Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Rodhullandemu and User:raseaC - New user experience

User:Noah Ringer is not the best editor, in fact, he may be a vandal. But I want you all to look how his edits - which could be in good faith, have been handled by these two users. Often we talk about the 'welcoming atmosphere' of Wikipedia being eroded, well take a look at the experience of this editor.

• Noah makes this edit
• He receives this warning from Dorothybrousseau for 'vandalism
• Noah reverts
  • and leaves a rather poorly formatted warning back to Dorothybrousseau
• Noah recieves this message, mentioning that he made previous 'vandalism' edits (not under this account)
  • Presumably with this IP
    • Retaliatory message by Noah
    • and another 'warning' to Dorothybrousseau
• Rodhullandemu leaves a NPA warning
  • Noah removes the PA
• In the mean time, reverts had been going on over the initial edit
  • Noah tells Rodhullandemu he is not vandalising and again - These are his edits to the page: [1] [2] [3]

• This is where things go wrong: Rodhullandemu responds with "Get a clue, please"
  • Noah gives an annoyed, but civil response.
    • Rodhullandemu responds: "Please point out which of my 70,000+ edits do not constitute "a good example". Also, as an Admin, I am duty-bound, and empowered, to enforce editing policies and standards of behaviour. If that means knocking heads together, I'll knock heads together, even if there is only one head to knock."

• Simultaneously raseaC leaves Noah a warning for leaving silly warnings
  • Noah asks 'how is leaving warnings vandalism'
    • raseaC's response: Giving other editors silly 'warnings' is unconstructive and therefore vandalism. Don't do it.

At this point, I get involved. I replaced the warnings on Noah's talk page with a "Hi how can I help you" message. RaseaC adds his back, telling me never to refactor his comments again. I leave both raseaC and Rodhullandemu notes (raseaC a nice one, Rodhullandemu, not so much). A sample of their responses indicated that I would not be able, or willing to try to resolve this issue of how new editors should be treated:

• Rodhullandemu: Editors who don't get it, even when told, are expensive in terms of hand-holding, but I am not a nanny- I am, if you like, an enforcer.
• raseaC: I disagree, anyone with a shred of common sense would know that his interaction with that user was inappropriate.
• raseaC: Problem editors are more likely to remember a message from a WP:DICK than a template warning from another editor. If they were serious about helping chances are they'd consider it a lesson.

I ask you: how should this new user, regardless of their intentions be treated? Clearly some positive edits - removing the PA, asking why something was wrong - some wikilinking. Is this an appropriate way to to treat new editors? I spent a lot of time formatting this in an easy to follow way. For the full conversations both editors had with me Rodhullandemu and RaseaC. I have no objections to Dorothybrousseau's behavior, which I think shows the right attitude to have. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest you review the very first diff you give, and note the preceding edit - a reversion of vandalism by Rodhullandemu. Then click to see what that vandalism was, and the name that was included in the inappropriate text... "Noah Ringer". I think you will find that the account Noah Ringer is the same individual that was vandalising the articles by inserting the name Noah Ringer as an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC):

• That IP is linked a few lines down from that first diff. :) Its not so much that this editor is perfect - I'm saying that the response was not in line with the vandalism and mistakes he made, particularly given that he did show at least some level of good intentions. Prodego ^talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SRSLY? "Noah Ringer is a reincarnation of David Carradine"? WP:REDFLAG! Rodhullandemu 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the nonsense that started this incident. It didn't fill me with any confidence. The same editor clearly started an account, which by any standard is a single-purpose account. I go further: I pointed out that if this editor is Noah Ringer, the actor, he should say so, otherwise, this is an impersonation account. He hasn't, as far as I'm aware, done so., and is blockable for that alone. However, this is not an "incident" requiring admin intervention, although the usual unnecessary drama may well ensue. If anything, if belongs in a Request for comment, if the editor bringing it here thinks it has the legs to survive there. No admin action is suggested, nor even, in my view, worthy. If we can't just get on with our jobs, which we do conscientiously, and continuously, without interference from those who don't have the full picture, we are doomed tr failure. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, about 90% of all editors, good or bad, start off looking like SPAs. And yes, I do expect there to be an attempt to help new users understand our rules, not kneejerk reactions to ban them for various misdeeds. If this editor is indeed Noah Ringer, we're talking about a very young person who would benefit more from guidance than hostility. Risker (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any person who is the reincarnation of David Carradine would be considered precocious to be speaking, let alone editing Wikipedia (I am fairly sure that karma does not include time travel, well not the last version I read on WP anyway). More to the point, I would note that RH&E was previously involved with this ip (Special:Contributions/67.64.157.147) and given the preferred subject matter and actions found there I should think that AGF need not have been overly extended to this user. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's get this clear: do you seriously think this and this were inadequate to indicate to this new editor that his contributions were problematic? And if so, youth aside, he can clearly string words together. So why did he not ask for guidance, and why, when threatened with blocking as an IP, did he then create an account to avoid blocking as an IP?. Sucks. Anyone who can spell "reincarnation" correctly ain't that naive. Rodhullandemu 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lols. WP rules trumps common sense again. I'd like to point out that despite Prodego removing my contributions to a third party's talk despite not consulting me first I was only to happy to take his concerns into account and adjust the warning so in effect this situation was sorted way before this thread was started. This is the mother of all non-issues. Admins must be bored. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, let's have it then. Prodego, what admin action, if any, are you requesting be taken here? I don't see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pointing you to the number one problem Wikipedia has - that being the complete destruction of a welcoming atmosphere. All I want is agreement on how to treat less than ideal editors (or even vandals). Prodego ^talk 07:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RaseaC. This is not an issue for admin attention. The village pump would be a better forum. RadManCF (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I think you are looking for either WP:WQA or a user conduct WP:RFC if you are not asking for any administrative action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

4chan username vandalism

Guess the widdle 4chan kiddies couldn't get a date on a Friday night beyond the inflatable type. The new user log's getting hit with the usual BS.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh they can only dream to someday own a RealDoll. I think for now it's Rosey Palm and her 5 Sisters, maybe some low-quality internet pr0n on the side. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: How do I get a hold of that rollback tool which deletes the names from the log? Me like... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Well, the little tools are watching the goings-on here. They're so cute when they're little, no?  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute? Ehh, not so much. >:) —DoRD (?) (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing more to done, let's WP:DENY and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just label this 'ANI Thread of the Week' :) - i'll go through the userlogs later today and scrub the worst of them per WP:RD2 - Alison ^❤ 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The participation in this thread seems to suggest either that several Wikipedians are likewise dateless on a Friday night, or that their idea of a date is editing Wikipedia together. I'm not sure which to go with, here. Badger Drink (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dateless and damn proud of it. What's YOUR excuse? ;) GJC 11:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dating is a waste of time (except for Prom, Military Ball, etc); I do service to the local community on Friday nights. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rama

I'm slightly gobsmacked... but Rama has been adding {{di-replaceable fair use}} to a whole raft of Holocaust and POW images. These include File:Holocaust123.JPG, File:Soviet Prisoners of War.jpg, File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg and File:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. When I asked him about File:Holocaust123.JPGFile:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg, he wrote "Obviously not. I would not have made the edit then".[4]

I've asked him for more info, so I'm hoping that he'll respond soon, but something doesn't seem quite right to me. Any admins have an opinion on this? I only take it here because I don't feel that this is a content dispute, this looks suspiciously like POINTy behaviour. I could be wrong here though, but does not seem likely.

I'll let Rama know about this thread so he can respond. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of potential relevance here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. I think a topic ban may be in order to curb the disruption resulting from their actions taken in light of their extreme views on fair use and replaceability. –xeno^talk 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. He doesn't seem to have much discernment in this matter. I take a dim view to most fair use images, but in his case it's ridiculous! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please check this slightly inappropriate edit summary. Should someone block him for a day or so to get him to engage with this discussion, since he doesn't seem to be stopping? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take action to make sure none of the images he's tagged are deleted until this is resolved? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Deletion_process_is_dysfunctional --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, just for a summary:

• one can't summarily delete frivolously uploaded non-Free material
• one can't tag it for review, it is "only slightly less disruptive than" [deleting images] [5] (!). Tags get mass-reverted, even when the image is so very much irreplaceable that it is actually available on Commons (File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg)
• one cannot explicitly replace images in the articles because it is "No consensus. Combative. Pointy". [6]

Assuming that everybody is aware of the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content, I would like to ask the assembly how exactly one is supposed to remove superfluous non-Free material. If, as I assume, there is no possibility to do that, I suggest the participants above devote their energies to abolishing the policy rather than to lynching the people trying in good faith to implement it. Rama (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what, images from the Holocaust are being marked as "replaceable" ? What should we do, Rama, hold another one and invite wiki-photographers to it so they can then properly license them? Tarc (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Rama might have invented a time machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that User:Rama does not always work within process, and I don't think it's a good idea to start tagging these articles for speedy deletion without discussion, I think it's important to recognize that there are valid concerns here. There is more than one image which might represent the horrors of the Holocaust; some of them are free. Can a free image like File:German atrocities. Germany, Poland & Czechoslovakia, 1945.jpg adequately convey what is conveyed by File:Holocaust123.JPG? That one may be a matter for consensus, but it's not an unreasonable stance if Rama believes that it can. Rama, you ask where to go to remove superfluous non-free material; are you familiar with the largely forgotten process board at Wikipedia:Non-free content review? It seems to be engineered for precisely such situations as this. Granted, it's not quick, and getting somebody to actually close discussions there is a feat in itself. But it provides a forum to explain why you think the image is replaceable and by what and for others to agree or disagree. And I have optimistic hopes that if more people know about it and use it, it might actually function better. Alternatively, you can also discuss that at the talk pages of the articles where such images are used. If you replace a non-free image with an appropriate free image, explain why at the talk page, and the replacement proves uncontroversial, the unused non-free image can be tagged for {{Di-orphaned fair use}}. Given the circumstances, I would give it a day or two before tagging it, myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That relies on assuming good faith in Rama's actions. Through several AN/I discussions and the RfC, I believe I have enough "clear evidence to the contrary" to kick AGF to the curb. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside of this situation (that is, two ani threads & the RfC), I don't know Rama. I think there has been a tendentious tendency to delete material against process, which I gather has resolved, and a worrying tendency to persist in the face of community input, but I'm inclined to suspect that he means well. (If it had all been Holocaust-related content, then I'd begin to worry there was a political axe being ground here. It's not, though.) Even if Rama has gone about it the wrong way, I just think he has an, um, unusual interpretation of "replaceable" and probably feels he is doing a service to Wikipedia and our reusers by trying to keep images to guideline. I don't think Rama should continue as he has, but I think in all fairness we do need to acknowledge that he may have what he feels are good reasons. Suggesting alternatives that aren't disruptive seems to me like a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know Rama well enough to know that while he is being disruptive, there is no ill-intent to his actions. Certainly you could in no way call him a holocaust denier - his actions have nothing to do with the topic itself, but are merely his stance against fair use images. Normally I would find this admirable, but in this case it's really pushing things. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg replacable. Nor do I think that File:Exocet imapct.jpg would be possible to replace. So why did these get {{Di-orphaned fair use}} added to them? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama, it is clear from discussion here and on your RFC that your view of what constitutes "free use" and "replaceable" differs significantly from the Wikipedia consensus. What will it take to get you to stop trying to impose your view on everyone else? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these images are quite unique. This one, for example, is one of a series of famous photographs taken by prisoners in Auschwitz and smuggled out by the Polish underground. They are in the public domain in Poland, but because Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, all we can do is claim fair use—though this one may be PD in the United States too under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, because it entered the public domain before January 1, 1996. We claim fair use for it on WP only because the PD situation isn't entirely clear. We obviously can't find out who took this image and track that person's family down, and it's clearly not replaceable. We have to claim fair use for most Holocaust images for similar reasons.

Given that the prisoners took and smuggled out these images—at great personal risk to everyone involved—precisely to make sure people believed what was going on, it seems bizarre to delete them from the encyclopedia that's meant to contain the sum of human knowledge. This is one of the more tragic aspects of that knowledge. If ever a fair-use claim were justified, surely it's here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I have to say that is the best summation of this whole issue I've read on this thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Another aspect of SV's point is that these images illustrate the degree of the widespread abuse of opponents of the Nazi regime, even though there are free images that show similar scenes the fact that there are others from different locations and timeframes more clearly illustrates that such practices were endemic. Reliance on a couple of free images would diminish that perception. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc and Baseball Bugs, welcome to Wikimedia Commons.

Tbsdy: File:Exocet imapct.jpg is not needed in the article. This image should be linked in "external images", not hosted on Wikipedia as Fair use. It is not inherently notable. I refuse to discuss editorial issues regarding the Holocaust, so I will not answer regarding File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg. Per Non-Free policy, I do not have to, it is up to the people who want to keep the image to prove that it is not replaceable.

Jayjg , have you stopped beating your wife?

SlimVirgin, under your statements, I agree that this image could be claimed, but it needs to be discussed for itself in the article and in its label. This is done properly in Night_(book), but not in Holocaust. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that this is the case of all the images in the article, especially with the couples File:German atrocities. Germany, Poland & Czechoslovakia, 1945.jpg - File:Holocaust123.JPG and File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg - File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg. Clearly, the real reason for the presence of these non-Free images on Wikipedia as little to do with their superior quality, and very much to do with people not looking up the categories on Commons (we have not one, but two categories devoted to Soviet prisoners of War in the Second World War, on Commons).

LessHeard vanU, a superficially better presentation of a topic does not authorise a violation of the policies. Furthermore, your implicit assumption that Commons holds a limited sample of images of the Holocaust and related topics is not verified, the sample covers a long period of time and many locations. Rama (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to "Per Non-Free policy, I do not have to, it is up to the people who want to keep the image to prove that it is not replaceable": it is difficult for them to do that if you do not follow the processes and notify them. Usage instructions are written on the template itself. For example, after this tag, you should have left notice at User talk:Fastfission and you should have put {{deletable image-caption}} on the picture at The Holocaust and Nazi human experimentation. That would give interested contributors notice of your concerns and opportunity to respond. The lack of communication is an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Per Moonriddengirls quote of your comment "...to prove that it is not replaceable" is to require proof of an absence - not possible. There can only be good faith opinion that it is not replaceable by readily available media. 2. Your response to mine; "superficial" is judgemental, and it is your judgement against the many that have raised concerns in respect of it which is at issue here. Note this discussion, where you hold one interpretation against several and yet declare yourself unconvinced; that is not how consensus works. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is literally no way to replace File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg. If you will not discuss this issue, then I think we have a problem and I think that you should be banned from anything to do with holocaust images. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand [7]. Wikipedia guidelines are that one cannot use a non-free image to represent a topic for which there are a lot of free images (for example, WWII in the Pacific), unless the image is iconic (for example, Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima). Rama (see RfC) consistently interprets this as you may not use a non-free image of a historic topic at all unless it is iconic Consequently, because all of the Holocaust images are of historic topics, he believes the non-free ones can only be used if you can show that they are iconic. If they are not (or if that is a totally undefined term in this case), then according to the way Rama interprets things, they can be replaced with pretty much any image of the holocaust that is free, therefore they are replaceable, therefore should not be used. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What additionally concerns me is the game-playing. For example, he'll replace this image with this one (using no edit summary), bizarrely claiming that they are "equivalent", and then tag the original image as "orphaned fair use".[8] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Department of Homeland Security copyright infringement of wikipedia material

In the pdf produced by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security for racial profiling, the vocabulary section on page 3/4 is copied from wikipedia, yet there is no attribution to Wikipedia or even a mention of it(wikipedia)...

The purpose of the pdf is "To research positions related to the topic of racial profiling post September 11, 2001 with a primary focus on citizens of Middle Eastern descent, and to give an informative speech."

It uses 7 terms from Wikipedia: Racial Profiling, USA PATRIOT Act, Bigotry, Internment, Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, The War on Terrorism.

The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)#Indiana Department of Homeland Security Racial Profiling pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Would WP:OTRS be able to help you out here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Any contributor can contact them about this, though only a substantial contributor of content can take real action. The steps to take are at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Block

Could someone have a look at this bad block on Domer, he has asked Elonka to provide diffs to show the reason for his probation, I too have asked and also One Night in Hackney has asked. Now he has been blocked for alleged harassment when all he was doing was to ask a reasonable request for clarification per WP:ADMIN. I am unable to follow this thread this evening as I must go to work but some eyes would be appreciated. BigDunc 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears the block came after Domer said he would start an RfC on Elonka, which Domer said he was seeking answers before he took this step as is required. BigDunc 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like another issue that could've been avoided with WP:JDI. People tend to continue answering a stubborn user and then call them disruptive when they continue to respond. This doesn't jive with harassment in my mind. Harassment is when you do your part and stop responding, and the user continues posting to try to get a reaction. That's not what happened here, as far as I can see. Letting Domer have the last word would've quelled this, I think. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:28, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at his talkpage, you'll see that didn't work -- I stopped responding, but then even after his block was up, he made a beeline to my talkpage to continue the demands, with the support of his ally BigDunc. Anyway, if any other admins care to review the situation though, here are related threads:

• User talk:Domer48#January 2010
• User talk:Domer48#History
• User talk:Domer48#Remove this unsupportable block
• User talk:Elonka#FYI

In a nutshell: Domer48 was placed on ArbCom Enforcement probation in November 2009, requiring him to adhere to 1RR on all articles in the Troubles topic area. He violated this once in December, and again about a week ago, both of which incidents resulted in a 1-week block. During the most recent one, Domer started wikilawyering up a storm, insisting that the original probation was invalid, and demanding diffs to prove that he was edit-warring. Dozens of diffs have been provided, by multiple admins (see above threads), but no matter what's provided, he keeps saying it's not enough. He has been strongly encouraged to pursue this through a more proper venue, such as filing a thread at WP:AE and requesting that the probation be reviewed, but instead, he's just been camping on my talkpage and repeating over and over that he wants diffs. Considering his long block log already, the latest block seems appropriate to me. I invite other uninvolved admins to review the situation and offer their own opinions. --Elonka 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the posts on your talk page appear to be from BigDunc, not Domer. Regardless, that thread grew largely due to your willingness to participate in it. The user was then blocked for "harassing" you. Once you give an answer you feel is satisfactory and you don't want to be bothered anymore, I think you should stop responding. Users shouldn't be blocked because they were continuing an exchange with a willing participant, IMO. I've seen this kind of situation before and I find it illogical how much it's an accepted consequence of stubborn behavior around here. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:49, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

One runs out of options quickly when a user will not get the point. A good idea in such a situation can be to draw outside scrutiny to the situation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Domer48 should be unblocked, as he wasn't vandalizing Elonka's userpage. Having said that, he should discontinue contacting Elonka at her talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Following a request by Domer48 by email I have reviewed the above matter briefly. The emplacement of the probation by Elonka and their subsequent involvement in enforcing it is a matter for dispute resolution and I have no opinion to give. I am, however, concerned that continued efforts by Domer48 to seek an explanation they find satisfactory is construed as "harassment", and the comment that since failing to receive a response they consider valid they were contemplating opening an RfC is a "threat". I am seriously perturbed that actions and comments that define the steps necessary in attempting dispute resolution have been conflated into a blockable offence. Given that Domer48 may have been upset at the probation and the earlier block under its auspices it might be suggested the language used by the editor could be incivil, but this is not the case either. The only action by Domer48 that appears to justify the second block (for 2 weeks) is persistence in returning to the issue and arguing the rationales provided are unsound - but surely that is an aspect of dispute resolution; seeking specific responses where provided answers are considered unsatisfactory? - which is something that has divided opinion in relation to content discussions.
My view is that Domer48's block for "harassment" should be lifted and that they should be permitted to continue editing while they proceed to the next level of dispute resolution (compiling and filing a RfC). Since they are using that process it should be understood that Domer48 has no reason to continue contacting Elonka over this matter, and I would expect Domer48 undertake not to do so. I also think that admins need to recognise that their actions will, from time to time, be strongly disputed and as long as no obvious violation of policy is committed that they need to allow aggrieved parties to exhaust all avenues of DR without resort to sanctions, especially in the first instance but also as a third party. It is part of the remit of sysops involved in enacting probations, restrictions and sanctions - the incidental aptitude for being a lightning rod.
In conclusion I feel this is a bad block, in that it represents actions deemed appropriate per Dispute Resolution as being "harassment" and "threat"s and should be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review, I note that the current block is not in response to the proposed filing of an RfC. However, my general points relating to terming DR processes (the questioning of rationales and dissatisfaction with the answers previously provided) as harassment stands. I have struck as much of my earlier comment as possible without diminishing the focus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with LessHeard vanU, though rather than an RfC, a better option (and probably much less disruptive and drama-prone) would be a thread at WP:AE to request for the probation itself to be reviewed. If there's a strong consensus that the probation was inappropriate, then an RfC might be the next step, to question whether the admin acted improperly in implementing it in the first place. But to follow the proper course of WP:DR, AE should be the next step. --Elonka 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So folks, does this mean D48 is to be unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If Domer48 is willing to give assurances that if unblocked, he will resume constructive article work, and pursue normal methods of dispute resolution such as a thread at WP:AE about his probation, I would have no objection to an unblock. The proper procedure would be for Domer48 to go to WP:AE and request a review of the probation, with the {{Sanction appeal}} template. --Elonka 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me there is consensus to lift the bad block, so are any admins going to do this? As for preconditions there shouldn't be any. BigDunc 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the blocking Administrator must do the unblocking. Thus avoid any potential wheel-warring. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the recommended procedure, and I am waiting to talk with LessHeard vanU before I lift the block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ioeth and I have agreed to review the matter tomorrow, in light of some intervening incidents - and D48 has concurred. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I did the right thing with this SPI case?

I filed an SPI case both concerning Nintendofan5000 and Bambifan101 who are both blocked for sock puppetry in terms of similarities with edits and both usernames containing the word "fan" and a number at the end.

Look at the SPI case for more information. Thanks. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are also a sockpuppet and I claim my five pounds. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this user might be worth a look as a sock of Pickbothmanlol as requested in the SPI case that he just submitted. Renny The Bat (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the joke is on you. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked as sockpuppets. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So wait, a sockpuppet reported another sockpuppet? Thanks guys! JBsupreme (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to happen a lot around here. I guess we should be thankful they don't make them smarter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as Plaxico-ing himself, this puppeteer also has a habit of impersonating and joe jobbing other people with their SPIs[9] I assume it's probably User:Pickbothmanlol, but you never know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

PIPony22

PIPony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would some administrator take a look at User:PIPony22's contribution history? They seem to have mostly spent their time marking various userpages with sockpuppet templates referring to themselves, but they also just created the inappropriate page Wikipedia:Don't edit with a iPad, which seems to indicate that they aren't here to be constructive. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the edits by this user make any sense to me, and some are outright disruptive. I am indefinitely blocking the user as a disruption-only account until a good explanation for any of this is forthcoming.  Sandstein  22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the three userpages he made (two as U2 and a third as G3; the latter is the userpage of a fallow account from late '06). I'm also nuking the category he made; I think this is XXV or PBML. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

According to e-mail correspondence I am now receiving, this may be a very young person who also has a behavioral disorder. Under these circumstances, I am leaving the block in place per WP:THERAPY, and will try to get this point across to my correspondent.  Sandstein  23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

{{resolved|He'd better stop shooting himself in the leg, or he'll have no leg left. –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving, please see below,— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Leg...meet bullet.

After User:Silverlife was blocked indefinitely, he used his account before that one (per his user page) which is User:RegularBreaker. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike he is on to us. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not an admin, but a better place for this thread would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Although taking a quick look at the edits of both usernames, I don't see any evidence that the accounts were used wrongly. I didn't see any over lapping edits on any articles. Other than what Silverlife had typed on his page, which isn't evidence enough for my taste, I don't see how they are linked at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From an earlier edit on his user page: "Silverlife is RegularBreaker: Reloaded." He even admitted that RegularBreaker was his previous account in an ANI topic. He attacked me on my talk page, two zodiac groups on his user page, a bunch of editors on the ANI thread, he attacked Hell in a Bucket, and he used an IP to re-add the personal attacks about zodiac groups. It doesn't matter if he's going by the rules now because he is going against his indefinite block which is against the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like you did with Lulu when you called him a dick? Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sockpuppet. There is actually WP:DICK and Lulu did keep on attacking me in AfD when all that I did was have different opinions than him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe Chill. Anyways I filed an SPI case like Jojhutton suggested for you. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the best way to deal with it. Most likely it is the same account, but I urge you all to remember, that its real easy for someone to say that they are someone else. All they have to do is type it and click save. Its real easy. I saw a thread here a few weeks ago, where that happened. the two accounts were completly unrelated, but a long time and respected user was accused of sockpuppetry, simply becausethe new account claimed to be the other. It was a real mess for that user, but it was all worked out in the end. All I am saying is that we must not assume that two accounts are related, until it is proven.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!! –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not do anything matter to you or your life. So please stop (mess with me). You're not welcomed to type about me in every corner.

Reason: I don't want to mess with you, because... (If I say anything related-to-you, you'll say that I "personally attack". And I'm truly really tired, I won't say)

Thank you so much, Joe Chill, if you can do. Take a time and enjoy your life. R•B²_talk 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Joe Chill (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? I'd not worry about it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Matter at hand

I was aware that Silverlife was blocked indef for continued personal attacks and evasion to continue those attacks. He is obviously evading his block. Sure, PBML did interfere, but he was not the main subject of this report. SL was, and as he is obviously evading his block, he needs to be blocked. If he wishes to edit again, he may request an unblock request at his other account's talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I'm here again with this hounding case which doesn't seem to stop. Toddst1 was in charge I believe but he's on a wikibreak.

On the past September I noticed MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus were making offensive comments on the Diablada talk page such as this: [10], [11], [12].

I asked them to stop but MarshalN20 reacted against me in a disproportionate aggressive manner. That led to a Mediation Cabal which now is on formal mediation and also to a RfC on MarshalN20's conduct, nothing helped to solve the situation.

On the formal mediation the mediator is supposed to be Ryan Postlethwaite but I think he perhaps forgot to watchlist the page or he was too busy so he didn't mention anything else after our opening statements. So I wrote him to check where he was [13] and yes I was offended by the attitude MarshalN20 had in his opening statement so I pointed that out. I dedicated to edit other articles meanwhile and having a workshop prepared for the mediation, which I consider is a legitimate civil way to deal with the situation. MarshalN20, was spying on me and got upset about that (regardless he also had not only one but 1, 2 , 3 sandboxes for purposes like this) and went to complain on Ryan's talk page [14] which I consider was disrespectful so I asked him to stop [15], then I tried to reason with this person on his talk page where I repeatedly asked him to avoid conflict till Ryan gets some time, but he then started gaming to collect material against me, so even though the only comment I ever made after months of dealing with this user was saying that he was acting like a dog marking his territory on articles and biting others, for which I said twice [16] [17] that if that offended him I apologize, now he's inflating all this and using diffs that doesn't show or prove anything at all with this RfC against me, RfCs are not meant to be used as personal attacks or harassment besides the case against him is already on formal mediation. I had to stand this person humiliating me, insulting me for my nationality for months and he threatened me to continue doing such things [18]:

I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing.

I really consider this is a very serious case of harassment which needs to be solved immediately, for MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus, and of course I'd be willing to be subject of evaluation if I ever acted wrong, but I consider that in Marshaln20's case it has been a long path of misconduct, observe his attitude from 2008 [19], he also he threatened to physically hurt other users [20], he recurred to outing, he canvassed to fight against me and I seriously think this needs to be addressed by the administrators soon. Erebedhel - Talk 01:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to place the ANI notice before, now I did it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmm, it seems that posting this on Saturday night wasn't such a good idea, nobody seems on. But anyway, I suppose that Marshal will read the notice and post a reply here, I'd advise to check carefully the diffs provided by both of us. Perhaps today I'll have a hectic day so I'm not sure if I can follow the debate here (but I'll try to check whenever I can). But I think this has a simple solution as I asked Marshal which is just try to avoid any more confrontation till we get any response from the mediation, I already asked there and I hope Ryan can have some more time. We don't have the same interests so I don't think there is any need to seek unnecessary confrontation. Can anybody just help me to make Marshal understand that at this point making more problem won't get anywhere, and keep an eye so we keep our word? I honestly don't want to have any more interaction with him till mediation starts but I don't consider I've ever done anything wrong to be virtually banned from Wikipedia just because Marshal's attitude towards me. Erebedhel - Talk 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• 1. So, I make an RfC in order to discuss your conduct in such a way that we can work out our problems (Because that's what an RfC is for: so that we can establish that there exists a problem with your attitude and that you should work in improving that problem); and in retaliation you poast an ANI?
• 2. I have not set anything in motion to "virtually ban" you from Wikipedia. An RfC is just to discuss your conduct, not to ban you.
• 3. Thus far, you're still proving that you have conduct problems. You take the slightest issue and turn it into an atomic bomb. I attempt to find a solution with you by creating an RfC in order to discuss your attitude, and yet you continue to mud-sling and keep accusing me of things that were done several months ago.
• 4. You simply do not know what happened between "EP" and "Selecciones de la Vida." You were not there. The final outcome of that case was that everyone had done something wrong. In other words, the situation didn't "punish" me because, as it was shown, everybody had been insulting and bothering each other.
• 5. I have never threatened to hurt another Wikipedian. All I said in that statement was that I don't like the lad and that I wouldn't like to see him in person. You're once again demonstrating that:
  • You make up things in your mind that are not there.
  • You like to create flashy arguments when people are trying to help work out a solution with you.
  • Instead of understanding why other Wikipedians are having problems with you, you solely focus on blaming us for the situation.
• 6. You called me a dog, you tell me I bite, and you tell me that I "mark my territory." All because I moved a bibliography section above the references. I don't need to "inflate" this because it already is bad.
• 7. I have sandboxes of my other works in progress. How is that bad? I'm working on the Diablada, translating the Pachacutec article into English, and attempting to summarize the Land Campaign of the War of the Pacific. Seriously, how is that bad? You're again demonstrating those 3 points I just made.
• 8. Everything you post in Wikipedia is available to the viewing of all users. I'm not "spying" on you. This is not a James Bond movie, and I don't have an agent number. However, that would be rather cool. Obviously, I'm interested in what you are doing in regards to the Diablada article. Nothing more.
• 9. I asked Ryan, our mediator, to evaluate what you were proposing to add into the article. Obviously, you don't have that material in your workshop in order to keep Wikipedia warm and cozy.
• 10. Finally: With everything Erebedhel keeps showing, particularly his demonstration of my "past bad actions," it demonstrates that this user is hounding me. I feel deeply harrassed by such actions which have no other intention but to disrupt my enjoyment of editing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just answer some points which I consider important to clarify:

1. RfCs are meant to be used as an early step to solve a problem, the RfC on MarshalN20 already lead to Mediation now starting again one in retaliation to "make me look bad" is a highly uncivil act and worst if it's after a long conversation where I asked repeatedly to calm things down. Besides no matter how much "dirt" MarshalN20 tried dig on me, most of the diffs he provided are WP:PLAX, he apparently believes that any diff will suffice as long as he make an elaborated description to make it look "evil" e.g. here he labels it as: Presenting evidence for Original Research in the Diablada article but when we open the diff is a section that MarshalN20 opens in the talk page mocking about my name and offending me, my response to that is listed as "evidence of failing" labeled as Editor becomes aggressive after my presentation of Original Research in the article, again when we open the diff I say clearly that I'll ignore his personal remarks and provided the links that prove that what I did wasn't original research and it was backed with the very same source he was using before. Also all the "evidence to try to resolve the dispute" were my initiatives, it's evident that this isn't a RfC to solve any kind of dispute as I already tried it before, is actually being used as a personal attack and is mocking the system.

2. I do feel virtually banned because MarshalN20 is following me to seek problems and humiliate me for my nationality, I think that's enough. I couldn't work peacefully on Wikipedia since I asked him to please stop insulting my country, he attacked me since them no stop and I exhausted all the means to solve the situation yet MarshalN20 don't seem to stop. I just want to avoid more confrontation till mediation starts.

3. For me insulting other countries for over 5 months is not a light thing people who use Wikipedia to spread hatred propaganda against another country does not belong here. And I'll not tolerate any more of MarshalN20's comments about Bolivia.

4. MarshalN20 said clearly: "I can't stand the lad. If I ever see him in person, well, let's just say he better hope to never wander into my sight. lol." on [21].

5. It was a WQA, WQAs don't end in banning, but MarshalN20's attitude through the whole debate was completly uncivil. And nobody other than him and his buddy ever had problems with me and it's clear that is more a matter of racism and hatred than anything I ever done which is highly unacceptable here, everywhere else my works has been greatly appreciated and respected.

6. I explained perfectly well why I made that observation, because he isn't interested in an article yet if he has a problem with someone he fights to the end then marks his territory to show he won every now and then, MarshalN20 is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

7. I never said it was a bad thing to have sandboxes I clearly said it was a perfectly civil way to deal with the situation, what I did say was that it offended me that MarshalN20 made such a big deal for me having one while he had 3.

8. Well that's the concept of "spying". i didn't say it was wrong, that's why there is a link in my user page and a big warning sign saying it's a temporary job.

9. "warm and cozy"? So calling the entire population of a country "ignorant" and "brainwashed" keeps the environment "warm and cozy"? I highly doubt that anyone visiting my workshop would consider it "offensive" while anyone reading MarshalN20's comments on many talk pages would be easily offended.

10. I find it completely ironical that this person after months of harassing me and humiliating me now pretends to play the victim. So I ask please, this situation has to stop and has to stop now. Erebedhel - Talk 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this discussing with numbered points. It really helps out. Thanks for following along.

1. I wasn't mocking you. I simply confused your name with Ethelred the Unready, which sounds like "Erebedhel" (Notice that it took me a series of months to get your username correctly remembered). Some people used to refer to me as "Marshall." I didn't feel insulted. Why would I feel insulted? You just keep demonstrating that you take the most minor of things way too personally. And you were using original research.

2. I made an RfC not to put "dirt" on you. I made the RfC in order to focus on your attitude. Why don't you want to accept that you have attitude problems?

3. By using some simple psychology, it shows that the RfC you made about me was meant to put "dirt" on me. I am truly disgusted by such actions and intentions. However, my RfC is sincere and wishes to seek a true solution to this situation.

4. I'm not following you. I was simply going to talk to Ryan, our mediator, and then saw that you had made a comment about me in his talk page. I went on to your talk page in order to see if he had replied to you, and then found your "workshop." Hence I began to read it because it was in regards to the Diablada. Afterwards I decided to ask Ryan to read your workshop and evaluate what you were going to be proposing. That is when you began to personally attack me.

4a. I didn't say that I was going to physically hurt him. My point was that I can't stand him and wouldn't want to see him in person because I don't like him. You are accusing me of things and I feel deeply insulted by these claims of yours.

5. You are the one who is following me. Not only that, but you are also looking at my history. Here you suggest Ryan to hound me. You are the one who keeps hounding me!

6. I'm no longer insulting Bolivia at all. I admit that in the past I did, and administrator BozMo gave me a warning. I promised administrator BozMo that I was going to stop, and so I have. You are the one that keeps seeking me out.

7. No. It's not correct to personally insult other Wikipedians. Instead of accepting you did something wrong, you keep trying to justify yourself.

8. You weren't in the WQA discussion, you weren't involved in that at all. I don't know how you can so openly speak about this as if you had been involved.

9. I didn't make a "big deal" about it. I simply asked Ryan to evaluate it. Ryan could have simply said: No. However, it was you the one who began to attack me.

10. What are you talking about? I'm not saying that calling people ignorant is "warm and cozy." Why are you making up things in your mind?

11. I'm not harrassing you and much less am I humiliating you. I don't understand what your problem is. Perhaps you need a break?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This has to end

I'll finish this because in the top it says "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" I find it disappointing that nobody cared to look at this, In my history on Wikipedia I never addressed in a disrespectful manner or infringed any policy, this person is gaming the system in order to keep me out of the project, I tried all the procedures to solve this situation and after months I still can't find a solution. It's evident just by looking at MarshalN20's talk page and the Diablada talk page that I was the one being humiliated by these two individuals. I'm deeply offended and disappointed, I did nothing wrong I worked in an entire academical way and I'm proud of the way I contributed to this project. It's sad that a person with no education or manners can destroy all that and even feel proud of it, it's a shame. Erebedhel - Talk 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you out of the project. All I'm asking you is to please be neutral in your information. Yet now you insult my education, again, state that I have no manners (despite you just personally attacked me), and claim that I am some sort of destructor (once again attacking me). Thus far, you are the one who is showing no respect, you keep humiliating me in ANI, and yet you try to tell people that I am the one who is being "evil." You're confusing me quite a bit sir.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Get away from me, I asked you to please let's don't have any more interaction till mediation start. why is it so difficult to understand I don't wnat you following me and calling me "ignorant and brainwashed" just because of my nationality, you said it at least 5 times during the weekend yet you want to play the victim. Saying that Peru overlaps Bolivian culture is by no means "neutral", banning a 10 years and 107 pages study by the UNESCO isn't "neutral", presenting rants of a person who didn't even finished school as the basis of an article isn't "neutral", you're not the holder of the truth that's why we are on mediation because of your attitude against a country that have never done any harm to you, I'm tired of your attitude, I'm tired of your pettifogging, I'm tired of your gaming and I'm above all I'm tired of your irrational hatred, you won't come here to play the victim here after what you have done to me. Can anyone please close this thread? I'm exhausted. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have previously expressed concerns about the behaviour of Off2riorob at the Wikiquette alert board and feel that attention from administrators may be warranted as the user continues to respond with hostility to honest criticism, for example by accusing me without evidence of sockpuppetry and stalking. (I am not "Nikolay S. Boriso", nor am I User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, as Off2riorob implies; neither have I sought out confrontation with this user.)

In my Wikiquette alert (linked above), I noted that the user seemed to be continuing a disturbing history of edit warring and confrontational behaviour that had resulted in eight blocks in the span of several months. My concerns were seconded by Jusdafax, who had recently been on the receiving end of similarly confrontational behaviour. Looie496 closed the alert as resolved after "Off2riorob has acknowledged overreacting, and apologized for any offense."

In response to a question from User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris at BLP/N, regarding an ongoing incident in which a user characterised prominent climatologists as criminals, Off2riorob responded:

"That comment is a million miles away from Libel, you should respect other users comments even if you disagree with them, using weakly claimed libel to remove another users comment is disruptive to the editing environment, if you really think that something libelous has been posted, take it to ANI and see if you get any support to remove it, you should only touch another editors comments in very serious situation, otherwise, leave them alone"

WP:BLP makes quite clear that potential violations should be removed immediately, so I made the following comment:

"I agree completely with Short Brigade Harvester Boris: there's no question as to the target of this attack, and as such it clearly violates WP:BLP. I will remove the comment myself if necessary. I also share Boris's concerns that this board has become somewhat of a low-traffic corner of Wikipedia where at least one editor with a disturbing block history and ongoing behaviour issues regularly imposes (or attempts to impose) decisions."

I did not name the editor specifically, and I feel in any case that my concerns about the current state of BLP/N are sincere and well-founded, as evidenced by the behaviour I've observed and by what I view as a strange interpretation of WP:BLP (that potential violations must be reported to and discussed on ANI before removal), but Off2riorob immediately responded, accusing me of attacking him or her out of desire for retribution. Off2riorob placed a civility warning on my talk page. After I responded on the user's talk page, the apparent sockpuppetry and stalking accusations were made. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was completely clear that it was me he was talking about, if you don't want a civility warning you should not talk about other editors on discussion boards like that, I stand by my comments as correct.This report is also empty of any offense and is basically another attack on me. I would also like to point out that I have not mentioned any sockpuppetry. Off2riorob (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you explain the diffthen? -- Why do you refer to the editor using another name? FormerIP (talk):50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that is nothing to do with anybody it has somehow got pasted in from an email address I was working with, and relates to this article Nikolay_Sergeyevich_Borisov it has nothing to do with anything related to this. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. You can see how it might have been misunderstood, though? --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I only just saw it when you posted the link, I can see the point now, but I assure you it is nothing more than a coincidence. Off2riorob (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• What rules are you alleging were violated? -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm having the same problem as well! Sir Floyd (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All this is entirely too weird. How about everybody just drop it? Besides, it's Saturday night and we should be doing something more fun. Which I think I will go and do about right... now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• ?? SBHB, while normally I feel you're on-target about most of what you say, this one's kinda making the little needle on my "????"-O-Meter go to about ....welll, maybe not eleven, but at least six. This looks to me like KCACO feels as though his concerns have been dismissed in the past, so I'd rather not do anything likely to incite the same reaction here. (Besides, it's now Sunday morning, so "fun" comes off the menu, to be replaced by any mild misery of your choice.) Now--to the original issue: KCACO, your interpretation of BLP is definitely closer to the mark; the comment in question, characterizing the climatologists as criminals, should absolutely be removed, unless it's sourced to the gills. O2RRob, you've been here long enough to know that--and ESPECIALLY w.r.t. the recent BLP-related kerfuffle, I'd think it behooves everyone to be extra-, EXTRA-careful with BLP questions. It may not meet the narrow legal definition of "libel" but it's definitely got no place in the article unless it's rigorously sourced--you can't just go around calling ppl "criminals" unless they're currently wearing prison jumpsuits. Finally: I'm withholding judgement on O2RRob's behaviour; however, I will say this much: O2RRob, I've seen several comments at AN/I and AN w.r.t this kind of behavior from you; while you can always dismiss one or two reports as random crankery, once we get to this point it might be time to consider taking some of these criticisms on-board. Just my own opinion, anyhow. GJC 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out to you that the comment was not in the article but was expressed as a comment on the talkpage. My comment regarding the removal of content on the talkpage of the climate change article was in respect to the wider issue at that board and connected boards, it has become almost common practice there for editors to remove other editors posts for one reason or another and one editor has recently been restricted for that, what can I say about the criminal comment, I don't see it as desperately in need of removal and it wasn't removed and as yet it is still there. Actually I had replied about the issue just previously more privately to Boris on his talkpage here , you may want to look at that to get the whole picture. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the comment was on a talk page and was clearly not meant as an accusation of criminal behaviour, but as a general insult. Why exactly would that be so clearly violative of BLP that it needs to be removed? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rrius and Sir Floyd ask what violations were committed. WP:OUTING, for one. Off2riorob addressed me by name, and it wasn't my username. It's difficult for me to accept, given this user's past behaviour, that this was some sort of mistake. Furthermore, the name Off2riorob used was quite similar to the username of SBHB, who just happened to be involved in the same discussion. I've said my last on this particular episode, but it may be useful to keep a closer eye on this user's behaviour. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This report was groundless and so are your claims of outing completely without detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "for one" appears to have been a misunderstanding, so is there now any rule you feel was broken? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

I just saw this at UAA. Is this a logged-out bot? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the toolserver IPs, so yes, it's someone's bot logged out. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh... I sure hope nobody blocks that IP! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

J.D. Salinger

There is a big mess over at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg. It's getting out of hand.--Blargh29 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request as copyright holder has requested deletion, so it's gone. Nothing else to see here, folks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how OTRS or Fair use works. IFD should proceed as it was and the image should be restored while it does. Prodego ^talk 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, image was restored. IFD seems to have calmed down though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Mike Godwin because WP:CONSENSUS does not override US Copyright Law. Pcap ping 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Fair use is far far broader than our interpretation of when we use Fair use, so I can't imagine it being much of an issue legally. I could of course be wrong. Prodego ^talk 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Advise

Should anything be done about this post? Debresser (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, he's done a fairly good job of making himself look like a frothing lunatic without any help from us. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC).

I've removed the rant - I can't see how it was helpful on that talk page. Emotions on that article are high enough as it is. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I also though that would be the right thing to do, but wanted an outside editor to assess the situation perhaps more objectively. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could also take a look at the "Prelude" section of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. I had raised concerns about the inclusion of quotations from an Israeli report in a section entitled "Prelude" in the past, in part because I am aware of an ultranationalist revisionist view of the massacre that justifies it as self-defense. This logic is spelled out by a user on the talk page, who insists on this text because "the" Arabs were plotting something and thus the dead were guilty by virtue of their being Arabs. I have argued that cutting out this or that piece of the report and recontextualizing it as a "Prelude" to imply something is inappropriate.

Debresser is one of the users who had insisted on that text in the past. The rant Debresser brought here appears to have been triggered by IP's outrage at mention of Hamas and "kill the Jews" in the Prelude section: Debresser's own preferred text. I still believe the text is inappropriate, and that it serves to muddy the waters of a clear-cut massacre of unarmed Muslims at prayer by artificially introducing anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Jewish militancy into the narrative. Any takers? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps

I've been trying to clean up some of the POV and unref assertions in Indiana Militia Corps, but have just noticed that this was deleted following WP:Articles for deletion/Indiana Militia Corps (2nd nomination). Can an admin please check to see whether the content has substantially changed from the deleted version? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject still notable for inclusion on Wikipedia? It seems like all the references come directly from the group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The content has not substantially changed, and I have deleted the new version WP:CSD#G4. I closed the AfD, which had a clear consensus to delete as not notable, only the article author JP419 (talk · contribs) dissenting. His first reaction was to nominate for deletion an article about another militia corps - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Militia. When that was kept, he protested on my talk page and I directed him to DRV which is where he should take this rather than simply re-creating his page. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the article author, I've just been trying to improve the article for some time, but I work long shifts and don't have much time to be online... I cannot do that if it's deleted, and also I might add that JohnCD is wikilawyering me to death on this. he is also mischaracterizing my actions - which was NOT the first thing I did. The first things I did were to use the talk page, but more importantly look for the articles I know are out there. But why not waste my time by deleting the page before I get a chance to post?? He did not give me sufficient time to respond, or to research what I can do to improve/etc what needs to be done. Against the spirit of Wikipedia, and the Five Pillars, he has pushed to delete ASAP. There are other articles less noteworthy I mean notable that are being left up, so this is certainly looking like a POV way to strip content from the wikipedia. I already told a few others that this BS and wikilawyering is making me think that I should withdraw altogether from WP and encourage others to do likewise. This is not how we improve relevant content, and I for one am sick of JohnCD's circular arguments. He's not God here and shouldn't act as though his word is the last. There's a remedy for every situation and he's been ignoring everything I've said. I am at the point where being ignored is pi$$ing me off and I'm about ready to demand arbitration. Barring that, I'll drag up and join those who call for a boycott of Wikipedia. JP419 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

...Or, you could ask someone to WP:USERFY the deleted article for you, so you can work upon it and the reasons why it was deleted when you have the time. When it is ready (all properly cited to reliable independent sources) then it can be returned to mainspace. As for the rapid deletion, if an article is recreated with exactly the same problems as were given as the reasons for the earlier delete then there is no need to rehash the arguments. Only where there are significant changes is there a need for an extended discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of JP419s statement above, I've userfied the article at User:JP419/Indiana Militia Corps so that it can be worked upon and improved until it is ready to return to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to tool on untrusted host in protected template (Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons)

{{resolved|Link has been removed. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}} From Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons#New server:

Please revert. This is a rip of Magnus' tool on an untrusted host run by a user blocked from editing on both this wiki and on Commons. multichill (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The original changes were made by MSGJ (talk · contribs) on the request of MisterWiki (talk · contribs). This sounds like something that should be dealt with quickly. Brian Jason Drake 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked a little closely at this situation. MisterWiki made the requests about two months ago, before MisterWiki was blocked for 10 years. Brian Jason Drake 11:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Removed by billinghurst. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wider issue?

It seems to me there's a wider issue here that isn't resolved. And just to be clear, I'm not directing this at MSGJ in particular. Should we really be linking to random tools by random editors? Particularly when they require the user to login or at least identify themselves to use the tool, and therefore an unscruplious host could use it guess the person's IP, or worse hijack their account. IMHO it would be wise if we only allow such links at the toolserver and perhaps highly trusted hosts (which means way beyond simply not being blocked) Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange series of edits: socks?

If you look at the history of The Stolen Earth, there are a series of very strange edits from very strange accounts, which look like they may be socks designed to harass Sceptre (talk · contribs)? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they are sockpuppets but I'm not sure, I'll leave this to Checkuser if possible. Minimac94 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that they have been blocked by Versageek. For future reference, I believe that WP:SPI is the place to report suspected sockpuppetry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I wasn't sure who they were socks of :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You had a clear reason for believing they may be socks of each other. That's enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-promotion, edit warring, and possible sock at All-American Basketball Alliance (2010)

User: Plaintalk2010, who apparently is the author of the book Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes, recently added a blatantly self-promotional passage to the article All-American Basketball Alliance (2010). I deleted this passage, but he restored it. Another user then deleted the passage, but he restored it again. I removed it again and gave Plaintalk2010 a level three "uw-advert" warning, as well as a 3RR warning, on his talk page. Subsequently, however, User: Geoffgregg (whom I suspect may be a sockpuppet of Plaintalk2010), re-added the unsourced, promotional passage, and I deleted it yet again. Looking at user contributions for both Plaintalk2010 and Geoffgregg leads me to believe that the sole purpose of both accounts on Wikipedia (whether the latter is a sock of the former or not) is to advertise the book Plain Talk Volume 1. I think administrator intervention may be necessary.

P. S: The article Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes also was created by Plaintalk2010 and appears to be intended as self-promotion. The only references for the article are people's blogs, and the book itself may not be notable. I'm seriously considering taking it to AFD. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Corowitz started the Plain Talk... article... less than 20 minutes later, User:Plaintalk2010 made his first edit... which just happened to be on the Plain Talk article. So Corowitz is another user who should be checked out. [22]. Rapido (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, and you're right about Corowitz; I looked through that user's contributions and although some of his edits went as far back as 2009, there were very few of them and they were mostly (if not totally) unconstructive. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started a sockpuppet investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plaintalk2010. Rapido (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have place a sockpuppet investigation warning template on Plaintalk2010's talk page. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Altho' for some reason it's not appearing on this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, so perhaps I made an error in submitting the report. Rapido (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It now is appearing. Perhaps there was a delay of some sort, but everything seems to be fine now. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Craziness at probation noticeboard

Resolved

 – The edit war ended when the editor self-reverted. Administrator attention on this area is still urgently required.

For the love of $DEITYOFCHOICE, would an admin please step in and semi-protect, or liberally issue blocks, or whatever it takes to stop this? Over at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement an admin closed an unproductive discussion (his judgment, not necessarily mine) with instructions to bring further concerns to his talk page. User:Unitanode summarily reopened the discussion, then someone else re-closed it, and now there's edit warring over reopening the discussion. This is nuts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• An admin inappropriately closed an on-going discussion of blatant probation violations by WMC, SBHB's WikiFriend. Just clarifying. UnitAnode 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• WMC was warned not to use derogatory terms in this highly contentious debate. In response to his warning, he called the editors who reported him "idiots and yahoos". Another case was opened to report his latest abuses, 2/0 failed to act, and now SBHB and the rest of WMC's bodyguards are misrepresent this as "unproductive discussion". The problem here is WMC's brazen violation of a sanction, and 2/0's refusal to act. At least 5 editors (2 previously uninvolved) have expressed concern about this. Can a truly uninvolved admin deal with this straightforward enforcement of sanctions for a problem editor? ATren (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  From what I've seen of the discussion, it looked very much like a pile-on by WMC's political opponents. Don't forget that he is being targeted by an off-wiki campaign at the moment - the recent flurry of mostly spurious enforcement cases has clearly been driven by the desire of one side of the argument to get rid of a prominent advocate of the other side. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Boris that a number of editors seemed determined to be disruptive on the enforcement page by gaming the system. There have been repeated attempts to get WMC topic banned for spurious reasons. Semiprotection or blocks of editors like the two "pile-ons" above might help to impose some discipline. Mathsci (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  Note that WMC's "idiots and yahoos" smears were completely unprovoked. He was actually responding to 2/0's warning not to use such terms. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was baited into those smears. WMC is the aggressor in these conflicts, and to accuse those reporting him of "piling on" is shooting the messenger. ATren (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  When a small group of users keep writing the same thing, hoping at some point it will stick, that is "piling on". GoRight and Abd were no different. Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not Abd, nor GoRight, nor Scibaby, nor any of the other so-called "bad guys" you would like to associate me with. In fact, I am sympathetic to WMC's views. I only object to his tactics, which are disruptive. In this case, I simply supplied diffs of WMC calling other editors idiots and yahoos, after being warned not to. Do you support such attacks? At least half a dozen other non-Scibabies agree with me, by the way, so the "WMC is being harassed" meme holds no water here. ATren (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem helpful to write in such an inflammatory way. Abd and GoRight persistently repeated assertions about other users, which could not be substantiated by diffs. There doesn't seem to be much difference here. MastCell's warning was unambiguous and hopefully users will take note of it. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MathSci, all I'm presenting is diffs - how can a diff of WMC calling other editors "idiots" not substantiate that claim? Really.

And as for MastCell's warning, you'll note that I also opposed the revert of the close, and suggested he revert and take it up with Prodego directly. Which he did, because he is reasonable. Contrast this to WMC, who not only fails to respect 2/0's warning to respect others, he directly defies it with more derogatory language, language which he has never withdrawn. ATren (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I'm doing is presenting diffs It's clear that you are wikilawyering and spending considerable effort trying to analyse WMC's edits. However as 2/0 has pointed out, you are failing to see that WMC has heeded his warning and is editing helpfully and carefully. I am sure that if you analysed my edits, which in my interactions with you might show some signs of fatigue, you would be able to point out minor lapses in the wikipedia civility code. I would ask you to reread what both MastCell and 2/0 have written without trying to interpret it through wikilawyering: if you think there is any ambiguity, why not ask these administrators directly, instead of wasting time here? At the moment your persistent comments and wikilawyering just seem to be disruptive no matter how many self-justifying statements you write. Your final goal seems clear, even though it might be disguised by the tactics of a civil POV-pusher. Please stop. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've self-reverted the close. It was ill-considered on Prodego's part, and I'm extremely tired of the one-sided naturse of that "enforcement" page. It has to end. UnitAnode 15:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• And, for the record, WMC's defenders have now so muddied the waters at that page, that it's almost impossible to even dig up the diffs where Connolley called his opponents "yahoos and idiots" in the immediate aftermath of being "required" not to make such statements. It truly is a mess, but not for the reasons some would have you believe. UnitAnode 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unwise for a non-admin to revert an administrative action. Unitanode should know better, frankly, and it only adds to the unnecessary drama.

On a separate issue, I do think it would be useful if more admins could participate in managing the climate change article probation. There are only a handful active at the moment (2/0, Lar, BozMo). This puts an undue burden on a few individuals and makes it slower and more difficult to resolve issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this is supposed to be going. Many fairly spurious, and one or two substantial, cases have been filed against William M. Connolley in the Climate change probation. Two administrators have already looked at this latest case and both decided there was nothing actionable. The second admin closes it.

Then somebody starts edit warring on the enforcement page. Do you really want a previously unengaged admin to come along and conduct multiple blocks or bans? Because the way things are going, that's where this incident is leading. --TS 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A block or ban to discourage this sort of nonsense would probably be a good idea. Edit warring on a probation enforcement page is practically at a Darwin Awards level of stupidity. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He's already self-reverted. It was ill-advised, especially given the uneven-level of enforcement on that page, but it's now moot. ATren (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, what are you talking about, "multiple blocks or bans"? For what? Presenting diffs of a problem editor calling other editors "idiots" after he was warned not to? How is that blockable? Seriously. ATren (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Nowhere did I say that presenting diffs is blockable or bannable. Escalating a dispute should be done by dispute resolution, not by edit warring and then complaining about the actions of non-participants in the edit war, and not by repeatedly bringing up pointless and doomed cases on one forum after another. --TS 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, SBHB brought it here, so your forumshop claim is bogus. And, for the record, the probation page is dispute resoultion, except that legitimate disputes are being swept under the rug. Please stop misrepresenting this situation. ATren (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer to your edit on this page at 15:25, with the edit sumary "The real story" in which you tried to turn this edit warring report into a complaint about the conduct of admins. --TS 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, there you go again. In fact, that was in response to Boris's call to "liberally issue blocks". Stop muddying the issue with unfounded accusations against me. ATren (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the changed landscape post-Copenhagen and leave the articles locked in the GW glory days of 2007. Given the aggressive warnings for "advocacy" being handed out (advocating improvements to the article really not welcome), the other absurd accusations (huh?) and the constant personal attacks, the stone-walling of every NPOV attempt at editing looks relatively good-natured. But I wish more people had contributed to my Improvement Chart here for when we eventually have to come back, learn something and actually write an informative artcle. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Final warning issued ([23]), as this is the second time a complainant has reverted an admin's close of an enforcement thread. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

John254 strikes again?

I encourage everyone to speak in my defence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock needs looking into?

Would someone mind peeping at the above and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Purposal_to_tag_for_sock_puppetry_in_AfD? I know that the user in question has been listed on WP:SPI, but I'm not sure of the evidence connecting them to that particular sockmaster, so I've listed here for a more general look-over. I'll notify the editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will cooperate fully and carefully during this SPI case. However if your uneasy about the problem, you can always block me until the case proves my innocence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

..or as a vandalism-only account. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to put a spanner in the works but... but is Andrew the Assasins really a vandal only account? This edit[24] looks pretty competent if you ask me, I know there has been a investigation already but if a potential editior is at stake perhaps it's worth looking at. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

His other edits were vandalism, and that one proves that he's a sockpuppet. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok TreasuryTag, maybe I got it wrong. But, don't accuse me of being a sock, I'm only finding my feet as a wikipeidan by editing in and around the community portal. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also TreasuryTag, John254 had a 20 day hatus before he allegedly edited in the form of andrew the assasins, I however have not edited until the 18th. Perhaps you should consider logic before you acuse fellow wikipedians as sockpuppets/vandals etc. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you going on about? TreasuryTag never called you a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that you were a sockpuppet. I suggest that you "consider [sic] logic before you acuse [sic] fellow wikipedians [sic] as [sic]" of false labelling! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a piece of fried chicken hey! Spread the wikilove. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is ANI without some drama? Find a link to John254's latest member of the family to Pickbothmanlol's family. I will assure you that you will find a connection weather you like it or not. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From this being your first edit, you appear to be a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I should nominate you for adminship. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

I've been dealing with a incredibly rude user called MickMacNee over the past day and his behavior has escalated to the point where it necessitates greater community attention at this point.

My interaction with this user began when I removed an expansion tag that had been there for over two years[25], figuring that no one wanted to expand it given that time frame and someone could expand it if they wanted to in any case without the tag.

The user reverted me[26], stating it was a valid section for the article. I reverted him[27], since I thought my first edit summary may not have been as indepth as it should have been and it may have been a misunderstanding. However, apparently it was not a misunderstanding and the user was interested in an edit war[28].

So, to avoid escalating things into a true edit war, I decided to try and work out a way to make the article better in tandem with the user, which ended with the user telling me to "get fucked".

Regardless of disagreements, this user's behavior is unacceptable, considering that this seems to be a recurring behavioral pattern, and i'm not sure other methods that the user could be made to follow proper standards of Wikipedian etiquette. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"I see no need to prove it to you." - if anybody thinks you aren't anything other than a wind up merchant (and I note this user only registered in September 2009), I would be truly be amazed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See what i'm talking about? I am at a loss towards this user's poor behavior, so I leave it to you, and hope the user can stop this confrontational behavior. I'll check back at the article in a few days and i'll check back here in awhile in case i'm needed for any more input. I hope the user can rehabilitate their behavior and become a more constructive editor. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked MickMacNee for a week for that edit. Way over the line and wholly unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Only a week? I've come across this editor before. Very confrontational, especially when a discussion is occurring where editors do not express a point of view that MMN agrees with (example). Had I come across this I would have indeffed. MMN needs to learn to calm down a lot, and remember that other editors are allowed to have a different point of view to his. This is just the latest in a long line of blocks. Suggest that any future recurrence of this is dealt with by a long block. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

usually I escalate blocks in circumstances like this but I took into account the fact that their last block was 4 months ago. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, Spartaz. I'm not about to go over you and extend the block on MMN. However, we could impose a civility restriction under WP:RESTRICT if there is consensus to do so.

Never saw a civility probation that worked but I suppose there could be a first time for everything.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if I ever see anything like that again the block will be indefinite, so civility probation will not be required. Prodego ^talk 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually forget it, I'm making it indefinite now. Prodego ^talk 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps a Civility Restriction would be a better alternative. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, civility restrictions just end up being abusive to the user (who is then baited at every turn) and to the community (who is now told to accept the user's faults since he is under restriction). In six months I'd be willing to listen to him if he wanted to come back. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with MickMacNee in many different situations since I joined WP over 2 years ago and have found his behavior to consistently exceed that which is permitted of editors. I endorse Spartaz's initial block and Prodego's extension. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse any solution that brings a specific result: an end to the user's uncivil behavior. An indef block may just encourage them to create sockpuppets that engage in the same behavior, but if the user doesn't change their behavior, that may be necessary. I am biased since I am involved in this dispute, so please take my comment with a grain of salt, but I hope this user can be rehabilitated if that is at all possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that this sort of thing has happened with the user countless times, and the user had made it clear that blocks are not going to change his behavior then I endorse the indefinite block. I believe it should be reviewed after 6 months or so has passed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocks being dished out for breaches of WP:CIVIL. Too many times I've been on the receiving end (and 99% of those times, absolutely nothing happens...) And I've bumped into MickMacNee on occasion and even seen many breaches of WP:CIVIL. But. I would say that saying "Get Fucked" on his own Talk page is not deserving of an indef block. The guidelines say to avoid profane language. It doesn't say it's taboo or deserving of a block. Also, the reason given - that the editor's attitude not compatible with this project - is not in any policies that I can find unless I'm missing WP:ATTITUDE. Perhaps the admin is using their own moral compass and was offended by the word "Fuck". But that's no reason to hand out a block - just cos they feel like it. Any chance we could be enlightened and instead return to the more precise and exact method of blocking for breaches of policy, pointing out the policy, and pointing out the breach. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As an addition to the comment above which Chillum responded to regarding a pattern of behaviour. As is often the case (to my dismay), there is also no evidence presented of "an ongoing pattern of such behavior". If there was, I would have expected to see warnings posted on his Talk page. Also, indef means that this editor may never be unblocked too - hardly fair and since he is not a vandal, will only end up hurting the project. I would fully support proper enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but this turn the knob All the way to eleven block is wrong.

There's plenty of evidence if you only care to look. December 2008 (my first encounter with MMN), December 2009 (still no change), plus the AfD I linked to earlier. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this block is that it seems to me that we're being led along to come up with our own reasons. It seems that the evidence has *not* been presented - we're just being told to look around ourselves. That's funny. Tragic too. Is that really how things are supposed to be done around here? It's *that* easy to hand out an indef block? Just wave your hands around and hope there's enough evidence if you only care to look? --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, "yes". If only you care to look, which you choose not to do and instead act like everyone's making an insane mistake simply because you're too damn lazy to go look. The rest of us here are either a) familiar enough with this user to not have to go looking for past warnings, or b) industrious enough to familiarize ourselves with the situation before making comments about how things are tragic and funny. Either look around for it, or quit commenting about the lack of it. No one here wants to hold your hand. Tan | 39 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks which is a policy and says Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. MickMacNee made a personal attack on "his own talk page" which is actually "anywhere in Wikipedia". Rapido (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good indef block, should probably have happened sooner in view of that block log. Unhelpful unblock request declined.  Sandstein  23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef block is very harsh and heavy handed considering the guy does make valuable contributions to the project despite his often confrontational attitude. It seems to me that he has not been in as much trouble of late so slapping an unexplained indeterminate sentence on him will probably give him the impression that it's some kind of vendetta against him. I thought the original block of a week seemed fair punishment for intemperate language. It is out of order that there was no justification for the block escelation on his talkpage, just a 4 word notification. People should not be indef blocked on a whim. I think he should be unblocked after a reasonable amount of time (a week) on condition that he gives a formal agreement to avoid profane language on Wikipedia. King of the North East 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block. Presumably opposing The Cabal and posting after this issue has been so swiftly "resolved" will earn me a block too... However I feel that I must speak up on User:MickMacNee's behalf here. This indef block is disproportionate and unjustified. It is a harmful action to the encyclopedia as a whole if editors who make positive contributions like this are excluded. We have a seemingly infinite patience with vandals, but see a failure to suffer fools gladly as far worse than being the fools in question. This is wrong.

I don't understand why Mick's attitude is so regularly combative, and why he can't see that taking part here requires a certain attitude that he might not accept, but is required to comply with - because the overall project just works better that way. For that reason I've not opposed blocks before, nor would oppose this one week block now. As Mick has himself said before, such a block is an opportunity to work on research or authoring off-line, something that he has frequently used before to produce good and valued content (and sometimes it must be said, good content that was anything but valued by other editors who felt somehow diminished by another's contributions).

An "indef block" is indeed not a definite block, but it is a definite and endless change of status. It makes the blocked editor a non-person, someone who forever more will first be assumed guilty, no matter what the facts of the matter. Look at our past track-record here as a community: it's far from impressive. I cannot support such a measure to an editor who has frequently been far from civil, but to whom we are all still required to assume their underlying good faith, something of which I've yet seen nothing to dissuade me. Yet supposedly we don't support punitive blocking, only protective blocking...

I oppose this block, and I oppose the haste with which it was applied. I don't expect my word to count for anything, I'm not after all An Admin, but I'd like Mick to know that his efforts were appreciated and that at least some editors didn't go along with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite can be very short. If Mick gave a convincing promise to not be abusive towards other editors in content disputes then I imagine he would be given that chance without delay. The problem with a fixed duration is that it is blind, instead of checking if the user is ready it simply flips the switch. Indefinite only means that there is no automatic unblock and that a human has to decide to unblock. So far Mick has responded to this by blaming others, lets wait and see if he can acknowledge the problem and take an effort to address it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The casual manner in which the block was upgraded to indef. was guaranteed to create drama – it was ill-judged and unnecessary. Maybe if these decisions were taken with a little less haste and without getting cocks out on the table (Mo Mowlem just said it to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness) more effective decisions would result. Leaky Caldron 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is this this is not an "upgrade". A convincing endeavor from Mick to not repeat this sort of thing like he has so many times in the past and the block can be over today. Indef is not a greater or lesser block than 1 week, it means that a human decides when it ends and not a timer. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat puzzled. Here we have a block, if we're to believe Spartaz's comment here, for writing "Get fucked" rather than a presumably acceptable equivalent such as "Get lost" or "Go away". Déjà vu all over again. Didn't we have this same problem with something Malleus wrote recently? Profanity doesn't make a comment abusive. Anyone who parses the imprecation "Get fucked" as anything other than an inelegant variation upon the theme "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" is trying rather too hard to be offended. An apology for the edit-warring and combativeness, fair enough, but anyone who things MMN should apologise for writing "Get fucked" needs to work on their perspective. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Get lost", "Go away", or even "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" would also not be appropriate responses, "Get fucked" is far more blatantly unacceptable than either however. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is ample evidence which shows that many editors, administrators too, use exactly the same theme in their dealings with others. Comments such as this are not uncommon. And that includes a bonus feature which you won't find in a simple two-word response, a comment on a contributor which some policy somewhere says to avoid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think with this comment that WP:AGF is an inexhaustible well of goodwill that overrides everything else; even given WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, there comes a time when goodwill is exhausted, and ArbCom have recognised this in the past. We are all volunteers, and we are all human. None of this, to my mind, implies that we should not, when circumstances demand, call a spade a spade. That's plainly unrealistic, whatever model of courtesy Jimbo proclaims in interviews; he isn't at the coalface, and we are. Rodhullandemu 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of touched on this on Mick's talk page already, but it seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard here. I don't want to appear to be making excuses since I generally agree with HighKing about Civil not being applied often enough, but I want to point out that Mick's recent content conflict behavior (in reverting changes to a certain Wikipedia space page) was simply echoing the behavior that several admins made acceptable recently. The language used/temperament clearly displays that Mick needs a break anyway, but it at least appears that what is OK behavior for admins may not be OK for non-admins, which doesn't seem like the way we should be headed. (To be clear, I'm not referring to the deletions, but the petition which was a precursor to all of that. Mick has been involved in both areas for weeks though, just for your information)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good Blocks, especially the {{indef}} one. Mick's been a major contributor to teh toxic environment — we're better off without his contributions. Someone please mark this {{resolved}}. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor has admitted fault and apologised

See MickMacNee's second unblock request. The editor seems sincere and recognises his faults. Given that this indefinite block was of the straw-that-broke-the-camels-back variety, and in light of the willingness to reform, I propose that the block be returned to Spartaz' original weeklong period so that Mick has the chance to get a handle of whatever external circumstances he cites as contributory to his poor behaviour and reflect on his future participation in the project. In the meantime, I suggest the rest of us take up on his suggestion and initiate a user conduct RfC to flesh out the concerns raised above. In a week's time, we can regroup, see where things stand, and re-assess the issue from a calmer perspective.  Skomorokh  02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur and said as much on MickMackNee's talk page. Tan | 39 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With the apology in mind, I have made it so. 1-week block. Anyone refactoring (down or up) may go ahead without saying so much as "boo" to me. GJC 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i have asked this editor to calm down a little, to no avail, but an indefinite ban seems particularly harsh. Ikip 06:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Help building SPI case

I'm starting to see a rash of recreations that I think are pointing me towards socking by a banned editor (probably MSoldi), but there are some things I can't see that I need to be sure. Could someone tell me

1. Who created the three previous versions of Tyler Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?
2. Who created the previous versions of Autumn Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?
3. Who created the previous versions of Degree Girl: OMG! Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

Thanks.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Checking this out. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tyler Ward was created by Tehmen (talk · contribs) (22 Jan 2007), Cami2349 (talk · contribs) (7 Aug 2009) and Luka89 (talk · contribs) (27 Jan 2010).
• Autumn Goodbye was created by MSoldi (talk · contribs) (17 Aug 2008), Yoelmo (talk · contribs) (27 Oct 2008) and BlondieX (talk · contribs) (3 Feb 2009).
• Degree Girl: OMG! Jams was created by User:Soronow (2 May 2008), Cartoonzaq (talk · contribs) (8 Jul 2008) and Luka89 (talk · contribs) (31 Jan 2010).

Looks like there's a connection between 2 of the 3 articles. Hope that helps. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, once you throw in Autumn Goodbye (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's 3 for 3, tying Msoldi into 2 of them and Luka89 for all 3. Now figuring out exactly what the connection is is the puzzle.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User Evading block

User: 190fordhouse was blocked for 2 weeks concerning sockpuppeting and making controversial edits, but I believe that the user is using this IP address to make edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.85.175.159. I thought that editing while blocked isn't legal.Carmaker1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this investgatied before the IP adress is blocked. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At a glance I don't see it. If you're really convinced, go to WP:SPI and ask for a WP:CHECKUSER. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would pray that Beeblebrox is correct. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at first glance I see nothing either. They haven't even edited any of the same articles, and the IP seems to be enditing English music articles, whereas fordhouse seemed to be editing Spanish ones at the time of their block. In addition, the IP was editing at the same time as fordhouse, while the latter was unblocked. Carmaker, is there any specific edits you feel are particularly ducky? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film)

I have filed a report at WP:AN/EW#User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: ) about an edit war involving User:70.29.59.12 who appears to have now created an account as User:Rightous. This editor(s) keeps inserting potentially defamatory material about Marvel Comics into teh articles Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film), despite warnings by several editors. As no admins sem to have edited at WP:AN/EW for fifteen hours or so, i am requesting that an admin takes a look. Sorry if thsi is the wrong place to report this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User is still at it. Tripped abuse filter 249: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits. Jarkeld (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Both users are blocked now. Evil saltine (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag war by User:History2007

History2007 (an interesting username) has been repeatedly removing the very long-standing {{long}} tag on Catholic Church. Diffs follow. It is a snake-pit of an article; but removing the incentives to do something about its obvious and agreed problems does not help.

Would somebody have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the tag had been there before and removed by other users. The article has been emotionally charged for months, with Pmanderson as a participant, but I had not been a participant in said disputes before. The placement of the tag by Pmanderson was called a surrogate tag by others in any case. So it does have a long history. No remedy was suggested, except keeping it there, as on talk page. The practice of placing surrogate tags when other disputes run into quicksand must not be encouraged. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• History2007 is about as disinterested as a political protest, as his comments show.
• But the article has a {{POV}} tag, so what does History2007 suppose this to be a surrogate for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The assumption that a tag is for some other nefarious purpose than its proper function - especially after repeated assertions (one here) that the {{long}} tag is because the article is very long - is either a manifestation of telepathy, or unwarranted bad manners. Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have ventured to reverse one more of History2007's edits. He has now removed the infobox, possibly because its description includes the word large. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding meaningless comments to Talk: page threads to stop the bot from archiving

I've run into an odd situation on an article talk page. I've noticed that some articles have extremely (really nonsensically) long archive intervals for threads; up to 365 days in some cases. In my view, when a thread hasn't been commented on in a reasonable period of time (say 3 months), then the discussion is effectively over: the likelihood of the original person coming back to respond is by then low, and in any event, the issue, whatever it might have been, has effectively been resolved by the passage of time.

On one article, after I adjusted the bot settings from 200 days to 100, I was reverted, with the claim that there was a "consensus" that 200 days was better.[29] In addition, User:Canadian Paul added a bunch of comments to threads, mostly meaningless, in a deliberate attempt to stop threads from being archived.[30] I removed the purely meaningless comments[31] - i.e. the ones that said "Commenting to prevent archiving", which I felt were simply disruptive, and commented to that effect on the article talk page. In turn, Canadian Paul reverted me, insisting that he had only added his comments to "on-going discussions"[32] - this, despite the fact that the he had to deliberately make comments in those threads to avoid bot archiving precisely because there was no "on-going discussion" in them. In fact, in one thread he's been adding "Commenting to prevent archiving" comments since May 2009! He also stated that it was my actions that were, in fact, disruptive.

While this is a specific issue regarding one article Talk: page, it also has broader implications regarding archive bot settings, and whether one can add meaningless statements to a thread simply for the purpose of thwarting a bot archive. I've seen this done on other article talk pages; where editors make comments at lengthy intervals, just to ensure a particular thread they are interested in doesn't get archived by a bot, and in the hopes that they can wear down those who disagree with them through attrition. Thus, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul notified. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul told not to do that. Prodego ^talk 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. After looking at that talk page, his behavior seems pretty nonsensical. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:43, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

After looking again, I can see the need in this kind of article to maintain a list of people who are imminently going to need to be added to the article. Perhaps the list of potential candidates should be consolidated into one section, or a subpage. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:55, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Subpage seems a good idea. Could transclude it, keeping the main page cleaner, and the lists easier to manage. Prodego ^talk 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I like some of the changes that User:Equazcion has done and I think if these had been discussed beforehand, with a chance for the very few regular visitors to the talk page to comment, this whole silly mess could have been avoided. If some time has been taken beforehand to look at the page and understand why I made those comments, this didn't have to go all the way to WP:ANI. Furthermore, I find it entirely inappropriate for anyone's comments to be removed from a talk page (unless of course they're obviously violating a policy such as WP:BLP), and there's no excuse for someone who has been an admin for over five years not to know that. I added those comments in good faith... as Equazcion has shown, there was a better way to achieve my goal, but why couldn't User:Jayjg have simply commented on the talk page and discussed the issue rather than just flat out reverting? As for the issue itself, I don't really mind the changes, I think they work, and I think the comment recently left on the talk page is worth looking at. It says anything else I have to say on the issue right now. Cheers, CP 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I too jumped to a conclusion pretty quickly, at first, without really looking into why you made those comments. Sorry for that. For the record, I do now think CP's actions were warranted. As he alludes to above, I've condensed the discussions that are necessary to remain on the page into a single section that's now transcluded from a subpage. Without any actual dated signatures on the main talk page, the section shouldn't get auto-archived, so no further "bump" comments should be necessary. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:23, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if modifying a signature to say 21:23, 31 Jan 2050 (UTC) would fool the bot into thinking the section has "recently" had a comment. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Pcap ping 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it would anyway. It would be easier to program a bot to look at the edit history than to dig through the comments themselves. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually MiszaBot does work by checking signatures. Parsing a bunch of text that's all in one place is easier than checking through the history, and since comments can be moved between sections/deleted altogether/etc, that would make the history method pretty hard. Putting in a future date probably would fool it, I think. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:07, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

SchoolcrafT - please stop this guy

Resolved

 – 48 hour block by user:Blueboy96

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

A while ago, Todd Schoolcraft created an article about a scenic route in West Virginia - Mountain Parkway Byway. More recently, a member of the taskgroup for that area User:Bmpowell edited the article for content and I did a copyedit. Ever since then, SchoolcrafT has edit warred over every single edit, and the article has been on full protection twice. He has repeatedly tried to move it to various different names Northern Webster County Mountain Byway and Backway and Northern Webster Co. Mountain Byway and Backway and has been trying to create another copy of the article, that doesn't contain our edits. His first try was The Mountain PArkway, deleted by MuffledThud. His latest is Mountain Parkway (Norther Webster Co.) redirected to Mountain Parkway (Northern Webster Co.), which is currently tagged for speedy as a copy/paste duplicate of an existing article.which Blueboy96 just got, ta.

This is not some mountain man who "don't do this new-fangled interweb wickypeedy thang, boy", this guy has (according to his userpage) a BsC in Information systems. After lengthy attempts to explain, I have concluded that he's not doing this because he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues at play with this editor as well. He uploaded several images to Shooting Range that he claimed he owned, but were obviously screenshots. I spiked them all per F9, but now he claims they aren't. Those by themselves weren't enough to block, but per this discussion, I'm giving him a 48-hour time-out. Blueboy96 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy. He did the same at Mountain Parkway Byway, uploaded a load of photos which he claimed to have taken...until someone pointed out that he'd need a time machine to have done it. And he uploaded a pile of voice clips which he claimed to have made, then admitted they were someone else's voice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and for some reason, he keeps trying to either archive the entire talk page of the article [33], delete the talkpage, at one point he copypasted the talkpage to his userspace, at one point he insisted that we all use a subpage of the talkpage for discussion of the article (we all said no), he's created the article SchoolcraftT/Mountain Parkway, which he then redirected to a subpage of his userpage, which he then redirected to Mountain Parkway (Northern Webster Co.).

He's a menace. Please do something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

About a 10 days ago, I've been involved with a number of changing IPs (of presumably the same person) vandalizing a specific pages (see: Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, Jean Chretien, Dan McTeague, Terri McGuinty, and the usertalk pages of users who have reverted him), and making various unacceptable, offensive personal attacks. Although this thread is a bit late, I'm still curious as to knowing where this is coming from (or if it's a sock of a banned user). Below is a list of a couple IPs:

1. 172.162.230.29
2. 172.165.22.153
3. 172.162.99.87
4. 172.129.120.152
5. 172.162.178.215
6. 172.129.59.23
7. 172.163.124.213
8. 172.162.104.24
9. 172.130.54.30
10. 172.163.87.138
11. 172.129.47.169
12. 172.129.111.44
13. 172.162.78.47
14. 172.162.178.113
15. 172.162.112.90
16. 172.131.44.221
17. 172.130.68.183
18. 172.165.157.118
19. 172.130.36.131

The contribs of the IPs above are comepletely unacceptable, and I think we should take action before a now IP appears. (last appeared 03:28, 29 January 2010) Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This vandal has been going for more than three years, sometimes called the 172 vandal. Blocks should be for six hours with talk page disabled; pages semi-protected when he or she has latched onto them. Good luck with the AOL abuse report. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any possible action we can take, other than what we've already done, to prevent further damage? Does anyone know if it's multiple people, or a single person? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a single person with an obsession with certain Canadian political activists. If you look carefully at the early edits you can see there's probably something personal going on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since he seems to be targeting specific pages, the only real option would probably be SP; there's no way to block a range like that except one by one. HalfShadow 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this single person a banned/indef blocked user, by any chance? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They are who they are. I think I've personally blocked them over 100 times. Banned? Yes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if those are proxy IPs, they can be banned permanently, which would make life a bit more difficult for other sockpuppets... HalfShadow 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More IPs used by this guy can be seen at the history page of Justin Trudeau, and July 2008 sections of Pierre Trudeau's page history.Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of the earlier edits. He or she comes and goes. Semi-protection is the best solution IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think semi protection is the way to go, though. After a series of semi protections, then it usually gets elevated to indefinite semi-protection . I dislike indef semi-protection, some IPs may have something useful to contribute to the articles that this person has vandalized. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I meant semi-protection is probably the only option, unless someone can make an abuse report stick. We could try an abuse filter, but the edits are probably too varied and sporadic, and the vandal just moves onto other topics like Canadian Tire or Microscope. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some more comments from other admins about this situation. The problematic editing of this user is just inexcusable. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you also solicit opinions from User:CJCurrie, User:JForget, User:CambridgeBayWeather, and some of the other admins who deal with user regularly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reviewed the diffs provided in hopes of being able to create a filter. I see nothing to latch on to to enable the creation of an abuse filter, unfortunately. The edits are far too varied and any attempt to lock something down would likely cause him to try something else. I see no potential implementation for a good filter, unfortunately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

While I am not an admin, I have had quite a few run ins with this IP and was asked to comment here. It seems the only way to deal with this issue is semi protection, as far as I can tell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Go check out WP:ABUSE. It should work if they use the proper contribution log format and not expect AOL to click links to pages on Wikipedia in order to view logs. I'd be happy to help, but I'd be hung if I got involved at WP:ABUSE or filed abuse reports at this time. Good luck. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert, block and if necessary semi-protect, but for no more than two or three days. There's too much good work by IPs to semi-protect for long. something lame from CBW 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic User Keeps Being Problematic After RFC, Breaks Restrictions

Request already posted at User_talk:Tiptoety#User:Collect_-_Note_his_past and more aggressively at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User:Collect_-_Time_to_back_up_your_words. That's enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can you guys take a look at this and decide if it merits further action?

We had a RFC about User:Collect (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect). Two of the problems were disruptive editing and wikilawyering. It seems the user is continuing with this same problematic behaviour: [34] [35] [36]. Also note that he had already broken his RFC restrictions. [37] Phoenix of9 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see -- multiple posts to Gwen Gale, multiple earlier posts (including an interesting oppose at Ironhold's RfA) and a post to Tiptoety as well. Forum shopping to see what you can do to me, and I simply have had nothing to do with you at all. Seems pretty clear. By the way, try reading WP:False consensus as well. Gwen's restrictions on me expired in November, 2009, so this is getting to be a real pain, Phoenix. Thank you most kindly -- and note that Ikip apologized for that RFC <g>. Collect (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, you note that he broke them in July and want to report that now? You've asked an admin here, you're done. Frankly, I don't see why you shouldn't be stopped for harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what happened yesterday.

From RFC: "Given Collect's behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting Collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: He is free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If he makes a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block him from editing for at least two weeks. Editors can report reverts either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close." This was broken here: [38]

From RFC: "If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close." This was broken yesterday: [39] Phoenix of9 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)At least he was not the one who kept sending me harassing emails <g>. I commend the following to you for further reading <g> [40] shows how far he carries the animus. (after ec) Oops -- looks like he really wants to show how much he can harass now (sigh). Collect (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not harassment, this is follow up. Even now, you are continuing with your typical behaviour. One of the problems we talked about in RFC was about you giving insufficient information that distorts what actually happened (in Wiki, when dealing with problems) and that distorts what the sources say (in content discussions). And now you are doing it again by including a diff to RFA while you are failing to mention this: [41] Phoenix of9 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm "involved"

Alright, Phoenix says I am involved in this whole situation because I edited Mass killings under Communist regimes some time ago (I think my comments are in archive 6 of the talk page). Is there an uninvolved admin who has another view? I'm dropping this before I block him indefinitely or something out of anger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, we intersect at 17 articles as notorious as Edward_Moskal, Georgism, Jerry_Seinfeld, Jon_Peters, Los_Angeles_Times, Martin_Gardner, Sark, Tampa,_Florida, Thomas_Edison and Vincent_Price. Your few minor edits (all in a row) at Mkucr occurred on 9 Dec 2009, and seem scarcely enough to accuse you of any "conflict of interest" here at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3 admins all involved refuse to punish Collect and one threatens the complainer? Suggest RFC on all the admins, they need to be held accountable. If phoenix starts, I'll support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.73.195 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I thought I was clear but I'll try to make it clearer this time.

• We had a RFC about User:Collect (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect). Two of the problems were his disruptive editing and wikilawyering. It seems the user is continuing with this same problematic behaviour. He got blocked for disruptive editing in Mass killings under Communist regimes yesterday. [42] And used same wikilawyering techniques to get out of it [43] [44].
• I wrote about it in Gwen Gales page [45] and then notified the blocking (and later unblocking admin), assuming he wasnt aware of Collects past: [46]. When Gwen Gale refused to move this to ANI [47] (contrary to what she said she would in RFC), I moved it here, and then we had this interaction with Ricky81682 here: User_talk:Phoenix_of9#Forum_shopping. It should also be noted that Gwen Gale is another involved admin here: [48]
• So does Collect's continued disruptive behaviour merit further action? Phoenix of9 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So far every admin who has responded has been not neutral or involved in your opinion, am I correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'll add that Tiptoety unblocked noting that. Which you informed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. To my knowledge, Collect is not under any sort of "no-tolerance" regime or suspended sentence. I think I am right that User:Gwen Gale is willing to impose a block if he slips into generally disruptive behaviour, but this does not necessarily mean that he gets stronger sanctions than he otherwise would any time he steps out of line. Phoenix, if you think Collect is showing a pattern of disruptive editing, you should bring this to Gwen Gale's attention, but I don't think you can expect her to act on anything other than very clear evidence. If on the other hand, you think that any time Collect gets a ban it should automatically be multiplied in length then, although I'm sure you are sincere, I think you are just wrong.

I'm sure Ricky and Gwen could make these points for themselves but, since the suggestion admin bias has been brought up, I thought a comment from a non-admin who is not predisposed to defend Collect (which I am not) might be helpful. --FormerIP (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I already said Tiptoety unblocked ("then notified the blocking (and later unblocking admin)"). I've never said he was not neutral or involved or whatever, he hasnt even responded to anything (prolly hasnt seen any of this yet). He unblocked before I messaged him. And as I said, the reason I messaged him was because I thought he wasnt aware of Collect's past. Phoenix of9 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, the reason that I didnt continue this with Gwen Gale is that she is not neutral. [49]. So I really dont wanna carry on via Gwen Gale.

And the problem isnt Collect not getting heavier punishments but it is the fact that he still continues with his problematic behaviour, even when he's answering to this ANI complaint, accusing me of forum shopping, harassment and stuff I explained here: [50], besides his disruptive editing. Phoenix of9 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are obliged to go through Gwen Gale, but whatever admin or forum you favour, you really ought to provide a point-by-point account of the behaviour you are talking about. --FormerIP (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it's a CABAL!!! No seriously this is messed up.

Resolved

 – An old version of the notice which has already been changed. No issue for administrator intervention. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anyone else seen these notices being posted by User:Ikip?

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

(refactored) Ikip 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't allow private clubs on-wiki do we? Aren't WikiProjects open to all comers? At that very least I believe the link at the top is a cross-namespace redirect and should probably be speedy deleted as such. Wait no it's just a piped link made to look like a real WP namespace page. I don't know people, this just really rubs me the wrong way. Policy discussions and proposals are supposed to be open, but Ikip seems to want to only discuss with those he believes are "on his side" until they have something concrete to present. I'm as aware as anyone of how annoying it can be to open a discussion and then see it veer off on some unexpected course you never intended or anticipated, but isn't that kind of the point of having open, transparent discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what he plans to do when 'uninvited' people post to his private club page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP does not thrive on "invitation only' - whether an on-wiki or off-wiki site, and I approve of neither. Would you propose, say, that if an admin set up an off-wiki club for discussion that you would urge stringent penalties? At least this appears to be open to all - as it is, indeed, on-wiki. Such can not really be said about off-wiki sites. Collect (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes not invitation only cabals or off-wiki admin clubs. It's his userspace, he can do whatever he wants. That said, he isn't going to get anywhere with something people outside his club will accept. Prodego ^talk 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any guideline that says that wikiprojects should be open to all? If not, then there is nothing admins (or anyone else) can do - except propose such a guideline. As for exclusiveness, I want to be included in WP:Wikipedians with an article about themselves and the fact I am not notable enough to have one is simply another form of oppression yadda, yadda, etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

re Allowable exclusivity - I believe it should be acceptable to have an exclusive group restricted to those who have uploaded a CC licensed image of their muscular buttocks.^{Sci-fi TV character allusion LoL That way when they strenuously disagree with someone else's proposal they can begin with a personalized image-linked: My muscular buttocks!...  :-) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't allow private clubs on-wiki do we?

Your wrong Beeblebrox. I refactored that invitation days ago, as shown above, to most editors and invited everyone to comment, and apologized for being naive, above is the refactored invitation, which with a two second message, I would have been happy to explain.

Only off wiki clubs are tolerated, and flourish because wikipedia has no control over them. Ikip 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a fork of the current RfC. What's the purpose of this?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups, initiated by our dearly departed MickMacNee, established I think firm consensus against self-electing groups. I would not be too worried about the possibility that the talkpage in question is a fork of the current RfC, given that as Prodego notes above any decision reached in it regarding matters under discussion at the RfC won't hold water because of their relative size and advertisement.  Skomorokh  23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have declined to participate because it's closed. We've settled the spamming part and there's been enough complaints about calling it a WikiProject to make that clear. Is there something specifically Beeblebrox you would like done? It's a wiki, if someone uninvited chooses to comment, on a technical level, he cannot stop them. If he wants to revert all comments by uninvited editors, I'd say he should be allowed to war over that but he then shouldn't be surprised if that drives others away. Otherwise, the RFC is the formal mechanism that's followed and people should remain freely allowed to have their own discussions. I think going to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and saying "a discussion on a subpage of my talk page with only the people I invited came up with this" isn't going to get a lot of traction but nobody says everybody has to do everything the same way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently this was changed days ago and I somehow saw the old one without seeing any refactor or apology referenced above by Ikip. I ran across this in an archive that I was glancing at for wholly unrelated reasons so I guess it just didn't get changed. I did go to the "project" talk page, and saw several other users expressing these same concerns, and they had received no reply. Anyway, it seems there is less of an issue here than it appeared. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lost my List

Not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but my PC crashed and most of the info is not recoverable. One of the spreadsheets I lost was my list of Log On accounts for Wikipedia. They all had the same password, so thats no problem, but I can't even begin to remember all of the accounts. Can I somehow get a list if I provide my IP address? Thanks in advance. 173.124.74.164 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you have more than one account anyway? NW (Talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You've already given us your IP address. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a checkuser on this IP and a temporary block on the accounts on it if they look like socks or vandalism only accounts. Having multiple accounts (unless approved like some users are) throws up too many red flags for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If they're WP:SOCK violations, I recommend blocking the IP as well since they won't get caught up in an autoblock unless they log into one of the accounts. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This section needs to be retitled, "Lost my socks!!!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rangeblock

Resolved

 – This needs to be handled by a checkuser at WP:SPI AniMate 06:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs on the 69.171.x.x range have been trolling/stalking for quite some time. The first attack directed towards me from this range occured in November of 2009, as seen at [51]. Most recently, the IP range has been responsible for blatant User:LBHS Cheerleader vandalism to seemingly random pages pages recently edited by me as seen at [52] and [53]. In November, I complained to the RO, Cricket Communications, only to be told that I would need to file a police report for them to do anything. I proceeded to file a Better Business Bureau complaint in hopes that the issue would be resolved without the need for a range block. They responded that they would forward the complaint to their upper level IT department. However, it is clear they have done absolutely nothing, and because the troll is on a highly dynamic IP range, blocking individual IPs is quite ineffective. Perhaps it's time for a range block; I suggest range block using a template similar to that we had used on Opera Mini IPs before they set up XFF headers in hopes that they will either set up XFF headers (if they're using proxies) or terminate this troll's service. We block Best Buy store chain IPs and open proxies because there's nothing further we can do about vandalism from those sources, and these IPs are indifferent. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DENIED! Rat the LB (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And another reason to block the range. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen to Queens much? Another one bites the dust alright. (in response to a deleted comment). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the funniest vandalism that I've seen. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet another one's gone. Your point? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thought you were another sock. Sorry. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

incivility, personal attacks

I wish to notify of some difficulties I am having with User SteveBaker who left here on my talk page some threatening sounding personal attack statements. He indicates an intent to stalk me through my edits. The user has an extremely negative tone and is always trying draw me into arguing with him. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Without trying to excuse his tone, he has made some comments which seem to deserve a little bit of attention. Could you provide comments and more history on how this incident came to happen? It wounds like there are two issues here, Steve's obviously inappropriate threats of wikistalking, but also the question of whether you have been contributing positively to the reference desk. Could you provide some more history about this dispute? (Also, could you sign your ANI notification on his talk page?) Frmatt (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I imagine he would be better at pointing out exactly what has caused him to react toward me in such an extreme fashion. I often notice him 'fly off the handle' and lose control of his civility toward me, but usually I don't let it get to me. These threats and his language however, I don't feel they are appropriate for Wikipedia. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Having done a little more looking into this, I've discovered a little more. YOU initiated the conversation with him here, he asked you not to talk to him any more in the exact same conversation, yet you persisted in talking to him (see the rest of Steve's talkpage). I am not involved in the Ref Desk, yet it seems to me that your best course of action right now would be to disengage from this user for the forseeable future, and understand that he may possibly know more than you about WP, and that his comments (with the exception of the incivility in the one you posted here) were meant to give you helpful advice and not that he's out to get you. Familiarize yourself with the requirements for posting to the Ref Desk and do your best to follow them. Frmatt (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't talk to Steve on his talk page any more. You point out the past. He hounds me elsewhere. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"the past" being just 19 hours ago. SteveBaker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: User:Neptunerover has repeatedly posted responses on the Science Reference desk that are clearly WP:OR. He told one of our questioners that somehow the solar system is set up around the number 10 and that's why we count in base 10...utter nonsense - and very much in line with NeptuneRover's personal view of how the universe 'ticks'. He has repeatedly used Wikipedia to promote his own ideas of how the universe works - and that is not acceptable here. At least one page from his user area was recently deleted under MfD due to his misuse of Wikipedia for this kinds of OR promotion. I have warned him on several occasions and yet he continues to violate the core WP:NOR principle and to post misleading and flat out untrue answers to people who come to the ref desk to get serious answers to serious question. This is extremely bad for our users and for our reputation - so something has to be done to curb this activity. I have conducted an extended and friendly conversation with NeptuneRover on my talk page - explaining as patiently as I can that he simply isn't allowed to do this kind of thing here. That clearly hasn't worked - he continues to post OR answers on the Ref Desk. So I have informed him that I will be paying careful attention to his posts in the future and that I will be registering complaints whenever he breaches the OR pillar in the future and doing my best to explain to our questioners why his answers are not the truth as we know them. Sadly, this will make NeptuneRover look foolish - but there isn't much I can do about that. There is admittedly a thin line between patrolling a problematic user's edits and "stalking" - but I believe this is clearly on the acceptable side of that line. I felt that he needed a strong warning in order that we may be able to avoid a long train of upheavals and upsets. As you will see, I was careful to comment on the content and not on the user in compliance with WP:NPA. SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - SteveBaker is one of the most reputable and respected contributors on the Science Reference Desk. He does have a history of brusque-ness; he probably should have slowed down and worded his message to NeptuneRover a bit more politely. However, NeptuneRover's contributions to the reference desk and the talk page have been overwhelmingly disruptive. His posts range from incomprehensible gibberish, bad jokes, and general nonsense. He hasn't been particularly responsive to earlier, more polite warnings - and so I can understand SteveBaker's frustration. It's unfortunate that NeptuneRover feels persecuted, but we have high standards on the Reference Desk, outlined by our very specific guidelines. If NeptuneRover can't contribute encyclopedic, referenced content, then he should not be contributing on the Reference Desk. SteveBaker's note on NeptuneRover's talk-page may have been brusque, but it is accurate and justified. Nimur (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'nonsense' you point out was a request for clarification equaling in substance the question initially posed, which itself would be considered nonsense by your summary. The 'incomprehensible gibberish', I was drawn into. The other, well, I erased it. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I can understand your concern, there were better ways to go about monitoring this user's edits. Bringing it here would have been a good start instead of making comments that obviously express your frustration, but definitely cross the line in terms of civility. You have been very patient, but the better way to deal with this would have been to share the frustration around instead of keeping it with the (relatively) small number of people who watch the Ref Desk. Frmatt (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NR: Could you post your responses at the bottom of the section so that it is easier for people to find them? Frmatt (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How do people know what I'm responding to then? I'm a slow writer. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the definition of wikistalking: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles.” In the same article, the subsection on threats clearly says: “Statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly . . . are not threats.” I suggest Steve’s professed intentions are all quite reasonable and for the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole. His tone is understandable, given the their history. Bielle (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Note correction in italics for greater clarity. Bielle (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Are you saying it's understandable that he's mad because he's been mad all along? That makes sense, but it doesn't excuse anything. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bielle: you're right that it isn't technically Wikihounding, but given the tone, it is reasonable that this might be construed as following someone's edits to create distress. Yes, technically there's nothing wrong with Steve's use of Neptune's history (and future history), but the tone of incivility was what led me to call it wikihounding. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and understanding from Neptune about what the problem here actually is. I'm quite happy with Steve's explanation of his actions posted above, and certainly have no problem with him making the productive changes and fixing problems as they arise. Frmatt (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Is User:Neptunerover really here to help build an encyclopedia? [54] Less than 10% of their edits are to articles, while over 40% are to user talk pages, 13% are to their own user pages, and over 25% are to Wikipedia space -- that seems like someone who sees this site as an opportunity for various kinds of social-interaction, not like someone who's interested in improving the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those colors mean, what is Wikipedia space? --Neptunerover (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're soaking in it. [55] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to AGF here, but you're making it really difficult, Neptune. If you can't read a simple pie chart, then why on earth do you think you would be qualified to post at the Science Reference Desk. Anybody with an elementary school education knows how to read a pie chart. I'm beginning to think that you are either here solely to create problems and disrupt Wikipedia, or else something else is up here. I think that an explanation of why you are here would be helpful to everyone. Frmatt (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the qualifications BTW? Is there an exam I missed? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, If I'm allowed to make insinuations too, then let's compare the blue from my pretty pie to this one and see who is soaking in just what [56]. I wonder if perhaps someone is jealously guarding their turf? This[[57]] question from earlier evidences Steve's overwhelming need for control. He feels he must understand everything. If he can't understand the OP's query, he's not going to understand my answer, yet he still passes judgment on it. Steve requires that no matter how many different cultures and languages and differences are represented here within the encyclopedia community, any question posed, or answer provided, must conform to his strict standards of making sense to him.

You know, I don't think I've ever said anything mean to Steve. It's not in my nature to say unkind things. He has been on me though since over a month ago. Ad Hominem all the way. I've tried to explain the nature of our differences to him, but all he wants to do is preach at me about how wrong I am at my every move. So I let him be, but he comes after me. Every chance he gets it seems, he takes the opportunity to dismiss and discredit my views, which are not mainstream enough for him. Plainly WP:NPA. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Making insinuations about my contributions here isn't helping. The administrators were asked by you to make an investigation of an extremely serious accusation. Now they are asking you questions in order to help make their decisions. I strongly recommend that you answer them straightforwardly and honestly - this is not a game.

But since you are evidently going to make insinuations, you should examine the all-important red slice on that chart. That wedge represents 3,435 separate edits that I have made to main-space articles. Out of the nearly 20,000 edits I've made, fewer than 300 have ever been reverted - and most of those were eventually reinstated by other editors. The pie chart doesn't show it - but that red slice includes two WP:FA's and several WP:GA's that I wrote almost single handed. I've been writing and improving articles over a period of more than five years. During that time I've been nominated for adminship twice (I turned it down on both occasions because I really don't need the hassle of dealing with miscreants). I've never had a single block or sanction of any kind placed against me in all those years. I think it's quite clear that I have only the best intentions in my support of Wikipedia and that I do my very best to uphold the core principles upon which it was founded. It appears to surprise you that I care enough to defend the reference desk from 'original research' - it really shouldn't.

Anyway, it's safe to say that the admins weren't asking about my contributions. Please have some respect for this forum and answer their questions. SteveBaker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your red is mostly in the past Steve. Look at your bars under the pie. You're all blue these days. Anyway, BMK started it by bringing up my pie chart and making insinuations, as if trying to justify your WP:NPA actions. Is the pie chart the cookie cutter that decides if users are allowed to stay? If so, you better watch your pie chart Steve, you've got a lot of blue lately. Certain colors are more desirable than others, I guess. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neptuneuser: Neither the quality or quantity of SteveBaker's contributions are at issue at this point. There's no hard and fast rule about how much people should edit to specific areas: everyone contributes as they can and where they're interested, but your editing history is such that it appears possible that your participation here doesn't have improvement of the encyclopedia as its focus. Instead, it appears possible that your intention is to create controversy, screw around with people's heads, and cause disruption: in other words, trolling. I would ask you to address the question -- what is your intention in editing here, and what have you done to improve the encyclopedia? (Please recall that you have no inherent right to edit here, and if you're not here to help the project, perhaps you had better not be here at all.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll not be forced into responding to an irrelevant question. I say you have no right to demand a summary of my intentions here. Whatever was pertained to in Steve's message on my talk page is irrelevant to these proceedings. What is relevant is his tone, form, and manner of expressing himself in violation of WP:NPA. Certainly there is another place where we can discuss pie charts and their implications. My complaint here concerns incivility. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, here are two questions from the Entertainment ref desk which I am particularly proud of answering. [[58]], [[59]] I consider myself here to help and not be mean. I don't know about everybody else, but that's me. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This section starts with a complaint alleging a personal attack and an intent to stalk. I have reviewed WP:Reference desk/Science and User talk:Neptunerover and conclude that there is no personal attack and no intent to stalk. SteveBaker spoke plainly in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, and to alert Neptunerover that due to violations of WP:NOR their contributions would be monitored to ensure that future claims include references. SteveBaker should be commended for taking the time to work towards correcting an obviously unsatisfactory situation, and Neptunerover should read the advice given on their talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I point out for you this line from WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." --Neptunerover (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC Closer Needed

Now overdue. Original thread at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#BLP_RfC_Closer_Needed. My best to whichever admin decides to take this on, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could several admins perhaps work this out together? It's an awful lot for one to go through and sort out. ThemFromSpace 03:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I'm going to wander over the RfC and put it on pause if someone hasn't done so already. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... actually it's an early close but I think everyone wants that so we keep up momentum. I note your (Bfigura's) comment on the RfC talk page that closing the discussion is more of a starting point for guiding the community toward consensus than a declaration of what consensus is at this point. If we can tease out the 3-5 ideas that have wide support the next task is to turn one or more of them into concrete proposals. I think any help in summarizing and guiding that discussion will be very useful. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If there was ever any discussion not to close early, it would be this one: what arb com did in its try at it sufficiently demonstrated the reason. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree. It's not cutting off discussion but organizing the 500K+ wall of text so that it can become more focused. That's better done by continuing on a fresh page, no? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As said above it's not an early close, rather a pause of the discussion and an effort to summarize where we are so far, which personally I think it absolutely necessary and seems to be okay with most people. The discussion long since passed into the unmanageable realm, plus a huge percentage of the community has had the chance to comment. Highlighting the key points and proposals and then refocusing the discussion based on that summary is the only way to accomplish anything in the end, though obviously discussion will continue. Hopefully, though at this point who knows, there's an "uninvolved" admin somewhere who can do a summary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, what Bigtimepeace said. It's definitely only a pause for reorganization. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with closing down that page and regrouping. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stephenxinju and User:Abaobao

Resolved

 – Page nuked and spammers warned--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephenxinju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abaobao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Stephenxinju and User:Abaobao appear to be spammers. Is a block in need?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, warned the users, and salted the page for a day. Further spamming should be reported to AIV. TNXMan 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll mark as resolved.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to delete the talk pages too. I saw the same spam posted there (it looks like he blanked it himself but it's in a past version).

--SuaveArt (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If they've removed the ad from their talk page themselves, I don't see a reason to delete it entirely. Abaobao has received a final warning from NawlinWiki. TNXMan 04:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it...

Resolved

 – now blocked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why a vandalism report is rejected after this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick block needed

Resolved

 – blocked by MastCell as a Sock of User:Scibaby Frmatt (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Institut fur Klimatologie, Scibaby's incarnation of the moment. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious account

Can anyone make any sense out of Санта Клаус's main user page? Seems to be implying he's setup specialized accounts. But is a contributor to ar.wikipedia... is it possible they allow this sort of thing and there is a misunderstanding? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Do you think he's saying he has 5 or 6 accts, one specifically for defending another accts edits, and one specifically for promoting/defending the sunni point of view? If so, boy needs some serious talkin' to. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Basically admits that he has a stalking account and an harassment account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At least 2 of the accts named are actual user accts, User:Tarawneh and User:Petra, but no User:Osama or User:Azddy. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention to meta and whatever wikis he's actually editing (in particular Arabic). I don't know but I'd assume most wikis have similar rules against that sort of thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you bother to read the history on that page? That content wasn't even placed there by him.. not only that it looks like an IP tried to have teh content removed as not created by the account holder..--Crossmr (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

not to mention Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azdpetratarawsanata have a look at his writing there. Far more coherent than what is on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/coloryourface

Could somebody please close this? A self-nom who's only edits are to that page. Obvious sockpuppet has !voted support.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 08:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the request for admin action is ripe. The nom hasn't been transcluded yet;) ^Bongo_matic 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee using User: 64.128.245.110 evading topic ban and editing pages under mediation?

Possible topic ban user making mass edits to pages in mediation.

Re edits by User:64.128.245.110 See range of edits [60]which fall under User:BKLisenbee topic ban [61]and recent edits conform to the users past editing POV and style.

User:BKLisenbee who is topic banned from a wide range of pages is likely the editor using a Florida Ip to make edits on a series of pages .User talk:FayssalF has been emailed regarding this but seems less active. Perhaps an admin could protect the pages until he has a chance to review. Edits on [62] violate WP:BLP, all the edits made seem to violate WP:NPOV.

Mediation was ongoing on User:FayssalF/JK however User: BKLisenbee ceased participation. All these recent edits bear the same character and tags in edit summery as User BK:Lisenbee [63] se edits prior to 27 July 2008 and note similer language.

the User is also removing links to secondary source hereand elsewhere, reference links to secondary sources see Tangier and usful external links to tavel articles.

This user was banned permanently from Wikipedia see [64]but was allowed back to in order to participate in mediation. However obviously noting User FayssalIF being less active appears to now have returned as an anon Ip to continue POV editing , mass external link deletions and major page editing of pages under mediation. Perhaps the IP might need blocking also for the moment.Catapla (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)