask that the block evasion itself is not used against Ryan kirkpatrick. If you look at his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick you will see a history of cluelessness, so I doubt he would have been aware of the consequences of block evasion, particularly when the (good-faith) block was in error to begin with. So while Ryan kirkpatrick's general cluelessness should be taken into account, the block evasion is the least of his "crimes".

The request for comment linked above shows zero support for Ryan and there is plenty of questioning about whether he should be allowed to continue to edit, and I was planning to propose a topic ban prior to his block.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this block is a good block but for the the wrong reason and should be maintained, or whether Ryan kirkpatrick should be unblocked with editing restrictions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblocking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a discussion not a vote, and the simple "support unblocking" does not take into account what should be done about this editor. O Fenian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, it is simple. He was blocked for sockpuppetry. He did not do that. He should be unblocked. Any other issues can be dealt with, but keeping him blocked for something that he did not do is wrong. Unblock him, and if there are topic bans or whatever needed for other conduct, those can be discussed and decided on. GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the RfC is lacking in support for the subject, but it usually takes some effort to get from there to an indefinite block. An editing restriction should be easy enough to frame: edit nothing which has to do with terrorism and add no mentions of terrorism to things which don't already mention it. Or is there something I'm missing? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with that as a restriction. O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking the user with an editing restriction of no edits relating to terrorism. Let's assume good faith and hope the user does not sock. If he does, we will be forced to reblock. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock - but on a short leash. I'd rather have editors be monitored and mentored rather than resorting to new accounts. But if problems continue then blocks may be appropriate for an extended period. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Contentious allegations - Al Gore bio

Resolved

 – RFC started by Use:BGinOC on the Al Gore talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been a persistent effort to include sexual assault allegations against Al Gore connected with a massage he had in 2006. Material has been added and deleted repeatedly to the article.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - and there are many more incidents of this material being added and removed. Repeated discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Al_Gore#Recent_allegations is seemingly resolved, then brought up again minutes later, going round and round. Al Gore's spokeswoman has said the allegations are "defamatory", and Gore reportedly strenously denies them. There are no witnesses other than Gore and the masseuse. She did not contact the police for more than 2 months after the alleged incident, then failed to meet with police for an interview for nearly 2 years. A police investigation was closed twice for lack of evidence, (in 2007 and 2009), and is now reopened for the "procedural" reason that a supervisor did not sign off on the closing of the complaint previously. The masseuse has sold her story to the National Enquirer for as much as $1 million, and charged Gore $560 for the massage. These facts, (especially the payment by the tabloid), make a prosecution unlikely. In any event, the complaint has not been brought to a prosecutor for charges; it is still at the level of a police report/investigation after nearly 4 years. The question is - should her allegations be in Al Gore's bio? My position is no, not unless and until a prosecutor brings charges. I think the allegations is "poorly sourced", contentious at this point, though they have been repeated now in numerous RSs. There are Wiki users on both sides of this issue, repeated removals and re-adds and unresolved repeating arguments on the talk page. A ruling is needed - the content dispute cannot be resolved by the many involved editors. KeptSouth (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are you trying to resolve an issue or just push your POV? Sumbuddi (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page is already configured for pending changes, so unless someone is requesting a block for edit warring or blatant blp vio I'm not sure admin action is necessary here. This looks like a content dispute for the BLP noticeboard, followed by possible an WP:RFC on the matter. -- œ^™ 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While I am in agreement with the pretense that the article is in dire need of attention by those in higher authority than the editors and writers who add content and then find it deleted by another editor or writer, I stand on the opposite side of the fence of KeptSouth. with the Portland police Department officially repoening said case, as well as the multiple arguments between supporters of inclusion in the article and those that seem to wish to keep this news off the article. Relevance has been met, it is a matter of public record, the name of the accuser has been released and it has been the subject of newspapers and magazines across the nation. This event even if it falls flat on its face and is found to be completely groundless will remain a significant historical highlight of the political history of 2010. At stake is Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased. This matter has gone beyond a flash in the pan event, yet those that wish for it not to be included refute every attempt at logical and precedent setting examples of other living person biography articles that do include similar allegations of sexual wrongdoings. Now that the case has been re-opened by the Portland Police Bureau, it is only logical to include a section with a paragraph or two recording the case for future reference. After reading his letter, I must ask - what would Jimmy Wales do? I think he said to BE BOLD! With that we are trying, but as KeptSouth explains, the discussion is turning into a war room full of too many little chiefs arguing the point incessantly and not allowing edits to be posted. BGinOC (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no Administrator action required here, as User OlEnglish already suggested, start a RFC on the talkpage or open a thread on the WP:BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Chuck Marean#Appeal by Chuck Marean

Resolved

 – Consensus is clearly against unblocking at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

This community banned user is once again seeking mentorship and a lift of his ban. I remember him from about this time a year ago and personally don't recommend it, and have stated as much on his talk page here User talk:Chuck Marean#Comments by others about the appeal by Chuck Marean. If anyone else would like to look at the related discussions (they are posted there) and weigh in, please feel free. Heiro 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the Madoff apologist who absolutely, positively refuses to accept that Madoff pled guilty and went out of his way to try to change the entire article to reflect that...on numerous occasions. And considering this edit nothing has changed. There seems to not only be a major trolling issue, but there's a serious competence issue, too. --Smashville^talk 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• If an experienced admin mentor can be found who will be on-Wiki at least as much as Chuck and who will be willing to follow his contribs, I'd be willing to support the proposal. Otherwise no. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I spent multiple years attempting this. It failed. [9] --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose then, and also thank you for your mentoring efforts, ZZB. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Absolutely not, forget it. The amount of hand-holding and supervision this guy needs is far and above any actual potential value he could have to the project. We don't need any more conspiracy theorists/POV pushers/original research/fringe historical revisionists. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I declined this user's last request [10] for an unban discussion because it had only been a few months since the previous one, and because they still did not seem to understand what Wikipedia is, how it works, and why their edits were not acceptable. Nothing I see here gives me reason to change that opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would also like to suggest that his talk page be revoked and he be advised to make any future request via email to WP:BASC due to his continual requests to be unbanned and his lack ability or willingness to wait a few more months and to to understand what it was he did wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose He seems to view editing as something different to content creating (I thought Wikipedia was for editing; I suppose considering Wikipedia to be an editing site is outdated) so it's quite hard to understand whether he has a grasp of what went wrong. Incidentally, it's not really POV pushing. Just find the endless argument on TANSTAAFL about the use of the word ain't.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Dear god, no. I've logged in -- breaking my retirement -- solely to express this opposition. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For context see this [11], as Chuck was one of the contributing reasons this user, who had de facto mentored Chuck for 3+ years, retired a year ago. Heiro 04:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's snowing. I challenge anyone to agree to lifting his ban after reading this admission of cluelessness. Fences&Windows 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In the woeful display of cluelessness pointed out by fences and windows, Chuck essentially admits that he is useless to this project. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I just spent about 30 minutes combing through this editor's contributions and the interactions associated with them. The Madoff commentary alone showed a fairly severe disassociation with reality, but there seems to be a continued inability to understand the truly odd behavioral problems that have been patiently pointed out to him. I don't see any reason valuable editors should again be presented with this distraction. Kuru (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I left a more detailed explanation on his talk page, but in short, perhaps one day this user will be able to work with us, but not anytime soon. Sodam Yat (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Chuck's comments (past and present) lead me to believe that he is simply profoundly unsuited to editing here. It's very sad but I don't see how unbanning him could have a reasonable expectation of not ending in disaster. Mentorship should only be considered if we have a reasonable belief it might be successful but looking at Chuck's inability to understand the purpose of Wikipedia (he says thought it was some kind of "recreational editing site" that buys articles for people to play with, not a serious project to build an encyclopedia) and his inability to take on feedback, I just don't believe that it is viable and I think it would end up with another editor being burned out by him and having to spend all their Wikipedia time basically acting as a nanny. His view seems to be that if he hasn't heard of something or doesn't understand it he'd prefer Wikipedia articles be incorrect or inaccurate in order to fit his world view, rather than going and educating himself. This is seen in his desire to rename the Queen Elizabeth article "because whoever heard of the United Kingdom?" [12] and wanting to rewrite the introduction, because he'd never heard of/couldn't understand the Queen's titles,[13], tagging the banks article as disputed because he didn't understand the purpose of banks, [14] wanting to editorialise in the There ain't no such thing as a free lunch article because he couldn't understand colloquialisms,[15] wanting the Finance introduction rewritten because he couldn't understand the terminology [16][17] and who could forget him wanting to describe Bernard Madoff's actions as "good faith" and objecting to him being called a "convicted felon".[18] I just don't think Chuck and Wikipedia are a good fit and I don't think he's sufficiently competent to edit in a way that's not going to inevitably result in more disruption. Sarah 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As the Admin who dropped the hammer on Chuck Marean, I don't think I need to add anything to this discussion. However, from reading the appeal of his ban on his talk page, I got the impression that I was supposed to defend my action there. So I added a statement, in which I most likely sound like a dork. I would have appreciated it had someone had dropped me a note that I was involved, seeing how I'm not always online; I'm not clear whether that was Marean's responsibility, or anyone who was involved. (Please note, sometimes I add to threads on WP:AN/I before I have read the entire page, as I had above. And the pressures of having a life away from Wikipedia forces me to then leave my computer for several hours, as it has just now.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think your not being notified was just a lapse in communication. Chuck mistakenly named me as the admin who closed the ban discussion (I guess because I'm the last person in his block log but all I did was give him back the ability to edit his talk page when he appealed to unblock-en-l). I was notified as a result. I guess when I told Chuck he had the wrong admin, I should have also passed the notification on to you. My apologies for that. I don't think you should feel you need to defend yourself - all you did was implement the community decision. Sarah 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've had Chucks talk page watchlisted since he was banned last year. When his thing popped up recently, I added a few comments. When no one else had noticed after a day or 2, I posted this here at ANI. I wasn't sure if I should inform everyone he listed, I apologize if I should've. Regards, Heiro 06:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC).

No apology needed; I honestly am neither offended or feel injured by this. Rather, my attitude towards all of this is best described as puzzled with a seasoning of bemusement. (Does an Admin really need to defend her/his acting on behalf of the community?) I blocked Chuck Marean because the consensus at the time appeared to me that until he obtained a mentor no one wanted to deal with his edits. He still has yet to find one; not that surprising since he only posted a request for one a few days ago, after being blocked for about a year. And looking at all of the comments in this thread, I see no one has yet argued for lifting the block; almost every one is arguing quite forcefully -- & in some cases, more eloquently than I could -- against lifting it. Do we really need to debate this further? At least until someone steps forward & offers to mentor him? But that is something I sincerely wouldn't wish on even my worst enemy. -- llywrch (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested he try Conservapedia, lol. Heiro 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, but not for the reasons above. He's a vandal. A funny vandal, but a vandal nonetheless. He is poking fun at all of y'all, and managed to continue to vandalize articles for years. All you have to do is look at the diffs - he is being intentionally obtuse - such as commenting at one point that an "edit" cannot be disruptive. Strictly speaking, that is correct, the editor is disruptive, not the edit, but as long as y'all let him, he'll continue to do this. I don't know if it is for his own entertainment or what, but he's doing the same thing in this request. And I know, I'm probably not AGF, but the evidence seems to me to be overwhelming. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always suspected he was a troll playing Forrest Gump, but he never breaks character, so its hard to decide. Either way, challenged or troll, he isn't compatible here.Heiro 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that thought has passed through everyone's mind; I know it has passed through mine. Unfortunately, there are people in the world as stupid as Chuck Marean is acting here: those stupid computer user stories are true, I can attest to that. But as I wrote above, even if he's not a vandal is there any reason to debate this further? Nothing has changed since he was indefinitely blocked about a year ago. -- llywrch (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we mark this resolved, inform Chuck and be done now? Heiro 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There may be people that stupid, but they are not that clever or well-spoken. This guy is not lacking in intelligence and probably trumps most of us here. His Madoff comments -- veiled social commentary on his opposition to government bailouts (including the concept of bankruptcy). It is true that he never breaks character ...sort of...read his edit summaries, and he gives you a clue that he is not in fact as clueless as he plays. I actually spent hours last night reading this guy's edit history and laughing my ass off. This for instance: [19]. If you look at the content and quality of his contributions as a whole, it becomes very apparent that he is taking shots at wikipedia in a sort of reverse self-deprecating manner. Were he to break form, it would no longer be funny or effective, and he would most certainly be banned outright. The fact that he has been able to behave this way for several years is in itself quite humorous (if one can refrain from taking oneself too seriously as many here are apt to do). I am not going to vote because while policy would dictate a particular position, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading his contributions and laughing so hard in the process. I appreciate cleverness and this unique type of intelligence although it is contra-indicated in this collaborative project. Minor4th • talk 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that he's a blatant troll. He's now claiming he didn't understand that wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia and that he thought it was "just an editing" site...whatever the hell that is. No one who is able to write at least semi-coherently is as incompetent as he appears to be. --Smashville^talk 15:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a clear consensus here, this should be closed and Chuck notified on his talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 2 July 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.

Deletion of Jonathan Kane: The Protector

• Wikipedia is really being cruel now-a-days.As An administrator has deleted the article.I created article three months ago.It was tagged for deletion under criteria G11 after two days of creation.I put hangon template on it and major cleanup was done then.User:DGG checked it and removed the template and told that the article was not an advertisement.It was just written like any other video game article.Now, Yesterday User:Orangemike deleted the article without even informing me or giving me the chance to oppose the deletion.This is the worst thing on Wikipedia.I am experienced user with over 900 edits.I know Wikipedia policies.Though, the article was treated like a pure advertisement.I agree that the article was stub.but, that isn't the reason to delete the article.This is truly unfair.I need justice.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I'd be prepared to restore part of the article, though I'd want to run it past Orangemike first. However, there are a few other comments to make first:

  • The article was not deleted because it was an advertisement: it was deleted as a {{db-g12}} because there was a serious WP:COPYVIO: the "Story" section appears to be a copy-and-paste from the "Features" section of this webpage.
  • The article was tagged as {{db-g12}} on 30 June by OlEnglish (talk · contribs · count).

  I'm not sure why you weren't notified about the {{db-g12}}. Sometimes things like this slip past. I think OlEnglish should have let you know, but I also think you should have known better than to copy-and-paste from websites that state "Copyright 2008 - www.ourpcgame.blogspot.com".

  Assuming that the section I've identified is the only copyvio, as confirmed by the deleting admin, and there were no other reasons for the deletion, I'd be prepared to restore it. But watch those WP:COPYVIOs!

  TFOWR 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't tag it as G12, I didn't even tag it for speedy at all. I put a {{copypaste}} tag on it. And Orangmike DID delete it as G11. -- œ^™ 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OlEnglish, my apologies, you're quite right. ({{copypaste}}, followed by G11). Too early for me, not enough coffee.

themaxviwe, I'd still want want to hear from OrangeMike first, and I'd still want the copy/paste issue to be addressed.

TFOWR 08:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) I'd recommend WP:REFUND for Themaxviwe if he's really that distressed over it. -- œ^™ 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the webpage when I wrote the article and I wrote them in encyclopedic format.In Completely different style.I didn't knew that it would break copyright policy.User:OlEnglish should had to notify me about it.Admin had to delete only the section not the whole article.I'm very sorry for the copyright policy.because when I created the article I was very new(my second day on Wikipedia), so I wasn't aware of any Wikipedia Policy.After experience on Wikipedia I forgot to remove the material from the article.That's all what I had to say friends.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 08:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing it in your own words to be encyclopaedic while drawing information from a source is fine; just cite the source. But apparently at least one section was felt to be a copy-and-paste dump from the source, and wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Since OlEnglish marked it as a potential copy-and-paste, there was no need to inform you as he was not suggesting drastic action such as deletion, but OrangeMike decided there was enough reason to delete it as a copyright violation (G12). If the article is restored, just be careful not to introduce any more copyright violations and there shouldn't be an issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the article to User:Themaxviwe/Jonathan Kane: The Protector. Since nobody other than Themaxviwe himself has edited the article other than for vandalism, reverts, and tagging, I was able to do this without restoring the history (and thus the copyvio section). There, Themaxviwe can work on it peaceably taking care to make it an encyclopedic article that is well-sourced. --B (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, B. As other folks have said, we are pretty serious around here about copyright violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much everybody.I'll improve article then move it to article space.Thanks again.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've deleted the userfied version as well. The text was a straight copy from [20] (More info section), the homepage of the publisher. Please, when restoring something alleged to be a copyright violation, check if the rest of the text isn't one. I'll no go and spotcheck some other conributions by themaxwive. Fram (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very annoying.I'm tired of this thing.I am telling everyone that this is the reason why Wikipedia is now-a-days being very bad.Now what??????I've told you that I'll improve the article and after all is OK I'll move it to Article Space then what's the problem with Fram.I have told up side that I wasn't aware of this policies when I created the article.(How many times I have to tell that I was only two days old on Wikipedia).Now,I am not a supercomputer that I'll improve the article in few minutes after restoration.It'll take me about one day to remove the copyrighted material and write the informative thing.Help me.This is extremely unfair.And Fram you want to check my contribution.OK?I want to tell you that I have created only two articles(except the moved articles).Other one is very stub type and I am sure that I have written it myself.Help meMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Max, copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately, not slowly edited out. By all means look at the source and write an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic in your own words, but you shouldn't introduce a copyright violation into any page, for any length of time. I suggest rewriting the article as your own work, and we can then see about moving it back to mainspace if it meets policy. I understand that you're new to wikipedia and you're not aware of our policies, but I'd recommend at least skimming them before attempting to write your own article, and especially understand that we cannot accept copyright violations. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK,I agree with all of you but would you please restore the Infobox of video gaming article to my user space?It's not copyrighted material at all.It'll also reduce my load when I'll create article again.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable request; I'm not an admin so I can't do this myself though, you'll have to wait for an admin to see this. By the way, please only leave me a talkback message if it's something with specifically demands my attention; anything which could just as easily (or in this case, only) be handled by another editor isn't worth leaving a talkback note for, and since I have this page on my watchlist I probably would have replied anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done The infobox is restored to the same location. --B (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Donny Long

Resolved

 – Article deleted, Donnylong community banned for many disruptions and obscene personal attacks - Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request admin assistance at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, where the individual "Donny Long" is still mass-IP hopping and adding personal threats, threats of disruption (and er, disruption). Since I've reverted three times today (though that was to remove personal attacks), I'd rather not do so again as this isn't worth risking 3RR over. I believe this needs the attention of an admin and application of the duck rule to block each new IP as it starts vandalising under this individual's name. He's already been blocked on about 3 IP addresses at least, I believe, and has been using dozens of IP addresses in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD of which he is the subject. Thanks in advance. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second this request. I have found the entire situation completely laughable, and the IPs actions deplorable and offensive. I have blocked one for 24 hours (suspect it has expired now) but I would go so far as to protect the AfD to stop this nonsense. There is a deeper, more worrying gap in policy that is allowing the idea of a 'subject' wishing for an article deletion to become an actual AfD argument, but that can't be fixed here or now. I propose protection of the AfD, this is unprecedented bollocks - if you excuse my language. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was considering requesting semi-protection of the AfD, but expected that it would be a violation of policy since it would prevent non-autoconfirmed users from adding their arguments to the page. My current approach has simply been to mark all of Donny Long's multiple IPs with the SPA template and leave a request that the reviewing admin take care in determining consensus on the closure of the AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the thing has been open for only two days and is already such a mess from this nonsense. The only reason I don't use strong terms is because I know WP:BLP includes non-article pages! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Re: 3RR: I would also like to ask an admin if they can confirm that since I have been reverting truly blatant personal attacks on this page, I am not in danger of violating WP:TALKO or WP:3RR? If I have incorrectly assumed this, I apologise and will refrain from reverting these comments in future. I will wait for this confirmation before continuing to help deal with this trouble user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have protected a few of the pages he likes to vandalize. His threats are pointless. You are not in danger of violating 3RR at this point, given that what he is typing is clearly vandalism. If he can rationally explain his points without personal attacks then don't revert.  7  13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that for me, 7. I thought so too but didn't want to risk a violation by just assuming I was in the right here. I have been very careful to leave any of his comments which could been considered even slightly constructive, and opted to remove only the most blatant attacks / threats. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 7, for your boldness in protecting it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a few ages that the IP has been attacking seems wise. However, semi-protecting an AfD two days into it seems to be very unwise, especially in regard to prior discussions. Wouldn't it be better just to continue to mark the SPIs? AfDs shouldn't be limited just to autoconfirmed users. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at WP:PP again and can't see any rule against protecting XFDs which are being vandalized. I'll shorten the time for now, and if any other admin feels that protection was inappropriate please unprot without any need for consultation with me.  7  15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop being high and mighty just delete his page. Its a rubbish valueless article that the subject objects to, ow he is angry what can we do about him, he is on a dynamic IP and is angry about his rubbish wikipedia BLP. Never mind blocking him and protecting all and sundry just delete it and move on to something worthwhile. How dare he rudely try and tell us wikipedia editors what to do with his rubbish BLP article, ,keep the rubbish BLP keep I say. I am a wikipedia editor, how dare he. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...eh? Did you just argue both ways? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The first part is my position ... Stop being high and mighty just delete his page. Its a rubbish valueless article that the subject objects to, Never mind blocking him and protecting all and sundry just delete it and move on to something worthwhile... the rest is what I object to.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No part of me is carrying on in the way you suggest, I merely object to the idea that, if someone has done something notable, they can dictate through abuse and legal threat how their activities are recorded. If the article fits with WP:BLP, which is a matter of editing, not deleting, then it is a record taken from reliable sources that are all themselves accessible. If the subject doesn't want to be noted as existing in the wider world, then he should have thought about that before he went and did it. I couldn't care less what he says about it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a legal threat at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Libel and no response from wiki. Let the AfD take its course. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Facepalm* Threaten Jimbo... Has someone blocked per WP:NLT? N419BH 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This section contains huge violations of WP:DOLT. There are multiple users who need to be quickly ushered away from bios of living persons here. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not harp on forever about this, I don't want to piss off everyone on Wikipedia, but this I have to say. Along with the founding principles of Wikipedia, everyone edits, and so on and so forth, must surely be the idea that - if information is notable - a user should be able to come to Wikipedia and expect it to be found here. Therefore, notable content must be included. I will accept without question any delete argument that argues on the basis of notability criteria, however any arguement made for deletion revolving around the idea that the subject does not want the article on Wikipedia... well, I find that to be the opposite to what we are here to do. Delete the unreferenced BLP violations, of course, but if the subject is notable the article should stay. And I don't respond well the bullies, and from what I have seen this is what the IP is doing, bullying. None of us should have to put up with the kind of content he has added to talk pages and the like. I have a very real concern that one is at risk of being cowed by the legal and verbal threats and abuse of this person into making a choice which is not based on actual policy. That doesn't sit very well with me at all. But hey, it's only Wikipedia... I can drop my stick :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to note that I completely agree with what SGGH has written above. If we allow subjects to dictate encyclopedia content, as opposed to dealing reasonably with reasonable requests, we put the project in a very precarious place, where it can potentially be manipulated to its detriment. We have an obligation to our readers to provide accurate information about notable subjects, and any failure to do so based on bullying is malfeasance and a betrayal of that obligation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with both users! To give in to bullying can only set a dangerous precedent. If the subject isn't notable, then delete the article, but let's not do it (just or also) because we're fed up with coping with all the fuss and abuse he's been kicking up. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on several folks' talk pages, what I fear has happened is that Donny has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The closure read "the article is obviously causing the subject some distress" and at the base a user asked commenting users to consider the subjects feeling in this. I think this is the most worrying thing I have seen in four years of Wikipedia using. I hope other living persons with biographies don't think they can assault, abuse and manipulate their way into deleting or tailoring their articles. Wikipedia is not their personal biography site. I think I saw a serious step back today. Sad to see it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with SGGH entirely here. The individual refused to even tell us which statements he felt were libel; if the subject of an article can offer a legitimate concern then that's different to throwing a tantrum because the wikipedia article doesn't match his libellous blog. I am even more concerned by the fact that several users have opposed the ban proposal below on the grounds that mass-sockpuppetry, vandalism, libel, legal threats, and repeated personal attacks directed at many users, are apparently all completely justified if the individual has unspecified concerns with the article about him... and given that the behaviour continued after we deleted and salted his article, I fail to see how it can be claimed that that was the only reason, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Closing as "community banned", consensus seems clear
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the above, I propose a community ban of User:Donnylong (the main account of the article subject). That will free us up to revert all of his IPs without the 3RR headache. The main account has been blocked since 2008 anyway. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I would support however it is possible that if the AfD results in delete, the user will (hopefully) never, ever come back here. If the result is keep, it might not ever die down and in that eventuality such an action might be necessary. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Whether it eventually dies down or otherwise, the user has already more than proven that such action is necessary, and necessary now. If he never comes back, then he's unlikely to be missed; if he does, we can immediately deal with it per a community ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC) True, you can count my comment as a support of the ban. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Strong support. (edit conflict × 2) I reverted all the edits I saw which were unquestionably vandalism, but given the amount of abuse he's given us, I see no reason why we should be forced to answer the occasional question he leaves which isn't a threat or personal attack (but is still almost always written in capitals with a good serving of profanity). He's already received 31-hour blocks on about 6 IPs and a permanent block on at least one username, and that's just the ones I've warned and reported. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support said community ban, whether the article is deleted or not, he's really not someone we need around here. Heiro 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose We don't ban people for having abusive bios written about them and responding by lashing out. We do ban people for writing abusive biographies. This is disturbing behavior, especially from an admin. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) No, we edit bios until they are neutral and well reference, but we do ban abusive, disruptive editors who vandalise other articles. None of us wrote the article. I find the behaviour of some other users regarding this topic to be extremely disturbing myself, and the whole thing treads on, for me, something as central to Wikipedia as the idea that "anyone can edit". S.G.(GH) ping! 16:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) He's lashing out because we refuse to let him control the article, which seems to be his only purpose for being here. His personal attacks, socking, vandalism, et all deserve a Community Ban.Heiro 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) We also ban people for abusing many, many IP addresses in an attempt to bully us into deleting his article because we won't change it to be an advertisement for him. We already went to pain-staking effort to verify all the sources in the article, remove anything which was POV, etc., and he refused to identify what he mistakenly referred to as libel, while all the time abusing us all repeatedly. Are you saying that using at least 20-30 IP addresses to vandalise a myriad of pages, repeatedly leave personal attacks, threats of disruption, and legal threats, as well as to attempt to cheat the AfD process, is not worthy of a community ban? More than that, you seem to be suggesting that it is "disturbing behaviour" to suggest that this warrants a ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) ((also ec)) I'm not sure I follow, Hipocrite. Are you saying the bio was written by an admin and that's disturbing, or it's disturbing that I'm proposing a community ban? I'm not an admin, by the way. It appears from the AfD that the article will be deleted yet the subject continues to sock abusively, posting expletive-laden screeds, disrupting the AfD, making personal attacks, and issuing legal threats on Jimbos talk page because we won't simply delete it immediately on demand. I personally think the article should be deleted and I voted as such at the AfD. But the gross disruption isn't warranted. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose - While I cannot condone the behaviour of the user, they appear to be acting out of anger and frustration about what they feel to be legitimate and un-addressed concerns over their BLP. If the disruption persists, banning may be necessary but this discussion is premature. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I suspect I'm too involved to !vote, but I tend to agree with Delicious carbuncle here. This may well be a non-issue in a few days, and banning someone clearly upset about content describing them in an article won't prevent any further disruption, but risks continuing to escalate it. - Bilby (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support - Anger and frustration may explain his behavior, but they do not excuse it, nor do they oblige us to allow him to continue to vent his feelings here. He's got a blog where he can do that, and the capacity to e-mail his complaints through proper channels. Despite his repeated inability to communicate exactly what it is that he wants, he's been extended a great deal of latitude, and behaved in a way that would have gotten most ordinary editors blocked ages ago; his status as a complaining subject of an article is not a license to do whatever he pleases, disrupting the community and annoying those trying to help him. As an inherent SPA only interested in one thing, and having no intent on improving the encyclopedia, we lose absolutely nothing by banning him, and gain a measure of control over his disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC) The user's account is blocked as well as a number of IPs. I expect that any disruptive IPs will continue to get blocked. Banning isn't magic that prevents anyone from accessing Wikipedia with a different IP. What purpose will it serve? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC) As mentioned above, it will serve to allow this user's disruption to be reverted by any editor without having to worry about WP:3RR which would usually prevent it unless it's absolute blatant vandalism. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support. While the user is making a lot of noise about the contents of the bio, what appears to have touched off his current spree was the removal (by several editors, myself included) of his insertion of links promoting his current web business into various articles. I don't see any sign that the user has any constructive intent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support. This project is definitely much better off without him; he's been vandalising and disrupting ever since he got here. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support ban – We don't need him disrupting Wikipedia any more. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Support indef ban to prevent further damage to encyclopedia - He's been using sockpuppets in a way probhibited by policy, and edit warring using those socks (one sock, another, but there are more), attacking other editors at a talk page at Talk:Donny Long. I'm going to have to look at some more policies to make a decision on how to vote at AfD, but he is disrupting the Wiki, and I'd support a indef site-ban to stop this from happening. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 10:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: Donny is quacking again: 94.100.22.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC) And again: 216.155.145.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC) And again: 178.63.231.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So much for the theory that a duck's quack doesn't produce an echo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose I understand that Wikipedians have repeatedly inserted unsourced and grossly defamatory material into the man's BLP, and that these accounts have not to date received any community sanction whatsoever. If my understanding is correct on that point, it is simply unjust for us to take action against the aggrieved party as long as we haven't first swept in front of our own doorstep, and pronounced article or BLP bans against the editors concerned. Justice must be done, and seen to be done. Once the defamatory edits to his BLP have been surveyed, including oversighted ones, if any, and appropriate sanctions have been taken against all those who made them, we should apprise the subject of the actions we have taken and can revisit this. --JN466 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) We thoroughly reviewed the article and ensured there were no BLP violations and he continued to abuse us stating that we should use his blog to "fix" the wikipedia article. Frankly the only libel or BLP violations I've seen in this entire process are the ones he's been throwing at us from dozens of IP addresses, and he continues to vandalise wikipedia from multiple IPs despite the fact that his article has now been deleted and salted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I seem to remember seeing BLP violations in the article's edit history. By the way, using the subject's self-published sources in his own BLP is okay by our policies (subject to certain constraints). --JN466 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I believe there were a couple of rather nasty BLP concerns in the article, but a couple of users quickly removed them and thoroughly reviewed the article to make sure it was per-policy; no change in Donny Long though, who insisted that we "play by his rules" and insert libel about other people into his article, or outright delete it, or he would continue to cause disruption by rotating his IPs and vandalising; that's a threat he acted on, even after we deleted and salted his article per AfD consensus. His behaviour has been completely inappropriate, he hasn't come close to making a single positive contribution, and he's broken about every policy we have. What else does a user need to do to be worthy of a community ban? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Were any actions taken against the users who inserted these "nasty" BLP violations? If not, then please let's do that first. --JN466 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) So far as I can see, they were just hit and run, eg this guy in 2008 User talk:Tspuches. We don't have a 'one strike and you're blocked' policy, although that can happen. Any editors who continued to violate BLP would end up blocked. A number of edits were oversighted this year, and the time before that there was thought to be vandalism, 2008, the page was blanked and protected and an editor blocked - which turned out to be a mistake as the edits were not BLP violations. There may have been some stuff I missed of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Support - since the article has been deleted, and even the AfD discussion courtesy blanked, now we can finally ban the guy, who has violated just about every rule we have around her, from sockpuppetry to NLT to civility to AGF, and who has spread every kind of bile there is across every discussion he has ever been involved in, and who persistently threatens to maximize his efforts to besmirch Wikipedia across the Internet in every way he can? To say that he has nothing to contribute to what he persistently describes as "wiki" or "the wiki" or "my wiki" is to engage in dramatic understatement. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Support, continued pattern of disruption, even after the article was deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Moot. Article is deleted, and despite some of the usual DRV caterwauling, will in all likelihood not be returning. Take this as a lesson that piss-poor BLPs have an effect on the real world, and that not every human being will, or should be expected to, act rationally when their life is distorted for all the world to see. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Guess we're lucky that dead people can't get an Internet connection, or we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Support - if a good faith contributor risks being blocked for 3RR for reverting clear disruption to the project (that is taking place by repetitive socking), there is something seriously wrong. He can legitimately appeal when he's ready to make constructive contributions; the appeal would be given extra consideration in recognition of the frustration factor, though based on what I'd seen, I am doubting that there is going to be change (should he return). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Support. I can see no possibility of this editor contributing constructively to Wikipedia, and a considerable likelihood of continued disruption e.g. insertion of spam links, continued personal attacks and socking. Long story short, there's no downside to banning this editor. If anyone wants to pursue action against anyone who inserted BLP violations in his article, go for it. That's a separate matter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The consensus here looks pretty clear with only a couple opposes to many supports. I am going to be bold and add the necessary tags. If this is improper, feel free to revert me. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson - attacks, talk page blankings, etc.

Problems with this user, mostly around the articles Al Gore and the afd about a new article. Lots of WP:NPA, despite warnings on her user talk page, and even blanked statements on a talk page. Maybe a ban/block is inappropriate and this person is just wound up right now, but someone should really figure out a way to slow her down. — Timneu22 · talk 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has carried over from the content dispute above. Definite personal attack, no question about it. I've left a handwritten final warning on TruthfulPerson's talk page. Just so you know, we are supposed to notify any user we discuss here. I included this notification on the talk page, with a warning that any personal attacks here will probably be met with a block. N419BH 16:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about non-notification. Didn't know. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Happens all the time when a new editor comes to this page. Next time there's an issue that needs to be brought here, you'll know. N419BH 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also warned the user about deleting others' comments from a talk page (the actual diff of which is here). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

YAWWWN. Steven, are you referring to your warning to Brendan Frye after he blanked the section I added? Oh -- you somehow overlooked that, didn't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs)

Here's another example of modifying other users' comment. — Timneu22 · talk 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to wake you, TP. Please post a diff showing where Brendan altered your talk page comments and I'll give him a warning, too. Unless you're just lying again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's entire contrib history shows that he has a large "I'm here to fight the censorship of the liberal agenda!" axe to grind. From this topic to the Obama affair allegations, POV-pushing at Coffee Party USA, and WP:OR dribble like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-birtherism. He began his editing career pushing some of the weakest of the birther arguments as well. This is inevitably heading for some sort of block or topic ban, we've seen this pattern far, far too many times. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that also. He has a long list of warnings. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"She", not "he", right? — Timneu22 · talk 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, I am a bit old-fashioned and probably slightly un-PC in that I default to male pronouns when a gender is not known, rather than to some New Age xe/xhe junk. But anyways... Tarc (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I got the impression the user was a woman, and this edit sort of led me further that way. None of this really matters anyway! — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Truthinyourface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is going to spiral out of control quickly as this user finds ancillary articles such as the Portland Police Bureau (Oregon) to add a history section to. Facepalm Tarc (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

twice.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This user needs to be blocked now, for at least a couple hours. Every edit of hers is a revert, and everything she does is reverted. It's an all-out war on multiple pages. — Timneu22 · talk 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I just had a look. They're at 3 reverts at Portland Police Bureau (Oregon), and they've been warned about 3RR. A block now, and they'd complain they didn't know until too late. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope... TFOWR 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The user was blocked for 12 hours; however, I believe we could start discussing a topic ban from all articles dealing with American politics broadly construed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just some additional info: As noted by Steven J. Anderson above, User:Truthinyourface is similar. User:TruthfulPerson also edits from User:207.29.40.2, as evidenced here and here. This is not an accusation of abusive sockpuppeteering, just an attempt to gather all editing histories together if a review of editing behavior is to be done as suggested above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The name says it all. Call me hard-liner, but here is yet another case that is unable to understand WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and thereby eats up the time of those who do. A topic ban is logical, and pending further investigation I'd be willing to look at a full ban if abusive behavior can be established via socks. Jusdafax 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with move

Resolved

I just moved the page Srv school to Sri Raasi Vinayaga school, and it's intermittently showing the new page as a red link and acting as if it doesn't exist. I'm not sure what the problem is, but perhaps an admin could look at the move log and figure it out. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me; try bypassing your browser's cache. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, intermittently? Ah, I see. It just did the same for me; interesting. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Same here; the links are all blue, and even popups shows the content of the second article when you hover over it, and shows the first article as a redirect of the second article. The move log shows that the page has been moved, so I do not know what is the problem with the page. Perhaps one server hasn't been updated yet? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. Purging the cache worked. Now try viewing the page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Never had that happen with a move before. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban of user:WillBildUnion?

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

I was asked to look at this with a view to summing up consensus. There seems to be a consensus to impose a topic ban on WillBildUnion from making edits related to Christian, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics—broadly construed, and to include talk pages—for six months, to be reviewed after three months if Will wants a review. That topic ban should now be considered in effect. Uninvolved admins may use their discretion regarding how best to enforce it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia often attracts cranks. WillByuildUnion's only purpose is to use Wikipedia to promote his own original reearch. He is remarkably consistent, so you can learn it all [here]. He is an SPA POV-pushing violator of NOR and all he does is waste other editors' time. Can we just be rid of him? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoo, after reviewing some of his edits, at the very least, I think this warrants a topic ban from Christianity and related articles. Verbal chat 14:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) More disruptive editing: [21], (this is particulalry funny), [22], [23], [24]

A topic ban would be fine, but include Hebrew and Roman and Egyptian related topics too, please .... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Has he made any constructive edits? Looking into it further I'm leaning towards full ban. Verbal chat 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try something short of full-ban. Would it be sufficient to ban him from topics relating to Caesarion, loosely construed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WBU Proposal

Topic ban for Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics.

• "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to the Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics, broadly construed." wording revised for procedural issue Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, c'mon, do not ban, anything. I promise to shape up, stop talk page talk of over excessiveness, and do editing with RS. No ban of any kind needed. I'm here to make Wikipedia better by the standards of it and assume good faith. WillBildUnion (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Show us you can do this by working on something else constructively.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Verbal chat 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For at least six months, then review. Verbal chat 18:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I stop editing Christianity, Hebrew, Rome and Egypt articles. I beg and apply for a no-ban.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that a ban won't stop you from editing the encyclopedia otherwise -- if you're going to stop editing those articles, a ban won't affect you at all, even if it's active. BTW, Todd, would you like to amend your proposal to include an end date? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - request that the ban be considered extensive, and that it be extended to topics and edits related to Christianity, Hebrews, Romans, and Egyptians. (I'm thinking of Son of God — OK, that one's Christian, but a generic article on the topic "son of (a) god" might not be.) Also note that, if he agrees, it won't effect his editing. I suggest a 6 month ban, with review after 3 months. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Agree with Ncmvocalist's phrasing: "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural point (no view on substantive issue) - we need to have a wording to make this workable, if it is to be enacted. "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to the Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics, broadly construed." is one way of doing it. Can the proposer and commentators specify their preference(s) please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't know if this can be done or how easily it might be enforced, so feel free to mercilessly reject this proposal; however, after taking a look at this user's contribution, I'm not sure I see his edits as disruptive (except the one about Nero's faked death). I do agree, though, that they are unsourced and, most probably, original research and, as such, should be removed. So, my proposal is simple: would it be possible to enact some sort of an editing restriction by which this user is to refrain from inserting unsourced material into articles, restriction to be enforced through progressively increasing blocks? As I've said, I don't know if it's feasible, but it might be worth a try... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bans and blocks should never be punitive. In this case the point would be to prevent conflict (tedious but predictable reverts) and to give the user time to watch how seriou editors work together to write encyclopedic articles, and to study our policies. So for me that would be the rationale. The idea of a topic ban is, as advice in one of our policies or essyas says, that tthe best way to learn how to be an effective editor is to edit article utterly unrelated to one's interests and beliefs. If all this ever applied to a user, it is this one. So for term: One week? Two weeks? A month? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, durations which are shorter than 3 months are likely to be too short for any community restriction; staying away from the topic means ensuring you don't keep looking back at the topic to the point that you are tempted to return (upon the timer running out) to the behavior that resulted in the restriction in the first place. Some people have compared it to a type of detox, though I think it's just a way of establishing good editing habits for the long term - even in contentious topics. Note - this is a general observation rather than one that is necessarily specific to this or any particular case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an ongoing over exaggeration concerning my time here on Wikipedia. I perhaps am guilty of minor rule breaking (3RR), but vandalism is totally out of the question. I haven't provided sources enough for some of my edits. Some of my edits were not likened by "the cabal". Even though: be bold! And mi were. Because of personal reasons that some supporters of megaban here seem to have, I cannot be banned major or minor. However I restrict myself from editing said articles, I wont edit articles unless I have refs to stock up with. Let's not let crap unfold anymore. I thank you and wish well. I beg and apply for less, I beg and apply to for none.WillBildUnion (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a violation of the topic ban? Will someone please step in and do something? It is clearly an example of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I add a source. And even without a source it's not disruptive. Talk pages are not articles, but of course are articles talk pages.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the wording we supported above states "edits", not "edits on articles". I'd really suggest not pushing the limits before the ban discussion even closes.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I beg pardon.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." and this will be broadly construed.--Adam in MO Talk 06:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as written by Adamfinmo Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this guy gets it. this edit is not appropriate, and I suspect it is incorrect. Surely this is a Roman/Egyptian topic. Surely he is flauting the prohibition. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey c'mon now. I restrict myself from editing ancient said articles.WillBildUnion (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as written by Adamfinmo, support an indef block if repeated violations. Time to find other Wikipedia interests. It is important to learn to contribute instead of violate WP:SOAP. And please review WP:NPOV. Jusdafax 21:12, 2 July 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:Greg L

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No one is going to be banned today. If needed, take this back to WP:WQA, but I, like Mazca, feel that the best thing to do is to mutually disengage and let the matter drop. Nothing for admins to do here except watch the two of your fight for entertainment value. --Jayron32 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Before an issue goes any further I thought I'd take it take it here first. Greg L comes to a page where I was attempting to get an image recognized as FP. He posts something about a sort of blindness and offers NO constructive criticism or anything relevant or of value, probably his first shot at me, then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility, his userpage even has profanity on it and a "non political correctness" userbox declaring he doesn't care about civility. He should be banned, even though I know this isn't the main board to discuss that.

The page in question: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Auguste_Mayer's_"Battle_of_Trafalgar"#Lost-titled_painting_of_the_Battle_of_Trafalgar

His userpage (scroll down): User:Greg_L

--I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting IdLoveOne: probably his first shot at me: he confuses not liking a picture with a personal attack. Quoting him further: then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility. In fact, I wrote as follows:

• Quoting you: Too bad for you then. Please try to not take these things personally and react in that vein. Your post seems inappropriately combative and we don’t need that here. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote there was hostile so that allegation is not true. I was correctly pointed out that he shouldn’t be combative and personalize things in his posts when others don’t see things his way.

The user box does not endorse incivility so that is yet another thing that isn’t true.

My user page features a link to a sub-page treatise on a subject on which Wikipedia has an article: F*ck

IdLoveOne is simply misrepresenting every single fact and is wikilawyering here to exact some retribution while he/she escalates molehills into mountains. It’s just that simple. It seems petty and childish and IdLoveOne probably needs an enforced cooling off period if he/she can’t control his/her temper any better. Such silliness. Greg L (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Moved. This can't wait, this guy just won't stop, so I've moved it here. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• IdLoveOne started this as a Wikiquette alert and the editor moved the entire contents to here now. This editor is proving to be disruptive and might benefit from a 48-hour break. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day, so I moved this here in hopes of getting mediation since Wikiquette is slow and you just continue to harrass me. Two other people were able to politely and without hostility point out their problems and we have no disputes, but you're different. I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now, and have NEVER had to report another Wikipedia user or even an anonymous vandal's IP and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin, but you've called me blind, a liar and implied threats: "We don't need that here" like you're going to block me; and this userbox about about being "politically incorrect" is what that is. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Parsing this one:

• “All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day”: Writing that you should refrain from personal attacks isn’t “bullying”. Also, your “all day” is quite the exaggeration; your taking offense to my not liking your nomination started at 22:11 and you posted the Wikiquette at 22:36. Thus, it took a grand total of 25 minutes for you to spin up.

• “I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now”: That is irrelevant to what the facts are here.

• “you've called me blind”: No, I wrote that the muddy, near-black picture you nominated is better suited for illustrating Macular degeneration than Battle of Trafalgar.

• “[I called you] a liar”: No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true.

• “implied threats: ‘We don't need that here’ like you're going to block me”: Uhhm… no, it means we don’t need that here (personalizing things and getting combative).

• “and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin”: There’s a first time for everything and I suggest you stop wikilawyering and misrepresenting every single thing to which you take offense.

Note that WP:Civility, here states that it is uncivil to “mislead, including deliberately asserting false information”. Your allegations here are entirely untrue. You were very politely advised to not personalize things and refrain from using hostile language like “Too bad for you then”. Indeed, we don’t need that kind of thing over there. Rather than take that spot-on advise to heart, you spin out sideways over the course of 25 minutes and start a Wikiquette and then move it to here.

Maybe you’ve had a rotten day over on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates because J Milburn reverted a whole bunch of pictures you recently added to some of Wikipedia’s articles. He had this comment on FPC: “[T]hose articles are already very over-illustrated, and, having worked with editors on articles very like them (if not them, I don't remember) concerning images, I can assure you that every image is carefully chosen. Additionally, I am not wild about the EV in any of the uses.” I can’t help what J Milburn does but it’s clear that your tenor was getting increasingly combative and less collegial with each let-down on that thread. Now your behavior is simply disruptive. Greg L (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be, at best, a minor civility issue - I see absolutely no evidence of any seriously disruptive behaviour or anything warranting immediate admin action. I'd strongly advice IdLoveOne to disengage - a disagreement over a featured picture candidacy is all this should be, and doesn't need to be personalised. ~ mazca ^talk 00:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mazca. This is the last thing I have to say to you, Greg L, I know that it is probably pointless but I feel I must anyway:
1. I don't care if you don't like Auguste Mayer, he died over a century ago and I have no reason to defend him. The FPC and Wikipedia guidelines are clear, if you dislike a image or don't feel it is FP-worthy you have to post a valid reason why. I don't know much about Macular degeneration, but it has nothing to do with art, the quality guidelines of Wikipedia and no one in the section cares about it, but if you really felt it was an interesting fact somehow connected to the image you could've explained, and it's not about if you like the image or not, there are specific things that must be considered to decide what is feature-worthy, not just if you don't like a certain type of artwork - I'm not interested in portraits right now, so I don't comment on them and you could just as easily have passed over the image I suggested and we wouldn't be here.
2. You failed to follow policy and assume good faith and took an innocent comment out of proportion, that is why we're here and it is disruptive, ban-worthy behavior that needs no, as you put it, "Wikilawyering". Now my nomination is cluttered up with hostile notes and attacks on me that might scare people off from contributing valuable feedback that I could've used to develop my ability to understand what Wikipedia sees as feature-worthy and tips I could've used to fix up the image and possibly restore it to where it should be.
3. "'I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now': That is irrelevant to what the facts are here." Yes, it is, you've attacked my character, called it into question and are trying to spin a block on me, so I do think that 4 years good behavior shows that I have good character and wouldn't be doing this if I really didn't find it necessary.
4. "'[I called you] a liar': No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true." *crickets* I don't have anything else to say, I'll let the administrators make their decisions. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mazca, I don't have a problem with a disagreement about the image, it's the fact that he turned something simple into an argument. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• From what I can see the argument that developed absolutely resulted from both of you taking each other's comments more personally than they were initially intended. In neither case was anything seriously wrong done - nobody needs banning. ~ mazca ^talk 00:32, 3 July 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.

X-romix

Resolved

 – I removed his editing rights Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User X-romix (talk · contribs), who was previously banned from Russian Wikipedia for pushing different fringe theories and harassment of different users, now came to Jimbo's talk page complaining about reverts of his image nominations for deletion on Commons. In his complain he accused putnik (SUL) and me (SUL) of being "gay activists" and being "controlled" by another user. He also linked to a LiveJournal community where libelous and offensive statements are regularly published (it was blacklisted locally for that reason). Besides, he started totally off-topic advocacy of himself being "unfairly blocked" on Russian Wikipedia. I find claims of me being gay activist and controlled by some other user totally inacceptable; I also believe his behvior on Jimbo's talk page should be regarded as disruptive. vvv^t 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when you discuss someone on this noticeboard, you must inform them that they are being discussed here. I have done this for you in this case, but in the future, you must make certain to do it yourself. I haven't looked at the actual issue you raised; I am just making certain you understand this requirement. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of that fact. Thanks anyway. vvv^t 18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting sensitive personal information about Wikipedia users without their consent on Wikipedia pages is a blockable offence regardless of whether this information is true or false. One of those users is actually a minor, which makes this case much more serious. I am inclined to indefblock X-romix. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that would be an excellent idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was following the discussion on Jimbo's page and agree. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at most of it, and agree also; in addition to it being an WP:OUTING, I found some of the comments homophobic and generally offensive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal; I confirm that X-romix keeps slandering these two and other ru.wp users in Russian LiveJournal community (consisting mostly of banned ru.wp users), this time he simply "extended" this into en.wp. — AlexSm 22:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this response to my ANI notification, I have to agree with the above editors. I suspect that allowing X-romix to continue editing on the English Wikipedia will only result in his repeating the same unacceptable behavior. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IP user 184.59.77.102

This started when per wp:blp, I reverted some of the user's unsourced additions of contentious info to Jim Bowden and Gary Majewski [25], [26]. After explaining the blp policy to user on my talk page [27] and explaining why the content was removed, user argued but (after disruptive edit [28]) eventually added content back to article properly sourced with refs. I helped out and encouraged [29]

You would think that would be the end of it. However, user has again continued the trend of disruptive edits with borderline personal attack edit summaries ([30], [31]), and keeps on un-archiving my talk page and removing info [32], [33], [34]. User was warned [35] before restoring archive on my talk page again. I'm not looking for drama, but the aggressive editing on my talk page/removal of article content/edit summaries led me to post here. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you report a user to ANI, you should notify said user. No problem, however; I've just notified them. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sorry, my bad. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who has say in any decisions to read the back and forth between omarcheesboro and myself. He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced.

I tried to discuss with omarcheeseboro on his talk page the idea that perhaps he had options in how he chose to enforce wikipedia's rules concerning unsourced material; specifically that he *could* have sourced the added content *himself* (thereby both adding to the completeness of the articles in question). Instead of acknowledging that the option was available to him, he repeatedly pasted in boilerplate or links concerning sourcing.

Instead of having a discussion with me, he chose to try to paint my argument as an argument against wikipedia policy. At no time did I criticize or say I disagreed with wikipedia's sourcing rules. I specifically and repeatedly said that my beef was with HIS choices on how to enforce them.

I don't like being treated the same as someone who is deliberately trying to defame a living person with unverifiable charges disguised as verified information.

This is what omarcheeseboro *should* have done:

He should have sourced and corrected the most potentially libelous addition: Jim Bowden arrested for DUI. You type "Jim Bowden dui" (without the quotes) into google and you get MANY returns.

Once he saw that this had been a good faith effort to contribute, he should have sent me a message directing my attention to what needed to be sourced and cited his correction to the Bowden DUI addition as an example of how to do it properly. Perhaps giving me a day or two before he was reluctantly forced to revert the additions.

I'm all about results - the result of omarcheeseboro's actions (while seemingly in line with wikipedia policy) was that accurate and contextually important information was removed from the pages of wikipedia whilst simultaneously putting off someone who was only trying to contribute.

He compounded this by taking a smug position that he was constrained by the rules and could do nothing else - even though that is clearly a load of bull.

Maybe omarcheeseboro doesn't think much of the effort involved; perhaps this is all very easy for him. For me it is not. I have been very ill for years and I simply have very little energy to completely dot every i and cross every t.

Considering the effort I have to muster to write this sort of material, it is infuriating when someone lazily wipes it away - not because it is wrong - but because some attention to proper etiquette was missed.

On top of that he went looking through all of my recent additions and reverted them all. For me to think this was done out of his concern for following the rules, I would only have to be shown that he was consistent in his fervor for the sourcing of all of wikipedia.

So, I just to the first article I could think of to check for the many sourcing errors I knew would be there. I randomly chose the Enola Gay article and immdiately found that of the 11 citations, 6 were broken, missing, or hopelessly vague.

I told omarcheeseboro of this and instead of deleting the sections he completely ignored the issue. If he had any real concern for the letter of the law that he is holding fast to - he would have wasted no time making the needed deletions. Instead he allowed the idea to for and take hold that perhaps a zealous attention to the rules was not his motivation - perhaps he had some personal reason to dig up all my edits and revert them.

There is no way to know because he refuses to explain himself; instead copying and pasting canned responses in a dismissive and offensive manner.

Personally I do not think that omarcheeseboro can really defend his actions in any other way than to claim his actions are by the rules. My attempts to discuss it with him (including undoing him deleting all conversations on his talk page) was my way of making him examine what his choices truly were. He side-stepped that quite nicely and he remains unexamined by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24h, repeatedly deleting uncontroversial info in retaliation for someone else reverting his controversial additions is disruptive. ~ mazca ^talk 00:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per our policy — especially, when it comes to WP:BLPs —, all bits of info, especially if negative, must be sourced. Otherwise, they can be challenged and removed at any time. Any user can choose not to remove them and try to look for references, instead, but that's a matter of preference, as per WP:BURDEN. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but doing so in a way to disrupt is absolutely a pointy tactic. Deleting non-controversial information about when an NFL player was drafted just because there's no specific source there is just trying to get a rise out of another editor. Dayewalker (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the deletions by omarcheeseboro that 184.59.77.102 was complaining about, the only one that could be construed as potentially damaging was the bit about Jim Bowden getting arrested for DUI; which is easily verified with the most trivial of effort. It seems to me that omarcheeseboro caused this situation by his actions on the rest of this user's edits. Fixing one possibly imflamatory edit is one thing, going through and reverting multiple edits of a particular user is bound to anger them. To quote from WP:BURDEN: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Looking at the work of 184.59.77.102, I see no reason to think that he is anything but an asset to wikipedia. Obviously he needs to learn the proper way to do things. Zilla1126 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I was referring to Omarcheeseboro's edits, but Mazca blocked him before I could type my answer. ^_^

I had warned the IP editor that he was heading for a block... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Caution: Zilla1126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is no friend of ours, and unlikely to be a good-faith editor. He was one of a group of Freepers who trolled us in November 2005; it was quite unpleasant, and I deleted their nastiness from my talk page and from his (check the deletion history, as well as that of Wikipedia liberal bias, which gives the IPs he or his friends -- I believe "meatpuppets" is not inappropriate here -- used before he registered his account). Preferring to be lenient, I didn't block him. In dealing with these people, put on your thickest skin, and remember they already know our policies, and have known them for almost five years. See here (change the "x" to and "f") for a sample of their off-wiki coordination/comment.

On editing articles on sports figures, perhaps we can AGF and all shall be well -- and indeed maybe he's changed -- but I just needed to give a heads-up. Antandrus (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Antrandrus, do you have some basis for saying that the person contributing anonymously from IP address 184.59.77.102 and myself (zilla1126) are the same person? I can state categorically that we are not the same person. I for one don't like my name being included in a group that you call "meatpuppets". I certainly did not add any nastiness to your talk page; hopefully you are not saying that I did. It just so happens that "184.59.77.102" is Chris, my Son. I think you and this omar fellow should cut him a bit of slack. Chris suffers from Myotonic Dystrophy DM1 and is barely functional for a couple of hours a day due to his hypersomnia, physical fatigue, and executive dysfunction. It takes a lot for him to build up the steam to focus long enough to get something like editing a wikipedia page done - omar going through Chris's work and seemingly destroying it was a little too much for him. I'm sorry he reacted in a anti-social manner, but that sort of thing is one of the effects of this disease and it will only get worse. His considerable intellect is and will remain unaffected by his illness; however his ability to use his gifts is being stolen from him day by day. You and the other editors might want to think about what might be going on the other side of the keyboard before you pass judgement. Zilla1126 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this assertion by the IP:

"He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced."

This is totally inaccurate. I added some refs to his contributions, expanded, and copyedited a little bit. I didn't delete information, and left a positive note in the edit. See the diff [36]. One would think that this would've resolved the situation, but no. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris was inaccurrate is stating that; omar did not delete information after *I* sourced it. What he did do however was immediately go right in a move things around and make other "improvements" which Chris took to be a purposeful affront. Whether it was intended that way or not, it was a little odd considering what had already transpired between them. I may be not entirely impartial when it comes to my Son, but I think that omar should apologize to him for what anywhere else in the world would be unimaginable rudeness. In the future anything Chris does on wikipedia will go through me first - I'm not sure how many of these sort of "corrections" he can take without completely giving up. I can't let him lose hope. Zilla1126 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24

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.

---

Resolved

 – Banned, WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Information

• User notified

• Sugar Bear (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

• Ibaranoff24 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive

• User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive 5

• Original thread that resulted in original indef block

Summary of Events

Some of you may remember this user, others may not. Let me start off by saying that recently, back to the end of 2009, Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs) changed his username through a request to Sugar Bear. It may be bad faith for me to assume this, but this may have been so he could abandon the history of the original username.

This user has a bad history. During the last few months of 2009, they were blocked for edit warring, after when the were subsequently unblocked, then reblocked again, this time indefinitely. This indef occurred because this user abusively used multiple accounts to edit war across a few, if not a single page. See the archive of the Ibaranoff24 spi case page for more details.

During the entire escapade, they denied that they had created and used any socks. The blatantly lied in the face of undeniable evidence. This is when the indef block was put in place. This block was eventually removed, the user unblocked after they admitted to the socking, promised not to personally attack, and most of all, edit war or sock.

Fast-forward to present, what do we have? They are not only edit warring, they are socking to achieve that goal, all the while denying it to the end. The indef block has been reinstated, due to this fact, but that is not what this thread is about.

Despite undeniable evidence to the contrary, along with several admins telling them they are wrong, they choose to still evade their block. Due to their continued evasion, their continued denial of said evasion, and of their broken promises to never do either again, I propose we ban Ibaranoff24/Sugar Bear from wikipedia.

If you wish me to go more in-depth, I shall, but be warned, it will like extend into tl;dr territory.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In depth

For any in-depth discussion, whether I am explaining things, or others are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Torchiest
Sugar Bear has a long history of tendentious editing on a number of articles related to nu metal. He seems to have something against the genre, and has been trying to remove as much information about it from Wikipedia as possible. He has twice nominated the main article for deletion, despite the fact that it was speedily kept the first time. He has been fighting over that article for at least two years, mostly against consensus.

He has been involved in a major dispute on the List of nu metal bands article, removing bands against consensus, until the article had to be protected due to edit warring. Even after two full months of arguing against six other editors, he continued to edit against consensus. That was eventually settled, whereupon he took his tendentious editing back to the Nu metal article itself.

He refused to accept the consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard here, and continued to remove sourced information from the article, which he has been doing on and off for, again, the last two years, throughout his various blocks for edit warring.

He was recently blocked one week for edit warring, and then came right back and started up again, whereupon he was blocked again, with his initial one month block being extended to an indefinite block after socking twice. I don't see him stopping with the edit warring, as least not when it comes to anything related to nu metal. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

Below is a section transcluded from Sugar Bear's talk page. Substitute when thread is archived.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban Discussion

Thread retitled from "Discussion".

• Support - As proposer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment + Oppose - If you want to ban someone from Wikipedia, take the discussion to the ArbCom, no discussion like that should take place here. However, if it matters, I oppose this, not because the user is a good editor, but because there have been far more grand WP:SOCK cases that have had month long blocks instead of bans. Also, it is assuming bad faith to think he wanted to "abandon history". Even if he wanted to, he could just create a new account and remove any ties with his past account per WP:CLEANSTART. The user is already indefinitely blocked, I think that is enough for now. Plus, he can't even participate in this discussion because of his block. If you want to go ahead and propose to ban the guy from Wikipedia, then you should definitely take it to the ArbCom. Feedback ^☎ 00:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now he can. As to the 'well he's already indef blocked', here's the thing, that doesn't really matter. He got out of an indef block before with promises not to do what he's been doing. A ban also allows us to give him very strict conditions, such as if caught socking again, he would be reblocked indef without further warning.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback, just FYI, individuals are regularly banned by the community without ArbCom's involvement. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support- Sugar Bear is consistently sockpuppeting, edit warring, POV pushing, block evading, and is always uncivil. In my time here, I have found no editor more difficult to work with then him. Seeing as short blocks as well as long blocks have done nothing to stop this behavior and the fact that we need to put an end to this problem, banning him is the only solution.RG (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think banning from all of Wikipedia is the answer, but I would strongly support a topic ban from anything related to nu metal. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Support ban per Daedalus969 and Rockgenre. The community is capable of enacting and empowered to initiatine bans without taking it to ArbCom for the mandatory lengthy dramafest and lengthy bureaucratic nonsense. ArbCom is for complex disputes among editors, not obviously disruptive sockmasters. Also, a ban enables us to revert all of his socks edits on sight without fear of violating 3RR. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I italicized "should". This should be taken to ArbCom, because this is a controversial ban. And "being able to revert his socks on site" isn't a good enough reason for a ban. Its not even a slightly good reason. Read what a ban is about. You want to exile an editor so he never edits on Wikipedia again and you're happy to be able to blindly revert, bravo. Feedback ^☎ 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You clearly do not know much about this case. A user who has flippant disregard for policy is harmful to the project, especially one that denies he's done anything wrong, despite much evidence to the contrary. Secondly, this ban is not controversial. A single oppose doesn't make it so, this user has had plenty of chances to get his act together, and then when he fails to do so, he lies about it, and tries to use his FAs as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. Arbcom is not the only body that issues bans. Ban threads are typically found on ANI, because it is typically the community that decides to ban a user.

This isn't about exile, and this isn't about reverting, this is about disruptive behavior, and this editor has a long history of disruptive behavior.

Do us all a favor, and do not 'commend us' on what you think is happening and why you think it is happening.

I have read full and well what a ban is about, I've been here for a very long time, and I have seen my fair share of ban threads. This ban isn't about his socks, it isn't about his lies, it's about patterns. This editor, as said, and as pointed out, has a history of disruption, and it is obvious from his socks, that longer blocks will not do.

Before he has had slack, despite the promises he has made, he wasn't immediately blocked indef when found to be socking. Now he will have none.

If he has no care for our rules, then we have no care for him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback, I've read the banning policy. I don't see anything controversial about wanting to ban a disruptive sockmaster who has already been given chances to redeem himself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, WP:TLDR. Skimming your rant, I'm not commending or forcing anything, just expressing a view thinking it should go to ArbCom instead of being here. But by all means, keep it here, it was just my view on the matter. And you seem to be "involved" because of the ranting, so I strongly suggest you leave the discussing to the rest. Feedback ^☎ 03:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't going to take the time to read it, then don't comment on it and call it a rant when it isn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - If you can't talk civilly amongst other editors and respect the consensus of the community, you're going to do much more harm than good. A formal ban is in order. N419BH 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this editor was almost the first-ever banned/restricted at WP:FAC (history at User:SandyGeorgia/Bakshi proposal). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's becoming clearer and clearer that his problems aren't just in one small area of editing. He has trouble everywhere. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, due to a long history of counterproductive and bad-faith editing practices. My main experiences with him have been over List of nu metal bands, where he has basically alternated between (a) attempting to win content disputes by attrition, ignoring points made and a complete lack of support for his position over an extended period, and (b) simply edit-warring. He is a definite net negative to the project at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 10:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Uninformed/weak support I only became aware of this user following a 3RR break, but I have read this thread and I trust User:SandyGeorgia's calls. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban -- After looking at this users talk page history, it's obvious he needs to go away. The last thing we need are "I know more than you do no matter what" liars and their bullshit here  – Tommy [message] 12:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban User has a long history acting against consensus, personal attacks, sock puppetry, bad faith AfD noms and probably other stuff I've forgotten about or was unaware of. His block log demontrates that temporary blocks have been ineffective and that their promises of reform have been empty. For evidence of his attitude towards consensus and other editors and their contributions, I simply suggest people look at the nu metalarticle talk pages. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban for reasons given above: this is a disruptive, tendentious editor who refuses to accept consensus and even common sense. And maybe someone with a higher pay grade than me will go to the editor's talk page and remove that incredibly offensive image. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 June 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.

Ban process

I've split this section off, since it isn't about this single user, but as it came from this ban, it's still grouped under them, especially since it references them. This split off is also to make it easier for editing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Did you seriously just ban someone after only 15 hours of discussion and without a reply from the user? Feedback ^☎ 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you seriously comment on a case without reading all relevant material, a case you know nothing about?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember Ibaranoff, and not fondly. He became Sugar Bear around the first of the year. But it's hard for any leopard to change its stripes, so I'm not surprised it's come to this. He's free to comment at any time, but I'm guessing he won't, based on the old adage, "Never sue anyone, because they might prove it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his block history[37] I see that at least twice he was unblocked after a promise not to edit war, but apparently he just can't help himself. Hence, he be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap Daedalus. Even if the guy is the worst sockpuppeteer around, how can you close the discussion and ban a user for life in 15 hours? Seriously, discussions about with such a drastic ruling should at least take 7 days to achieve a consensus. Closing a discussion after a little more than half a day is ridiculous. Move discussions take far more time than this to accomplish a consensus. Even if the banning was inevitable, that is just more reason to give more time to the discussion and let the ban take place after a 7 day period. Feedback ^☎ 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Banning some one who's already indefinitely blocked is hardly "drastic". The proposal had full support (with 11 !votes in favour of the ban), save for one oppose from you, which did not demonstrate why the user should not be banned. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of WP:SNOW and WP:CONSENSUS. I don't quite follow your comment "Even if the banning was inevitable, that is just more reason to give more time to the discussion and let the ban take place after a 7 day period", Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and process for the sake of process seems futile. The ban was inevitable, and thus WP:IAR (via WP:SNOW) applied. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position and I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying I just have another opinion on the matter. I have posted a comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales to discuss the matter. This just doesn't seem right to me. Even convicted mass murderers get to go to trial and plead their cases. Their life sentences or even death sentences are most inevitable, but they at least get to plead their case. It seems very unfair to the banned user that proper discussion wasn't being held. If we ban him, we could at least argue that we took a week to discuss the matter and within those 168 hours, everyone agreed that he should have been banned. There should be policy for this, and as I have seen, the only thing similar is that WP:BAN says that discussions normally take place in at least 24 hours. There should be a minimum time limit (which I propose be 7 days) for a ban discussion to take place. This is a serious matter that shouldn't be taken as lightly as 16 hours. Feedback ^☎ 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This user was caught red handed socking before. What did he do? He utterly lied, denying it until he was blue in the face in front of undeniable checkuser evidence. The block was then upped to indef. He was only unblocked after admitting to his block evasion attempts, and on the promise to never do so again. But what do we have here? Blatant attempts to sock again. Your oppose is meaningless, as you have not provided a single good reason why this user should be unbanned.

You clearly think they should be, so let's hear it already.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap? There's nothing to cut. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in regards to this user. Do some homework before you decide to comment. There is nothing drastic or controversial about banning someone who has a history of disruptive behavior, along with disruptive socking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is little need for this drama, Feedback. I pointed Sugar Bear to the banning policy and he's followed the directions for appealing his ban there by emailing arbcom. Fighting about it here is pointless. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I became aware of this discussion when the user in question appealed to ArbCom (the editor has indicated this on their talk page). I'm not commenting here as an arbitrator (I am going to recuse on any formal decision that ArbCom make on this), but I'm dropping in here to make a comment or two.

• (1) If WP:BAN says discussions should run for a minimum of 24 hours, it would be good if the letter of that suggestion was followed, as otherwise you typically see so-called WP:SNOW closes being done earlier than 24 hours. The point is not WP:SNOW, but to allow people who are asleep (and may only edit once every 24 hours) to see the discussion and say something that might just reverse the tide of opinion or bring new evidence to the discussion.
• (2) If the user in question turns up and wants to say something in their defence, then it seem rather bureaucratic to insist that they go via ArbCom rather than reopen the ban discussion and let them say something to the community that is voting to ban them. It would seem simpler to let the ban discussion run for longer and let the user say something in their defence.
• (3) When assessing a ban discussion such as this, you need to distinguish between those that have history with the user and those who are independently making an assessment (coming 'cold' to the discussion). In particular, some of those who have a history with the user at nu metal and WP:FAC did correctly declare that history above (but some may have not). My view is that it really does help to have supports and opposes segregated into 'I know this user' and 'never heard of this user' sections (if the only people commenting are those who have interacted with the user, that risks the assessment not being objective). The ideal ban discussion will have a mixture of opinions from those who know someone and those who have never heard of them before, but if people don't make that clear then that aspect of the ban discussion cannot be assessed.
• (4) It would be nice if a fuller history of the user that a ban is proposed for is provided. Daedalus says "This user has a bad history" and then proceeds to give details of the socking history and the history at nu metal. That is true enough, but that completely ignores the featured article work that has also been done by this user. Of course, no amount of good work will ever excuse bad conduct, but no ban discussion should present an incomplete picture of an editor's contributions! My view is that a reasonably complete overview of en editor's contributions must be given if the editor themselves is not here to give such a summary. That overview seems to have been missing or incomplete here.

For the record, my history with the user is that I first became aware of them through the featured article work they do on films (primarily films directed by Ralph Bakshi and specifically the The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)), and I later became aware of the repeated (and ultimately disruptive) attempts to nominate Ralph Bakshi for featured article. I'm aware that people can have a bad side and a good side, and I see that the socking and behaviour at nu metal is the bad side of this editor that I was unaware of (I was also unaware of the name change). For the record, the good side is six successful featured article nominations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). If the ban discussion had still been open, I would have declared the above and opposed a site ban in favour of a topic ban from nu metal and related articles (with a site ban following if the socking continued), though having looked in more detail at the socking, I am wavering towards neutral as anyone who socks like that should be indeffed without the need for a community ban discussion. The only thing keeping me opposing the ban is the fact that an incomplete presentation was made concerning this editor's history on Wikipedia, and I would even suggest that a fuller overview be presented and the ban discussion re-run to see if opinions would change.

Anyway, that's a rather long comment, but I hope that some of the points above made sense and will be considered both here and in future ban discussions, even if opinion weighs against changing what has been decided here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are 3 active issues here:

1. Discussion on ANI vs AN (best practice is AN)
2. Discussion less than 24 hrs and without obvious need to truncate it due to hostility etc
3. Lack of historical depth in the proposal itself.

I agree that the ban was probably called for, and that the location and duration of the discussion were probably harmless errors in the bigger picture. But I am going to open up a new discusson on WP:AN regarding lingering process issues for bans. We're seeing a lot more now, and having process too sloppy on them is not a good thing.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If possible, would it be possible to get some opinions on whether the lack of historical depth in the specific ban that was proposed, discussed and enacted had any effect here? In particular, it would be good to hear from the editor who opened the ban discussion, so they can say whether they were aware of the entire history or just focused on the bits they wanted to present here. I can see arguments that you don't need to present an entire history (the editor for whom the ban is proposed can do that themselves, if they are not blocked, that is), but clearly it is easier to get support for a ban if you only present part of the editing history. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no one general interest. Looking through my contribs, you will see my actual edits to articles are here and there. This is because I only look up what interests me at the time of the thought, and correct any errors I see. I typically involve myself on disputes on ANI if sockpuppets are the primary concern, because that is what I know how to do, hunt sockpuppets, look up diffs, gather evidence.

What I knew of this user only concerned his abuse of multiple accounts in the past and present, aside from what I found out regarding his previous afd nominations and FAC nominations reading this thread.

Although I didn't delve in-depth, I did provide links, such as the link to the previous in-depth discussion that resulted in the original indef block on his account, and an archive in his talk page history where he was caught socking red handed and even then lied. It was at this point the indef was put in place, and any admins were advised against unblocking unless the user outright admitted to his evasion attempts. The information regarding these previous attempts was compiled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive, where an uninvolved admin was emailed because Ibaranoff read something wrong; this admin happened to be a CU, and he used it on Ibaranoff, which lead him to confirm that he had indeed been socking.

I have also laid out some 'new' evidence at the latest SPI, which concerns the fact that SB never edits at the same time his IP socks do, thus implying abuse of multiple accounts, aside from the fact that the IPs demonstrate knowledge of wikipedia jargon, edit at the same time as as him(the same log on time), and edit the same pages as him, where any previous unrelated edits mean that the IPs could not have found the page otherwise. And not to mention, of course, these IPs only started editing around the time of SB's block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That does look more and more convincing. I think the ban discussion was closed before Sugar Bear turned up, but as the only real purpose of the ban discussion was to allow reversion-on-sight of edits, do you think that once Sugar Bear turned up and asked to be unblocked, he should be allowed a hearing by the community? In effect, he turned up late to the ban discussion, and community ban discussions where the banned person was not present during the ban discussion should really be appealed to the community first before going to ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Only if he admits to the obvious block evasion through IP socks, used in his local library, and his college/university. I have been in email conversation, and even now he calls me a vandal, a lier, that my evidence is false.. despite the fact that everyone has minds of their own, and can make them up on their own concerning the similarities that were presented.

On the other face, if he posted to his talk page the same time that an IP editor was posting, and I do mean the same time, I might be convinced that the IP edits were not him. Of course, there is the chance it could be a meatpuppet.. but that aside, he was caught red handed and lied even then. I wouldn't put it past him to attempt again. He has of late been stalking my edits, as he mentions them constantly in his emails to me.

But back to an earlier point, I only say might, as I still wouldn't believe him. His previous lieing has plainly scarred me. The only thing that would shed any doubt I might still have, is if a CU confirmed it was not him, after he had posted the message to his talk page. This is in light of the fact that if he was indeed editing from his local library, CU would link him to the IP edits, making the evidence irrefutable.

My idea regarding this is that he is trying to hide himself, only logging in to his account at home, instead of logging in at the library, which would enable CUs to see what was really going on.

I'm sorry if I'm redundant, but that is the way I see things. Too many coincidences to be a coincidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I find it odd that he only writes to me in email when what I think are his IP socks are editing. That is a pattern I've noticed; it would also account how he knows of my edits reverting those IPs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The bit about the e-mails? I can't explain that either. The general and specific evidence of socking, I agree looks incontrovertible now. Clearly the editor is banned and the only way back is for them to either provide a convincing explanation of the socking (as you say) or to take up the standard offer (which was made on his talk page I think), which is after a period of no socking (six months, I think) he could ask to be allowed back (I would support this on the basis that he can do good work in some areas, but details would have to be thrashed out at the time). You make a point that he needs to own up to the socking and apologise for it, and that is an approach that many people support, but I've always been a bit wary of it. Forcing people to admit and repent as a condition for unblocking only tends to encourage false promises. Such admissions should be unforced, and I tend to think that it is better to have unrepentant people in sight and under control, rather than causing mayhem and work for others. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the repentance, it isn't so much a promise not to sock, but an understanding that we know, per the evidence, that he has. Continued denial just shows he thinks he can get away with it. We need to make it understood that he can't, and that he hasn't. That is the point, in my view, of the apology, and owning up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• In response to Carcharoth, I think there are some valid points in this case. There's no need to let it run for less than 24 hours in this case, especially when it is a requirement. The community does not impose bureaucratic requirements and that is what makes this process distinct from something else; the subject should be allocated a section to comment in. As for the third point, I agree, however, I think this will be a constant dispute between editors - instead, it should be a requirement that those users disclose their involvement/uninvolvement, knowledge or unawareness, etc. Those users who don't can be requested to be clear about their position, but if they're not, those opinions may need to be discounted. I don't agree with #4 completely; this could simply undermine the outcome and purpose of the community imposing measures for disrupting the project in some form or another. No amount of good contributions can excuse puppetry - a topic ban is insufficient for that purpose. Had it been something else, a topic ban may have been more appropriate. The community should consider an appeal if it is made, but BASC should be able to advise the subject as to the likely outcome in light of the conduct issues (if it is made too early). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (1) Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing about the 24 hours as you say it is a requirement then say we shouldn't impose bureaucratic requirements; (2) the subject did have a section to comment in, but they turned up on their user talk page around 8 hours after the ban discussion was closed (clearly not everyone that a ban proposal is started for will be around in that 24-hour period - some common sense on waiting for the subject of the ban proposal to turn up should be possible - it would be simpler to unarchive and restart the ban discussion with comments by the user added when they turn up, rather than insist on bureaucratic appeals to ArbCom); (3) All that is really needed is for everyone participating in ban discussions to answer the following question: "is your opinion based solely on what you have read here, or is your opinion informed by previous encounters with this user?" (if the latter, that would be valuable information to add to the discussion); (4) The reason for (ideally) giving a more complete history of a user being proposed for banning is not to hold up their good edits to excuse their bad ones, but to avoid people presenting a one-sided picture of someone and getting them banned merely by pointing out the bad stuff (especially if the user is not around to correct a one-sided history themselves). Let those participating in the discussions judge for themselves what the history is here, or demonstrate by their comments that they have bothered (or not bothered) to look into the history of the user in question. You can't force this sort of thing, but those participating in ban discussions should always look further than just what the ban proposer is saying, especially if the editor is not present themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I was agreeing with the 24 hours requirement. The note about bureaucracy was a sound of agreement with you in this case - appeals are not limited to only one method (ArbCom) in such instances. I don't know about restarting the discussion (which might mean doing it all the way from the beginning when users are capable of changing their comments accordingly) - instead, continuing from where the discussion let off is certainly not an unreasonable expectation. This responds to both 1 and 2. I agree with 3, though when coming to a conclusion, one doesn't need to limit their view to a previous encounter with the user - looking through the user's contributions can say a lot. For example, if I were to pick out the minority comments from the current GoRight SPI (that relates to a case that is currently being heard), and look through their contributions, I come to a conclusion that their input is not just broadly unhelpful and uneeded, but they are SPAs - they should not be allowed to edit (even in discussions) related to the area, or even the users involved. That might need looking into, but I'm digressing as this example is more of a case matter that needs to be looked into by arbs). 4 would be ok; agree you can't force it, and users should look beyond the obvious or what is presented. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am pushing I am sorry, but are you/could you address what I most recently said above?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by 212.85.12.187

Resolved

 – Sock blocked per WP:DUCK N419BH 15:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I many of the edits today by 212.85.12.187 as personal attacks, including this one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. I will notify the user of this ANI request within the next few minutes. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, I would like to mention Chris Bennett's description of me "all pretence of reason is cast aside and the pitiful, naked troll beneath is revealed". 212.85.12.187 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Duck reblocked 6 months. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's noon British Summer Time on Friday, 2nd July, 2010. Having made a post to ANI I called up the user page of the person mentioned to notify them as per rules, only to discover that Elockid had blocked me from editing one minute before. Administrators should allow users to give the required notices before blocking. They should also only block after discussion (e.g. on ANI or SPI). There are outstanding discussions on ANI and SPI but in neither case has Elockid posted his/her reason for blocking. The block notice states "Block evasion - see SPI" which seems to me deliberately vague. As a minimum the notice should state the date of the block, expiry date and account, with an explanation of why it is considered that this block is being evaded. Meletian (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Elockid's explanation for protecting Talk:Gregorian calendar and Talk:Julian calendar indicates that (s)he does not understand what a sockpuppet is - it's someone pretending to be someone else. The carefully - worded explanation makes it clear that the pages are not being protected as a result of any misbehaviour on my part. 212.85.7.14 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Duck reblocked 3 months. You have a clear misunderstanding of the sockpuppetry policy. See WP:ILLEGIT especially the circumventing policies or sanctions part. You are blocked, meaning that you can't edit until the block is lifted on your main account. Disruptive editing is misbehaviour. The talk pages have shown that reverts such as this and this are other users apart from the "usual" editors that are reverting you. At least 3 admins have protected the talk pages you've been editing. However, you keep trying to make the same kinds of edits that got you blocked and continue to circumvent policy, so yes this is misbehaviour. So where's your support because I've seen no one reverting their edits except for you and you haven't gained any support in the last thread either? Elockid ^(Talk) 12:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change is an account I used for a few weeks while promoting a ballot. When I had finished with it I posted a "Former Account" template on it. I don't see how the phrase "main account" comes into it. I contribute from whichever public library happens to be most accessible at the time. WP:ILLEGIT is irrelevant because the Former Account template informs users that the accounts are related.

In the first quoted diff the editor does not say why the post was reverted - according to the guidance the only circumstances in which a talk page contribution will be reverted is if it is vandalism, and the editor does not allege vandalism. (S)he did not remove the bit which says "you are our hydra - headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool". If you cannot see that this is a highly disruptive comment which breaches WP:NPA there is no hope for you. In the second quoted diff again the editor does not say there is vandalism. Far from being a vandal, I am the one who spends long hours in front of the computer looking for vandalism and removing it when I see it.

I'm in correspondence with Chris Bennett and am formally asking him to reveal who awarded him his Ph. D. I challenge you to find one revert which, in the stated opinion of the reviewing editor, is vandalism and therefore disruptive. Better still, you could simply stop trying to defend the indefensible and go out and enjoy the Independence Day celebrations. 86.162.26.246 (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Emergency confirmation of user needed

Resolved

 – User directed to commons N419BH 05:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm me or autoconfirm me so that I can give Wikipedia a picture. I promise that I am not a joker making trouble. The picture is electricity related. When I tried to, it said the function is limited to autoconfirmed and confirmed users. It also said that administrators can do it but I'm not asking to be that high ranking. Electricity Shocks (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You could e-mail the photo to an admin and see if it's acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very acceptable and better than some pictures I see. It is not porno, borderline porno, or dumb. It is electricity related. If I don't get an answer soon, I will not pursue the matter and you can close my account. Electricity Shocks (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL... Just wait a few days for autoconfirmation. Adding a picture is not life-or-death. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

lol? Email it to me. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If it is a picture that you took yourself or is licensed under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license, you could instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. There is no autoconfirmed/confirmed requirement to upload images there, and images uploaded there can be used on Wikipedia. FunPika 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that adding a supposedly benign pic related to electricity is an emergency caused me to laugh out loud. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Funpika. You are a big help! Electricity Shocks (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x6 For future reference: Files for Upload. sonia^♫♪ 00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when do admins get to decide what is acceptable or not? Anyone can make that decision.--Adam in MO Talk 08:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't you heard? Since last Thurday when an admin-led coup overthrew Jimbo and the Fouundation and set up a revolutionary government in its place. I believe there's a knock-down drag-out fight going on right now on IRC to determine which of the most radical (or reactionary, depending on your viewpoint) admins will be given the honorary rank of "Colonel" and join the ruling junta. To complicate matters, Giano, Malleus Fatuorum and Jack Merridew have put together a counter-revolutionary underground which is gathering in disaffected editors left and right. The USA is standing off, waiting to see which faction to support, but the French have sold arms to both sides, all the while shouting something about "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite", but no one is quite sure what they mean (least of all the French themselves). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Power rests with those that are closest to the server power supply. :)--Adam in MO Talk 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

nb: Power here derives from speaking sense, and knowing who to listen to. You don't need no stinkin' badges. Gold Hat 07:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, Jack. Try blocking an editor without the badge, or deleting an article. Or undeleting one, for that matter. Sometimes, you just need the badge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not. You're talking about tools. ;) Jack Merridew 08:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins get to assign the "confirmed user" right. In this case the image could have been emailed to anyone (or, indeed, linked to from here); however, an admin would still have been needed to fulfil the original request ("Emergency confirmation of user needed"). The commons solution is the most appropriate, however, as it neatly avoids the unlimited and frequently abused power of The Admin (that, and I'm sufficiently lazy to prefer solutions that don't involve me having to get off my backside...) TFOWR 12:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone other than me feel this whole thread fails the sniff test? This editor has no other edits than to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be. The user never went to Commons, as far as I can tell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban not working

Resolved

 – new IP is quackingblocked N419BH 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

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

Jbfolker2x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite having been recently banned, recidivist sockpuppeteer user:Swamilive continues to create sockpuppets and has recently been trolling on User talk:Jimbo Wales as User:Jbfolker2x. Can someone please check that the ban is in place and working properly? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, really, Carbuncle. As if anyone thinks a ban does that. ho ho ho. You'd have to be a complete maroon to think a ban was some sort of magical weapon. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to set you right, just as they would set -anyone- right who thought such a silly thing.120.17.208.162 (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bans are social solutions, not technical solutions. They require us to enforce them, through WP:RBI etc. The sole advantage of a ban over, say, an indef block is that bans enable editors to enforce the "R" part of "RBI". Obvious sockpuppets should be blocked, but that'll require manual (admin) intervention; there's no technical way to achieve this (equally, their edits should be reverted - with a community ban in place any editor should feel confident in reverting Swamilive's edits). That said, I'll take a look at Jbfolker2x: I'm happy to do WP:DUCK blocks if required (and if I can see the obviousness of the editing...) TFOWR 11:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to punt this one. I can see reasons for concern, but WP:AGFing I can also see Jbfolker2x contributions as positive, if misguided. They appear to have two concerns:

• That some points made by Swamilive were valid.
• ...and that includes criticising long-standing, widely-accepted policy that - they believe - prevents certain advocates from editing.

I do not share their belief, and I believe the policy prevents advocates from advocating - which is an extremely good thing.

Nevertheless, I can not in good conscience state that Jbfolker2x is a WP:DUCK-sock of Swamilive. I acknowledge my unfamiliarity with Swamilive, and have no objection to anyone more familiar with the circumstances of the case blocking or take action as they see fit.

TFOWR 12:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Familiarity is a good idea for getting involved in a case, indeed.  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I just created an LTA page of him, see Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Swamilive. Feel free to expand upon it- hopefully this helps people stop him quicker. --Rockstonetalk to me! 18:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

120.17.208.162 is quacking a little higher in this thread. N419BH 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Really disappointed that certain imp facts got removed from Wikipedia link, can u plz help?

Resolved

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales

I have been using your Wikipedia for most of my references; i love Wikipedia and always believed that Wikipedia isnt bias until; one of my references i use for debating the History of Palestine; was unfairly removed; it is my search for the Jewish Agency for Palestine; which existed and had a whole section on it; entitiled The Jewish Agency for Palestine; u should have found it under the Jewish Agency for Israel; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Agency_for_Israel#The_Jewish_Agency_for_Palestine However and recently the information/ facts presented on Wikipedia was removed by someone from Wikipedia and replaced the information with incomplete facts; for example; they never mention the Jewish Agency for Palestine; Now they write The Jewish agency; as if they are removing the few remaining evidences that the area Palestine never had the Jewish agency of Palestine (created in 1922) led by David Ben Gurion which became the first Prime Minister of Israel in 1948, removing such facts; clearly shows biast opinion for only choosing distorted information on the truth.

Plz can u intervene and place the real facts on the Jewish Agency of Palestine which was removed recently from your company? this is an imp matter to redeem fairness and equality The info and facts does exist on other sites; why remove it from yours? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3424601427.html http://www.answers.com/topic/jewish-agency-for-palestine

waiting for your kind reply

B/ Regards

Matgooys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matgoolys (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is called a content dispute, take it to the talk page of the article in question please. This is a bit too minor for Jimbo to get involved, and this board is also not an appropriate venue. I appreciate you may be new to Wikipedia, so it is just something to keep in mind. Trying looking at the page history to see who removed your citation, and ask them directly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And, BTW, it's "biased", not "bias". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maypigeon of Liberty

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sock. N419BH 01:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember quite why Maypigeon of Liberty (talk · contribs) ended up on my watchlist, but they've been repeatedly been warned about their "unique style" of vandalism warnings ("I have foiled your plan. I have stopped your devilish deeds. I have thwarted your plans to ruin your friend's good name. I will always be there, two steps behind you... waiting with my reverting abilities. Wherever you go, whatever you do, I will be right here waiting for you", "Don't vandalise, douche. So, I'm sure you thought you were really funny when you wrote the word crappy on that vodka article. You know what I think is crappy? Your rotten soul. You, sir, are a despicable human who was raised in the ways of your father Absalom. Repent, and walk in the ways of David. I beg you, return to your former self. You are the only hope we've got.", "Yo homey - stop vandalizing. What you did to American Idiot was not only an assault on the very fiber of our society, but also a personal insult to all lovers of monkeys. There will come a day in your life when this will catch up to you. The day will come when you will weep and feel remorse for your capers. You may laugh now, but wait until your funeral when someone vandalizes your eulogy. Who will be laughing now? Probably your mom."…

In the past when challenged on them, MoL has replied with "Someone has to stand up for the values of Wikipedia. Someone has to be there to make the site educational and informative when others want to turn it into a den of graffiti and obscenity. At this pivotal moment in the history of Wikipedia do you want to be the ones who helped end the avalanche of vandalism? Or do you want to be the ones who stood in the way? Even now my own userpage has been laid siege to by the scandalous vandals. They no know shame. They laugh at their inequities, mock those who dare avenge their heinous crimes, and are discomforted in the least by the lewdness of their own open nakedness, for they are without values and without shame. If you're unwilling to act in stopping the onslaught of barbarism that plagues the Wikipedia project, then I suggest that you forthwith and irrevocably resign.", "Only the righteous need survive in our cutthroat game against vandals" and "When dealing with goons of this sort, you must speak firmly. I felt compelled to remind this young buck of the consequences of vandalism.".

Either this is some kind of elaborate trolling, or MoL genuinely doesn't see the issue here (possible); over the last couple of days we've had "If you pull that crap again, I'll come down on you like a sack of potatoes. None of that funny business, please" and "Please join my revolution to end vandalism on Wikipedia, dear friend". Can someone keep an eye on this and brandish cluesticks as appropriate? – iridescent 16:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I laughed very hard, reading this user's warnings. Some of them are wonderful.

Seriously, however, they are inappropriate, but this user seems to have stopped and he's now using templates ([38], [39], [40], [41] and [42]). So I don't really think there's any need for admin action. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The final two links iridescent provides are more recent than those you've posted, so perhaps it's not resolved. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, I had missed that, I'm sorry! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's trolling. This is the same person as User:Pizzashoe and, more revealingly, User:GingerbreadMan969. Someone who really has a grudge against User:Daedalus969. Someone might want to doublecheck. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember a user once who used to revert vandalism with edit summaries like "BANG BANG DIE VANDAL SCUM" and the like. This is a bit more... high brow, but it is a bit immature. He might want to take it easy. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have told him to tone it down. These comments get seen by more people than just the vandals, and it harms the reputation and image of the project, humiliates and degrades the vandal, and is just a little daft. Hopefully he will take the message in the right way. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But yes it probably is trolling. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for socking, per Jpgordon. T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) The name, the style, and the conflict with Daedalus certainly puts me in mind of Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rantotheridge

That's a strange final warning on his talk page for Anal sex, given that his user contributions shows that he never edited that article. Warning from User:Rantotheridge --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rantotheridge (talk · contribs) is pretty plainly the recently blocked Sugar Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There may be no more connection than that. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, Rantotheridge should be blocked immediately. I agree that it doesnt look like a new account, but could you show us why you believe it is Sugar Bear? (note:I made a new section header for this since it might spin off a thread unrelated to Maypigeon) —Soap— 17:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the general tenor of his first few contributions, this is what I mean by "pretty plainly". I know it's one edit, but still... — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I also saw that diff, but didn't look at the context and didn't make the connection. He's been indeffed now by another administrator. —Soap— 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

By any user name, he be a dead pigeon. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should take another look at this AN3 entry

Resolved

 – blocked N419BH 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently reported Wittsun for edit warring; however, I received a decline response since Wittsun had not yet actually violated 3RR (he had only made three reverts to Reverse Discrimination in the previous 24 hours, not the requisite four). However, folloowing this, Wittsun made another reversion to Reverse Discrimination; together with the previous three, this puts him in violation of WP: 3RR. The admin who initially gave the decline response appears to be offline at the moment, so I'd like another admin to take a second look at this case. In addition to violating 3RR, Wittsun has also been adding blatant commentary, POV-pushing, and conspiracy theories to the article and others (someone needs to tell him that neo-Nazi Kevin MacDonald is not a reliable source; see [43]) and has in general been disruptive for quite some time. To top all that off, he's accusing me of edit-warring. I'm at my wit's end (my wittsun's end?) as to what to do about him.

The relevant discussion is linked here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_Wittsun_reported_by_User:_Stonemason89_.28Result:.29 Stonemason89 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like B has already blocked him for 24 hours. Hopefully that will get him to change his ways. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tasers

Resolved

 – Admin attention not required (nor any action at all really), and there's been a decent number of comments on the subject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, a guy has been asking how to defend himself against a police-operated taser. Now, the ref desk regulars tend to operate in their own little world, but it strikes me that giving advice to someone on how to evade the police is not appropriate, especially given their proscription against giving legal and medical advice. Is it really OK with the wikipedia foundation to have its editors be offering advice that could aid and abet illegal activity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well personally I wouldn't have a problem with helping someone defend themselves; what they choose to do with that knowledge is up to them, but self-defence certainly isn't a crime. The reason that we don't give legal or medical advice is because as a community, we are not qualified to do so. If we claimed to be able to, WMF would probably have a large pile of lawsuits on its plate right now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. You just scream don't tase me, bro!!! –MuZemike 18:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Moreover I have a problem with the notion that the police or other authorities are by default right, even legally right (which is certainly not always the same as really right). Maybe the poster wants to do something he has the right to do, perhaps even the legal right, and is nevertheless concerned that he might get tased wrongfully, and perhaps even illegally. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the legal default is that the authorities are right; that is, that one is supposed to comply with the directions of the police and other legally constituted authorities, and raise the issue of the legality or suitability of their orders afterwords. That can be very annoying when you know you're right and the cop is wrong, or when they're using their authority improperly in a picayune way that you know is never gong to get to the "afterwords" stage, but that's what you're supposed to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an arm of law enforcement. In the context of this discussion it doesn't matter what the legal default is. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's also completely incorrect; a police officer only has the power to uphold the law, and if their actions are illegal you are under no obligation to comply. A lawyer would be able to inform you in a situation where a police officer's actions are not legal, and a police officer certainly isn't "automatically" in the right. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a jurusdictional difference, because that's certainly not my understanding, at least in the US. The only way to tell if a police officer is "right" or not is to have some sort of adjudication, but that's not possible in the moment, so it was my understanding that the courts have found that you must comply, and then argue fault. There may be a difference if the officer is applying lethal or near lethal force, but I don't believe that tasers are viewed as that, despite the reports of some deaths involving them. In any case, it's not terribly relevant to this discussion. RefDesk should not give out legal advice, but can give out answers to how a taser works, from which conclusions can be drawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Reference desk should give advice on How to evade police. We all know he might get arrested wrongfully, and perhaps even illegally. Sheesh. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not attempt to close down a discussion of how to evade police, no, and would oppose rules that would attempt to close it down. I would probably not contribute to it, not being an authority on the subject. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the OP has or is intending to commit an illegal activity? As it stands, it's a purely hypothetical question. The OP even said "Believe it or not, I was just curious.". Discussing methods to evade tasers isn't illegal. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The way he worded the question didn't sound very hypothetical. The proper response would have been to direct him to the taser article and be done with it. And I find this notion, that the cops are the bad guys, to be very disturbing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugs must not have seen some of the recent reports of misuses of tasers such as this case. —DoRD (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How doesn't it sound hypothetical? "If a policeman fires his taser at me and I stick my hand out and catch both barbs in it, will I be disabled as effectively as if the barbs hit my torso?". Key word there being "if". I see absolutely no inference by that sentence that the OP is planning to commit a crime. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know, the police tend to make the odd mistake when it comes to tasers. Sort of a shock and 'Awww...' experience. HalfShadow 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, he's essentially asking for information on how a taser works, and for information on how an individual might defend themselves against a taser; neither of these are illegal, and it's not our concern what he chooses to use this knowledge for; moreover given that he's said he's simply curious, we should assume good faith and take his word for it. And as for finding it a "disturbing" notion that the police aren't automatically right, disturbing or otherwise that's just the way the world works, I'm afraid. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What I find disturbing is the assumption the cops are automatically wrong. And here's a news flash: resisting arrest is illegal, as well as being a stupid thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Passing judgement on what should and should not be in an encyclopaedia based on vague moral reasoning is unwise in the extreme. Relevant considerations should be included in every article, regardless of what people might or might not do with the information. Wikipedia is not responsible for policing the acts and intentions of the readership.--Kristoferb (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he's a fiction writer, looking for some background to get a character out of a sticky situation. In any case, I wouldn't offer advice like that to a total stranger. We're all volunteers here, no one has to work on anything they don't want to. Dayewalker (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk advice--Patton123 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent coordinated vandalism at Ash Ketchum

Resolved

 – Sticks and stones can break our bones but 4chan, while annoying, can be semi'd N419BH 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's what appears to be coordinated vandalism at Ash Ketchum. I've semiprotected that page, which should hold it for now on that page, but the editors involved also appear to be involved in vandalism on numerous related pages. Can anyone help with blocking/reverting this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They are also hitting Twilight (2008 film), which I've been reverting. It's using pending changes, so no serious damage can be done. --Chris (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably a standard 4chan attack. I think everything should be good now, but I'm not 100% positive. NW (Talk) 19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin behaviour at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Inappropriate_sketch - User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm raising this here because I don't know where else to raise it. If I'm wrong to do this, sorry. I wish to refer the above page, and the admin mentioned, to AN/I. The discussion being carried out there is very clear, and some very strong arguments are being put by myself and several other users.

However, this admin is violating the nature of WP:POINT and is ignoring policy by continuing to claim that the image involved (used at Lolicon) is not permissible under WP:OR, which it clearly is, and this has been stated to her multiple times now by myself, NihonJoe, Kevin Rutherford, and others. I know this is a contentious issue, but it's turning into a complicated matter. Your help would be welcomed. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unquestioning nut-riding of an off-the-cuff and uninformed remark made by Jimbo Wales? On my Wikipedia? Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here with BarkingFish that Gwen is being annoying, if not disruptive. I'm all for allowing others to voice their views on something but usually the discussion dies down once both sides have come to some sort of agreement. In this case, a few editors including myself have tried to reason with her that a certain image doesn't qualify for original research. Apparently she isn't convinced by our arguments and that is fine with me as we are all entitled to our own opinions. The thing that bothers me and a few others is that she is still continuing to insist that the image needs a citation even though a few of us are coming up with proof that this isn't the case. I know that I am biased here in this argument but I really feel that Gwen is continuing to beat the dead horse to no avail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, I agreed with Wales on something and said so in a thread on his talk page. I slipped. Is there any way I can redeem myself or is it too late? Gwen Gale (talk)

(A billion edit conflicts later) Firstly, I don't think she's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I think she's doing what she thinks is right. Incidentally, I think she's completely wrong and she seems to have a fundamental lack of knowledge of policy, but I don't think she's disrupting to make a point. Secondly, I don't think she's even really disrupting Wikipedia, since she's only made two edits to the article in question (and they were back to back, so there are no reversions involved). She should also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as suggested by Azatoth. However, all things said, I see nothing that can be acted upon by an administrator. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, and since she's apologised here (albeit with some degree of sarcasm), perhaps that will be the end of the dispute. This probably should have been filed at WP:WQA if anywhere, by the way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review everything to see if Gwen is being annoying. But she's absolutely 100% right on the content issue: the image in question is WP:OR. Even the person advocating for inclusion called it a drawing in the artists own style. The artist is not a notable artist in this genre (or anyway, no evidence has been put forward to the contrary).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, where are you getting the notability part which somehow influences the importance of the image? I'm a bit confused by that remark. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Kevin. The policy at WP:OR regarding original images states nothing about the artist or creator of the image requiring to be notable. Does that mean every photograph I've ever taken and uploaded can't be used in an article because I'm not a notable photographer? Get real :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, the point of the image, as demonstrated by the caption on the Lolicon page, is to demonstrate common stylistic features; the fact that it was drawn by a non-notable author doesn't subtract from its contribution to the page, so I don't see the issue. But in any case, it's fairly apparent that Gwen's actions have not been disruptive (or at the very least were not intended to be disruptive), and there certainly doesn't seem to be any need for admin intervention here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with BarkingFish, in the sense that pretty much every QI would not be eligible for inclusion at Wikipedia. Even if one could argue to the letter of the law that it is OR, I don't think applying OR to images makes much sense or benefits Wikipedia. (Please take note my perspective on this is mostly coming from photographs, as that is what I have experience with.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(agreeing with Deskana) I don't think that this is an attempt to be disruptive. In fact, the very fact that Gwen is discussing the reasons for their actions (instead of revert warring) is, if anything, representative of the consensus-building process. Although I don't agree with the original action myself, simply performing it in the first place doesn't seem to be in any way out of line, as it seems to have been done in good faith. --slakr^\ talk / 20:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Deskana, except for the part about Gwen having "a fundamental lack of knowledge of policy"; I think this is more of a case of Gwen (and Jimbo, incidentally) misunderstanding and misapplying policy. I see nothing in Gwen's actions which would require an admin to intervene. Not even close. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that claiming that that drawing is WP:OR is something much like claiming my photo of Pike Place Market is OR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't upload a drawing of your own which someone later claimed, without independent citation, to be representative of an interpretive genre. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but I claimed it's representative of Pike Place Market. What's the difference here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A photographed object and a drawing claimed to be representative of a genre are not at all the same things. I find it highly unlikely that a non-noted uploader's own drawing of a bunch of lily pads would be allowed as an example of Impressionism. The pith is, I am not at all mistaken as to the policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that Impressionism is a 19th-century art movement having lots of PD examples, where Lolicon, as I understand it, is a current style, and any examples would need to be used under Fair Use, hence making it preferable for a Wikipedian to provide an example of the style. (Having flashbacks here to the arguments about using a Wikipedian's drawing of Susan Boyle before people managed to get free-use photos of her...) Otherwise, having a Wikipedian draw an Impressionistic painting for use here might not be a bad thing...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright has aught to do with the original research policy. Moreover, that drawing of Boyle was never claimed as representative of a genre, it was only claimed as (an easily verifiable) likeness of Boyle. What's more, as I recall, it was Inkscaped from a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The image is simply using an image which uses many features of the lolicon genre to illustrate some of those features. It should be referenced that these are indeed features of lolicon, but I see no reason why the artist should have to be notable if the image imparts understanding to those reading the article by demonstrating some of these features; the image is being used to convey a very specific point about the genre, as indicated by the caption. It's not claiming that it is made by a notable artist in the genre. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who says those are the features of that genre? Is that your own OR? Either way, this is my last post to this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not my OR; note that I said "It should be referenced that these are indeed features of lolicon". Referencing is required to reliably establish the typical features of lolicon, but there's no reason why a wikipedian's own illustration incorporating these features should not be acceptable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Call to close: Can an uninvolved admin (or editor in good standing so as not to rule out helpful people akin to myself ;)) mark this as resolved? There's clearly no need for admin involvement here, as it is simply a content dispute and from what I can tell it's a perfectly civil one as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Seconded: I agree that this should be shut, since I think nothing further can come of this discussion...I will say no more on the subject, and call for an admin to close. Apologies for raising this in the wrong place, as pointed out, it should have gone to WQA instead. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 21:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think that the image falls under OR under the current policy, but it seems that everyone agrees Gwen is not being pointy. Having this thread in multiple places doesn't help anyone, so I'm closing it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Archibald Leitch and Chelsea F.C.

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours by Mazca.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Archibald Leitch (talk · contribs) Despite multiple attempts to stop him/her, User:Archibald Leitch continues to revert anything and everything on Chelsea F.C.. Just take a look at thier editing history! Over 20 reverts in one day!--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a serious warning, and he stopped doing it - only to start doing it on the reserve team's page instead. I've blocked him for 24 hours, but given his block log it could have been longer. ~ mazca ^talk 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He's submitted an unblock request and is... not happy to put it mildly. Another person to review it would be appreciated, as far as I can see he's cruisin' for an indef block. ~ mazca ^talk 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He needs to be indef blocked for makeing personal attacks and in violation of 3RR and Civil as well as his past history.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined, and I've pointed out that he is lucky not to have been indeffed. Rodhullandemu 23:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, let's give him some WP:ROPE and see how long he lasts. N419BH 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User Frankenstein3000

Resolved

 – Frankenstein blocked by materialscientist N419BH 04:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein3000 has been consistently violating WP:BLP by constantly adding unsourced materials to Keisuke Honda(that Honda is known as Godzilla).

Keisuke Honda previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keisuke_Honda&oldid=371643483

Frank's version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keisuke_Honda&oldid=371645894

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keisuke_Honda&action=historysubmit&diff=371645894&oldid=371643483

His edits have been reverted a number of times, but he engages in edit warring and refuses to discuss the issue on his talk page. He was previously blocked, but after the block expired he has come back to carry out disruptive editing. Was uncivil when I tried to discuss the issue and he post a vandalism warning on my user page after I reverted his BLP violations. Would a longer block be appropriate? Thanks. Craddocktm (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"refuses to discuss the issue on his talk page" - bullshit! I have discussed this on my talk page, and the fact that EVERYONE knows about his nickname. I would like to log a complaint against craddocktm on the grounds of cyber-bullying. Every edit is reverted by this clown. He/she is the one who should be banned, not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenstein3000 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, all your responses have been personal abuses, and you have never responded to my issues with your violations of WP:BLP. I am cyber-bullying? I am enforcing Wikipedia guidelines. Craddocktm (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

More rubbish. Admins, please deal with this fool, cos I am through trying to reason with this sort of mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenstein3000 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein3000, please refer to No Personal Attacks -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 04:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Craddocktm could benefit from reading this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenstein3000 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear Frankenstein has been blocked. Case closed. N419BH 04:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a one week block to 'contemplate'. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs06:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of offensive images posted on Jimbo Wales talk page

Someone has listed a large number of images which may have serious legal issues, even if they do not they are deeply disturbing and more admin attention is needed. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Nude_children_photo_in_Commons BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now archived here Buddy431 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a slightly better link. Graham87 08:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do. The images are on Commons. The Commons equivalent of this noticeboard is commons:Commons:AN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While the images are pretty controversial, I would say that "offensive" is very subjective in this case. They are certainly not pornography, and many would argue that they are artistic (though it has to be said that I'm not one of them). I don't particularly want to look at them, but as far as I can tell they are neither legally nor morally objectionable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:4.58.0.62

Despite being warned, and blocked for it just a couple of days ago, this IP has returned to putting promotional links to books published by W.W. Norton Company into bibliographies, works or further reading sections of nmerous articles. In general, if the book inserted was written by the subject of the article, I've left the book and deleted the spam link. If the books are just topical to the subject (none of the books inserted were not appropriate to the article), I've removed the edit entirely, on the theory that spamming should not be rewarded. (If anyone feels the books I removed are worthy of inclusion, feel feel to restore them without the promotional link.)

I think the IP needs another block, of longer duration, to put across to them that Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. AIV would almost certainly not deal with this, since the last edit was some hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I agree completely. Every edit since the last block has involved an insertion of that link. I haven't investigated the IP range but a range investigation might be appropriate too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. We really need to set up some more specific guidelines for the 'further reading' or 'books' sections that are cropping up more frequently. In this case, inserting more links directly to the "buy me now" pricing page is clearly a problem, but I see quite a bit of COI insertions without links. Wikipedia is starting to become a PR distribution channel. Kuru (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What/where are the current guidelines, out of interest? I'd be keen to see something like "no URLs at all. Use {{ISBN}} instead." Something like this should be ample for any reader to wishes to engage in further reading, whether they want to borrow or purchase the book. (Wrong forum though, presumably, hence my question about existing guidelines). TFOWR 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, unless the link is to some RS discussion of the book -- say, a review in the NYTBR or TLS -- the ISBN is more than sufficient. Publisher's catalogs almost never give more information than Amazon, B&N etc. As for guidelines for inclusion in "Further Reading" sections, I'm fine with any relevant entries put in by editors, it's when the pattern of editing starts being spam-like that it becomes a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shreevatsa

Hi, Please help me.This user is blaming me for everything I do.I patrol new pages and nominate article for speedy deletion which I see vandalism or unambiguous advertisement.You can also take a look at my contribution.Still, He says that I am biting new comers.No other Wikipedians have commented me such thing.I once made mistake and nominated Neemrana Hotels for deletion.Since then, I don't know why but I have been considering as a very new editor who don't know Wikipedia policy.My rollback rights was also removed because of it.I think that this user played major role in it.Take a look at this link.He also aggressively comments against me.Please give me true advice.Also take a look at the comment at my talk page.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on your particular case, just some general comments about getting the balance right with tagging speedies and welcoming new editors. Don't tag an article as soon as it's created - wait an hour or even a day to see if it improves (there's no WP:DEADLINE). Don't re-tag an article if the speedy is removed. There are circumstances where this is completely OK, but it's easier just to never do it. When you tag an article obviously you should alert the article's creator. If there have been no previous posts to their talkpage - welcome them (with {{Welcome}} or Friendly, or however you choose). Once you've welcomed them, then leave the speedy deletion notification. Be prepared to talk to the editor about why you tagged their article. Almost finally, only use speedy tags when you're completely sure that the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you're not sure, use WP:PROD instead. And finally, the absolute best thing you can do with an article is improve it so that it no longer should be deleted. TFOWR 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved welcome bot

Sahimrobot (talk · contribs) has been fired up recently and is welcoming users. Will notify the operator notified on fa.wiki per the links on the bot's page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The current block on User:Ryan kirkpatrick

Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jersay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay. However based on the edits of 109.154.73.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since the block being a duck match for Ryan kirkpatrick that would seem to suggest Ryan kirkpatrick is not a sockpuppet of Jersay, unless he happens to have moved several thousands miles. I have discussed this with the blocking administrator and this discussion is not a cricitism of his good faith block based on the evidence at the time, and he has no 6objections to a wider discussion about what should be done with this editor.

Traditionally block evasion has done no favours to the blocked editor responsible, however I ask that the block evasion itself is not used against Ryan kirkpatrick. If you look at his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick you will see a history of cluelessness, so I doubt he would have been aware of the consequences of block evasion, particularly when the (good-faith) block was in error to begin with. So while Ryan kirkpatrick's general cluelessness should be taken into account, the block evasion is the least of his "crimes".

The request for comment linked above shows zero support for Ryan and there is plenty of questioning about whether he should be allowed to continue to edit, and I was planning to propose a topic ban prior to his block.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this block is a good block but for the the wrong reason and should be maintained, or whether Ryan kirkpatrick should be unblocked with editing restrictions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblocking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a discussion not a vote, and the simple "support unblocking" does not take into account what should be done about this editor. O Fenian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, it is simple. He was blocked for sockpuppetry. He did not do that. He should be unblocked. Any other issues can be dealt with, but keeping him blocked for something that he did not do is wrong. Unblock him, and if there are topic bans or whatever needed for other conduct, those can be discussed and decided on. GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the RfC is lacking in support for the subject, but it usually takes some effort to get from there to an indefinite block. An editing restriction should be easy enough to frame: edit nothing which has to do with terrorism and add no mentions of terrorism to things which don't already mention it. Or is there something I'm missing? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with that as a restriction. O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking the user with an editing restriction of no edits relating to terrorism. Let's assume good faith and hope the user does not sock. If he does, we will be forced to reblock. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock - but on a short leash. I'd rather have editors be monitored and mentored rather than resorting to new accounts. But if problems continue then blocks may be appropriate for an extended period. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved back from archive

Would it be possible to get some decision on this please, since he is still evading his block now using 109.154.87.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It seems there is support, albeit limited, for an unblock with a topic ban on terrorism. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• If he's actively evading his block, then no, absolutely not, Oppose. N419BH 15:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the second IP he has used. As I said above he is somewhat clueless and may not realise the consequences of evading the block, and as the initial block for sockpuppetry was in error I do think it would be a bit harsh to keep him blocked for block evasion. I am certainly not an advocate for Ryan kirkpatrick, I believe he is a net negative for Wikipedia and ideally would like to see him blocked indefinitely, but only for the right reasons. O Fenian (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if he's not being disruptive with the IPs, unblock. Otherwise, retag the block as a disruptive editing and set the time to that for an appropriate first-time offense. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope... N419BH 15:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Now that I'm aware of the exceptional circumstances, I will change to support with a tight leash. Any rubbish and he's back at ANI for blocking. WP:ROPE. N419BH 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support conditional unblock, with a topic ban on anything related to terrorism broadly construed and the formal warning that further socking (with IPs or accounts) to circumvent editing restrictions will result in another block. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal of unblocking and topic ban. Even if the IP vandalism gets to the point that he should remain blocked, we should unblock him and immediately reblock for the vandalism — there's no reason to have someone blocked for the wrong reason. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion: Sovietia

Sovietia, who's currently under a one-week block for edit warring to add dubious trivia to Chris Noth, is back to adding the same content and otherwise vandalizing the article from various IPs [44] [45] [46]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sovietia/Archive --Kudpung (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Latin American demographics again, revisited (son of)

Ninguém versus Opinoso, mostly. I think that one merits a fairly big thwack with a lart, whereas the other merits a minor tap. I'll refrain from saying here which is which. Anyway, the fact that I view the edits of the one differently from the edits of the other has been taken to show my lack of neutrality. So I leave the job to somebody else. Start at my own talk page to assess my position and to find your way in to this mess. (You may of course wish to block or ban me too.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant pages include Talk:Brazilians of Spanish descent, particularly sections "More comments on User:Ninguém", "The prolificity of Portuguese colonists", "More misinterpretation of sources", "And more distortions of sources", "And yet more distortion of sources", "Why Ayllon isn't a reliable source in this context", "Friendship with an administrator", "Reinserting junk", and "Article's title"; the History of my own Talk Page; the Talk Page of Hoary, Talk:Portuguese Brazilian, the Talk Page of SamEv. Ninguém (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Bump! -- Hoary (talk)

Indefinitely blocked user requests deletion of user talk page

At User talk:Rihanna Knowles, the user, who has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, has requested deletion of their user talk page on the following grounds: "Can an administrator also delete my old revision history for HipHopfan4life? I can't edit my talk page there and at the history location my information is public. Again, I want to hide my indenity outside Wikipedia. Thank you." (User:HipHopfan4life is the alleged sockpuppeteer account.) There has been a significant amount of discussion by other users with User:Rihanna Knowles on the user talk page for which deletion was requested, and some at User talk:HipHopfan4life as well. Is deletion by user request appropriate in the case of a user talk page, where the user is blocked, and there has been significant discussion by other users on the user talk page? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• non-admin comment, not sure what the user hope's to achieve by deleting their talk page. All i will say that as a user who encounters a sockpuppet nearly every week (i edit many articles that a longterm sockpuppet User:Brexx targets) i find old sock puppet talk pages really useful in helping to identify behaviour patterns and thus they can prove useful in identifying new sockpuppets. It might sound cynical but could this be the reason said user wants their's deleting? Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly. I can't see any point in granting their request. The communities right to keep track of those who would abuse the project out weighs whatever it is they're trying to accomplish here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that everything, except the final block message could and should be deleted by the user request. The final block message is everyhing that the community needs to know at that point. IMO we all should try to be kinder to each other. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems per her request that there's some sort of identifying personal information on the page. I'm not seeing it but I'll AGF on it. The admins can still see it so if there's a need for the history they'll be able to look at it. N419BH 03:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing on either of those talkpages which reveals anything about the person who created the accounts so im not sure how the user thinks by deleting the page helps hide his/her "indenity outside Wikipedia". Plus the talkpages provide a useful history of the editor's behaviour patterns making identifying future socks easier. Its not necessarily a question of whether its mean of us to deny to the request. if there is such info which is personal and could identify the user im sure that admins could mask the edit history or delet the reversion/edit containing such info.Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Unless there's some really really good reason, user talk pages are not deleted. On the other hand, there's no problem with courtesy blanking. —DoRD (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK specifically permits deleting edits from your own talk page. However, it doesn't permit asking for the whole thing to be zapped. N419BH 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearing ≠ deleting, which is why courtesy blanking is allowed. Deleting hides the revision history from all but admins, clearing leaves it intact. —DoRD (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "whole page deleted" instead of "whole thing to be zapped". I am aware that if the page is deleted, only admins can see the old edits. N419BH 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted all but one revision of user page, but not talk. Perhaps the user could clarify, with an email to avoid further disclosure, what should be removed. Revision hiding may also do the job, if it is just one logged out IP edit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, we usually do not delete user talk. Graeme's got it right; RevDel of specific bits may be fine if there's some sort of personal info that is inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl

I have today noticed many very concerning incidents involving the admin BrownHairedGirl. I think the simplest thing to do is break it down into sections of everything that is wrong here.

Threats of admin abuse

• and while I am bemused to see that you disagree, I am pleased to find in a re-reading WP:CSD, I find that WP:CSD#A10 agrees. So In future I'll just delete this sort of junk on sight. That's a simple, quick non-bureaucratic solution to Boleyn's practice of creating of non-articles to bulk out her "articles I created" list
• Anyway, I'll repeat what I said above: if I find any further sub-stubs which simply duplicate list entries, I will delete them on sight per WP:CSD#A10. That applies to nearly all of the articles listed above.

Now I'm sorry, but this is blatant abuse of tools, BHG has already attempted to take these articles to AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Fox (1622–1666)) and failed miserably. Since she didn't get her own way she is now openly stating that she will just delete them on sight. The consensus from the AFD is that the articles which are being created *are* notable and suitable, so if she were to carry out her threats she would be acting against consensus to push her own agenda, thus abusing her tools

Actual admin abuse

• I have therefore blocked User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. You are of course free to continue editing under your main account, User:Boleyn

Last time I checked, admin's should not use their power in situations in which they are involved, yet BHG has gone ahead and blocked two accounts regardless, despite the fact that the use of multiple accounts in this instance has been investigated several times and has been deemed to be OK.

Luckily someone with common sense stepped in and unblocked these accounts. This does not excuse the fact that BHG has acted in a massively inappropriate way.

Dodgy edit summaries

While these may not be classed as uncivil, you must remember this user is an admin, what sort of example is this setting?

• This sort of crappy and completely un-researched sub-stub should really be speedy-deleted, but I have the sources so I'll expand it. Tag it as {{inuse}}
• I would much prefer to spend my time doing what I usually do, which is to write and expand articles, but when I encountered this flood of rubbish I realised that something had to be done to stop it
• Just as well we're not here to create an encyclopedia, Duncan, or you'd be on very shaky ground
• go away
• stay off my talk page
• expand a bit. Even after tweaks by other editors, this was still one of a long series of abysmal sub-stubs created by an experienced but lazy editor who didn't even look for any sources

Bullying

You'll notice that everything above is aimed at User:Boleyn, who BrownHairedGirl seems to have some sort of vendetta against for some reason.

Proposal

I propose that BrownHairedGirl is banned from interacting with User:Boleyn until such a point that she accepts that her actions today have been grossly unacceptable. I have tried to include everything here, but the best way to get a feel for her actions today is to check her recent contributions. The behaviour is absolutely shocking. Jeni ^(talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OWB#37 to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, I did not agree with the blocks, and I did also notice that BHG was very much "involved" with this user. However, I don't feel that her "behavior is absolutely shocking." I would suggest that BHG consider herself an "involved party" with regard to Boleyn and articles created by her, and should not take further admin actions in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWB#37. Read it, move on. N419BH 01:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) My apologies, see comment below. N419BH 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - calling someone with over 100,000 edits a "lazy editor" seems at the very least, somewhat disingenous. I'm also unhappy with attempts to shut down the discussion with the OWB references - not very assuming of good faith on the part of Jeni. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I believe you have misattributed the author of the OWB reference. –xeno^talk 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I thought I was being clear but will clarify. I believe Jeni posted this report in good faith and I'm unhappy that at least two other editors have responded by linking to an "Observation on Wiki Behaviour" that essentially says that complaints about an admin are likely to be instigated maliciously. To quote the full text - "When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. If there's a block involved, expect to see a battalion of sockpuppets in short order, making even more shrill cries of admin wrongdoing." - that seems not to follow WP:AGF at all. Exxolon (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Rereading my initial comment I can see how it might be misparsed "not very assuming of good faith on the part of Jeni" was a comment on the other two editors actions, i.e they did not seem to be assuming Jeni was acting in good faith, so they were "not very assuming of good faith on the part of Jeni". Apologies for any confusion. Exxolon (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I see what you meant now. Thanks for clarifying, –xeno^talk 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, maybe I should read things twice before posting them. My intent was to say the majority of cases of alleged admin abuse are not anything of the sort. However, as I have now been called out for this lax approach, I will now proceed to review in detail the concerns raised. Again, my apologies to all. N419BH 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Only thing I really notice is that the editor shouldn't have blocked Boleyn's alternative accounts. It's not as if Boleyn uses them for anything more than watchlists- and he/she discloses it. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  The alternative accounts have lots of edits. A little clarification may be in order there - I'm assuming that Boleyn logs into alternate accounts, checks their watchlists and then edits articles on that account's watchlist using the alternate account, so strictly speaking they are not just for extra watchlists. Ideally I suppose only the main account should edit but I can see why it's far easier to edit from the alternate account rather than Login to alternate-->Check watchlist-->Check article on watchlist-->See edit required-->Logout of alternate-->Login to main-->Perform edit under main account. Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing. I will now eat my hat. I feel like I need a WP:TROUT. While I don't see anything corresponding to blatant abuse, I do see a good number of instances of very edgy edit summaries and a possible vendetta against a particular editor. My apologies for not adhering to WP:AGF. A valid point has been raised here. Sheepishly, N419BH 02:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I just wanted to make sure Jeni's concerns were at least given a fair hearing. Exxolon (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unindent - I think Beeblebrox's suggestion is sensible. If Brownhairedgirl feels any of Boleyn's future actions/edits require administrative action bring it here for an uninvolved admin to review and act if required. Exxolon (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, though naturally Brownhairedgirl should be given the opportunity to respond here. N419BH 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also slightly confused about BHG's comment "AFD is not supposed to be an article-improvement device" from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Fox (1622–1666) - I thought that WAS one of the purposes of AFD - to bring an article to the attention of the community and if it is an article that can be improved so it passes AFD for that to occur. Exxolon (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that in the documentation at WP:AFD (Frankly I can't find a definitive "what AFD is for" anywhere, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. However, I did find the following at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

"You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones)."

I'll keep looking to see if I can find something more definitive. N419BH 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, from Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process:

"Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."

Don't know if the behavior currently under discussion falls afoul of this guideline, but it's worth mentioning. N419BH 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I took those comments to mean that although she thought the articles should be deleted, in the end the AFD did cause them to be fixed up, whether that was her intention or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Beeblebrox, that was what I meant. Articles which look shaky at AFD are often massively improved whilst under scrutiny there, but I am aware that many editors rightly deplore the misuse of AFD as an article-improvement cugdel, so in the comments I made when withdrawing the AFD nomination, I wanted to stress that was not what I was trying to do.

As Dsp13 noted at the bottom of the AFD, huge amounts of work are required to check and expand these error-prone sub-stubs. Sources on MPs from the 17th century and earlier are hard to find on the web or in general reference books, and there are no newspaper archives from that period, so the stub concept is much less useful for this type of article than for others where sources are more readily available.

Rather than creating lots of mal-formed, error-ridden sub-stubs on relatively minor people from 500 years ago, it would be much better to leave them as redlinks until an editor with at least some substantial sources can make a start on an article which isn't synthesised from passing mentions found in google searches. I intend no criticism of those who generously give their time to try to expand articles in this way, but while the end results may include several references, they are often a bit of a scrapbook collection of snippets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I'm afraid I do feel this is a personal vendetta. BrownHairedGirl objected to me creating very short stubs on people who meet the notability guidelines, preferring that they had no article to one with little information. Personally, I would rather there was something than nothing, and many of the other 700 articles I've created have been expanded to good or reasonable articles. Some notable but quite obscure politicians are unlikely to get beyond a stub, but I still think if they meet wp:politician then creating an article is good for Wikipedia. I'm surprised how many MPs lack articles still. I don't agree, but I understand and accept BHG's point and have gone back over the articles she highlighted, expanding and referencing with the sources I could find. I feel that mass deletion nominations were unhelpful, and the block on me meant that it was difficult to continue improving them. I've been on here a while and haven't even been threatened with a ban before, so I was upset, naturally. However, I've tried to respond politely and have not responded to the rude comments on the AfD discussion and in edit summaries.

Previously, BHG objected to my use of Template:db-disambig for disambiguation pages with two entries, where one is at the primary page. BHG was right that sometimes I should have moved the primary to a disambiguator and the dab to the primary page, rather than delete the dab and use a hatnote. However, I make two or three hundred edits a day. Finding areas where my edits meet the guidelines but could have been better, or where I have made a mistake, won't be impossible when I give such a large portion of my time to Wikipedia. During this previous objection, BHG also flooded my Talk page with critical and angry comments, to the point at which I deleted some of her messages and asked her to stop contacting me about four times. She didn't.

I really feel that there is no need for personal attacks or following an editor's edits in this manner. BHG has addressed the feeling that I am 'playing at' something and have some kind of agenda, but my agenda is simple: improve the style and content of disambiguation pages and increase the amount of articles on notable subjects. There are many editors where I don't like the way they do things, and some where I spend a bit of time cleaning up their edits on a regular basis, but I don't bite them because I appreciate that overall, mistakes or differences of opinion aside, they are helping improve Wikipedia. I really feel that BHG should cease to track my edits looking for things to correct and should not contact me further, regarding this or any future issues (as she also makes valuable contributions to politician and disambiguation pages, she is bound to be annoyed by an edit I make in the future). Any serious concerns she has could be dealt with by her referring it to another admin. I do feel harassed and bullied by this - I am meant to be enjoying my holiday! - and feel that this behaviour puts off people editing Wikipedia. I hope that my proposal will be agreed to by BHG. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not acceptable. As noted in my recent post below (written before I saw the one above, but there was an e/c when I posted), I made a suggestion on Boleyn's talk to which I hope for a response, and I think that provides a better way forward.

For the record, I have no vendetta against Boleyn; AFAICR, I had a disagreement with her last year, and one this year, and that's it. Two encounters 13 months apart does not a vendetta make.

However, on both the two occasions when I have tried of discuss concerns with her, there has been the same pattern: I post an carefully-written explanation of my concerns which Boleyn ignores and carries on editing. I post a few followup msgs , and eventually Boleyn replies to a trivial point ignoring most of initial concern ... and when I express frustration she either stops responding at all or claims she is being harassed. There is a very simple solution to this: try to discuss problems as they arise. It's how WP:CONSENSUS works. Stonewalling, and then claiming that the resulting frustration of the other editor is "bullying". ... well, that's not a reasonable description of what happens after a sustained failure to try to discuss disagreements.

That's what happened last year, when I tried to discuss with Boleyn some problems with her edits to dab pages. Not wildly complicated issues, but I found the same unwillingness to try to reach agreement, and the same complaints about "critical and angry comments" after repeated polite attempts had been ignored and the problem continued.

It's what happened this time, when I wrote what I intended to be a helpful-and-explanatory msg of why her proliferation of malformed of sub-stubs was inappropriate: ignore the messages until the other editor gets frustrated, and then complain about "rudeness" and "bullying". This is pattern of ignore-the-polite-and-informative-messages is no way to work collaboratively, and following that up with a "bullying" complaints about the subsequent-for-goodness-sake-please-stop-messages is an unhelpful form of passive aggression. That may or may not be intentional, but it's no way to resolve disagreements, and it would set a very bad precedent for an editor who refuses to discuss disagreements to thereby be able to insist on no contact with anyone they disagree with. If we go down that road, bye-bye consensus.

Boleyn is right that many MPs still lack articles. But there have been over 10,000 of them since the Act of Union in 1800, and another 15K or 20K so before that. We currently have articles of some form on about 85-90% of the post-1800 MPs, about 50% of the 18th-century MPs, and a much lower proprtion before then, partly due to recentism and partly because readily accessible sources are much scarcer as we go back in time. The gaps are steadily being filled, but it's a big task and won't be done overnight. A large part of my very long contribs list has been creating or expanding or tweaking such articles, and it's great if more editors want to fill in the gaps. My concern was and remains that rapid-fire creation of huge numbers of malformed subs does not assist the creation of well-formed articles and just makes a lot of work for other editors to tidy up. Fewer and better stubs from Boleyn would be a massively more useful addition to wikipedia. (Boleyn's claim that blocking her 2nd and 3rd accounts made improving the existing sub-stubs it more difficult is nonsense: her main account was not blocked, so she was as free to edit as any other editor).

This isn't just a matter of the sub-stubs. As I noted here (in exasperation, after much futile attempt at engagement), creating a stub which looks well-formed but misrepresents its references is arguably more problematic. Boleyn is asking that as one of the most prolific and experienced editors of these articles, I be debarred from checking for this sort of thing, even tho I appear to be one of the few editors who has a near-complete set of the reference books on 19th and 20th-century parliamentary elections in the UK and Ireland (Walker for Ireland, Craig for the UK). If I hadn't been tracking Boleyn's edits, those glitches might well have gone un-noticed for a long time, since articles on Irish MPs @ Westminster appear not be heavily scrutinised by editors. That does not sound to me like a good idea.

Rather than insisting "leave me alone", why doesn't Boleyn do what other editors do, and discuss problems as they arise? If she'd responded to my initial post yesterday and tried to reach agreement (or at least understand my concerns), then we could all have avoided a lot of aggravation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick response

I had a big disagreement with Jeni about 13 months ago, and ever since then she's been taking whatever opportunities she can to allege that I am engaged in dastardly deeds, and show how I am the most wicked person ever. So I was expecting a re-run of the periodic Jeni-demands-BHG's-head-on-a-plate show, and there it is.

Jeni's having fun ripping quotes out of context and ignoring the chronology, but the reality is much more mundane. In a nutsehell, it's all about:

a) repeated efforts to try to communicate with Boleyn (talk · contribs), an uncommunicative editor who flips at random between between multiple accounts

b) Boleyn's creation of dozens of malformed sub-stubs which other editors will have to tidy up

c) trying to delete some of these pointless ten-seconds-to-create pages which add no new content to wikipedia

When I was looking at the article on Chatham (UK Parliament constituency), I found that one article this MP was a abysmal sub-stub. Then I looked at another "article" on a Chatham MP and saw that it was also an abysmal sub-stub. So I checked the creator, found it was the same in both cases, and looked at the creator's contribs Boleyn (talk · contribs)/Boleyn2 (talk · contribs)/Boleyn3 (talk · contribs). There turned out to be dozens of similar articles from the last 2 months, which the contribs history showed to have been mostly created by copy-pasting the text from a dab page into the article page, and adding simply {{UK-politician-stub}}.

Boleyn/2/3 had created dozens of "articles" which:

1. usually contained less info that the corresponding entry in the list in the constituency article
2. Were placed in one of the categories in which MPs would usually be placed
3. Were not tagged with any of the stub tags which are usually applied to MPs: {{UK-MP-stub}} and its sub-cats
4. Were wholly unreferenced

So these "stubs" failed every test of usefulness:

• They were less informative than the constituency articles, even wrt the MP in question (e.g. this one omits 2 of the 3 most crucial bits of info a political office-holder: the party and when he left office)
• They were not in any of the relevant categories, so were unlikely to be found by an editor looking for such stubs. That makes it improbable that would be found and expanded.
• They were nearly all unreferenced, so the reader had no clue whether they were genuine factoids or patent nonsense

I was going to write a long response about how this developed, but saw a post from Boleyn on her talk page and replied there. After a lot of evasion, Boleyn acknowledges that this was all done "so that they don't come up as redlinks on disambiguation pages", which per WP:DABRL is unnecessary. I think that that discussion may have found a resolution to this mess, so I'll leave off posting anything else here until the morning, and see where we get to.

The only issue which does not appear to be near resolution Boleyn's use of multiple accounts. That is nothing like anything I have seen done by another editor. Many editors have one or more bot accounts, and others have a second account used for specific purposes, such as editing from a public place, to avoid risk of compromising their main account. However, Boleyn uses the three accounts interchangeably, frequently editing the same article from difft accounts. This makes it hard to track her contribs, and impedes communications because when using two of the accounts she gets no warning of a message on her talk. This is disruptive and serves no useful purpose; she claims that it's because each a/c has a watchlist of over 10,000 pages, but my watchlist well exceeds 30,000 and works fine, so that's no problem.

Since my block of her two subsidiary accounts was overturned, I'll open an RFCU on that matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot of stub-sorting, and had come across a lot of Boleyn's minimal stubs. I'd commented to him/her variously ([here], [here, here and here (which s/he did resolve). I was relieved to see that an admin was raising the issue, as this editor has been contributing a torrent of unreferenced stubs which as far as I can see do not improve Wikipedia. The editor and I have previously interacted amicably as two of the stalwarts of the Wikipedia:Suggestions for disambiguation repair project. PamD (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the multiple accounts, there is no problem with these they are within the guidelines for use of multiple accounts. BrownHairedGirl should not have blocked them. And a RFCU is also unneeded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

the actual blocking comment I have not checked because so many other users are checking, but for my two cents: I find nothing in any edit summary or comment quoted that breaches either WP:CIVIL or the "comment on content not editors" summary. I have found BHG a competent user, and in my one interaction with Jeni she assumed bad faith and use warning templates inappropriately. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• About those blocks: I agree with BHG that the three account thing is annoying and the point of them is unclear as there is not really an upper limit on a watchlist (or if there is they haven't hit it yet). However, being annoying and pointless are not policy violations, Boleyn is open an honest about the use of multiple accounts and does not seem to have used them to create false consensus or other underhanded things like that, and the matter was looked into twice before and no violation was found then either. I'm not seeing a lot of support here for those blocks, if you want to pursue an RFC/U on this it's going to be tough to say the least. Having recently done one myself, I recall you are required to cite which policies the user is ignoring or violating. Making it "hard to track her contribs" is not a policy violation that I am aware of. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up and expanded a large number of Boleyn's articles before giving way to exhaustion. Unfortunately, I am forced to substantively endorse BrownHairedGirl's general assessment of the quality of these articles and their value to Wikipedia. As best I can tell, Boleyn appears to go to redlinks for various political figures, click "What links here", and convert the list of links into prose. This results in substubs which, if they were correct, would be neither particularly useful nor particularly harmful to Wikipedia. However, there is a distinct problem with getting inaccurate information into these articles. Some of the instances I can recall are: baronets being described as peers (which by definition they are not), titles of nobility being placed in the wrong peerage (Peerage of England instead of Peerage of Ireland, say), people being described as Members of Parliament for a constituency when in fact they were linked from that constituency's page for some other reason (because they controlled the borough or lost an election). There are some more involved content issues as well: a little background research suggests that there was only one Baron Dynham and the first redlink is due to an old error in one of our articles, and I suspect Battle of Spearhead may be the result of taking someone's copyright trap at face value. Ultimately, I think BrownHairedGirl's description of the editor as "experienced but lazy" is, if blunt, also uncomfortably accurate. Knowing that a baronet is not a peer is very, very basic; all you have to do is look at the title of the article you're creating. Many of the other content problems I've described could be solved by actually following the links in Special:Whatlinkshere and looking at them before creating the article. This is basic intellectual due dilligence, and it's very frustrating to me and others who have worked to improve these articles (see PamD above) that it is not being done.

As regards the article deletions, I haven't looked at the CSD for a while, so I took a look expecting to find that BrownHairedGirl was invoking something like A1 or A3 and that it would be very much pushing it to apply to these stubs. Having actually read A10, it is much more applicable than I initially expected, and I think it would be overreach to call applying it to these "admin abuse". As far as the wishes expressed in the AFD, as one of the people who has, in fact, been expanding and referencing these stubs, I guarantee that I and the others with the resources and volition to fix these cannot keep pace with their present creation, nor would it significantly slow down such expansions if we had to create the article from a redlink instead of a substub.

I don't think there's any reason to block Boleyn's alternate accounts or initiate an RFCU; this is, I believe, the third time someone has taken issue with them, and each time there's been consensus for their legitimacy. However, three separate incidents suggest the situation is a bit of an attractive nuisance. ISTR that they're maintained for the purpose of distributing Boleyn's watchlist; might I suggest she ask at, perhaps, the Village Pump, describing the problem she has with using one long watchlist in the hopes of an alternate technical solution? In the long run, that might be easier than having to defend the use of multiple accounts every few months when someone new runs across them.

I think Boleyn is editing in good faith and means to help Wikipedia, but something needs to change; as Berzelius said to Wöhler, "Doctor, that was quick but bad". A very high rate of article creation + little substantive content + a measurable error rate + non-responsiveness to concerns = trouble. I think if she tries to make, say, fifty edits a day that bring in new content from outside Wikipedia, instead of "two or three hundred" that add no new information, she'll find that BrownHairedGirl and others are lauding her work on early British MPs instead of condemning it. Choess (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02: As I've alluded to earlier (and after reviewing the specific links above), I see no admin abuse here. I see edgy edit summaries and some blunt, edgy rhetoric. This possibly dances toward WP:CIVIL issues, but I don't think admins are required to sugarcoat everything. As for the other editor, I can see why these articles are being deleted, though I wonder why second opinions are not being sought. With these points in mind, and with an eye toward getting back to editing, I therefore propose the following:

Proposal: BrownHairedGirl is reminded of WP:CIVIL and that admins are regarded as role models by the community at large. It is also suggested that she seek second opinions via CSD tags for articles which she feels should be speedy deleted.

Boleyn is asked to engage in discussion regarding ways he/she can make improved contributions to the Encyclopedia.

Thoughts? N419BH 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That would take away my major concern amongst all of this, if it were to be adhered to. BHG has threatened to delete Boleyn's articles on sight without warning. Seeking a second opinion using a CSD tag is much more appropriate than leaving it to the judgement of a single editor, especially when recent AfD nominations made by this user on the topics in question have resulted in predominately !keep votes. Jeni ^(talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles which were kept at AFD had all been expanded (at least to some extent) by other editors, as often happens at AFD; that's why I was happy to withdraw the group nomination at AFD Thomas Fox (1622–1666). But per the discussion above, all the editors who have extensively engaged with these sub-stubs (Choess, PamD, etc) agree that these stubs are a bad idea.

It seems to me to be a poor outcome to continue in with Boleyn creating abysmal sub-stubs which are either speedy-deleted or require huge amounts of work by others to turn into viable stubs. I suggest that the recommendation is strengthened a little to ask Boleyn to refrain from creating further stub articles in mainspace until she has demonstrated an ability to make viable stubs. In other words, create them in her userspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. N419BH 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• These are all, or almost all, notable subjects. So is Boleyn's editing actually a problem? I'm not convinced that every eighteenth century MP should actually be deemed notable, and while I'd like to see policy change both on the notability of obscure historic figures and on sourcing. I'm not sure I'd go as far as the DE wiki policy of requiring all new articles to have a source, though I'm warming to the idea of setting a rule that anyone who has been here long enough to have created 50 articles should have learned to include a source. But unless we change policy to limit such good faith but unsourced editing, is there anything Boleyn has actually done wrong? ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  It might be possible to read the guidelines to find support for Boleyn's actions, but the result of that approach is not commonsense.

  Notability is not policy, it's a guideline. The relevant guideline here is WP:POLITICIAN, part of WP:BIO#Additional_criteria, whose intro says "failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included".

  So the guideline is explicitly flexible, and in any case every guideline has a header which says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Using Common sense is actually policy, and is anyone suggesting that it really is common sense to create all these error-ridden, malformed, uncategorised sub-stubs merely (as Boleyn acknowledged) to remove valid redlinks from dab pages? As WP:COMMON says, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this thread because this instance also affects the contributions of another prolific editor who has a history of creating stubs with minimal content yet are on notable subjects in good faith, yet has received a lot of grief for his well-intentioned contributions. And he has almost quit Wikipedia because of this hostility on one occasion. (I don't see a need to name names here; I'm dealing in generalities, not specifics.) As I understand the problem, someone is starting stubs for articles which there is general consensus to write; what is created may not have any usable content, but we can expect that it will eventually -- unless further research shows there is nothing more to be said on the topic, in which case the stub gets merged. While it would be nice to have sources in every article, I don't see how these articles harm anything. (Anyone who bases her/his research on a bunch of Wikipedia one-sentence stubs deserves a failing grade.) Either (1) we accept that stubs on otherwise notable subjects should be kept until it is proven that they are ether hoaxes, gibberish, or nothing more can be written on the individual, or (2) we establish a minimum content requirement for new articles. And either choice requires a discussion which is widely advertised & everyone is welcomed to comment in. -- llywrch (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC would be the way to go here, though I'd prefer not to do this for a few months so we can iron out some of the problems with sticky prods. We've largely accepted the principle that new BLPs need a source, I suspect our more deletionist editors would regard it as commonsense to extend that to all new articles. Those of a more inclusionist bent will continue to argue that these articles are going to be written eventually, so its commonsense to them that a one line article is a foundation from which others can build, remembering that IP editors can expand a one line article but not create a new one. I'm not greatly concerned which way we go on this, providing we make a decision and communicate that clearly - what I don't want is to continue the current confusion where two camps of good faith editors are in such conflict. As for starting stuff in userspace, I've seen too many attack pages in userspace to promote such a non-wiki solution, where is the cooperative editing in a userspace draft? ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only partially accept llywrch's premise that these stubs are being created in good faith; that may have been the case initially, but it now seems that long before I raised concerns, others had done so. An editor acting in good faith should by now have accepted that there is grounds for rethinking the approach.

As to the inclusionist argument that the articles will be written eventually, I support that view with more recent topics; in the case MPs, for those since the Reform Act 1832. Provided that the stubs add to existing list content, and are properly categorised etc, they can form a suitable basis for expansion. But even when Boleyn creates stubs of more recent people, they so abysmally poor that others have to do a lot of work; Fences and windows is right to call them a make-work. Over 4 years of working on this field I have seen many other editors who start out by making very poor stubs, all of them have taken who take care to learn how do better. That's not the case with Boleyn, whose stubs are created with absolute bare minimum of effort to allow the save button to be pressed. This is a new phenomenon for me: I have never before seen an editor churn out stubs with absolutely no concern for quality, and with no effort to improve over time. Boleyn herself prioritises the numbers: see herarticle-i-have created list.

However, a significant number of these stubs are for people whose notability relates to a few years of their lives 400 or 500 years ago. Sources for such topics are a specialised issue, and not something which can be easily expanded anyone except an editor using specialist sources ... so it's hard to see how those stubs help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the average wikipedian regular would not be able to google these and add much, but we allow offline sources and there are people out there who are interested in these subjects and do have access to sources. Quite apart from local history enthusiasts making sure that all their past MPs have articles, I think there is a big opportunity for Wikipedia to collaborate with the fashion for genealogy. There are lots of amateur genealogists out there, and while many may struggle with our ideas on notability they tend to be quite hot on sourcing. Many of these notable dead people are so far back in history that they could appear in huge numbers of family trees, whilst being recent enough that there are records that exist. So it will be interesting to see how these expand in future years - remembring that as soon as they are started they will appear in Google searches by those who are interested in them. That said I'm not averse to changing policy to be more restrictive about the creation of unsourced articles. One of these days I intend to create articles for all the redlinks on this list, I could of course start the whole lot "Boleyn style" in a matter of minutes, but I'd rather start each one off with rather more than that. However I am opposed to setting policy on this by making examples of individual editors who follow our written rather than unwritten rules. If you don't want Wikipedia to accept new unsourced articles, or you want to tighten our policies on notability, then I suggest you seek consensus for policy changes that would raise the threshold for article creation, rather than trying to restrict someone who seems to be happy with the current rules. So please get consensus to change Wikipedia:Your first article and similar pages, and clearly communicate the new rules before treating unsourced articles as badfaith edits. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I propose an editing restriction. I think we need an editing restriction on Boleyn that disallows her from creating unsourced stubs. She's shown that her unsourced creations are repeatedly inaccurate, so we simply cannot trust her creating new articles without verification. WP:N might not be policy, but WP:V is. Creating these stubs is make-work; they have no value and only create work for other editors in cleaning up behind Boleyn. Fences&Windows 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn is still creating make-work stubs

Despite this discussion, Boleyn is still creating make-work stubs (even tho she said she was off on holiday).

The latest is John Pritchard, which features all the usual problems:

1. No categories
2. Non-specific stub tag
3. Basic biographical details missing (dates of birth and death)

Another editor stepped in to add some categories, and I'll do some more work on it now ... but I'm astonished that this is still going on. There's still no sign of any effort to even add the correct stub tags, and those aren't hard to find: just browse the stub categories or look at similar articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, this thread has called into question Boleyn's article creation methodology, and she's creating the exact same thing? N419BH 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's it: business as usual :(

Didn't someone suggest editing restrictions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested you seek out second opinions before CSDing her stubs and suggested she seek advice on improving her articles. I believe someone else suggested she be restricted from creating stubs. Assuming she's read this thread and proceeded to ignore it, I believe restrictions are possibly in order. Opinions? N419BH 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What I see there is a perfectly acceptable stub, even with a reference. Yes, a category would be nice, but nobody is perfect! What I also now definitely see is bullying. Jeni ^(talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

John Pritchard This is"Perfectly acceptable"? Are you serious??? Without at least some of the appropriate categories or stub tags, the article is unlikely to even be spotted by editors looking for stubs to expands. That's why it's a make-work: it needs immediate attention from other editors even to make a useful minimal stub.

The bullying going on here is from Boleyn/2/3: by repeatedly creating these abysmal stubs, and making no effort to even make them findable, she's bullying others into tidying up after her.

I suggest that she be a) restricted for a period from creating new stubs in mainspace, and b) offered mentorship on how to create stubs which don't need work from others to reach a bare minimum standard of usefulness (e.g. how to find and add categories, and how to add appropriate stub tags). The mentor could guide her on when to move them to mainspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so now you are suggesting that Boleyn is bullying you? Do you have anything there to back that up? Going through their contributions I certainly can't see a shred of evidence to suggest they are bullying you. You do realise exactly what the term bullying means, don't you? Jeni ^(talk) 02:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Jeni.

I didn't suggest that Boleyn is "bullying me", rather that she is bullying anyone who checks for minimal standards of contributions, by persistently creating make-work sub-stubs. There are a number of wikignomes who look out for things like uncategorised articles, and Boleyn is knowingly dumping sub-standard work into mainspace rather than finishing the job herself. Repeatedly throwing a mess into other editors in-trays despite requests to desist is some sort of abuse; call it something other than bullying if you prefer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As a Wikignome who has done thousands of hotcat edits I would like to put it on record, that whilst I appreciate it if people notice the categorisation I've done to their articles and start to categorise articles themselves, I do not consider myself bullied if a fellow editor has not yet grasped categorisation. Boleyn seems to have responded to recent flak by adding references to her latest articles. I would like to suggest that we now respond by stepping back and watching how her latest articles develop over time. ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that sub on John Pritchard is fine. It has a source, and lacks only categories. We do not require that articles come into existence perfectly. That said, due to the massive number of stubs being created by the one user I'd favor an editing restriction that requires all new articles created by this person A) have a source and B) have reasonable categories before they create another such stub. I'd also suggest BHG not use admin tools with respect to Boleyn or nominate for deletion any of the articles created by Boleyn (baring BLP or blatant copyright problems). Would that be acceptable to all involved? Hobit (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The stub on John Pritchard was fine. Hobit has a good suggestion, in that Boleyn should at least provide at least one source and and at least one category when creating an article or stub. I would recommend (but not require) that Boleyn develop the articles a little more, but there is nothing in Wikipedia that requires an editor to do anything more than she has when creating a stub article. I think that BHG should avoid taking any admin actions in this case as it has obviously developed into a conflict between the two individuals. The reason BHG should avoid admin actions is that the blocks on the alternate accounts was a misuse of admin tools, IMO, as the alternate accounts appeared to be within policy. They may be a problem to watch that way, but as far as I can tell that is not a policy violation. Further, as an admin, making a statement that all of Boleyn's stubs would be deleted on site is not appropriate, although I do understand that BHG was frustrated. GregJackP Boomer! 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hobit's suggestion looks good to me, though I'm not keen on GregJackP's narrowing of it to one category. Plenty of editors (maybe most us!) start off by creating very inadequate stubs, and nobody should be in any way bitten for that, but the distinguishing feature of Boleyn's sub-stubs is that they she continues to produce so many poor ones. However, I do want to repeat my earlier suggestion that she should be encouraged (or required) to seek mentorship, because I'm not sure that she has found it easy to learn how to improve the quality. Having someone to help her would help to avoid the feeling of attack she experiences when her edits are criticised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with BHG's comment, and probably need to clarify my one category suggestion. By one category, I mean a substantial category, not one created by a stub-template. In other words, you would have the stub cat, then at least one manually added cat for each stub. I also don't have a problem with the mentorship suggestion, and I applaud BHG's approach to Hobit's suggestion. GregJackP Boomer! 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could she also be asked to ensure that her references are reasonably formatted, not bare URLs as here - it just again leaves work for someone else to tidy up after her, though she could easily add a decent reference while she's got the source in front of her. PamD (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That diff which Pam posted illustrates another of the problems with this rapid-fire google-a-reference-and-hey-presto-I've-satisfied-WP:V approach. It's a link to the index of http://hansard.millbanksystems.com which is an experimental website of digitised Hansard. The Hansard text looks quite robust, but the index is an opensource work-in-progress and is still very pathchy; I have lost count of the number of times I have found major errors in the index's assertion about when an MP served for which constituencies. Boleyn's if-its-crap-then-someone-else-can-fix-it approach also leaves others to weed out these plausible-but-unreliable refs, as well as the blatantly unreliable stuff such as the paranormal website referenced for this MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst Boleyn is clearly trying to create valid articles, the continuing "throw a load of info at an article so it must be valid" approach isn't helping. It's just making work for others, whether they be NP patrollers or those with an interest in the subject. If this continues, I'd have to suggest that Boleyn creates them in userspace and consults another editor with sufficient knowledge about the subject before they're chucked into mainspace. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding a reference and adding reasonable cats is more than enough of an editing restriction. Of course I'm of the opinion that such an article is actually useful at that point (good starting point for a stub, points to a reference if anyone needs anything else). Bare URLs may not be pretty, but they work. Has anyone asked her if this is acceptable? Hobit (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Boleyn having myself created inadequate stubs, hoping that somebody else (generallky Phoe or BHG) would improve them. Phoe has now left <sad>. I am sure the best solution lies in a 3 month restriction against creation of fresh main space articles unless first approved by a mentor. Boleyn has 3 principle goals here namely to improve disambiguation, to turn red links blue and to increase her "new articles created" tally. A mentor or two could help her learn how to improve her factoidal sub-stubs. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by proposer, with numerous opposes. Sandman is correct: ANI does not have unlimited power, and this is not an incident - it's a content dispute over stubs. Comments about mentoring or otherwise collaborating should be noted positively. TFOWR 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

1. That Boleyn does not create any articles that do not have at least one properly formated reference and one manually added category (not including any stub-categories) for the next three months. 2. That BrownHairedGirl will not take any admin action towards Boleyn during the next three months, but will refer all such actions that she believes are necessary to an uninvolved admin. 3. That in order for everyone concerned to have an opportunity to comment, this proposal will stay open for a minimum of 24 hrs, or until both parties agreed to these conditions, whichever occurs first. GregJackP Boomer! 02:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Struck !vote per Sandman's points. GregJackP Boomer! 02:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- places restrictions on one user beyond what is expected or required of the community in general, and the editor has not been engaged in vandalism and has not violated any rules or policies. She creates stubs, which is perfectly ok, and yes it "makes work" for other editors, but it's all voluntary and no one is required to make any article better, even the creator of the article. I think BrownHairedGirl should distance herself from taking admin actions against her though and seek counsel from a neutral admin if she thinks there is a violation or if she believes some kind of action needs to be taken on a particular article, unless it is blatant vandalism. Minor4th • talk 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant but firm oppose. This is fine in spirit, and I have no objection to accepting the restraint urged on me, but unfortunately it doesn't go far enough in addressing the huge deficiencies in Boleyn's stubs, and would still leave masses of stuff for others to clear up. The category requirement could be satisfied by adding a vague categ such as Category:English politicians rather than Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies; there are about 3 steps in between those two categs, and the vague categ makes the stub less likely to be spotted. Similarly, she can can continue to add vague stub tags, and the restriction does not address the gross inaccuracies present in so many of her stubs: her recent collection included at least 2 stubs with two major factual errors in less than 20 words of text, e.g. [James Christopher Flynn was not British and was not MP for West Cork, yet that stub would be absolutely fine under these restrictions. Nor does it address her use of unreliable sources on the occasions when she does add refs.
  Sorry, but if this all that's adopted, we'll be revisiting this again soon. Something more is needed, and rather than specifying in great detail what's required, I really think that some combination of mentorship and/or restraint on creating stubs in mainspace is much more likely to produce a satisfactory outcome for everyone, including Boleyn herself, who clearly would not be comfortable with a situation where she meets the letter of these restrictions, but is still facing criticism for creating miscategorised, inaccurate sub-stubs with unreliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is going to sound odd, but why don't you offer to mentor her. Instead of your previous, sometimes testy approach, spend a little time introducing her to various sources and ways of creating articles that are materially useful to the community at large. If she creates a stub-sub, you'll no doubt see it, and you can make edits to help it. Then show her how you made those edits so she can make them herself on the next one. Of course, Boleyn might not want your help after your previous interactions with her, but that's for her to say here. Would you be willing to do that, as the person who originally took issue with her in the first place? Oppose btw, as I don't think it will solve the problem. N419BH 04:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I did think of that, but I doubted that I would be acceptable to her; but if she's willing to give it a go, I'm willing to help. The difficulty I have found before is that any comment which even questions what she did has been taken as unwelcome criticism and ignored, which has set off a spiral of (BHG)you've-done-it-again → (Boleyn) more silence → (BHG) please-stop-and-discuss-this → (Boleyn) I-don't-like-your-tone → (BHG) we-do-have-a-problem → (Boleyn) you're-attacking-me-and-my-edits-are-within-policy-so-don't-post-on-my-talk-again. I'm very willing to try to help, but I can't do it unless Boleyn genuinely wants to try to improve her edits. But if she'll take the offer, let's both push the reset button on what's gone before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Opppose This goes well beyond the mandate of ANI (which perhaps believes it has unlimited power): creating stubs is perfectly legit, and it is not up to this fora to say it isn't. An request for comment on the talkpage of stubs or whereever, is the only place such a preposterous proposition has any relevance. I suspect the only reason it is included is to make the suggestion more favourable to the involved admins outrageous behavior. Boleyn has a right, like anyone else, to edit wikipedia without any sanction placed upon her by the almighty administrators' noticeboard, to only create featured articles. Sandman888 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean that Boleyn complies with the current sticky prod proposal, except with dead people too? This is too much bureaucracy for me. I'm not pleased with either editor's persistence, particularly since both have the skills and perspective to resolve this much better than this clusterfuck. I'd like to give some time for this to work itself to a reasonable compromise. Perhaps someone with a little more subtlety can propose some possible resolutions. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• A reasonable suggestion wd be that the admin does not pester the editor anymore. Admins must keep to handling vandalism, that's what they're for, not this very improper inference with article content. Sandman888 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:29, 2 July 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.

Response from Boleyn

I just wanted to quickly add a note (if it's not too late), as a user seemed to think I was ignoring this thread; I'm not, I'm on holiday and trying not to continue my WP addiction too much, and had read through this. There were a couple of things I wanted to clarify. I don't create articles to 'improve' dabs (I don't really think they do, I'm happy with valid redlinks being on dabs). I enjoy creating articles and keep a list so people can see at a glance what type of articles I edit, and it also helps me keep track of and improve articles I've created. I don't create articles, however, just to add to the list. There will always be debate about whether to create stubs or wait until a more substantial article is ready before creating it; I personally like to start them and I do keep an eye on those I create and add to them if I can (usually over the coming weeks/months rather than days, but I keep track). I do understand the concerns raised here and have only created one article since, which was referenced and which I spent more time over. I have no intention of creating further unreferenced stubs. Boleyn3 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's only a few days since you wrote that And is it so that they don't come up as redlinks on disambiguation pages, that is often where I first noticed that they lacked an article and so created on ... so if you now think that "I'm happy with valid redlinks being on dabs", then it's good to see a change of heart.

But as discussed at length, the problems are not just referencing, e.g. there's fact-checking and categories too. If you'd like help, my offer of mentorship (see below) is still open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No change of heart. I sometimes notice on a dab that a notable person is lacking an article and create one - that is very different to creating an article in order to 'improve' a dab. I didn't say that the only issue raised was referencing, the other issues I alluded to in mentioning that I'd spent more time over it. I appreciate the offer of mentorship, but after all the personal attacks I can't see that that would work. As it stands, I'm unsure if I'll continue to edit WP at all, certainly not at the moment. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the rejection of BHg's offer depressing. AGF. Any other volunteers pretty please? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think acromonious editors mentoring and being mentored by each other will end in much useful good. This discussion is largely closed, so let's not rehash this all again. Seems like a stub/notability issue that should be addressed at those places. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not only me noting serious and ongoing problems here. For example, the article John Hunter (British politician) was created by Boleyn on 19 June, and expanded yesterday including this edit adding a reference, on which another editor commented Previous referee clearly had not read work cited which has five volumes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:BrownHairedGirl seems to expect high standards. However, an admin should not badger a user to edit articles beyond policy requirements. Perhaps a better tactic would be to create a guideline requiring bio pages to have 1 source and birth/death years (even several Roman emperors have unknown birth years). I understand the feeling to want better stubs, but remember enwiki has over 31,000 articles about footballers (soccer players), and over 900,000 articles about sports (not even allowed in early Britannica). Remember Britannica did not even allow an entry for "Elizabeth Taylor" when she became the highest-paid actress for 1963's Cleopatra. The quality, and coverage, of a major encyclopedia takes decades to improve. Meanwhile, enwiki also has over 2,000 articles about numbered asteroids (which many users tried to Pokemon-combine as just 200 articles), derived from Harvard data files listing all "131,000"? asteroids in only 37 files (37 became 1,900 articles). So, let's focus on changing WP policies to list multiple people (or asteroids or footballers) in lists (of politicians) or such (with names as redirects), rather than create a stub for each. That would be a far better use of time IMHO, but we cannot badger other users to adopt non-policy ideas about article quality. I see enwiki reaching 9-10 million articles (before deletions offset new stubs), but BrownHairedGirl could help by advocating use of multi-person list articles to avoid numerous stubs. I hope that focus might end this discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  I find it depressing to read a suggestion that this about looking for high standards. On the contrary, I'm just looking for stubs which meet a very low threshold of usefulness, rather than stubs created with the bare minimum to allow the save button to be pressed. That's: stubs which add at least a little bit more than the list entry, are free from glaring factual areas, and are stub-tagged and categorised so that other editors can find them and expand them. That isn't hard; it just requires that the editor creating the stub takes at least a little bit of care over creating them.

  I don't want to see the barrier raised as a general principle, because it could trip up new editors, and I think it's important to keep the bar low for them. Hard cases make bad law, and it would be a pity to tighten the general principles just because one editor has chosen to create hundreds of stubs of a standard which the vast majority of newbies rapidly strive to surpass. Being legalistic about this (policy don't forbid it) misses the more important point that we expect editors to apply a modicum of care to ensure that their contributions don't require huge amounts of tidying up by others. When a newbie writes a stub that needs fixing, that's great, but it's usually the start of a learning curve, but in this case there has been no learning curve, just Groundhog Day, from an editor whose priority has been quantity with no care for quality. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the higher standard beyond newbies is a good idea, but that needs to become a policy point in WP:STUB or such, where we could advise, senior users preferably put all similar entries in a list article, otherwise, there must be birth/death years +source +stubtag +categories. Perhaps there would be an easy consensus to add those restrictions. WP enwiki (in year 2010) gains 1,100 articles per day (10% fewer each year), so focusing on one user is "straightening 1 deck chair on the wiki-Titanic" sinking in an ocean of hollow stubs. Examine 2 footballer team articles as examples:
  • stub "FK Sloga Sjenica" as very hollow;
  • page "FK Kikinda" in twisted wiki-English (from Google Mutate?).
Consider if we want Wikipedia to be 95% good stubs or 40% multi-person lists. This would be a good year to decide. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a much wider change, would be quite controversial. It would mean that plenty of well-formed stubs capable of expansion would be merged into lists, making it much harder to break them out to separate articles: e.g. Jack Dormand was a well-formed but short stub until I took it as a test of how much could be done with someone relatively obscure and got it up to good article standard.

We don't need to massively restructure wikipedia to deal with one problematic editor, who can simply be asked to exercise some restraint and WP:COMMONSENSE, and stop measuring her contribution to wikipedia simply by the number of times she's clicked save after following a redlink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#That_may_have_been_the_most_ham-handed_thing_I.27ve_ever_seen...

I'm getting the feeling that our rules don't matter, but could someone apply our rules to this (I guess they require a wheel war, or else you're part of the silent majority who agree. Which is the part that makes me think they need opposition)? Or, if someone knows how to get admins to follow their rules, drop me a line. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alison and GWH. Full-protection was necessary here to stop the imminent edit war Peregrine Fisher was going to engage in. You are supposed to discuss on the talk page and not through edit summaries on the main page. –MuZemike 07:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...and this is coming from an administrator who has full-protected The Wrong Version of WP:AN. –MuZemike 07:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think the process we have for the creation of policy WP:PROPOSAL was even remotely followed? If not, should it be marked as policy? Do you think an admin involved in the discussion should protect a version he's been arguing for? I know a lot of people want this to be policy, but we are now in a place where arguing it shouldn't be policy can in theory get you blocked. Welcome to 1984 Hobit (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care how this came along, but not liking the circumstances behind the "now policy" (or not liking the proposed policy, as demonstrated in the past such as WP:NOT#PLOT, which is also currently undergoing review) does not give valid excuse to edit war over it. –MuZemike 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Erb? Are you claiming that if I create a policy, label it as such, edit war over it and then get an admin to protect it, I can claim it is "now policy" and everyone else needs to live with that? That's pretty much what has happened to this point. Policy creation requires a significant consensus. This has _no_ demonstrated consensus and should not be treated as policy. Heck, _our_ policy says exactly that. "Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy." That is policy, so this isn't, no matter how it's labeled at the moment... Hobit (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said one bit. That being said, if I had to full-protect the page because of an edit war, I probably would have chosen more neutral wording than what GWH had used (such as "edit warring"). Problem here is that so many people in that flame war discussion are so emotionally enraged they are not able to think rationally. –MuZemike 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then do you disagree with any of A) WP:PROPOSAL wasn't followed in this case B) the protecting admin protect the version he'd been arguing for C) A&B are something of a problem. The net effect is that scenario I described is exactly what happened--someone labeled something as policy without following the normal protocol for doing so, people edit warred over it and an involved admin protected his preferred version (with an edit summary that made it plain he'd done so on purpose). I'd love to hear why that's acceptable or why people thing that's not what happened. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy as it is was not enacted by the community following the community policy process. There is no disagreement about that point. It came from the external policy mechanism we've had established for some time. The internal policy development process doesn't apply here. This is what it is. It's there, it has been for years, and that's the way it is.

With that said - the community has every right to discuss the policy and propose alternatives or come to a consensus to overturn the existing externally developed policy, within the internal community policy process. I don't know what outcome we'd see if there were such a community consensus - we haven't really got a tiebreaker in our policy or precedent for "community policy" vs "external policy".

If someone wants to create a new header tag for labeling policies which came from outside rather than via community policy development process that's fine. Nobody is disagreeing with a truth-in-labeling effort.

But conversely, it's false advertising to claim it's not a policy. It's the rule. It's what admins will do, Jimbo will do, Arbcom will do, the Foundation will do. We finally have it written out for all to see, but it's been a very consistent unwritten policy for many years now.

No, this didn't follow the normal protocol. I said it didn't when I did it. Nobody is disputing that. But if you believe that the normal protocol covers the totality of how Wikipedia works then you're wrong.

If you believe that my stabilizing the policy to accurately reflect the current and historical reality - outside of the normal policy process, but in line with what the rule has been for years - was an abuse of my power as an admin you should feel free to file a behavioral RFC or file an arbcom case. You could even convince a majority of other admins to simply unprotect the article. I don't think either is likely to succeed, but nobody's stopping you from trying. Nothing about what I did here is secret.

It would in my opinon be more productive to hold the conversations to see if community consensus has changed in the last nine or so months; last time we had this discussion the policy (not formally labeled as such at the time) was supported by a 90% plus majority of the community who bothered to comment. That could have changed. If it has changed then the community can act with its new consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I found it helpful. Could you A) point that that discussion from 9 months ago and B) explain what this "external policy" mechanism is? If it's going to exist, it should be at least documented. For the record, I still think protecting the page in this case was a pretty clear violation of WP:PROTECT. No it won't get you de-admined, but I do think asking for a neutral admin to do so would have been the proper thing to do. And in any case, explaining this clearly before it got labeled as policy would probably have been a good idea. Not sure I buy this should be policy at this point, but the explanation helped. Thanks Hobit (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a side note, WMF legal probably needs to look at this before it is accepted as a policy. If you ban someone as a pedophile without solid, beyond all doubt evidence, you are looking at a defamation lawsuit AND it is not limited to the laws of Florida. In other words, if the banned editor lives in Texas, a Texas court will hear the case, New York, etc. Not only is WMF at risk, but each and every editor that supported the ban could be brought into the case as a party. This is extremely ill-advised. Figure out another way to ban 'em, but you don't want to go down the road of calling them a pedophile - in all 50 states that would be per se defamation. (Note, this is not a legal threat - it is pointing out possible liabilities only). GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to note: this is precisely the point of the policy having evolved the way it is - to prevent wild accusations of outrageous things from being posted on-wiki as a part of ordinary workings. Block with a neutral block summary, refer them to ArbCom, and don't make a huge public witch hunt out of it. The ArbCom can handle it quietly and with dignity and respect, either letting the person no that, no, they can't edit, or unblocking if the block was wrong. The last thing anyone needs is a culture where we have huge public votes on whether or not someone is advocating for pedophilia. That's just ugly and risky for a number of reasons.
  • It is important to note that the existing customs have been the same for years, and it has functioned quite well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. There is no need to create a policy specifically covering this - Wiki has managed to deal with it for years without one, and without the resulting liability and potential for defamation claims. GregJackP Boomer! 02:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• However, this was a good lesson learned about the danger of writing another policy to further empower the numerous frivolous WP witchhunts against users (e.g., quote the Bible "Don't cast pearls before swine" and be accused of calling all opponents "swine"). Just in case the policy is needed, I warned to include the handling of jokes and false accusations, noting the Code of Hammurabi advised, "Anyone caught making false accusations will receive the punishment intended for the crime" (fewer frivolous lawsuits in ancient times); see talk-page: Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#Handling of mistakes or pedophile jokes (diff-link). In general, policies should include steps to process mistaken ideas (such as "What this policy is not"). Eventually, I think we need numbered documents, as Directives, to pinpoint how a policy needs to be handled in each of numerous common situations; otherwise, there is too much re-debating of policy interpretations, which were decided already in numerous prior cases. You would not believe the bizarre, twisted ways that people have re-interpreted policies (or perhaps you would). Some people think they can say "POV" and delete 3 large sections from an article, rather than discuss rewording for NPOV. We might need a multiple-choice policy-competency test as mandatory to unblock editing, the 30th time someone violates a policy. No more opinions, just an objective test score; perhaps even have a template than checks the score and allows editing! -Wikid77 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Abusive comments

Resolved

 – Gabagool (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely for making personal attacks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

i've just deleted a pretty abusive comment from my user page from a Norwegian IP address. It came shortly after I had reverted another personal attack from a Norwegian editor here. I have no idea if they are the same but its a bit odd, especially as the time lapse between the two is short and well after midnight in Norway (i.e its not likely that any casual user would have come across the material. Is it possible for someone with the right user rights to check it out? Its not really an SPI report (although I am happy to be corrected). A suspicion is not an accusation but if it could be checked it might clear the air --Snowded ^TALK 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked for that particularly egregious personal attack. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking it up so quickly --Snowded ^TALK 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, but aren't transclusion of signature templates banned? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Resolved

 – Commuted to time served. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He is currently requesting an unblock on his talk page. I am inclined to grant it, given his contrition, and long history without prior problems. Mayhap we can take this as "lesson learned" in a time of stress. Perhaps an unblock with agreement to disengage from Snowded and have no further interaction with them, along with strict civility parole; a sort of "one more outburst and its another block" sort of deal? --Jayron32 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.I'd keep on ice a little longer, but that's only my opinion, because his personal attack was quite egregious. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral I have no real objections, or need for him to disengage with me provided he follows normal rules of civility. Admin decision, hence my neutrality, looks like he has learnt a lesson and he admitted the fault straight away.--Snowded ^TALK 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just change the block to last a week. It seems like an adequate period. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with a Just This Once pass. Commuting to time served would be appropriate, given his history and contrition. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Modify I think this should be adjusted to 24 hours. This will give time for the involved editor to further calm down and chill out. I am not usually one for amnesty but I think given the user's history 24 hours would suffice. I am not of the opinion that a week is appropriate. Blocks shouldn't be punitive they should only serve to prevent further disruption and I think the problem has probably solved itself at this point.--Adam in MO Talk 08:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose History without problems? A week at least to get the message across and prevent further disruption. Verbal chat 14:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support commuting to time served. EVIL? Hitler? Stalin? Far-left SCUM OF THE EARTH, and EVIL again? I love it. I've been a wikipedia admin for five years or whatever, and have never received such a ludicrous (yet fine) distillation of insult. You should be proud, Snowded, I wish it was me! Bishonen | talk 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

After the initial surprise I must admit I took it with a sense of wry humour. --Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support, with possible expunge of this incident. Gabagool's edit counter reveals 4000 during 2.5 years, with edit percentage as articles=77%, indicating extreme lack of user-talk experience. I tend to be quiet, but I've created/expanded over 1,000 articles with counter percentage as only articles=71%. Hence, I think this is a clear case of a frustrated user unaware of how to fully user-talk with others, such as via WP:ANI. He admitted the insult was immature, but I think it captures a typical reaction, and I'd like his "permission" to use that insult in an essay (!) to express what ten thousand frustrated users are thinking. Insults don't occur because the opponent is Mother Theresa. Some are replies to silent insults. We need to improve the methods of how both users can resolve conflicts. Also, Gabagool's knowledge of maps, and the arctic region, is a good opportunity to expand WP's neophyte mapping techniques, into handling advanced polar-region mapping, where WP's rectangular map bias gives false impressions of northern Sweden, Norway, etc. To reduce edit conflicts, direct a user into important areas which few other users could handle. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Threat of self harm by anon IP

Here. I've removed it and added a note to the user's talk page; hopefully nothing to be concerned about but mentioning it here just in case.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What you've done seems fine. sonia^♫♪ 11:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes added by a sock or meatpuppet team?

Resolved

 – Both articles zapped; both hoaxers blocked. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The users Jimmylad999 (talk · contribs) and Tommyboy1996 (talk · contribs) are creating what appears to be elaborate hoaxes: Dumbass (tv series) and Thomas Gardner (director). The "dumbass" seemed fishy, so I did a google search, and found no mention of a dumbass TV series, and cross-searching for Thomas Gardner also revealed nothing other than the Thomas Gardner (director) article, which had been previously deleted as A7, and was submitted by the same initial contributor. I note that these two users have very similar names, and when the current version of Thomas Gardner was proposed for deletion, it was removed by the original author and then the second user started editing the page as well. I'm still in the process of researching this to make sure I'm not missing something, so I apologise if this is a little early. Any thoughts? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

From what they've been doing so far, they both seem WP:VOAs to me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1000 quatloos says the hoaxer got the idea from an episode of The X Files. "Dumbass" was a "fictional fictional" clone of Jackass in that episode. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimmylad indeffed by Future Perfect as Sunrise as VOA. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And Tommyboy too... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Well it seems both editors are indef blocked and the articles deleted, so that was a pretty fast response. So fast, in fact, that I got two edit conflicts when posting this and marking the thread resolved. Thanks for the quick action guys. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Geiremann

This editor is pushing the "Obama is the Antichrist" theme pretty heavily. He's also taking his Wiki-rants off-wiki and into a fringe news outlet indexed by Google News.[REDACTED URL] It's not a subject I particularly care about one way or another, but since it's indexed by Google News, and since he's making all the usual accusations, it's worth bringing to admin attention. Rklawton (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've had to redact the above URL as it's a malware site, just downloaded something called AV Security Suite on my PC. My work PC, crap. It's visible in the source if you really need to see it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He continues to edit war. He might be happy to be a martyr, but this is one time I'm willing to please him. He is not here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push his viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The off-wiki rants don't seem to have drawn any edits yet. That said, the edits are problematic in numerous ways. Yes, the editor is determined to get their viewpoint in somewhere (see their edit history, including the deleted article, Illinois Lottery 666). More to the point, the editor been repeatedly told that their edits simply don't belong where they have been adding them (for example, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories: it hits Barack Obama, religion and theories, but misses the boat on "conspiracy" (as does the currenly included bit about Victoria Jackson...)). Also, they have yet to recognize that the lone source doesn't say what they claim it says. The source says someone contacted a fringe group with the theory, not that the fringe group supports the theory. Long story short (too late), the bit the editor is extracting from the source is one anonymous person's theory. I don't expect the editor in question to recognize that anytime soon... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Several other editors, as well as myself, have tried talking to G in good faith, but it's now obvious that's not going to help. He's here to push one insane viewpoint, regardless of any consensus or policy. He has not helped this encyclopedia in any way in his time here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm a demonic minion! Finally! Man, my parents are going to be so proud of me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Geiremann

Resolved

 – Banned by Rklawton (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on posting to any articles or talk pages dealing with Obama or 666. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely correct, and I cannot see a situation coming from this that doesn't wind up with a ban or block. This isn't much doubt that the editor is not here to improve the project, but is here to push this fringe "anti-Christ" stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban if that's what everyone wants, but that amounts to a full ban since he doesn't seem interested in building an encyclopedia. He's placed his little post-it notes of truth on at least four different pages by now. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - full ban. This account is an obvious example of a WP:SPA with all edits aimed at promoting a made up conspiracy theory. He doesn't seem to understand what an encyclopedia is all about - or our five pillars. I'm neutral in this matter. The editor's off-wiki rants indexed by Google News were what first drew my attention to this matter, and I don't think I've ever edited any of the articles he's touched. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full ban. This is completely ridiculous; a topic ban seems useless here, as Geiremann does not wish to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Reading his off-wiki "articles", he seems intent on disrupting Wikipedia. We do not need Geiremann disrupting Wikipedia with some "anti-Christ" theories about Obama. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a full ban per WP:SOAP. We need to give this dude the boot asap. Topic ban is not the answer as it seems clear this person will keep looking for ways to push an agenda. Looking through the edit history and talk page is convincing. Jusdafax 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned per AN/I

The block log says "Banned per AN/I". There may be many valid reasons for banning this editor, but three support votes for a ban after 1 hour 13 minutes doesn't really qualify as "banned per AN/I". I would suggest a more accurate block reason is given (for example, an indefinite block done by an admin as an individual action without referring to ANI). In reality, there was no need to have any ban discussion. Just an indefinite block with the reason given would have been sufficient Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read the section above carefully, you'll see there are three "votes" for banning and three additional editors nominating or agreeing with the nomination in the first place. But yes, stating the reason more explicitly would have been a better idea. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and one of those supporting the ban was you, who filed the ANI report and carried out the block. I don't disagree with the block, but it was a 4-day-old account. Ban discussions are for a specific purpose, and they are not really designed for dealing with 4-day-old accounts. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, six people, including me. The case was pretty obvious, but I thought a second opinion would be useful. If you can point me to information about banning v. indef blocking and the age of an account, I'd appreciate it. I'm not so old that I can't learn. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Given his actions off-wiki, I'm thinking that attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning applies. However, I agree with your point that we could have waited 24-hours (WP:SNOW notwithstanding). Rklawton (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this could all be sorted out if users here were just a little more circumspect with the use of the word ban. This looks more like a simple indef block to me, which seems warranted under the circumstances. It would be highly unusual to ban a user after this little process and without any post-block shenanigans. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have made that clearer. This was a (relatively simple) indef block, and there was no need to use the word "ban". Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'd have given it more thought, I would have used the word "indef", too. Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This would appear, based on off-wiki evidence, to be a sock of indef-blocked user Geir Smith, who was responsible for additions to Siege of Baghdad (1258) Kafka Liz (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And that was a good block too. Note that he's been editing both that user and talk page. Clear sock puppetry. And is it normal for talk pages of indef blocked users to be deleted after a month? If it is, I'm not convinced that's a good idea and am tempted to restore it. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain those IPs are all him... He seems to have attracted a small group of, uh, fans, beyond the wiki. I've not seen deletions of other indef-blocked users' talkpages; I'm not what the precedent is for this. I'd be interested to see the talkpage restored, if no one minds. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. The talkpage hasn't been restored because Geir Smith has been tagged as the puppet master for 5 socks. We blank and tag and that won't be deleted in a month. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jrfoldes Back to His Edit Warring Yet Again

Resolved

 – blocked N419BH 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Already reported here twice (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#User:Jrfoldes Reverting Again, he is back yet again reverting various articles around You Can't Do That on Television to continue his spamming of an inappropriate fansite and reverting its clean up,[47] to undo consensus based redirects per AfD of Vanessa Lindores, and reverting the redirecting of Amyas Godfrey and Adam Reid which were redirected in a similar fashion per the Lindores and Bickford AfDs. He is already at 3RR on all of them, yet again, and is unlikely to stop. He has done this repeatedly over the last month or two, and it is getting ridiculous. He ignores warnings, reverts without discussion, and if anyone attempts to discuss it with him, he pretends to agree then comes back and does it all over again a few weeks later. He has been repeatedly warned to stop this sort of disruptive behavior, and he stops to avoid a block, then gets right back to it. At this point, I think stronger measures are needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I wasn't involved in the last go round, but when I reverted Jrfoldes edits on the You Can't Do That.. article today and had a look at the history, I left them a note on their talk page which they responded to but went ahead and added the content back and un-redirected the bios anyway. After that, I suggested that they stop editing the topic and related topics until they learn policy which Jrfoldes claims was some sort of threat (to which I say, whatever). Having looked at Jrfoldes' talk page, I think they're taking this message a bit too literally. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

His response to Pinkadelica's note has been to claim her remarks were a threat (not) and that "my uncle's a lawyer and two of my friends are finishing up law school, they all agree it's a threat" and to my ANI notice is to state "you want to be childish let's see if can put you on ANI notice, as you have been deliberatly harassing me".[48] Don't know if the first bit counts as a legal threat or not, but obviously he isn't going to stop anytime soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If three supposedly college-educated people don't know the difference between a suggestion and a threat, I honestly fear for future generations. I actually don't think the comment qualifies as a legal threat. It probably borders more on very lame intimidation. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen enough, especially from the previous thread a while back. Blocked 3 days. –MuZemike 07:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Duchamps comb and Birther edits

Resolved

 – Duchamps blocked N419BH 14:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Duchamps comb keeps adding original research and synthesis that amounts to birther nonsense on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article.(1,2,3,4,5,6) Most of the edits are out and out distortions of what the sources stated. The editor has also tried to add the same material to other Obama articles. I have given him two(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duchamps_comb&diff=371623961&oldid=371248042 1],2) warnings, and another editor also gave him one. I doubt very much that this user will stop without some kind of Admin interaction, or perhaps a topic ban. Dave Dial (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I am guilty of is being bold, assuming good faith, 2R, and maybe pushing the flag pole (on what I might add is a conspiracy theory page). Dave Dial has listed many of my eddits on the page I have been working on today, but nothing is proof or eddit warring or 3RR. obviously Dave Dial has been very personally offended by my edits, as he has called me a Birther and a liar. "Stop adding this nonsense - Next time it will be reported --You can't twist lies into truths and call them facts"[49] as well tried to run me away from the page, "Stop nonsense" [50] and on my talk page[51]. Please note on my last attempt at a good faith edit of adding new sections even with many new references, my efforts are merely deleted with no time to look up my sources or re-wright my work.--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Hash it out on the talk page. Note that WP:3RR is not a license. N419BH 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really a content dispute, since the editor is completely fabricating the material he is placing in BLP articles, and leaving sources while completely fabricating what those sources are stating. One of the fabrications - The editor stated

"Om<sic> January 21, 2009 Obama's first full day in office he sealed all "Presidential records" of his past with Executive Order no. 13489 Presidential Records".

Which is a complete fabrication, and then the editor put in a "reference" which again made no such claim. In fact, Fox News wrote about PO 13489, in which Adrienne Thomas, acting archivist of the United States lauds Obama for clearing "the way to open these presidential records" and states "This action allows the American people to view historical records relating to the presidency and judge for themselves the actions of federal official". This may or may not belong here, but it's not just a content dispute. Dave Dial (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying the user is deliberately inserting factual inaccuracies into the article? N419BH 04:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I can't see how it could be construed in any other way. Inserting material with sources that in no way backed up the text inserted. Material that accused a BLP(falsely) of actions that were not backed up at all. Dave Dial (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have to get to the question of the editor's intent. The edits aren't usable, they're rejected per consensus and according to sourcing / verifiability standards, and if the editor continues to edit war over them that's a simple disruption. If someone adds something to an article that's false, no need to speculate why. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit like this, which appears to present negative claims as at least serious claims, when the very source cited debunks those claims as pure fabrication, is indeed unacceptable, and signifies a pattern of disruptive tendentious editing. I have blocked the user for one week. I'm open to see this sanction tweaked into something more specific if appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned editor returns at William Greer

William Greer has been the subject of an editor who has spent the last three years trying to insert fringe material about the subject's involvement in the Kennedy shooting, and trying to implicate him. He was overwhelmingly topic banned here back in September of 2009. Because of this editor socking as an IP since then, the article has been semi-protected several times. The editor occasionally returns to the talk page to push his fringe viewpoint again, and has done so tonight as 173.79.237.165 (talk · contribs). Other editors and admins have reverted his additions to the talk page before [52] [53] [54] [55] and the IPs were blocked, but it looks like I'm the only one around tonight. Would an admin mind closing the drawer on this latest sock, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ip editor notified [56]. I also originally tried to engage them on their talk page but was ignored (as usual for this editor), and I also tried to first reach the previous blocking admin, but it seems as if he's off. Dayewalker (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A gross assumption is being made about the 3-year identity / continuity of editor(s). It's fair to edit / revert the William Greer page for what some may consider "fringe" comments. However, we are talking about editing the Discussion page, which is where an previous editor was requested to build consensus for his or her comments. How can that process take place if editors are continually banned and their comments supporting the idea as no longer "fringe" (ie Doug Horne is a US Government researcher who now implicates Greer in his recent book "Inside the AARB") are removed. It appears that the banning and reverting of the talk page SERVES ONLY AS A FORM OF CENSORSHIP! There area also double standards at work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.237.165 (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, you can keep creating accounts like User:Ehoffmanp and User:Oscillatenightly, but it doesn't make you less topic-banned, and it puts the lie to your assertion of a "gross assumption". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated improper rollback by Candyo32

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, discussion moving to Candyo32's talk page where it should have been in the first place. N419BH 15:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A month ago, I left User:Candyo32 a good-faith warning about improperly using rollback on non-vandalism edits. I received no reply back about the matter, but the bad-faith rollbacking has continued, see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (These were all pulled from the first page alone of his contributions.) This editor has been made aware of what rollback is to be used for and has been warned to stop using it inappropriately, but ignored such warnings and continued. Therefore, I propose his rollback be revoked. –Chase (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First edit was vandalism, infobox messed up.

Second vandalism, unsourced content. (user was warned once)

Third, user had been warned one time before that the article was predominately about the single.

Fourth, vandalism, rev unsourced content.

Fifth, vandalism, user is known genre warrior.

Also on WP:ROLLBACK, states "If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature." EVERY CASE listed and more I always have doubt before I use it. I don't use it on good faith edits.

Candyo32 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• First edit: I'll excuse this as I did not notice that it messed up the infobox, but it would be better to note what you were correcting in the edit summary. That was a good-faith misstep, not vandalism.
• Unsourced content added in good faith is not vandalism either.
• Still not vandalism.
• See #2.
• Maybe so, but that does not make it vandalism.

I have no doubt that you are considering how you use rollback before you revert, but my concern is that you are confusing good faith edits with actual vandalism. Would you also care to explain 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12? Rollback is only to be used for obvious and blatant vandalism; none of the edits you reverted were such. –Chase (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Chasewc91, I see you spent considerable time discussing your concerns with Candyo32 on their talk page like our directions indicate you should before bringing this issue here. N419BH 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

After no reply with the first warning, I figured there was no point in trying again as I was probably going to be ignored. Again. –Chase (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On another note, Chase, having one message ignored (or even unnoticed) is no excuse to stop attempting to resolve the issue yourself or to escalate; your attempts to resolve this were insufficient and you should've followed up on the original warning. Incidentally, it would be difficult to make an user appreciate the concept of good faith if you jump to the worst conclusion (that you'll continue to be ignored) when merely one attempt was unsuccessful for an unknown reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Gah, Candyo32, get Twinkle. Sometimes it is nice to be able to rollback with an edit summary, something which is allowed per policy, and is essentially the same thing as undoing without the advantage of only changing on edit, and the disadvantage of the edit screens. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I might try that. And about the other edits Chasewc91 brought up, in all of them I undoubtedly thought none were good faith. Most edits pointed out were by users who had done the same unconstructive edit before, and were warned, or others were genre warriors, which I don't consider to be of good faith. Candyo32 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much to be done at this venue. I'm not removing rollback, and I don't think any admins would. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL is quite narrow. Just not believing something is good faith doesn't make it fall under WP:VANDAL. Being warned about something also doesn't make a repeat of it vandalism. Indeed I, or anyone else can go and post warnings to people because I don't like/disagree with their edit, that doesn't mean anything. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As a rollbacker myself, and well familiar with policy regarding rollback, I will take this to the appropriate venue (Candyo32's talk page) with a note on proper use of rollback. Closing this as no admin action needed. N419BH 15:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not need to use Twinkle to leave an edit summary. Gracenotes's rollback summary script works as well; just press the "sum" link next to "rollback" to leave a summary. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Gazpr

I've come across edits by Gazpr (talk · contribs) in several articles, and I suggest that other editors have a look at his/her edits and perhaps provide some guidance. The user has been notified by several other users regarding WP:TEND, WP:NPOV, WP:COAT, WP:BLP. However, the pattern of editing is still WP:TEND-problematic.

It seems the user constistently tries to portray Russia as a threat, as if the Cold War never really ended. This line of thinking is not uncommon in Western media and public debate, but the way arguments are presented in this case appears problematic for me. For example, Russian influence operations in the United States (article created by Gazpr): "...warns that Americans, as people, are very naive about Russia and its intentions.", "...Russia has penetrated, and continues to penetrate, all the major press outlets in the United States.", or claims that the Cold War-era pro-Soviet international organization are run by Russian intelligence. Overall, there seems to be a McCartyesque logic in place.

To the defense of the user in question, the area he/she covers (international intelligence, for example) is a very murky one, were accusations circulate but are difficult to judge whether they are real or not. But it is then especially important to be prudent about which claims are presented in article texts, and with a biased selection of references it rapidly becomes POV-pushing in one way or another by default. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Russia is a threat? Sorry, bad attempt at humor. I think this is a content dispute, not much for admin intervention here, tho I will be happy to admit I am wrong. Basket of Puppies 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure either that this is the most apt to post the concern. But its not exactly a content dispute either, it relates to a pattern of editing that spans across many different articles. I'm not seeking sanctions by any means, but that perhaps other editors could revise the pattern of editing and provide more guidance to the editor in question. --Soman (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Geiremann

This editor is pushing the "Obama is the Antichrist" theme pretty heavily. He's also taking his Wiki-rants off-wiki and into a fringe news outlet indexed by Google News.[REDACTED URL] It's not a subject I particularly care about one way or another, but since it's indexed by Google News, and since he's making all the usual accusations, it's worth bringing to admin attention. Rklawton (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've had to redact the above URL as it's a malware site, just downloaded something called AV Security Suite on my PC. My work PC, crap. It's visible in the source if you really need to see it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He continues to edit war. He might be happy to be a martyr, but this is one time I'm willing to please him. He is not here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push his viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The off-wiki rants don't seem to have drawn any edits yet. That said, the edits are problematic in numerous ways. Yes, the editor is determined to get their viewpoint in somewhere (see their edit history, including the deleted article, Illinois Lottery 666). More to the point, the editor been repeatedly told that their edits simply don't belong where they have been adding them (for example, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories: it hits Barack Obama, religion and theories, but misses the boat on "conspiracy" (as does the currenly included bit about Victoria Jackson...)). Also, they have yet to recognize that the lone source doesn't say what they claim it says. The source says someone contacted a fringe group with the theory, not that the fringe group supports the theory. Long story short (too late), the bit the editor is extracting from the source is one anonymous person's theory. I don't expect the editor in question to recognize that anytime soon... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Several other editors, as well as myself, have tried talking to G in good faith, but it's now obvious that's not going to help. He's here to push one insane viewpoint, regardless of any consensus or policy. He has not helped this encyclopedia in any way in his time here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm a demonic minion! Finally! Man, my parents are going to be so proud of me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Geiremann

Resolved

 – Banned by Rklawton (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on posting to any articles or talk pages dealing with Obama or 666. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely correct, and I cannot see a situation coming from this that doesn't wind up with a ban or block. This isn't much doubt that the editor is not here to improve the project, but is here to push this fringe "anti-Christ" stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban if that's what everyone wants, but that amounts to a full ban since he doesn't seem interested in building an encyclopedia. He's placed his little post-it notes of truth on at least four different pages by now. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - full ban. This account is an obvious example of a WP:SPA with all edits aimed at promoting a made up conspiracy theory. He doesn't seem to understand what an encyclopedia is all about - or our five pillars. I'm neutral in this matter. The editor's off-wiki rants indexed by Google News were what first drew my attention to this matter, and I don't think I've ever edited any of the articles he's touched. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full ban. This is completely ridiculous; a topic ban seems useless here, as Geiremann does not wish to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Reading his off-wiki "articles", he seems intent on disrupting Wikipedia. We do not need Geiremann disrupting Wikipedia with some "anti-Christ" theories about Obama. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a full ban per WP:SOAP. We need to give this dude the boot asap. Topic ban is not the answer as it seems clear this person will keep looking for ways to push an agenda. Looking through the edit history and talk page is convincing. Jusdafax 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned per AN/I

The block log says "Banned per AN/I". There may be many valid reasons for banning this editor, but three support votes for a ban after 1 hour 13 minutes doesn't really qualify as "banned per AN/I". I would suggest a more accurate block reason is given (for example, an indefinite block done by an admin as an individual action without referring to ANI). In reality, there was no need to have any ban discussion. Just an indefinite block with the reason given would have been sufficient Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read the section above carefully, you'll see there are three "votes" for banning and three additional editors nominating or agreeing with the nomination in the first place. But yes, stating the reason more explicitly would have been a better idea. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and one of those supporting the ban was you, who filed the ANI report and carried out the block. I don't disagree with the block, but it was a 4-day-old account. Ban discussions are for a specific purpose, and they are not really designed for dealing with 4-day-old accounts. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, six people, including me. The case was pretty obvious, but I thought a second opinion would be useful. If you can point me to information about banning v. indef blocking and the age of an account, I'd appreciate it. I'm not so old that I can't learn. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Given his actions off-wiki, I'm thinking that attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning applies. However, I agree with your point that we could have waited 24-hours (WP:SNOW notwithstanding). Rklawton (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this could all be sorted out if users here were just a little more circumspect with the use of the word ban. This looks more like a simple indef block to me, which seems warranted under the circumstances. It would be highly unusual to ban a user after this little process and without any post-block shenanigans. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have made that clearer. This was a (relatively simple) indef block, and there was no need to use the word "ban". Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'd have given it more thought, I would have used the word "indef", too. Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This would appear, based on off-wiki evidence, to be a sock of indef-blocked user Geir Smith, who was responsible for additions to Siege of Baghdad (1258) Kafka Liz (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And that was a good block too. Note that he's been editing both that user and talk page. Clear sock puppetry. And is it normal for talk pages of indef blocked users to be deleted after a month? If it is, I'm not convinced that's a good idea and am tempted to restore it. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain those IPs are all him... He seems to have attracted a small group of, uh, fans, beyond the wiki. I've not seen deletions of other indef-blocked users' talkpages; I'm not what the precedent is for this. I'd be interested to see the talkpage restored, if no one minds. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. The talkpage hasn't been restored because Geir Smith has been tagged as the puppet master for 5 socks. We blank and tag and that won't be deleted in a month. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Gregbard in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism

Resolved

 – User informed of WP:CANVAS and promises to abide by it in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading the policy correctly, selecting users to notify of a procedural matter (in this case an AfD) based on their perceived or expected opinion is not OK. I maintain this is exactly what Gregbard has done by adding this message [57] to a number of user talk pages, specifically calling out their expected (or hoped?) sympathy with retaining the article. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be pretty blatant canvassing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to this report, let me state a few things. This isn't a simple situation.

A) To be honest, it appears that there is an interpretation under which I have violated this policy, which I had not read until this point.

B) It appears to be a very softly written policy where there are certain conditions under which some level of is canvassing permitted. ::C) This is a free speech issue. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to bring issues to the attention of those who have conspicuously identified themselves as being interested in those issues. It seems to me that these Wikipedian categories exist precisely so as to make this possible. There should be great reluctance to enforce such a policy, just on moral grounds.

D) The message was neutral, and I could also reasonably expect that perhaps some would not agree with me on the issue.

E) I believe I had given the system a chance to work itself out, and so I feel that this was a "last resort" type of action.

F) Communication is not harm.

G) This is the first time I have even made any attempt to canvass beyond one or two people for any issue outside of the WikiProject discussion venue.

H) I will abide by the canvassing policy in the future.Greg Bard (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing an AfD by bringing it to the attention of a large audience which are likely to agree with your POV is usurping the consensus process. I note that this was brought to AN/I without any sort of note or warning about votestacking being left on your talk page however, which wasn't the best of ideas. I'm not going to produce individual answers for each of your alphabetised points, but communication can be harmful to the process, and this is wikipedia; you don't have a fundamental right to say whatever you like, you have to abide by policy. Please keep the policy against canvassing in mind in future. I don't think admin attention is required at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I can see both sides here. This definitely was canvassing as defined in WP:CANVASS (due to the partisan audience), but equally I totally can't blame Gregbard for being unaware of the policy on it. On the face of it, notifying editors you feel will be interested in a topic is a good way to drum up AfD participation, it's just unfortunate that in this case the interested editors are likely to all be on one side of the debate. I think that no further action's necessary here, Greg has admitted that he was unaware of the policy and endeavours not to do it again. ~ mazca ^talk 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(yup, edit-conflicted with Giftiger wunsch basically saying the same thing!) ~ mazca ^talk 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that no furter action is needed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The main problem of canvassing is that it makes it very hard to establish consensus. If you choose to notify of an AfD only those people who you agree with and even if only some of them follow the link and !vote, then the discussion and the subsequent consensus-gauging has been altered, distorted. That's why canvassing isn't allowed; friendly notices are permitted, but to contact only those you agree with, even if your message is neutral, is votestacking. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize. I do hope that the issue gets more attention, and that the result will be better quality content. Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is another case of typical problems caused by an illogical guideline. I have posted that WP:CANVASS needs to be removed as a guideline, due to numerous problems: WP:AfD is no longer voting (now termed "!vote") so "votestacking" no longer applies; WP:CANVASS warns users not to announce new articles, which clearly thwarts collaboration. General meta-guideline: "Any guideline that thwarts collaboration (with other users) is a bad guideline". I've been a user much longer than WP:CANVASS has been a guideline, so it slipped by me, and does not have consensus with me. As you might know, "canvassing" (in the real world) is actually covering an entire area (a "whole canvas") to get opinions (and perhaps tilt them before response). Canvassing is NOT announcing to 10 people out of 90: it must involve most and get their responses. Plus, the basic problem with WP:CANVASS is an attempt to "catch" people planning a nefarious warping of WP decisions by collusion with other users. It is attempting to ban "pre-crime" activities, such as talking to users about a new article, which might (God forbid), lead to other people taking an interest and expanding a new article. Plus WP:CANVASS has a major loophole: if someone begins notifying supporters with one message, and then finds opponents have been notified already, the perception is that he only notified the supporters, rather than the truth (he could not "notify" the opponents because they were already notified). As a result, the loophole must be handled by re-notifying the opponents, but that might be judged as "double-notifying" one group (while not re-altering the supporters), so it is a hopeless Catch 22 and dooms people . WP:CANVASS needs to go away, but I hope you don't think I'm "canvassing" about it! -Wikid77 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's also be clear that there's no free speech issue. Free speech involve prior restraint by a government - there's no government involved here.--SPhilbrickT 20:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jrfoldes Back to His Edit Warring Yet Again

Resolved

 – blocked N419BH 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Already reported here twice (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#User:Jrfoldes Reverting Again, he is back yet again reverting various articles around You Can't Do That on Television to continue his spamming of an inappropriate fansite and reverting its clean up,[58] to undo consensus based redirects per AfD of Vanessa Lindores, and reverting the redirecting of Amyas Godfrey and Adam Reid which were redirected in a similar fashion per the Lindores and Bickford AfDs. He is already at 3RR on all of them, yet again, and is unlikely to stop. He has done this repeatedly over the last month or two, and it is getting ridiculous. He ignores warnings, reverts without discussion, and if anyone attempts to discuss it with him, he pretends to agree then comes back and does it all over again a few weeks later. He has been repeatedly warned to stop this sort of disruptive behavior, and he stops to avoid a block, then gets right back to it. At this point, I think stronger measures are needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I wasn't involved in the last go round, but when I reverted Jrfoldes edits on the You Can't Do That.. article today and had a look at the history, I left them a note on their talk page which they responded to but went ahead and added the content back and un-redirected the bios anyway. After that, I suggested that they stop editing the topic and related topics until they learn policy which Jrfoldes claims was some sort of threat (to which I say, whatever). Having looked at Jrfoldes' talk page, I think they're taking this message a bit too literally. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

His response to Pinkadelica's note has been to claim her remarks were a threat (not) and that "my uncle's a lawyer and two of my friends are finishing up law school, they all agree it's a threat" and to my ANI notice is to state "you want to be childish let's see if can put you on ANI notice, as you have been deliberatly harassing me".[59] Don't know if the first bit counts as a legal threat or not, but obviously he isn't going to stop anytime soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If three supposedly college-educated people don't know the difference between a suggestion and a threat, I honestly fear for future generations. I actually don't think the comment qualifies as a legal threat. It probably borders more on very lame intimidation. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen enough, especially from the previous thread a while back. Blocked 3 days. –MuZemike 07:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pohick2 indef-block review

I have blocked User:Pohick2 indefinitely for repeated copyright infringements. It is his first copyright block, but he has been repeatedly cautioned about copyright issues, including here , here, here, here, and here. His talk page and archives are littered with notices. But as recently as May 23rd, he’s had articles G12ed at Baron Wormser, and I just came upon Xaver Fuhr listed at today’s Copyright Problem’s board, created on 26 June with substantial content blatantly pasted from the source. Compare the following, for example:

Extended content

He was admitted to the "Deutscher Künstlerbund" and participated in the association's exhibitions. During this period Fuhr's work is characterised by a delicate, flowing colour combined with a grid-like, austere linearity which structures the composition. The artist consistently elaborated this compositional principle during the early 1930s. His works became less austere for the benefit of a more painterly aspect. See the source: Fuhr was admitted to the "Deutscher Künstlerbund" and participated regularly in the association's exhibitions…. During this period Fuhr's work is characterised by a delicate, flowing colour combined with a grid-like, austere linearity which structures the composition. The artist consistently elaborated this compositional principle during the early 1930s. His works became less austere for the benefit of a more painterly aspect. There is more in the article, but this seems sufficient to demonstrate the concern.

I chose an indefinite block because this contributor has shown no interest whatsoever in complying with our copyright policies. An indefinite block is not, of course, an infinite block, but I do not believe he should be unblocked until he gives some strong, credible indication that he understands and intends to comply with policy. I bring it here for review; I will also be suggesting a CCI, as it seems quite plausible that he has imported content that was not identified by the BOT. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's "fair use", innit? ¶ No it isn't. Good block. (And to think that this is a "Reviewer"....) -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should remove his autopatrol and reviewer flags just in case he is unblocked. MER-C 02:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They have been removed by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• endorse indef block. Is WP:C confusing? Tough luck. It's our Terms of Use. If you can't comply with them, go edit somewhere else, and I'll also support removal of talk page access if he persists in his pointless wikilawyering. Either he accepts to comply to the letter and spirit of WP:C with a zero tolerance for error, or wikipedia doesn't need his edits. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Duchamps comb and Birther edits

Resolved

 – Duchamps blocked N419BH 14:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Duchamps comb keeps adding original research and synthesis that amounts to birther nonsense on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article.(1,2,3,4,5,6) Most of the edits are out and out distortions of what the sources stated. The editor has also tried to add the same material to other Obama articles. I have given him two(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duchamps_comb&diff=371623961&oldid=371248042 1],2) warnings, and another editor also gave him one. I doubt very much that this user will stop without some kind of Admin interaction, or perhaps a topic ban. Dave Dial (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I am guilty of is being bold, assuming good faith, 2R, and maybe pushing the flag pole (on what I might add is a conspiracy theory page). Dave Dial has listed many of my eddits on the page I have been working on today, but nothing is proof or eddit warring or 3RR. obviously Dave Dial has been very personally offended by my edits, as he has called me a Birther and a liar. "Stop adding this nonsense - Next time it will be reported --You can't twist lies into truths and call them facts"[60] as well tried to run me away from the page, "Stop nonsense" [61] and on my talk page[62]. Please note on my last attempt at a good faith edit of adding new sections even with many new references, my efforts are merely deleted with no time to look up my sources or re-wright my work.--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Hash it out on the talk page. Note that WP:3RR is not a license. N419BH 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really a content dispute, since the editor is completely fabricating the material he is placing in BLP articles, and leaving sources while completely fabricating what those sources are stating. One of the fabrications - The editor stated

"Om<sic> January 21, 2009 Obama's first full day in office he sealed all "Presidential records" of his past with Executive Order no. 13489 Presidential Records".

Which is a complete fabrication, and then the editor put in a "reference" which again made no such claim. In fact, Fox News wrote about PO 13489, in which Adrienne Thomas, acting archivist of the United States lauds Obama for clearing "the way to open these presidential records" and states "This action allows the American people to view historical records relating to the presidency and judge for themselves the actions of federal official". This may or may not belong here, but it's not just a content dispute. Dave Dial (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying the user is deliberately inserting factual inaccuracies into the article? N419BH 04:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I can't see how it could be construed in any other way. Inserting material with sources that in no way backed up the text inserted. Material that accused a BLP(falsely) of actions that were not backed up at all. Dave Dial (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have to get to the question of the editor's intent. The edits aren't usable, they're rejected per consensus and according to sourcing / verifiability standards, and if the editor continues to edit war over them that's a simple disruption. If someone adds something to an article that's false, no need to speculate why. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit like this, which appears to present negative claims as at least serious claims, when the very source cited debunks those claims as pure fabrication, is indeed unacceptable, and signifies a pattern of disruptive tendentious editing. I have blocked the user for one week. I'm open to see this sanction tweaked into something more specific if appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned editor returns at William Greer

William Greer has been the subject of an editor who has spent the last three years trying to insert fringe material about the subject's involvement in the Kennedy shooting, and trying to implicate him. He was overwhelmingly topic banned here back in September of 2009. Because of this editor socking as an IP since then, the article has been semi-protected several times. The editor occasionally returns to the talk page to push his fringe viewpoint again, and has done so tonight as 173.79.237.165 (talk · contribs). Other editors and admins have reverted his additions to the talk page before [63] [64] [65] [66] and the IPs were blocked, but it looks like I'm the only one around tonight. Would an admin mind closing the drawer on this latest sock, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ip editor notified [67]. I also originally tried to engage them on their talk page but was ignored (as usual for this editor), and I also tried to first reach the previous blocking admin, but it seems as if he's off. Dayewalker (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A gross assumption is being made about the 3-year identity / continuity of editor(s). It's fair to edit / revert the William Greer page for what some may consider "fringe" comments. However, we are talking about editing the Discussion page, which is where an previous editor was requested to build consensus for his or her comments. How can that process take place if editors are continually banned and their comments supporting the idea as no longer "fringe" (ie Doug Horne is a US Government researcher who now implicates Greer in his recent book "Inside the AARB") are removed. It appears that the banning and reverting of the talk page SERVES ONLY AS A FORM OF CENSORSHIP! There area also double standards at work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.237.165 (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, you can keep creating accounts like User:Ehoffmanp and User:Oscillatenightly, but it doesn't make you less topic-banned, and it puts the lie to your assertion of a "gross assumption". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated improper rollback by Candyo32

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, discussion moving to Candyo32's talk page where it should have been in the first place. N419BH 15:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A month ago, I left User:Candyo32 a good-faith warning about improperly using rollback on non-vandalism edits. I received no reply back about the matter, but the bad-faith rollbacking has continued, see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (These were all pulled from the first page alone of his contributions.) This editor has been made aware of what rollback is to be used for and has been warned to stop using it inappropriately, but ignored such warnings and continued. Therefore, I propose his rollback be revoked. –Chase (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First edit was vandalism, infobox messed up.

Second vandalism, unsourced content. (user was warned once)

Third, user had been warned one time before that the article was predominately about the single.

Fourth, vandalism, rev unsourced content.

Fifth, vandalism, user is known genre warrior.

Also on WP:ROLLBACK, states "If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature." EVERY CASE listed and more I always have doubt before I use it. I don't use it on good faith edits.

Candyo32 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• First edit: I'll excuse this as I did not notice that it messed up the infobox, but it would be better to note what you were correcting in the edit summary. That was a good-faith misstep, not vandalism.
• Unsourced content added in good faith is not vandalism either.
• Still not vandalism.
• See #2.
• Maybe so, but that does not make it vandalism.

I have no doubt that you are considering how you use rollback before you revert, but my concern is that you are confusing good faith edits with actual vandalism. Would you also care to explain 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12? Rollback is only to be used for obvious and blatant vandalism; none of the edits you reverted were such. –Chase (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Chasewc91, I see you spent considerable time discussing your concerns with Candyo32 on their talk page like our directions indicate you should before bringing this issue here. N419BH 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

After no reply with the first warning, I figured there was no point in trying again as I was probably going to be ignored. Again. –Chase (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On another note, Chase, having one message ignored (or even unnoticed) is no excuse to stop attempting to resolve the issue yourself or to escalate; your attempts to resolve this were insufficient and you should've followed up on the original warning. Incidentally, it would be difficult to make an user appreciate the concept of good faith if you jump to the worst conclusion (that you'll continue to be ignored) when merely one attempt was unsuccessful for an unknown reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Gah, Candyo32, get Twinkle. Sometimes it is nice to be able to rollback with an edit summary, something which is allowed per policy, and is essentially the same thing as undoing without the advantage of only changing on edit, and the disadvantage of the edit screens. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I might try that. And about the other edits Chasewc91 brought up, in all of them I undoubtedly thought none were good faith. Most edits pointed out were by users who had done the same unconstructive edit before, and were warned, or others were genre warriors, which I don't consider to be of good faith. Candyo32 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much to be done at this venue. I'm not removing rollback, and I don't think any admins would. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL is quite narrow. Just not believing something is good faith doesn't make it fall under WP:VANDAL. Being warned about something also doesn't make a repeat of it vandalism. Indeed I, or anyone else can go and post warnings to people because I don't like/disagree with their edit, that doesn't mean anything. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As a rollbacker myself, and well familiar with policy regarding rollback, I will take this to the appropriate venue (Candyo32's talk page) with a note on proper use of rollback. Closing this as no admin action needed. N419BH 15:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not need to use Twinkle to leave an edit summary. Gracenotes's rollback summary script works as well; just press the "sum" link next to "rollback" to leave a summary. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

I have a lot of pages of notes, subpages under User:Geo Swan. When I started these notes I was unaware of the {{noindex}} directives.

When I became aware of the directive, I made a point of adding it to all new notes I started. I started adding it to existing subpages, as I worked on them. And I periodically spend a period of time adding the directive to other subpages. I figured since it took a long time to start those subpages, it wouldn't be a problem if it took a while to add the directive to all of them.

The individuals behind another wiki-id, User:Iqinn, has complained to me about my subpages lacking the directive. But frankly, the individuals who use that wiki-id have been wikihounding my contributions. I regard these complaints as yet another instance of their wikihounding and griefing. That wiki-id has made well over 10,000 edits in the year or so they have been active. And well over 90 percent of their edits have either been to material I originally contributed, or about material I originally contributed.

This wiki-id requested my permission to edit the subpages under User:Geo Swan. They requested this repeatedly, most recently here, permission I declined to give, [68], because the individuals who use this wiki-id have a long record of masking controversial edits with misleadingly mundane edit summaries. I was working on this, as my time permitted, and I believe my contribution history showed this. Frankly their wikihounding has seriously eroded my productivity. If they weren't wikihounding my contributions I am sure I would have finished adding this directive to the subpages under User:Geo Swan a long time ago.

Recently they accused me of breaking my promise -- an accusation I deny. And they started to edit the subpages under User:Geo Swan, even though I had been pretty clear they did not have my permission.

I reviewed WP:User pages, after they recently accused me of violating it. I deny that I violated WP:User pages. Rather, I believe the individuals behind User:Iqinn have violated WP:User pages.

1. I had no idea that they had gone ahead and edit the subpages under User:Geo Swan. WP:User pages says those who edit subpages have an obligation to inform the contributor.
2. WP:User pages says administrators may edit the subpages under another contributor's User page. But it says ordinary users should ask for permission, and they should respect the wishes of contributors who deny that permission.

I'd like User:Iqinn to stop editing the subpages under User:Geo Swan. Since they clearly will not respect my wishes, and, it seems to me, that their edits do not comply with WP:User pages am I entitled to request administrator intervention?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should respect your wish for them to not edit your subpages, but per WP:UP#OWN, you really can't prevent it unless they are becoming disruptive. Perhaps you should store your notes off-site if you don't want them edited by other users. —DoRD (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That i would wikihounding User:Geo Swan is absolutely false. We do work in the same section of Wikipedia (Guantanamo / "War on terror").

User:Geo Swan has written i guess 80-90 % of the Guantanamo related articles. So that it is just naturally that when i edit Guantanamo related articles i edit mostly content that he has added. We are speaking about a stunning roughly 1000 articles in this section where he has been the main contributer or sole contributer of these articles.

I am sorry but that i would wikihounding him just because we work in the same field is laughable.

User:Geo Swan has about 600+ Guantanamo related rough notes or drafts in his user space. Many of them are about controversial topics, biased, false or often only rough notes and as said all related to the controversial topic Guantanamo.

When i started to work in this field a year ago i did a lot of web searches in our field and whatever Guantanamo related term i was looking for his user space notes and biased articles came up first in the results. Often higher as Guantanamo related Wikipedia main space articles. I do not believe that his controversial material in his user space should represent Wikipedia on such an important and controversial topic.

I discussed this with User:Geo Swan on his talk page more than six month ago and he agreed that this is a problem and he promised to add the NOINDEX tag to all of his user space articles that i would bring to his attention. He initially did so after i needed to remind him a few times but then stopped doing so months ago.

He started claiming ownership over the pages under his user name but there is no ownership on Wikipedia WP:UP#OWN so that i added the NOINDEX tag to the pages under his user name.

The fact is. I have never edit his notes. I added a tag to these problematic pages what fixed the problem that he had agreed to fix nearly six month ago but never did.

I had never the wish to edit his notes i have never done so and i do not have the wish to edit his Guantanamo related notes in the future.

But i strongly refuse the allegation of wikihounding i will continue to add the NOINDEX tag to problematic Guantanamo related notes and articles under his user name in the future when i see the need and he refuses do it himself and i will continue to edit articles that are related to the field he is working in as there is no ownership on Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you actually have grounds for believing that the Iquinn ID is used by more than one person? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also be interested to hear the reasons for this false believe as i can strongly confirm that nobody else other than myself has ever used my user account. IQinn (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the user's contributions, I don't see any evidence of use by multiple individuals; but I do note that the user's first edits show an unusual degree of Wiki-sophistication, as their first edits are to article category inclusion and other non-textual edits. I will assume good faith here and ask if the user perhaps worked on other language Wikis or had a previous account or did substantial edits as an IP before creating an account? Yworo (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I never really edited Wikipedia before i created my account. Though i was using and watching the project since it's earliest days because i am software developer since ages.

I did not work on other language Wikis before creating my account here and i did not edit as an IP (maybe 3-4 edits over years) before creating my account. IQinn is the only account i have ever used.

As said i am fluent in PHP, HTML, CSS, MySQL, Javascipt.... it is the field i earn my money.

Unusual degree of Wiki-sophistication :) sound like a compliment to me but i guess comes simply from the fact that writing code is easier for me than writing text. Surprisingly there has not been a lot of development in the WP UI and i can only agree that anybody who does not have an IT background like me would struggle more with "non-textual" edits even though i am not absolutely sure what edits you exactly mean by that.

I am also convinced that you will find more beginner mistakes if you have a second look as i still remember the incredible pain and struggle it takes just to leave a comment on a talk page. Stuff that is taken care of in all modern software applications still needs to be done by hand like adding your signature and you will find countless edits in my history where i forgot this to do - but not anymore... 4~~.. IQinn (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• In reply to User:Elen of the Roads' question, yes, I honestly believe there are strong grounds to believe multiple individuals have used the wiki-id User:Iqinn. I doubt this is the appropriate venue to go into detail. But I will, soon, when I am sure I have the right forum. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • These are serious allegations and this here is exactly the right venue to show of something that would support your claim. Bringing forward that kind of allegations against other editors and than not be able to show of anything is a serious issue and i will soon start a new post here on this noticeboard against you if you do not provide us here with your "strong grounds" or better withdraw your allegations because they are simply false and could be seen as an personal attack. IQinn (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

GeoSwan - if your belief is contextual (they edit like different people), please post it here. If there is a risk of WP:OUTING, because you believe you know who the multiple editors are, then you can email the information to any administrator.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no risk of WP:OUTING as i am one editor and nobody else ever has used my account and i would be surprised if he would know my identity. If he thinks he knows my identity than i allow him to post it here. But then please post also the identity of the second fictional person because i would be interested to know the name of this fictional person. Serious accusations require serious evidence. I repeat i have no problem he post his "strong grounds" here on the talk page including of all possible personal information. That is the fastest way to show that his allegations are baseless. The thing i have problems with are personal attacks what allegations of this sorts are when failing to deliver serious evidence. IQinn (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at three of your subpages:

• Doc 408
• Doc 422
• Doc 45

None of which have "noindex", and the third of which shows up in a Google search.

I request that you find a way to add "noindex" to all the subpages immediately, or find someone who cab write you a bot, if it is too hard to do manually. Frankly, I think the software ought to automatically take care of this, but as long as it does not, you have to take care of it yourself.--SPhilbrickT 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Gazpr

I've come across edits by Gazpr (talk · contribs) in several articles, and I suggest that other editors have a look at his/her edits and perhaps provide some guidance. The user has been notified by several other users regarding WP:TEND, WP:NPOV, WP:COAT, WP:BLP. However, the pattern of editing is still WP:TEND-problematic.

It seems the user constistently tries to portray Russia as a threat, as if the Cold War never really ended. This line of thinking is not uncommon in Western media and public debate, but the way arguments are presented in this case appears problematic for me. For example, Russian influence operations in the United States (article created by Gazpr): "...warns that Americans, as people, are very naive about Russia and its intentions.", "...Russia has penetrated, and continues to penetrate, all the major press outlets in the United States.", or claims that the Cold War-era pro-Soviet international organization are run by Russian intelligence. Overall, there seems to be a McCartyesque logic in place.

To the defense of the user in question, the area he/she covers (international intelligence, for example) is a very murky one, were accusations circulate but are difficult to judge whether they are real or not. But it is then especially important to be prudent about which claims are presented in article texts, and with a biased selection of references it rapidly becomes POV-pushing in one way or another by default. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Russia is a threat? Sorry, bad attempt at humor. I think this is a content dispute, not much for admin intervention here, tho I will be happy to admit I am wrong. Basket of Puppies 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure either that this is the most apt to post the concern. But its not exactly a content dispute either, it relates to a pattern of editing that spans across many different articles. I'm not seeking sanctions by any means, but that perhaps other editors could revise the pattern of editing and provide more guidance to the editor in question. --Soman (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please could administrator ask administrator to unprotect talk page

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

Resolved

 – IP blocked for making death threats here instead of at the requested protected talk page. Kids today... N419BH 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish to post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PMDrive1061 please could you ask him to unprotect his talk page kind persons.

A thousand kisses from Kremistan Special Administrative Region 86.177.88.105 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pages are visible to all, so you could just as easily post it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Does I has guarantee of the man or lady but I think man and not lady that PMdrive to see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.88.105 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, and I will notify him/her of your message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you a thousand times! My message to communicate is: Please allow the edit of your page, Mr(s) Drive. And please pass on the great thanks to Mr Bugs for the effort he says in saying this 86.177.88.105 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he has it protected for a reason. If you have a specific question, feel free to post it here. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The user talk page was protected to prevent vandalism, and can still be edited by registered and confirmed users. Since you have no visible edit history aside from a request to unprotect the page and made no specific reason aside from wanting to talk to him, there is probably no reason it should be unprotected. If you have a question or need something done on a main article, then just post what you want done. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The same thing happened to me about 2 months back when an innocent looking IP editor turned up here on ANI asking for this same exact request and all hell broke loose on my talk page. Hence, I shall leave the viewer/reviewer to their conclusion(s) of the consequences of acceding to such silly request. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, goodbye. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn you User:MuZemike, you got to the block before I could! *Random wandering death threat* S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What a shame. I was just getting to know the guy. Regarding the above, I like the threat made by some guy in an early Tom Hanks effort called Volunteers: "I'm gonna kill ya; I'm gonna skin ya; and I'm gonna use your shin bone for a pencil box!" Luckily, the protaganist marrowly escaped that fate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You can definitely tell the kids are out of school for summer, can't you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tell me about it, homies. =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• We'll read about them in the paper tomorrow, when they try to build the world's largest firecracker and pick the wrong time to light up a J. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Damned... Bugs, you just reminded me of Ewan McGregor being interviewed by Craig Ferguson on the LLS where it was alleged by Ewan that Craig had a huge firecracker stuff up... oh nevermind about it. =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• That must have been a Kodak moment. Sorry I missed it. Regarding the OP's question, every admin needs to create a separate, unprotected talk page, so that in case of the need for an emergency posting by an IP, the admin can begin ignoring it immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Don't patronise me, you b*****d. =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:14, 4 July 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 #2

Resolved

 – ANI is not WP:HELP Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not to edit Serbia? (it also needs the unprotect) 86.177.88.105 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Two words: "Powder keg". --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a few minutes and familiarize yourself with our help pages rather than asking all of your questions on this page which is to address incidents requiring admin intervention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

Resolved

 – Admin attention not required. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

In about 2 hours, the Drama-Out begins. Please try to wrap up things here. If possible, do not start a new controversy since it is unlikely to be resolved in 2:15. Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout or because of advice to notify ANI. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Do you have to spam this noticeboard with material quite contrary to the instructions in the page header, merely serving to advertise your own pet project? Seriously? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 21:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) It is not my pet project. Administrator Jayron32 suggested that I do several things, this being one of them. I was merely following orders. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC) He wrote this... Otherwise, just write a nice note, copy and paste it to the talk pages of everyone that did it last time and also hit up ANI and the VP and maybe the Signpost. --Jayron32 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'm not sure exactly how appropriate the addition here is, but I don't think it warrants such a rude response, TT. Let an admin remove it if they feel it's inappropriate; in any case the notice is an attempt to improve wikipedia (so perhaps WP:IAR applies here), and there's no sense in creating more drama by starting a dispute about it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC) This charade has been causing more eDrama than it has prevented since its ill-begotten conception roughly one year ago. If you had just gone about your business with out all this "hey look at me!" puffery, the project would have been much better off. I'd also note that the banner says that it is intended for individual participants, and not buckshot advertising like this. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC) The fifth doesn't start for another 6 hours where I live, why should I be robbed of four hours if I were to participate? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) (ec) I just made a gaffe. When I said I was following orders, I did not mean to imply any connection with . I just noticed that TT is Jewish and may declare war on me for this possible gaffe. As far as a charade, please AGF. There are 3-4 people who signed up saying they will not participate. Tarc may do so, too. Tarc, maybe you should discuss things with Jayron32 as he is not participating this time and he gave the orders for ANI. Also, in 1:59, it is 5 July in UTC but each person may use a different time zone if desired. It is already 5 July in Australia and Timor Leste. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) So, you want admins to stop responding to questions at the ANI board? Who would notice the difference tbh? MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) So to start the dramaout you post a big dramatic message here and follow up by saying "following orders" is equatable with Nazism? This is how you avoid drama? AniMate 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC) From Wikipedia Superior Orders: These trials gained so much attention that the "Superior Orders defense" has subsequently become interchangeable with the label, "Nuremberg Defense." This is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "orders are orders") and is therefore not responsible for his or her crimes. So yes, you're starting the dramaout with a Nazi reference. Excellent. AniMate 22:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) We all should focus more on article writing than ANI, that is what I have been trying to do since I found myself mired in ANI stuff over the last month or two. I made Battle of Lucas Bend! Which is probably inaccurate! Why not just have a sponsored "ANI admin make an article" day? S.G.(GH) ping! 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Marking as resolved (edit conflict) since administrator attention clearly isn't required here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC) The whole shebang just went down for a few hours due to "cooling problems". (likely from all the hot air coming from this board :) Was that enough "no drama" for everybody? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC) And it came back up in a weird font of some kind. Probably have to reboot my old TRS-80 now. :( Ya know, the core problem with this so-called "drama-out" is that socks and other vandals keep their own schedule. Good look getting them to conform. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryan kirkpatrick redux

Could an administrator please look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#The current block on User:Ryan kirkpatrick 2 (and its sub-section) and see if there is the necessary consensus for an unblock with a topic ban on all articles relating to terrorism please? I would not like to unarchive it for a second time unless really needed. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we move it to WP:AN, where it probably should have been in the first place, not to mention the stale-thread-archiving rate there is 48 hours? –MuZemike 04:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Providing it gets resolved in some way, I do not mind what is done. O Fenian (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Aargh! I apparently added an unreferenced period...

...and User:Matthew hk saw fit to give me a level 3 warning for it. The edit in question is here. Matthew left me a warning here. Part of the discussion is on my talk page, but I also responded on his talk page, comments removed by Matthew hk. I will apologize to the community at large for calling them a bad word on my talk page (I probably shouldn't have called them a moron, and if someone wants to give me an incivility warning for it, I accept that), but this is approaching surreal proportions. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the editor. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a possible language problem. Quick, everyone find a run-on sentence and add a period, then revert yourself and give yourself a level 3 warning for no reliable source! We must ensure every period is sourced! N419BH 04:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yours edit is unhelpful. ip user and newbie keep on adding transfer rumour and/or with citing it with reliable source and someone personal attack me after receive warning. I am patrolling A.S. Roma, Genoa CFC, F.C. Internazionale Milano, Giulio Donati, Francesco Toldo, Jonathan Biabiany, Júlio César and many other page.

If you had look at the page history, the Juve content is re-added after the first one receive warning, whatever you went to that page Marco Motta via recent change or a Juve fans, you did not find what happened and edited the Juve content, you agreed the juve content exist. JUve later announced Motta passed the medicals, but the official announcement still said the deal is pending to finalize. Matthew_hk tc 04:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're both making mountains out of molehills. I recommend ending this issue entirely. A corrolary of "Do Not Template The Regulars" is "Regulars Should Not Escalate a Templating Into A Rediculously Long Discussion Which Spills Off Of Their Talk Page And Onto ANI". Not an easy to use acronym for a shortcut, I know, but a vital corrolary. Yes, he should not have templated you. No, you should have not raised this much of a stink over it. This ends the exact second when either one of you stops commenting on it. If either of you just let it drop, the matter goes away forever, with no problems for anyone. The same goes for the other one. --Jayron32 04:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my attempt at injecting WP:HUMOR into the situation was taken as an insult. I am now going to close this thread as no admin action needed. Misunderstandings happen. N419BH 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment was directed at the two combatants in this silly dispute, not you. You are funny as shit, and this situation is so stupid that it needed the levity your comments provided. If the two combatants had your lighter attitude, it'd have never made it here. --Jayron32 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

N419BH. RUN AWAY. It is commonly known that staying at ANI for prolonged periods/making many editssucks the life out of you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually kind of enjoy ANI. Maybe keeps some of the content contributors...you know...creating content. I've always edited in the more vandalism/cleanup role. I did apologize (sincerely) at Matthew's talk page in the hopes that maybe he'd actually read it and realize what's going on. Since it's already archived...idk.

Of all things, I think a period is a teeny tiny little dot of a thing......to bring to ANI. N419BH 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

@Native Foreigner: I am so disapppointed, I thought your link was going to lead to WP:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU, and I was looking forward to reading the essay! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I do what I can. Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU -- ۩ Mask 13:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent essay, changed my life -- I've gone back to sniffing glue as the lesser of two evils. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I wish we could be so flippant about hashing out conflicts on Wikipedia. It's a nasty, tedious job that needs to be done, which has gotten reinterpreted as an online version of the Jerry Springer Show. People sometimes simply act stupid -- even people who are usually very intelligent -- & refuse to acknowledge that they did something stupid & get in trouble for it. Even if they really have to try to do something that will get them into trouble. And there's very little one can do to solve these problems. Blocking doesn't always work, & even if it did, it isn't the best solution in many cases. We can't lock these people in a room & let them kill each other, either. (If only we could repeat the final scenes of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"; that might not solve anything, but at least it sure would be fun.) And where do these people get the idea they can solve nationalistic & cultural disputes with their favored version of an article? If a bunch of adults with lots of lawyers, money, guns & bombs can't settle the dispute, how is the content of a few Wikipedia articles going to do it? Anyway, participating in WP:AN/I doesn't suck the life out of you like watching too many episodes of Shazaam in one sitting, it sucks the life out of you like paying too much attention to WP:AN/I. will. -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got to wonder if the English wikipedia is the best place for Matthew HK, I still can't make sense of his explanation and editors need to be able to communicate in understandable english if they're going to be editing here, especially if they're going to be throwing around inappropriate templates. I'm not sure I'd entirely consider this resolved since it's shown us a larger issue. Not to mention the instant archiving of talk makes it even more difficult to follow the flow of the conversation and has in the past with other users been seen as inappropriate, abrasive and even uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can make sense of his explanation, and it's just wrong: according to this, he feels that adding the period is a de facto approval of the content and hence just as bad an offense as placing the content. There might actually be something to that if it were an obvious and egregious BLP violation or something, the kind of thing where any reasonable person would realize the content does not belong. But that is clearly not the case here, and giving a person who cleaned up punctuation a block warning because the content may be inaccurate or unsourced is a civility issue at best. New, good faith contributors could be driven away from the project by something like that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(removed resolved template) Is there more that needs to be done here? I didn't catch the "De Facto approval" bit. N419BH 13:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't know if this is a pattern for him, but, if it is, it needs to stop. I'm not sure if there's any benefit to additional conversation about it with him, given his response to prior attempts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil issues are still issues. The instant archiving is also a civil issue, which to me is adding up to a lot of civil issues in a short discussion time. If this is a pattern it is a big problem and if he doesn't want to discuss then the discussion would have to carry on without his input. I noticed that yes it does appear to be a pattern for him. He's going right to level 3 warnings with users: [69], even new ones. And in this case what was added seems to be true [70].--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on my previous interaction with him I think it'll fall on deaf ears. You can try though. If he's level 3-ing good faith contributions (like periods) we have a problem. ESPECIALLY if he's doing it to new users. I however disagree with the instant archiving being a civil issue. It's permitted (though annoying) at WP:OWNTALK, as it's basically deleting everything minus the deleting bit. N419BH 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on my experience archiving on going discussions has been frowned upon in the past. A quick look at his user talk contribs [71] seems to show a habit of giving everyone a level 3, which are used for users who are already pushing good faith at that point. not users firsts mistakes. This is a problem as far as I'm concerned. If he doesn't want to listen, the community can make him listen.--Crossmr (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Frowned upon, yes. Against policy, no. Biting the newbies, however, is a problem. Might be time for a formal warning about WP:AGF, as the documentation for the level 3 templates states they assume bad faith. N419BH 14:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a pattern of problem disclosed here. This edit combines some clearly beneficial changes along with some I cannot judge. He reverted, even breaking the format improvements, and issued a level 3 block advisory. For this change, the text of his note is appropriate but it is again accompanied by a block warning. He hands out block warnings to people all over the place; in each of these instances, it is a first warning and often for a single edit: 1; 2; 3, 4, 5. In this case, he did the same thing: warning somebody for content added by somebody else. I stopped at this point, but there are plenty more in his history. I realize that it may be frustrating to keep these articles factual, but there is a clear tendency to bite here, and it needs to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you all that there's a WP:BITE issue, here. And, although I'm sorry for not WP:AGFing, I fear that nothing short of a block will get this user's attention to the community's worries. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, let's AGF for the time being and assume he just isn't aware of the biting issue. Since personal messages aren't working, let's try one of these. N419BH 14:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've left him another message, if he continues and carries on we have little choice but to block if he isn't going to communicate in an effective manner and carry on disruptively.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That works. We'll see if it changes anything. Should those of us with tools (rollback, twinkle) go and remove his level 3 warnings? Any way to do that quickly? N419BH 14:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You could have used {{uw-bite}}... Seriously, let's hope he gets the message... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also {{uw-tempabuse}}, but a handwritten note is often more effective than using a template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you all for chiming in; I do what I can to lighten up the place a bit. Moonriddengirl, I think you are exactly right in your interpretation, and ordinarily, if I run across statements like that Juve/Udinese stuff, I will either look it up or tag it or remove it--but trying to have nice, clean articles with verifiable stuff on sports topics is a Utopian effort. What I wanted from Matthew hk, who has three times as many edits as I do, and should know better than me, was some acknowledgment of the silliness of it, and a "sorry dude"--that would have been enough. Well, if you'll excuse me, I have an essay to read, and word on the street is that Lionel Messi is about to work against the Germans, so vaya con dios, and thanks again. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  This appears to be a very long term problem, at least as far back as 3 years ago I see this level 3 template being used in a content dispute [72], generated this reply: [73].--Crossmr (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  As to the archiving issue he was asked 2 years ago not to archive this quickly User_talk:Matthew_hk/Archive_7#Archiving.--Crossmr (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

i just want to say there is rumour (transfer gossip and preform ace etc.) and hoax everywhere in football articles of wikipedia. the page often denied to semi-protect. Yes i'm harsh to people adding transfer rumor, but seems it is the only way to educate newbie. hands off and saw people how to edit. My edits on transfer is provide a external citation (if available, usually the only available thing is a transfer table). Look at Mario Balotelli (see the reverted edits), the page denied to semi-protect!

There is a few regular editor for Italian football and not many page likes Maicon Douglas Sisenando (which recently adding hoax that he went to Romania) and Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (Celtic) had more people to patrol, for other Serie A top player likes Philippe Mexès diff, there is a few people to edit. The page tagged for rewrite for a long time but seems no one to do it.

Moreover, there is a serious problem for hoax. Toldo may retire but without official announcement, but it is a slippy slope that Júlio César will took Toldo's no.1 shirt diff and Luca Castellazzi took :Julio Cesar old number. And Jonathan Biabiany was add no.20 shirt, there is no official announcement either (20 is his Parma number and was took by Macini at Inter 2009-10 first half), for Giulio Donati, the Lecce announcement did not show he will wear no.13.

Even more, Dabo was added no. 29 in Sevilla, which unexist in La Liga (1-25 only, for first team member and 26 to ? for youth players). And then there is an ip user added a unknown keeper to Genoa diff which there is a handful reliable source to support. Same problem in A.S. Roma that Ahmed Barusso was added as no.15 and Fábio Simplício as no.30. Unlike Adriano which presentation with no.8 in press conference, the former (Barusso) was returned from loan and he was wearing no.29. ip user and newbie just find no.15 and 30 are vacant and added them with the numbers. This vacant numbers tricks were everywhere and the only way is to give enough warning.

It may be true that the club may not announced the signing officially, like Udinese seldom announced the new signing (especially young players). But most of the rumour were far from deal done or 99.9% done, like Juve announced Macro Motta passed the medial yesterday night and pending to finalize.

Finally, ip user already received waring before they edit

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

And what's the point that they can't receive a straight yellow card (level 3 warning) instead a foul? 79.53.229.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 84.215.85.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) received the waring and stopped the vandalize. (the latter just changing the caps with hoax)

Made newbie hand off to add transfer rumour and made them saw people edited the page for new club with reliable source, to me seems a effective way to keep wikipedia lesser hoax.

While User:Zombie433 is a bad example (already at ANI), he provide a external link but irrelevant (likes Fabio Borriello Mayola Biboko hoax new club, Ondřej Mazuch's unsource transfer fees, and most recently Ezequiel Schelotto which misunderstanding the whole transfer and article he cite.

Please feel free to tell me how to patrol 200+ footballers article that appeared in the transfer gossip, and page likes Danielson Gomes Monteiro and Samon Reider Rodríguez [74] diff] (which i find no news in http://www.tuttomercatoweb.com about his new club) that seldom visit. (p.s. likes these articles, i seldom patrol them User:Matthew_hk/Italian, tell me how to patrol?, semi-protect all?) Matthew_hk tc 16:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

diff Genoa's Felipe deal is far away from deal done, as the new non-EU quota ruling [75] Matthew_hk tc 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While your approach (Made newbie hand off to add transfer rumour and made them saw people edited the page for new club with reliable source, to me seems a effective way to keep wikipedia lesser hoax) may be correct in principle, I think you go about it in the wrong way. It's ok to inform newbies that they've made an error; however, you should be kind to them and explain what they did wrong, so as not to scare them away. You should always start with a level 1 warning, when you're not sure that the editor is willfully vandalising (it's true that you can skip a level or even start with a level 3 or even 4im, but that's an exception to the rule for particularly egregious vandalism). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Remember that most contributors are working in good faith; they may be adding rumors that can't be proven, but they aren't deliberately undermining Wikipedia. Explaining to them our sourcing requirements is sufficient for a first problem; if they persist, then escalation is appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My general rule for first warnings is if the edit could possibly have been an attempt at a constructive edit, use a level 1 template. If it's almost certainly not designed to be constructive, use level 2. If it's very disruptive such as a blatant personal attack or defamation, use 3 or 4im depending on the severity. I'm not saying this is perfect, but I generally find this an effective strategy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional off-topic questionable footie edits

diff Genoa's Felipe deal is far away from deal done, as the new non-EU quota ruling [76] Matthew_hk tc 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC) ip talk1 clearly using foreign language and adding irrelevant (I love youtoMr.han gardeşimiz's statement said.) diff User talk:Gokera, level1, User talk:94.120.174.31 adding useless dots, diff User talk:62.45.212.242 for against a Turkish club in Premier League. diff User talk:212.174.249.209 to rubbish? diff new surname? User talk:80.80.175.66 diff interesting playing position and club (note that in Italian media said the transfer was not finalize (due to transfer fees) until 7 July (around) announced by the Turkish club. diff Matthew_hk tc 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Italian became Jews? diff People with younger? diff adding random numbers for stats, which he only played 20 games in all competition for Fenerbahçe diff Old problem of Dani User_talk:188.26.106.12 Replace the stats with random numbers Diff another ip with random numbers Diff, another random numbers diff and diff Diff a given name that no one know and not appear in the player id.ext.link hoax players diff Matthew_hk tc 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not questioning the validity of your edits. We are stating there is a problem with the way in which you inform others. All we are asking is instead of warning people to stop and assuming bad faith (as the documentation for a level 3 warning clearly indicates), leave a level 1 warning instead. If someone adds unsourced information to a footballer's article, by all means remove it, but don't proceed to assume bad faith and leave a level 3 warning on their talk page. Leave a level 1 warning instead, which assumes good faith. N419BH 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And don't leave one for me in the first place. You have yet to explain, in all this grammatically challenged verbosity, how I deserved a level 3 warning for adding a period. All this stuff about football articles and patrolling and whatever, it's not to the point. I just don't get the feeling that you understand at all what my problem was with your edit--and from the looks of it, other editors here agree. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Leaving aside the whole question of templating the regulars (some say don't, some say do), you don't template people for actions they haven't committed (adding punctuation to a sentence is not original research), and you shouldn't just hand out block warnings to people who are obviously making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia...not even if you think they're doing it wrong. You also have to make sure that even with people who are vandalizing, you scale your warnings appropriately. This is almost certainly vandalism, but does it merit an only warning? Did this merit an [only warning]? According to our policy those are for "severe or grotesque vandalism only". It is not immediately apparent what is "severe or grotesque" about those edits; they look like garden variety vandalism to me, the kind of thing that passes through new change patrol routinely. It seems like a level 2 warning would be enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I wandered through his archives I found no less than 10 archived discussions from people who took offense at his warnings over the years. Who knows how many didn't post or didn't get archived. he's obviously learned nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be time to template the regular then. Obviously trying to discuss it hasn't worked. N419BH 00:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we've tried to discuss this with him several times now. He's either not hearing it or not getting it. He was asked not to use such strong warnings against people and his response was to BV two IPs on their first edits.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Block Request

I think at this point a block is in order to prevent further disruption. Matthew hk has shown that he either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand how to properly warn users, and has shown no real acknowledgment that he understands anything he's done is wrong. This problem has been going on for at least 3 years, and there are countless discussions in his archives from people who have taken offense at his warnings over the years. I made a final attempt to get through to him [77], but his response as you can see above was to somehow justify level 3 warnings based on the fact that there is a warning on the edit page, and that it's the only way to "patrol 200 football articles". They can be just as easily patrolled with level 1 warnings. His follow-up to this warning/reminder was to give the blatant vandal template to two IPs [78], [79] who didn't really deserve that template. He has a serious problem assuming good faith and it has shown damage over the years through all the people he's offended, both IPs and users with accounts. I think he needs to be stopped from further disrupting wikipedia, and given time to review the various policies and procedures. He shouldn't be unblocked until he acknowledges that he shouldn't be handing out level 3 templates and assuming bad faith on every edit he doesn't like to football articles he patrols.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Talking to the user served no purpose, now let's see if the cluebat helps. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support Give him a templated 4im warning and see if THAT gets the point across. If not, block. N419BH 00:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  What level 4im warning should we issue? {{uw-bite}} and {{uw-tempabuse}} are single issue notices, if I'm not mistaken. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah I um...just went to the template page to find the level 4 improper use of warning templates...and it seems we don't have one. Guess we're assuming people would get it after two templates. So we can either create a custom one with the image and give it to him or just give a "THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING" in all caps. I think the first idea would work, just have to create a one-off warning. N419BH 01:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  We don't need to issue a level 4 template before blocking. There is no need for that. This is an on-going problem that has gone on for at least 3 years. Several people have told him his warnings weren't warranted, several people tried to explain it to him here, and he's more or less ignored what they've said. There is no requirement to issue a "final warning" on top of that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed, we could block him right now if we wanted to per WP:AGF. However, I think we should make one final attempt at getting through. Maybe he thinks the only legitimate warning is a templated one. Maybe this will get through to him. We've tried everything else. N419BH 01:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Here is one I created in my sandbox.N419BH 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. Regardless of one's article contributions, being able to effectively communicate with ones fellow editors is a must. If one is unable to do that for whatever reason, then they need to be somewhere else. Furthermore, this editor has been asked to stop doing something (level 3 and 4 warnings for good faith edits) multiple times by reasonable people and has refused to stop doing it.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Just like User:201.92.129.202 on Pablo Armero, the deal collapsed and Parma's president said the player had signed a pre-contract only. To me, transfer rumour is bad faith. Matthew_hk tc 14:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

May be i look likes living in my ideology, such as David Silva and Zlatan Ibrahimović are the best cases to deal with transfer rumours and/or transfer pending to finalize. I did gave everyone involved in the transfer rumours a warning and somewhat assuming neutral to ip user who had only few edits, or bad faith for ip user what he had many edits and some were transfer rumour, transfer gossip. I seldom use level 4 template and level 1 either. Template message is template message, may be I should throw template message away, fix the article and explain to the newbie or an experienced user who don’t want an account that why transfer rumour is removed, quoting verifiability policy, crystal box (which I often saw deal collapsed after the club agreed the deal, due to medicals check and player’s decision, likes Helb). And give a welcome template to newbie to encourage them to read wiki policy, rather than warned them involved in creating un-sourced content, original research, will directly led to block from editing. But to me, give warning to let newbie to know what is welcomed and what isn’t , should made them know what happened when the issue happened repeatedly. Matthew_hk tc 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point by a mile there. The issue is that you issued a level 3 warning (which is completely disproportional, anyway) to an editor who didn't add original research but merely corrected a punctuation error. If you can;t see that a level 3 warning for adding a full stop to a sentence is wrong on some many levels, it is you who needs to be blocked from editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are several issues here; one, which he is addressing in this post, is that he is being overly bitey when correctly cautioning people about adding unsourced information. Yes, though, I agree that he should acknowledge that warning people for punctuation is not good. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I agree that we should let newcomers know what is welcome and what isn't. I watch one article that is frequently altered incorrectly: List of best-selling music artists in the United States. I've created a customized message for the situation, User:Moonriddengirl/List. If they continue after they receive that message, then I move to the templates for unsourced. If you'd like to create a more personal explanation like that and would like assistance with wording, please let me know; I'll be happy to help you. Alternatively, {{Uw-unsourced1}} isn't a bad template, as it does all the things you say: welcomes them and tells what they need to do to contribute. Unless it looks like something is obviously meant to be disruptive, I wouldn't start beyond {{Uw-unsourced2}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a block until the user gets the message that his actions are inappropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe his English is hard to follow above? He says, "may be I should throw template message away, fix the article and explain to the newbie or an experienced user who don’t want an account that why transfer rumour is removed, quoting verifiability policy, crystal box (which I often saw deal collapsed after the club agreed the deal, due to medicals check and player’s decision, likes Helb). And give a welcome template to newbie to encourage them to read wiki policy, rather than warned them involved in creating un-sourced content, original research, will directly led to block from editing." As I read this, he's agreeing to stop using templates altogether, though he does think newcomers need to be alerted to sourcing requirements. I don't support blocking yet, as conversation is ongoing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Aftermultiple (edit conflict)s: I have blocked Matthew hk per WP:CIR. The block is indef, but may be lifted as soon as he understands the reasons for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• In his defense, the only warning he issued today was a level 2. I'm beginning to think he might be using a machine translator to contribute here, or simply (as his babel box for English indicates), his level 2 understanding of English does not include the syntax of the language. Perhaps he thinks the warnings go 4,3,2,1 and not 1,2,3,4. His warnings after he was warned here went from level 3 to level 4. N419BH 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Then, not wishing to disrespect him, if he can't contribute here in adequate English, he should stick to the Wikipedia in his native language. Competence is, after all, required. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though this is a tough case as he seems to be doing good work with ensuring reliable sources for footballers. The warnings are major problem though. Looks like he's contesting. Moonriddengirl's working with him. N419BH 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate y'all's input, and especially Moonriddengirl's effort. Matthew hk is, as far as I can tell, a valuable content editor (though they desperately need a copy editor for English grammar and punctuation), but I am again confirmed in my opinion that they simply don't grasp the problem fully. Explanations have gone a bit farther than "lots of people add unverified stuff" but I cannot really understand them; also, they have dealt out level 3 warnings since this thread began, some of which I have replaced with welcome templates. The plethora of warnings handed out by this editor cannot but drive new (IP) editors away--and most of us probably started making a few edits as IPs, and not all of those edits were helpful. Such editors being yelled at, however, does no one any good, and I fully support the block especially since, as appears to be the case, it is accompanied by a guiding hand, such as Moonriddengirl's. I don't want anyone blocked for yelling at me without a good reason, I thought a word from an uninvolved editor might have been helpful, but at the time I didn't really know the extent of Matthew hk's templating beyond the edits at Marco Motta. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• You found a serious issue. I'm glad you brought it up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditions for Unblock

• I think from his talk page comments that he's getting the point. I'd support unblocking him, with an understanding that a return to this behavior could lead to an extended block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Support conditional unblock. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'd conditionally support an unblock provided he agrees to use the Template:Uw-unsourced1 template on new IPs adding unsourced content, and agrees to follow the 1,2,3,4,AIV pattern for problem editors. N419BH 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I still haven't seen him really acknowledge that he shouldn't be starting with level 3 templates. I need to see him say that he isn't going to be issuing level 3 warnings to everyone regardless of what they do. He is still mostly carrying on about the various problems with the football articles and not actually addressing the real issue. And yes, the English is really starting to show that it is an issue. It takes a long time to try and follow what he is writing and it really seems that he is having trouble following what we are talking about. A translator might get the point across, but if we need a translator it's still a CIR issue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He seems pretty clear to me. Above, he says, "may be I should throw template message away, fix the article and explain to the newbie or an experienced user who don’t want an account that why transfer rumour is removed, quoting verifiability policy, crystal box (which I often saw deal collapsed after the club agreed the deal, due to medicals check and player’s decision, likes Helb). And give a welcome template to newbie to encourage them to read wiki policy, rather than warned them involved in creating un-sourced content, original research, will directly led to block from editing." (That seems clearly to me to indicate that he is acknowledging that he should welcome new contributors and explain the issues rather than template them." He seems to affirm this in his unblock request, where he acknowledges that he had assumed bad faith ("clearly a practice of assume everyone (who edited that article) bad faith") and acknowledges that "some were not suitable for any warning" at all but should have been welcomed and shown the ropes. He acknowledges that he was angry ("May be i was angered to the edits regarding the rumour of the player's future") and admits that his approach was flawed: "my way to stop transfer rumour introduced to wikipedia is a uncivil way: look likes shouting". He acknowledges that assuming the hidden note was sufficient as a first level warning is a bad choice, as people may not notice it, saying it "is a slippy slope that assume people read it and still made some 'mistake' were in fact bad faith." He seems to me to be following along with my conversation quite well. This guy has evidently put quite a lot of work into keeping these articles accurately sourced; his only issue is incivility in warnings (both when warnings are needed and when they were not). He's acknowledged the problem and agreed to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I say he has trouble following along is that he's still carrying on heavily with the stuff relevant to specific article issues. These are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and if he is going to carry on with them it seems to me that he isn't really following what this discussion is about. i'm seeing "maybe"s there as well. Get him to affirm that he's read the warning template instructions and that he's going to follow them, and I'll support an unblock, but with a short leash.--Crossmr (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's trouble following along so much as it is the natural human tendency to explain ourselves. :) When working on copyright cleanup, I run into that a lot; people who say, "I thought I could copy this because...." So long as they finish with "I won't do it again", I'm satisfied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock Hr appears to recognize the situation, and if his behavior isn't modified we can reblock. AniMate 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• A note on my talkpage would be nice as well. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have requested a clear statement from him indicating that he recognizes the unblock conditions. If he complies, I'll act on this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't oppose an unblock if he understands the problems, but I don't support it either at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• "clearly a practice of assume everyone (who edited that article) bad faith"; "some were not suitable for any warning"; "my way to stop transfer rumour introduced to wikipedia is a uncivil way: look likes shouting"; "is a slippy slope that assume people read it and still made some 'mistake' were in fact bad faith": seems to me like he understands the problem. Perhaps you would prefer a Chinese contributor ask him to acknowledge it in his own tongue? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Image Vandalism

This user (User:Marco Carlo) continues to revert images that have been lowered and resize due to violations of copyright. He also continue to upload images that are against the copyright violations, stating them as "low resolution" when in fact they are clearly in high definition. Here are some images that he reverted, re-uploaded, or uploaded that are clearly against copyright, File:PilyangKerubin.JPG, File:Endless Love.jpg, File:24 Oras studio.jpg, File:24logo.jpg, File:Sana Ay Ikaw Na Nga.png, File:Kapuso unveiling.jpg, File:QTV-TV.PNG, File:Gagambino.jpg. I would rezise these images voluntarily, but with editors such as him around who keeps reverting them, it would be difficult. Someone please do something about this. Thank you.--TwelveOz (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Subject of an SPI at the moment, it seems. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted all the old revisions of these images, except for a few that are officially required to wait for seven days. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys.--TwelveOz (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User Mo ainm's alternate account status

User is clean, nothing more to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User:Alison (admin, CU, OS) confirms new account is within WP:CLEANSTART guidelines. N419BH 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Mo ainm (talk · contribs) states on his user page he is a legitimate alternate account of an established user, but as far as I can see, he has not declared the name of the previous account. There's no harm in that I hear you cry...but I have my doubts over the truthfulness of this statement. But this is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not enough to not be rejected as 'fishing' at SPI. So I recently queried the situation as to whether this lack of disclosure was intentional, and whether he knew the conditions under which this was and was not allowed. He responded by stating he is invoking WP:CLEANSTART, and asserted his previous account had no blocks or bans, and that he had informed at least one admin what his previous account was. So I decided just to ask who this admin was to see if I could verify this claim for myself, however, I had missed the fact that in his reply he told me to stay off his talk page, for what reason I have no idea, so he simply reverted this question restating his desire to have no contact with me. I've no wish to contact him further if he doesn't want me to, but I think it is a fair question to ask who this admin is, and whether it can or cannot be verified if this is a legitimate alternate account. So, some advice please, on where to next, if at all. Or, if the admin in question is reading, please make yourself known. I've no wish to know the name of his previous account if it is not the one I am thinking of, which is declared as retired, but if it is, then it would most definitely not be the case that this is a legitimate CLEANSTART. I've also no wish to sully Mo ainm's reputation here by stating who that account was, if it is not him, but without confirmation from this admin...well, I will then probably have to reveal it to see if anyone else agrees with my suspicions. Yes, AGF and all that, but the topic area this previous editor was involved with was a highly charged one, and Mo ainm is also editing in this same area, although he's not doing anything disruptive or blockable at this time that I can see. That said, editors with records of having done so are not permitted to make a CLEANSTART, and then resume in the same area, whether the previous account is retired or not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I've notified Mo ainm of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC) You edit conflicted me in doing so infact. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry :( Basket of Puppies 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I would highly suggest NOT revealing your suspicions per WP:OUTING. The admin they made aware of the previous account will be along shortly. N419BH 19:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Well I hope he is, because 'beware of OUTING' is always the most useless of cautions when you have no idea wtf is going on. It's almost as pointless as the old chestnut of 'don't reinstate this sourced material, per a complaint on OTRS', when you have no OTRS access. The previous account I'm thinking of did not retire because their identity was compromised that I'm aware of, but then again, if it was, it's hardly something you would announce is it? MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't mean to sound rude. If I did, I apologize. I'm just saying caution is necessary. If they do in fact want to make a legitimate clean start, it wouldn't do much good to out their old identity. If however they're using WP:CLEANSTART as a cover for abusive sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion, of course that must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Perhaps they will tell us which administrator they told. N419BH 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I took your reply to mean you actualy knew what's going on, and you knew the particular admin was coming along shortly. Even if you don't know what's going on, as said, it's a bit of a useless caution to just say beware of outing, as the issue involves, as far as I'm aware, two anonymous accounts. I certainly didn't get the impression from Mo ainm that the restart was the result of having been outed on his old account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC) No worries. I don't know exactly what's going on, and after reading WP:OUTING again I've come to the realization that in this particular situation it doesn't apply. What I'm getting at is we shouldn't publicly disclose a potential previous account of his if the intention is to make a clean start. In other words, we shouldn't "out" his previous wiki-identity. On a related note, it looks like he has no intention of contributing here. I will ask on his talk page who the admin was so we can make them aware of this thread and get it resolved. N419BH 20:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Nothing to be seen here; WP:Multiple Accounts makes it clear when you can use an alternate account. If you really believe it has been abused, then file an SPI, but as you conclude "this is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not enough to not be rejected as 'fishing' at SPI." then looks like you have to wait till such time as you have evidence that will stand up in a SPI or just leave it and carry on editing. Codf1977 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Well, yes, I'm well aware of what can and can't be done with alternate accounts, but the issue I had hoped would be addressed here is this claim that the use has been verified by an admin as legitimate already, which is starting to look suspect in of itself. Frankly, why have I got to fuck about filing an SPI if a user claims an admin has already verified he is not abusing the policy? Do admins just not care about this sort of evasion? Why have I got to fuck about stalking this guy's every single edit to get better evidence than what I have, when he presumably can with one word clear the issue up right here right now? MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC) He doesn't have to clear anything up. At all. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, (and I can see absolutely zero evidence of wrongdoing), then it isn't his problem that you are paranoid. Unless you have evidence of connection to a blocked account or other shenanigans, no one has to do anything, especially him. --Jayron32 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC) How would you even know what to be looking for? You don't know the block log of the user I suspect this is, so how would you know if he is or isn't doing anything wrong? I have reasonable evidence, which is based on my knowledge of this other editor's history, otherwise I wouldn't have raised it in the first place. But let's get one thing straight here - he doesn't need to be doing anything evidently wrong with this account right now to still be breaking the policy, unless you sign up to the theory that editors are allowed to periodically drop their history but return to the same areas with an apparently clean record. They are not as far as I'm aware, but do feel free to correct me if I am, and I'll drop it right now. If not, all I want is for the name of the admin that he referred to himself, to be able to confirm this user has no prior blocks on their previous account. I don't even want the name of the prior account, a simple assertion of lack of blocks would be enough to drop this and preserve his legitimate clean start. I don't happen to think it is showing good faith by forcing me to publicly link him with a user with a bad record by filing a detailed SPI which would show some rather odd coincidences, which if the evidence is not strong enough for a CU result to show positive clearance, merely leaves it up in the air, but publicly known and suspected. He is claiming to be wanting a clean start, so why would he not want to avoid that if they could? AGF gets you so far, and then you have to engage your brain, and ask exactly why a user who has said an admin can prove he is not breaking the policy, would then not name that admin when asked? It's not paranoia to be questioning the situation outlined here. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC) If you have a specific other account to tie this one to, then presumably there's evidence of the connection. You could publish that evidence right here, or you could do so at WP:SPI. If it is so clear to you that this is a specific other editor, then it should be clear to everyone. Care to explain how you are so sure? --Jayron32 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC) @Mick: My experience is that while socking while blocked is a cardinal sin on paper, rather frequently admins will refuse to block on that basis if there's no evidence of disruption in the new account, even when the behaviorial evidence is compelling. In a way, that's good, because it does allow for people to change and turn over a new leaf without there being a lot of bureaucracy and confrontations with past antagonists. Given that, it's a crapshoot whether an SPI would be worth the hassle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) The previous account I suspect he is, is not blocked currently, but retired. The violation here is that Mo ainm is claiming he has a legitimate right to have a clean start, yet if he is who I think he is, he has returned to the same area of conflict as that suspected account, without revealing prior blocks. That is as far as I know, not permitted under the policy of having a clean start. Rather, it is called evading scrutiny, which just wastes everybody's time if the new start turns out not to be so new after all, even it the intentions are good to begin with. Mo ainm claims he has no blocks on his previous account, and has already told an admin who it was, so he cannot possibly be this other used, but he is not willing to reveal the name of this admin who can verify this. I just want to know why admins don't find this something to do anything about. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Like I said, why do I need to publish the evidence here or at SPI, if he is claiming he is innocent, and can prove it? The evidence is pretty good - registration of the new account within hours of the old one, and editting in two distinct areas that the old account also editted in. Plus some anecdotal behavioural evidence. But like I said, the issue here is that he claims this other account cannot possibly be him, and there is a way to verify this without an SPI check, if only he would reveal the name of this admin he says he has revealed his previous identity to. And to look at this on the flip side, if the account I suspect he is, really isn't him, then it's not fair to label that account as a suspected sock puppet if that person really has just retired and is no longer editting at all, just because Mo ainm won't come through with this admin's name. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Does anything in the "retired" account's history preclude a WP:CLEANSTART? If the answer is no, then there's nothing more to be done here. N419BH 13:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, their block log. A CLEAN START cannot be invoked to whitewash a block log in a prior area of conflict, which is btw an area which is under several active arbitration remedies. Although the issue here is that Mo ainm denies being that user anyway, as he has already insisted he has no prior blocks and is thus invoking a legitimate CLEAN START, but just doesn't want to prove it, even though he says he can. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC) WP:CLEANSTART does not say you can't have any blocks, it only says you can't have any ACTIVE blocks, as making a clean start while blocked would of course be block evasion. Is the specific user under any specific arbitration remedies? If they are, take this to arbcom by e-mail in confidence. If there are general arbitration remedies in the area, then I don't think that precludes cleanstart. N419BH 14:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC) That's not my reading of it. Returning to an area of past conflict if you have a history of blocks in that area is straight up evasion of scrutiny. Maybe an admin might bother to comment here on that pretty soon? What with this being the Administrator's Incidents Board.... The other user may well be under active sanctions, he certainly has been in the past, but like I said, why is it up to me to start stalking this guy big time, if he can clear himself with one word? And general remedies are surely also relevant - if a specific user racks up some blocks in an area under a general sanction, they can hardly be allowed to discard those and return to the same area - that is double plus evasion of scrutiny because the remedies exist precisely because the area is a major disaster zone with multiple bad editors that normal admins cannot handle. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC) The active arbcom sanctions are listed here. If he's on that list, take this to arbcom. If he isn't, I hope an admin sees this too. N419BH 14:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I wasn't going to comment here but seeing as Mick is now not telling the truth, my previous account has NO bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against the old account. I have done what is required per WP:CLEANSTART and this is just a fishing exercise because Mick doesn't agree with what I have said on an article so I must be a POV pusher. Hopefully soon an admin I emailed will be along to show that there is no disruptive socking going on.Mo ainm~Talk 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Excuse me, where have I LIED in this thread exactly? I have consistently said in here that you stated you had no prior blocks or bans on your old account, and that you could prove it, but just didn't want to. This is the truth, and it struck me as odd behaviour for someone claiming to be making a genuine and legitimate clean start. That is the only reason for this thread existing, the issue wouldn't even come here had you not refused to do what you now apparently are OK with doing. I could care less about the recent interaction, dealing with that is easy enough whoever you are - but I won't waste my time on doing so if I suspect, with good reason, that I'm dealing with someone who has been there, done that and got the T-Shirt already under a previous account name which has been retired with a less than stellar record in that regard. I quite rationally and normally, wish to have that concern cleared up first. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I think you're going to have to WP:AGF and drop the stick. Clean starts are allowed. Fences&Windows 01:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Excuse me? Please clarify this statement. You are saying it is perfectly fine for an editor with previous blocks, to retire their account, register a new one, and resume in the same area where they were racking up blocks? If you say that is permitted by the policy, then yes, I will freely drop it, but it's not my fault for continuing to question this if no admin can even be bothered to say either way is it? But my reading of the policy is that this is not allowed, and infact there are arbitration findings that say it is not allowed I'm pretty sure - there's an opinion to this effect given on the policy talk page. Frankly, the whole admin lassaiz fair in this section is dissapointing all round. MickMacNee (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Hi all. Arriving late into this as I'm semi-retired now. I can confirm here that there are no extant blocks, bans or other sanctions attached to their previous account. As the previous account is connected to their RL name, I can also appreciate that there is also a genuine need for privacy involved. I can also confirm that there are not nor have been, that I can see, any socks of any sort associated with this account nor the previous - Alison ❤ 17:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, marking this closed. N419BH 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) The issue was not about extant blocks, or other socks. What a waste of time this board is, half the time nobody even reads what people write. I guess I will have to go and clarify the policy wording if it really means you can fuck about and rack up multiple blocks in hot button areas, and can then just drop your account and whitewash your block log, and then return to those areas, claiming a 'clean start'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) His clean start is legit, and a Checkuser and Oversighter confirmed it. She also stated the previous account was connected to his real name, hence no public connection as that would defeat the entire purpose of the new account and would be WP:OUTING. If he gets into trouble with this new account, he will of course receive consequences, and the connection will be utilized by those aware of it if necessary. At this point, I recommend you stop beating the dead horse. N419BH 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC) For fucks sake! There is no point telling me to stop beating the dead horse when nobody has actually answered the question I asked! If we are to imply that CLEAN START is only about active blocks, which even Alison has not confirmed here, despite me having stated it as the direct issue about five times, then I am going to change the policy wording right now, and see if anyone objects. I am beyond fucked off that I am being treated like a fucking timewasting asshole here, for expressing concerns about what I believe is a violation based on the current policy wording and arbitration opinions. Being ignored is to be expected at ANI, but this is going too far. And as for outing, if it is the person I am thinking of, it is only a first name and a pretty common one at that, so no, I don't see outing as an issue here at all, but you'll note the contradiction in what little definitive advice has actually been offered here in that regard - earlier I was being told to just publish the account name at SPI and stop bothering ANI with this issue. Brilliant! If anyone has been timewasting here, it is Mo ainm, who in the only time he has bothered to state the reason for the clean start, said that it was to "get away from prejudiced editors who are intolerant of any opinions differing from their own", which has got sod all to do with outing concerns as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Right. Policy wording has been changed now. [80] MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Cush & civility...

• Cush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I tire of his violations of personal attacks most annoyingly when I am not even involved in a discussion. His Inability to hold rational conversations to collaberate with individuals whom he percieves of Relgious faith is also troublesome [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88][89][90] [91] and my favorite that becuase i am christian my god demands his death and just being a christian is a personal attack on him and is a death threat. All i ask is some one do something because i tire of his antics Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof i have notified the editor involved [92] Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong diff number in your last link: it's going to an edit in 2004 about Quincy. Could you check to see if you left off a few digits at the end of the number? —Soap— 22:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the one. And yes, it does seem to me to be a pretty nasty bit of bigotry. Reyk _YO! 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes that it is Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

After a cursory glance through both editors histories, it does seem to me that Cush has been grossly incivil. I have found nothing in Weaponbb7's contributions that could be considered incivil, but I did not look at more than a few random contributions. Cush was last blocked in 2008, for personal attacks and harassment. I would recommend at minimum a 2-week block, but I would like to seek more opinions before placing a block as this is not the kind of thing I deal with regularly. --Chris (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Digging a bit deeper, [93] does appear to be minor incivility on the part of Weaponbb7, but it's not even in the same ballpark as Cush's contributions to the discussion. --Chris (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ah yes my attempt at a joke in response to Who do you think you are? The one who punishes dissent from belief in the biblical deity? somehow I knew that would come up in any future complaint. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it seems that two RfCs, several ANI threads and a WQA have not gotten Cush to understand that personal attacks and irreligious intolerance are not acceptable here. Perhaps a lengthy block will penetrate that skull. Failing that, an ArbCom case- because Weaponbb7 and the other victims of Cush's malignant ranting have no other recourse since all other avenues of dispute resolution have failed. Reyk _YO! 00:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind providing links to the RfCs and the WQA? I can't seem to locate them. --Chris (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not normally big on blocks for incivility, but this seems to me to have reached a level that's beyond simple incivility: Cush's behaviour here seems to me to be fundamentally incompatible with our project. It's not merely incivility; it's the fact that he takes a POV, that is, atheism/non-religion (is that a proper term?), as NPOV and seems to tolerate no disagreement with it. It's a sort of discrimination that is not accepted at Wikipedia. This is both a civility and a content issue in a very real way, I think. I would have to agree that a block is probably merited here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Certainly.

• The WQA
• RfC 1
• RfC 2

Reyk _YO! 00:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• There are three broad worries with those posts: They're unsourced soapboxing, they're not put forth in a neutral way and they're rude. Taken altogether, they're straightforwardly disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's outrageous behaviour and I've given Cush a final warning on his talk page. Any more incivility, personal attacks or soapboxing should result in an immediate indefinite block. Fences&Windows 13:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Man, I can't see that warning being well-received. Not stating any disagreement with it, just saying. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Cush has got to stop. I also don't understand why he doesn't see that his actions make his pov look bad. A battlefield mentality doesn't help here. I've had it with him, and I'm no Christian. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I went with the abrupt approach as repeated warnings, WQAs, RfCs and AN/I complaints seem to have had no effect on him at all. His approach is simply not acceptable. How he has been allowed to behave like this since 2008 (when he was blocked for calling editors a "Jew Crew", and unblocked after asserting that "I assure you that I will not make any comment of this kind again in the future"[94]) is beyond me. Fences&Windows 15:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh, no complaints from me about your methods. I just can't see us getting a good response to it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative to Block

I been sleeping on this, he makes good contributions outside of the Religous Realm, such as his work on ancient Egypt. I think it would be far more productive for everyone involved to simply administer a Topic ban for abrahamic religion related articles. (since he has indicated its where he has problems) Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't start having a go at other religions if he gets bumped off.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I really think could limit it to Judaism and Christianity would be sufficient personally but since he specifies abrahamic religions as ones he issues with i think such a topic ban under that umbrella is most appropriate. As far as i can tell he has never edited a Eastern Religion article or Islamic related one for that matter. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Megadeth

first i hope this is ok to post this here if not please redirect this to the a please where i can get help or someone can help me thanks i need your help this is a ip user 69.11.43.254 on this article removing a source/content from a article without forming a conserius because i think when you remove a source you should get a consensus first before doing that type of edit. i have ask them do do that a few times but they just keep going back and just removing the soruce/content anyway. first where can we go to sort this out second i know i properly not handle this perfectly either. i do not want to break the 3rr rule which i think i may be close too if i have not already. i do not want to get any one in trouble but one of us may end up in trouble anyway. if you or anyone else you looks into this deems it that way. so any help you can give me or tell me where i can go to get this matter solve that would be great thanks.

here a diff to see what i am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megadeth&diff=371678825&oldid=371646974Oo7565 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You are both edit warring over which precise subset of the album racks this band is to be found it. Please stop - it's one of the lamest things in Wikipedia to edit war over. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is an eternal pain in the neck: "Rotten Body Parts is emo." "No they are not." I suggest we leave this to the tender mercies of the admins and other users who specialize in this kind of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's so common and so utterly lame that we have not one, but two essays about how lame it is: Wikipedia:GENRE TROLL and Wikipedia:Genre warriror. The first editor to start a revert/wheel-war over which of those two essays applies in a given situation will receive a trouting the likes of which have not been known since the evolution of the species. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have always been annoyed at List of emo bands. If one person anywhere says you are emo in a RS, you are on that list for life, it is worse than the no-fly list.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I can think of a couple instances where someone would get a bigger trout slapping. this one in particular. N419BH 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Grossly insulting/potentially offensive material.

Resolved

 – No admin attention required; if vandalism persists, take it to WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appreciated if administators could look at The Saturdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as there are a few IP edits such as [95] which contain potentially offensive material. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

/me remembers those halcyon days of middle school when words like "Blood-Beltching [sic] Vagina" were either "grossly insulting" or even potentially offensive. Badger Drink (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

They aren't comments directed at a particular individual so I don't see why they'd be considered "grossly insulting", and potentially offensive? Anyone can take offense at anything. The obvious vandalism has been reverted; move on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique, if you see that kind of stuff, just revert it and put a warning on the editor's (or IPs) talkpage. If the editor/IP persists, take it to WP:AIV. We'll see a lot more of this in the next few weeks once school's out.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the user should also be warned and/or taken to AIV; but otherwise there's nothing further to do, and certainly no need for revdel. I'm going to be bold and close this as no admin attention required. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:ThomasK

Yes , I write this because this account is a sockpuppet but the original account is completely locked and should be unblocked. I won´t vandalize anything, neither be rude to anybody. I´m now unblocked for four years I have redeemed. --ThomasKnr1 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Use the proper unblock request procedure then. Either the template or the email. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked and removed. --ThomasKnr1 (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, you have a pending one at User:ThomasK. I will deal with that one now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As I can predict you neither won´t give me any chance to show I´m sincere. --ThomasKnr1 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page access isn't blocked. you should continue working out of the original account using unblock requests there, that is where we shall deal with them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I protected his talk page after he kept removing the declined unblock requests, see below and his talk page history. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

• ThomasK (talk · contribs · logs)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ThomasK

Actually, I shan't close this. I have blocked the sock and left ThomasK to stew for a bit. He has an unblock request on his talk that I have placed on hold, where we can discuss this here. Blocked four years ago. I have no familiarity with the user, and the blocking admin is long gone. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I declined his first unblock today - based solely on the edit summaries from his last round of unblock requests in March, and his unwillingness/inability to do something as simple as do some sample edits to an article. His "demands" were WP:DICKish, and his edit-summaries are not what we would expect from an editor whose goal is to create an encyclopedia. Although I commented on his removal of declined unblocks, it was not the leading reason for declining. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I restored the deleted declined unblock requests (which he'd already been told he should leave on his talk page), telling him to leave them there, he deleted them again so I restored them again and protected his talk page. I don't know why he's insisting on removing the declined unblock requests, but it doesn't give me any confidence that he can be expected to change his ways. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He may be misinterpreting some sort of synthesis of WP:OFFER and WP:CLEANSTART or something. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Leave him blocked, just look at the history of his talk page, mainly his edit summaries from the last time he wanted to be unblocked--Jac16888^Talk 12:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• After four years? And the socks listed above are either four years old or just for the purpose of asking for an unblock. As far as I can tell, he was blocked for childish vandalism. If it resumes, we can easily instantly reblock him. I see no reason whatsoever to not unblock him and give him a second chance. --B (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a great civility issue with this user; and these diffs, for instance, are vandalism. I don't think he is going to be a productive member of this community, if unblocked. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was going to unblock him in March until I saw his insulting edit summaries and reversions. And he is still removing declined requests despite being told he shouldn't. Those are reasons not to unblock him but they may not be considered sufficient not to unblock him. But I can't see any reason to unblock him, there is nothing to suggest his behavior is going to change. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think there are some serious maturity issues here, and a few months is not enough, in my opinion, to let that change. They proved that they cannot deal with not getting their way when they asked to be unblocked last time, and my main concern is that if they cannot deal with something as simple as asking nicely to be unblocked, how will they deal with an actual conflict over an article? The fact that they essentially refused to even try to improve an article on their talk page also bothers me. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Recurring block evasion by Sovietia

Resolved

 – MuZemike has extended block and given editor final warning. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite having been warned, and having had his most recent block extended, the user continues to edit via multiple IPs. [96] [97] The first is both uncivil and sockpuppetry, since the user is pretending to be a different person; the second is nonconstructive at best, if not an inept threat of continued disruption. This DRV [98], opened via IP while the main account block was in effect, should probably also be closed summarily. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFPP Second opinion

Resolved

 – We have resolved the issue at WP:RFPP#Woohoo

Hello admins. Can I request a second opinion for the folllowing WP:RFPP: see here. The admin who denied the request said there was not enough recent disruption to warrant page protection from IPs who refuse to acknowledge sourced information and are persistantly removing sourced content. How is thirteen revisions over 4-5 days including four just in the last 24hrs not enough disruption? Couldn't action be taken against the one IP who seems to be leading the disruption? Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Samuelperla (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Toddst1 indeffed Samuelperla. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This user shows a disruptive WP:COI in everything he does. He has created many articles, that have all been deleted; today he's created Indian National Christian Congress and World Churchs Of Christ, that are going, I think, to be deleted as well.
Could we please block him for disruptive editing? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been tagged for speedy deletion. N419BH 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I speedied both of 'em. TFOWR 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tbhotch left them a final warning; they've not edited since then. TFOWR 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to the three of you! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 24.189.168.173

This user has been disrupting pages about the New York City Subway system since just prior to major service changes being implemented on June 28, 2010. At issue today is the full protection on N (New York City Subway service) due to this IP editor edit warring.

He/She continued to add the text "at all times except late nights" to the following lines table in the row about service north of Canal Street.

• June 28
  • diff
• June 30
  • diff
  • diff
  • diff

This is not the case; the official schedule (Page 3) from the MTA says that the N service is local north of Canal Street at all times.

I tried to get the user to discuss on the talk page diff, and I warned them for edit warring diff; however no discussion has taken place yet.

What's the next step here to stop the disruption? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another hoaxing sock is back...

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas Gardner (director) article has been recreated again, after it was established last time that it was a hoax and the article was deleted and both vandals blocked. Queenmercury671 (talk · contribs) created it this time, so it seems there's another sockpuppet here. Could the article be salted this time, please? I believe it has been created and speedied around 5-6 times now (note that Thomas gardner (director) has also been speedied once. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup - article deleted, title salted, sock blocked. ~ mazca ^talk 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob blocked

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.

---

Off2riorob (talk · contribs)

I have blocked Off2riorob for 31 hours for reasons I outlined here. I believe this is fully warranted, but a community review of my action would be appreciated. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse—it was an absolutely ludicrous comment, and Rob must have been half-expecting a block at the time he made it. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 2) Absolutely warranted; serious violation of WP:OUTING and WP:NPA, and Off2riorob should know better. As a sidenote, he has made some less-than-pleasant comments to me in the past so perhaps I am slightly biased, but I do think that this sort of comment warrants a block, and perhaps revdel. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Why RevDel? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well I would imagine that most individuals would not want a worldwide-published comment speculating that they are a paedophile. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  it's already gone. Jack Merridew 08:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse in principle There is no need or room for that kind of speculation. Unomi (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Question? Why are we so tolerant of such toxic-wiki-shite? 31 days would seem a better unit. Seriously, Jack Merridew 07:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Please remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and as far as I am aware, this is the user's first block (nope apparently not). If similar behaviour continues when the block has expired, then a longer block will become necessary; I think a 31-hour block is likely to be enough time to make Off2riorob reconsider his actions, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Giftiger, why would you say that this is his first block when it so obviously isn't? I just can't imagine why you would make such a statement. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  That was pure guess-work on my part; I didn't check. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  But why, in Heaven's name, did you choose to make such a ridiculous 'estimated' statement? ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 07:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well I did qualify it with "as far as I am aware", and as far as I was aware, rob had never been blocked; I assumed this was the case based on the fact that he's got a long contribution history and I've never seen any particular issues arise here or elsewhere in relation to him; clearly I was wrong, but my comment didn't do any harm and I've struck it out so I don't think there's a real problem here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Actually looking at that block-log, that's pretty concerning. Perhaps a longer block is warranted after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  That was his first block? That takes us right back to the too tolerant question. I've long been unimpressed with Off2riorob. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Consider this long. Seriously, Jack Merridew 07:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. That was way over line. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose hours, support days. One of these years teh wiki will wise up. Seriously, Jack Merridew 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- In the course of the discussion, there were comments that the offended editor made that actually seemed like he was baiting people into drawing that very conclusion. Rob shouldnt have taken the bait and that's why this whole topic does not lend itself to the kind of transparency that we normally like to see at Wikipedia. This is a very good example of why the policy should operate in the background without these lengthy community discussions that lead to this kind of speculation. Rob's behavior accomplishes the exact opposite of what he apparently intended. Rob should be issued a stern warning and not blocked issued a shorter block, and the offended editor should be aware that his dialogue does have the feel of the kind of advocacy that Jimbo has stated is zero-tolerance, ban on sight. If that is not what he intended to advocate, then he needs to be aware that it is the impression he is making. Minor4th • talk 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  ...and I was thinking we might be talking a community ban, tomorrow. ;) Jack Merridew 07:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I think a shorter block is in order because it was stupid to be baited and fall right into the trap of what the policy is trying to prevent ... but there was bad behavior on the other side as well, did that not look like baiting to you? Minor4th • talk 08:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Nope, and I know these users. Welcome to Wikipedia, Jack Merridew 08:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hold the phone. If I understand you correctly, you believe J Milburn was baiting? I'd like some supporting diffs, because when I read through them, I did not find an instance of baiting. When he became extremely frustrated, some of his words could have been interpreted as baiting, but those were after the offending edits from Elen and Off2riorob, so I'm not including them in my assessment. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  There is far to much readiness by some editors to see any rasonable opposition or disagreement as "baiting". In my view "baiting" needs to contain some element of poking or deliberate wind up not just a testy exchange. No baiting here unless someone can provide some different diffs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• A block was warranted; the comment was totally unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I saw no baiting, and considering the block log I would have blocked Off2riorob longer than 31 hours. AniMate 08:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• J Milburn should also be blocked for baiting and disruptive behaviour, which leads to these types of questions. Verbal chat 09:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block - support indef block - OK, Full disclosure time again; I am not uninvolved with Off2riorob due to very unpleasant exchanges in the past, and my comments must be taken in that context. That said, I am not surprised to see him in hot water again. And once again I find myself urging a longer or indef block for this repeat violator, whose behavior from what I can make out here is once again found to be unacceptable by the community. I truly hope that consensus can be reached on this. Jusdafax 10:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Commentas the person involved in the argument with JMilburn that almost certainly led to Rob doing what he did, I have to say I don't think JMilburn was baiting. I was of the impression that he was arguing from some theoretical position of his own, and didn't think that anyone could claim he was supporting child molestation. I think he started from a philosophical position - people should not be blocked for what they say they are - and somehow his statements in support of this ran away with him. I do think Rob was unwise to confront him, this is what the policy is intended to prevent, but given the Herostratus events (see below) he may not have realised that he would be blocked for raising what he saw as a genuine possibility.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not believe that anyone in good faith can either support or oppose a block of someone based on what amounts to secret evidence. If you wish for the community to review a block, then the comment should not have been redacted. If the comment was so egregious that it had to warrant an oversight, then it would have been well within admin discretion to simply block and move on. This is why we have RfA's, to put the tools in your hands. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the blocking admin can be at fault here; the evidence was not secret until some 20 minutes after this ANI was posted - users who looked at the ANI between that time would have seen what was said prior to forming a view. That said, keeping the review open after the event is somewhat pointless. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While you have a reasonable statement there, I believe readers can get the gist of this matter. This is, by my count, Off2riorob's eighth block. Some of us here think 31 hours may a bit on the short side. I'd like to see some additional comments regarding that - some fresh eyes. (And again, in case the casual reader missed it, I have had previous bad experiences with Off2riorob, and when needful make this disclosure.) Jusdafax 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks aren't meant to be punitive, and there is no requirement (that I know of) for blocks to escalate in length. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I did see the block log; most of the blocks were a year ago, and the blocking admin has warned him that if there is a repeat, he will be indef blocked. I think that's sufficient for the time being in this case without additional escalation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block to something around a month, given his previous blocks. It appears that he continues to disrupt Wikipedia, so 31 hours is a tad short. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block: with caveat that it should have been much longer as a repeat problem. Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support block and plump it up. I'm in the same situation as Giftiger, and Jusdafax,[99] in that Rob has made nasty remarks to, and about, me in the past. (Do we see a pattern, even a habit, of unpleasant remarks coming from him?) So I could be biased in this instance. Still, if everybody Rob has been nasty to were to ignore this thread, it's beginning to look like that could give a biased result as well! As for the suggested indef block, I'm against those in nearly all cases. They can look, IMO, too much like power-speaking attempts to squeeze apologies out of users. Instead I suggest plumping up the 31 hours to, say, three days. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose block. Off2riorob's actions have to be seen in the context of J. Milburn's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia, and in the context of J. Milburn's advocacy in favor of allowing self-identified pedophiles to edit Wikipedia (contrary to longstanding policy). --JN466 23:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block and undelete the revisions. The post was out of line, but not blockable and it was hardly grossly offensive. This is a subject on which many Wikipedians have strong opinions and, while I condemn the method in which Rob chose to express his, it was not so offensive as to be considered even a personal attack, never mind "grossly offensive, insulting or degrading" required for revdel. I've had both positive and negative interactions with him in the past, but unlike many of the posters above me, I believe I have no bias for or against any of the parties involved here. I think the block and deletion of revisions was an overreaction and at least one of the editors above seems to turn up at every noticeboard thread that remotely involves Off2riorob in order to advocate action against him. The revisions should be undeleted so people can see what was said for themselves and I would urge editors to decide for themselves whether they were block-worthy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • On his talk page, Off2riorob says he asked J Milburn two questions: if he was a pedophile, and if he supported pedophilia. He didn't ask these questions out of the blue. There was a long and generally rather intense discussion about this at the policy talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia, triggered by the Fox News report. While I don't believe J Milburn is a pedophile or supports pedophilia, I can see that Off2riorob, who feels strongly about this Wikipedia policy, was at a loss to understand why J. Milburn argued so passionately in support of self-declared pedophiles' right to edit Wikipedia, and in favour of abandoning the existing policy. And let's just do a reality check – I'm sure that the vast majority of our adult readership out there would be horrified if we followed J. Milburn's suggestion and allowed self-professed pedophiles to edit here alongside their children, and would find his argument equally incomprehensible. So I can understand where the questions were coming from. And by the way, for the record, it is largely down to Off2riorob's efforts at the BLP noticeboard that people posting BLP concerns there get a reply these days, rather than the sight of tumbleweeds blowing past them. --JN466 01:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Misuse of RevisionDelete. WP:CIV is specifically exempt from WP:CRD, and with good reason. No opinion on block. decltype (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I was the admin who deleted the comment from J Milburn's talk page. It was a question from Off2rioriob, "Are you a pedophile?" and I believe he also asked whether JM supported pedophilia. In a second edit Off2 added a header, "Pedophile" or "Pedophilia." J Milburn went on wikibreak shortly afterwards. I interpreted this as a personal attack in the circumstances. J Milburn said on his user page until recently that he's a philosophy student. This is what philosophers do: they argue from principle, and they follow wherever the argument leads. It implies nothing about personal beliefs. In addition, J Milburn may be a real name; I don't know whether it is, but given the possibility, that was another good reason in my view to delete the question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The revision you've linked of his userpage also states that it is his real name. sonia^♫♪ 08:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am concerned that the blocking admin characterised Rob's actions as malicious (see below), when I am certain that when he made them, he believed them to be true. I am also concerned that it is being presented as a policy that "outing someone as a paedophile" specifically is a clear blockable offence. There was never anything in the handed down policy (now at WP:BLOCK, and there still isn't) that said this - it just requested that concerned users email Arbcom rather than get in an argument; and anything of the kind that may have appeared at WP:PED was a fleeting addition. Keepscases was not blocked by any of the multiple admins passing through Herostratus' RfA (link is below), and no-one felt that any of the comments made there wanted oversighting.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I take the spirit of the policy to mean that all comments that might attach someone to these views are best avoided, including "I am a pedophile," "you are a pedophile," "are you a pedophile?" "you sound like a pedophile," because they're all provocative and damaging, and they're never necessary. So whether a person believes something to be the case isn't really the issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more that they are best avoided. All I am saying is that some of the above contributors seemed to believe that there was a 'block on sight' policy for saying such things (there isn't, else someone would have blocked Keepscases and Balloonman), and you can't describe the accusation as 'malicious' if the person believed it to be true. 'Malicious' is when you say it without grounds, just to cause problems for the other person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first point about "block on sight." Just a small point about the second, though: a malicious comment needn't involve it being false, or that the writer believes it to be false. Calling someone "fat" is only hurtful when they really are fat—or at least overweight enough so that they'll believe the remark, or deluded enough to believe it even if they're skinny. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the rev deletion, and agree that asking the questions on the user's talk page, rather than by e-mail, was a poor choice of action. But I still think the block was harsh, given the circumstances, including the fact that none of the various people who raised similar questions about Herostratus in Wikipedia appear to have been in any danger of being blocked. --JN466 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Elen, we have to be clear here, without fudging the issue. Off2riorob did not out anyone as a pedophile, nor did he state his belief that another editor was a pedophile. What happened was that he asked another editor, who argued vocally that pedophiles had a right to edit Wikipedia like everyone else, and should be allowed to declare themselves as pedophiles on their user pages, whether he was a pedophile, or supported pedophilia. --JN466 13:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I said that :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point he's only got about 4 hours left on the block anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block Off2riorob's actions were clearly beyond the pale. The subtext was obviously that as J Milburn was disagreeing with Off2riorob he must be a paedophile. The fact that this was presented in a question rather than an outright statement does not change the intent. He was lucky to get away with just 31 hours. Nev1 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. What possible purpose can these questions have but to suggest the fact? Surely no-one would expect a "yes" as an answer, ever, and "no" is the default anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know enough about this situation to vote, but was surprised to see Off's name up for any kind of block. He seemed to be a square rigged editor and I've had nothing but pleasant dealings with him. I also can't see the edit everyone is talking about (it was removed) but what a situation this brings up - pedophiles on Wikipedia? "Technically" we aren't allowed to go after other editors for their personal or political views; but this raises an even deeper question as to what would happen if such people were using Wikipedia as a forum for lewd or illegal acts. This is an interesting day for Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Child_protection_issues; anyone who identifies themselves as a paedophile or attempts to use wikipedia to establish inappropriate relationships with children (or advocate these relationships) will be indefinitely blocked. There's no such policy against accusing someone (unjustly) of paedophilia, but it is, in my opinion, a very serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:OUTING, as well as potential libel. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Giftiger Wunsch, please do not imply that Off2riorob accused the other editor of being a pedophile, or outed him as such, when what he did was ask whether s/he was one, and whether s/he supported pedophilia. If asking these questions and outing someone as a pedophile amount to the same thing in your view, then your argument is not hurt by sticking to the fact of the matter, which is that Off2riorob asked these questions. Having said that, I understand that the questions were hurtful to JM, and regret that a very productive editor has felt compelled to go on a wikibreak by the unpleasantness of the discussions. --JN466 13:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I won't imply it then, I'll say it: I can see no other reason why Off2riorob would ask such a question unless he was implying that the answer was yes. Also per Schulz. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Neither of us are mind readers. He might also have asked because he genuinely couldn't understand why J Milburn argued the way they did, and wanted to get that particular possibility out of the way. Note that the difference will be academic from now on; the Wikipedia:Child_protection and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Child_protection_issues policies now both make it clear that questions of this sort must not be posed to another editor in project space. --JN466 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to see wording included in the policy page to that effect. Clearly, if we are going to block people for what they identify as, we should also block people who seek to identify others as such in a public forum, I believe the current policy is that such identification should take place in the form of email to ArbCom, not in a public forum. Unomi (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And we should also routinely revdel any such accusations. This hasn't happened here and I think it should have. People lose jobs over such accusations even when they are false. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Asking someone whether they are a pedophile should be done by private e-mail, or e-mail to arbcom if the user does not have e-mail enabled. --JN466 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection#Questioning_another_editor_about_whether_they_are_a_pedophile.2C_or_pedophilia_advocate. --JN466 13:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: basically, per Jayen466, without the "oppose block". This was a hard discussion about a hard subject, a subject most of us would prefer to avoid, and Off2riorob argued passionately for what he believed to be current policy. Unfortunately, that argument led to him asking a question that can only be regarded as a lack of WP:AGF or an WP:NPA. Off2riorob, mate, do not ask questions like that. I'm sure you realise now that there are sound reasons why a good faith editor may take certain positions even though those positions may appear - to you - to be anathema. To everyone else, calling for a longer block: blocks are preventative, not punitive. We indefinitely block disruptive editors - editors who spectacularly fail to engage with the community. Off2riorob is hard-headed, but he is a constructive member of the community who engages in some of the community's toughest areas and, naturally, he sometimes makes mistakes. This was one of them. It was misguided, but it was not a hanging offence. TFOWR 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Amen. --JN466 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Requesting Administrator closure of this section about me. As I am free to edit the section appears irrelevant. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• So what is the outcome of this discussion? Can an Administrator please comment or close. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There appears to be no consensus to modify anything one way or the other. So stop replying and it will be archived in 24 hours. –xeno^talk 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I want closure on the thread It has been run like a RFC with a vote comment at an Administrator board and I want it closing correctly not simply archiving without outcome, if is is no consensus I would like it closed as such, please.Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen

I was also debating about blocking Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) for the same reasoning; see Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#Attempts_to_Normalize_Pedophilia for the discussion. I left a stern warning on their talk, but I'm not sure if a stronger message needs to be sent... so I'm listing it here (although by the time this section finishes up, it may be punitive...) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to review since someone has made it unviewable. I had considered this would be an issue with the non-oversight admin-oversight button. I don't think there was sufficient discussion about it. I've had this flag used in my favor, although I've had reservations about its propriety. I have yet to see it pay off. This is a good example. An ANI discussion where most users can't tell what's going on. I'm not defending or accusing anyone, but I'd like to know what this is about, which is practically impossible. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering where the apparent problem was; I didn't see any statements made by Elen which remotely resembled rob's comments on the page, and I guess this is the reason. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement by Elen may be this one, although I haven't read the entire talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything that's been made unviewable, that would show up when I look at the edit history. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And I assume it's the dialogue including and after "All I can say is that if someone wants an example of advocacy, you're doing a great job" posted by Elen of the Roads. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

@Doug, Shadow was referring to Off2riorob. An administrator (not me) revdeleted the relevant posts by O2R. Also, you are correct in your assumption. The following post ("Milburn, if you don't know any paedophiles, how do you [...]) also caught my eye. I should have been more specific; my apologies. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't understand your reasoning for blocking Off2riorob and not Ellen. Rob's was nowhere near as bad as Ellen's. I personally don't see one low blow in a lively debate as necessarily blockable unless it is repeated behavior and some notice is given which can hopefully lead to an apology. Ellen on the other hand was arguing that the other editor was an apologist (or maybe even a pedophile depending on how you take the conversation) after the editor was clear that that was not cool. You warned her which might be enough but I don't get why you chose to block one editor but not the other. Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob came out much more explicitly in my view. I also did not realize Elen was involved until after I blocked O2R (I read the WT:Pedophile discussion afterwords), and by that time I wanted community input before proceeding further. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and saw more offense in Ellen's repeated comments. But this is just feedback. Blocking Ellen after warning her would probably not be OK since you already warned her and preventative v punitive comes into play.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We all have our own opinions. :-) Thank you for the feedback, it's very much appreciated; it's not like I block people often! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think we're all shocked by her comments in the sense that we've never seen her make such comments before; I didn't imagine that she ever would let the discussion escalate in the way that it did, but I'm hoping that this is [it appears as] an isolated lapse in judgement. I think if she refuses to take a self-imposed voluntary ban from that discussion, an involuntary restriction might be necessary - and if she refuses to comply with an involuntary ban (or she continues engaging in that sort of commentary like in another space), only then should a block be considered. I wouldn't support a block otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Modifying in light of response. 14:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• The background to this is that Jimbo and Arbcom members have recently and repeatedly confirmed that there is a policy/practice that anyone associated with pedophilia advocacy, including self-identification, will be indefinitely blocked. As I understand it, one reason for the existing practice is to avoid having on-wiki discussion where well intentioned editors debate the merits of accepting pedophiles where there is no evidence of actual child abuse. Given that background, I find it extremely peculiar that anyone sees something wrong with Elen's comments. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason for a block. Verbal chat 09:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Let me clarify my above statement. I didn't understand the response because the edits had been deleted. After the discussion above though, if those allegations are correct, I'd fully support a permanent ban. My comment above is purely based on the fact that I don't know what the editor actually did, but if it violates clear policy, then an indef ban is fine by me. I do find it problematic that these edits aren't widely reviewable, but I trust the editors that have made that determination. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shadowjams. As far as I can tell, none of my posts have been revdeleted, so what you see on the page is everything. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Elen

Note - as far as I can see, none of my posts have been deleted. They are all there for viewing. Perhaps an admin could confirm this.

I have to admit, I'm surprised at people's reactions here. There seems to be a considerable amount of inconsistancy - no-one was blocked or warned for any of the comments that gave rise to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2#Oh.2C_and..., particularly [[100]], and I note this hasn't been oversighted either.

Whereas, if you look at Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#NPOV_does_not_require_the_acceptance_of_advocacy starting from The idea behind this policy is ridiculous, you can see the progression. JMilburn's response to my query as to why someone would self identify difference between a paedophile and a child abuser. A paedophile has not necessarily done anything ethically wrong or illegal under western legal systems. My position is clear - I think a paedophile would only identify themselves on Wikipedia if they feel it is a safe environment, which is not something I regard as desirable (my opinion), while JMilburn responded that a paedophile may self-identify as something on Wikipedia for any number of perfectly legitimate reasons. His opinion was that I need to recognise that there is a difference between a paedophile and a child abuser. This was the core of the dispute between us.

At this point I was quite concerned that JMilburn's continued arguments would make him appear that he was at the very least an apologist for paedophilia, so told him (and you may think that this was rude and presumptive), to shut up and stop digging himself into a hole [101]. I did not believe that he molests children, but as you see above, his stance had already led some people to believe that he was a paedophile, and I did not want a rerun of the Herostratus incident. I should have let it go at that (of course, and people are right to chastise me for not doing so).

But JMilburn asked if I could prove what was wrong with his position, as in his view I seem to be incapable to recognise fairly simple distinctions between two loosely related groups. My next three posts [102] [103][104] set out some of the kind of evidence I had seen which led me to my conclusion. JMilburn's response too many people seem to have entered this discussion saying "paedophilia is wrong, mmm-kay" and that view simply doesn't make any sense was what led me to say that I was having a stupid argument with an apologist[105].

As "an apologist" is simply "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something" [106], it seems fairly clear that this was a valid description - and indeed could be said of both of us, as my arguments could be seen as defence of a zero tolerance policy, while JMilburn's position is reasonably set out above - there is only a loose connection between paedophiles and child molesters, and paedophilia itself is not (indeed cannot be seen as) ethically 'wrong'. I do understand that this has deeply upset JMilburn. I did try to explain again how his comments were coming over [107] and he was in my opinion in danger of breaching the zero tolerance policy (which is as far as I know still in place) with regard to advocacy (the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal [108], and I was not sure that his defence that he was arguing from some theoretical first principal would hold water [109].

How do you know this was not intended as an accusation of being a child molester (although he took it that way). I did still want him to have the chance to explain why he was taking this absolutist stance, given that I had presented contrary evidence that convinced me as to my position. Of course he then got very angry, because he took the comments personally. This was precisely my concern earlier in a response to Hobit apropos his suggestion of deleting the page and starting again, where I said the debate would be horrendous, there would be blood on the carpet, people will end up blocked, people will demand that other people state publically that they are not paedophiles. I am sorry that I have contributed to this happening, and I do think those who ask me to step away from the article have a point.

This is the danger with the debate - that those on one side of the fence will always be seen as 'apologists', are in danger of being viewed as 'advocating', and will undoubtedly be labelled by some as 'paedophiles', even though they may actually be arguing from a first principal to do with freedom of expression.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Elen of the Roads, as far as I can tell all your edits are visible. TFOWR 10:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I did not know until after the discussion ended that Off2riorob had actually straight out accused JMilburn of being a paedophile earlier (he had previously said that paedophiles were editing the page, but not named anyone in particular). Given that, it's no wonder that the guy went off like a rocket, and my "How do you know..." statement must have been the last straw (even though it wasn't meant that way, I can see at once how it would have sounded). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that is correct. As I recall, two questions were asked on a user's talk page. The questions were confronting, but it is not accurate to describe them as an accusation. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They were not asked by Elen. Verbal chat 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's disputed. Johnuniq was referring to Off2riorob's (WP:REVDELed) questions, which Elen had thought were accusations. TFOWR 11:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To confirm - I saw him ask the question, which I thought was confrontational, but I had assumed (given that I obviously can't see the revdeletes) that the block was for an out and out accusation. I apologise to Off2riorob for accusing him of something he didn't do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC

After initially asking J if he 'supported' pedophile editing, J responded with this reasoned post. Off2riorob came back/replied with two questions which were something like 'do you support pedophilia' and 'are you a pedophile'. These questions were, in my view, asked maliciously with the intent of being an accusation, hence my block. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 14:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I think 'malicious' would only apply if the person making the accusation did not believe he had grounds for making it. It's clear from events earlier on the page that Rob was (and probably remains) convinced that some of the editors are paedophiles, who are seeking to soften the policy to protect themselves. I think he said it because he believed it to be true.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Adding - the way he went about it was entirely wrong, and I understand why you blocked, but if he had made the accusation in an email to Arbcom instead, it would not have been blockable (unless it was entirely frivolous). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what's happening here is that people who are not apologists for pedophilia but who are strong advocates of free speech and libertarianism are running up against the brick wall that is policy on this matter. They can't believe that we'd ban someone just for saying who they are or what they believe, which is why they're up in arms on principle, not because they actually want more pedophiles editing here. We get similar battles about WP:NOTCENSORED, and sometimes the extreme free speech advocates will just have to accept that policy and consensus is against them and that they should drop the stick. Their challenging of this policy is principled but misguided, and shouting loudly about this will do them no favours (as we can see). In the scales of injustice, abuse of children trumps abuse of power. Fences&Windows 15:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. After reflection, I came to the conclusion that Milburn was arguing from a theoretical position - and possibly becoming increasingly uncomfortable at trying to keep that up, given that I was basically arguing off a set of internet alerts, so we were in two entirely different paradigms. It can't be pleasant to set out a pure philosophical reasoning, and find someone pointing to where a convicted sex criminal has used pretty much the same reasoning to justify their offenses - I can see where it would look like a personal attack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop the McCarthyist attitude on pedophilia discussions

Without a doubt, child abuse is an extremely serious matter, just other crimes such as torture, murder etc. etc. But we never second guess editors who e.g. debate other crimes. While there are specific issues about pedophilia in relation to the internet, Wikipedia has good policies to deal with that. Uploading child abuse pictures, attempting to contact children in an inapropriate way etc., will get you reported to the authorities.

If we can't deal with this issue here just because there is a hysteria about this in Western society, we set a bad example for other issues that are sensitive issues in other countries. E.g. can we deal with a dispute about homosexuality between two Iranian editors without being hypocritical (note that in Iran, homosexuals are regarded to be child rapists)? Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No matter what, we live in the real world and edits here are not just pixels on your screen, they can have real world consequences. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but if any editor wants to question/discuss whatever the possible pedophilia of another editor, that should never be done in public but by private email between editors or to ArbCom. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Count, we don't have a policy that states that if you upload kiddie porn or try to invite a little girl back to yours you will be reported to the authorities. Has all the rest of the shitstorm passed you by? You lucky man. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Roeach, someone seems to have found a pro-pedophilia document from some faction of the Belgian Catholic Church. What's to be done about that? --John Nagle (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that we have no jurisdiction over the Catholic Church, even in Belgium, what do you propose that we do? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to common sense Elen. Did that pass you by? Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus has finally got round to insulting me. Do I get a badge or something? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think that's an insult, then you need to get out more. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 5 July 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.

Removal of valid genres and references

Editor MATHEUS HS keeps removing valid genres and references from these articles: Giant (band) & Damn Yankees (band). He then adds genres to the articles without citing any reliable source and without any explanation, thus indicating that his additions seem to be original research. He has already received several cautions, but still he continues changing the genres & references. He does not reply to messages left on his user page, and when he does write something (e.g. here), it is incoherent and senseless. His edits are the exact edits of IP editor 187.85.150.245 who also removed the same references and genres from the same articles and was subsequently blocked. To avoid edit warring I have thusly brought the issue to this board. Amsaim (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that he continues his disruption, but also has a clear block log, I would support a 24 hour block in order to prevent further disruption from the user, and allow time to discuss with the user. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Amsaim (talk) reports here and confirm every detail. I also had the same problem with him regarding Heartbreak Station. In that case I managed to find a compromise, but talking about Giant (band) and Damn Yankees (band) the situation is getting very annoying. FateForger (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He's edit warring again, and also using an IP to revert. Can we get an admin here to intervene, or do we need to file a report at WP:ANEW? Dayewalker (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He is still edit warring on Damn Yankees (band), he is logged in again, ignoring the fact he is being discussed here and writing things in the talk page which, besides being difficult to read, are based on his opinions. I am tired of trying to persuade him to change his way to behave. He ignores the fact he should provide sources. I openly think he should be blocked for a short period of time. We need an admin to intervene as soon as possible. FateForger (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I'm heading out to bed soon but if he starts up again, message my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic.com is pretty much useless in terms of citing band genres. Their entries have one "Genre" field, usually quite generic (in the Damn Yankees case just "pop/rock"), and then one "Styles" field where they slap the loosest and most disparate tags on their entries imaginable. Anyone that describes this band as "glam metal" doesn't know one whit about music, to be honest, so while edit warring is not the answer, this guy is squarely in the right. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different take - allmusic might not be the best source, but at least it is one. If he was changing the genre and providing a better quality source to back it up that would be fine, but replacing sourced content with unsourced isn't helpful. Exxolon (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacing a poor source with opinion isn't an improvement. The sources issue should be discussed elsewhere (somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians from what I can tell). Part of this is the editor needed to calm down and not get so emotionally involved in what genres individual articles were involved in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Resolved

Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bot owned by ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ShakespeareFan00 has not edited under that account since April, during whihc time many people have left notes on his talk page pointing out that the bot is wrongly tagging images that do have fair use rationales, but not formatted the way the bot is expecting. These concerns have not been addressed and the bot is continuing to incorrectly tag images as lacking NFCC rationales. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a bot, it's unapproved - no BRFA, no bot flag. If it's acting like bot and not responding to messages, and the owner is AWOL, the block is justified. –xeno^talk 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I notice, the user is using Twinkle, so I am not certain if an BRFA is required for it. He did address some of the images, like File:Dublinlockout.jpg, on the uploader's talk page instead of his own. The only thing I think the bot should skip is maybe OTRS tickets, since I seen about two folks comment that OTRS tagged images are slated for deletion. If the user promises to stop tagging for right now, and fix the issues that are present, will yall unblock? I will also help this user with the images, even though I think he knows a lot about copyright policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally the user should be replying to all queries about their conduct. And yes, now that you point that out and on deeper examination, it doesn't look much like a bot. –xeno^talk 17:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The user did reply to some of them, but as I mentioned, not on his talk page but those of the uploader. I am also dealing with some of the problem images, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aeronwy.jpg that was tagged with OTRS (it was under a non-free CC license, hence the fair use tag). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to make note that they've replied elsewhere so their talk page doesn't look unattended. –xeno^talk 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I know there are templates for talk page notifications being replied to elsewhere, but my memory is not helping me right now. Do you think the user can be unblocked at this moment or is the blocking admin away? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Request immediate unblock: This user account (Sfan00_IMG) is NOT a bot. It is an alternate account run by ShakespeareFan00 which he only uses whilst he is working on images. The note on the account's talk page states that he is required to respond here. He can't. Since Sfan00_IMG is blocked, and ShakespeareFan00 registered the account, neither is able to access the site and edit. Since the account is not a bot, and doesn't require a BRFA or approval, an immediate unblock is sought to allow ShakespeareFan00 to edit this thread and respond in his own words. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

AniMate rightly disabled autoblock, so the main account should be able to comment here. –xeno^talk 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to see some indication that they realize their level of response has been less than optimal and that they will make efforts to increase their reply % on past messages and going forward prior to continuing their activities - and also that they will no longer tag files as having no fair use rationale when it is provided in a non-standard way (though this seems to indicate they have taken steps to resolve that issue). –xeno^talk 18:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a bot, but it is editing robotically. I'd like to see an unblock request and comment from ShakespeareFan00 before unblocking. Fences&Windows 18:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As the 'operator' of the alternate account: -

1. Sfan00_IMG isn't a bot,
2. I don't like the idea of using bot's for image tagging since the Betacommand incident. Thus edits are made manually.
3. It was my understanding, that I HAD tried to respond to genuine concerns about mis-tagged images..

1. Earlier today, I had changed strategy... Insated of using DFU (which in retrospect seems like a 'gunshot to kill a fly' approach), I'd created two templates {{Short-Rationale}} and {{Standard-Rationale}} in order to raise concerns about

rationales in a hopefully less confrontational manner.

1. It seems from reviewing an example, that in some cases, I might be applying the force of policy rather than the spirit or intent.
2. On reading WP:NFCC again it seems more than a few image may have been over-zealously tagged...
3. Thusly, I owe certain people and the wider Wikipedia Community an apology

I thus propose the following...

1. Sfan00_IMG remains blocked until we can agree some boundaries, and clarify certain points.
2. That a review of all file related image tagging back to 1 Jan 2010 in relation to the account is considered.
3. That I be given some kind of coaching support to conduct a review of recent activity on Sfan00_IMG. ( which has also been requested in response to previous misunderstandings).
4. That a group of experienced admins, file a mass Deletion Review on my behalf on the grounds that there may be images that have been deleted, without a 'proper' assessment having taken place..
5. That a consultation on how to resolve the issue of images without 'templated' rationales is opened.
6. That in parrallel with the review I intended to undertake, someone else goes through Sfan00_IMG's talk page, in an attempt to find concerns that may have been overlooked.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Further suggestion:

1. Bot policy is amended to indicate that 'high-efficiency' manual accounts should have to apply for bot flag.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the bot policy like that (or simply making an exception in some cases) has been considered and rejected in the past IIRC. In any case, that should be discussed elsewhere. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK- Current plan if User:Sfan00_IMG is unblocked is to replace the DFU's , with {{Short-Rationale}} to resolve the immediate issue. I'm already doing this on on User:ShakespeareFan00, unless thier are objections?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I would be happy to unblock if SF promises to replace the DFUs with the new rationale, although obviously that would not preclude from tagging with DFU where rationales are missing or completely inadequate, rather than incomplete. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an acceptable suggestion (subject to some clarifcations). However, your unblock proposal doesn't answer some of the other points raised in this thread. Some response on that would be appreciated..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to be clearer. We're certainly not going to be reviewing the bot policy here, so I can only presume you're talking about a review of image policy, which again this isn't the venue for. If you're talking about some coaching support on your image editing, I'd be happy to provide this. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock seems fine, in that this was not a bot after all. If the editor addresses the concerns, there is no need to keep the block in place. –xeno^talk 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Related

Note to admins- You might want to review -Category:Wikipedia_files_with_short_rationale from time to time... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1st indication {{Standard-Rationale}} been noted - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:39Steps1978.jpg&action=history BTW Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)