Hosta

ROC/China/Taiwan conflict

Werewaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been on a spree changing China/Taiwan/Republic of China terms in several articles towards the "One China" view. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I do know that it's a contentious area and no-one should make wide-spread changes without discussion. I've asked the user to discuss, reverted, and given him a 3RR warning. He has not replied so far. Some additional eyes would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair there is a minority of editors (including myself) who feel the China/PRC split to be highly POV and rather ethnocentric. Although I don't condone vandalism even when I agree, to a limited extent, with the editors view, it should be noted that this is an emotionally charged issue that could be perceived as a problem spot on Wikipedia for about 1.5 billion people. (Most of whom don't speak english but, still)... Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Werewaz of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked Werewaz for vandalism when I saw that he changed "Myanmar" to "Burma" in a list -- then I found that our article actually is moved-protected at Burma. Are we supposed to know better than the UN what that country has been called since before Wikipedia was founded? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Not a useful comment in this location, please don't discuss here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. With the Russians, Estonians and Poles all tied up at Arbitration, why not get into another series of geo-social-ethno-political move wars on China and Burma. Good times, folks, good times. Thatcher 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem with this user, and warned them here after several exchanges (see history page of List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. As happened later with Stephan Schulz, the user was invited to come to the talk page, and did not, not even making edit summaries. Whatever anyone's feelings, policy on this issue is very clear - see WP:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV and the section after that. Flags, as state symbols, should not be labelled simply "China" and "Taiwan". It may seem petty, but sadly it isn't, as evidenced by this user going through and changing all the names despite many requests not to. The account is more or less SPA, too.

(edit conflict) As a note, the Burma/Myanmar issue is a good deal more complicated, and cannot be compared to this more settled matter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Werewaz (talk · contribs) has reverted again. I don't see any point in not blocking at this stage.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard 24-hour block for WP:3RR issued. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied; user was a block-evading sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanking by anons

For a year or more there has been a pattern of anonymous blanking or deletions at Mordechai Levy and Jewish Defense Organization. The same IP address invariably hits both articles. In recent history, it has been 216.194.60.200, 216.194.57.137, 216.194.59.51, 216.194.58.233, and 216.194.57.108, so I am suggesting a range block as a possible remedy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the IPs suggests that a rangeblock would be impracticable due to collateral damage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an immense range (only a /21, so 2048 IPs), although I have not done much looking at how much editing gets done from that range. ~ mazca ^talk 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

216.194.56.0/21 would include all of the IPs listed in the original post, and would have some collateral (handful of users, looks like); whois seems to suggest 216.194.0.0/18, which would have far too much collateral. Looks like the problem only comes up every few months, anyway, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason protection wouldn't suffice? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of editing from these IPs is quite low, seven edits this year for one article and five for the other. That doesn't seem intense enough to merit protection or range blocks.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

[1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The more relevant diff is this one. Uncle G (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You're not suggesting we punish a good faith user for being comprehensive? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • How exactly is this something for ANI? It requires neither administrators nor immediate attention. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • And....I've notified User:PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow as ChildofMidnight didn't bother. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest anything, let alone some mysterious "punishment". But if you are looking for suggestions, talking to the editor first is a good one. I notice that, despite notifications and resolutions flying about, no-one has yet to actually say to the person concerned "That wasn't good tagging. Many of those issues didn't even apply to the article.". Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Pinochet request

As the editor who was largely responsible for the edit warring on the Pinochet article, I would request that the page be unlocked. I am voluntarily not editing Chilean articles for a week after my rather regretable behavour there. The protection will prevent others from improving the article. I thnk the issue is now resolved. Pages are protected to prevent disruption, and diruption there will not be a problem (as far as I am concerned) if it were unprotected.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comment above. Manning (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BRFA needs more eyes

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT needs more eyes and input. If you have a moment please give your 2 cents. β^_command 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Mplating

Mplating (talk · contribs) left a message at WP:BLPN stating "We are in the process of contacting the attorney for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] so that the issues on Wikipedia may be resolved fully." Per WP:NLT he should be blocked(/prevented from editing) until the legal threats are resolved fully. ƒ(Δ)² 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him to retract it or he will be blocked (not by me, as I'm not an admin). He's also quibbling over specific details that hardly seem to be BLP violations. Helping things out, he admits to being directly connected to the article's subject, so he's got a COI thing going on there too. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, he's removing reliably sourced material (from the Ghana Business News, for example). I reverted his removal, and I'll try to discuss this now. Thanks for your help, btw. ƒ(Δ)² 07:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Article in question seems to fail WP:BIO too. Ref: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kingsley Fletcher. Article concerned is Kingsley Fletcher (|talk|history|links|watch|logs), user concerned is User:Mplating (|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --Whoosit (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I take that to mean he's a non-notable who's being promoted by the authors and protectors of the wikipedia article. "His Royal Highness"? Right. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also inclined towards a non-notable speedy. Any seconders or do I need to go to AFD? Manning (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A legal threat has been made. Perhaps better to wait until an admin can attend to it, so as not to muddy the waters. Decision on the article can wait.--Whoosit (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An admin needs to block the guy immediately. Legal threats cannot be tolerated. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so keen on deletion -- the article is properly sourced. It was started by a PR company working on behalf of this guy and was pretty ridiculous at an early stage, but a few of us worked it into shape, removed the absurd parts, and came up with what I think is a reasonable version. The "His Royal Highness" stuff is ridiculous, but it does appear that he has been given an honorary title by a particular ethnic group of some sort in Ghana, and I think that satisfies BIO. It can be argued out at AfD, but not deleted via speedy deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any content-related merit to his complaint that led to his legal threat? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(drop indent) - Nomoskedasticity: reluctantly I agree. I suspect wholesale puffery, but don't have the ammo to prove it right now, so AFD is more appropriate. Manning (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think this article needs to go to AfD rather than a speedy. This claims that he is a traditional ruler of Greater Accra, and he has also claimed to have advised the UN Martin451 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A slight correction: It says he worked with "United Nations Development Programme for Africa". My brother in law (a ghanaian) worked for them as did/do thousands of other people. That's a LONG way from "advising the UN". (Am not disputing that AFD is more appropriate however). Manning (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And if my math is right, his "kingdom" is equivalent to a square about 35 miles on a side. I can only guess at the size of Lesser Accra. AFD might be better than speedy, just to evoke a few laughs. Also, I think M-plating has been blocked, so dat's dat unless he appeals his conviction. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs: The complaint is about being "knighted" -- he got suckered by one of those "false" orders, and Plating wants to remove the (reliably sourced) stuff about how the event got some attention in the news (from his point of view, the wrong kind). Keep in mind that deletion is now exactly what they are trying to accomplish (in the absence of the version they want). I'd really prefer that this article is not deleted. As for small "kingdoms" -- there are smaller, how about San Marino? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)How about that little island off the coast of Britain? Principality of Sealand, that's not much bigger than a houseboat. That's pretty funny. An organization that awards knighthoods? Better he should have gone to that company that will name a star in your honor, for a slight fee. Keeping the article or not, based on what the complainant wants, is tempting but is not really the correct way to do things. AFD would be the way, provided someone wants to go to that effort. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, 35 miles on one side is around 1000 square miles -- more than ten times the size of Liechtenstein. I'm not saying that size matters... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Grand Fenwick, roughly 15 square miles. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Although Fenwick dwarfs the Principality of Sealand, the entirety of which can be seen in a normal photograph contained within the article. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice one of this guys titles is "Nene". It must be interesting to be titled in honor of the Hawaiian Goose. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, even "those who inform" can be fooled? I dare think I should write Roland S. Martin and ask him what he _now_ thinks. ouch! (check the comments from Ghanians) Then again, he might be able to point us to references that don't all trace back to "TBG Media" (Ghana) or web sites registered to Kingsley Fletcher. Shenme (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just called my Ghanaian brother-in-law and he says its nonsense too. Hence I've listed this at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingsley_Fletcher. Manning (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 66.245.250.185

This IP address seems to have been making several observably disruptive edits to user pages, though apparently no action's been taken. Just an early warning that this might be indicative of disruptive future behavior also. 72.51.35.208 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I reported him to WP:AIV, which appears to be backlogged. No admins awake at this hour. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours; I've also cleared the more urgent-looking stuff from AIV (without my precious autoblock.js due to being at work!). There are still unaddressed reports at AIV and I need to head off, so any other admin reading this may wish to take a look. ~ mazca ^talk 08:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV now empty. Baseball Bugs- there are admins awake at this hour you know - just less than at some other times of the day! A good recommendation if you need very urgent assistance from someone with the admin tools is to look at the block or deletion logs and find someone who has just performed an action. Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. In some few seemingly urgent cases (which this really wasn't) I have been known to go straight to a particular admin and ask for help. And I know the admin corps isn't really asleep. Is it true what they say, that the sun never sets on the wikipedia empire? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside administrator needed

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin's Syndrome

It would be very helpful if one or more uninvolved administrators, and possible a CheckUser, could look over the AfD above. The discussion, article history, and related areas need to be reviewed for sockpuppets, bloc voting, conflicts of interest and soapboxing.

Other relevant links:

• Previous AfD in May 2009: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin Syndrome
• Talk page discussion: Talk:Harry Benjamin Syndrome
• More talk page discussion: Talk:Harry Benjamin's Syndrome
• Current arbitration request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitration needed for this article's dispute_page (permalink:[2])

Thank you in advance for any assistance. Vassyana (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have been, already. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar, for example. I've also nudged one arbitrator to suggest a speedy decline to xyr fellows in favour of the existing on-going WP:AN/I incident discussion which is earlier on this very page. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Egg on my face. However, when I plugged the editor's name into the search, neither the ANI thread ("Crusade") nor the SPI came up in the results. In the future, I will endeavor to doublecheck my Wikipedia searches and do a bit of manual checking. Vassyana (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Casasgaspar

This one is slightly too complex for AIV, but not much. I gave Casasgaspar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) a final warning last night for introduction of false and unsourced material. I've reviewed his edits, and it consists of a long, long stream of figure tampering. I first noticed him last night at I Kissed a Girl, inserting false certifications]. Tonight, he decided that every figure in that article should be slightly higher. As I review, I find nothing but this kind of edit: unsourced changes to movie grosses, unsourced sales reduction for The Fame, corrupting procession boxes, more figure tampering. It just goes on and on.

Since he repeated after final warning, I think a block is in order. I don't think a timed block is appropriate: given the chronic nature of it, I would recommend indef until the editor explains that he understands the concept of sourcing.

For the record, this edit looks constructive. It's the only one I found.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a weird one. I agree with Kww's assessment of their edits, and have indefblocked Casasgaspar. I'd be interested to hear their reasons for doing what they've been doing (from a merely behavioural point of view; it would have to be a very convincing unblock request before I'd consider an unblock). EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois article and User:WikiQc

Hello,

In an attempt to bring some civility to the conversation at Réseau_de_Résistance_du_Québécois, I hosted the page at User:Frmatt/RRQ while it was blocked to try and bring an NPOV to the whole thing. In the course of this, User:WikiQc made some non-npov changes, which I reverted. Upon being informed of my reversion, the user then accused me of racism and being anti-quebecois (which is a little amusing as I'm a proud bi-lingual Canadian!) I would appreciate it if there could be some more eyes on this article which has been the subject of some major edit wars and non-npov wording by both sides. I also issued a warning to the user about their behaviour at User talk:WikiQc upon which they promptly denied having made any personal attacks. At this point, in order to avoid further inflaming the situation, I am excusing myself from any further involvement with either this article or this user. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review both sides of this incident (not only the user above, but also my own behaviour so that I can be aware if there were things that I should have done differently. I am always open to hearing from people with suggestions for improvement on my talk page. Thank you very much. Frmatt (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried other methods of dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion (WP:3O) or Wikiquette Alerts (WP:WQA)? Those noticeboards may be better suited towards a first attempt to resolve this problem. Admins are more likely to act when other avenues have been exhausted first. --Jayron32 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I had considered WP:WQA (I wasn't aware of WP:3O, however given that I am now involved in a personal attack, instead of one over content, as well as the ongoing problems with this article, I felt that it was a little too comprehensive for simply WP:WQA. The issue is not solely with the user, it is also with on-going pov-slanting at the article mentioned as well. If the majority feel that it is better dealt with at one of those boards, then I'll take it there. Frmatt (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also made a try at that article, so it did get a 3O, and i agree with Frmatt that another view might be desired. This might be one of the cases where someone other than the present editors should work on the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution isn't needed, in my opinion. User:WikiQc is undoubtedly another sock of User:Philbox17. Other socks can be seen here. They're an aggressive, single-purpose sockmaster whose entire purpose on Wikipedia is to push the same agenda at that article, and is constantly edit-warring to do so. They keep making new accounts then accuse the person blocking them of opposing "every French Quebecer". -- Atama頭 05:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

<-I've confirmed that WikiQc is indeed another sock of Philbox17, and I've blocked the account. I'm sure he'll be back with another sock in short order. The range of IPs he's coming from is too large for an effective range block (without collateral). --Versageek 15:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism of Ranma Saotome

Will someone please check the revert I made to Ranma Saotome. In the infobox a edit was made to modify this text "Megumi Hayashibara (female)" to this "Megumi Hayashibara (female/child)". I am uncertain how to respond to this editor. -- allen四names 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can't help with the specifics of the edit, from their edit history the IP has been contributing for a while and seems to be operating in good faith. The address looks to be stable, so I'd drop them a friendly note on their talk page asking why they feel their version is better. EyeSerene^talk 12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have looked at the related character articles and they seem to fit my lost sheep criteria, viz. there seem to be no involvement of an experienced editor to watch for and correct undesirable changes. It is likely that these articles will have to be converted into redirects. Again thank you for your help in this matter. -- allen四names 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's a possibility, though we musn't WP:BITE too hard ;) If you (or someone) has the time to provide some guidance though, perhaps the IP can be encouraged to bring their work into line with our editing policies. They are clearly keen, so if we can harness that enthusiasm all the better. It might be worth mentioning the benefits of creating an account, and pointing them towards WP:ADOPT? EyeSerene^talk 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a little green myself but I will keep your suggestions in mind. -- allen四names 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done You can see the message I left here -- allen四names 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you for your assumption of good faith with the IP too - it's something we unfortunately don't see enough of, and it does you great credit :) EyeSerene^talk 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking for audio is harassment campaign?

MarshalN20

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't stop to insult me.

Nr 1:

• Keysanger is a highly biased POV.
• Keysanger think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases
• Come on gentlemen! Wake up

I twice reiterated please for a civile ton (I signed my last 2 postings)

Please, stop it, thank you. --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, comment this questions without personal attacks. Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He continued his attacks in Nr 2

• Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions, Keysanger.

Here I asked him to cooperate with the relevant text of the reference:

Keysanger: You must write the text passage supporting your statement.

He answered here:

• You must learn to read

And again in Nr 3 he calls me a lier:

• You're lying on what has been thus far agreed.

(by the way, he retired his statement "The treaty was only used defensively." here and accepted the first three)

And He insulted me again in the edit summary of following Nr 4

• (Here lies the truth about the War of the Pacific. Hopefully someday this will come to the light of others.)'

Here he call me a nationalist fool Nr 5:

• I explicitly blame Keysanger and the rest of the nationalist fools who focus on promoting their nationalistic POV instead of focusing on presenting the true history. The lot of you are not even worth to be called "Wikipedians." (Bold by MarshalN20)

I think that is enough, someone have to explain him how works wikipedia. As you can see, he doesn't believe me. --Keysanger (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really find this to be quite ridiculous. First, what you're presenting here is such a mess that I don't even understand half of what you've written. Second, every one of the statements that you present have been taken out of context (which might certainly account as to why they don't make sense in the first place). Third, as can be seen in Talk:War of the Pacific, several other users see Keysanger's WP:OWN of the article as a destruction of a Wikipedia article. To further check on Keysanger's "Ownership" of the article, please feel free to check the War of the Pacific's history and take note of all of the edits done by Keysanger. Fourth, as can be seen in Talk:War of the Pacific, User:Dentren proposed a chart of problems that would be fixed one by one in order to make the article factual and neutral. That being said, we did not get to even half of the chart before Keysanger decided to edit the article to his liking. As such, in the final statement that Keysanger provides I state: "I explicitly blame Keysanger[...]." Need I explain more?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia Administrator sees this, I urge them to take a look at the War of the Pacific article and take note of the destruction caused by Keysanger. The article has been changed from a neutral POV to an explicitly Chilean POV. Once again, I explicitly blame Keysanger for the destruction of the article, and would like to see a Wikipedia administrator to try and explain to Keysanger how a Wikipedia article should be written. Me, User:Likeminas, and User:Dentren have tried our bests to work with Keysanger; but after a series of pointless discussions with him we have all decided to leave (At least me and Likeminas have posted open statements in the talk page about it; Dentren simply went on to do better things than to argue with stubborn people).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of the Chilean POV inserted by Keysanger in the article: "The defeat engendered a deep revenge desire^[1][2] among the ruling classes, which also led to a skewed view of the role of the armed forces; this attitude dominated society throughout the 20th century^{[citation needed]}"

Keysanger bases this statement on the opinion of two Peruvians, and yet he talks about the "ruling classes" of Peru. He also inserts an unreferenced statement of the "skewed view" of the Peruvian armed forces "throughout" the 20th century. There are plenty of other examples of Chilean POV in the article. I deleted this in the War of the Pacific article, and gave an edit summary as to why I deleted the information. Keysanger reverted it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass PROD/AfD/Redirects from new user

User:BakedFWS22

BakedFWS22 (talk · contribs) was warned about creating articles with content copy and pasted from the USFWS.[5] (I've posted a list of articles created or edited by the user that need to be deleted or rewritten here.) User ignored my warning on the 22nd, and a day later, continued to engage in the same copy and paste behavior.[6] (compare with this) I warned the user for a second time[7] and I bring the issue here for review. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If USFWS is from the US Federal Government (and I assume it is) then he's fine. While they may need to be tweaked, the US federal government releases all content into the public domain. Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the content is public domain. See: Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. You have to say where you got it, and we don't copy and paste material from any website. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Copy-paste properly, it applies to non-PD stuff. Wikipedia:Plagiarism says that "Works that are public domain because they were never protected, or their copyright has lapsed, carry no legal requirement for attribution", unless I'm missing something. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no legal requirement for attribution, but it's still very important to Wikipedia that the source be attributed. There are two reasons. First, the ethical requirement to attribute sources still applies even if the legal one does not. Of more practical importance, if we don't know that the material is in the public domain we will be tempted to think that Wikipedia's standard copyright applies to it, and may even be led into trying to defend it legally. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM#Public domain sources's first sentence states "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." I think that makes it quite clear that attribution is still required, even for PD sources. MLauba (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The text added by BakedFWS22 is in the public domain so the copy-pasting is permitted -- of course, that is said without regard as to whether it still needs tweaking to meet other guidelines like NPOV. Our guidelines for copypasting state that the text must be attributed by using either quotes, in-line citations and/or a reference section template (like Template:Catholic, for example). Additionally, it is preferred that editors note in their edit summary that they are making a copy-paste and what their source is. BakedFWS22 has clearly added some attributions to the text, but I think there should be more, especially in the cases where the added text was split into separate paragraphs. I'll leave a note on BakedFWS22 user page about this as well as remind them about including the edit summary. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Backup admin: look at this issue?

There is a rather new user (less than a year), User:Cameron_Scott, who has done some nonsense edits to Comparison of vampire traits on really vague terms. After being warned (check the history of his talk page), he blanked his talk page, re-added the content, and then threatened me with a 'Welcome to Wikipedia' template (heh) and 'informed' me that me removing them again would be vandalism (really). I don't have time or desire to get into anything resembling a wheel war, could someone else take a look at it? I believe I was correct (as his intent seems to have been to undermine the page during the recent AfD), but since I'm ticked I figure I should leave it and have someone else to back me up (or tell me I'm wrong). --Thespian (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong. How's that?

First of all - do you read the top of the page, the bit where you inform users that you are bringing a matter to AN/I? Because I never got a notice. Secondly the page say "Vampires in fiction", it does not say "only serious vampires in fiction" I am adding vampires who exist in fiction, one that have their own pages here and are covered in multiple reliable sources. As for 'vague', what is vague about adding the vampires from 30 days of night? Characters who have been in over novels, comic book series and films.

Lastly, I templated you because you template me - it's not nice is it, you know to template the regulars, they see it as an insult - like you did, like I did. At best, this is a content dispute and here you are asking for administrator back-up to enforce your version of the article - an article where I have simply added links to a table to other articles. Have you started a section about it on the talkpage, have you asked for other people editing the article to take a look? have you asked for an outside view? no you warned me and now ran here. There is nothing here that warrants or indeed invites admin action.

Oh and as for blanking the page - blanking the page is accepted as the user having read the notice and it is perfectly acceptable (unless they are removing block or ban notices) for users to remove content after they have read it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I templated you because you have been here under a year, and you started messing with an article that was up for AfD in a silly (and inconsistent, by only adding it in one of the lists) fashion that supported the AfD. It was a newbie mistake, and I noticed that you had several complaints against you in the last fortnight that you had ignored, threatened the complainer, or undone their mistakes in a WP:OWN fashion. You showed no real sign of being a 'regular', and it's about your behaviour during a contentious AfD, and not the content itself. Following it up by threatening a mopholder admin with vandalism was newb-like. --Thespian (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thespian reverted edits that weren't obvious vandalism, thereby abusing rollback. I can see no involvement in the AfD by the user, or any evidence for what thespian claims were efforts to undermine the AfD. What I do see is incorrect reversions and assumptions of bad faith by thespian. There were no attempts to discuss why the edits were problematic. And characterising someone who has been here nearly a year and has over 8000 edits as a 'rather new user'?! Cameron Scott's response was petty, but that's about it. No admin action has been requested, so I'm not sure why this is even here. If further input on the content issue is wanted then do an RfC. Quantpole (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Or simply start a discussion about it on the article talkpage - admin intervention should be the last action (and Thespian is involved so an editor rather than an admin for this discussion) rather than the first and the next step should be discussion on the article talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved article to "Traits of fictional vampires", since all references were to works of fiction. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me we are all operating from the assumption that all vampires are fictional. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DARKNESS OF MY SOUL!. Seriously, we have an argument over vampire traits? We have an article about it? What?--Tznkai (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you have looked at WP:LAME at some point? Arguments over vampire traits are nowhere near the nadir of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There actually have been some serious folklorists who have wrote about how vampires have changed over time. I'll see if I can dig any of them up. In the meantime, is there any serious reason this needs to be at ANI? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but I would think that could be subsumed into vampire or what not.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That article is already quite long without that and has generated a lot of spin off articles. It shouldn't be that hard to find that much well sourced material on this subject. Give me a few days. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing on Wikipedia Review in AfD discussion : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miriam_Sakewitz

TfD

this item is now ten days old, would appreciate if someone could close it or relist it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just noticing that as well. However as one of the parties participating in the TfD, I cannot resolve it. Anyone else up for a TfD close? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna sound really, really, really lazy, but the reason I didn't close it as keep last night was that I didn't have a one-click javascript closer. Does anyone know of one for XfD's (I have the AfD/DRV one from lifebaka and Mr. Z man)? Protonk (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js does the job - it seems to be modifications of Lifebaka's DRV one for the other types. ~ mazca ^talk 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I already began taking the long manual route in deleting the templates but I can restore if you want to use the java closer. Also, I wasn't sure if this has screwed up Huggle or Twinkle. Can someone with Huggle check that? — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 69.77.136.161 - returning sockpuppet

This sock-IP and one other (204.84.96.201) from North Carolina have returned to add the following nonsense to the Viggo Mortensen article: "In 2008, Mortensen wed Boomer, NC librarian Christy Earp." De728631 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither IP has made any other vandalisms since that one, so a block is inappropriate, and two instances of vandalism probably does not merit semi-protection yet. But I have watchlisted that article, and will promptly take action should this ramp up further. --Jayron32 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass violation of WP:ITEXISTS at AfD

Jeff G's use of Huggle.

Bringing this here for a review. I was going to let this pass because this incident happened a couple of days ago, but it seems there are ongoing issues with their use of Huggle. Earlier in the day, I saw this report where they stated the IP had been removing the {{whois}} template from the top of their talk page. I discussed this matter with the IP, and explained the situation. They co-operated, and I closed the matter at AIV as resolved.

Seeing this IP at AIV again later in the day raised my eyebrows, and the six diffs he cited as vandalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), none of them vandalism. I raised concerns on their talk page, as did an administrator who blocked the IP in error. When asked for an explanation, they basically blamed Huggle[8] for the error. A mistake or two is excusable, but an ongoing pattern is not. This edit today was pointed out to me as well.

I feel that Jeff is unable to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, and should have his rollback removed. Alternatively, he could take these two lessons on vandalism, and keep his rollback, but I see an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed, and I'd welcome input from administrators. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Jeff G of this discussion, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That slipped my mind. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Other questionable uses include; The Funniest Joke in the World, Anadolu Airport, Marsia, List of Omnitrix aliens, Wes Ramsey, Glasses Malone, Characters of Extras, Taronga Zoo, and Eskişehir Airport, and CityRail K set, just to list a few. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to address these one at a time:

• The Funniest Joke in the World: Sorry, I guess I put too much faith in 115.128.43.169 (talk | contribs)'s translation and humor sensing capabilities.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But your edit restored the questionable assertion. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anadolu Airport: 88.244.74.28 (talk | contribs) removed "*Anadolu Jet (Ankara)" content without explanation and added two lines without citing a source. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism - in fact, it's at least in part a valid edit as two minutes of research shows.[9] 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Marsia: 203.190.147.124 (talk | contribs) removed a paragraph, a {{wikify}} tag, and a {{Husayn}} infobox template without explanation, and added a whole swath of unreferenced text. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your use of Huggle to undo an edit that may be questionable but not obviously vandalism and apparently done in good faith. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• List of Omnitrix aliens: 76.177.243.197 (talk | contribs) added more unreferenced info without explanation, despite having been warned not to do so 10 minutes earlier. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't make it vandalism. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following unsourced templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?

• {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
• {{subst:uw-unsourced2}}
• {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wes Ramsey: 71.52.103.188 (talk | contribs) made an unsourced change. After further review, the entire line about Mr. Ramsey appearing in an undisambiguated Heroes is unsourced, so I've disambiguated it and tagged it with {{fact}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Glasses Malone: 97.117.210.232 (talk | contribs) removed content without explanation. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another accurate edit, as shown by 3 minutes of research, labeled vandalism. Hardly a case of unambiguous vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Characters of Extras:
• Taronga Zoo:
• Eskişehir Airport:
• CityRail K set:

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think this concerns me, Jeff G. (talk | contribs) (note the dot), rather than the uninvolved user Jeff G (talk | contribs), who has been inactive since February, so I undid the notification mentioned above by Basket of Puppies (talk | contribs). Concerning this edit, the user I was reverting, 93.86.164.168 (talk | contribs), sarcastically called Verbal (talk | contribs) "allknowing" and accused that user of "lying" in this edit. I took the "lying" part as a personal attack (since it involved the language of {{subst:uw-delete1}} in this warning edit, which was not a lie and concerned this original content removal edit), and reverted/warned accordingly.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism or your own edits. This clearly states that personal attacks (perceived or otherwise) does not fall under that criteria, so rollback should not be used. The edits that 98.248 also outlined are concerning. Why should you be allowed to retain rollback, when there is clearly an ongoing pattern of problematic edits. Unless you'd agree to go through a lesson on how to use rollback appropriately, and how to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, which I'm happy to go through with you, I'm worried that problems like this will continue to arise. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to go through a lesson, but I'd like to finish responding to all of the above first.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?

• {{subst:uw-npa1}}
• {{subst:uw-npa2}}
• {{subst:uw-npa3}} (formerly {{subst:npa3}})
• {{subst:uw-npa4}} (formerly {{subst:npa4}})
• {{subst:uw-npa4im}} (formerly {{subst:npa4im}})

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Some interpret the vandalism policy a bit looser than others, I interpret it quite strictly, simply because reverting poor edits, that may be made with good intentions, and labelling them as "vandalism" is one of the fastest ways to make a new editor stop editing. When you're ready, pop a note on my talk page and we'll go through the Vandalism lessons. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not tonight, I'm too tired (it's about 03:06 here). I'll be back tomorrow evening or night.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All those templates appear to relate to personal attacks, not vandalism. I can say that vandalism is only when it is unambiguously clear that an edit was made with the sole intent of damaging wikipedia as a resource. There is a long (but not exhaustive) list at VAND#NOT of disruptive or unpleasant edits which aren't vandalism. The basic rule is, if there is any doubt, use the edit summary feature in HG. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here; rollback is for blatantly unproductive edits, and not only for vandalism. If an edit can in no way be thought as made in good faith, it is quite appropriate to use rollback for that. Huggle provides options for reverting personal attacks and unexplained content removals, among others. However IIRC, in each case huggle gives the same edit summary by default (Reverted edits by x to last revision by y (HG)), but the warning issued will be different. That aside, I agree that Jeff G. should exercise more scrutiny and care when using huggle. This edit is somewhat understandable considering that a large amount of text was removed without explanation, and I think many RC patrollers would have reverted that. But almost every other example seems to be a careless mistake or a result of being too hasty. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

With as many as 9 edits per minute (03:26, 22 September 2009), there's not any doubt in my mind that Jeff is being too quick to push the button. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with this. he reverted my edit too because i said other editor lied -- which he did -- so it was not a personal attack. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume that the nine-edits-per-minute revert rate described above is too fast for an editor to be effectively judging the individual merits of each edit? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's only 5 reverts, plus 3 warnings and one AIV report. The reverts in question are [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. I'll leave it to others to judge if they are good reverts. Tim Song (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Craftsman is someone that is a tool, or a big douche bag!", "it has somewhat of jewish origans" concerning a family of beetles, "The Ford Mustang is an insanely awesome automobile", and "*Howard Stern - Radio show host, King of All Media" were easy to spot as vandalism. The birthdate change I had to research for a bit. The user I reported to AIV for vandalizing Ford Mustang, 72.199.232.33 (talk | contribs), got blocked subsequent to my report.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Try not to obsfucate the point being made - that the speed of rollbacks is indicative of Jeff not taking the time to give each due consideration. This one minute period is just an example of his rapidity. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I'm obfuscating the point - I agree with Jeff's assessment of the reverts, BTW - you said that he's rolling back too fast and not giving each due consideration because he made 9 edits in a minute; I pointed out that it's actually only 5 reverts; I also think that they are all sound. And for four of them it probably takes 3 seconds to figure out that a revert is appropriate. So, no, I don't see you proving your point with this example; if he made a bad revert in the minute, yes, but I think that they are all good. Tim Song (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tim, not you. Jeff is the one who is attempting to justify individual edits without addressing the larger issue of the overall trend demonstrated by the examples given. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

←I think it's suffice to say at this point that Jeff should be more careful in his reverts. I haven't looked at the diffs provided in this ANI thread, but I did some of my own investigating about a week ago, and I was concerned. Jeff, please consider the concerns of everyone in this discussion when you use Huggle. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. About the speed problem; 9 edits per minute (actually 5 done by him, since the warnings and report are automated) is not very unusual for a huggle user at a time when vandalism rate is high. Jeff G. has been doing RC patrol for some time, and has done good work there. Removing his rollback would not be a net positive for the project IMHO. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Coughlin

58.69.73.209

Can someone take a look at 58.69.73.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) please? The external link appears to be bad; it rants about Scientology and accuses people of various things. I want a second opinion before a block, though. --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave him a note to stop or he'll be blocked for edit waring over the link, which he certainly is already. I haven't taken a look at the link itself, but it should stop being added after that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading Musatov again

Special:Contributions/216.240.51.58 is spamming both the article and talk pages of halting problem with some "solutions". He has been warned: User talk:216.240.51.58. Technically, he's not vandalizing, he's just a crank, so I'm reporting him here instead of AIV. Pcap ping 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:MartinMusatov. The same guy also "solved" the P = NP problem a while back using the same (sockpuppeteer) methods, for which he has been indef blocked. Pcap ping 09:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can solve P = NP using sockpuppets? I'll start writing the nature paper and you work on the nobel prize acceptance speech. I'm teaching this next week, would be shame to have to warn my students off wikipedia. Verbal chat 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently P=NP that was way easy since he now moved to the halting problem... Except nobody else could understand the solution. I guess the sockpuppets can act like oracle machines for creating consensus or something. Better not think about it too hard. ;-) Pcap ping 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped of his own accord for now. But I'm curios if my post not actionable for some reason, or are we seeing a manifestation of the much-debated admin shortage? Pcap ping 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the problem comes back, maybe partial page protection request.- Sinneed 06:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor continues repeated personal attacks even while blocked

Cali boi16 (talk · contribs) was blocked earlier today for edit waring and failure to discuss their edits. Since the block, the editor has been on a long tirade of insults and personal attacks on their talk page against anyone and everyone who offers to explain Wikipedia's polices and why they were blocked. I fell that this editor is not going to be productive when the block expires tomorrow. —Farix (t | c) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked w/ talk page editing disabled. I don't want to extend the time because of post-block ranting. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead are moved some of the more recent personal attacks, especially the one where he goes all-out in attacking my character. —Farix (t | c) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Take care to do so only where absolutely necessary, since s/he is technically unable to respond. The best bet is honestly to remove the page from your watchlist. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only not able to respond, was not even notified about this ANI post. Par for the course it seems. Exxolon (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since his block expired, Cali boi16 has returned and apologized for his conduct, and is behaving much more civilly, just so everyone knows. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was, but he's now descending back to making outrageous claims and personal attacks and snide remarks. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a cautionary message on his talk page. I think he could turn into a productive editor if he can get his temper under control and I am trying to encourage him in that direction. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti

Despite numerous warnings including {{uw-chat4}}, Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) persists in posting material on talk pages (most recently Talk:English language) unrelated to improving articles. —teb728 t c 02:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy answer for deliberate but minor disruption after final warning. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In anticipation of an "AMBUSH" I have not visited wikipedia.com until today, November 1st. Procedural matters against my account show that my premonitions were correct.

A small reference to some new material, printed material, concerning the involvement of a criminal genius in creating words in the English language, ON A TALK PAGE, were met with serious 'resistence', a resistance that played itself out by individuals who are so noted.

(I have been too busy trying to promote my book, "The Jesus Christ Code" that describes the anti-male, anti-family agenda by cult feminists in the world, using deceptive half-truths)

For those who have the time to check this out, it is a shame that even 'talk pages' are being used to exert pressure, intimidate, and censor ideas, be they only on talk pages.

This is sad incident for wikipedia, although perhaps one that might reflect on the motives of some individuals.

Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:DHawker

Erik9 appears to be the sock of a banned user

For background, see RFAR/Scientology#John254, ANI#John254 and Kristen Eriksen, and User talk:Kristen Eriksen

Several days ago, an arbitrator noticed that Erik9 (talk · contribs) appeared to be behaving like a former banned user, John254 (talk · contribs). In particular, this account was filing frivolous RFAR requests which were literally undesired by any party. He injected himself into multiple disputes by writing statements and recommendations for remedies. Erik9 also executed ham-fisted clerking, much like John254 and his disruptive sock Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs).

With these behavioral clues in mind we examined the account technically. Erik9 began editing January 30, just 2 days after KE was blocked and gave up her appeals. Since then, Erik9 has edited prolifically (as John254 and KE did). At this moment has over 28,000 edits. The time zone matches, and checkuser shows that user geolocates to the same large metropolitan area as John254 and KE, although there are no direct IP matches. Edit: actually there are also technological reasons to suspect that they are socks. FT2 and other CUs have kindly rechecked this for me. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering also that this user's early edits are not the work of a newbie,[21] I think it is highly likely that Erik9 is a returned sock of these John254 and Kristen Eriksen. I ask the community to block or sanction this account appropriately. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity the poor editor in the large metropolitan area of [redacted] who started to edit after John/Kristen were indeffed, and has something of a similar schedual. What you haven't noted, is the many differences between my editing and John's. John wasn't a botop, but I run the prolifically productive Erik9bot. John wrote crappy C-style javascript like User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js indicating he doesn't understand regexps - yes, I'm familiar with John's programming because I used his User:John254/mass rollback.js after seeing it described at WP:ROLLBACK - but I obviously have to understand regexps very well to run a complex AWB task like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9. Oh, and we haven't edited the same articles. You could say, well, I wrote Nemifitide, but not all pharmacology editors are the same person :) However, like most editors, I'm a volunteer, so if the community no longer wants my contributions, I'll find a more productive use for my time - though how you're going to maintain Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot), I have no idea... Erik9 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you do not say I am not John254 or Kristen Eriksen. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do solemnly swear that I am not, and have never been, John254 or Kristen Eriksen. Erik9 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL forgot to mention the same use of a topless blonde woman on your userpage, same as Kristen's userpage. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not the same woman -- and Kristen apparently used the photograph because "she" was a man impersonating a woman (or so the community believes). Hopefully, you aren't accusing me of the same thing... Erik9 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what really concerns me is that I don't think this is his only account. John254 kept KE separate by only editing on weekends (until the John account was abandoned). I plotted the edits, and Erik9 was strictly a night and weekends creature for much of its existence. I'm afraid that there might be a work/school account that is not currently known. If anyone has any leads, please post them or email me. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's no mystery - its Erik9bot - or perhaps you don't mean that sort of sock :) So, basically, you're claiming that the horrible banned user John was given an account with a bot flag - I don't have to explain to you why that's a rather trusted user group - and you're searching desperately for John's other account - maybe even a sysop, who knows? It's sure good that I know this nightmare scenario isn't true -- but I suppose Wikipedia can be just as scary as you want it... Erik9 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we just blocked an admin as a returning banned user. You could have avoided this whole problem by appealing your ban. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the John situation, the following is clear:

1. John is never being unbanned, ever.

   Not so. With an admission and some time away from the project, we would love to have you back in the community. We must prevent you from being disruptive though. Cool Hand Luke 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2. John is obviously by now an experienced sockpuppeteer, so if he did return to Wikipedia to evade his ban, you're going to need to look a lot harder.
3. As an experienced sockpuppeteer, John probably would have waited some weeks, at least, before starting to edit again, could have used a computer in a different geographic location as a proxy to hide from checkusering, and could have employed his influence with the arbcom to frame me. Don't put anything past this John fellow... Erik9 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   No, John appears to have socked because he was an addict. He simply could not stay away. Going from thousands of edits to nil was apparently too hard for him. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Does this mean I'll have to start Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (third nomination)? --NE2 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's just a little fly in the ointment -- John's obviously a very intelligent user, if he could pull off what Wikipedia Review describes as the "Massive Kristen Eriksen conspiracy" - I looked there just a minute ago to see exactly what this John/Kristen fuss was all about. Obviously, someone who could write Nemifitide and run complex bot tasks like Erik9bot task 9 is no fool either. So, by claiming that I'm John, Luke can't really be stating that John didn't take the simple precaution of starting his next account some weeks after John/Kristen were indeffed -- Luke must be asserting that John was deliberately trying to be caught, perhaps to show the ease with which horrible banned users can obtain privileged user groups, and to scare editors looking for (what Luke thinks is the) other sock which could have who-knows-what privileges. Does Luke really expect the community to believe all of this? Erik9 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the "I'm too smart to do that" defense. Actually, we know from experience that it's not true. And what John did wasn't rocket science anyway. He used a library location to edit from Kristen Eriksen, and his home location for John254... until he abandoned the John254 account in one of the most revealing stunts ever seen on this site, that is. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, since difference in coding style is being used as a defence here, could you explain why your monobook.js contains the exact same function as User:John254's, a function found in no other script page on Wikipedia, as evidenced here? I realize there may be a reasonable explanation, but I do find it odd. decltype (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Both my Javascript and his appear to be (substantially different) derivatives of User:Voice of All/nolupin/monobook.js (which contains the substring "ipnote"), updated to use template:blp0 and other warnings in the series. Since the same template is being used, it's not at all odd that the function would have the same name. If you look at User:John254/monobook.js vs User:Erik9/monobook.js, you'll see that Voice of All's script was modified in quite divergent directions. Erik9 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that nags at me as I'm reading all this- Erik9 clearly has extensive knowledge of John245 and Kristen's work and history on Wikipedia for having "looked there (at the Wikipedia Review) just a moment ago". And the evidence combined with the checkuser review is pretty strong, too strong to be a coincidence in my opinion. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the likelihood of all these points being mere coincidence is fairly low. I really wish there were some stronger "evidence", but the volume of weaker evidence may make up for that fact. Shereth 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, if you want to get out of this alive, here's what you must do: start editing naked short selling and related articles. Mantanmoreland socks require higher standards of evidence. Shhh, don't tell anyone. --NE2 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Hit the button. Wknight94 ^talk 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Cool Hand Luke emailed me at 18:33 UTC with an allegation that I was John, so I had more time to research this than would be apparent from the timing of his report here. Erik9 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you tell them that, Luke, when people were claiming that I knew all too much about this John fellow? Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Like you said, I didn't initially tell you who we suspected. I did not tell you that the suspect was John254 until you refused to appeal your ban. That was 18:33, less than half an hour before the first post. You apparently were not aware of it until at least 18:38. I'm also impressed with how quickly you've "learned" about John254. Your post above at 9:13 raises points we hadn't considered in spite of discussing this for several days. Cool Hand Luke 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this. The Kristen sock's style of defense is alarmingly similar to the one Erik9 is fleshing out right now. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you both have the exact same function "blpn", not present in any other user script page. That doesn't really count as "divergent directions". decltype (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Well, in the John254 and KE thread I was on the cautious side with respect to blocking and banning. Shall I now assume that non-admin AFD closing has become a common pastime in the mentioned metropolitan area? --Tikiwont (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this -- a decision has already been made, it seems. By the way, don't forget to deflag my bot account and empty the now unmaintainable Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) - just trying to be helpful :) Erik9 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)What a very odd way of addressing a sockpuppet accusation against yourself.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Has Erik9 editor been involved in any inappropriate edits? Or are we just trying to block them for coming back without our knowing? If they obey the rules I don't see what the big deal is. I don't see an allegation that they are using multiple accounts (socking), just that they were able to get around a block or ban to edit in good faith. Isn't that what many editors here have done? If they edit in good faith then it's not clear that they should have been blocked or banned in the first place. Aren't these measures supposed to be preventative? Now we (apparently) know who we're dealing with, we can keep a close eye on their edits. Asking for an admission of guilt is ridiculous when all it will do is get the party blocked. I don't see what blocking them now accomplishes. Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, if we presume for a moment that the ban in the first place was made for a good reason, then continuing that ban seems to be a good idea. That is, if the ban is a legitimate mean to a legitimate end, then continue the mean.--Tznkai (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the ban was appropriate or not, if the offending behaviors aren't repeated then I don't see an issue. But as Cool Hand Luke points out there are some problematic behaviors that have to be addressed. I should have read the statement more carefully. I was preoccupied with investigating and addressing the "socking" allegation (socking is not an accurate term in this case. It's really more about returning to edit under a new account). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• CoM: Yes. I put that right up front. The account has been disruptive at RFAR, fanning the flames of disputes that had subsided. He's also been similarly disruptive at the recent MFD. At the least, I think he should be given editing restrictions to prevent disruption. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to COM: I was just having the same thought. We're pretty sure this is John, but he hasn't done anything really disruptive. Why don't we deal with the problematic Arbcom requests like we would any normal user? As long as Erik9 limits himself to one account I don't see an issue. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that approach. That's one of the reasons this was taken to the community. I would like to see editing restrictions to prevent disruption. And it would also be nice if Erik9 had a little more candor. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm less ok with it. The level of deception and effort to maintain that deception suggest that the user is likely to disrupt. Socking like this is also inherently disruptive to consensus building processes.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On principle I dislike the notion of ratifying a banned user's surreptitious return. Especially when the problematic behavior hasn't entirely ended: he was highly disruptive at the Scientology case workshop and resumed poking hornets' nests with disruptive RFAR filings. To John: have a look at the Wikipedia:Standard offer essay. Abide by its terms and email me in 3 or 6 months (depending on whether you build a good history at a sister WMF project); if everything checks out I'll initiate your unban request myself. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com accepted a similar offer and came back after a very long ban. There's an honest way to return. Shoot straight with us and we'll be fair. Durova³²⁰ 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's reading this, I think he should strongly consider Durova's kind offer. I tend to understate things a lot. Asking for "a little more candor" is a polite way of saying he needs full disclosure and to put his games behind; and only then would it be appropriate to discuss editing restrictions. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, editing restrictions can be overcome. Nearly a year ago the community brought back another editor after a pretty lengthy ban. He had a topic ban and a mentorship for a while but has graduated from both and now edits without restriction. Has earned barnstars. We just want to know things are on the level and have confidence the problems will end. Durova³²⁰ 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it as ratifying bad behavior. I think the focus should be on getting editors to abide by our policies. If there's no way to do that then banning is the only option. But if a banned or blocked user returns to edit in good faith without our knowlege it seems to me to indicate there is no reason to punish them when we catch them other than to remind them that we expect them to avoid a return to the problematice behaviors. I don't see a benefit to punitive action. Asking for candor when a confession results in a bad outcome for the editor involved seems kind of ridiculous and is a practice engaged in by some of the most despicable regimes. A better option would be to make a reasonable offer conditional on coming clean. I see all stick and no carrot. There's a huge incentive to IP hop, and no incentive to be upfront and work with the community to find an appropriate remedy such as mentorship. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 came to my attention by non-admin closing an AfD early. When I asked him/her to reopen the AfD so I could make a comment, s/he refused. I went to Deletion Review, where I was criticised for bringing it to DR until I put forward evidence that Eric9 made a regular practice of closing AfDs early (see the second entry). Then consensus shifted to the view that Eric9 should ease up on the practice of early closure. To me the whole episode was indicative of a person who is a compulsive editor. Should this editor ever be brought back, s/he should be restricted from closing AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To CoM: banned users don't get to use sock accounts as bargaining chips to broker a return. I'm more impressed when a banned user respects community consensus by editing productively at any of the other WMF sites where their participation is welcome. Durova³²⁰ 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, ChildofMidnight, you're seeing the stick because Erik9 had already refused the carrot. I wanted to make disclosure his best option, but he chose to persist in this game.

Email request to Erik9
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Erik9: The Arbitration Committee suspects that you are a returning user who has not disclosed your prior account. While this alone might not be cause for concern, we believe that you are resuming behaviors that have proved disruptive in the past. In particular: Filing requests that are unwanted by any of the parties. ArbCom is a forum for dispute resolution, not a venue re-stoking old quarrels that are otherwise at the point of dissipating. Injecting yourself into numerous disputes by filing statements and recommending remedies. This is especially disruptive when the parties' dispute has already subsided. Clerking cases, even though you are not a clerk. This doesn't save time because the official assigned clerk has to recheck your work. It also confuses participants, especially when you are acting as a party in the case. If this is true, we ask that you immediately retire your account so that you can request unban by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). Please disclose all prior accounts--including accounts that you may have run simultaneously. The BASC will work with you to unban your account, but there will almost certainly be conditions on your return. For example, BASC may require an away period and/or restrictions on participating in ArbCom cases. More importantly, we believe that your previous accounts should be publicly disclosed to the community--particularly if you intend to request adminship. If you refuse to cooperate, an arbitrator will take this matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. The community will be asked to determine whether User:Erik9 is an undisclosed sock of a particular banned user and to apply appropriate sanctions if so. We believe that this is a worse alternative because it will attract unnecessary attention and drama. We're contacting you because we hope this can be resolved more quietly. If you have any questions, please contact us. We hope to hear from you shortly.

The reply to this message was that they were not a banned user, and that we should conduct this publicly.

Erik9 still has the opportunity to request an unban. I hope that he does it as Durova suggests, after several months of good work on another project, and with honesty. There are success stories. Cool Hand Luke 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 blocked

I've indefinitely blocked the Erik9 (talk · contribs) account given the evidence and responses here. I don't particularly see the purpose of the Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) category at all, but that's a discussion for a different venue. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That leave Erik9bot (talk · contribs) which needs a block, a de-rollbackering, and a crat to de-bot. Also, Erik9 (talk · contribs) needs a de-righting by an admin. MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Erik9bot. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence looks convincing to me, so block endorsed. As for the category, banned users can have their work reverted or deleted regardless of the merits of the edits. So you should have the green light to delete the category (unless you think others would find it useful). Spellcast (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot blocked by another admin, most recent edit rolledback by me because it was used to evade.--Tznkai (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the category, it's a good one to keep (although it could use a rename). There's been multiple requests at WP:BOTR for it. I'll start another one to try and get a eager bot op. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in particular I'm trying to figure out why the category was ever created / implemented. Is anyone actively using it? At a minimum, it needs to be renamed to a generic name; but really I don't see much reason at the moment to not simply get rid of it altogether. That said, it's used on over 140,000 pages currently, so we should be sure before doing any mass actions. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of support for a bot-maintained list of unsourced articles. However, there are improvements that could be made to the way Erik9bot used to categorise them, for example, the pages could be categorised into sub-categories depending on the topic. However, this isn't really the venue, please add any comments/suggestions you have to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_take_over_categorising_unsourced_articles_from_User:Erik9bot. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MZM: I didn't get that either. Seemed like redundant busywork. The new bot proposal looks more promising though. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The category can just be merged with the normal category where we have all unreferenced articles. The special category was a way to distinguish mass bot edits from the other ones. Can someone provide me a link for why User:John254 was banned? IF it was just "multiple accounts" we can check if Erik9 participated in xfDs or discussions. Maybe the ban could be reduced to something else. I don't know the case but Erik9 was/is very active in janitorial stuff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• A category of unreferenced articles is useful. I disagree with this block and it seems to me there is a double standard compared to the the treatment of a former Arbcom member who WAS caught socking with multiple simultaneous accounts and who wasn't just a banned or blocked user returning. I see a lot of evidence this editor was doing some good work. The focus should have been on addressing the problematice behaviors instead of taking punitive action. They'll be back. The indefinite block seems particularly pointless, silly and counterproductive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with you that they'll be back, and I wanted it your way, but they refused to come clean. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We took that the attitude that we weren't interested in "bargaining". Why on earth would they come clean? I didn't see anything on offer and with the options available I'm not surprised at all that they weren't willing to admit guilt and face a firing squad. Better to just create a new account with none of the baggage. I can't believe that after all the recent disclosures of editors not being who we thought they were that we're still taking the cat herding approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova's "standard offer" (which is a very reasonable one) was put to them. Is that not enough? What do they expect, truffles and some after eights? Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We were attempting to bargain though. See message above. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if other users criticize me for attempting to bargain. I thought it was the best thing for the project, and so I made the offer before bringing it to ANI. Other might believe that we should have just done that or SPI to begin with, or even block with instructions to contact ArbCom. This was the best opportunity we could possibly offer, and it was rejected. Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed both technically and behaviorally that Erik9 is extremely likely to be almost beyond doubt the same user. I have rechecked the basis of the technical evidence (per CHL) which is fairly compelling already, and added to it some rather striking further evidence for other checkusers to review; each appear fairly conclusive. I tend to agree that given Erik9's responses, they do not suggest much chance of a forthright discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read the email to Erik9. This mess up with the ArbCom it's a reason for a ban. I striked out my suggestion above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved?

Problem solved The same editor will be back (today? tomorrow?) with a completely new account and none of the baggage. We had an opportunity to see if we could help someone who spends lots of time on-wiki editing. We would have known who they are and had access to their full history. We could have worked with them to improve their approach moving forward. Instead we encourage them to continue cheating. Remember kids, next time, don't get caught!

Such is the way of Wiki justice. If we repeat newspeaky statements like "an indefinite block is not forever" enough times does it start to make sense?

I think it would be better to use "blocks pending evidence of reform". I would ask editors to stay away for a while and meet specific conditions to work their way back. Instead we ask that they confess their sins so we can have the additional pleasure of gloating as we banish them to the wilderness for months at a stretch. The simpletons will be stuck out there while those with any computer skills can return the same day.

I hope George Orwell is laughing as he looks down on us. "Agree to our terms and you'll only have to stay away for 6 months"? What a joke. I look forward to following the sock sleuthing of those who supported this "remedy". What a waste of time. Durvoa can name a couple "success" stories of this method. I can name dozens of examples demonstrating it works just as well as the war on drugs.

If the policy is to push troublemakers to keep getting fresh starts why don't we just state that? If you get into trouble or get caught returning before a block has expired just start over with a completely new account and make sure we don't catch you. Maybe we should put it on the pages we post to instruct new editors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to get into the larger argument here, but I've yet to see where Orwell references do anything but irritate people and otherwise inflate the rhetoric over the operation of a website.--Tznkai (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work in comparisons to Chairman Mao's focus on getting the accused to admit their crimes and the Soviet Union's use of gulags, but I couldn't get it quite right. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with ChildofMidnight but at least at this discussion Erik9 had to admit that he created a new account and doesn't wish to do what he did before. As far as I understand now he follows the same string of actions that caused his ban the last time. I really would like to see him unbanned and keep his janitorial work as he did the last months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can't trust a user to act within the bounds of Wikipedia's etiquette about not editing when blocked or banned, how can we trust them to act within the bounds of etiquette about getting consensus? Or NPOV? Or.. well..anything really? I personally consider Durova's "standard offer" to be light, comparatively. There has to be trust amongst editors, and someone who serially breaks that trust makes Wikipedia that much poorer. SirFozzie (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How does it encourage trust when you push people to edit under new identities without disclosing their history? You're just encouraging subterfuge. According to your logic on who we can trust there are NUMEROUS admins that can't be trusted based on their KNOWN hisories, not to mention all the ones we don't know about. Isn't it preferable to have someone edit with a known account where we know the history? The standard offer is a joke and is totally unrealistic. Are you ready to take a 6 month break Fozzie?

For an editor who is only interested in working on a narrow range of articles you may be able to keep catching them. But for anyone who is flexible and has wide interests you're just pushing them to create whole new identities and promoting lawlessness by refusing to engage in sensible reform. We need to compromise our high but unrealistic standards and accept that we're dealing with humanoids. I wonder how many admins have undiclosed histories and are editors who have returned after being blocked or banned? What message does it send that it's better to hide your past than to be honest about it? The number we catch indicates is small compared to all those who remain in the shadows. Not to mention that the more cheating we encourage the better people get at it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Time away from wiki is quite satisfying actually.--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I already had a six month break, pretty much, thanks already *grins*... It's not whether I want a six month break, or even is Erik9/Kristen/John wants a break, it's whether he has the approval/support of the community at large. If they don't have that, if the community (or the Arbitration Committee, who is elected by the community) does not think that they can be trusted to edit constructively UNDER WIKIPEDIA'S RULES AND ETTIQUETTE then that's that.

Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it's a privilege, and that privilege can and will be revoked if it is misused. I have seen multiple users where hundreds of socks were used in an attempt to sock their way around a block/ban. Either we have rules that we follow, or we embrace total and complete anarchy. If someone wants to come back and be a active contributing editor, that's great.. but we need some evidence that they won't fall back into the disruptive behaviour that caused them to lose the trust of the community. The standard offer is a light way around that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can revoke that editor's editing privleges and I don't prescribe to the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil school of enforcement. But we'll see. I'd prefer we reform editors and bring them into the light rather than keep pushing them to the fringes and into the shadows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We tried, and he refused. If he had edited non-disruptively, this wouldn't have been an issue. If he had admitted it and worked with arbcom, this could have been handled quietly. But he apparently prefers to play games. There's not much else we can do. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim, but I just looked at their user talk page and at least one editor thought they would make a good admin candidate. The picture on their userpage also indicates to me that they would have been okay with having their history known. The accusation keeps being made that they insisted on being deceptive, but I don't see that they had any choice. The choice we're offering is 6 month cold turkey or hop to a new account and keep their identity a secret (which of course requires lying if anyone asks and engaging in some deception to cover their tracks). I'm not trying to make y'all mad, I just don't think that's a reasonable offer. Fayssal asks below what offer I would make so here it is: I would ask them nicely if they'd be willing take a week off, come clean about who they are, accounts they've used in the past, and any sock accounts they have. They need to agree to avoid engaging in the problematic behaviors noted by Cool Hand Luke and be willing to take some regular breaks from editing if the addiction is itself part of the problem. I'm not sure on the last part, but the rest seems pretty reasonable. I would also assign them a mentor. GTBacchus indicated some willingness to take on being a mentor so he might be someone to ask. If people want to stand by the ban knowing that they'll be back unbeknownst to us then so be it. I'd love it if they e-mailed me so I could track how long it takes before they're at RfA and I'd like to see if it is successful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the email I posted above? We were not demanding a 6 month ban, nor were we persecuting a purely productive user. They were disruptive in similar ways as their old accounts—that's the only reason it even came to our attention. And even then, several arbitrators thought it was appropriate to give them a face-saving way out. They refused. One week with full disclosure and editing restrictions was open for debate, but it was rejected. Jeez, they could still email ArbCom if they wanted. They could have done that at any point since January. But they did not.

Until they make some showing that they've actually moved on, there's no need for you to argue in favor of their hypothetical appeal. You have to demonstrate good behavior before you get "time off for good behavior." Cool Hand Luke 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got as far as the "we ask that you immediately retire your account so that you can request unban by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC)" and started rolling my eyes. Sorry if that sounds dickish, but it seemed like an enormous amount of bother for someone who has demonstrated that they can start editing under a new identity at will. I've read beyond that now and I don't see anything specific on offer. It's all rather nebulous. I don't know about you, but I'm also cautious about who I start e-mailing. So I'm not surprised that the editor chose to roll the dice knowing they were busted. They may even have preferred just starting over. But at the very least I would have put something on the table to see if they were willing to meet us halfway and turn over a proverbial new leaf without having to go into the witness relocation program. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they knew that they were busted, but they still had a way out. Would you prefer that we tell disruptive socks that we value them more than those who play by the rules? In effect, we do, you know. I modestly don't think it's good for the morale of the project. Cool Hand Luke 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL I don't ask or expect you to agree with me, but please reread what I wrote and consider it. Nowhere do I suggest that I like disruptive socks. Were they using multiple accounts at the same time? If not I don't think the term socking is accurate and it is at the very least misleading. (cont. below...)

The same editor will be back (today? tomorrow?) with a completely new account and none of the baggage. Well, the problem is not that a new account will be created because any potential new account behaving in a similar disruptive way will be dealt with in a similar fashion. The socking issue here is too secondary; it is not the main concern. Disrupting the process with three different accounts is a very bad sign and it is a nuisance to many editors. The user in question is experienced enough to understand that he needs to reform before coming back. He had a good chance today and I personally was thinking that he'd say sorry and promise to stop disrupting when answering the ArbCom e-mail. He chose to not to answer and instead he was at the MfD claiming that another user has federal powers and believing ArbCom came to the rescue of the other editor. This is not a game as everyone here got plenty of positive stuff to do instead of wasting our time here.

There were two offers on the table; that of ArbCom and the Durova one which is still open I suppose. If you want to help him reform, please put your offer on the table (mentorship or whatever). Otherwise, please let's move on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia:Standard offer remains on the table. Its time frame begins whenever he decides to stop socking and accept it. No apology required. Durova³²⁰ 01:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

whenever he decides to stop socking... and disrupting! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There ain't much fine print to the offer, but that's part of the deal. :) Durova³²⁰ 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Continued from right margin above) I've tried to make it clear that I have a strong preference for knowing who I'm dealing with and addressing problems out in the open. That's why I'm advocating reforms and encouraging a better way of working out these issues instead of sweeping them under the carpet and having to stay on constant alert with paranoia in never ending spy game. Speaking of which, I'd love to have a check user do some checking up on various accounts. How strong do my suspicions have to be to support an investigation? I'd like to know that the editors I deal with are on the up and up. And how do I stop mailing lists and collaborations devloped off-wiki and in chat rooms? Maybe we should fix what we can control and instead of being inhospitable to those with imperfections?

The reason that it's not necessary to make the conditions more substantial is : 1) we can't stop them from editing and 2) editing with their known history already provides an enormous deterent to repeating the poor behavior and is in and of itself a hardship that they will have to overcome by earning back good faith.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope my fellow arbitrators are amused by this conversation—I agree with you in principle, and I was actually making those arguments a short while ago. I believe we should accommodate users who want reform, which is why we even bothered to send the email. I don't think that we should break our spines bending backwards though. Cool Hand Luke 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, maybe it would help to explain the wikiphilosophy behind Wikipedia:Standard offer. An individual's dedication to the project is not (by itself) enough to succeed as an editor here. Sooner or later we each find ourselves on the short end of a consensus decision. Most of us accept the outcome (perhaps with bit of grousing) and move on. A few refuse to take no for an answer. Edit warring, Reichstag climbing, incivility, etc. are all variants of a refusal to accept the word no. Good content work does earn extra chances because we like to keep productive people, but no one deserves an indefinite license to act out. We all get a voice in creating site policies; it's possible to improve those policies when they are really wrong. This website is not an anarchy. Occasionally someone goes so far that we show them the door. Yes they could return through the window, but that'll get their hands dirty and tear their trousers at the knee. We can show them the door again (sometimes hundreds of times) until they understand that it really is much less stressful to take time out and then knock at the front door. That shows they're willing to respect limitations--to observe the same rules that apply to the rest of us. And that's when they deserve a respectful welcome. Durova³²⁰ 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This event deeply disappoints me. Erik9 was the one who filed an arbitration request where I was heavily involved (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118) even though he had not been involved in that dispute. In that case the request was not frivolous, indeed it ended with a conclusion along the lines requested by Erik9 (as well as myself, SarekOfVulcan, and Scjessey who were also involved). The main problem with this discovery is that it lends unnessecary credence to 194x's stance that there was a conspiracy to get him through improper means. I am surprised at the choice of arena. I would think that a "secret comeback" ought to stay far away from ArbCom, and not doing so can only be explained by an excessive interest in the drama of conflict resolution. I don't see any point in endorsing or opposing the block since the policy is quite clear about what "banned" means. Regarding the possibility of a future unban, I agree with Durova's postings in this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The past behavior of John254/Kristen Eriksen shows a keen interest in drama, yes. That case was certainly an example of that. They started an even bigger feud in the Scientology arbitration that mystified users on both sides, tried the clerks, and was enormously disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight: Personally, I see this as a classic example of WP:BEAR. The very nature of our site's registration system is that nearly anyone can game it given enough time and energy. The idea behind blocks and bans is to prevent disruption (usually, at least). If someone gets indefinitely blocked, returns and edits productively in a different area, nobody will be the wiser about their previous history. But in cases like this, Erik9 deliberately went around poking the bear (ArbCom in this case) by filing frivolous requests and doing other similarly-boneheaded things. If he had stuck to bot work, he very likely could've gotten adminship and nobody would have cared. But he chose to "piss on the wall of the police station" instead, and, yeah, that usually has negative consequences. I don't see this as a particular failing of Wikipedia's account registration system (it was either already broken or already working long before Erik9 arrived). This is simply a failure on this person's ability to stay the hell away from certain areas. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. People are overlooking the fact that it's not the socking, but the return to the negative behavior that is the problem. Using The Simpsons as an example, it's rather like Milhouse's dad in A Milhouse Divided, where he quarrels with his wife until they get divorced. His blank incomprehension when he gets fired from his job at the cracker factory (a job his wife's father got him) is the best lesson. Everybody is a "big wheel down at the cracker factory" here. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd edits by new account

• A conundrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IS making a vast number of edits in a very short time frame - I have blocked for 3 hours until we can investigate. Manning (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock of John254/Erik9. This can be a {{checkuserblock}}. Risker (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess this means John254 (talk · contribs) has chosen not to take up the above Wikipedia:Standard offer. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still on the table. He's just reset the clock on its start. ;) Durova³²⁰ 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted their edits, per the request at the bottom of this page, the fact that they are the sock of a banned user, and the fact that this category (which they were removing) may be helpful (as noted in a section higher up). Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting development

Anyway, Wikipedia:Standard offer has been mentioned above, and I'd like to comment. It can work, but it's tough. It needs to be tough (other project work should be *required*). I was indefed on the last day of March, 2008; see the eight-month-long dip in my en:wp editing here (I was unblocked for a few days in May). I didn't create another account, as John/Erik has (although I went that route some years ago). I went to Commons (spike!), to id:wp (almost 40% template edits) and then to wikisource.^+mop

I was unbanned on en:wp in December 2008 largely due to having done good work elsewhere, being honest, and listening. My account is activated on 167 different projects and I've made non-trivial edits on close to half of them. For some, a ban is The End. I coined the term "Single Project Account" for such folks. This is the 800lb gorilla and that is what attracts many and is the core reason for what we're currently calling a "Toxic Environment". Our size is the root of a lot of problems. Bans serve multiple purposes. The proximate one is to end some objectionable behavior. In some cases, it can also serve to widen an editor's perspective. There are hundreds of other projects for banned editors to work on to earn another shot at this project, but many have no interest in anything but the big baby; many of them are merely here to push a POV, to exploit disagreements and inflame situations. These all amount to trolling and online lulz.

Bans should be easier to impose. There are many editors here who need it. If they go away and develop as editors elsewhere, they can probably be allowed to return. If they are truly interested in the foundation's broader goals, they will be able to do this. If they're not, the ban adheres and the socks get whacked, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said! I wish that everyone who has been indefinitely block/banned and resorted to socking would take these words to heart. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So we make it tough on known accounts to come back to editing after agreeing to mentoring and reform. But if they come back surreptitiously, avoid disrupting (at least enough not to get caught) they have our blessing? Surreal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack, thanks very much for posting. It reminds me you deserve a barnstar for the successful return. Durova³²⁰ 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, that's the way the whole world works. People who avoid paying their taxes don't have to give up their income and are forced to lie about it to stay out of jail. Of course you can benefit from breaking the rules, that's why people break them. Nobody is giving someone a "blessing" by secretly socking and staying out of trouble, but by staying under the radar they get away with it. Again, that's just how things are, and that's not restricted to Wikipedia. Your alternative of amnesty, however, would just embolden bad behavior. -- Atama頭 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I object to amnesty. The status quo and what you and Durova are arguing is that we make reform and accountability back breaking. But if an editor returns surreptitiously they get total amnesty and a clean slate with none of us having any idea who they are. I prefer transparency and accountability. I don't understand why we're encouraging people to cheat. And as far as the comparison to taxes, incentives are made and deals brokered to encourage the filing of back taxes and to push people to come clean. What's the point in setting up a whole bunch of disincentives to fixing wrongs? Why are we just pretending that this approach is working when it isn't? We've decided to do away with plea bargains in favor of summary judgment, except that we have no way of carrying out these severe sentences except on editors who are unable or incapable of figuring out how get around it (which also makes enforcement very unfair). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty means forgiving a person's wrongful deeds. If a person sneaks back into the project, that's not amnesty, because if they get caught they'll get blocked. I hope you forgive the analogy, but this is very much like immigration. I do not want to hijack this debate with real-life politics, so please forgive me, but it's a pretty close analogy. Wikipedia is not unlike a country that has deported someone for breaking the law. For the person to come back and request "citizenship", certain restrictions are requested. Instead of going through that process, the person has sneaked over the border with a false identity and was caught. What you're suggesting is to ignore all of their past crimes because they haven't committed any new ones since they sneaked back in, even though hopping the border is itself a crime. Obviously, to any reasonable person what you propose is the textbook definition of amnesty, however you want to twist things.

I realize that Wikipedia doesn't have a system of law, and doesn't give out punishments. Wikipedia only wants to prevent disruption and any actions taken against editors are meant to stop current disruption and prevent future disruption. But I still think it's a very apt analogy to make regardless. Just as with immigration, if the rules aren't enforced they cease to have meaning. Perhaps you want to change the rules to make it easier, but do you really want an unrepentant sockpuppet around? And as Durova stated, eventually these people do cause disruption, as we saw yet again in Erik9's case. -- Atama頭 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On a practical level, most banned users who sock return to problematic behavior. An arbitration case from 2007 makes an interesting example: midway through the case checkuser discovered that one of the parties was the reincarnation of a community banned editor who had previously been disruptive at baseball articles and returned to disrupt football articles. The sock of the banned editor and a different shadowy IP editor had been trolling a productive editor who was trollable. After those two irritants were removed the remaining editor reformed and has over 50,000 edits now. Either of those banned editors could probably return by now if they asked for reinstatement, but apparently their priorities are elsewhere. Durova³²⁰ 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I've done the exact same things administering online games: when people are banned, there exists a tacit agreement that if no one can tell who they are, there are no search parties, no mobs with torches and pitchforks, but as soon as the identification is made, the old sanctions snap back. It's freeing for two reasons: 1) No vindictiveness. If you're always hunting for bannees, you're handing them your attention span and letting them drive the agenda--just let it go. 2) Addicts will always be recognized, but those who can engage in self-management can slide under the radar. This may seem counterintuitive, but it ends up serving the purposes for which the ban was enacted--bans aren't about punishing individual people, they're about enforcing social control and discouraging behavior forbidden by the community. It requires one allow for a second-order effect to be the real goal, but it's really subtly effective. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks ;)

Someone who reacts to a ban by socking has not learned anything, they've not developed; they just want to keep playing whatever their game is. This is why they get caught again, too. John/Erik above filed the E&C 2 case that I was involved in and he aggressively sought the deletion of a page in my user space. He returned to a lot of his prior areas, like filing a lot of RfAr requests. This attracted scrutiny. He skipped the crucial step of developing as an editor.

I've tried that. Socking is an awkward business. You have to act — stay in character and manage your image. You have to consider every edit and the odds that it might show your true self. It is fundamentally at odds with honesty because being honest will get you caught; being yourself will get you caught. For some, I expect, this is just more game-play, which they enjoy. I didn't enjoy it and I was indefed when I came clean. While there were a fair number of folks who were pretty sure that I was a sock, it's possible that I could have lied my way through it. I do not regret it; it felt good. As they say, confession is good for the soul.

There are very good reasons to leave the easy door to socking available to the Indonesian: nakal anaks (mischievous children); the same reason we leave admins the ability to unblock themselves: it's a test. Those that take the easy route exhibit their true colors. My intentions have always been good, but the means I employed were unacceptable. My time in bantown was good for me; I understand the foundation's goals and projects far better for having been given a compelling reason to go do appreciated work elsewhere. I have learned that there are good people here who can be trusted and who share my goals.

There are certainly others who will read this who have significant experience on other projects, but the vast majority of editors on en:wp have never even looked at another project. They have little idea that they even exist and no idea what they are like. News Flash: This is the only toxic wiki. The others are all very mellow places. Take id:wp, for example. In Indonesian culture, aggressive behavior is considered unacceptably rude and outright vulgar. Grawp followed me there and went on a few sprees. Most folks were aghast; they had never seen such uncivilized behavior. It's no secret what culture produced our unwelcome troll. Why do we have so much toxic behavior? My view is that it is an aspect of an affluent society with an abundance of leisure time and which has a long history of escapist behaviors. I am from one such society, but I live in a much more relaxed one, now. I am also in a very different time zone than most en:wp editors and this means I don't see most of the drama 'live'. The whole Erik9 business landed and was all over before I saw any of it, and I read the whole story as a piece. I edit when most editors here are asleep and I see a mellower en:wp than most of you do. So I see that this place can work; all it takes is for the littluns to not be editing.

We let (most) anybody edit and that includes malactors of all sorts. When a pattern of problematic behavior is identified and other efforts to correct it have been unsuccessfully tried, it is quite appropriate to ban an editor. If they are serious, they will learn from it, and if that is demonstrated on one of the other projects, a return should be considered. The road back is a winding one, full of ruts and mud. This is to sort the serious from the not serious; most will not make it. I have long said that Wikipedia has scalability issues. This is not just about the proliferation of less than appropriate articles; it includes the concern that too many problematic editors are tolerated for too long. A ban is not the end of the world if the person is serious; it is a demand that they pay attention to the other serious people and wise up. Some will fail this test, which is good; it improves the caliber of editors here and reduces the ambient toxicity of the environment. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at MTV Roadies

This edit contains what appears to be a threat of legal repercussions. Not sure how it can be redacted given it's in an edit summary. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Superduperblah of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have left a link to WP:No legal threats on their talkpage, and strongly hinted that they should withdraw their comments (although, as an edit summary, it cannot be easily removed). If they don't, then I think the next admin who reviews this matter should decide whether an indef block is due. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• As that "next admin", my opinion, given this edit, in particular its edit summary, as well as the edit history of the article concerned, is that Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats applies here. Taking the self-profession of working for MTV at face value (an assumption that may well be false, note), the problem here is that some people are repeatedly changing all of the external links on the article to point to a FaceBook page. Superduperblah (talk · contribs) is not the only editor to tackle this. See this edit by A3RO, for example. Legal threats are not the way to address this, of course, as A3RO demonstrates. And as LessHeard vanU points out, there should be not a single one more from Superduperblah.

  And whilst we're at it, there should be no more promotional content such as "the community sees the best action on Roadies outside of the TV screen!" and "this community is the one stop shop to discuss Roadies". No wonder other editors are editing this content. It's MTV advertising copy, for which Wikipedia is not the place. A conflict of interest is causing unverifiable claims that are not in accordance with the Neutral Point of View to be added, here. This, too, must stop now. Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've taken the liberty of cutting the section out of the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another IP legal threat

See here. I am assuming this warrants an instant blocking. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As this is a repeat offense from this IP, I've blocked for 1 year with a note saying unblock if the legal threat is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a threat to sue WP, though, but the movie studio - and what's this thing about holding 5 people hostage and blowing up Air Force One? Tim Song (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to wikilawyer but as the threat was not actually directed at Wikipedia or anyone related, I don't think we're entitled to block. Of course getting blocked for being a terminal whack-job is another matter. As there is a threat against Air Force One we are sort of obligated to alert the FBI I believe. Manning (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:TOV will get you blocked too. Unfortunately, I have an early meeting and I don't have time to contact the FBI this morning. https://tips.fbi.gov/ is the place to start. Can someone initiate this? Toddst1 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To say what? Someone said something silly on the internet? best of luck with that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. They take it seriously. See reports of UK children being warned by US agents because they emailed hoax death threats to the President of the US. By reporting silly comments you're not saying that you think they are anything other than silly. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, reality check. The block was good, but don't overreact here. This wasn't a legal threat, it was vandalism. The 1 year block is good, as a {{schoolblock}}; nothing but vandalism, from (obviously) the same person, for the last year. But don't waste the police's time on idiocy from a punk. Please don't unblock if the threat is revoked, but instead insist on {{second chance}} or some other evidence the IP will not vandalize anymore. It's a vandalism issure, not a legal or FBI issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - Have to disagree, ALL TOVs have to be taken seriously - its always been that way. In the (highly unlikely) event any of this is serious and we fail to report it, Wikipedia could be criminally liable. Todd - I'm reporting it now. Manning (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly your call, as an individual, if you really view this as a credible threat. But I disagree that an obviously vandalistic threat from a bored kid obligates us somehow to report it. I guarantee that dozens of similar attention-seeking "threats" are simply reverted every day. If it were a real TOV, or even a possibly real TOV, I wouldn't argue, but this isn't even close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Best to also inform NATO and the UN since this user has also started on a course leading to World War III.[22] Do they have a hotline? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with manning. I am not sure if he filed his complaint or not but I did as well. Air Force one has to do with my president and I will not allow terroristic threats made towards him.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to report this to the proper authorities, instead of to ones on completely the wrong continent, the the ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for Astley Bridge Police Station, Crompton Way, Astley Bridge Bolton, Greater Manchester BL1 8UN, is +44 161 856 5729. Anti-social behaviour, which almost certainly covers getting a lot of people around the world upset with kidnap and extortion threats, can be discussed with the neighbourhood team on +44 161 856 5761. Greater Manchester Police general non-emergency number is +44 161 872 5050. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Or you can report it to the US authorities who will take it seriously and do something, rather than over-worked under-staffed UK police who are too busy dealing with stabings and muggings to talk to someone writing silly shit on the Internet. See, for example, this 2001 news story on BBC website. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Michael Lobo was tagged with a copyright infringement tag. I have successfully modified the article and rewritten it at Talk:Michael Lobo/Temp. Can an admin remove the notice after checking it. Thanks, Slumdog102 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User causing problems

I am having certain difficulties with the user LAz17. He is persistent in his action to remove certain information from the article Boris Tadić. The content in question is important because it shows that the Russian president sent a very personal note to Tadic just a week before the election (these messages aren't that often, Putin didn't write any cards of that type to Tadic before or after) and this probably had some effect on the election results. This information stayed in the article since January 2008 and therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus but user LAz17 came up with "Stop the edits until we come to a concensus". Since when is this the way we go? Can I go to the article on Barack Obama and erase the information on endorsement and not let anyone put it back until the consensus is achieved? Well I am sorry but the consensus is already there. It is also properly sourced so removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is the most basic rule breaking. He came up with some rather confusing and funny arguments on my talk page, telling me how I inserted this information to the article on purpose in some kind of conspiracy - "This was for the sake of helping in his election campaign. If some random person comes and looks him up, they will think hey putin likes him, when in fact it is not the case." and other rants I simply can't respond to like "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied in the talk page of the article saying "on his future presidency". That is lying, and purpose. You knew it was false, and you both insisted that it is true, on purpose." as I have no idea what is he talking about. I am pretty certain that adding something that was reported widely in mass media to this article did not change the election results, maybe the act itself did but not my or edits of anybody else on Wikipedia.

I am writing here primarily because I want to avoid edit war and breaking the 3RR however I wont let this user abuse the lengthy process of problem resolving by leaving the article in the wrong state for a long period of time. Second reason to write here is the fact that this user is very difficult to talk to so any attempts to talk with him and come to the dispute resolution end up failing. This could be a tactic as well, he knows that if he refuses to communicate with others his version can stay for the long period of time. However this can't go on forever. This user has received sufficient number of warnings for his previous edits and usually stubbornness in pushing for certain extreme nationalist agenda that you can find on his talk page just searching for words like warning, block, ANI, AN/I etc., he was also reported here on AN/I before for incivility and was warned by admins consequently, then he received the final warning from some of the admins but didn't stop so he was finally temporarily blocked. Obviously this user still hasn't learned how to behave on Wikipedia and that it is not a playground for someone's nationalist or any other extreme views but an encyclopedia where we respect external sources and consensus not personal views and abusive behavior. Please take the necessary actions.--Avala (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not helpful but I can't resist: Wouldn't you expect problems from a problematic user? Sorry. Anyway, I see your dealings with this person take place on your user talk pages. You should probably bring up the issue on the article's talk page (Talk:Boris Tadić) instead, so that it's not just you and him arguing back and forth, and a wider consensus might be determined. This doesn't look like an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. It's just a content dispute. In addition to bringing the issue to the article talk page, you can further use the following avenues to resolve the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

As far as his alleged abuse of the system to keep bad information in the article while consensus is determined, well, generally that isn't considered a problem, for better or worse. Conflicts unfortunately take time to resolve, and while they are in progress, the "wrong" information might stay up (ie. the version you disagree with). WP:Don't panic. Equazcion (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that yes you should make an attempt to discuss the issue and involve other editors. Making an attempt at broad discussion helps your case. The past problems the editor has had don't really factor into this, at least not yet, as this is just a case of two people arguing over content. If he continues acting irrationally and other editors agree with you there, it'll be easier to get the content restored and take administrative action against him for acting against consensus.

I'm not an admin though. Maybe one of them has a different view. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try discussing the issue but I was slammed back with conspiracy theories. What if it takes some six months before we get a few editors willing to discuss this (I repeat we are supposed to discuss whether this information should be removed because it supposedly was inserted to change the election results)? This isn't the most active talk page you know. If we allow this, then we can allow anyone to carve out the article based on his personal irrational views and we tell the complaining user to discuss this, to try to achieve consensus. If the talk page is inactive and if the user in question is abusing the slow system we will have thousands of small articles basically vandalized with small hidden vandalism like removing a sentence or a two because other editors will have difficulties reinstating the information. If someone removes relevant and sourced content with irrational reason for doing that it is called vandalism, not content dispute. Otherwise half of the vandalism on Wikipedia can be labeled as content dispute ie. everything that is not complete page blanking or adding profanities.--Avala (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not resolved but was archived and since the user is continuing to twist the common sense (by seeking consensus to be achieved on the stable version, and acting that his version is the newly born one man consensus) and keeps on reverting my edits that are actually reverts of his blanking I am bringing it back here per agreement to come back if the irrational behavior continues. Please actually read everything above before deciding to take part in this by either archiving or telling me how it's all cool.--Avala (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked for page protection on the Boris Tadić page. I think both parties should be reminded of the 3RR rule here as both are clearly over the line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and warned both users of 3RR via TWINKLE. Avala, don't take it personal, it is just a standard warning. I wanted to cover all bases with the warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I made myself quite clear here what my intentions are and why I started the process (to not end up in an edit war and 3RR breach) and I think I presented the situation quite clearly. It's not my fault that it got archived with no resolution, and no response from an admin. All the other details are present above where I clearly explained what is the problem all about, why is not a content dispute but something that requires admin action which is long overdue, and why it can't be resolved through discussion with the other user (though I did try as well some other users involved) as the user in question is first of all irrational in the sense that he is twisting the situation so that according to him the stable version needs to be proven on talk page and not his recent blanking (which is in turn based on conspiracy theory that can not be a valid edit reason) and secondly because he has a history of disruptive behavior including several warnings, ANI reports and a block.

I am not taking the warning personally but I find it very unnecessary for a user (me) who brought the whole thing to your attention and for a user who brought it to your attention in order to avoid the thing that the warning is all about. Anyway I still thank you for some action because prior to it the only reaction from others was to dump this into archives or rename it.--Avala (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you are not an admin either? Will any admin appear on the Administrators' noticeboard?--Avala (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to post on the admin board. I am just here to help. It might be a couple before the admins and other users get out of bed. It is only 7am on the east coast of the US, only 11am in the UK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm awake. A few points: in response to your comment "therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus", consensus can change. User:Equazcion was quite right in advising that content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages and that you should invite broader community input so that you can establish whether or not consensus is still with the inclusion of that information. He gave you links to some places where you can invite wider community input so that you don't have to wait months for somebody to show up at the talk page. If consensus is reached and a contributor continues editing the article to promote his preferred version, you have clear evidence of disruption. In the absence of current consensus, except where clear vandalism is ongoing, you have a content dispute. This is not clear vandalism, as this individual has expressed reasons for the removal at your talk page and in edit summary (derived from WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Synthesis). This one has not crossed 3RR, but is an edit war nevertheless, and I have temporarily fully protected the article to allow time for the consensus to emerge. This does not mean that I am in support of your version; protection is applied to whichever version happens to exist at the time. Neither do I support his. But the two of you need to seek consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes consensus can change but if there is no consensus to change the consensus than it has to be sought on the talk page not through edit wars. And as for the reasons, I already said that anyone can disrupt WP then if we allow for the reason to be "you added this to the article so he could win the election" because that is a conspiracy theory and not a valid reason that can be discussed. As for reasons that were linking to Wikipedia policies they are bogus as the content has a source and it doesn't take more than a minute to check it if you don't believe me. Again anyone can go and disrupt Wikipedia and give a random Wikipedia policy as a reason. I could go and remove some well referenced content and say "no original research" but that is simply a fake reason as the content I removed has a source so I can't make a serious claim that I did it because it was original research. We should really sanction perjury in Wikipedia to avoid anyone disrupting Wikipedia based on completely false claims that have got absolutely nothing to do with the case in question. Imagine if I go and blank any page and say "NPOV" or remove half of some page and say "no original research", would admins really tell the user that would normally revert such an edit to discuss the issues of npov and nor with me? It's ridiculous. Also I don't see the point of directing me to talk with this user over and over again when from the first moment I said two things - first of all that I already tried talking to him so that is not a new idea, second of all it failed and not to my surprise knowing his history. Now I don't see the point in giving me optimistic proposals while you can yourself see it's going nowhere and while you yourself wouldn't be able to resolve the issue based on your suggestions. I appreciate that you are doing something here, but if this was so easily solvable you would have solved it yourself as a neutral party and good faith admin that wants disputes to be resolved as fast as possible but you know you can't solve it that way in situations like this. It's not that simple, actually nowhere near simple but probably impossible and that is why I came here.--Avala (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict; replying only to what you had originally written) I have all confidence that I would be able to resolve the issue based on my suggestions, and have resolved a number of issues using that very approach. I've volunteered my time at a number of boards created to help with these very kinds of situations: WP:3O, WP:BLPN, for two. Even as an admin, I frequently seek exactly this kind of assistance at WP:COIN. You may have tried talking to him, but if you have read "dispute resolution" then you should know that it doesn't stop there; the next step when two people don't agree is involving other contributors. This does not require administrator input; all contributors are equally welcome to contribute to consensus, and the fora that were recommended to you are good ones for getting exactly the kind of input you need. In the absence of current consensus, there is no unilateral disruption here. Neither of you is following Wikipedia:Consensus policy. The article is protected. While it is, you should seek to resolve your differences in accordance with that policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said was referring to directing me all the time to talk with him when I have already tried that and explained here why it doesn't work. As for the third party, I can only see one other editor that was involved in this same discussion and LAz17 wasn't any nicer to him either. This user is no longer active, edits only here and then. But LAz17 didn't forget him, though he didn't consider what was written to him as an argument, as a discussion but "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied ...". That's how he sees attempts to talk to him - as lies on purpose, the words he wrote more than a few times on my talk page.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page isn't necessarily about talking to him. It's about putting it where other contributors to the article can join the conversation...and, if necessary, requesting that others contribute. If two editors reach a stalemate on a matter of text in an article, additional editors can break the stalemate. At the point when, say, five editors agree that the material does or does not belong, it is no longer an edit war if the sixth continues to edit the article to push his or her preferred view. At the point that a contributor continues "to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors", you have disruptive editing, and then it is a matter for admin intervention. But clear consensus must exist before you have clear violation of consensus, and a conversation between three editors from January of 2008 does not establish clear consensus. That further conversation is needed is rather underscored by the fact that a fourth contributor has now weighed in and opposes the inclusion. It seems more discussion of the material is needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Avala - Please don't make changes to the archives. The header at the top of archive page that says not to do it is for-real. I hesitated to undo the edit, I don't want to make things worse.- Sinneed 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am sorry about that, didn't even notice. However much bigger problem in my opinion was dumping this into archives in the first place as it wasn't resolved.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A neurosurgeon said: "A hospital is where you go to get better. You go home to get well." - The article and the article talk page are eventually where the problems in the article will be resolved.

The admins can only do limited things to help. Like... protect the article in a random state to give time for editors to work out their differences without wp:edit warring. This is also a place where editors interested in helping with problems watch for problems with which to help.

In this case, the article is now protected, and you now have suggestions about how to move forward including avoiding wp:edit warring (no matter how right one is, edit war is not the way, and my revert button finger itches too) and possibly seeking help through wp:conflict resolution. I don't see either of you discussing the problem with the quote on the talk page during the edit war.- Sinneed 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no concensus. Avala specifically avoids the talk page, as there is no consensus. Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there. Putin in no way endorsed tadic, the letter he sent was mainly focused on business, particularly in the energy sector. The talk from the past agreed to remove the information, yet someone put it back. I was involved back then, and am involved again, in order to remove this POV. A discussion has reopened to discuss this matter on the talk page, and clearly Avala is ignoring it. So far the consensus on the talk page is that this should not be part of the article. But, Avala ignores it, as he has a POV which is one of tadic's supporters. This is quite significant, because it is well known that tadic's ideology is against russia, and that most serbian people want closer relations to russia. By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president. I do not endorse any political party, and tend to think that most politicians are bad, be it putin, tadic, obama, or others. The point is that supports of certain candidates must not be allowed to transform an article into their own POV propaganda. (LAz17 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)).

A 3rd opinion has been offered by user:No such user. I see there was discussion way back in Jan 2008 on this, with 2 editors for inclusion and one opposed, disagreeing about what the source said. There is now a new discussion area Talk:Boris Tadić#Putin stuff. Which, at this point, neither of the 2 in the current content dispute seem to have joined.- Sinneed 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of the IP's edit history strongly suggests one of them has. :) (Note I'm not suggesting sock puppetry, but more likely that somebody forgot to log in.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There were three users back then. Me, Avala, and some guy, Pax. I am not very familiar with pax, but he is a problematic user who has been banned in the past for having very many sock puppets. On top of that, his contribution in the discussion a complete lie. I exposed his lie, and he did not show up again in the discussion. He said that Putin congratulated Tadic on his future presidency, which clearly all sides here agree that he did not. Therefore Pax falls off as a legitimate/worthy source to get information from. Later avala insists that pax was correct about future presidency - and disappears from the discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

So does this diatribe claiming how I am "tadic's supporter" and "By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president." still leave any room for people to suggest to me to give another try to discussing the matter with this user? The second quote continues directly from the previous conspiracy that adding this information to the article helped or was intended to help change the election results (and now also includes elements of libel for calling Tadic a corrupt president, followed by funny claim of impartiality). So all my coherent arguments are countered with conspiracy theories, of attacks that I write "lies on purpose" or "Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there" etc. I assume good faith but I keep getting slapped.--Avala (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read of the text on this page about dispute resolution and the point of inviting other contributors? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How many people is enough for there to be a consensus? We got one third opinion, which sides with me. Do we need more? (LAz17 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Who is siding with you, we are discussing the issue. And how about you stomping over the user PaxEquilibrium and calling me and him liars on purpose etc. At that time you had a different logic.--Avala (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More can help. 2-1 is not a very strong consensus. There is nothing wrong with seeking additional feedback to more definitively settle the matter. Given the nature of the issues, you might want to ask for input at WP:NPOVN. Another good possibility is Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Please be sure to word any request civilly and neutrally to avoid canvassing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets get more people. The more the better. But, no matter how many you will get, Avala will not care. His arrogant responses to our first 3rd opinion is quite troubling. Lets get more. I am not good for finding people, as I do not go about wikipedia looking for people. I go about improving the place, not making friends or meeting users. Would some admin here be kind enough to find more people? But under the condition that it is not avala who is finding people to side with him, these people have to be neutral and not be his buddies. (LAz17 (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)).

I have courtesy-listed the matter at the content noticeboard, requesting feedback at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es

User Aradic-es was blocked 9 times so far, last time 03:39, 22 August 2009 for 2 weeks, so this ban lasted until 5 September 2009. Despite it, he made block evasions, he edited Wikipedia with an IP number 78.2.168.71 on 1 September 2009 and 78.2.189.68 on 24 August. Other users also noticed this block evasion and Aradic-es deleted it from his talk page to hide the evidence. He deleted a reference, and provided this article with incorrect informations again intentionally. He doesn't respect the rules of Wikipedia. Toroko (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Huge great muddle with Ottava Rima and others

User:New seeker

New seeker (talk · contribs)
I would like to point out this suspicious user. As a "new" user, their only edits have been edit warring and spamming WP:JNN on multiple AfDs. Could an admin decide how to handle this? Thanks, Triplestop x3 15:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered discussing your concerns with the user prior to filing an AN/I report? The user was (rightfully) blocked in July for 3RR violations but does not seem to have returned to overt edit warring. They seem to have some potential POV issues with some of their edits but again nothing blatantly disruptive, and no one has discussed any such issues with them. What "admin action" is necessary here? Shereth 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with suspected socks is that they always deny wrongdoing so it is best for a third party to investigate. Triplestop x3 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, quite a few of his "not notable" !votes have a rationale (i.e. [41]) and are thus not JNN. Black Kite 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a sense of déjà vu here. Compare the user's contribs to those by Myownusername (talk · contribs). MuZemike 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible, although that user's "contribs" were just JNNs. Perhaps they've realised why they were blocked the first time? Anyhow, that's only going to be resolved with a SPI report. Black Kite 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The user appears to be voting delete on AfDs close to completion; I do not see any significant overlaps between this user's votes and another's. Triplestop x3 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bwmoll3

This user has been falsely accusing me of vandalism for merging and redirecting Nothin' but the Wheel to Only What I Feel. I told him that I was sure to merge the content, and he's still accusing me of vandalism, saying "if you want to delete the page, we have a process, quit blanking it," treating me like I'm some clueless n00b. He is very defensive of every article he's ever made, and refuses to let me make a compromise even after multiple warnings about WP:OWN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. Warned him about edit warring, but you're right at the edge on those articles yourself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You say you merged the content -- where? I don't see it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted up the wahoo) I think Nothin' but the Wheel was to be merged into Only What I Feel. MuZemike 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I don't see that that was done. If it had been, this discussion would be a lot more clear-cut. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's this diff here. Pretty much a slight merge but with the stuff in the table being converted to prose. MuZemike 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I see it now. I saw that diff before, but somehow I missed the NBTW info. I agree, that's about all that was in there worth merging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified Bwmoll3 about this discussion. Bwmoll3, please read and understand how Merging pages works. When such as action is taken, content is preserved and not deleted. Also, do not accuse others of vandalism when the actions of whomever you have a disagreement is is clearly not vandalism. If you disagree with the merge, then bring it up at Talk:Only What I Feel and start a discussion there. It is clear that Ten Pound Hammer's intention is not to delete, so I don't know why you're trying to force that upon him. As far as that previous sentence is concerned, the same goes with you, TPH. Somebody please have some rational discussion on it and quit the revert-warring. Anymore of this will lead to blocking. MuZemike 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any information merging. TenPoundHammer has subverted the Request for Deletion procedure, which was his clear intent, by simply placing a #redirect on the page and deleting the information. If he wants a page deleted, he understands the procedure to do so. In addition, it needs to be noted that TenPoundHammer has edited this page on numerous occasions prior to this #redirect, over the past two years. Why does he find the need to delete the page now, since he obviously did not in the two years of it's existance? I view his actions as vandalism and not editing. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's enough. Stop launching personal attacks in the form of calling others vandals when they're clearly not. Also, stop intentionally misinterpreting the deletion policy and merging guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer clearly indicated in the edit summaries that the relevant content was merged. Now please take this to the talk page I mentioned above, unless you would like to be blocked for harassing other editors. MuZemike 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Buck9998 is a sockpuppet of the indefinately blocked User:Buck9999. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, how can you be a sock of yourself? MuZemike 00:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Buck9998 is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Buck9999. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef, about as obvious as sockpuppets can possibly get. ~ mazca ^talk 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just being a smart alec, obviously. MuZemike 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

...and a moron for not noticing (eats some fish for dinner). MuZemike 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At least give the sock some points for originality, i.e. counting down instead of up. Maybe he thought that would fool everyone. Like the old joke about the guy who sneaks into a theater by walking into it backwards so they'll think he's leaving. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ThaddeusB

It's time for User:ThaddeusB to back off of me. I was blocked, inappropriately, for an entire week for using the names User:Abyssal called me (WP:POINT). It appears there is no wikipedia policy that says block someone for a week for the first time. A week was excessive, and the block appeared to be punitive and retaliatory.[42] I'm not going to assume good faith for a week long block.

ThaddeusB was the primary reason for my getting blocked. He is not an uninvolved admin, but he used my unblock request as an opportunity to taunt me in the same vein he is now stalking me with comments.[43]

Also:[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]

He has not provided a single diff for his accusations against me, but he continues to post them everywhere.[52][53]

He says that "I hate the idea of the bot," I'm mistrustful of him, etc. He's not a mind-reader, and he has no evidence that "hate the idea of the bot."[54] It's time for him to back off.[55]

--69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This post is "revenge" for an ANI post I made a few days ago, asking for a 3rd party to evaluate 69.255's behavior that led to a block. It was I who made granted the unblock request b/c 69.255 agreed to stop making it personal. He then reverted the unblock notice as "taunting" 4 times and posted more lies on the original BRFA.

I have tried to assume good faith, but 69.255's actions throughout the whole matter strongly suggest the opposite. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was this posted at Jake Wartenberg's talk page (watchlist)? You don't seem to have implicated him whatsoever in your rationale. If he's not involved, then it's blatant violation or disregard of WP:CANVASS. ceranthor 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jake was the one who make the original block. Other than that, he has nothing to do with the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I mention his block above, claiming the original block was excessive. It's a courtesy notice, and it appears to be actually required by the rules of this page. --69.225.5.4 (talk)

If a third party desires diffs, I can post a boatload. I really doubt that will be necessary though, as your own diffs make it clear that what I just said is true - your "evidence" of "taunting" is quite laughable. If granting an unblock request and saying thank you for finally getting on topic is taunting you, than it is physically impossible for me to say anything to you that isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

ThaddeusB unblocked you in good faith. Seriously, what else do you want from him? If nothing else, then I strongly suggest that you disengage right now, lest you want an admin to block the entire range you're on. MuZemike 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have disengaged, and attempted to focus on the issues. I am not lying, I am not posting because I hate the bot. ThaddeusB has provided no diffs to support a single accusation against me in any of his posts. After I said I would not discuss the issue any more, he unblocked me and included a personal taunt in the unblock notice, as I indicate above, with a diff. He is now posting personal comments about me on the IP page, on User:Hesperian's talk page, on the bot discussion page. Not a single personal accusation against me has included a diff, and many of them include things he cannot possible know. This is why Wikipedia has a policy that you should not make it personal but stick to the content. ThaddeusB is not sticking to the content. He did NOT provide any diffs to support his assertions against me. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

agreement to stop disruptive comments is nowhere near a taunt. MuZemike 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Please also be very careful about exaggerating and twisting the facts, as you have done on a number of occasions," however, is. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This was part of your reason for being blocked and a perfectly good advice. Unfortunately, you choose to ignore it. One of the very first things you did after being unblock was post this comment where you said "ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it." Since, I had made no such claim it was an outright lie. (My claims of you not being specific predated you raising the specific concern in question.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 11 I said:

"In my opinion, I don't think this bot should go forward without proactive community support for the bot. This means more than no one disapproves or shows negative interest. It requires editors from relevant projects get on board for vetting uploaded data. Without a group of editors to check data, it is my opinion the potential for another AnyBot type mess exists." --69.225.12.99 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the complete paragraph that you quote in part, above: "It's anybot all over again: the don't know their data, they can't and won't communicate with those who do. ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it. That was the problem with anybot that created 5000 articles and redirects to be deleted: a bot operator who could not and would not listen to problems with his bot." Since this is my claim all along, and you are saying my problems with the bot are not specific, this is what you are saying is not specific. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, neither is that. MuZemike 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have not exaggerated or twisted the facts in the bot discussion, and ThaddeusB has provided no evidence that I have done so. As this was partially his initial accusation against me, that led to the block, his repeating it while unblocking me is taunting, in the en.wiki meaning, "sarcastic remark, or insult intended to make demoralize the recipient, or to anger them and encourage reactionary behaviors without thinking." It was a flame in a heated situation. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather ironic that you say I can't judge your motivations because I'm "not a mind reader" and yet, apparently you can judge mine just fine as you have somehow determined my intent with that comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your words are the flame, not anything underlying it, for that very reason, that I don't know what underlies it. Your words were an accusation that I was "exaggerating and twisting the facts" with no supporting evidence on your part that I had done so. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, apparently only you are allowed to draw conclusions from people's actions?

As to the "lack of evidence", You and I both know you have stated untrue things about me several times, as you even admitted it once. However, try looking up a couple inches and you will find evidence that you immediately continued this pattern after your unblock. You knew "ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it" and wrote it anyway. I know you knew this because you had 1) just raised the complaint 2)I had just thanked you for raising it and said I'd fix it right away 3) You had been following the discussion closely and knew that last time I said you hadn't raised any specific complaints was well before you were blocked (and this specific only happened after your block despite me practically begging for specifics for weeks.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent history between the 'Marine Invertebrate Paleo IP Guy' and ThaddeusB, I can understand how the former could consider the latter's comment to be somewhat 'twisting the knife'. I've been involved in the Request for Approval for ContentCreationBOT myself and from what I've seen, my honest appraisal of the situation is that this is three basically good, knowledgeable guys (ThaddeusB and Abyssal vs. Marine Invertebrate Paleo IP Guy) perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument whilst each side is blaming the other for perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument and attempting to second guess each other's motives for perpetuating a repetitive, circular argument. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My motive is pretty simple: no repetition of the anybot mess. This requires that someone vet the data before they are uploaded, by bot or by human. There is no one to do this, and I'm being attacked for wanting the data upload to be accurate. There are problems that directly suggest that ThaddeusB and Abyssal are not reading the data correctly or do not understand it or both, which is simply more evidence that my original post stating experts (wiki enthusiasts or scientists) are needed was correct, and a sufficient argument against this particular data upload. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again with the distortion. "There is no one to do this" really means "There is no one to do this that I find acceptable." In reality both Abyssal and I have vetted the data and stated as much numerous times. "here are problems that directly suggest..." really means "there is one specific problem..." which was only raised after 69.255 was blocked despite me asking 69.255 to be specific for three weeks. The only reasonable conclusion is that he purposely withheld this information until it served his purposed (getting unblocked) and that he has no interest in helping the bot improve. (Hence my conclusion that he hates the idea of the bot.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to call it badly vetted data it makes no difference from not vetted. The example of the "successful" upload that Abyssal posted on the ContentCreationBot RFAB contained bad data. The database was correct, but the information was extracted, and, without basic knowledge of the taxon, it was not corrected by either you or Abyssal, but was rather offered as an example of "success." --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet more distortion. I most certainly didn't call it a "successful trial" I called it a sample page. (Abyssal mistakenly called it that & you have been harping on his wording ever since.) My intention with uploading the page was to find errors like the one you outlined, not to prove the bot was already perfect.

Furthermore, "basic knowledge of the taxon had zero zip zilch nada nothing to do with the error as I have now stated at least 4 times. Of course you conveniently ignore that comment, just like you always do when it doesn't suit your purpose. The error was the result fo a simple oversight that absolutely anyone could have made - even the world's foremost expert on the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Its Abyssal who offered it as a successful trial. I don't see his bold statement removed, stricken out, or disputed by you. "Sorry, for the bold, but I want to point out that successful trials have already been run. A link to the results of the test are here. Abyssal (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1) he had no reason to not believe it was successful at the time of the comment 2) he misused a single word: "trial" instead of demo - do you really think it is appropriate to strike someone else's comments everytime they use the wrong term 3) you have ignored the fact that I specifically asked people to call it a demo rather than a trial a few lines down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If your point is that it's not a "trial" versus it's not "successful" I have no idea why that means anything at all. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was 1) the page wasn't intended to be perfect; 2) at the time of Abyssal's comment there was no reason to believe it wasn't accurate.

I didn't expect it to be perfect, but the error was precisely the sort I was concerned about and was warning about. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(after 2x ec - I wish you guys wouldn't type so fast!)AFAIK, he wants an uninvolved 3rd party expert in the subject to verify and endorse the data. I believe that this is something I've suggested myself - the problem being that no-one has been able to locate an expert willing to do this. If we could do that, I suspect that this would all go away... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also suggested finding individual experts.[56] There are numerous mollusc editors, for example, and finding one to search the chiton list, for example, might be easier than finding a single expert to review all the lists. I deal primarily with a fossil taxon, so, unless it's a glaring example with an extant organism like the chiton that was morphological model, and used for systematics studies, I won't necessarily catch problems in lists with lots of extant organisms. These lists, in spite of being on pages of "list of prehistoric organisms" all contain numerous extant organisms. So I can't do any of them. --69.225.5.4 ([[User

FYI, 99% of the list is extinct, but until you were blocked you refused to outline even a single specific "glaring error." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not my area. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you only have expert knowledge on one specific taxon? That is certainly not the way you have been presenting yourself the entire BRFA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, yes, I am only an expert on one specific taxon, but it's a few hundred million years and a mighty big taxon. Remember, "taxon" can technically refer to any level of classification. And, yes, scientists are often experts in a single taxon. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

True. I have a proposal for you then. I will run the bot on a page of your choice 9that you can easily spot errors) and then you tell me if there are any. If there aren't, it is reasonable to assume there are no errors in other either. From a technically stand point, each page is exactly the same so if one page has no novel (bot introduced) errors, every page will have no novel errors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I considered this earlier, which is why I know there's a problem with extant taxa larger than you say there is, and I might be able to do one of the fish pages, but none of the lists are really remotely close to my area. But I think you're on to something, namely, how about you finding an expert for one of the lists. And, again, by expert I mean wikipedia expert, not necessarily a scientist. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have obviously misunderstood a large portion of what you've said to date (and visa versa). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 69.225.5.4, looking at the BRFA you have repeatedly attacked ThaddeusB and Abyssal there. If you have problems about the bot, then you should mention them there and stop at that. Going on to accuse its developers/operators of irresponsibility etc as you have done is obviously not going to be appreciated. Now you guys are again starting to argue about the bot. I agree with MuZemike that it's time to disengage from this pointless argument of blaming each other. If there are any further issues, explain them clearly and specifically minus the attacks. If you present your arguments properly others will respond properly too. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to provide specific diffs, a look at the BRFA will confirm that. Anyway, I'm not saying it's entirely your fault or ThaddeusB's. I'm just saying what you could do to resolve the situation. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation vandal has returned.

The Indonesian misinformation vandal has returned once again. Ever since the block on 202.70.61.128/27 expired yesterday, the guy used 202.70.61.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · info · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to vandalize some of same Digimon and MGM articles. While the vandal has stopped as of this message, immediate action is still needed. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Same range blocked for 2 weeks, now. MuZemike 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user?

• 74.104.160.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 38.104.186.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Rbj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (banned, confirmed by ArbCom, has used IPs and socks before)
• ArbCom declines review; this has links and of course extensive posting by Rbj[57]

This has been brought to my attention on my talk page, but I'm not positive. Would someone else take a look and give a opinion?

The banned user Rbj has been editing Planck units as 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. Please see Discussion Page for that article, section titled Hi Rbj. The tell-tale signs for those who know Rbj are attitude, phrasing (eg 'sorta') and subject interests (eg Marriage).

Thanks in advance for your kind attention - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

anyone... anyone at all. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

.... any input will be appreciated. thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can say that this edit by 74.104.160.199 has a thoroughly misleading summary, which implies that it is only a rearrangement of existing material. It actually adds more than 5 kilobytes of essay-like new material to the article. Cardamon (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you want people to say? The old account edits are far too old to CheckUser, and statements that the similarity will be evident to "those who know Rbj" is going to discourage anyone who doesn't know Rbj from commenting. I find the usual AN/I refrain of "diffs, please" coming to the tip of the tongue. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was brought this on my talk page, and you have the entirety. Its not a similarity I noticed, you comprehend. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Going through some of the contributions there are definetly some striking similarities in interests and speech.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the IP who reported the edits by Rbj - the proof of Rbj's identity is on the talk page of an innocent party Tomruen where Rbj gives his email address:

My email is rbj@@@@@@audioimagination.com. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a lot of experience of Rbj in my role as User:Lucretius, especially in the article Planck units, and it annoys me to see him still editing. I no longer edit any Wikipedia articles and I won't be able to continue monitoring his edits, so hopefully others will perform that role. His latest edits of the Planck units article were spiteful but nobody has spotted this in spite of the messages I have left there. Thanks. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

121.222.35.162 is probably reffering to this diff Cardamon (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by IP on my talk page about banned user

Could someone have a look at this? It appears to be a comment by an IP on my talk page about a banned user, but I don't have time to work out what this is about. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This merger of duplicate incidents should enlighten. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive user I Pakapshem

I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) torpilises and actively undermines every attempt for civilised, constructive discussion, which makes people (such as myself) unable to participate in discussions he participates, as he turns them instantly in battlefields. NThis particular user's presence in Wikipedia seems to be only devoted to ruining discussions, articles, procedures and processes, ignoring four particular words: discussion, dispute resolution, consensus. His constructive edits are probably no more than 3-4, when he has no significant contribution at any article, at all. All the rest of his edits involve reverts, incivil discussion, and skipping the process of dispute resolution. That is, giving rude answers and running to an admin without actually discussing; the examples are numerous. For a user of 4 months and no more than 300 edits, he has opened 2 ANI cases, has "reported" users and nominated an article for 2nd time for deletion... without actually any prior discussion, but a lot of incivil answers instead. This person does not aim to do anything constructive around here than disrupt and destroy discussions, be incivil, fight edit-wars and just impeeding others of doing a good job, empty-threatening "I will report you I will report you" without there being anything to report. We will not look to his past; his block log is rich. But another chance was given to him and he seems to waste it.

Lack of civility, undermine of discussion and offensive claims against all greek editors:[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],

I could mention many more above, but I will just note here the most offensive:[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],

Territorial claims on other editors' homelands: - Or to put it more bluntly, our neighbors occupy the land and yet they bill us with the extremist nationalist ideology. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC), Aigest, be frank with the man. Greater Albania and Pan-Albanianism does not exit at all. These are propagandistic terms used by Greeks and Serb in order to malign and put in a bad light normal and natural Albanian aspirations.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can keep adding diffs until, eventually, all of his diffs appear here, but I think this is a good sample. You could check admin EdJohnston's talk page to see that this user runs to him, skipping actual constructive discussion a few times a week "Ed, this" and "Ed, that" and "Ed, the greeks". I Papakshem had been asked to behave in that very talk page. I have been personally insulted, in the beginning of what could have been constructive discussion in Albanian nationalism, had I Pakapshem not heated it up. Therefore, I left that discussion and practically all discussions concerning Albania until everyone calms down but that just seems not to happen, as this user is always there to fuel the flames. Check his edits, he is the enemy of discussion. And this is not about civility, it is about general problematic and disrupting behavior. There has been enormous patience with this user, and there have been attempts to make him behave. But there seems to be no change, no hope of co-operation whatsoever. This is the last choice there is; I believe that ANI could bring the right solution to this.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael why don't you report on the behavior of your friend Megistias on the Albanian nationalism talk page calling all Albanian editors liers, a gang, a mob and that they need to scurry out of the article? And don't make up things for no reason as I have not insulted you anywhere. Bring proof for your baseless accusations.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC) A typical incivility issue of the mentioned user is that he didn't respected his 6th block, and while insisting to be unblocked his talk page was blocked too [[80]]. After his 1rr restriction his 'contribution' is limited on initiating battlegrounds in discussion pages, like talk:Souliotes, and talk:Albanian nationalism.

Tag-teaming activity with a twice sockpuppeting and 7 times blocked [[81]], User:Sarandioti (User:Alarichus-User:XXxLRKistxXx), member of a nationalist organization called [[82]] LRK-national rebirth [[83]].

I can't really find a single edit in this history log that could be considered 'contribution to wikipedia' [[84]]. Just reverting, nationalistic advocating, fruitless reporting.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of empty accusations just because you can't stand it now that there are albanian editors to challenge your dominance in Albanian and Albanian related articles and not let just push your nationalistic agenda. The editors can check the activity of Alexikoua and other greek editors such as Athenean, Megistias, Factuarius etc. in the same articles that the empty accusations are made against me such as Souliotes, where Alexikoua yesterday broke the 3RR rule, vandalised the talk page by removing my and some other editor's comments, kept insisting on a compromise where none was reached and general incivility and continous accusations against me and Albanian editors. This battleground mentality to protect greek nationalism is seen in the talk pages and edit histories of other pages such as Himara, Albanian Nationalism, Saranda, Origins of Albanians where all the greek editors such Alexikoua, Athenean, Factuarius, Megistias, Michael X White, Guldenrich canvass each other and gang up on the article to push their nationalistic agenda. This can be easily check by looking at the talk pages and editor history pages of the above mentioned articles. If anything, all of the above mentioned editors are the ones who are desruptive, uncivil, uncompromising and seem to be duly and only concentrated in editing only Albanian and Albanian related articles in extreme nationalistic ways to promote their new version of Megali Idea, by branding everything and anything as greek.--I Pakapshem (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking into this, give me the next 12 hours to check it all through, get some sleep, and come up with a result. And first glance the OP does look to have a point: actual constructive contributions do seem rather minimal. Moreschi (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy on how many contributions you have to have in wiki. Wiki is a free encyclopedia as far as I know. Accusations are completely empty. You should also look at the comments and actions of the accusers in above mentioned pages.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blue supports only other blues and yellow supports only other yellows, blue wants the whole wiki to be blue like him, yellow wants the whole wiki to be yellow like him, the wiki is green, blue and yellow make green. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, lord, what a mess. Anyway, I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week and topic-banned for a month. That does NOT mean this is over, because no matter how much of a flamer he is he might actually have some points. Albanian nationalism is a real mess and something very, very wrong is definitely going on at Souliotes. The lede is a total nonsense that contradicts itself at every turn, makes no grammatical sense, and has way too many cites. Moreschi (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for a administrator to impose a topic ban without any community consensus? Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This area falls under ARBMAC, if I'm not mistaken, so yes, they can. Discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, users should be warned...Was this User warned about the discretionary sanctions? Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you., Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I Pakapshem is already under a 1RR per week restriction per ARBMAC, as notified at User talk:I Pakapshem#ARBMAC restrictions. I made a couple of attempts to persuade I Pakapshem to do some research, for instance at User talk:I Pakapshem#Famous Himariots, but I could not get him interested. (I had hoped to channel his pro-Albanian enthusiasm in a productive direction). Moreschi's actions don't seem out of proportion to me, since I Pakapshem has made so little effort to work out a compromise on any of these articles. He just keeps on beating the nationalist drum for his own side.

• If Moreschi is hoping to sort out the problems with the Souliotes article, I recommend reading what Macrakis said on the Talk page about the fluidity of ethnic identities in the 19th century. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I read that. In fact I must have read nearly the entire talk page. It's precisely why these children are uniquely unsuited to editing this page, even more so than they normally are. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G4

I put a csd-g4 tag on Leafpad because it was deleted in AFD previously. Muzemike declined it without looking at the previous version because the article is in a second AFD. Is the article significantly similar to the article that was deleted in AFD? Joe Chill (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article is already at AFD. Is there a legitimate reason that you're WP:CANVASSing this issue?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not canvassing. If articles are similar to a version that was deleted in AFD previously, it should be deleted per the speedy deletion criteria. The article being in a second AFD at the moment doesn't matter. If someone thinks that an admin made a mistake, this is the place to bring it. So does this meet csd-g4? Joe Chill (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks a bit different. Ohms, the user was asking for an admin to look at a deleted revision because an article can be speedied even while at AfD - it saves time. It's messed up to accuse Joe of canvassing - he cannot see the deleted version. Law _{type! snype?} 04:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Two things: A) I actually though this was the Village pump (my bad!) and B) I tend to avoid deletion discussions because they actually get me worked up. Those two issues aside... I can see the point of posting this on AN/I, since there (were) no replies, but... I don't know, It's probably just my inclusionist ideology showing but it still looks like canvasssing. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe, is there a reason why you came here instead of discussing it with me, first? Anyways, since I'm here, yes, I saw that the article is a little different than the previously-deleted version. That is the main reason why I declined the speedy. Second, I was informed that another user would be working on it. It's already been relisted; let said improvements happen and see what results seven days from now. It's not about winning or losing, but about the end result – getting it right. MuZemike 05:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

IP on extended vandalism spree

This User has already been banned for over 30 hours, and is currently engaged in a whole series of polemical edits on a range of articles, in the main clearly vandalism (replacing Roman Catholic with abusive comments about child abuse for example). WOuld someone take a look? Thanks. --Snowded ^TALK 10:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rich. The "actual owner" realizes within 11 minutes of the IP being blocked that those d..n kids have been at it again (despite the owner never having edited/visited WP before this). >cough< Shenme (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:87.252.167.254

Someone should deal with [85] and his other edits. --NE2 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Also, since it is a Bulgarian IP, the authorities there should be contacted ASAP. Willking1979 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban? Dual block? Off-Wikipedia conflict spilling over

• Symiakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Symicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is complex. Please bear with me, and I will be as succinct as possible. I request that you not ignore this section even so. :)

There is a dispute between User:Symiakos and User:Symicat about the article Symi that is evidently about to spill over into a courtroom. The legal threat has been issued solely by Symiakos, but Symicat has violated some policies himself (and been briefly blocked for one of them). I'm requesting assistance determining how this should be handled.

I first became aware of this matter following a BLP complaint through e-mail (visible to OTRS volunteers at Ticket:2009090110068278). At issue were edits like this one, in which the Symicat account edited old comments by Symiakos to suggest that the editors of the SymiGreece website were libeling people and to imply pedophilia. When this was cleaned up by Symiakos, it was repeated here and again, later, at my talk page. Symicat was cautioned about BLP issues, but was subsequently briefly blocked when it was revealed to be a shared account. After the account owner agreed to change his password, he was unblocked.

Both users were counseled to seek dispute resolution, and though some civility issues persisted Symicat did so at the content noticeboard after a third editor became involved (Background, not essential, reading: User talk:Lmoench, [86]). This seemed to be working until it flared up again at my user talk page yesterday with a civility complaint, here, by Symicat. Now Symiakos indicates that Symicat's comments are part of a criminal investigation. Symicat denies being in charge of the account when certain comments were made, but the implication of his first comment (diff again) is pretty clear, as are the veiled legal threats about "model releases" in one of the comments made in the recent thread at my talk page.

Given an outright statement of criminal investigation by Symiakos (supported by another letter to OTRS, same link as above), coupled by what seems a clear agenda on the part of Symicat from his foundational edit and his own implied legal threats, I don't think it's in Wikipedia's best interests to permit these two to engage one another on the project until issues between them are settled elsewhere. I would propose either that a topic ban be imposed on both of them to avoid articles related to Symi as well as direct interaction with one another until this matter is mutually concluded or a block on both until any criminal proceedings are completed.

As I have been heavily engaged with this, I would greatly appreciate feedback on the best approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As the Symi page in its current iteration seems to show a fair representation of the island, I am quite happy for it to remain as it is. Symiachos is of course free to take whatever action he wishes - I would welcome the chance to discuss the matter before a court should he choose to bring an action - although I have received no indication from him or his legal representatives that he is in fact planning to do so. However, while his threat of such action remains, I agree that it would certainly be best to keep this sorry matter from spilling onto Wikipedia pages. I am therefore willing to agree not to make any edits to the Symi page, or accept a ban, until the matter between Symiachos and myself is resolved elsewhere. Symicat (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl for your summary; I think it perfectly sums up what has happened. I will not be responding to Symicat any more on Wikipedia; it has been incredibly difficult to bite my tongue in the face of some of the comments that have been put up and I apologise that this has caused issues here. I expect a reasonably speedy resolution to the matter now that the process has begun.--Symiakos (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the above from the involved editors is to be taken at face value it looks like they are both OK with the situation and willing to stand down from the dispute, so to speak. If they are willing to observe a self-imposed restriction against editing the page in question there may be no need to impose any formal sanctions. Is there any reason to suspect that they won't hold to their word? Shereth 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be an ideal solution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

about the actual issue here of the sites in question, I consider them the sort of local information sites we usually include in articles about localities. They are both of them good sources for information on the island beyond what is in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for a period of time during which we both agree not to edit the Symi page, please. (And what happens if either of us break the agreement?)Symicat (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Violations of a ban, in accordance with Wikipedia:Banning policy, may result in the ban being reset or a block being imposed. As the banning policy explains, using proxies to edit in your place, "meatpuppetry" as its sometimes called, is a violation of a ban. A reasonable length of a ban is a bit difficult to determine, since we can't know how long it will take to resolve this criminal investigation. I think that bears some discussion. As far as interacting with each other, I think it's a simple matter to say that however long the article ban lasts, the interaction ban should also. I tend to think that any future interactions thereafter should take place only on the article's talk page with an understanding that personal attacks and harassment will result in blocks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating my previous comment, the Symi page looks pretty good at the moment so new edits should be needed only be to add extra infomation, not modify or remove the existing stuff. Therefore I see no benefit in changing it from its present state. Symiachos has still not been in touch about his/her planned `criminal investigation', so I assume that the threat remains. Symicat (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Since a duration is needed, I suggest that Symicat and Symiachos stay away from each other for six months, and not edit Symi or Talk:Symi during that time. They should not post on each other's talk pages. Allow either party to request an earlier lifting of the ban at the discretion of Moonriddengirl or any uninvolved admin. If the ban is lifted, this fact should be announced at WP:AN.

The reason to make this an explicit ban is the above comment by Symiakos, "I expect a reasonably speedy resolution to the matter now that the process has begun." I hope to hear nothing more from Symiakos on Wikipedia about legal matters, and if we do, a block of Symiakos per WP:NLT may be needed until his process is over, whatever the process may be. Any violation of the ban by either party, or any personal attack or other disruption, should result in a lengthy block for the person concerned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I accept this. Should Symiakus choose to withdraw his/her threats by contacting me independently of Wikpedia, I will let you know. Of course he/she may wish to post a retraction here. Should he/she not do so, can I assume that the situation will be reviewed in six months? Symicat (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It would generally just be considered expired after six months, though if the problems should resume then the time-span may need to be revisited or other options considered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

This page has about half a day's backlog, which really hurts its ability to put a stopper on edit wars. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you recruited admins for those reasons - to help administer the site - rather than some sort of reward system for being able to write great content and articles, this wouldn't happen? Or have two types of admins - content-admins and maintenance-admins. --HighKing (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some talk (at present of RfA) about the possibility of seperating out some of the tools to make it easier for people to get them (and also to have the tool taken off them, and also easier for people to get the tools back again.) That seems like one good solution, but it needs a lot more input and work before it'll happen. There's also a lot of talk at RfA about how to make RfA less broken. Discussion from other editors would be welcomed. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as adminship remains a popularity contest, it will remain "broken". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We used to have a good admin who dealt with a lot of this stuff, but ArbCom got upset with him for blocking a clearly disruptive editor and took their balls home. Verbal chat 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Charles Dawson

This user is repeatedly pasting massive unstructured blocks of text that he has copied verbatim from other sources. He has been advised about WP:MOS and WP:COPYVIO but so far has insisted that what he is doing is correct. Apart from probable violations, he has effectively ruined both an article and a disambiguation page such that both have had to be completely reverted. See recent histories of Thomas Assheton Smith II and Madagascar (disambiguation). I suggest a stern and final warning for this individual to be followed by an immediate ban if he persists in this misuse of the site. --Jack | ^{talk page} 11:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the text copied into Thomas Assheton Smith II was taken verbatim from Mariner's mirror, volume 92, published by the Society for Nautical Research. Warning given. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope it has the desired effect. --Jack | ^{talk page} 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris

Yeah, why not... I'll try and get help with this again. User:Imbris is a disruptive and aggressive Croatian ultranationalist account that has managed to evade sanctions way too long. All "contributions" of this User are disputes and edit-warring in which he constantly pushes his personal views, reverts article improvements, and incessantly fights with anyone that "dares to oppose him". His extremely disruptive behavior has been the cause of diminished article quality all over the Balkans history articles. This user has been reported on ten or so occasions by a large number of users [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96], but has managed to simply keep quiet and count on the obscurity of the subject matter and, with all due respect, admin apathy to get away with all this for months now. He knows this full well, and has openly made fun of me for asking admin assistance [97].

After the latest report on this account [98] (which once again came to nothing and only resulted in article protection), I've withdrawn from all five disputes and basically let him have his way. He has now continued to WP:STALK me to other articles and is now starting a new edit-war on Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. My best efforts to restore information sourced by university publications will probably be useless [99] [100], as I am afraid of "losing my cool" and actually getting blocked myself (via 3RR violation) for repairing the damage too many times.

Let me be perfectly open on this: some way should be found to make him stop with this kind of behavior (particularly the edit-warring). I feel he has earned an indef block twenty times over, but I realize from an NPOV that other methods should be attempted as well. Frankly, anything is better than this complete lack of response. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looking into it, should be back within 12 hours or so. Moreschi (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Moreschi. The guy's constant dispute-mongering and edit warring are enough to warrant fifty blocks on their own. While you're investigating the issue, have a look at the Hey, Slavs article, its a good example. That's where he managed to get his way and demolish the article by sheer edit-warring - in spite of the opposition from the neutral mediator (User:Dottydotdot) and something like five other Users. Nobody wants to get blocked by violating 3RR and fixing up his damage too many times. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Has someone informed Imbris that he's reported to the Admins? Crafty (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I've been "forbidden" to address him on his talkpage. So I won't :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued flippant disregard of AGF and CIVIL by User:Koalorka

Reblocked with talk page disabled. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In spite of his current temporary WP:BLOCK for one week (due to edit warring), this latest crude statement by Koalorka has demonstrated yet again his flippant disregard for WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL here on Wikipedia. Also, the said user had accused me earlier of sock puppetry on the article of Glock pistol but backed down after I challenge him to take me to WP:SPI. He had been warned prior to this latest episode by me on his talk page, as I've stated that I would take him to task if he carried on with his rheotric. For review by Admin, his long list of BLOCK log has not made him any the wiser or cooler when conducting edit and cannot take the heat. --Dave1185 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As Dave1185 says, Koalorka is blocked for a week. If he abuses his talk page, he can be blocked from there as well. I suggest not engaging with him - leave him alone for a week and see if he comes back better prepared to collaborate. Not sure any more action will be useful right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, he can have all the diarrhea of the mouth in the world if he wants, and I can't stop it but not at the expense of others. Sincerely, nobody on Wikipedia deserves to get any kind of personal attack (IIRC, this is not his first offence for incivility), he wants respect but he doesn't even know how to respect others first. Plus, I've made my case know to him that I would take him to task prior to this and he deliberately tested my patience. Hence, I did what I felt was for the good of Wikipedia by bringing him to ANI. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the editor has now been barred from editing their talkpage so the potential of further unpleasantries has been removed in the short term. There is always the hope that the enforced break will result in them being more temperate when they resume editing; but should they not then I suggest that you (Dave1185) are not nearly so combative in turn. If you must respond, do so calmly and anyway report policy trangressions to the relevant noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Admin Practices. User:Jehochman

I have on two occasions seen User Jehochman institute a page ban or sanction on editors [[101]] [[102]] without community consensus. I find this to be fundementally adverse to the core policies of Wikipedia in regards to consensus. I have found no policy nor was one cited when I borught the concern up to the user.[[103]] I would like to invite the community to discuss as to the limits of an individual admin power. I would like to note this is not a personal difference between Jehochman and myself only a concern over the effects individual sanctions can have over our community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that is something for consensus to decide, not any individual. Chillum 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But would it have then been OK if he had simply issued blocks against those users? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocks ultimately will fall under consensus, how many blocks have ben reduced or outright overturned because community disagrees? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Lesser sanctions can also be reviewed, reduced or overturned as needed. I don't see your point at all. Jehochman ^Talk 07:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• A subtle point: Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not normative. We write down how things work, not things work the way we write them down. Additionally, administrators have broad authorization to do that which is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption. In a situation where I could block somebody completely, it is logical that I should be able to give them a lesser sanction, such as a pageban, if leniency is in the best interests of the project. (These policy issues should be discussed at WP:PUMP or the relevant policy page.)
• Both matters Hell complains about are presently under consideration by the Arbitration Committee. (Concerns about the specific incidents should be addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#RS and Fringe Noticeboard.)
• I'm not sure why this conversation is here, unless Hell's purpose is to make drama. Considering Hell's block log, that's a definite possibility. Jehochman ^Talk 07:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked since May when I first created my account. Try again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

HiaB is not the same type of editor I blocked back in the day - and while I think they are wrong in their understanding how WP:BOLD and editorial autonomy works round here, I am surprised that you would make such a simplistic view of character based on historical logs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The broader issue of admins unilaterally imposing sanctions is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions.  Skomorokh  07:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interested parties may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Workshop#Administrative_sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 07:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the ongoing Arbcom case. Frankly the only thing I care ahbout is what I percieve to be an abuse of administrative powers. If the community agrees that is totally fine but that is different from someone coming in and saying you're done. Maybe you use it judicially but you set a dangerous precedent. Not all admin do, that's why arbcom regularl desysops people. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Engaging in rational discussion at Arbitration to resolve concerns is so boring. It's much more fun to scream ADMIN ABUSE at ANI, isn't it? This page is on 4207 watchlists. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is only on about 1754.[104] The drama potential at ANI is 139.8% greater, though the chance of resolution is nearly 100% less. Jehochman ^Talk 07:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great....If we can get back to the problem at hand.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. What do you want administrators to do? I've told you already that the issues you are concerned about are subject to ongoing dispute resolution, to wit, arbitration or a request for arbitration. The policy matters can be discussed at the relevant policy pages. Please go to the appropriate linked venues and participate. Jehochman ^Talk 07:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thisa would be a correct venue if concerned about admin practices. You seem to have a very cavalier and deflective attitude to this issue. However I believe that as this discussion progresses we can make a good headway as to deciding, If truly you believe your position I would ask you to let the community discuss and refrain from assuming bad faith on my part (ie. my block log, unless you can tie that dispute here) as you did above. I have been quite respectful to you in this entire matter so I would appreciate the same. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was going to tentatively agree with the OP and point out Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions (which I see was already mentioned), but I see that this has already degenerated into an interpersonal pissing contest so... *sigh* <ignored> For real conversation about this go to Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Dramamongering. The sanctions can be brought for community review in the usual way, and this kind of rant isn't how to do it. Verbal chat 08:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A page ban is less severe than a block, as Jehochman. However I think we need to think this through. I know there's a process to appealing blocks, which may lead to reduction or removal of a block. But I'm unaware of a recognised process for appealing / reducing / removing bans. For example the ban on David Tombe is indefinite.

Bans can vary in scope. I'm not clear about whether Jehochman's ban on editing by David Tombe of a particular article also extends to the article's Talk page. I've also seen topic bans, whose effect depends on the scope of the topic, but will always be more severe than a page / article ban. Then there are bans on interacting with named individuals. Plenty to think about there.

Jehochman's "sanction" against Ottava Rima is a different, it's more like the final warning we may issue a vandal, followed by an immediate block if there is a recurrence. However final warnings to vandals generally expire, so further vandalism after a few months without vandalism will not generally lead to an immediate block, but instead to another warning cycle.

Bottom line: Jehochman may have hit on an additional, more nuanced sanction than a block. But it needs to be thought through before it can be taken as a precedent. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor subject to a topic ban can appeal to the issuing administrator, or they may come to ANI to request review. Blocked users have fewer options, so we provide them with special procedures, such as the unblock template and the unblock mailing list. In fact, David Tombe disputed his topic ban which ultimately resulted in my request for arbitration. Ottava Rima also filed for arbitration. Users seem to be aware of how to file appeals. It may be very useful to create template messages that can be used to ensure that users are fully aware of their options for appeal. In general, we should try as much as possible not to block users where lesser restrictions might be effective. I am hoping that ArbCom and eventually policy will document how these procedures should work. Jehochman ^Talk 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, you don't see "An editor subject to a topic ban can appeal to the issuing administrator" being problematic? Obviously we're discussing problem users here so separating that from the issue itself is difficult, but... in the abstract at least, there's something not quite right in all of this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohms law, would you be happier if any admin could remove or modify a ban, as happens with a block? --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any admin can remove a sanction, just like a block. What an admin can do, another admin can undo when there's a good reason. Jehochman ^Talk 09:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

...yes. Probably. Maybe. I've been replying to Jehochman at Wikipedia talk:Discretionary sanctions, and considering the fact that we're all likely to watch that much longer then this (along with the fact that the negative undertone is absent from there), it's probably best to continue this conversation there. I do have ideological issues with the underlying idea behind this, but realistically... if it's going to be used, then it should be clear that the exact same procedures as apply to blocking are available to those affected.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

When I was page banned by Jehochman, it was within 1 hour twenty minutes of a request to do so by Physchim62. It has since transpired that Physchim62 and Jehochman are already familiar with each other from a previous arbitration hearing. Physchim62 made the allegation that I was being disruptive at talk:speed of light. The truth was that I was arguing a position contrary to Physchim62's position. Following the pageban, attempts were then made to ban another user who was arguing on my side. Although I honoured the pageban, despite protesting about it, my pageban was then upgraded to a topic ban as a consequence of the AN/I thread which had been instigated to get my ally page banned. Eventually the impasse at speed of light was taken to arbitration where a hearing is now in progress. At the arbitration hearing, Jehochman has demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing about the content matter of the dispute for which he page banned me. In fact the entire arbitration hearing has come about as a direct consequence of Jehochman's actions. David Tombe (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, David, the ArbCom case has come about because of your repeated disruptive editing, which is well known to followers of this noticeboard. Physchim62 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Physchim62, Your definition of disruptive editing is 'not agreeing with what you are saying'. And you had a handy administrator ready to do the honours. David Tombe (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• (Reply to Hell in a Bucket) Admin's are given some latitude to employ various conventions or practices in efforts to prevent disruption to the project; unilaterally imposing a page ban or similar is one way of doing it. If the ban is opposed then the subject can appeal the ban to the ANI noticeboard, where they would need to evidence why the ban was improper. Jehochman is not the only sysop who uses this ploy, I have done so both individually and in concert with two or more other admins. As Baseball Bugs points out above, admins are permitted to unilaterally block people; part of the responsibility entrusted to them is to deal with disruption by other methods as considered appropriate. ArbCom is not the only body authorised to make such decisions, rather they are the last resort when admin action has been found ineffective. In short, yes, Jehochman may unilaterally ban an editor from a page and providing it is not successfully challenged then consent is implicit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• If this is a common practice I apologize, I would suggest we make an admin power explicit rather then implicit. It struck me as a tad off what wiki is and it's purpose of callaborative work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not common, and it is now even rarer than when I first started editing. When Wikipedia was smaller it seems that admins were permitted a greater latitude in how they handled "problem" editors - and declarations of topic or page bans were part of that. Later, as the project grew, these proposed actions were referred more to the AN or ANI boards (depending on urgency) since, as noted by Jhochman, these are matters of procedure that can be undone by any other admin and thus enforcement outside of a recognised consensus would be difficult. Now it appears that topic or page bans are referred to ArbCom as a matter of course. The major problem with individual admins enacting page or topic bans is the potential for abuse (and the remaining difficulty in getting abusive admins deflagged) and lack of transparency. This should not stop admins from enacting these sanctions (I refer to them as restrictions) where appropriate - but there does need to be a mechanism for review and confirmation of consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

frankly, i think page/topic bans are a much better way of dealing with certain types of disruption than blocks. this is true especially when you have valuable and knowledgeable editors who are also passionate about certain issues. certainly, they can take it to AN to appeal, and the editor is still able to contribute usefully in other areas. however, in nationalist debates the banning administrator needs to be sure that measures are being applied discriminately and with proportional severity, so as not to give the impression of favoring one side of the debate over another. untwirl(talk) 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Untwirl above. I myself can't see any good reason to keep someone from reverting vandalism to Islam simply because s/he's a royal pain regarding matters related to Family Guy, for example. Topic or page bans are much more focused and more likely to effectively deal with the problem, as well as making it at least potentially easier for a banned party to display the type of behavior which is most likely to result in the ban being lifted. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can see how it is a better alternative than blocking. Chillum 16:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a seductively appealing concept, isn't it?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with J's actions in imposing a sanction (other than the argument that civility sanctions are close to meaningless because we already have a civility policy, so a simple block for incvility would be better, but that is another matter). FWIW, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Locus_of_dispute notes another case in which a page ban was unilaterally imposed. Whilst that case didn't end happily (or sanely; but that too is another matter) there is no hint in the final decision that a page ban is impermissible William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• No opinion on whether the sanction itself is merited, but it's quite disappointing to see Jehochman put the cart before the horse in two different situations two days in a row. The first one went to RFAR. Now another long thread. Surely it would be less trouble--if a sanction really is appropriate--to propose it for community discussion and consensus rather than attempt to extend administrative powers by announcing it unilaterally. This is unnecessarily disruptive on Jehochman's part. Durova³²⁰ 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Soo...

Anyone notice the problem with the Portal:Current events page?Abce2|This isnot a test 01:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to help me with todays?Abce2|This isnot a test 02:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm so stupid! I forgot that nothings happen in the news yet. Heck, it's not even the 27th where I live!Abce2|This isnot a test 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation in 2009 Pacific typhoon season

Jason Rees insists in adding false information after that information have been proved wrong. I have shown him an official source indicating that the number 15 is assigned with TD 02C. [105][106] However, I've asked many many times and yet HE CAN'T PROVIDE A SINGLE SOURCE THAT THE NUMBER 18 IS ASSIGNED TO TD 02C.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna side with Jason Rees.You are changing numbers without prior consensus and you have reverted 5 times [107]. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He has reverted 5 times as well.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted 2 times today, well inside the rule. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're both edit-warring over this. Fair enough...he'll receive a warning regarding that as well. Meanwhile, this has gone more than long enough. I'm requesting page protection. Alan (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this gone far enough already? First the Discussion page on the article, then the AIV page, now here? I VERY strongly recommend that you LAY OFF until an Administrator has a chance to review all the pertinent information and make an informed decision. If you are unable to cite reliable, verifiable references to support your claim, and do so in a civil and courteous manner, you are likely to be banned from editing. Further, your running commentary skirts very close to being classed as personal attacks, which isn't helping your case at all. I understand your frustration, because it's clear you believe you are in the right...but this is NOT the way to go about it. 'Nuff said. Alan (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jason Rees is the one who is unable to cite reliable, verifiable references to support his claim.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Both users should be blocked for 24hrs edit-warring and others should take a look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After investigating this matter, I found out that User:Jason Rees made 4 reverts in 15 minuets and minuets which definitely warrants a 12-24 block, maybe, just maybe a 30 hour block. At the same time I found out that Typhoon2009 (talk · contribs) made 7 reverts in a 24 hour period. This warrants a 24-30 hour block. the 2009 PTS should also be protected. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 16:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since comments are still coming in, this report could be left open for a bit. I agree that there would be logic to blocking both editors, though User talk:Typhoon2009 seems to bear more responsibility for the ongoing war. Both parties exceeded 3RR today, but Jason's position seems to enjoy more support from other editors and his talk comments are much more calm. This article was full-protected once, on Sept 13, and there seems no need to do that again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my view of the situation, at the end of last year/beginning of this year the PTS went under a review as it seemed quite stupid that we were not following all of the Tropical Depressions that formed and having a other storms section for JMA depressions. So beginning with this season we decided we would monitor all of the depressions, we were not orignally gonna number them but as UltimateDarkloid it seemed half baked, so we started to number all the depressions starting with 1 and going upwards by when they formed. These numbers are not OR because the JMA Archive all their WWJP25s are archived here however during the first two months of the year they were not archiving there though they were archived here as well as on the MT Archving service located here. Until TY 09 turned up no one had a clue about these supposed SAREP numbers which are unverifiable without the Best Track infomation from JMA (which they do not issue on Tropical Depressions) and or these satellite reports which have to be archived each time a depression hits 30 kts and is expected to become a tropical storm within 24 hours or so which seems like a stupid system to use when we have to monitor each depression and can back ourselves up that Auring was the first depression of the year etc etc. Personally i would prefer not to have a block but ill deal with watever as far as i am concerned the system in place is a routine calculation and we seem to have a consenssus to use the numbers.Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Can you point to where on Talk you found consensus to use this numbering system?
2. Does the 2009 PTS article make clear that you guys are using a numbering system that is local to Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the orignal disscusion in which we agreed to use the numbering system. Also i was working on something to make it clear that they are not offical designations but could not seem to get the wording quite right.Jason Rees (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dare i ask what happens next? Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another admin has full-protected the article, so I see no reason for blocks. Nonetheless, the rationale you gave above for a Wikipedia-only numbering scheme seems open to many objections. I recommend that you try to agree with other editors on a proper statement, to be added to the article, to explain how you are doing the numbering of the storms. (Making up our own numbering seems to go against WP:RS). EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

MagicKirin, Tannim, 1, and 2 going around indef block

• MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Tannim2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

MagicKirin blocked several years ago as a sock master, Tannim was one of the blocked socks accounts. Reappears as Tannim1, blocked on 17 Sept but Fred Bauder unblocks citing off-wiki counseling/assurances that the user has reformed himself. I didn't think one admin could overturn a sock indef in this manner so I left him a note asking about this, and the explanation was that Tannim is essentially on probation. Reblocked indef a few days later by Jéské Couriano, and we're now onto "Tannim2". This needs admin intervention before the ineviable 3, 4, 5, etc...come along. In 3+ years of editing, this user has shown no interest in editing neutrally or objectively, e.g. like this. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you all were patient enough with him, but now he's evading blocks. The remedy for that is simple enough. Fred Talk 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd as block evading sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No sign of Tannim3 or 4... yet. If they appear, or another name which edits the same subjects in the same manner then I suggest making a SPI report with a view to finding if there is a stable underlying ip that might be blocked without collateral damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He sent me an email threatening that since we wouldn't unblock him, he'd go back to sockpuppeting (related to the off-wiki conversation described above, part of unblock-en-l activity). I notified a CU, I recommend people keep an eye out. He does seem to be displaying little regard for the community at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano

This 251 line, 99.7KiB, discussion can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Uncle G (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (slightly changed timestamp so this doesn't get archived yet. Fram (talk)) changed timestamp back otherwise it will never be archived. –xeno^talk

Help with editor assuming bad faith

I tried consantly to get Tothwolf to stop assuming bad faith in this AFD. I don't know what I should do in this situation. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it until the AfD is closed? The closing admin/editor will look at the arguments based in policy regarding the subject and its article, not accusations of bad faith and inclusionist/deletionist bias. Once the AfD is closed, then you may consider whether to bring this question to the attention of the ANI board. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CSD-G4 and now this discussion, I can't help but wonder if this is nothing more than stealth canvassing by User:Joe Chill to get the outcome he seems to desire here? We can clearly document a pattern wrt User:Joe Chill's mass-AfD nominations of software articles, with many of the AfD nominations being problematic as the articles can be sourced or improved (clearly not following WP:BEFORE). --Tothwolf (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of them was about the outcome. The first one was because I thought that an admin made a mistake and this is about your uncivil behavior! I was following WP:BEFORE because I did search for sources every time. I just don't have the same beliefs about sources as you do. Most of my software nominations was closed as delete. At the moment, Leafpad has a consensus to delete. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither his post above, nor his post here, are canvassing, Tothwolf. There may not be any administrator action necessary in either case, but it isn't helpful to make that accusation (in addition to the fact that it isn't accurate). user:J aka justen (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said "I can't help but wonder", I did not make a statement saying "x is canvassing". Considering some !votes did come in as a result of his posts here (verified) it did have an impact. Regardless, I'm hopeful my concerns over the patterns of AfD nominations I've been seeing are a small isolated incident as this seems to be a continuing pattern from Joe's last account (which for the record where he did not RTV, although I'm not going to mention his past username here or anywhere else on Wikipedia as I'm still trying to AGF). --Tothwolf (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that nominating a lot of articles for deletion and !voting delete a lot can cause editors that disagree with your opinions to try to dig up stuff that they can twist around and use against you. That's what I call a conflict of interest. I guess there are people that think that it's a big deal that most of my nominations close as delete, I have made compromises with many editors about the result, and that I get barnstars and good comments for my AFD work. The account issue was taken care of several days ago and after discussion with many editors, you're the only one with a problem about it. My username was User:Schuym1 and the talk page of A Nobody's RFC is there for everybody to read. The person who brought up the issue is even fine with it. Joe Chill (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe, it isn't just the AfD nominations, its the biased behaviour behind them. Specifically for software articles, if it were only one or two it probably wouldn't even register for anyone. You simply do not attempt to improve these articles and with exception of a couple stubs you recently created, you do not even work on articles in this area. You have time and time again nominated them for deletion and always claim "not notable" and "can't find significant coverage for this software" and do the same when !voting on software articles others have nominated for AfD. Contrary to your claims otherwise, quite a number of the articles you nominate are not deleted at AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my claim is correct (you haven't see all of my software nominations). So now you're calling me bias. I could just as easily say that you're bias. I make the same comments on all of the AFDs that I participate in. I even go through the same rude comments when I argue to keep an article. If I mainly spent my time rescuing articles, I would be going through the same stuff. This complaining is annoying because I'm not breaking any policies and I can't make everybody happy. It's AFD, there is always someone to notice and get mad about nominating two related articles or even one. So can you please stop looking for stuff to twist around? I'm not here to make all of the millions of users happy or set aside my non-policy breaking beliefs for one user. Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who brought this to AN/I (which I'll note is something you have a long history of doing when you don't agree with someone or get your way). Seems to me you are the one "looking for stuff to twist around" here too. You are pretty good at redirecting discussions, unfortunately that won't work on me. While some of your actions may not be in violation of policy, many are not in keeping with the spirit behind said policy, and that too is very important. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion about policies and I disagree. Your belief isn't fact. The below incident is similar to this. Like I said, I'm not setting aside my beliefs for one user. While you twisted stuff around, I can bring up links like below without twisting stuff around. Joe Chill (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive60#User:Tothwol#Failure to Assume Good Faith. After seeing that and more uncivility from you, I'm done replying to this. Joe Chill (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK --Tothwolf (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Soundboard prank call

There's been a simmering dispute over Talk:Soundboard prank call (|article|history|links|watch|logs). to make it short, I stubbed the article some time ago, removing most of the unsourced content. KirkCliff2 (talk · contribs) disagrees with the stubbing, and reverts it, but does not provide sourcing to support the claims in the article. I eventually decide to redirect it into Prank call per a couple of people on the article.

Since then, mostly on User talk:KirkCliff2, the talk page, and my talk page he's basically accused me of just about violating every rule in the book: wikilawyering, being incivil, creating an anarchy, being bureaucratic, twisting every rule in the book to my advantage, being disruptive, ignoring WP:IAR, violating consensus, warning me not to sockpuppet, saying I edit in bad faith, and claiming that he has a perfect understanding of the rules and that I don't. He's threatened to get administrator intervention and to take me to mediation several times, but didn't even respond when I opened up a MedCab case request, choosing to pen a 400-word response instead.

Obviously, this is a lengthy set of charges, and the content issue is almost nothing compared to here; that will be resolved in time, but there are major behavioral issues in the ensuring debate. Have I, in fact, failed to abide by Wikipedia guidelines? Is he, as I believe, being extremely incivil, harassing, and being unproductive by continuing to attack me and not answer my content questions; namely, that I want sources that meet WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR? And if either of us have done wrong, how should we be sanctioned? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If neither of you have done wrong and you think you should be sanctioned, then you will be looking for Wikipedia:Abusive admin noticeboard (insults)... I have had a quick review, and notice that discussion seems to have ended around 6th September on the talkpage; is there some diffs regarding the "simmering" aspect? If not, then I think the status quo is correct - if KirkCliff2 can find specific sources for this type of prank call then the article can be unredirected. Obviously it would also be cool if they toned down the language and concentrated on content and not contributor, but my feeling is that any warning or comment now would inflame rather than diminish the prospect of drama. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Real19 and articles related to United Submitters International

United Submitters International is an Islamic splinter group found by Rashad Khalifa who was murdered in 1990. Those two pages have always been the targets of proselytisers, but User:Real19 is an especially persistent case. In recent edit sequences he has added a large copyvio to Rashad Khalifa (from here) and turned United Submitters International into an promotional manifesto. This user is not interested in discussion: despite 8 complaints to his talk page over several years, his only response has been to delete some of them. He has never made a single edit to an article talk page. He tried to create a POV fork Dr. Rashad Khalifa by importing a large amount of promotional material (speedy deleted but admins can check it). Removal of unacceptable material just results in it being put back without as much as an edit summary.

I don't wish to handle this case by myself since I was the original author of Rashad Khalifa, but I request that User:Real19 be indefinitely blocked. I would also welcome assistance regarding the above two articles. Thanks. Zero^talk 09:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the Khalifa edits he's made, and am keeping an eye on the page. I don't see a particular problem with the USI page - yes, it could be wikified, but the text seems fairly neutral. Ironholds (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance/Advice needed for user page

I came across User:Jarsen Padackles at UAA, and while there's no problem with the username, there is some personal information that the person has added to their user page that might be problematic. I'd deal with this myself, but I'm about to head off to bed, so if someone could look into it that would be grand. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

Ludvikus September 2009

See User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request and User talk:Ludvikus#Restriction and User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 7#Disruption and block

Also User talk:PhilKnight#User Ludvikus

Ludvikus has recently pleaded successfully to have his two year block reduced, but instead of making a wise decision and editing in a different area, he has gone back to his old haunts and is already showing traits of the behaviour he was blocked for last time. I have placed a restriction on him from editing in one of these areas where he caused so much disruption before his last block, which will last until his block would have ended after two years (13 May 2010).

I have also suggested that he find a different area of Wikipedia to engage in constructive editing, so that when the two years are up he will be familiar with consensus editing and be less disruptive in those area where he evidently holds strong opinions.

I promised Ludvikus that I would start a thread here, so that others could review what I have done and promised him that if there is a strong consensus among other administrators that I am being too harsh, I will consider striking out the restriction. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is a temporary ban from a handful of articles, so I consider this to be entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's reasonable, but it's inappropriate and inconsistent with WP policy. If I had done anything wrong, with my previous record, I would have been Banned - at least for the duration of the two years which have not expired from my previous Ban, and which Ban has been graciously terminated by Admin. User:PhilKnight. I'm in this situation - I believe - because of mere content-disputes with one user, namely User:North Shoreman. The set of articles relate and pertain to one highly controversial expression, historical revisionism. And to the best of my recollection, User:Philip Baird Shearer, who is a WP Administrator, has also contributed substantially to the articles from which he is now Restricting me. Therefore, (1) I should not be restricted just because of a content dispute with one editor, User:North Shoreman; and (2) because WP Administrator, User:Philip Baird Shearer, has contributed substantially to said highly controversial family of articles, I believe he has a conflict of interest in his determination that I be Restricted from the articles he had written, dealing with historical revisionism. Furthermore, I aks that my conduct be judged only as to the issue herein. I have been Banned before. And I believe I've learned my lessons - I think that's why I'm not being banned now, only Restricted. Nevertheless, I believe the restrictions are simply due to a Content dispute with the herein Restricting administrator. Thank you for your considerations on this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ludvikus. Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You know that it's partly because of my Confrontation with you, User:Malik Shabazz, and User:Bootlesthecat that I was Banned for two (2) years. Now Bootlesthecat is Banned from WP. And now you think I should be Banned again. But why? What have I done wrong? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the unblock and restriction are both appropriate, and well-founded in Wikipedia policy. Blocks are to prevent disruption. A generally good editor who has "issues" in a certain field can hopefully edit successfully in another field - there are over a million articles that need work. Work within the restrictions, show your "quality", and perhaps the restrictions will be lifted. Wikilawyering won't help. Further edits inside the restricted areas should lead to a reinstatement of the block with a reset timer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor with such a chequered history needs to tread carefully on their return, and Ludvikus acknowledged in his unblock request was that the way to stay out of trouble was to "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." If a topic ban from a few articles helps him to do that, then it's a help to everyone. If Ludvikus continues to oppose the topic ban, I suggest he be offered the alternative of having the block restored.

Having looked at PBS's edits to the articles in question, I don't see any conflict of interest. PBS's edits in this area appear to be minor housekeeping issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that you're mistaken. Perhaps your error is due to a failure to recognize for whom the initials PBS stand. If you search under the full name of this Administrator who is now restricting me, you'll find that he in fact participated - years ago, and engaged me in discourse on that said subject - on the historical revisionism. Also, the fact that you had participated in Banning me before has nothing to do with this Content dispute over historical revisionism. I hope you do not construe this as a Confrontation. I merely ask you to go back in years and confirm that what I say here is true. Whatever you say thereafter, I'll drop the point - unless you totally misunderstand what I'm say regarding the Conflict of Interests of the Restricting Administrator (since I've been Banned years back, you should look at the content dispute I've had with PBS when he used his full name. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I did look under his full name. I just typed PBS 'cos his full name is rather long.

And no, I don't see evidence of a content dispute.

And even I did, I'd still support banning you from returning to the area where you had your previous conflicts, when you have just returned from a long-term block. Try some other topic as a palce to demonstrate that you really can work collaboratively and without drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you really look very carefully at my conduct upon my return, you'll find that in fact I have "tread[ed] carefully on [my] return. So I ask you - please - tell me exactly where I have deliberately violated any rule - or Not "tread[ed] carefully." If you point out exactly what I've done wrong, I can avoid it in the future. But my understanding now is that there's a mere Content dispute regarding my editing of historical revisionism articles. I really do not understand why I'm being restricted now from editing the articles in question. What WP rules have I violated? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would draw your attention to your unblock request, and specifically

  (4) I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Wikipedia which would lead to a "block" - so there's really no need to block me any longer.

  and would gently point out that you have posted in disagreement with every contributor in this section. I would remind you that you are the account that was blocked, and have undertaken not to engage in disputes as previously, and that it is your actions that need explaining under policy and your unblock and not that of various parties that disagree with you. Your attitude on this page indicates that your good intentions are not being carried through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for you gentle admonition. I had no idea that a discussion of whether I should be Restricted from revisionist history enumerated articles (4?) would be a Confrontation, as you now suggest. As I now understand, I'm not supposed even to discuss whether I should be restricted. Since that's what you're now telling me, I will not write here anymore. Thanks for telling me that. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm... I was not implying that editing or commenting upon those areas in which you have been previously been found to be disruptive is in itself in violation of the self imposed imposed limitations under which you were unblocked (although it may be considered that avoiding those subjects might be a better option) but rather your tone and actions in this section rather belies your claim to avoid confrontation. Is it not possible that the better response to PBS's initial post was, "Whoops! I had not intended to transgress my undertakings..." and then attempted to negotiate a basis under which you might continue to contribute to those areas rather than bring up old conflicts with the reporting editor? Rather than a few people decrying your recent editing history you may have had them helping you through the topic ban. I cannot say I am overly impressed with your attitude toward my comments, and I do not think that there is now much more to do than endorse PBS's actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are talking to me, and conversing with me now. There was no "initial post" by PBS. He simply Restricted me without any warning. And he placed me on this Noticeboard. So I simply have had absolutely no opportunity to say "oops." He gave me no chance. I had no opportunity to make any corrections based on objections by PBS. And I was not Blocked because of any disagreement I had with him. I had no idea PBS was displeased with my editing - until after the fact. He simply admonished me for my editing - and than decided to post an incident here. So I'm completely surprised by this situation I'm in. I have no idea how this Confrontation came about. I really think its just a content dispute. So I would appreciate it if you showed me (1) What exactly I did wrong, (2) How can I avoid getting into trouble like this in the future. I certainly understand that I should not violate the specific Restriction that are now posted on my Talk paqge. But I need to understand exactly why I got into trouble with PBS in the first place, and how I can avoid that predicament in the future. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you understand that my editing at Wikipedia now feels like walking in a mind-field. It's seems that Anything can turn into an explosive Confrontation. I think precisely because I've been so cautious PBS has not simply Banned me for the duration of my two-years. But I need to understand how I got into this mess in the first place. And so far, no one has explained to me exactly what I did wrong which has resulted in this Restriction. And I hope my desire to learn this situation I'm in is not misconstrued as a Confrontation. I simply do not know why the Restrictions were imposed on me by PBS without any warning by him whatsoever. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"When you're in a hole, stop digging." -- Denis Healey.

I'll put some suggestions onto your talk page. --PBS (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS's initial post here - you could have taken the opportunity to acknowledge that they had concerns and request guidance to enable you to return to editing the article(s). You did not, and instead queried whether the ban was within policy - and you have argued every view that it was subsequently. As an editor returning from a ban/block it is incumbent upon you to ensure you are acting within policy - and unless you can give good reasons why you consider your disputed edits are consistent with policy it is understood that consensus exists to your being blocked for disrupting these articles per the previous blocks; your warnings already exist per the blocks and prior warnings. It is a regrettable truth that previously banned editors do not have the luxury of having sanctions explained to them - they are expected to recognise that they are allowed the privilege of editing Wikipedia only if they do not repeat the behaviour that has previously resulted in sanctions. I see that PBS has opened a dialogue; this is the opportunity to learn where your editing has been deemed inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by: "I see that PBS has opened a dialogue; this is the opportunity to learn where your editing has been deemed inappropriate." --Ludvikus (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the posts by PBS to your talkpage - to which you have replied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's extremely informative & helpful. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Minor" edits by SF1SHER07 (talk · contribs)

This editor makes many minor edits . . . but also many non-minor edits that he marks with the m (most recently [108], [109], [110]). I've posted three requests to his talk page (most recently here) asking him to be careful with the minor checkbox (even with directions on how to change it if it's a default setting), but he's offered no response and continues to mark things as minor. He's marked a few edits as non-minor, so obviously he knows how to do that. Anyway, the persistent behavior and failure to talk-page engage are getting old and annoying; would another voice mind chiming in on his talk page or otherwise intervening? --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Looks as if this has been going on for a while now. ceranthor 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

request for a deleted page

User:Rvcx and Carly Fiorina

Polanski article - extra eyes?

Roman Polanski - My apologies if this note is a Bad Thing^TM: Article probably would profit from extra watchers today because of his arrest in Switzerland. This very low-edit-volume wp:BLP has had over 100 edits this morning since his arrest. Some have been problematic and I think they are gone. There has been some good work, and I hope a lot of it stayed. Who knows, someone might actually add a source to the mash of OR in the movies section.- Sinneed 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected Roman Polanski (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for two weeks due to a flood of IP BLP violations. (I'm not sure whether I should have done this, since I've also made content edits now, so feel free to undo or alter.)  Sandstein  20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

problems

User avala and me have a big dispute. This was deleted from here and I am very troubled by the fact that it was deleted. He titled the thing "user causing problems" referring to me. We asked for a third opinion, and nothing has happened. Should us two return to edit warring, or what should happen? If not, the 2-1 consensus should be followed. (LAz17 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).

Well, in no case should you return to edit warring. Have you tried all the options in WP:DR?  Sandstein  18:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

...and in all cases, remember that WP:CONSENSUS is not a tally of votes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We can not reach one. Avala is too stuborn to compromise or do anything other than what he wants. We got a third opinion, he still is firm in his POV beliefs. Yet the discussion here was deleted... and so you guys let it go away, when there is still a problem. (LAz17 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).

I courtesy listed the matter at the content noticeboard a few days ago. It seems that so far nobody has added additional comments to the dispute. Perhaps somebody will respond to that request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinons?

Can I get someone's input on this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion here. I'd suggest an RfC for greater discussion on which languages to include, generally, based on whatever criteria seems to be the consensus. In my view, I'd say get rid of them all. At least then everyone will be unhappy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning issued to both parties. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR-warning well-taken. That's why I came here. Now, what's the solution? RfC? Seriously? Hmmmm.... I'll consider it. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know to start an RFC, let me know, and I can help you out on that. MuZemike 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thx, I know. Done. Would appreciate opinions and input there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I have full-protected the page for 6 hours. Both parties are now required to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Local Embassy. Regards, MuZemike 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

Einstein0202 (talk · contribs) - This editor's first two edits are vandalism, their User page indicates that the account is shared by two people, and it also proclaims that they're here to "screw up Wikipedia". I've asked them if the account is really shared by two people. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism-only account.  Sandstein  20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock- puppetry, 3RR and a lot more

Problem is mainly between two users. Me (User:Tadija) and User:Kreshnik25. Main problems are on the Prizren and Đakovica pages, and also, on many more places. Kreshnik created accout on 25 September 2009, and almost in moment he understands all of main wiki rules. I suppose that User:Kreshnik25 may be some kind of sock-puppet of User:AnnaFabiano or User:Kedadi, because of the absolutely identical interest articles, and more important, they are log in on the same time, with the same point of view. Also, that Kosovo naming problem is here for years, and we would reeaaaly love to have same good manual about that, that we can use. WP:MOSKOS is out of order, who knows why? At the end, who ever is completely right, i am tired of reverts and explanations, and it will be nice to put some kind of protection on those articles, or just to send more eyes there.

Problem is in the origin of the Prizren and Đakovica names, and we just need someone to tell us which sources are reliable, and which is not. I hope that i was ok, sometimes i did overreach, but, it was to much for me.

Whoever, i am eagerly waiting for your answers.

For more information see our talk pages, and see:

• Talk:Prizren#References_for_the_name
• Talk:Đakovica#Requested_move_2

Tadija (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the main issue (sorry), you can ask for opinions on sourcing at the Reliable sources noticeboard, and if you are confident in your analysis ask for a sock puppet investigation. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible observation of a user?

From his recent activity User:Mactruth's seems like a POV-pusher. Maybe I'm wrong but please have a look at his today's contribution in some articles like Macedonians (Greeks), Macedonians (Bulgarians), Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonian language. He has a long history of POV editing on Macedonia-related articles and seems ready to start edit wars, for example in the first article where I'm also involved in. Thank you! Sthenel (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done the courtesy of informing User:Mactruth as should have been done when this was posted. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the notification to the talkpage. You must've accidently posted it on his User page.--Laveol ^T 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, its up to the Administrator for its decision. In Macedonians (Greeks I have asked for documentation during the Ottoman times in which Greeks in Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and until then put up citation notices on the page (and have also started a discussion about it, which Sthenel has not contributed too)

Macedonians (Bulgarians) I have not done anything, I simply tried to make the header the same format across all Macedonian pages.

Macedonians (ethnic group) same thing, the header. I have also added to the symbols section, is that POV pushing?

Macedonian language, I have removed the section talking about Bulgarian and Greek objection to the Macedonian language being in the summary section of the article. Those should be in the article "Political viewpoints of the Macedonian language". And I don't have a long history of POV editing, I have not been banned during the Macedonia case, have I? Mactruth (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ - [111]--Laveol ^T 00:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I said during the Macedonia case Mactruth (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please not Sthenels subtle personal attacks. Mactruth (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kalto / Nahali and Nihali / Nahali

We have a page history mess at Nihali language/archive that's beyond my ability.

There are two languages that have been confused in the lit., Kalto (Indic) and Nihali (an isolate). Both have been called Nahali by outsiders, though the Indics call themselves Kalto. But Ethnologue, apparently erroneously, reported Kalto as the ethnonym of the isolate Nihali rather than the Indic Nahali (this has been fixed in the 16th edition), and as a result, there were several cut & paste reversals of the Wikipedia articles. That's not so bad, and I've merged the page histories so that each contains the history of only one language article. But from 2004 to Feb 2008, there were two parallel articles on the language isolate, one under the name Nihali, and one under Kalto, while the Indic language (now Kalto) was listed under Nahali. I can't merge those without turning the history to gibberish, so I've moved the more recent of the two to the archive name above, as a place to keep the article history.

Should the 'archive' just be deleted? Maybe s.o. here can decide what should be done with it. kwami (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Notpietru

• Pietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Notpietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Could some independent admin please look at the recent trolling behavior of User:Notpietru? He's been making not unreasonable edits to Maltese (dog) but his commentary is obviously designed to provoke others. See [112] (Mljet / Malta theory of origin is the center of the dispute), [113], [114], [115], [116]. Much of this is directed at Imbris, who has barely even edited the article recently, though he has been provoked into complaining. I tried to warn him about this confrontational approach; see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog), in which I requested independent input before but received none. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still going on? This is hardly new behavior. He started a new account, but he has a block history under his old account, pretty much for this exact sort of behavior. He has serious WP:OWN issues it seems, which have led to edit warring over numerous Malta-related articles for some time... --Jayron32 05:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

His old account was blocked for one month on August 8th, his new account(the one above) was registered on August 15th, meaning it was used for block evasion, and therefore abusive sockpuppetry. It should therefore be blocked indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Read april as august. Ya.. oops. Either way, he should still be blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

AIV is backlogged with some reports hours old. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

new user trying to get some help

Hello - first of all I hope I am not breaching etiquette by writing something here - I am just trying to get a little help / attention. I am a new user and I got blocked on my first day - not a good start. I tried doing the request an unblock for User:Canadian Imperial but it has already been two days and it doesn't seem to get noticed. the person who blocked my old account doesn't seem to be around today (or yesterday) to lift the block on my account (if he would even do it). as I said on my talk page i guess i was not thinking how my edits to the CIBC World Markets article would be viewed - but i really have not behaved badly at all let alone to deserve a block. i probably could have chosen a better user name than canadian imperial to make those edits but it seems like i was blocked for the wrong reasons. i probably have a conflict since i did work there a dozen years ago but i also have insight and thought the article was not very good. i was accused of including promotional material but actually if you read what i wrote it was all historical and really balanced – half of it was about the decline of cibc. i have tried editing wikipedia before without logging in and have never really had a problem but this time i wanted to create an account. it has not worked out as well as i had hoped. take a look at what i wrote and see if it is really that bad. i would like to try to give it another shot. i am still learning but i think i get the basic idea of what you are trying to do. i would like to get the block lifeted to change to another username and not have my normal computer blocked. Hope someone can help me. Thanks a lot.Retired Canadian (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Block evasion is not looked upon kindly here. For anyone interested, the diff of his edits is here. Tim Song (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A little AGF ... he filed his unblock request so that he could change his username. Nobody has looked at it so that he could change it. Perhaps not wise to register yet another name, but hardly block evasion because he was blocked for username violations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF doesn't apply to username "violations". We block editors (this one is lucky he didn't get an accidental hard block), then we ignore their unblock requests, then when they try another avenue we accuse them of block evasion. Except, obviously, most editors leave at the first block. UAA (etc) are lousy ways to keep editors. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say as long as he puts a clear notice on his talk page that he formerly edited under the other name (and discloses on the talk page of the articles he edits that he formerly worked for a branch of CIB), nobody should come after him. I'm certainly willing to AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The original block was autoblock enabled, account creation blocked - see his block log. For the record, I personally think it was excessive; but since the block has ACB on, it follows that creating another account is technically block evasion. Tim Song (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am astonished at the line taken by a couple of the commentators above. Whatever may be the technicalities, we have an inexperienced editor who was editing in good faith and fell foul of the rules by accident. He has made sincere attempts to get his case reconsidered. He has been completely open, explaining the situation here, and made no attempt to hide the fact that he has made a second account. Whether or not his creating a new account was technically against any rules, he has not abused the account in any way, and there is no evidence that he has anything but good intentions. Under these circumstances I think some of the comments above are unduly harsh, to say the least. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Second this. I'm also yet to hear that WP:AGF somehow doesn't apply to an area of the wiki. If it was User:Earn$$$inursparetime then I can understand a block, since that username is enough that AGF, while still applying, gets rather overwritten. I hardly see how is previous username is one worthy of a username block, or the suspension of AGF. Can we not start from scratch? He didn't know the specifics and (very technically) violated some rules, presumably unintentionally. Getting rid of a well intentioned contributor because he wasn't able to grasp the ins and outs of our policies on the first day does not one iota of good for the project - arguably it's one of the reasons some mainstream commentators argue we're burning out. Ironholds (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF should apply to all areas of the project. It should especially apply to areas dealing with usernames, because many of those users will be new. Now go look at how many people are blocked for usernames. Then look at how many of those get hard, not soft, blocks. UAA etc are harmful to the project. Many editors are chased away by over-enthusiastic templating, blocking, etc. As this report shows, even good faith contributors have to jump through multiple (obscure) hoops to get heard, all the while they've got people (who should know better) calling them spammers. See the report above where you offer mentorship to an editor who declines it? That editor would have been *gone*, hardblocked no account creation allowed, if they'd chosen a different username. People can argue about the benefits or otherwise of doing so, but there is a big inconsistancy there. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. My grasp of the English language is apparently slipping. I commented that way because I did not have time to read his contribs; having read that a while ago, I don't think it's spamming; no, I don't think we should do anything about this technical violation; and I think the hard block was excessive. In other words - I fully concur in the sentiments expressed above. Tim Song (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading the contribs in question, I unblocked so he could change his account name, as requested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper

Please see these two diffs: [117], and [118] I'm all for talking this out, but it seems obvious where this is headed. If someone could talk Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs) down from the top of the Reichstag, I would appreciate it. I'd really rather simply avoid the fight in the first place then have someone come here later on with bad blood. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The above user has made two very contentious edits to core policies without any prior discussion.[119] [120]. I can only speculate as to his motives, but if he was trying to do things in the way we would expect around here he would have discussed them first.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• If you don't want to be reverted like this, then don't muck around trying to unilaterally declare non-policy the oldest policy that we have. Uncle G (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not upset in the least, especially since I half expected this to happen (which is why I posted a lengthy explaination on the talk page before editing). What bothers me is Wolfkeepers obviously script driven ability to impose his views on anyone who touches the document in question, and the behavior issues underlying the reason I brought this here. A cursory examination of the two diffs, and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary should make it obvious what the issue is, and rather attempting to directly address the issue with an obviously emotional editor I was hoping to receive some outside assistance. Should I wait until we're actually at each others throats and have both broken 3RR before coming here?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  So, apart from deciding you get to unilaterally change the core policies, you also think you get to justify it with bad faith character assassination of people that disagree with you? And you also seem to be claiming that whatever the result from a discussion would be you're planning to edit war to change it anyway. You may want to stop digging this hole for yourself.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't unilaterally decide anything, you did that yourself though by relying on the undo tool. Anyway, I'm not going to allow you to bait me into stooping to your level. Who did what and who said what is easily accessible to those who are willing to look, and I provided diffs above.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  Removing a core policy be a guideline requires something of the order of an RFC and a consultation period. You... didn't... do... anything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  I haven't done anything except pick up where the previous conversation left off (and I would personally welcome an RFC, if you're up to beginning one). Aside from that, the fact is that despite your continuing accusations I haven't removed anything, and I'm not attempting to remove anything.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  You've changed it three times so far. This is known as edit warring. You've done it without consensus- there was no prior consensus, and there certainly is not now. Perhaps there's a problem with the word 'consensus'. It means 'everyone agrees', not just you on your own.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not unilateral as there has been longstanding disquiet about this page which is reflected in the many discussions upon its talk page - discussions which User:Ohms law has read and acted upon. Unfortunately it seems to be something of a policy backwater and so it is routinely misunderstood by editors who regularly nominate articles for deletion on the grounds that they are short and so, supposedly, are dictionary entries. Age means little because of the Eternal September effect, as you so well describe it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There was no recent discussion nor any form of consensus.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Now it's not just Wolfkeeper, User:Roux has started making threats. (No idea what he's carrying on about re: warnings, but that's not really important).
• Maybe I'm off base here, but I know that I'm perfectly calm, and willing to discuss this small change in categorization (there's not content in dispute here). My perception is that the "opposition" jummped to a "sotto voice" defense, utilizing (off point) hyperbole, and displaying a significant ownership issue. I'm honestly not sure what the core issue is, since all of the bad faith accusations that are being thrown around are completely missing what the actual edit that their undoing is accomplishing.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  You have now attempted to demote that policy to guideline three times. In each instance, you have been reverted. There is no consensus for the change whatsoever, thus the warning: continue to make the change against consensus, and you will be blocked by some admin for disruption, to prevent further editing against consensus. It's not that hard to understand. → ROUX ₪ 02:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about bouncing this around like this, I didn't realize that I went all the way up to AN (rather then here to ANI) from the archives.

  Anyway, you're the one (along with Wolfkeeper) using the undo tool Roux, so if anyone here is being disruptive then it would be you. I'm not sure why you're so obviously upset about. Normally I would recommend stepping away, but based on past conflicts that I've seen you involved in I know that this appears to be your normal state of mind, so stepping away wouldn't solve anything.

  Regardless, There's nothing being changed other then categorization, so the accusations of disruption and appeals to "lack of consensus" are completely off base (I could actually dispute the lack of consensus charge, but I don't see what the point is since there's nothing here that requires consensus). You're reverting over a categorization change here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wow, where do I begin... how about you can the personal fucking attacks, to begin with? That would be a good start. Second, this isn't about 'categorization', this is about a core policy that has been a Wikipedia policy for years, with the attendant need to adhere to it. You want to downgrade it from required to suggested. There is a difference between the two. Consensus is required, as it is required for everything on Wikipedia. That is, in fact, how the entire project runs. Consensus comes in two varieties: implicit and explicit. Implicit consensus means that nobody objects when you make a change. However, since there have been objections, you must seek explicit consensus. That does not exist at this time. You know that doesn't exist, because you have already been told it doesn't. You also know that your change the first time was unacceptable, because both Wolfkeeper and Uncle G told you so. Using the undo button to revert bad-faith edits against consensus is not, actually, disruptive--no matter how much you might wish to paint everyone else as being disruptive, you are the one that must achieve consensus for the change you wish to implement. → ROUX ₪ 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  You're making the personal attacks, not I. I've remained calm and on point for several days now, I'm not the one flying off the handle and lashing out at others here.

  I'm not changing the document itself at all, which is why I've been saying that the criticism from yourself and others has been missing the mark. This is a good example of how WP:OWN and wikilawyering actually cause harm, because if you would relax and read what I'm actually trying to tell you instead of lashing out then we could talk about this (which is why this is an "incident", not coincidentally). Anyway, I addressed the actual change further on the relevant talk page.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, you're the one who did start off making personal attacks. But hey, reality, who needs it. How is editing the document somehow not changing the document? Right now, it is a policy. That means it is mandatory subject to the exigencies of WP:IAR. You wish to downgrade it to a guideline, making it optional. How is that not a change? → ROUX ₪ 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm of the opinion that User:Ohms law is trolling; it certainly seems to walk like a WP:DUCK. He turns up, reads the talk page, notices there is no consensus, (he already admitted he read the talk page before hand, and would certainly have noticed this), and then starts editing anyway. That's being a troll, there's no other reasonable explanation. He then sticks a merge notice, which would basically have the effect of completely deleting the policy page if actioned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  He is disrupting the wikipedia; WP:POINT.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Once is a mistake, editing it 3 times and putting up the merge notice is disruption.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• And we've come full circle. Again, if someone could talk these gentlemen down from the top of the Reichstag, perhaps we could have a real conversation. A block of anyone here is a loss for Wikipedia as a whole. Some sort of intervention would be very appreciated, so that we could debate the substance of the issue (including quite possibly an RFC) rather then... this. Thanks.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Then leave it in the original state, before it was ever changed, and begin a discussion on the talk page abotu changing it. In the spirit of pages like WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, it is the responsibility of the person wishing to change the status quo to convince others of the necessity of the change. You cannot repeatedly claim that because you made the first edit, that it is others, and somehow not you, who are responsible for the edit war. It's your proposed change, and it is being contested in good faith by others. So, leave the change out until you can establish consensus. --Jayron32 05:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  It's "original state" predates any categorization, so leaving it in it's "original state" simply isn't possible. Regardless, accepting a fait acompli is their means of "winning", which is why this conflict actually goes back several months (predating my involvement). If someone would step in and deflate the situation and/or stop the attempts at browbeating those who dispute them into submission, then we could have an actual discussion about it. From what has been said on the page in question, we agree more then we disagree. The conflict arises primarily from an aparent dissagrement of the interpretation of WP:POLICY (based on incorrect assumptions that guidelines are "optional", and\or a change in categorization is somehow "demoting" the document), but there is also a heavy component of "stay away from my work!" to this (at least in my perception, which is really what this thread is about. Be sure to read edit summaries as well). I would love to discuss the first part, but the screaming and carrying on connected with the second part makes that nearly impossible.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Stop screwing around. You know exactly what I meant by "original state". The "policy" categorization has been on that page for years. Leave it the way you found it, and make your arguements on the talk page. You may very well be right here, but by trying to force others to accept your change, rather than discussing the matter civily, you are doing yourself no favors. Being right wins you no points when you behave poorly. --Jayron32 05:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'd echo that there is some very poor conduct; I hope protection and sanctions will not become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree with Jayron32. No opinion about the substantive question, but we do expect contested changes to policy pages to obtain clear consensus before they happen; edit-warring to make a policy change is blockable conduct. Please stop.  Sandstein  06:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  These opinions would be more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Change to guideline (where there is information showing that Jayron's suggestion is misinformed, which shouldn't be surprising considering the lack of any attention that this document has ever received). Regardless, I started this discussion in order to address tendentious, outright hostile editing that displays a sense of ownership one one user's part, and incivility on the part of another. Can we discuss that here, and leave the substantive discussion on the talk page linked to above?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  It seems you are missing the point; the opinions stated here are well suited for this thread. Sandstein was pretty explicit in his view: "no opinion about the substantive question". In fact, the other opinions stated here since your comment at 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) seem to focus on conduct, particularly yours. I really cannot understand why you'd want these opinions to go to the talk page when they are not, as you've referred to it as, "substantive". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Jayron's "solution" is to give up, and accept that Wolfkeeper and Roux can browbeat and complain loud enough to make a prevent defense workable here. They may be successful, but I would hope that those of you seeing this from the outside would be interested enough to actually look at what's occurring rather then just trying to make it go away. I know that you're busy, which is fine... if you're not interested, just leave it alone. There is a serious problem here though, and becoming involved in the other side of the underlying dispute isn't addressing the problem. ANI is not a component of dispute resolution after all, so how about we not allow the edit warriors to use it as such?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I don't believe that was Jayron32's solution at all. You made a bold edit to revise the page as a guideline, but you were reverted. What that means is that you need to stop forcing the change by repeatedly making that bold edit (which will result in an edit war) - instead, you should work on discussing the issue on the talk page, and gaining a consensus to make that change. Once there is a consensus to make that change, then there would be no issue with you making that edit again to change the page to guideline status. You may wish to re-read his comments in light of my own interpretation. To respond to your other comments, people don't want to get involved in disputes or certain discussions for a variety of reasons - time or being busy is only one such reason, and is not applicable to every individual who commented here. I also don't see how edit warriots are using ANI (or this thread) as a formal step in dispute resolution, when it is not. Could you clarify what you meant? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  The thing is, my change wasn't bold at all. The first discussion (this year) was archived when I started a new thread is all. This is the continuation of an issue which has been ongoing since 2005, so characterizing this as a "change" or as a "bold edit" is simply incorrect. The only reason that there has been any stability to this at all is that nobody has been willing to stand up and try to solve the dispute (see the usage and watchlist stats given in the discussion on the talk page). If that takes discussing things here, then so be it, but it would be helpful if all interested parties would read the discussion archives and the edit histories.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here, in the interest of attempting to settle this, this is my original reasoning:

I've changed the tag on (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) to label it as a guideline. I have at least skimmed through the conversations above [and in the archives], and I'm not unsympathetic to the issues that are raised in favor of keeping it labeled as a policy, yet I'm unconvinced. From WP:POL: "Policies ... are standards that all users should follow. They are often closely related to the five pillars of Wikipedia." and "Guidelines are primarily advisory. They advise on ... how to apply and execute policy under specific circumstances." Since this document is intended to support a specific case given in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is clearly advisory in applying that policy, and should therefore be a guideline. I also see some arguments above, given in support of keeping this a policy document, which seem to reply on a value judgment where there is an assumption that policies are somehow greater then guidelines. Where that could be true in cases of conflict between two documents, it's not a general axiom by any means.

One huge point to keep in mind there is that none of the content is disputed. The follow on discussion offered by Wolfkeeper actually supports changing it to a guideline, as Dank points out later in the discussion. The issue is that Wolfkeeper seems to think that guidelines are optional and that policy is The Law. More of a problem though is his obvious view that it's "his policy" to protect, which is what brought me here (see his immediate reply in the discussion thread, along with several angry edit summaries.

Regardless, addressing the "leave it in it's original state" criticism directly, as I mentioned above it's not possible to do that. This isn't a "game" at all, as the history of this document goes back to 2001. {{Policy}} and {{Guideline}} date to 2005, which is when the underlying issue here first cropped up. I should mention that I'm simply the latest in a long series of people to bring this issue up. I see no reason we should slavishly be beholden to a decision make in 2005. That and I'm definitely not edit warring (as much as Wolfkeeper obviously wishes that I would).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohms law, it looks to me like you're the one on top of the Reichstag right now. You say yourself that you "half expected this to happen" but went ahead with the edit anyway without a suitable discussion? To say that was asking for trouble would be an understatement. When making a change that's likely to be controversial, the procedure is to discuss first and then edit, not edit first and then discuss. I suggest you follow Jayron32's advice, which seems quite appropriate to me. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why Wolfkeeper should be able to claim the high-ground after having simply browbeaten his previous "opposition" in this. And again, this isn't actually a change, it's the continuation of a long running dispute due to the fact that the document itself predates policy\guideline classifications. The reason that I half expected this to happen, and the reason that I started this thread, was due to the bad faith and tendentious behavior displayed in this matter previously, as well as the incivil remarks and immediate battle mentality displayed. Should I instead fight back, using the same mannerisms?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not saying that at all. Look, if you want the change to occur, and you feel that the problem is that your version would be upheld if only more editors could read and understand your rationale, then there are ways to get more eyes on the page in question. If you make an anouncement at WP:VPP, there are thousands of editors that regularly read that page, and many would likely have an opinion on the matter. You could start a WP:RFC to bring in more eyes. You could request that the talk page be added to WP:CD which would put an anouncement for more discussion all over Wikipedia. You have not tried ANY of these Ohm's Law. All you have done is a) edit warred b) run into opposition (and I am willing to posit that your opposition may be wrong here, but that is NOT at issue at this point) and c) come here to complain. If you are tired of 1-2 editors monopolizing the conversation, bring more editors into the conversation. There are lots of ways to do so, so long as you do not WP:CANVASS or WP:FORUMSHOP then asking at the appropriate noticeboards is a fine way to get more comment. ANI is not an appropriate noticeboard for this however. --Jayron32 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I have no personal opinion on the matter. I find that having two different levels of "stuff you should do at Wikipedia" pages is confusing, and thus I generally hold that policies and guidelines hold the same general function, and holding that there is a distinction in how we treat them is a bad idea. SO my opinion is this is a silly debate. However, if you feel that this is important, and you are very reasonable for believing differently than I do, then there ARE proper ways to get this done. What you have tried to do so far isn't it. --Jayron32 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor's Personal Information

Hidden from view per Oversight issues

(Is 13 a minor? I think so.) Could someone take a look at Selina Yeung right quick? It contains a 13-year-old's email address, town of residence, the school they're attending, and a picture of them, among other things. Stuff like this is something that's supposed to be brought to admin attention, right? Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 10:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Indeed. Admin attention quickly needed for this - would oversight be useful? I would think the standard tools might do well enough. Probably a good idea to contact the user on her talkpage and explain why this sort of thing is a problem. From the page, WP:NOTMYSPACE might be helpful as well. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Deleted, and yes, I believe oversight is required in situations where personal information about minors is revealed in articles.  Skomorokh  10:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks Skomorokh. My point was really that the deletion prevents "average joe" seeing it anyway. If you feel this child also needs to be protected from the admin corps (which is a perfectly reasonable response, given that you can't vouch for 1.5k people and everyone with access to their PC) ping an OS. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I can't say I'm too up to speed on the thresholds for oversighting, but Keegan has mentioned cases like these in the past. I was going to make a joke about admins being the least trustworthy and having already put in a MySpace friend request, but it seemed a little gauche.  Skomorokh  11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Tell the Oversighter that you contact that there are other edits in Special:Contributions/Tonia94 that require the same treatment for the same reasons. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Emailed Oversight with both requests, cheers.  Skomorokh  14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I've wiped them. Email the list again if more appears. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Removing inappropriate non-public personal information is one of the main uses of oversight tools. Minors giving personal information about themselves comes under that heading. The revisions with the problematic text have been suppressed by an oversighter. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to clean up hoax entries

Some help please to clean up hoax entries in Wikipedia.

I refer interested people to Hungry Beast (née Urban myth study (media hoax September 2009)).

Some editors have already cleaned up a few of the noted Wikipedia entries, but there are more to be done.

Can someone check to see if there are more entries from other IPs or named editors ?

I would start to do the cleanups, but I have run out of "Wikitime" for the time being (and can only dial in at less than 30kbs so it takes me forever to do anything).

I think this needs to be cleaned up before it gets a life of its own ?

Ronnam (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this page is only for requests to administrators. Cleaning up articles does not normally require administrator action. To find out what you can do, please see the resources at WP:CLEANUP.  Sandstein  16:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another legal threat.

Look at this diff. This pretty much falls under WP:LEGAL. ConCompS (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is that the diff you meant? It just looks like random vandalizing to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• No, it doesn't. There's not a scintilla of a mention of litigation there. It's just a vandal frustrated that xyr vandalism keeps being reverted. The next step after revert is ignore. And ponder the evident irony. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• But in the notice, he changed it up to say:

  "Whoever keeps fixing this article needs to kill themselves. No one cares about your Wiki-life."

• This is serious stuff. Any long-term block from an admin anytime soon? ConCompS (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not serious, it's standard vandalism, and I've blocked for 31 hours. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's only serious if you take it seriously, and don't ponder the evident irony, as I suggested above. There's no need to long-term block some random dynamically assigned IP address belonging to ThePlanet when there's no evidence that there's a future long term pattern of events that can be prevented, no evidence that this even will be the vandal's IP address for long, and there is on the contrary evidence from the changes in the edits that the vandal has already given up, and will only return if xe sees you making a mountain out of this molehill. What part of "ignore" is hard, here? Ignore it! Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. ConCompS (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WillOakland

I have been watching an edit war over the article Ian Halperin, a man who in December 2008 predicted that Michael Jackson had only 6 months to live, over the past few days, though the edit war goes back about a month. From what I can tell, it seems that WillOakland (talk · contribs) refuses to believe that we should source certain pieces of information, and is edit warring with Cirt (talk · contribs) to keep them out.[121][122][123] Oakland, who was blocked for two weeks as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillOakland/Archive, admits to being a banned sockpuppeteer[124], and seems to have not reformed on that matter. After his block, he used a sockpuppet[125] to evade the block; that sockpuppet had previously been used to vandalize.[126][127] I warned Oakland to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, seeing how he had just been blocked over disruptive editing on that article[128], but he simply removed my comment[129], started an incivil discussion with Cirt that was doomed to go nowhere[130] and ignored several other warnings that asked him to follow WP:V.[131] I am bringing this to the community for further discussion; as a new administrator, I feel the community should review the disruptive behavior of WillOakland (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that allows new blocks to be applied for the same past offenses (real or, as in this case, imagined). I am not currently "banned", as a review of my block log will show. NW needs to focus his request on recent behavior. I have changes that I want to make to the Ian Halperin article. I'm trying to find, emperically, the ones that will be accepted. Cirt's behavior is incomprehensible to me, leaving no basis for discussion. WillOakland (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this diff you admit to being Gazpacho, whose block log looks like this. Unless there are unexplained extenuating circumstances, your current account is a sockpuppet in violation of ban and all of your edits may be reverted by any editor. The recent diffs NuclearWarfare points to are clear instances of blanking vandalism. It mystifies me that you have not been reblocked on this account. Would you please explain the discrepancy? Durova³²⁰ 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the very recent socking evidenced at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillOakland/Archive, and the continued ongoing disruption noted by User:NuclearWarfare, it seems like this user account should be blocked indefinitely. A fresh start might be possible later if the user refrains from further sock puppetry and disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If there were some unusual discussion where he was given permission to restart under a new account I'd be willing to discuss the matter with whoever struck a deal. But it appears to be defiant sockpuppetry in violation of ban, coupled with a return to disruptive behavior. WillOakland claims that one of the site's most productive featured content contributors behaves incomprehensibly, and invites editors to review his current account's block log without comment on his own earlier admission of being a banned user (a post which ended in obscene vulgarity). This looks as open and shut as it gets. Will, if you'd like another chance as an editor please review Wikipedia:Standard offer and get in touch a few months down the road. If you meet its terms I'll initiate your unban discussion myself. But for now, endorsing a reinstatement of the indef. Durova³²⁰ 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, since [132] conveniently admits that "I am banned user Gazpacho", I have blocked WillOakland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for block evasion. Any unblock/unban requests should be made with the Gazpacho account, taking into account any disruption caused with this account.  Sandstein  16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aidan Pringle recreated

Aidan Pringle (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was speedily deleted as a hoax. It's now been recreated - although the material originally added has now been blanked. I'm not sure how speedy deletion works, so I've raised the issue here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for blocking of IP address 94.193.210.12

This IP Address has persistently vandalised the page St John Fisher Catholic High School (Dewsbury) since the 20th of September. I personally am very annoyed with this as I spent great lengths of time repairing the page after vandalism from other users, and would like to request that you block this IP address for 2 weeks. -- Tallen90 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the IP hasn't edited since 26 September, 2 days ago, and before that on the 23rd. I appreciate how annoying vandalism can be, but it looks like it's sporadic at best, so there isn't anything for an admin to do at this point. I'll add the article to my watchlist; if the IP vandalizes again, give it a final warning (since the one you issued was Level 3). If they vandalize after that, report them to WP:AIV, which is better equipped to deal with simple vandalism. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser, Shoemaker's Holiday, and Wikivoices

Involved users

• Thekohser (talk ·  · contribs · page moves · deleted contribs · summary · count · total · logs · block log · block · email)
• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk ·  · contribs · page moves · deleted contribs · summary · count · total · logs · block log · block · email)

Involved pages

• Wikipedia:Wikivoices (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Diffs

• Edits by User:Thekohser on Wikipedia:Wikivoices: Numerous edits, many with sarcastic or offensive edit summaries, including altering the time of a Skype chat; more edits, including removal of header
• Revert by User:Shoemaker's Holiday: Revert of previous 4 edits by Thekohser
• Revert of revert by Thekohser: Revert of Shoemaker's Holiday's revert of his edits

Policies/guidelines

• WP:CIVIL
• WP:HARASS
• WP:EW (getting close, but not quite at that point yet)

(Feel free to add to, edit, and amend the above—it is for reference, and should not be considered part of my post)

For the sake of disclosure, I am involved with Wikivoices, and have had prior interactions with User:Shoemaker's Holiday, but have had no involvement with this issue or with User:Thekohser.

From what I understand of this issue, Thekohser was refused access to the Wikivoices Skypechat (I have been told this has something to do with harassment of Shoemakers Holiday—the extent of this issue, I do not know). He is not the first, and a number of users have been deied access previously. He then began to edit the Wikivoices project page, including removing the page header and editing the scheduled time of the next recording, often with sarcastic and offensive edit summaries. Seeing this as vandalism, Shoemaker's Holiday reverted these edits. Thekohser reverted again.

There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, but this seems to be more complex than a simple edit war, so I am bringing it here with the hope of resolving the issue through community consensus. I am not here lobbying for sanctions on either user, unless the community deems that necessary. Dendodge _T\^C 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser has been engaging in other strange behavior including copying a page here from his website and proxying for a banned user to post the page diff. Triplestop x3 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop, that really isn't part of this incident, and will really only serve to distract from the main issue at hand. The issue you brought up has been dealt with already on this very noticeboard. NW (Talk) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is on the edge of an edit war, but I see no evidence that The Kohser will continue the fight. Viridae^Talk 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I, but there appears to be something deeper and more complex going on here. Dendodge _T\^C 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this behavior appears to be part of a general pattern of problematic behavior by this user. He was unbanned by ArbCom under condition that he would toe a very narrow line. After he crossed that line he was blocked again and given a final chance (I'm not sure how many final chances he has had at this point). Would it maybe make sense to bring this back to the ArbCom? (Disclaimer: I've recently been paid a small sum of money by TheKohser for winning a contest). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an element of a feud with Shoemaker's Holiday over the disposition of a sound file. If so, then it may conflict with an editing restriction:

• "Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." User talk:Thekohser#ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban

If Thekohser keeps pursuing this then WP:AE would be an appropriate venue.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This matter arose on ANI a few days ago. Both parties were told - in no uncertain terms - to DROP IT. This is not a Wikipedia related dispute and has no place on Wiki. Manning (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against Shoemaker's Holiday at this time, other than his refusal to cooperate with Sage Ross or with Samuel Klein to take 2 minutes to e-mail either or both of them an audio file (which I haven't bugged him about at all since the AN/I decision), and other than his indicating the wrong time-zone-adjusted times for today's Skype meeting, and other than his changing the subject of the Skype meeting with only 4 hours to go, and other than his not indicating all week that I would be denied entry into the Skype meeting even if I could have found it despite asking days ago how to find it, and other than him restoring incorrect information and dead links to the Wikivoices page after I asked that they be updated and corrected before being restored. If that sounds like *I* am causing a feud, then maybe I should be blocked. Otherwise, I could always get back to writing new articles for Wikipedia. -- Thekohser 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The sound file in question apparently concerns the Wikimedia Foundation, with whom Thekohser has a known conflict. If so, then this entire Wikivoice dispute may be an outgrowth of the Wikimedia dispute.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the sound file in question was a Board of Trustees candidates - Round table interview.[133] So, more than 10 people gave time to this roundtable - I could ask the other participants their opinion on this matter if it would help. 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi 99.150.255.75, please don't bother the dozen or so people related to that interview. As blurpeace notes, they and the interview have nothing to do with today's edit war. +sj+ 07:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback has stated an opinion/theory that this is a personal matter and that "this entire Wikivoice dispute may be an outgrowth of the Wikimedia dispute." I am attempting to depersonalize the matter by getting the opinions of those who were present at the original WikiVoices round table, as the Editors mentioned in this dispute appear to be at an impasse - Can you please forward this to a better locale if this is not the place where this problem (if it is a problem) can be worked out? 99.150.255.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful here. +sj+

This thread was started over an edit war that occured today. None of the people listed here participated in it. –blurpeace ^(talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of factors that are not present in this representation, particularly the nature of the dispute around the sound file. Accessibility is a foundation stone of Wikimedia Projects. Even if a member of our Community is challenging and problematic, exclusionism is unsound. Wikivoices should seek to be inclusive otherwise they are not a voice of our Community. If Shoemaker's Holiday is perpetuating misinformation to exclude Thekohser from taking part that is reprehensible.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Allow me to summarize both of the disputes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) has stated that some candidates had expressed concern over release of the file, and they (i.e. Shoemaker) now feel that it's unnecessary to publish the recording as the elections have already passed. Thekohser (talk · contribs) then went on to harass Shoemaker about the file's release here. It was concluded by administrator Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) et al. that the dispute was not concerned with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, and that it should be resolved off wiki.

Now, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the previous one. This is over an edit war that had occured yesterday. The IP above is acting as a meatpuppet of Thekohsers, and they're attempting to extend a dispute that has already been resolved on wiki. Please, remain on topic. –blurpeace ^(talk) 06:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the peace. +sj+ 07:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

When I read the text right, Mr Kohs is to behave in a prescribed way. This means that he is to behave when it comes to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia. I have read that some people want to narrow this down to "just on en.wp". When you look at his behaviour, he has been recently trolling on Meta by removing Jimmy Wales and Angela from the list of people who can present about Wikipedia. He has been trying to get Shoemaker's Holiday to present him with a sound file, a sound file that needs a lot of work before it is presentable, a job Shoemaker never volunteered for. The trolling around Shoemakeer has been ongoing in many places and Mr Kohs' vandalism of the Wikivoices page is not acceptable by itself and it is not acceptable in order to get his way in order to get this sound file.

As much as Mr Kohs, I have been interviewed at the time and I feel utterly uncomfortable when this sound file is going to be given to him and not to be made public. There is nothing really in the sound file but I do not want to see a troll fed. Given that nobody is volunteering for the work and given that the elections are months in the past, it would be a waste of time to pressure someone in cleaning up the file. From my perspective, it is best deleted if only to end this.

All in all, I am of the opinion that Mr Kohs has violated the terms under which he is allowed to work on Wikipedia and should now be permanently banned. AGF is not applicable in regard to this gentleman. Thanks, GerardM (talk)

I'm with Gerard. We attempted an unban. That hasn't really worked out. I think that we need to reban him and ensure that any return follows something like the 'standard offer'. Along those lines, the BASC should take note that unbanning folks who aren't likely to do anything but agitate is unwise. Protonk (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree; Kohs does seem to have violated his terms of returning to wikipedia, which appear to have been quite strict. A ban would appear to be the next step. Skinny87 (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed this and other similar behaviours. It's very late here (or perhaps more accurately, terribly early) and I will look at this again after a bit of shut-eye; however, if one of my colleagues has not taken steps when I awake, I will be proceeding to address this in the manner prescribed by Thekohser's unblock conditions. I should note, as an aside, that though I understand the frustration felt by Shoemaker's Holiday, he needs to remember that edit-warring isn't something he should be doing either; I would like to think that, had he asked at this board or otherwise contacted an available administrator, the goings on at that page could have been addressed without having to increase his own frustration level. Risker (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The direction this discussion would otherwise go in is quite clear, so I too hope that this is resolved soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Kohs is somebody I've generally been on a more-or-less friendly basis with, and I think some of the past treatment of him was unfair and he often has a valid point, but he's rather hard to defend this time; even with a few valid points in there, he has a strong tendency to press them in ways that push people's buttons the wrong way, and he's supposed to be on special warning not to do that sort of thing upon his unban. I can understand the frustration about podcast episodes going into limbo and not being released (I feel it too; I maintain the RSS feed for that podcast, and would like to have a complete archive, but there are now several "lost episodes" missing from the sequence, making me feel like Frasier did in the episode of his sitcom where one of the tapes in his complete collection of his own radio show got lost), but throwing around words like "treachery" and "morally bankrupt" is way over the top (and certainly not Assuming Good Faith). His changing the times of yesterday's recording was done allegedly to correct errors in the time zone conversions as originally posted, but I see no evidence of there being any error until he "fixed" it by effectively delaying the show two hours (which actually worked out OK for me; I was out for a walk at the time the show was originally scheduled, but ended up participating in it when it actually started and I was at home). The fact is, though, that this podcast is an unofficial project, and it's highly unfortunate that it is now stirring up drama among WP admins when it is in fact completely independent of anything official in Wikipedia/Wikimedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Risker above says that I edit warred, but I believe this is false: I attempted to correct Kohs' changing of the times to an inaccurate time (once), and reverted his vandalising of the page once, but I stopped completely when Kohs reverted back, giving up on it, which is probably less than I should've done, given this information was vital to keeping the episode and participants organised. Does this amount to edit-warring? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

There's a bit of confusion here, so let me give a quick timeline:

11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC): Kohs opens a thread here on ANI attacking me for failing to release episode 45.[134] (see this link for the next couple bits)

14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Kohs, in response to Manning, suggests ways I could be punished:

“

[...]Here are some ways to compel cooperation: Deny Shoemaker participation in the Wikivoices program until he transfers the file to any other willing volunteer. Publicly rebuke Shoemaker for hoarding free content, against the wishes of at least several of the participants whose voices were captured. [...]

”

14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC): Is warned (still in the ANI thread) by Manning to drop the harassment. Thread is closed.

15:15, 24 September 2009: Kohs signs himself up as participant in an episode of Wikivoices which I am hosting.

16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC): Kohs reposts a gross personal attack from one of his emails on the Wikivoices talk page:

“

:several people involved have made it clear that it should only be released by official means, not privately. I'm afraid that's the end of this discussion, as I cannot go against the wishes of the other people involved in it to please you. To which, I did respond that Shoemaker's Holiday was a morally bankrupt cog in the big Wiki machine of unaccountable treachery. That was as "harassing" as my tone ever got with Shoemaker's Holiday. If an apology is needed to release the audio file from Episode 45, I will be happy to provide a public or private apology to him, whichever he prefers. But, at this point, I suspect no amount of apologizing, groveling, or kissing the ring of Shoemaker's Holiday will bring him down off the very pointy ledge he's decided to park himself upon. -- Thekohser 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

”

13:53, 26 September 2009: Kohs reconfirms I am "morally bankrupt"

20:09, 26 September 2009 Kohs changes the session's time. (I subsequently try and fix this, but a minor bug in Wikipedia causes me to accidentally revert myself.

It was somewhere around this point that Kohs is told he is not welcome in the chat, as he must have fully known.

21:09-21:31, 26 September 2009: Kohs vandalises Wikivoices

22:03, 26 September 2009: I revert

22:11, 26 Septeber 2009: Kohs reverts

By this time, I gave up, and have not edited on this matter again until this morning. I trust this puts the situation in a new light? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Thekohser will be taking a one-month Wikibreak, to allow time for uninvolved parties (folks other than GerardM who deliberately stirs the pot, and other than Shoemaker's Holiday who continually re-frames evidence to portray himself as some sort of helpless victim) to examine my article contributions to the encyclopedia project, and to investigate how taunting and agitation tactics have been deliberately deployed by others to irritate me. -- Thekohser 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikibreak is a good idea, but sniping at people in the course of announcing it is not so great an idea. Some self-awareness on your part of your own role in the dramas you've been involved in, where your own actions contributed to the problems independently of anything anybody else may have done, would also be a good idea if you could manage it. (And I'm saying this as a friend, somebody who often sympathizes with you and doesn't want to see you banned again, but who is having great difficulty defending you in the current fight.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If deliberately stirring the pot means that I am looking for a specific outcome, then indeed. Mr Kohs has proven himself sufficiently. He has been agitating in his way on Meta, now on en.wp where he only may operate for as long as his behaviour is clean. His actions prove that he cannot abide by the restrictions put on him and consequently he should be banned. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of audio file

The answer to my question is probably buried in this discussion somewhere, but I must have glossed over it - has the file at the heart if this dispute been released to someone willing to complete the editing? I admit that I don't understand the importance of these interviews, especially after the election, or why the file needs to be edited prior to release, but it seems that simply making this file available will go a long way to diffusing one part of this dispute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, the first time anyone but Kohs contacted me about wanting to edit it was an hour ago. Kohs' emails to me are auto-junked, I don't know if there were other people he mentioned. In addition, with one exception just after the election (when I still had the headache that made it impossible to try and figure out which file it was), the first request outside of Kohs was yesterday.

Thanks to the headaches, I've never actually listened to the file. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 16:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoe-I'd suggest that the sound file be turned over to someone you trust, to complete tasks. If not, it will only harm WikiVoices. The person should not be Kohs, who has a known conflict here and with the Foundation, and just got rebanned by Risker. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be as soon as I can dig it out - Call Graph saves recordings by a date and time, so some digging around will be required. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your headaches, Shoemaker's Holiday. Without meaning to put any more pressure on you, have you managed to locate and upload the file? I must admit that I'm now curious to know what all the fuss is about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser blocked

After reviewing again the issues raised in this and other recent noticeboard reports, I have revoked Thekohser's provisional unblocking, effective immediately.[135] Risker (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser has done some strange things however that might be a bit harsh, but this block is needed to deter this pattern he is on right now. Thekohser needs to focus more on making useful contribs rather than messing around and going off on a Wikibreak whenever the heat is on. Triplestop x3 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

He can make very useful contributions when he puts his mind to it; the problem is that he then wants to use those contributions as bargaining chips in the games he spends a good chunk of his activity playing instead of doing the useful contributions. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So essentially, he is gaming the system. Triplestop x3 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically. And while it behooves us to sometimes turn the other cheek, we really only ought to do so once. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent: Can't argue with that. It seems to me that attempting to use perceived weaknesses in our processes and turn them against us seems unduly disruptive. His recent support of User:PeterDamian's recent further futile attempt to upset the apple-cart is yet another example. I am reminded of Paul Dirac's opinion that "When it's you against the world, bet on the world". Enough is enough. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I endorse this block. I lost patience with Kohs after he called me a "witless boob", and other users in unflattering terms for opposing the WP:OPTOUT proposal. That trouble has periodically persisted after the unblock simply does not surprise me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin User:NawlinWiki use of abuse filter

Request for help in Michael Powell (director)

A series of meat, and puppet attacks have taken place on an issue of nationality. Bzuk (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Whether your version is more accurate or not, you are currently in violation of WP:3RR. Do not revert again: discuss it on the talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the puppets and semi-protected the page: hopefully that will give you time to make a case for your preferred version on the talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Legalnerd

Legalnerd is attempting to information to the Mahmudiyah killings article [139], which on the surface appears fine. Except they are sourcing http://trialcoverage.blogspot.com. So, I reverted their edits, left a welcome message on their talk page and explained why I reverted them. I'm assuming Legalnerd missed my explanation and then inquired on the article's talk page on to why the edits were revereted. I reverted and explained again. Legalnerd continued doing the edits and adding the same source. I left another mesage on their talk page and then reverted. Six minutes later they started again. I'm assuming the user is acting in good faith, but to complicate things not only am "involved" from previous edits on the article, I'm at 3RR, and I can't currently view the blog to see if it's spam or copyright (other than not being a reliable source), so could someone else take another look at this? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, as I was writing this, he responded on his talk page. I think we're okay here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Corruption to the Arbitration/Requests/Case page

The last edit shows a dif. which has removed details of one of the other cases currently open, that of Ottava Rima:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&curid=22747298&diff=316762646&oldid=316753906

leaky_caldron (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted already. PhGustaf (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry concerns with User:Bluedogtn et al.

• moved from Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Limit on legitimate alternative accounts → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

“

I've been querying a user recently and following the most recent admission they they seem to have 24 "legitimate" socks, which seems ridiculous. Additionally they quite often sign from one account with the signature of another account. I'm quite uncomfortable by all of this but I don't really know where to take it, so thought I'd ask here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC) This has a little crossover with WP:SIGNATURE. I believe it is disruptive to not link to a userpage (my strong preference for usertalk) when editing a page that is supposed to be signed. The disruption is not immediate, but manifests later when trying to review, as we do a lot around here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC) That particular cluster of accounts is, IMHO, a serious problem. I'm on record stating that alternate accounts shouldn't be permitted, period (apart from one account for public/insecure terminals), so I may be biased. But that enormous number guarantees an ability to edit disruptively without scrutiny. Yes yes, AGF, but the parent account has edited disruptively, due to losing an argument about some navboxes. He then went on to announce his intent to deliberately disrupt other navboxes because he couldn't get his way. I certainly don't have the time or interest to look through contribs from what, 24 accounts? And I doubt anyone else does either. Which is basically the problem here. I would support a motion to restrict this user to one account. → ROUX ₪ 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC) This does seem problematic. I looked into some of the accounts and found considerable overlap in editing between them: [140]. That shows 181 articles edited by two or more accounts, including 21 edited by three accounts. I concur with Roux that the editor should be asked to use just one account.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

”

Having looked at all 24 accounts via the Wikistalk tool, the concerns raised are more grave. (Report here). 343 pages (mainspace and template, mostly) have been edited by at least two of the accounts listed, many by three, and a couple by four or more.

Now, disclosures:

• Bluedogtn has indeed disclosed on all relevant user talk pages that each account is an alternate
• Poking through ten at random, there are no entries in block logs, though on some of the talkpages there seems to have been some strange editwarring and multiple edits by multiple accounts
• I was involved in a minor dispute with Bluedogtn some months ago. It spilled over from his being upset about not being allowed to include an image in a navbox to going on a deliberately disruptive/pointy spree of removing them from other navboxes against consensus. He was a minority of one in the dispute; User:Thumperward was party to the initial cause.

However, there are several concerns here:

• Overlap of edits. Given that I don't receive paycheques with the WMF logo on them, I haven't gone through each diff (which is really one of the problems here; it's nigh-on impossible to go through that many edits on that many accounts to find evidence of problematic behaviour that constitutes a pattern. Given the problems with the parent account's edits, I would be flabbergasted if there are none with the alternates). However, the multiple edits by multiple accounts is prima facie bad form if not outright forbidden;
• This many accounts can be used as an avenue for evading scrutiny
• The usernames themselves are problematic; Bluedogtn referring to himself as an authority seems to go against the spirit if not the black letter of the username policy
• Two accounts commenting in a Featured List discussion here, with no disclosure that they are the same person--indeed, the wording seems to indicate they are supposed to be viewed as two separate entities. And again here, with the IP posting as a separate user.
• Three accounts added as members of a Wikiproject, corrected three weeks later.

Per my initial suggestion at the Sockpuppetry page and Will Beback's agreement, I propose that Bluedogtn be restricted to use of one account and one only. → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Bluedogtn has been notified. Should I notify the other 23 accounts?

I've notified him at User talk:98.240.44.215, which seems to be his most active identity at the moment.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support a limitation. Thanks to the reporting party for the excellent research. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd echo this suggestion and have been tracking this since I made the connection between the accounts this week. This user has disagreed and then requested help from a user using different accounts which is concerning. Some recent admissions were made after I had informed them I was aware of accounts operating in a manner against policy. Additionally I am very uneasy of a user registering an opinion on an AfD as one account and then later deciding to attribute it to another account. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Limit to one account as a preventative measure to avoid the certainty of confusion and possibility of disruption. Do it by block if necessary, but I hope the user will cooperate without our needing to do this. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw the same thing a while ago. Didn't this person have a breakdown and tried to leave the encyclopedia? Or has this person come back? MuZemike 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes here, here and here. Which led to semi-retirements for Bluedogtn, TennisAuthority, GolfAuthority. However the IP never stopped editing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. That's why I have requested Checkuser as below. MuZemike 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn

I have been a bad bad wikipedian, shame on me! I just see hypocracy on here with stuff diverting from the rules and it makes me sad! How do the Canadian and Israeli Navboxes get special treatment, and a non-American says I can't do the same with the American one! I recognize, I have created some sports navboxes that are colorful, but that goes in line with the ones created before! I just wanted one set standard to have on wikipedia for all navboxes to allow for all customization or none at all! Some think they get consesus for a navbox in one project and think they can subvert the navbox rules as a whole I have the TennisAuthority account because I was trying to show that Authority and Expert like Tennisexpert, who I despised accounts need to be forbidden on wikipedia. I have created much more good content on here on Tennis, Golf, and Basketball articles than I have been well you fill in the word. I just created the TW-RF account three months ago because of a dispute we had about rivalry pages, and I wanted to just do that so, I could get some work done on here on thinks disconsidered go look at those sandboxes 3-9 for that! I found [www.answers.com Answers] was using our content to make money, which made me mad, but I got over it, and came back to help on here too! I created the TN-IS account about two weeks ago because I had 1717 edits on TW-RF and I am a superstitious guy, but I accidently had the account logged in and edited the Medinah article! Go look at my edits to see all that I have contributed and the long hours I have put into this wiki to create good consistent consise content! I am sad to have to leave wikipedia, but I tried to get on here with the ultimate goal of becoming an Admin one day, and that will no longer happen! I have obsessioncumplusive disorder that is the reason for the many accounts! I am so sorry goodbye and close out or block my accounts I don't care, I have been driven from wikipedia for the last begotten time! I just wanted to see the content Don Lope created get to FL status because look at how long he has been gone, and I was trying to do it for him and his hard work, but I guess I will not get to see that happen because I will be no longer apart of it! GOD BLESS!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can a Checkuser look at these accounts, please? MuZemike 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete all my account, please and it is over and done! No one has ever appreciate me on here at all, and I cant take this crap for nothing anymore!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes well you've said that before, and continued editing. Will you voluntarily restrict yourself to a single account? That means one, whether you choose a named account or your IP is largely immaterial at this point. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is asking Bluedogtn to stop editing. It's only a request for him edit while using just one account.   Will Beback  talk  02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a sockpuppet because in any forum on here I always contribute as one user such as TennisAuthority in tennis until the spat of the rivalry pages. I then went and created TW-RF and that was to do some matenience on Tennis Articles, but that was it until Don Lope quit editing, and I took up the mantle of FL drive. I guess I could never become an Admin with any of these accounts, so why keep on going, when my ultimate goal has been derailed. I will edit using this account from here on out if I even do anymore...I used to love this place now I am beginning to regret all that I have done on this project. I now see you all points, which I will acquiese to them! But, I am still vehementally unhappy with the navbox issues on wikipedia! How can I become an Admin from here, who knows? I will add that I might get logged out on my families computer, so I still might have some edits from the IP address._BLuE^DOgTn 04:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, go ahead and block the other accounts, which will prevent me from editing from them!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Check these

I am giving you the accounts that I have over 100 edits on and the other, I seldomly used if ever used those others go look! I am being honest here because I want to be an Admin one day in the future if someone would like to help me in that endeavor. I will welcome it! These numbers are as of a week ago, I think? Good Day...Today of course_BLuE^DOgTn 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1,854 TennisAuthority
• 966 GolfAuthority
• 2,030 Bluedogtn
• 122 BasketballAuthority
• 1,717 TW-RF
• 116 TN-IS
• IP98 500+500+500+500+100aprox
• IP69 400aprox
  • Are these all the accounts, or just the ones you have 100+ edits on. We need all of the accounts, and a promise to limit yourself to a single account. Ironholds (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey you wanted them all! By the way, I promise to use this account in the signature!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• FilmAuthority 10
• HorseRacingAuthority 9
• NASCARAuthority 9
• FootballAuthority 9
• BaseballAuthority 8
• HockeyAuthority 4
• USAAuthority 51
• SportAuthority 9
• MusicalAuthority 9
• TheatreAuthority 13
• PoliticalAuthority 6
• ReligionAuthorty 10
• DanceAuthority 30
• LegalAuthority 5
• BlueDogTENN 5
• FilmExpert 9
• GolfExpert 3
• HorseRacingExpert 4
• USAExpert 9
  • • There is a big list of them down the right-hand side of User talk:Bluedogtn, which was started six months ago and which — as noted right at the start of this discussion — xe has been maintaining in accordance with a suggestion to do so. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Zingostar

A lifetime ago I dealt with Zingostar (block log) (formerly Matrix17 (block log)) and earlier today it was brought to my attention that this user has returned as User:Judo112. S/he appears to be engaging in similar activities that lead to the original ban (albeit less severely and less frequently), which includes creating biographies of people who are non-notable, or minors, or involved in ongoing criminal proceedings (or all three), sourced to tabloids or nowhere at all; sockpuppetry; recreating deleted content; and a handful of miscellaneous things like giving vandalism warnings to admins, AfD arguments that suggest unfamiliarity with WP:ATA, and so on.

I'm mostly retired from admin duties and can't approach this impartially enough anyway, so I leave it up to someone else to decide what, if anything, to do. – Steel 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly Judo112 has previously admitted to sockpuppetry after a report was filed in July. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have admitted to that and would admit to any more so called sockpuppet cases. That doesnt at all follow the characteristics of that sockpuppet im now accused of being. Second of all, all my edits has been made in good faith and has been contributing to Wikipedia in a good way. This is the third time im being accused. Please let it be the last. I was acquitted of the second one since i wasnt at all related and this one is the same. Thanks all Wikipedians.--Judo112 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Second of all Afd discussions are individual and that vandalism warning to an admin was a mistake of mine which i corrected. And i dont know about non-notable as all of the articles that I have created have had references and if any have been deleted it has been trough the proper way of Afd. So i cant really say that any of the accusations against me pointing towards me. I am actually a wikipedian who tries to stop vandalism for example. Thats my final word in this discussion. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this thread has received so little input I am going to take action myself and assume nobody has any problem with that. A few hours ago I hardblocked Zingostar's static home IP and, surprise surprise, Judo112 was caught up in the autoblock shortly after. This adds technical evidence to the wealth of behavioural evidence that was already present (I will post this on request if anyone seriously doubts the connection), but unfortunately s/he is still playing the innocent victim card even after being caught red-handed. Originally I was hoping we could go forward with some editing restriction for Judo (better the devil you know...) but I think this is precluded by their constant lies and refusal to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever. I have blocked them indefinitely. – Steel 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedsnursing

I'm bringing this here per advice here. This user was previously warned for repeatedly blanking a section of the Doctorate in Nursing page and not engaging on the Talk page. He has now taken to blanking and self-reverting it many times a day in rapid succession. The last 50+ edits to that page are all of this form; see the page history [141]. Attempts to engage in discussion on his Talk page are also blanked. I'm hoping he can be encouraged to stop the repeated self-reverts. JJL (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any useful edits in there? I did not check them all... but I did not spot any. No edit summaries. Lots of chunks being taken out.- Sinneed 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor does not appear to be here to edit constructively. Repeatedly blanking then reverting the same sections on the same page strikes me as simple game playing, or someone trying to make a WP:POINT. Zero communication. Block and ignore. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--I placed a notice there when I posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but forgot to update it when I posted here. JJL (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User removing threads on my talk page without consent.

Hi, I have a small query with regards to user talk pages. Am I right to assume that it is an offence for another user to remove threads from my own user talk page, without my consent/permission? If this is correct, then I would like to put forward 3 pieces of evidence for viewing. I had made 4 previous requests to a user to avoid any future contact in order to prevent any further antagonising situations. The user, who's name appears in the next set of evidence, ignored this request as of 22:03, 26 September 2009, by posting the following thread... 1. In reply, as of 14:19, 27 September 2009, I kindly asked the user, for a 5th time, to leave me alone, as per 2. This user (who coincidently is also a member of the admin team) then deletes the thread as of 15:05, 27 September 2009, as per 3. I value opinion with regards to this matter, and I'm willing to cooperate wherever necessary. Kindest regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's retraction seems entirely appropriate to me. His edit summary captures it well. He made the original post in good faith, found it to be unwelcome, so cleaned up after himself. No further action indicated, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)He appears to have been trying to do what you wanted him to do, and disengage. If you want that thread back on your talk page, simply put it back. I can pretty much guarantee that he won't remove it now that he knows you want it to stay. Is there any remaining issue this approach wouldn't solve? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it you actually want doing? He removed the thread with a summary that stated "Removing thread. My apologies; I see it was not appreciated after you made it clear you wanted him to leave you alone. so em.. what would admin action prevent from happening in future (as admin action is intended to prevent future problems but punish for the past)? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand the post was made in good faith; no dispute made there. Although wouldn't it make sense that if a user made previous requests to avoid contact in order to prevent any antagonising situations, then that request should be adhered to, right? I apologise if Frank feels that the comment was "unwelcome", but that still doesn't justify in deleting from a user talk page with that users consent first! I feel this might be a catch-22 scenario. I'm just after clarification as to whether any procedures may have been over-looked. Wanting to cover my back that's all. Thank you for the help! (P.S. I will be away from my computer for the next 6 hours, as I'm working at the pub tonight - but I will return to check the status of this) Pr3st0n (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that everything is in order that's all. I understand and respect the comments from yourselves in regards to this matter. A little confusion though, as common sense would show that a request to be left alone was ignored by the posting of another thread (which later gets deleted). Pr3st0n (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame that Pr3ston and Frank have had a bad introduction to each other. There was a messy RfA, and some copyright stuff was brought up. I'd like to reassure Pr3ston that -really, truly- Frank is one of the good guys. He was offering helpful advice. And now he knows his advice was unwelcome he'll leave you alone. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Once editor A has told editor B to stay off his page, editor B should take editor A's page off his watch list and make no edits whatsoever to editor A's page. Editor A is free to retain or delete editor B's comments at his discretion. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So as I'm "editor A" in the scenario, I was right with the objection?! Pr3st0n (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting banned sock user:Dabamizan48's page creations

Sock of Paknur (talk · contribs) evading ban. Created a lot of articles in case anyone wants to apply the "Creation by banned user" on them YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Evosoho

DGG suggested bringing this issue to ANI and I agree with it.

Here are the problems put together by Ikip about Evosoho:

Camponotus saundersi

nominated Camponotus saundersi for deletion. 13:51, 26 September 2009.[142]

Deleted: Workers are 4 to 6 mm long.<ref name=emery1889>Emery 1889: 516</ref> 14:59, 26 September 2009[143]

Deleted: ==Footnotes== {{reflist}} 14:59, 26 September 2009.[144]

Deleted almost all of the text of the article, no reason given, tagged as "minor": "Its defensive behaviours include self-destruction by autothysis. Two oversized, poison-filled mandibular glands run the entire length of the ant's body. When combat takes a turn for the worse, the ant violently contracts its abdominal muscles to rupture its body and spray poison in all directions." 19:51, 26 September 2009.[145]

Deleted reference section, reason given "correcting": "* {{aut|Emery, Carlo}} (1889): Viaggio di Leonardo Fea in Birmania e regioni vicine. XX. Formiche di Birmania e del Tenasserim raccolte da Leonardo Fea (1885-87). ''Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria (Genova)'' 2 '''7'''(27): 485-520. [ PDF]" 19:55, 26 September 2009 [146]

Dream Focus reverts Evosoho's deletions. 20:10, 26 September 2009.[147]

Evosoho removes rescue template, reason given "canvassing" 20:12, 26 September 2009 [148]

Evosoho reverts Dream Focus restoration of material, reason given: "no vandilizm dream focus was vandalizng" 20:13, 26 September 2009.[149]

Template:Exploding_animals

Evosoho deletes nine of the eleven entries from the template. 20:38, 26 September 2009 [150]

Irbisgreif puts the article up for WP:TFD, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Exploding animals 20:52, 26 September 2009.[151]

Evosoho deletes the last two entries from the template. 21:00, 26 September 2009[152]

Exploding animals

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey result: merge. 9:44, 24 September 2009

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding sheep result: keep, Nomination withdrawn with intent to merge, 19:44, 24 September 2009

Evasoho merges Exploding donkey into Exploding animals. 20:08, 24 September 2009 [153]

Evasoho merges Exploding rat into Exploding animals. 21:15, 24 September 2009.[154]

Evasoho merges Exploding toads into Exploding animals. 14:39, 26 September 2009[155]

Evasoho puts the article Exploding animals up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (3rd nomination) [156]

Problems with him tagging articles for deletion goes back futher. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Perhaps not very relevant, but why the mish-mash between plural and singular for the titles? (Rats, toads, and donkey?) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. Calling them vandalism and the removing rescue tags is disruptive to efforts of Wikipedians trying to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Deconstructing an article without discussion, in order to make the article weaker when when being discussed at AfD might also be itself seen as disruptive vandalism of other's efforts to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
3. And a question: This diff shows that Evosoho takes credit for nominating an article for deletion, while the deletion page diff it lists the nominator as "3^0$0%0". Is this an eror, or is it an attempt to make it appear someone else did the nominating? If the former, it should be corrected. If the latter, it is a bad precedent, as it makes it appear as if someone else did the nomming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Further, the deconstruction of multiple articles without discussion, then merging the results into a seperate article without discussion, and then nominating that article for deletion seems to be an attempt to thwart the processes set in place in the project, and again seems disruptive of other's efforts to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to point 3, this revision shows that the bizarre signature was there at creation, but that the user / talk / contributions links do indeed go to Evosoho. The text appears to be leet. ^Bongo_matic 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Struck the question, and thank you for the answer. Still though, and accepting that both sigs belong to the same person, the use of differing sigs within seconds of each other at different places might still be seen as confusing if one does not decide to follow the trail... as if I were to sign this User:XYZ123321ZYX (talk), rather than as MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck after further research. This instance of using multiple sigs with one account within seconds of each edit is not consistent with policy at WP:Username. While technically not a seperate account and so not a sock, and not a single purpose only account so not a SPA, the use of this technique could be seen as improper in that it is misleading and could easily lead to an inference of false consensus for an action, and THAT violates WP:Username. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

These actions were clearly inappropriate. Editing an article in order to weaken it & then sending it to deletion is very underhanded. I suggest a strongly worded warning not to do this again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that most of the "editing an article in order to weaken it" occurred after, not before, the article was sent to AfD, but I concur that the article is an obvious keeper, Since the AfD has been (non-admin) closed as a speedy keep, perhaps this thread could be marked as resolved. Deor (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the timing, although it doesn't really change anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After further examination, there seems to be a deeper problem here. Evosoho appears to have a history of excessively bold, unilateral moves. In the last couple days he has moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment), moved Wubi to Wubi (disambiguation), userified several A7 article attempts without notifying the editor who made them, requested a major AfD template unprotect so he could unilaterally rename it, and more. He also put an article up for AfD with no edit summary and marked the edit as minor and made numerous clearly wrong RfD nominations.

Someone needs to have a serious talk with him as he seems to think his opinion on any given matter is all that counts. If he refuses to stop, he'll have to be blocked as the majority of his edits are (unintentionally) disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• This War on Explosions isn't as unilateral as it is being painted here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding tree for several other editors who think that some of our "exploding X" articles are highly contrived just for the sake of having such an article. Evosoho's edits to the navigation template and mergers of articles are not as idiosyncratic as they are being painted here.

  Of course, that also leads to problematic edits such as Evosoho tagging an article as a hoax simply because it discussess a hoax. ☺ (I've held back my discovery that the NPR hoax isn't actually wholly a hoax, which will probably be to NPR's surprise, in the hope that someone else looking for sources would have found the sources that I did. It seems that no-one has, yet.)

  And then there are things such as moving user boxes out of user space, as as Evosoho did with Template:User OS:Windows — which used to be at User:Google box (MfD discussion) (current RFD discussion) … Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that there's good reason to give all of the exploding animals a hard look—many of them are loaded with WP:SYN and thinly justified. That said, I also agree with the close of that AFD; namely, that merge results imply that the new amalgam should be kept. I assume the user simply doesn't understand the constraints of consensus. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would really like to think this as a somewhat confused editor trying to consolidate and improve articles, without realising the consensus is needed for major changes, and that it helps to be direct in what you are doing and make things clear when there are problems. The sig also, which I find as annoying as all symbolic sigs, may not be a desire to be troublesome, just a failure to realise that when several people tell you something you are doing is wrong, you should consider the possibility that it might be., I don't really think of this editor as malign, just as reckless and determined not to pay attention to communication. I agree with Thaddeus in this--he is not intentionally trying to disrupt--but we nonetheless do have to deal with the disruption. Perhaps a short block will make it clear that we are taking this seriously. Many initially troublesome editors have understood after that and done much better--and as for the ones who still don't, we then know that we must follow through on the necessary steps. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Uncle G, DGG, MQS and Thaddeus B all make good points; I'm not surprised to see this brought to AN/I. The general pattern of editing here is disruptive. The signature is confusing and misleading. The pattern of moves, redirects and redirects for deletion is far too bold, especially asking for a major template to be renamed without any discussion beforehand. Whatever the faults of the Exploding organism series of articles, which I agree are many, agreeing to merge content and then proposing the merge target for deletion is underhand. Evosoho also seems unwilling to discuss editors' concerns with them. If they continue editing in this fashion, a block would seem to be wise. Fences&Windows 12:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I attempted to open an RFC/Username for Evosoho's signature. It was rejected on the grounds that it's not a username issue (which I think is an overly strict interpretation of the scope of the venue, but anyway). Evosoho has been asked by many editors now to change his signature, and he refuses to address the issue. I agree that there is a somewhat disruptive feel to his edits as well. Gigs (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have taken a critical look at what at my edits have been. There is merit to what has been written as to the need for consensus for major changes, and I agree and will adhere to this approach. It does, however, become a question of what constitutes a “major change.” My being too bold was a result of me being shy of talk pages.

It is important to note that there may be discourtesy in other remarks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.) My intentions are to improve Wikipedia – I am not “underhanded” in any way. My signature was not offensive, it was simply my own, and should not have been a concern for serious editors. It was my own dialect of leetspeak. Notwithstanding, to please its/my detractor's I have changed it to “evo.” I had considered changing my signature. I just had not told you that.

As to the reasons for some of the changes that I have made that have been discussed above.

Gnome move: Why I moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment). In the event that you were looking for the mythical creature “Gnome” but typed all caps, you would get “GNOME (pronounced /ɡəˈnoʊm/)[1] is a desktop environment—a graphical user interface which runs on top of a computer operating system —composed entirely of free and open source software. It is an international project that includes creating software development frameworks, selecting application software for the desktop, and working on the programs which manage application launching, file handling, and window and task management.”. In this case, the mythical creature “Gnome” is (I believe) more notable, and the technical result might turn you away from Wikipedia.

Wubi move: Why I did the move to Wubi (disambiguation) was for the reason that “Wubi the Ubuntu installer” is by far the primary as compared to the “Wubi method” topic as illustrated by Google results -- 25 million to 3 million.

The Exploding animal AfD was my thinking that the merges have brought irrevocable Original Research.

--evo talk contribs 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"My being too bold was a result of me being shy of talk pages." This hits the nail on the head. Discuss your edits more and consider your actions more carefully. Proposing an article for deletion immediately after agreeing with merging material to it is bizarre, and while I accept that this was not deliberately underhand your judgment was still faulty. A strange signature is not a hanging offense, but it is an issue if it leads to confusion. Fences&Windows 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The lack of communication here really made things worse I think. Many of the big problems on Wikipedia start with a lack of communication. I'm glad you've come here to explain things, and also that you've changed your sig. You don't need to explain everything you do, but when someone asks or challenges one of your actions, you really should stop a minute and communicate. Gigs (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User Philbox17 and his three pairs of socks

This user currently is the subject of yet another SPI, has 5 other confirmed socks in the last two weeks alone, has ]previously identified here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R%C3%A9seau_de_R%C3%A9sistance_du_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois&diff=276365206&oldid=276363474 that he is a member of the Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois (which is the article where he is causing all of the trouble), and has now advanced to personal attacks, specifically here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AR%C3%A9seau_de_R%C3%A9sistance_du_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois&diff=316815127&oldid=316814798 against myself. Is there any way to take more action against this user than by simply blocking his socks? He's like a hydra, you cut one head off and another one pops up. He has obvious and stated COI, and his socking is making it difficult to keep any sense of civility and NPOV on the article, not to mention inflaming other users. Any admin, please...advice would be appreciated! Frmatt (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Further Info - I forgot to mention the previous ANI postings about him...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Reseau+de+resistance+du+quebecois&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+all+administrators%27+noticeboards+and+archives&fulltext=Search Frmatt (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum Two - This user appears to be wikistalking me as he has made an edit on a userpage where I had posted a comment about him within minutes of the comment being posted. Please see User talk:Versageek. Frmatt (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Frmatt clearly admit that he is doing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." He give credit to user for making vandalism on the RRQ page, it is his own words, there is a serious problem with that user. NordiquesQc (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009

Since it appears that there is abuse that may be coordinated offsite involving COI-affected accounts that have no intention of following the consensus here, I have semiprotected Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. This will stop the IPs and also the brand-new registered accounts. Other admins may modify this protection as they think best. The issue has also been discussed at WP:COIN#Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Philbox, his sockpuppets and his IP addresses should be blocked for good. He clearly states here that he was instructed by the leaders of the RRQ to take care of Wikipedia, hence the COI. Vincent (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.