Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive457

block review (legal threat?)

I saw this item on WT:WPSPAM, where Bsdguru was reported as for spam and some other actions. Dgtsyb reports there that a legal threat has been made here on his talkpage.

• Bsdguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• etinc.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have now indef blocked the account for spam only and the legal threat, can people please review this (never done this before)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The spam block looks fine, and while I'd tend to think that sort of legal threat doesn't go anywhere, the two certainly justify an indef block. It looks good to me. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations

This user is attempting to disrupt the GA nomination of the Baconian theory article by editing against the recommendations of reviewers Change against reviewer recommendation. He has a history of disruptive editing and has previously been reported with at least six editors testifying against him (see Violations). He also controls the Shakespeare authorship and Oxfordian theory articles by changing any edits that do not support his Oxfordian views (see Change in my edits 1 and Change in my edits 2). This has been allowed to continue long enough, I'm feeling powerless to act, and it's time a ban was enforced. Puzzle Master (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nrcprm2026_(2nd_nomination)

I understand that there is a backlog at WP:SSP, but it's been two weeks since this attack against me was posted: could someone please evaluate the evidence presented and take the appropriate action(s)? I beg you to end this Kafka-esqe nightmare. Dlabtot (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama / McCain article probation

Resolved

 – They are under article probation - logs of sanctions to be made at Talk:Obama/Article_probation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion a few days ago on this subject was archived. Now that ArbCom has declined to hear a case on the matter I've created a new page where we can continue the discussion, and a proposal that incorporated and synthesized some of the older discussion. It is at Talk:Barack Obama/article probation‎. Please accept my apologies if this is the wrong way to notify / propose and feel free to fix. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit redundant, since Talk:Obama/Article_probation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss that? I didn't intend to create a discussion fork. Is the proposal in place or still under discussion? Wikidemo (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't for discussion (so yours should be okay) but more of a record of the proposal being enacted, and was pending a clear consensus in the thread. However, the thread was archived (not by me) before clear consensus could be called. :S Um. I have to log off for quite a while, but

I'm thinking the proposal is in place? :S It wasn't for discussion like the link you've made but I wouldn't object to the community of sysops clarifying their position on this. (In no particular order) MastCell, seicer, Cailil, SWATJester, Gamaliel, Rick Block, Moreschi, and other sysops who are somewhat familiar with the turbulent history...your input is invited. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm never clear on what, exactly, article probation accomplishes. It allows admins to sanction disruptive editors? We're already supposed to do that. I suppose it's useful as a warning to all involved that the article is under scrutiny, and that tolerance for bad behavior or misuse of the encyclopedia will be lower than average. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's makes the sanctions binding when placed by an uninvolved admin - that's why these measures are imposed at ArbCom too, because ordinarily it won't necessarily be binding unless the consensus is clear by the community to make it binding. My understanding anyway. And yes, it also means that the article is under scrutiny...etc. etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of it also as a heightened standard of civility, and avoidance of edit warring, the availability to neutral administrators of an enhanced set of specialized tools they can use without needing to first gather consensus, specialized procedures and pages for dealing with behavioral issues (and a prohibition on dealing with them on talk pages or edit summaries), and the binding thing.Wikidemo (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is under scrutiny. The thing is that there are only a couple of admins dealing with the issue. What is needed is the view of uninvolved admins and not that of the same usual names (in no particular order). It would be better if admins would work on a priority basis but we understand the fact that admins are volunteers (same as editors) and some of them would rather intervene in an area familiar to them. The ArbCom cannot intervene when it comes to a content dispute; which is natural (there was something to note about the sockpuppetry accusation in this case however). The admins neither.

P.S. For better results, it would be better if thgis discussion be held on AN. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Should a proposal for article probation be made there then? Is that the way to go about it? Perhaps an enhanced / streamlined set of expectations for participating administrators in dealing with the article could make it a more comfortable place to help, and also enhance the effectiveness of those who do. Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidemo. I did something similar 2 days ago. I DECLARED a topic ban there. 48h. No response. I notified the parties appropriately. I understand now that the articles I've requested to be put under probation ARE under probation. But was I an "involved party". I don't know but both parties trust me... So I haven't heard from any of them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This has just came to my mind. All the above was not meant to describe all involved admins as biased. I've got no idea about that. Nuffin'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One possibility would be to embargo the articles so that every fact newer than November 2006 is prohibited from appearing until after November 2008. The exception would be a 3 sentence summary of the period Nov 06 to Nov 08. That sentence could be that the two received the most delegates, who they ran against, and the election is Nov 08. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

This suggestion would eliminate all the fighting over the campaign issues, he did this, he flip/flopped, etc.

The other possibility would be that a committee consider each edit. If the committee approved mention in one article, then it must appear in the other article. For example, both Senate careers would be written in the same way. Chergles (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

These are biographies, not articles about campaigns - the two people have very different lives and careers, and their biographies by definition are going to be different from one another, as they should be. That's not what the problems have been about. We already have separate articles for each presidential campaign. Although it's well-meaning, I don't think this suggestion is practical or addresses the problem. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on History of Indiana

There is an edit war beginning on History of Indiana. The issue is over the use of AD\BC versus CE\BCE. An IP and a user account, who I assume to be the same person, are continually changing to AD\BC. (It appears this is the only type of edits this user\ip makes) The first time I noticed, I reverted it simply because they did not change every date and it was easier to revert the few they changed rather than go through and fix the ones they missed. The editor returned reverted my revert, at which point another editor, user:Dougweller, entered and has continued to revert this IPs edits. I personally have absolutely no preference on which system of dating is used. Another user and myself agreed to use CE\BCE when we wrote the article to maintain uniformity, and for no other reason. I am still the primary editor on the article and I am getting it close to FA status and this is getting kind of distracting. I have tried talking with the IP\user but to no avail. If there is anyway the page could be protected or some sort of action taken to prevent this edit war from continuing it would be appreciated. Thank you Charles Edward 02:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before any protection takes place, we need a policy ruling, on which version is preferred under wikipedia guidelines, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the WP:MOS#Chronological items, both styles are acceptable. I am unaware of anything more than that in policy regarding it. Charles Edward 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protection nor blocking is warranted at the present time, it hasn't really reached "war" stage yet. Still disputy. –xeno (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have no intention of continuing to revert the edits. But I am concerned the other editors involved do not share my position. Charles Edward 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The MOS also says that editors should avoid changing articles from one format to the other without a good reason. I'll leave a note to this effect on the IP's talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if it was written as one or the other, it should stay that way. (It was written as CE\BCE originally: [1]). The "reason" given in the edit summary was a purely subjective comment, so it's irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming these are the same editor, he has made changes five times, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Charles Edward 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even reverting back, it would be inconsistent. And the complaint is that Indiana itself uses BC/AD and should be consistent. There is merit to that complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Indiana article wsa using CE\BCE before teh same user\ip also changed it to AD\BC. Charles Edward 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be changed back also, both for consistency and for the same principle of leaving it as it was. When was it changed, and by who? It wasn't the same IP, since he only edited once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was User:Cool10191 who muddied the waters about a month ago by replacing Indiana's BCE/CE references with a summary that stated BC. [7] Come to think of it... THAT'S YOU. What are you doing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I made those changes it was at that time using AD\BC - and i said previously, as I understand it so long as uniformity is maintained within an article then the style used does not matter. Because BC\AD was already in use on Indiana at the time of my edits I just used the same method. The CE\BCE had already been removed long before I edited. Charles Edward 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're contradicting your earlier statement. If it was originally BCE/CE, then that should have been restored. The change in the Indiana article to AD by 98.226.137.57 came on April 7 [8] it was switched back to CE on April 8 [9] and then that IP did it again on April 13 [10] and apparently it stuck. Later, the move to the spinoff article occurred, and that's when things started to get messy. This speaks more to a screwed-up policy (or lack thereof) than anything else. If there was a better rule than "whoever starts it gets to own it", you wouldn't have this problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, BC/AD is easier to type than BCE/CE. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are only around five instances of the use of BCE/CE or BC/AD, so to argue over this potentially explosive issue in this particular article seems petty to me. Is there a way to rewrite the two paragraphs such that they do not use BCE/CE or BC/AD at all? —Kurykh 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BC/AD is very traditional. My impression is the BC/AD is used more often in Indiana thna BCE/CE so this is preferred. It's the WP way to use the July 29, 2008 date style in U.S. articles because that's the way Americans do it instead of 29 July 2008. However, in British articles the 29 July way is probably preferred. Presumptive (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wrong. :This is something I've dealt with a lot. The practice is called date warring. It used to be a huge problem on Wikipedia. It's one of the reasons the folks at Conservapedia decided to launch their project. They couldn't convince others at the project to recognize that they were in possession of the TRUTH™, so away they went. It's particularly bad when someone tears through Wikipedia changing every instance of BCE/CE to BC/AD they can find to their preferred style. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:SEASON. It basically says this: unless you have a substantive reason for the change, leave the article the way you found it. Doing otherwise, especially edit warring over it (which certainly looks like it's happening), is disruptive and users doing so should be blocked. To be completely clear, efforts to preserve the pre-date war status quo are approved. Efforts to disrupt an article with a stable era style should be blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only "substantive reason" that stands out is what one of the red-links said, that the Indiana article uses BC/AD, so they should be consistent with each other. That's reasonable. The IP address' complaints, though, are emotion-driven and are irrelevant. However, I think you would find that most Indianans would likely say BC/AD rather than BCE/CE. I mostly hear the latter from non-Christians, and the U.S. is still largely Christian, hence BC/AD is what's largely used. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, the guideline was designed to stop a major edit war that was disrupting a broad range of articles on Wikipedia, and keep it stopped. A cease fire was declared. The terms of the cease fire were that violations should be reverted on sight and blocks given out as appropriate. There are links that document this somewhere if you've got a few hours to throw away. One of those IPs has done nothing but go through various articles changing era styles. The other has edited that page only. You have no idea what it's like to have a page like Judaism on your watchlist, see that the era styles have been altered, click on the editor's history and see hundreds of similarly disruptive edits by someone on a holy crusade and nothing else. My greatest success in dealing with this has been to aggressively revert and warn violators and seek blocks where necessary (I don't think it is here, yet since the editor seems to be hopping IPs.) If this individual holds true to form, he's quite likely testing the waters to see how much he can get by with. Letting this go would just be a green light to do more of the same across the whole project. BTW, he did it again and I reverted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• General comment: SJA is right on this point, whatever convention was used first should stay. I haven't seen anybody link this yet (Link to BCE debate of '05) but past efforts to implement one system over the other have not been fruitful. R. Baley (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with "whatever convention was used first should stay" sounds like ownership, which is prohibited under WP:OWN. Do not mistake this comment for support for the AD/BC people. Someone who changes all CE/BCE to AD/BC does not have my support. However, someone who changes it to appropriate articles does. I used to live near Indiana. CE/BCE was never used. AD/BC was much more common. Actually, just BC. Nobody says 2008 A.D. There are some places that BCE/CE should be preferred. Warning: my comments are not the same or in support of the AD/BC nor those for what appears to me to be ownership. Presumptive (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If he wants it changed, he can seek consensus the normal way. Now I would say what I'm afraid of now, but that might be dumb. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think this has gone on long enough. We're just turning the crank on years-old policy arguments. Since there's not a shadow of a call for admin action, I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and close this as no admin action needed. I hope that's not against the rules since, as I've said before, I am not an admin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The comment above, about "ownership" is a good point. The article cannot be a slave to the whim of whoever started the article. As with whether to spell it "color" or "colour", it depends on the context. Indianans spell it "color", and they would be most likely to use "BC" so that's probably how it should read in the article. Articles about Judaism should say BCE/CE, because BC/AD is strictly Christian stuff. The most recent edit, by an IP address making a snide remark, is the only edit by that IP address, so I don't know where the "hundreds" is coming from. But at the very least, the article needs to be consistent, which it isn't at present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Last comment just to clarify. When I said hundreds, I was referring to other experiences I've had with date warriors in the past. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I made changes to at least fix the inconsistencies. I also went with BC/AD, as that seems more appropriate to Indiana. If someone wants to switch it back to BCE/CE, at least now they've got a consistent base. And I also don't see any point in mentioning AD or CE any more than necessary. As someone noted, a year is typically understood to be AD or CE unless otherwise indicated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely with SJA. We can't let someone change the articles originally dating system because of personal preference. The latest IP attempt says "The Gregorian calendar/dating system has been the worldwide standard for almost 500 years. Any other changes are a direct assault on that precept.)" It would be a bad move to let this sort of attempt succeed. I asked for semi-protection before I saw this discussion. If we let the original format be changed simply because Indianans (and I know a lot of them personally as I have family there and visit several times a year) use AD, then a huge number of articles are up for grabs on the same basis. It isn't the same as a spelling issue. Doug Weller (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't let the original author "own" it, either. But if you change it back, be consistent. The version that was reverted to was still inconsistent within itself. I think I caught them all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We do have a precedent of going along which what the first major author does, like English varieties (which in some cases is imposed as arbitrarily as date conventions). —Kurykh 05:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT resolved. SJA, for some unknown reason, is now risking an edit war by pushing a version with both BC and BCE in it. What's the point of that??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And Bugs is doing the same by reverting my edits. I have now edited the article so that all dates are in BCE/CE style, the stable version that was disrupted by the two IP's. That's my third revert, which I'm sure Bugs knew he was inviting with his second one. Someone else will have to watch the article for now. I guess this is what editors get for coming here seeking help with disruption: more disruption. I'm sure Bugs understands that this noticeboard exists so that editors can notify administrators of situations where their tools are needed, not to reopen old debates on long settled editing policies and guidelines. Since there's no admin action asked for or needed here, will someone please close and archive this thread? I'm going to bed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want a consistent version. You've switched back to BCE/CE, and also fixed that inconsistency, so we're good there. However, you've got some years linked and some not. What's the deal with that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. Far too many years get links, years should only be linked where it is relevant to context. So some might be linked, others not. Doug Weller (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how linking 300 CE is any more relevant than linking 8000 BCE, since they are both round-number estimates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS guidelines aside, changing it back to the original version seems just as silly as changing it in the first place. All that matters is consistency; beyond that, the particular format generally doesn't matter, right? So if someone goes along and changes it to the other format for no reason, then as long as it's consistent, why escalate the situation by changing it back? He didn't actually hurting anything, and changing it back just seems to cause more trouble then it's actually worth. Leave it be. Perhaps eventually, someone will come along and change it back to the original version on a lark, without being aware of the history. That's fine, too. And then someone will change it back again, and back and forth. We'll all be better served if, instead of trying to keep it on the "original version," we just ignore it and let it be whatever it happens to be at the moment, so long as it's consistent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it and let it be whatever it happens to be at the moment, so long as it's consistent. ← I have agree with Kurt on this, and with Baseball Bugs I think. Linking to the year articles will help make the meaning clearer for any readers unfamiliar with a particular "style", so in a sense, the links are relevant to the context. — CharlotteWebb 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we have to use links to round number years to explain what BCE/CE are, maybe we shouldn't be using them. Everyone who speaks English natively and can read knows what BC/AD are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:69.143.196.173 in Edit comments

See the edit history of 69.143.196.173 who has only recently begun editing but has already established a record of ill-considered and intemperate language in edit summaries/comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Warned user. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mat Maneri page - Under constant personal attack by a user in Gdansk Poland

Resolved

 – Semi'd for 72 hours. If they don't get the message, a rangeblock may be required --Rodhullandemu 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The page about Jazz musician Mat Maneri is always under attack from a user with an IP address in the Gdansk area of Poland (the IP's always start with 83.11). It is known that Mat Maneri and his wife have been the subject of a harassment and stalking campaign from a woman in Poland. She has been using this page to say defamatory things about Mat Maneris wife (call her names and using racial slurs) to posting information about Mat Maneri's declared income over the past few years.

Mat and his wife have already had this woman arrested and convicted in the U.S and are working with the authorities oversea's to stop her constant barrage of nastiness. This is just one of the sources where she finds a voice, it is a shame she can do this.

Could this page not be blocked from editing? It is really awful that an individual can use this great website as a place to promote hate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.13.18 (talk • contribs)

Another sysop semiprotected the article for a few days. I've watchlisted and will extent if the problem continues.--chaser - t 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to be "stalked" by someone on the other side of the ocean? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In a very real and cyber-way. I have had an email about this and it goes much further than here. For that reason, I am keeping an eye on this article. --Rodhullandemu 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rogereeny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

Resolved

 – Not an AN/I issue

I just wondered what this page is all about. I have kept it on my watch list from a time when Elonka used it to gather diffs about me. She subsequently had it deleted. What is this all about? Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask her, not AN/I. John Reaves 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalk much Mathsci? Shell ^babelfish 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Shell, by accident it's still on my watch list. Other administrators did look at this page when it had diffs about me, if that's what you're asking. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand having it on your watchlist, but since its clearly not about you or any issue involving you, maybe it would be best to let it be? Shell ^babelfish 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:66.99.216

Resolved

 – reverted attack, semi-protected page for remainder of block Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only violating WP:NPA by calling administrator User:Alison a "beaurecratic [sic!] heart destroying clown" because she denied the wish to be unblocked. Reinserted the personal attack removed by me, calling other editors "clowns", and making legal threats, i. e. announcing in the edit summary that anyone who removes the attack "will be tracked down and sued!!!" [11]. Seems unacceptable to me. Catgut (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

reverted attack, semi-protected page for remainder of block Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The page is already protected. In the future I would just ignore it since the IP is already blocked. John Reaves 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mountdrayton: cluebat

Resolved

 – no issue identified Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody have a word with this twit - yeah, I know it's a personal attack - Mountdrayton (talk · contribs) who keeps coming on like Mr Logic and breaking the category system across a range of articles? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a personal attack, and I’ll warn you against repeating it. As for the edits you’re referring to, some diffs would be helpful. Thanks —Travis^talk 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's easier to tell me that than get off your figurative backside and investigate. Move your mouse over the word "contribs" above, click that little button, and then move the tiny wee muscles in your eyes over what you see, maybe making the Herculean effort to do another mouse click or two, then activating brain and forming a conclusion. Or are you too busy collecting Milestones and Barnstars to actually help the rest of us deal with twits breaking the system?

Sorry and all that - but I am deeply deeply fed up with the lack of help that most of us, those of us that just want to quietly improve articles, in combating weird timewasters. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well your reply wasn’t helpful in the least. If this is an example of your usual attitude, it doesn’t surprise me that you are disappointed with the results you’re getting. Now, I did take a peek at the above user’s contribs but didn’t want to wade through each and every one to try to figure out what you were referring to. Cheerio —Travis^talk 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. You've started off with a personal attack on another editor. You've failed to notify them about this thread. You've failed to provide any evidence (diffs) showing what the problem is and you're resorting to insulting sarcasm when someone politely asks you for them. Have I missed anything? This kind of attitude will get you absolutely nowhere fast. Exxolon (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another British edit war. --NE2 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordon- are you referring to him changing the term English to British? Might be a little less specific, but I don't see the need for administrator intervention, here. Have you tried asking him- nicely, mind you- to stop? L'Aquatique[talk] 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and make sure to grovel accordingly while you're at it. Refer to him as "sir", and make sure to place at least three messages consisting of no less than five (5) sentences each before taking an issue with a crazy POV warrior-twit to AN/I. Remember, it's only ten minutes and all your self-respect down the toilet. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

Resolved

 – User has been blocked for 1 week. –xeno (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Myself and A Man in Black have been harassed by him for a while, due to conflicts at various talk pages. He also thinks we are both the same person (just because we edit the same places, and disagree with him). I've brought this up to an admin, here: User_talk:Xenocidic#User:SLJCOAAATR_1_causing_problems_still, which caused the admin to leave a note. The note didn't stop the user. See User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#Comment for more information. His user page here: User:SLJCOAAATR_1#Wiki_Friends.2FAllies_in_Editing, right by my name on his user page: "So totally AMIB's alt!". Also see: [12] for more proof Skeletal just seemingly ignored what the admin said. Other links (which were posted on the admin's talk page, before the admin left a note on his talk page), include: [13] and [14]. So besides the accustations, poor attitude, insults and bad faith, he talks about hacking people. I've tried talking to him a few times in the past, but he wont listen. I'm simply fed up with his behavior and his poor attitude. I've tried to ignore it, but he responds to just about every post I do with a rude comment or an accustation. When he's not doing that, he's posting on his friends talk pages with the same type of thing. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun stuff. I'm giving him a little warning and pointing him at WP:COOL. That should help, but a block isn't in order quite yet, I don't think (but I find I'm a bit soft with the blocking...). I might watchlist the page as well, but I think I'd need to expand how many changes it shows... Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm SLJ's friend, and the only reason why he's popping his lid is because AMIB's getting away with murder. If you look through the WT:WikiProject Video games archives on the talk page, you'll see him swearing his head off, also on the talk page of List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), he swore to me when I was pointing out evidence that he didn't know that much about a group of articles and shouldn't have made major edits on something he doesn't know that much about. If anyone deserves blocking it's him. I'm not saying his edits were in "bad-faith", I'm saying he didn't know enough about the subject at hand. And why wasn't SLJ informed about this? If a user has a chance of getting blocked he has the right to try and explain himself/herself and prove himself/herself innocent. As for the case of suspected sock-puppetry, why can't he suspect that someone's a sock-puppet? Or are you saying it's bad to try and prove someone's going against Wikipedia policy?Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Xeno for directing me here!

Rob, once again, before trying to get rid of me (Which you keep denying) take a look at the full story. All you've done here, is try to build a puzzle with 10 out of 100 pieces, read a newspaper article that has white-out spilled over 5 out of 7 paragraphs, etc., etc., etc. And again, you've proven my point further. AMIB & Co. are allowed to editwar, swear/curse, be uncivil to users, etc. BUT, the second me, or anyone oppossing AMIB & Co. does, it's the end of the world. Some of you have even gone as far as pleading for help. As for my suspection of you being a sockpuppet of AMIB, sure, I don't have any proof that you are, but, I don't have proof that you aren't either. And the fact that you two never post anywhere near the same time period makes me all the more suspicious. Good day Rob, and read the full headline in the paper today. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You just need to calm down, instead of being so angry all the time just because we disagree with you and your friends. Yes, AMIB has sworn and done some edit warring. However, I haven't, so don't group me in with him (just because we both don't agree with you). Also, what is all this AMIB and co. about? I don't see anyone regularly disagreeing with you, except for myself and AMIB. Provide some evidence, otherwise it looks like you are overreacting on the matter. All I've done is disagree with you, and you got upset and had to drag it this far. I've dealt with your false accustations, uncivility, bad faith attitude long enough. As for the sockpuppet nonsense: there is a check user feature on Wikipedia. Ask someone to do it on me and him, I have nothing to hide. Once it's done, then you can stop that nonsense. Anyway, here is some new links that show his continued poor attitude: [15], [16] and [17]. The first is an accustation I'm lying, the second is him yelling at people and the third is another false accustation. Also note: Lifebaka posted a note on his talk page, which he obviously ignored. He hasn't changed his behavior, dispite the fact many people have told him to calm down, keep his cool and so on. Lastly, making a section here isn't about blocking. It's about getting help with a user and problem. So stop assuming I'm out to get you blocked, because that's far from the truth. I just want you to calm down, instead of harassing myself and AMIB, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you now (or in the future). All these garbage accustations and comments towards me need to stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [18], more nonsense. I have never once said I wanted him blocked, he is just assuming. I'm very sick of this. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB & Co. is simply what I call the group of people that are for the merging, as AMIB seems to be the leader. Sheesh. As for over-reacting? Lololololololololololololololol...Can't...stop...laughing!!! AHAHAHAHA!!! Rob, the only over-reacting here, is you. lol. Like I keep telling you, don't build the puzzle with only 1 tenth of the pieces. Before you suddenly came into action, AMIB was harrasing all of us, and using VERY foul laguage with us all, and whenever someone told him to relax, he only got more violent. When you came into play, he started playing the "Innocent little boy" act. If you don't believe me, I'll dig up some proof. So, seriously, Rob, relax, and find the missing pieces of the puzzle. K? Thx. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and, Rob, you should've told me about this, instead of letting an admin tell me. It's "uncivil" as you would say. :P Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the hacking, that has nothing to do with this. See Triple F's talk page, for more information on that. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A neutral hand to guide SLJetc. away from treating WP as a battleground might be nice. I am obviously not the right one for that job, for numerous reasons that should be apparent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More links of his rude behavior: [19] and [20]. Then there is this: [21], instead of responding to my comment, he just blanks most of his talk page. Then there is this: [22], more uncivil behavior. I think someone needs to mentor him, and let him know how policies work here. This isn't the place to just attack whoever you want. Stop spouting on about puzzle pieces. Whatever happened in the past, doesn't give you the right to be rude to me. I've disagreed with you, and agreed with a person you hate: that does NOT justify your attitude towards me. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found it more than obvious that you're trying to get rid of me. Stop denying it. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over it. I want you to settle down and leave me the hell alone. This has nothing to do with getting you blocked. Either stop being paranoid about it, or LEAVE ME ALONE already. I'm not going to stop denying something I'm not even doing. I have every right to disagree with you about how articles are edited, you just wont accept it in a mature manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If he needs a mentor on how to keep his cool, I'd be happy to do that. But I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia policies, just good mannered. All he needs to do is before typing, is just take a little think about what he's putting in and if it will get him in trouble or not. You are overreacting about Rob SLJ, and AMIB is no gang leader. Randomran supports the merge and he seems a pretty good guy. So what if these articles are merged? There's always the Sonic News Network. You could even copy all the info from Wikipedia and stick it there, so you've saved the articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he is resorting to abusive edit summaries: [23]. I would've put a template on his page, but I know it wouldn't have helped. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he labels any user who does not completely agree with him as an "enemy" is a definite sign of immaturity on his part. Its friggin' Wikipedia, not World War III. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at his recent edits (the user page ones as a big example). He has gone over the edge now. I placed a no personal attacks final warning on his talk (which he responded poorly to). The next step will be reporting to Administrator intervention against vandalism. His attitude is out of hand, and there's been more than enough attempts to help him out. He just shrugs them off, and continues to attack people. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, I've only labed TWO people as my enemy. AMIB for all of his "Oh, it's fancruft" bullcrap, and Rob, with his constant over-reacting, and whining like a little kid. I take it Rob. I just can't! PLEASE, block me, so I don't have to deal with either of you anymore! PLEASE! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Acting rude to people is unacceptable, and shouldn't be happening. Your user space isn't a place to post attacks towards people. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like I'm not begging to be blocked... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [24]. When is something going to be done? RobJ1981 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now. I've blocked him for a week. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point! Labeling anyone an "enemy" just because they rejected your in-universe fictional (read non-existing) character biography of a minor Sonic character (or whatever it is that you edit) is completely silly. I know you're only 14, but still. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quit it with the ageist attitude Jonny. That's called discrimination in my book.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd still appreciate it if someone uninvolved and experienced with Wikipedia (although I appreciate the offer, FFF) could take this user under their wing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried, but maybe not hard enough. –xeno (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue isn't completely over. There is this: [25]. So even during a block, he is being rude. Plus there is this: User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#Mission. He's gathering a bunch of friends to "prove people wrong", which is bad faith. Discussions have been going on about the Sonic articles, but his friends choose to either fight with others, edit war and be uncivil, instead of actually discussing things civilly. Their attitude of "We are right, and we will throw it in your faces once we finish working in sandbox on the articles" is very poor. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RobJ1981 do yourself a favor and simply stop looking at his talk page for the duration of the block. To be honest, if he wants to prove people wrong by writing better articles I'm all for that! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but he needs to stop talking about me (as well as AMIB). He is acting like it's a war. I shouldn't be mentioned in many of his talk page posts, period. Xeno left several messages on his talk page about this, which SLJ doesn't seem to be listening to. See User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#Triple_F for the complete discussion. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He seems to find it quite hard to stop talking about you so I've helped him out by protecting his talk page for the duration of the block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is very upsetting. At the beginning of these discussions, he was one of the most cooperative of the Sonic inclusionists, he didn't agree with consensus but he went along and helped out with the merge. At that point I left the conversation because it seemed to be on a good track. I most likely agree with AMIB, RobJ1981, TTN, Jonny2x4, Randomran and the others (I haven't read the interim, but seriously I think my brain would explode), but everyone (including SLJCOAAATR 1) please remember that at one point he was a reasonable, intelligent editor, and I guess something just pushed him too far. I really hope that he will take this week to collect himself, and go back to the editor I remember. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks, disruption and continued assumption of bad faith by User:Inclusionist

I'll be as brief as possible. I became aware of Inclusionist's actions when I noticed changes to the Article Rescue Squadron page. Inclusionist began a merger which was opposed by a number of editors (the details are archived on AN/I). That problem itself is basically smoothed over. In the ensuing discussion, Inclusionist made a series of unhelpful edits and unpleasant personal attacks listed below:

• here, resulting in a warning from me here
• The second warning here referred to this edit.
• Inclusionist received a "vandalism" warning from User:Realkyhick (Which I felt was out of place) and responded by "forging" a template message to Realkyhick here. The third warning followed here.

Since then, Inclusionist has continued to assert some that some vague relationship between me and User:Prisongangleader exists over my continued requests for explanation and retraction. The first two comments (on my talk page and on An/I) resulted in this request for him to stop. since then he has continued to assert that such a relationship exists, even going so far as to make statements such as "User:Protonk lost a supporter of his position when Prisongangleader was indefinitely booted, and has been arguing passionatly against his block since then." I have asked him to stop twice, first on his talk page (as I didn't want to cloud the block review AN/I with that discussion, then on AN/I. In response to this he has responded with some claims to further the assertion.

Given this user's block record, which includes blocks following accusations that another editor was a sock/vandal/etc, I would ask that this user be enjoined from making these accusations against me or blocked for some period. I don't consider this a matter for the dispute resolution continuum as it does not strictly involve me and another editor (though a bulk of the accusations do). I also do not consider this a "content dispute" broadly defined (despite the different content stances we have). I'm asking that the community be given some relief from disruptive editing, accusations and personal attacks. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed response)

Protonk is correct, I should be blocked. Can the next administrator block me indefinitely please? Along with my sock User:RWV. (I am very serious). Inclusionist (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC) AKA RWV (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk did not argue that Inclusionist should be blocked. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"::You know I filed the current checkuser on him, right? diff Protonk (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)" the removal of this was most likely unintentional, so I'll just replace it. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update User was blocked at his (her) own request. I won't mark this resolved but it does seem to make the subject moot. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFBLOCK suggests that users not be blocked at their own request, so the block could be improper. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It says the requests are typically refused. Inclusionist has since began planning some manner of wikicide. –xeno (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input on CheckUser conducted on Bharatveer

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) is an Indian editor who was subjected to editing restrictions by ArbCom in October 2007. He pushed to add an accusation of plagiarism made by C. K. Raju on Michael Atiyah. This quickly led to a heated debate, as editors (myself included) perceived BLP and libel issues could arise by mentioning the Raju–Atiyah case on Wikipedia. Soon after be suspecting some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, I requested a CheckUser to be conducted on Bharatveer and two new SPAs which popped up on the article's talk page. The results were strange, to say the least; Bharatveer claimed to be living in India according to his userpage, but CU revealed that he was using a VPN server (a closed proxy, in essence), which masks his real IP address (it currently shows him as editing in Muscat, Oman). I've indefinitely blocked Bharatveer, pending an explanation as to why he's using a VPN server, as it draws suspicion, but he denies using one or even knowing what I'm talking about for that matter. I'm not sure how I should proceed from here, so I request the community's input. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Eventually he'll either admit he's using a VPN to segregate his IP or he'll just remain indef blocked. No action required. MBisanz ^talk 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From Bharatveer's talk page: "Regarding Nishkid's "Requesting input on CheckUser conducted on Bharatveer", I think I should make it clear that I never claimed to edit WP from India. As for the WP:Proxy , strangely I was not aware of that till this block. But I have found out that my server settings does not mask my identity nor does it allows IP changing.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)" Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the checkuser case/results? I'm not finding it. GRBerry 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was conducted off-wiki a few days ago. My post above explains everything that was discussed regarding the CU result. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who were the alleged sockpuppets, are they blocked, and what were their IP addresses? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The original check was done with Perusnarpk (talk · contribs) and Bharatveer. Perusnarpk's IP was not traced back to Oman, but a different country (you could take a guess). Abhimars (talk · contribs) is another SPA who I found after my initial CU request. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I conducted the checkuser work on this case. It was  Confirmed. The IP in question (a static IP) was also checked out by a technically skilled user. They identified it as having a computer name "terminal2k" and being in operation for VPN. This is a form of closed proxy, where a user could be editing from round the corner or from a whole continent away, and their edits will all have that computer's IP. It's very uncommon. The other user was a dynamic IP in India. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the sockpuppets are blocked is a good indication of the blocking admin's conviction IMO. For what it's worth I agree there's something fishy there, though I don't see any problem with an editor consistently using a single closed proxy, it's really the accusations of sockpuppetry that need to be looked at before the checkuser results. Perusnarpk is clearly someone's sockpuppet, judging by their familiarity with Wikipedia (for example creating an RfC and talking about Bharatveer's ArbCom restrictions in their first week). Abhimars (talk · contribs) likewise. The dense prose, references to the eminent or prominent mathematicians and the allegations of plagiarism are all remarkably similar. It's either sock or meatpuppetry, and there doesn't seem to be any other suspected puppeteer in sight. I guess you can add Tksinghal23 (talk · contribs) to the list of SPAs. I also find Bharatveer's explanation of proxy use to be unsatisfactory. This is not the type of proxy where you don't realise you've set it up, especially if not all edits are via the proxy. ([26]). I don't know the best way forward, whether it's a ban or some further restrictions on not using proxies (I am not familiar with this user's history), but I agree with the blocking admin's interpretation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (third redux)

User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about lawyering through the frivolous/unwarranted use of templates like {{disputed}}, {{refimprove}} and {{cn}}. Such practices are combined with his own deletion of credible/reliable references, such as a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books, from Yamashita's gold, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". He has given up on that, but is now attempting similar actions at Japanese war crimes This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.

I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation on January 14. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to lawyering and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation.

This all seems to be related to a personal agenda. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".

He also persists in misrepresenting Johnson's article as being a negative review of another source, Gold Warriors by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave. In fact it is a generally favourable review.

His actions have been decried on this noticeboard over the last week or so by User:Flying_tiger, User:Orderinchaos, User:SatuSuro and User:Cla68, among others.

It would be against the rules for me to deal with User:JimBobUSA myself and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. Grant | Talk 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No satisfaction on the previous complaints, so here we go again, eh? Grant65 fails to mention that he is the only one who has warned me, for removing his false references. I will post below (again) from the only source used to support his reference (The Seagraves novel), by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books.

• The Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate
• Are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese
• The book is full of errors
• One of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity
• The Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have take the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book

Maybe I am over thinking this, but what part of the above makes a novel scholarly. Moreover, it makes for a grand novel, with bits and pieces of real history, fictional characters and buried treasure. Nevertheless, it falls way short of “proving” the Seagraves conspiracy theories are anything but storylines in a novel.

Here is the last complaint thread(s): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive455#Japanese_war_crimes.2FYamashita.27s_gold_.28redux.29

To balance out the complaint, I would like to copy/paste this editor posting to Grant65:

"You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign." Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above can be found [here]Jim (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

-I would like to add here a notice about the request for a third opinion made on the same topic by user:JimBobUSA on Prince Chichibu article [[27]] Here is what the «third user» answered to user:JimBobUSA's request :

«I am here to offer a third opinion. I have looked at the "Yamashita's Gold" page and the "Seagrave" page. There I find In its review of Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold, which dealt with allegations that post World War II the CIA had misappropriated billions of dollars of Japanese war loot, [1] BBC History Magazine noted that whilst "numerous gaps remain.... this is an important story, with far-reaching implications, that deserves to receive further attention". [2] Now, BBC history magazine is certainly authoritative and notable enough to support "receiving further attention" here. And it seems quite wrong to call such a book a "novel". It also seems easy to find notable skeptical sources. Can someone explain why a balance cannot be reached, please? Without saying "because of the other person"! Redheylin (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC) OK I have emailed the cited author to ask for confirmation. Check the time and see how long it took. Better than bad faith? I think so. Redheylin (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

-And, here is user:JimBobUSA's usual leitmotiv when he doesn't like the answer provided:

Thanks for your time and effort. Regardless, a book review about a conspiracy theory is still just that…a book review about a conspiracy theory. The reviewer saying it is an interesting theory is not peer-review or corroborating sources for the conspiracy theory. Jim (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC) It looks the dispute will last forever...--Flying tiger (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And here is the reply from Redheylin's email:

"Thanks for your email. Yes I did review this book although it was quite some time ago and that sentence could well have been what I wrote. The book is obviously very controversial and some of its conclusions may perhaps be a little fanciful but it did bring up some interesting issues which would benefit from further investigation. I don't know of any peer reviews of the thesis and although I do have a good general knowledge of history I have not done a sufficient amount of research on this to attest to the validity of all the arguments the authors make."

Very controversial, a little fanciful and no peer reviews. Pretty much well what I have been saying all along. Jim (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the following at the Wiki Third Opinion page, since I feel there is a possibility of that page being abused or disrupted, and that the facts are liable be presented to a future volunteer in a partial and misleading manner.

Talk:Japanese war crimes#Removing poorly cited reference. Disagreement over the use of a single-source conspiracy theory 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC) I have looked at this question. I find that this dispute is being carried on at the page I have just tackled and cross-posting is occurring. There is also a current abitration discussion on the same topic. I think it was ill-advised to open the discussion on more than one front but do not wish to remove the request without answering it. I therefore draw these circumstances to the attention of the administrator of the present page. Please message me. Redheylin (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavily involved admin pretending to be uninvolved

GRBerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pretending to be an uninvolved administrator at WP:AE#Levine2112 request despite having an extensive history of acrimony with me and having punitive actions he has taken against me reversed on more than one occasion. Could someone please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

my quick read of that AE request is that editwarring is ongoing and sanctions should be broad based on the involved editors as discussed in GRB's proposed sanction section. No comment as to the 'truth'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any information that suggests that the admin was involved with your current dispute. Having a previous history with a person does not necessitate their constant involvement in your actions. Please provide diffs to suggest otherwise if you have any. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do so love the ongoing factual inaccuracy in SA's descriptions of situations. I've blocked SA twice under arbitration enforcement because he was reported to WP:AE for violating his civility parole. The first time, he was incivil in violation of those ArbComm sanctions on a mediation page. I shortened this one myself at the request of the mediator because the mediator thought it would help with the mediation to do so. The second time was for incivility, was brought to WP:AN without informing me, and overturned before I was made aware of it. Coren unblocked because he thought that SA apologizing for his incivility was sufficient sign of progress to merit the unblock, and explicitly noted "your judgment is not in question".[28] GRBerry 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock review / User:LemonMonday

Hi all. Can someone review the block on User:LemonMonday and handle accordingly? The blocking admin seems to be away right now & it looks like there may be problems with the block - Alison ^❤ 18:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been unblocked for the time being seeing as a CheckUser has proven his innocents. If evidence is provided linking the two accounts, or linking him to other accounts I hold no prejudice in the account being re-blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the socking accusations was false, but I am concerned that LM appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to promulgating the user of the term "British Isles". While I have no problem with that term personally, it's quite WP:POINTy to go around adding it to articles where it currently doesn't appear. I'd almost say a block on LemonMonday is justified anyway...

Incidentally, I believe that's where the suspicion of socking came from, BTW -- EmpireForever objects to those who object to the term (such as HighKing). However, that seems rather flimsy evidence for socking, since last time I checked more than just one or two people on Wikipedia are pissed off about this whole thing... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then lets address the issue of this user possibly being disruptive, but not block him as a sock when he is clearly not. Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree! Your unblock was absolutely appropriate, sorry if I gave a different impression. I'm just trying to open a dialog on what I see as a related issue.

If it weren't for the SPA-ish behavior, I would just tell LM to cool it with the POINTy British Isles thing. But the lack of useful contribs makes me wonder if we want this editor here in the first place... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as we make sure not to bite the newby. Has anyone been able to discuss with the individual? Do they know that their actions are problematic? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:HighKing seems to think that Lemon is a SPA out to get him. HighKing's primary contributions to Wikipedia is to remove the term "British Isles" from any article that has it for any reason he can think of. Lemon seems to be reverting HighKing's edits. This does indeed seem similar to the actions of User:EmpireForever who also was reverting HighKing's many many removals of "British Isles" from articles. User:EmpireForever is currently under a 3RR block, just before Lemon showed up. So perhaps there is something here. Chillum 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think User:HighKing's actions are problematic, and that User:EmpireForever and User:LemonMonday should be submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh.... EmpireForever and LemonMonday were checked by a CU, and Alison reported that she felt they were Unrelated. That's the whole reason this thread was started in the first place :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there we have it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can change their IP, that is why check users usually do not prove innocence. But on the other hand, I can certainly see two new users thinking the HighKing needed to be reverted. Chillum 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but I trust that the CheckUsers are competent and know that, they know what IP addresses come from the same city and which ones dont, and when a editor is using a open proxy they tend to note that. Tiptoety ^talk 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion that LemonMonday is adding British Isles to articles where it was not there previously is a false one. The articles contained the term, until HighKing's one-man crusade against the term removed it;

• Martello tower was removed by HighKing (link)
• Beautyberry was removed by HighKing (link)
• Mormon Trail was removed by HighKing (link)

and so on. Contrary to the false accusations made without any evidence other than "I say so", I am not LemonMonday. I do not believe in reverting back without sources to justify my edits. The only way to prevent HighKing from removing the term from articles time and again is to reliably source it, so I do to the best of my ability when I believe it is the correct term. And he removes it still anyway, you do the maths! I did not use a sockpuppet to evade a block, I accepted the block without even requesting an unblock until there were incorrect statements made on this noticeboard. I do not endorse the unsourced addition or removal of British Isles, I only endorse a verifiable use of it. EmpireForever (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hagger"

I randomly chose to browse Wikipedia by different languages and noticed that Tigrinya (spoken by Eritreans and northern Ethiopians) was on the list. As I have an interest in languages that developed alongside with Coptic, Greek, and Ethiopic, I decided to check it out.

I saw that the main page said "HAGGER" at the top, and that sort of freaked me out, because User:Grawp, who has a sort of obsession with typing "hagger" and using socks, sent me an email filled with disturbing spam, and prompted me to email an alert User:B, the guy who blocked Grawp from emailing others. I was also surprised because main page in other languages can be edited anonymously.

...It turns out that it was a single revision made by an anonymous edit authored by 67.83.35.73—here's the diff page.

In fact, in that page, the screen is still covered by the edit, so better yet, here's the history.

What makes the whole thing even worse is that it took six hours for someone to spot it, and it just happened to by myself.

Now I really think there should be some sort of common protection for different languages—something that covers vulnerable pages like George W. Bush, the main page, and so forth.

...does anyone know how connected these languages are and how they are currently regulated??? Also, is there a way to intercede in such matters in different language versions? ~ Troy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias are common targets for them as security and response time increases here. I believe there is, or was, a discussion regarding global sysops ongoing, which would speak to the issue of under-represented other-language projects. –xeno (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why the heck can someone edit the main page? I've never heard of it. One other question: when you say that there was a discussion, what would be the conclusion on that? Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly configured, I suppose. See: meta:Metapub/Archives/2008-07#Global_sysops_.28poll.29_.28closed.29 - The results of the poll are yet to be announced. –xeno (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a dead link to me. ~ Troy (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :/

Try again, or this direct link. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About editing the main page -- some wikis don't have full protection on the main page or don't have the full protection cascaded --> the az.wikipedia's main page got hit by Grawp a couple days ago too. And what happened to global rollback? I thought there was a discussion about that too? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You've read my mind. There should be global rollback.

You should know that some languages have no admins or only one admin, though, so it's quite complex.

There should still be semi-protection at least—I'm willing to pressure for some sort of solution if I have to. ~ Troy (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, if there are few or no admins, rollback should still be granted to someone. ~ Troy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is really just an easier way to simply load up an old version of the page, edit it, and click save... Just in case you didn't know. Also, cross-wiki vandalism can be reported here (meta:Vandalism reports)–xeno (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that the Tigrinya Wikipedia has zero admins, and zero admins is too few for any Wikipedia. I note that it's no longer possible to get a realistic view of the ratio of users to admins, though, because of global login. Apparently I'm now considered an editor at the Tigrinya Wikipedia, because I clicked over there, even though I don't even have a Tigrinya font on my computer to display the language, much less could I read it even if I did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a proposal at Meta to implement a global sysop bit, which would have addressed cross project abuse of this type and worse. English language Wikipedians prevented it from passing, and when a modified version got proposed that would have exempted English language Wikipedia, English language Wikipedians shot that down too. And many if not most of these cross project abuses originate at English Wikipedia and migrate elsewhere. If it sounds like this project is collectively behaving illogically and making life harder for the other WMF projects' volunteers, well--imagine what the volunteers on those other projects think. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it failed? I didn't realize. Where is the decision? –xeno (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Meta. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes , the same link I linked above I suppose. They left the "poll closed - results unannounced" banner up for whatever reason. –xeno (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the same vandalism at the Tigrinya main page and reverted again. I think the proposal Durova mentions should be reconsidered. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Durova is correct, there isn't much we can do about the smaller wikis since proposals keep getting shot down front, right, center, but a new proposal will be brought to meta soon just after a severe bug gets fixed...--Cometstyles 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I protected the main page and blocked the IP responsible there. If anyone happens to notice vandalism on a small wiki where there don't seem to be active sysops, bring it to either the Small Wiki Monitoring Team's attention via the #cvn-sw channel on Freenode, or to the stewards, via the #Stewards channel, for attention. Stewards have sysop powers globally now and can easily revert or block as needed. Global Rollback is in the process of being granted to some very hard working and capable SWMT members (such as Cometstyles, for instance, really a good chap) as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A thought recently came to my mind that we should make the Cluebot recognize the word "hagger". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would help. He frequently uses H...A...G...G...E...R, where each "." is a different unicode character. (I think they're different. None displays on this PC, probably due to local security configurations, so I don't know what Unicode characters they are.) I don't think we can come up with a bot which will recognize everything that LOOKS like HAGGER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They don't display due to localization issues and encoding issues with your browser. He is using UTF-8 characters that your browser doesn't have the graphic character for, so it displays a small square instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's local security issues relating to localization issues; I'm forbidden from loading the font-sets which would display the characters. I don't know why fonts and character sets are considered security issues.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the glyphs (or letter shapes) that make up the fonts are often created in the PostScript language (or at least used to be), & some folks are concerned about that vector being used in security exploits. (Although I have never heard of that actually being done; anyway, that's the explanation I was given, years ago.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't Grawp, it's Hiwhispees (it says "This Page Was Brought To You By Hiwhispees). Grawp uses a different layout which states "This Page Was Brought To You By Grawp. Hiwhispees does not type in H....A...G...G...E...R. Hagger is a slang term coined by Grawp (Hagger's Brother). He types in "cut the economy" in LUCINDA SANS UNICODE. Thedevilsmode (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, admins may have access to #wikimedia-admin, which is useful for such cross-project cooperation.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask an op to give you an +I  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the limitations of ClueBot (it seems to be mainly a word and phrase recognition tool), but it would be easy enough to write a simple bot that would check for these kind of complex patterned structures (regexp to the rescue...). I mean, they're signature pieces; there's only so much variation they can handle without losing their unique look, and the bot can probably be adjusted more easily than the vandal can rewrite his code. if I get a chance this week I'll play with it, assuming there's an interest. --Ludwigs2 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(P.s.) I just looked at ClueBot's source, and I think it would be easy to modify it to handle this. I'll leave a note over there and see what they think. --Ludwigs2 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking - Badagnani

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

This user has been stalking me all day, harassing me to the point of the shakes. I cannot do anything with out him:

• undoing my changes and edits;
• putting merge or delete tags on articles or templates I have created;
• contesting changes that I make;
• claiming names that I chose for new templates were "unencyclopedic" and moving them, in some cases breaking the edit bar functions or creating circular redirects.

This stems from the {{Herbs & spices}} template which I was working on for the past 7-10 days. I merged another template with it and he disagreed with the merge, so an admin locked the templates down and started a discussion here on weather we should revert the edits or keep them merged. After seven days, the discussion produced no consensus for keeping the templates separate. Once the protection was removed, I continued with the merge, and that is when he began the whole stalking thing. The other template, {{Herb and spice mixtures}}, had not been updated or reviewed in months and I set about removing it because it was no longer used, he kept removing the deletion tags. I also created several other templates, {{Commercial herbs & spices}}, {{Medicinal herbs & spices}} and {{marinades}}, to deal with issues that I and others had brought up over the past few months on the discussion page. Once these articles were created, he jumped all over them with the issues I have listed above. I am ready to create a last template about historical herbs and spices at {{historical herbs & spices}} but am afraid of what he will do once I create it.

He has had a consistent history of abuse and problematic behavior on numerous articles that he has worked on, the last time he did this was at the Tan Kai article which resulted in another block on him, his seventh. He also has a habit of using language that appears to make him appear as the victim or the straight & narrow editor correcting wrongs by wording his edit summaries with WP buzzwords such as consensus, discussion, reverting blanking etc., when in actuality he is the on violating these rules.

I have had to take two breaks today to get away from this guy and cannot take it any more. I am so upset, I can barely type. Could some one please do something, I cannot get anything productive done with him following me on every edit I make.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of this discussion for a start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are to the point of shakes, I would step away from the computer and come back after a day or two. Don't let Wikipedia affect your physical health. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a third break after writing this and am going for the forth, but I thank you for your concerns. Editing and writing usually relaxes me and gets my creative juices flowing. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will chime in here as I have worked with both Jeremy and Badagnani on different articles. I have always found Jeremy to be a thoughtful and studious editor who works for the best of Wikipedia, he uses the Wikipedia boldness philosophy well as it helps Wikipedia get past a stale level of mediocrity in many of the edits he makes. It is this boldness that seems to bother Badagnani in both Jeremy's edits and in mine in the past and a look at Badagnani's revert history, it seems the same with others as he feels that he has ownership over certain realms of Wikipedia and when someone edits something without "his permission" he goes on a coy attack with utilizing those "catch phrases" which Jeremy mentioned such as "consensus" which is a term he uses to make him look like the good guy, but I have seen through it as he has tossed it at me a number of times. As I have had interaction with this user, I do not feel it appropriate for me to make any recommendations as an Admin. towards him as it would be a conflict of interest, but his actions have become extremely aggressive as one can see that he is following all of the edits which Jeremy is making. I myself have had to close my laptop for a day to calm myself down from interactions with him. He has been accused of "stalking" other editors and harassing other editors as well in the past. His interactions with myself and others on Korean cuisine and its talk page are a prime example of how this user interacts with many users on Wikipedia. Badagnani does make some good contributions to the project, sadly he is incapable of "playing well with others".--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents here, I have an ambivalent feeling toward Badagnani due to his behaviors. His contributions and passion for Korean cuisine or other cuisine related articles are helpful to expand contents in general, and I appreciate that. On the other hand, his ownership attitude and inserting original research to articles reduce his positive aspects much. His stubbornness on what he believe right and think that articles should be in order by his own definition makes hard to work with editors here. The above "incident" began actually a content dispute between Jeremy and Badaganani. Therefore, it ought to be fully discussed between people before merging the existing templates, although I believe the merging is a good idea for handling articles pertaining to herbs and spices and for increasing better accessibility to both editors and readers. The cases of wiki-stalking should be noted to the user to prevent him from doing so. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like just to add my experience. I had many problems cooperation with Badagnani as well. This user refused to cooperate, started an edit war, didn't seem to care about Wikipedia policy etc. You can check my talk page for the way this user tried to handle as issue he/she thought he/she was right. The situation ended with a 72 hours block of this user. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I want to say that I agree with the others, Badagnani has made many useful contributions, and I have had positive interaction with him in the past. The problem that occurs is when he goes over the top and starts up his aggressive behaviors. Once he starts, he won't back down, and escalates until he ends up damaging himself and angering others. While I have had brushes with his negativity in the past, this is the first time I have encountered the full brunt of his wrath with his personal attack on me.

This behavior, when it comes to the fore, is the problem. It makes all of the good he has done worthless, his behavior is self destructive and disruptive. He needs a serious reprimand, or he will continue this behavior ad infinitum. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I can't really say too much about this so-called 'stalking', since I have not had an issue with Badagnani. To me, he's just another user who had (or still has) improper font rendering support for the Khmer script, which prompted my comment on his talk page (which was at the time, coïnciding with his block). However, judging from the rest of his talk page, he is capable of good contributions as well as bad. It is in my opinion however, that both Jeremy and Badagnani are inciting each other to keep edit warring. One because he agrees, the other because he disagrees with the proposals. The other problem is because neither of you wait for a third party to add his or her imput on the matter at hand, as Willscrlt had suggested, you should promote the discussion, not believe that your sole opinion or his/her sole opinion are the end-all result within 8 days. Usually, 2 weeks is a good time to wait after proposing a merge (unless no one disagrees). - Io Katai (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply I tried to have the discussion moved to the main Wikiproject Food and Drink talk page as I knew that there would be no solution reached on the Herbs and Spices taskforce talk page. The offer was declined by Badagnani. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:emilyzilch

I have been having trouble with this user for a while, where she (or he) kept removing references from such scholars as John Esposito and calling them unscholarly and unreliable. Her edits and POV-pushing have caused much trouble in some articles. I have been more than polite with her despite her incivility. The tone with which she writes is very provoking, and I have restrained myself while replying to her. She has just accused me of harassing her and following her edits when I removed controversial depictions from 13 articles, two of which she previously restored. I didn't notice his/her edits to the article and after I replied to one of her many uncivil messages telling her how I didn't know she edited the article, she dishonestly complained to User:FayssalF and left messages on other users' talkpages calling me a 12-headed sockpuppeteer. The next time this user addresses with this tone, I will answer him/her with the same incivility and impoliteness. En Ne talk 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both guilty of some incivility, and I suggest you both stop it. Currently and thankfully, however, neither of you have gotten far enough to require sanctions, so please just stop it. I can see quite clearly that you two don't like each other, so I highly suggest staying away from each other as much as possible. And take the content disputes elsewhere. If nothing else works, try some dispute resolution. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit to having lost my temper because of constant provocation. You have also admitted to "chasing" my edits to "correct" me. This makes a girl cranky after a while.

However, please note that I removed myself from reverts involving User:GreenEcho/User:Enforcing Neutrality and instead referred the matter to other users. And E.N., you were just banned for having 12 sock-puppet accounts (cf the very bottom of the page Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Klaksonn if you have forgotten so quickly). Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 06:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In defense of User:emilyzilch, E.N. not only frustratingly has been deleting important content (depictions from religious figures) from Wikipedia, but content that has been agreed upon before and cannot be deleted for censorship on Wikipedia anyway. I took am too somewhat becoming uncivil. Please see Talk:Twelve Imams. --Enzuru 07:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want I keep a plate of {{cookie}}s in the back, I could go get it out. Should help, right? lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly enjoy a sweet snack full of love, so feel free... :-) Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is User:Enforcing Neutrality another account of User:Klaksonn? If that is the case, and I can see how it could be given the same sort of incivility and disruption on similar articles, then further action would be required. ITAQALLAH 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would accept your cookie, however, I am a vegetarian. --Enzuru 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closures of AfDs by User:Finalnight

Resolved

 – Reporting user satisfied with resolution. –xeno (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV which was closed as "Keep per consensus (non-admin closure)"; there was no obvious consensus at all - certainly not such that WP:NAC would apply.

A quick check of user contributions shows that this user has made a number of non-admin closures, many of which also seem less than clear-cut:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacInsiders
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Pinheiro
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulhaidi Omar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Gay Men's Chorus

- so a more thorough review may be needed. Many thanks!

Ros0709 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an argument to be made that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV could be considered a Keep, but it's not clear-cut - which means a non-admin should not be closing it at all. I also note that it's a month old, which I didn't catch on the first read-through. I'll look at some of the others in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the user in question, Finalnight (talk · contribs), retired from the project on 17 July; their last edit was on the 19th. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit late for this report here, eh? I would consider, after this lapse, a non-admin closure to be the same as an admin one. In either case, a flagrantly bad closure *could* be reverted. Non admins can't unilaterally close as Delete, so it is all undoable. If an admin signed on to a Delete closer -- by deleting the file -- it's really the same as if the admin had closed.

I disagree that non-admin closures should intrinsically be non-controversial. That's setting up a content privilege that wasn't intended to be included with admin status. The difference, though, is that we especially want to avoid wheel-warring with admins. Normal editorial reverts, though, aren't wheel-warring. And it is a complex issue, with some very experienced Wikipedians who aren't admins -- such as God Kim Bruning who used to be an admin and who voluntarily gave it up, i.e., could get it back at any time -- doing and favoring non-admin closures. We just saw an admin closure which was very controversial, being contrary to vote count (i.e., Delete, allegedly based on arguments but not on article content, which had changed during the AfD -- with a majority of votes being Keep, which was soundly and roundly overturned on DRV. If a non-admin closure is inappropriate, any editor is free to revert it. Once. And the remedy, other than that, is DRV. This is not an AN/I issue at this point. --Abd (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. WP:NAC seems to be pretty clear that they should be non-controverisal, and to allow otherwise would clear the way for some pretty disruptive behaviour - look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MovieKids.org, for example, and see the 'keep' !voters - think of the fun there would have been if they could just close down the debate.

Yes, this is after the event but I don't see how that matters. The closures may have been good calls, but this is not a user who was empowered to make them. I think there is need for admin intervention - the user in question has retired and this was never an issue of censure; what I am requesting is that an admin review the AfDs that the user closed and decide whether they were closed appropriately.

Ros0709 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that non-admin closures are acceptable, even if it is not 100% consensus for one result or another. In the case of this close, however, I'm seeing three Delete arguments (Per Nom, List is Redundant to Category, and the Category is more effective for this purpose) and three Keep arguments (Per Multiple Precedents, Per WP:CLS and WP:LIST, and changed over from Delete Per subsequent comments). My reading is that the Keep arguments are slightly stronger, given the citations of policy (and the fact that those citations appear to have persuaded one Delete to switch to Keep). However, it's a closer call than I am comfortable having a non-admin close, even if they do so correctly, as I think was the case here. If there's still concern about this particular close, hell, I'll counter-sign it and make it official - I would have closed the same way.

The broader issue, though, is that this horse carcass needs no further discipline. Not only was this particular close filed a full month ago (with no appeal or DRV proceeding, I note), but the editor who non-admin closed proceeded to 1) File a Request for Adminship, 2) Withdraw that RfA at 51/22/4 two days later, and 3) retire from the project on 19 July. Even if there are closes from this editor that were improper, DRV would be the appropriate venue to discuss them on the merits. Administrative action, even if it were warranted - and I do not believe that it is - would be punitive in this case rather than preventative, given that the user has retired. If you wish to discuss Non-admin closures in this context, then I would respectfully note that Wikipedia:Non-admin closure has an associated talk page at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe we are entirely in agreement. Admin action - specifically that which effects the future actions of the editor is neither asked for or relevant. The action I was suggesting was different: there appears to be a bit of a mess to clear up because this user closed a lot of AfDs and not all of the decisions appear clear-cut to me; an admin should probably check them over and see if any damage was done - and correct it if so.

Regarding the time since closure and the lack of appeal etc.: I am not disputing any properly made keep decision. You are unlikely to see any appeal from me: if I raise an AfD I let consensus prevail and trust the closing admin to sensibly interpret the discussion. It is only now I have noticed that this was not actually what happened. The decision may well have been correct as it turned out - but we must assume this was more by luck than judgement because the person who made it was not qualified to do so. You have given your expert opinion on this particular AfD for which I am grateful and that is the final word as far as I am concerned. Whether you or any other admin feels this should prompt the review of the other AfDs too as I suggest I leave to your discretion.

Ros0709 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My non-admin closure of afd's were already very thoroughly reviewed by numerous syops during my rfa. No one was able to show that they were improper in any way, shape or form. At best, they were simply unusual as they were a more literal interpretation of the documented limits imposed by the community when non-admin closures were conceived as opposed to following any operating precedent, a case of WP:BOLD if you will. The biggest argument that someone was able to put up against them were four opposes to someone else's rfa. Anyway, this is a moot point as it appears your concerns were addressed already, though this was a curious choice of venue to have them looked at. If you feel very strongly on the matter, I would suggest drafting new guidelines for non-admin closures and conducting a community discussion to achieve consensus to minimize such grey areas in the future.--Finalnight (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the guideline at the moment. It says there should be "Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period". In purely numerical terms there were three keep !votes and three delete !votes (four, if you count the nomination). Ros0709 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I am not mistaken, you cited an essay, not a consensus-based guideline. The only guideline for non-admin closures is here, WP:Non-admin closure is an essay, which no editor is obligated to follow, otherwise I could create an essay that says I must be referred to as his royal highness and call it a guideline while insisting everyone follow it.--Finalnight (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that states "Close calls ... should be left to an administrator". But as has been pointed out already, this is probably going nowhere fast. An admin agrees with the way you closed the AfD I initially cited and no-one seems concerned about the others you closed. As you've retired it's not going to be an issue in the future. Ros0709 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I don't see any overt problems in the other AFDs you mention, though I have not had time to review them in depth, as I did with the first one I analyzed, above. Can we mark this resolved, in favor of discussion at WP:DPR#NAC? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be marked resolved - no further action needed at all. Ros0709 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of links to potential copyvio sites?

I would like to get a 2nd opinion on the mass removal of links by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) here is a sample of his contribs with such removals. Basically this editor is removing a massive number of links with the edit summary, "(Remove Link - Don't link sites that link to copyvio!!)." Is this within policy? Any input on this would be appreciated. (This orignially came up at WikiProject Aircrafts Wikiproject Videogames talk page) Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works says in relevant part "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". GRBerry 14:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I guess it's fine to remove external links, but he's also fucking up citations on articles as well and not cleaning up after himself. SashaNein (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it hosts copyvio, it shouldn't be used as a citation, there are sites which have simmilar information, without having the copyvio. Besides if people were more careful about what was linked the need for mass sweeps would dissaperSfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your belligerent attitude is not helping your case (nor is posting warnings to the talk pages of people involved in the ANI). Mass sweeps of this nature have consistently been looked down upon (such as when 2 editors were banned for doing such with the MOSNUM issue), especially when they're being based off of one person's interpretation of what's a valid reference or not (as you are removing references as well). If you were being more careful and actually attempting to replace references with "similar information", then the need for an ANI would disappear, and your edits wouldn't be coming off as self serving and disruptive. A perfect example is a reference on the Commodore 64 page which you blasted the link to a pdf copy of the article that the direct quote was referencing, instead of simply replacing it with a text only reference to the magazine issue, page number, etc. which was all right in front of you. And you did it twice. That's the sort of action people here are considering disruptive. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This article (and the edits) would appear be to rather a mess.. It needs an experienced editor to sort it out... The removed links here on the face it or probably removed in haste. Reinstatment won't be challanged. Suggest leaving a note on the talk page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. He's removing mass amounts of references and reference tags as well and doing things rather sloppily. If a reference uses a specific page on a site that may have some commercial things elsewhere, that's very different than just including a generic link to the site itself or to a copyrighted work. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been watching his talk page for months (probably since November at least) and he just keeps doing it. If you take the time to go through his thousands of edits, you'll notice they are almost all such sweeps of links. The issue is, mainly, that he's not checking them, just burning the house down to get rid of the termites. His talk page alone, beyond that, is pretty telling I think. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Belive, I do check them... If you'd like to supply me with a list of contested removals, I'll see what I can do about them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the edit times make it plainly obvious he's using a bot to just sweep through a specific address/domain he doesn't like. There's no actual individual checks to weed out anything. Personally, this tactic is coming off as disruptive editing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass-blasting through things is a bit funny-looking, but I had a look at some of his contribution delays and while they are quite short they don't look very bottish; there are fairly random fluctuations all over the place and he rarely goes below 30 seconds/edit. I'm not an administrator BTW, I just can use a graphing program ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Since when is implementation of WP:EL considered 'disruptive'? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why you are doing this with an alternate account [29]?— Ѕandahl 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When its being done in the manner you're doing it, and causing enough havok to cause enough of your peers to take notice and do an ANI. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be very useful if someone could link what they see as, say, five seriously problematic examples. A quick assay didn't turn up anything particularly problematic. On the other hand, I do see comments from Sfan00 like "Remove Link - Don't link sites that link to copyvio!" which, at least taken at face value, seems to be carrying things a step too far: I don't think we have a blanket prohibition on linking to a page on a site if somewhere on that site is a page that links to a copyvio. But perhaps the reality is something much more direct than the comment would suggest. - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should not link directly to a copyright violation, but to say not to link to a site that itself has a link to a copyright violation seems to be going overboard. Aleta ^Sing 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK maybe it was a bit strong.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful also for Sfan00 to explain in a little more detail what he's up to. For example, we're not the only people in the world who can claim a "fair use" justification for an image. If the "copyvio" is simply the posting of a single screenshot or a cover, there is a fair chance it is fair use. Our policy of explicitly justifying our fair use claims is just that: an internal policy. U.S. copyright law does not require sites to address this explicitly, it merely holds them liable if a court were to rule that their use exceeded fair use. - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was removing links to sites that directly hosted, or were provding links to downloads of

material that did not fall within the commonly accepted definitions of 'legal' abandonware (i.e released by copyright holder but unsupported). In reviewing I found a few removals that were not on the face of it reasonable, links in those cases reinstated. If there are still 'problem' cases remaining, I need to know so that I can reinstate leaving a note on the talk page so some other zealot doesn't think the same.

Would someone be willing to write some gudielines with respect to scanned material? Clearly, old mag scans are potential copyright violation (as are manual scans) but as has been stated here, to whose loss is fair use here, especially given the tendency of some (unanmed) game and magazine publishers to drop support for older titles? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Leetpriest blocked

Resolved

 – Everyone agrees that the block is good

I just indefinitely blocked this user for an NPOV violation accompanied by the following edit summary, "Remove this, and I swear to fuck that I will bankhead every fucking server that your wikitrash is on." I feel that this was beyond the pale. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good decision, Orange Mike. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this name rung a bell, as you probably saw on his talk page, we had a discussion on his edits back in April. Good, smart block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Good call. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now why would we block someone who's an obviously devoted defender of neutrality? Tsk. ... okay, yeah, endorse block - nice one, OrangeMike. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I'm marking resolved, everyone agrees. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Swear to F" is one thing. But wikitrash? Them's fightin' words. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this threat require more than a block? Or is the threat empty enough not to warrant anything further? I would think that a threat to hack servers should be forwarded to either OTRS or the Wikimedia foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Might just be me, but this sounds like someone who's SO mad he's going to hold his breath and stomp his feet until he turns blue in the face...or he's really going to hack the server, your choice...Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard the word "bankhead" used in that context, so I can't say for sure that he intends to hack. Perhaps we was offering to do some performance tuning on the servers? (Seriously, though, Bankhead gives me no help. WTF does that mean?) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's something you have to be a really L33T haxor to understand. Or perhaps he's a big fan of Tallulah Bankhead. Jonathunder (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is the latter, then perhaps it is a threat - according to rumour - to comprehensively blow the servers? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When even Urbandictionary.com can't help...My guess is, it's probably a personal neologism. And not a very cromulent one, either. Gladys J Cortez 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Baiting by User:TharkunColl

There is a continuing problem over the use of "British Isles". One editor who has engaged in this is User:TharkunColl who has previously been blocked for baiting other editors in other areas (see block log here for a number of examples of trolling and baiting attempts.) I now find myself in the situation of having potentially misleading statements made about my attempts to get a taskforce set up to try to resolve the dispute User talk:TharkunColl#WikiProject British Isles here. Since I am now an involved administrator, can I ask for another view about Tharkuncoll's contributions here? Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to read my talk page User talk:TharkunColl#WikiProject British Isles - and they will see that any alleged "baiting" that occured is, if anything, mainly in the other direction. Or if not baiting then at the very least a somewhat contemptuous attitide to my proposals and a refusal to take my points seriously, combined with a misrepresentation of my arguments. Notice also that my idea for a WikiProject had actually garnered quite a lot of support within minutes of it being proposed. ðarkuncoll 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What, again? This issue was just archived a day or two ago. Yo! They're the British Isles. Get used to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo! There are other points of view. Get used to it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You can call them whatever you want, but they are the British Isles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is DDstretch who has made comments in violation of WP:CIVIL on TharkunColl's talk page, such as "Don't make such laughably stupid comments." If people read the discussion on TharkunColl's talk page, they can see that everyone who's commented about it there has accepted the idea as interesting, had some humour about their repeated differences, and enjoyed consideration of the idea. Out of the editing of these pages people develop a certain comeraderie, regardless of their differences, that encourages collaborative editing. This can be seen on TharkunColl's page in the section about the proposed wikiproject. The people who regularly work on these articles develop a certain rapport which isn't obvious to those who don't- well that's what I see anyway. Butting in from someone without much history of editing these specific articles en masse, would seem to be deliberately antagonistic, especially terms such as "Don't make such laughably stupid comments," when making uninvited comments on someone's talk page. ðarkuncoll 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Help revert move mistake

Resolved

Hi could someone revert this? I though I was looking at the old archive but accidentally moved the talk page instead. Thank you! Banjeboi 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is  Done, but for future reference, you don't need an admin to move a page over a redirect page with a single edit. –xeno (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried reverting and it wouldn't budge. Banjeboi 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to use revert/undo in this case; use the move tab and move it back to its old name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillman

This editor's User and Talk pages have been protected since 2006 and 2007 respectively, but this seems inappropriate since Hillman is again actively editing. In particular, an editor has requested assistance in getting Hillman to stop posting their real name. If nothing elseWithout offering an opinion as to the merits or otherwise of that complaint, I think an admin ought to unprotect User Talk:Hillman to allow for normal communication with this editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Sandahl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety ^talk 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The user talk page redirected to the user page, which was protected. I've removed the redirect, but left the user page protected. What are the diffs where here discloses the identity? Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

User:Lakinekaki didn't share some relevant information with User:SheffieldSteel: Lakinekaki's IRL identity arose in the context of an apparent WP:COI vio in a current AfD. Since I participated years ago in a previous AfD involving Lakinekaki and the same issue, I left a comment (clearly labeled as such). Please see

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bios_theory (an OLD AfD from when I WAS an active user)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation (a current AfD in which I left a COMMENT)

It seems to me that Lakinekaki is violating WP:GAME by accusing me of WP:STALK and so on (see his recent contribs). I do not consider myself an "active user" since I am not editing articles and only rarely leave talk page commnets. I thought my comment in the AfD provided useful background information, but if it seems to admins to pose some kind of problem, I'd be happy to remove it.

As for the issue of the protected talk page, that was done by User:Xoloz in the context of intense harrassment by IP anons (socks for a permabanned user) back in 2006. I actually asked for semiprotection of my user pages, but at that time, semiprotection was rarer than full protection. If any admin wishes to point me at a definition of "active user", please go right ahead! TIA ---CH (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The better question is: should we restore the 1,500+ deleted revisions of his talk page, since he's now active again? I believe the answer to be yes, since it was deleted as part of a right-to-vanish, apparently. An "active" user is one who's making edits. We have an unfortunate surplus of users who are "active" solely in projectspace and wikipolitics, but they are nonetheless active despite a lack of article edits. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do leave my user page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman/Archive protected until we sort this out. MastCell, is there a definition of "active" versus "inactive"? If there is, and if my comment in the AfD would "activate" me, I'd be happy to remove it. Fair enough? ---CH (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but understand that by you editing you are "active". Tiptoety ^talk 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I? Active? Is there a definition? I'd rather remove the AfD comment to which Lakinekaki is objecting if there is a consensus that this "activates" me. ---CH (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that commenting on an AFD should not automatically make you "active" (whatever that means). If you start to vote for "Delete" or "Keep", or edit articles then that is different. Count Iblis (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems User:Xoloz has retired, so he cannot explain to other admins the context in which my user page was protected. It seems that there may be an unmet need for a definition of "inactive status" as in "right to vanish". I certainly don't want to be considered "reactivated". Have any admins looked at the AfD I cited? If there is concensus that my comments yesterday concerning Lakinenaki "reactivated" me I'd much prefer to remove them (or have an admin delete them if that would be more appropriate) and to reclaim "vanish". Please don't unprotect my user pages until we get this sorted out, and to avoid confusion, please converse here so only have one place to look. TIA ---CH (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am getting the sense there is not yet any definition anyone can cite. Can some more admins look at my edits from yesterday and let me know here whether they think I am really endangering my inactive status? If that were so I'd much prefer to remove my comments and to reclaim my right to vanish. ---CH (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break. You are active. It's a binary thing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are actively editing, you are active. We are not conversing with someone who has vanished, as that is not possible. Jonathunder (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are actually three classes of users in this respect: active, inactive, and vanished. Whether you consider yourself "active" or "inactive" is somewhat irrelevant: new edits under the same username means you are clearly no longer "vanished", a term which does have a very specific definition under Wikipedia:Right to vanish. As such, your user page history should be restored, at least to the extent that it does not reveal private information. — Satori Son 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But where is the appropriate policy or guideline? I ask for discussion (admin comments only please!) concerning which of the following would "reactivate" a user account:

• leaving a comment in a current AfD (identifying myself as "former Wikipedian")
• commenting on the Essay controversy (identifying myself as "former Wikipedian")
• pointing the Signpost at some news item I came across and thought Wikipedians would enjoy
• leaving a brief Hi, miss you! type comment on some user's talk page
• logging in to write a PM

You can check my contribs, but I think this pretty much covers everything I've done at WP since vanishing in 2006.

Jonathan, I agree there is something to discuss, but where does one draw the line? What's the policy or guideline which governs this issue?---CH (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's Wikipedia:Right to vanish. Especially the part that says, "There is no coming back for that individual." — Satori Son 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Satori, that seems to have changed a lot since my day but it seems pretty clear. As I understand it, the only allowed behavior would be logging in to write a PM--- do I have that right?

Given what I said above about preferring to undo my comments to reclaim my right to vanish, how can I fix this? I'd be happy to remove my comments from yesterday, or should I ask an admin to delete them? ---CH (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish is only a guideline, it clearly says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Clearly this is an exceptional case. Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iblis! I agree my case is/was unusual, but I also think the questions I raised above might apply to other cases as well. Another issue for inactive users is that the policies/guidelines have changed so much since 2006. I seem to have confused "vanishing" with "inactive"; upon consideration I think vanishing is best for me, although I'd like to keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman/Archive as a protected and presumably inoffensive archive of the kind of thing I WANTED to do at WP... sigh...

It does seem that a concensus may be emerging that I should NOT have posted even a comment in the AfD yesterday. If so, should I remove my comments from yesterday myself? Or ask an admin to do so? I want to fix this so that my status is "vanished user".

For the future, I request that admins put up a guideline and try to promote it to policy about vanishing, since this is an important subject. Since simplicity is best, I suggest "no publically viewable edits" might be a simple criterion for vanished users to follow. TIA!---CH (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would urge any Admins here to be pragmatic. Hillman has made his point about wanting to stay "vanished" and would rather delete his AFD comments than changing his status. But Hillman has made very important comments on the AFD. He has stayed as uninvolved as possible. He is not editing any articles, he is simply giving some relevant information that we can use. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which is official policy, says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here. It’s almost as if you’re trying to get a certificate to say you’re inactive so that you have proof of it for whatever imagined reason. If you want to be considered inactive or vanish, simply stop editing right this very second. The longer you keep editing, asking questions or removing your own previously posted comments, the longer you’re being active. It’s really that simple, stop trying to complicate the simplest of things. If you respond to this by asking me for proof in a policy or for a further definition, you’re simply prolonging your time of activity. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And I think we can all agree that if he stops editing immediately, we can safely consider him to remain inactive? -- SCZenz (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Users who edit are active, users who don't are inactive. There's more to Wikipedia than just writing articles. If one participates in community discussions of any sort, they're most certainly active. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Hillman has simply made an honest mistake and wants to remain "vanished", I don't have a problem with us honoring that status assuming they don't edit any further.

For the record, I strongly disagree with Count Iblis. Whether or not Hillman "made very important comments" and "stayed as uninvolved as possible" is not at all relevant to this Right-to-Vanish issue. If an editor wants their user and talk pages completely deleted, they must agree to leave Wikipedia and not edit here again under any username. Period. Otherwise, they are simply "inactive" or "retired", and may blank those pages, but the revision histories stay. — Satori Son 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Every wikipedia user should be held responsible and accountable for his/her actions. Users DO get banned all the time for their actions. If User:Hillman thinks he can write whatever he wants about whomever he wants, and not only WP:STALKs [30], but also WP:HArasses [31][32] other users, and if he thinks that than he can just ask his edit history to be deleted and talk page protected, only to came back again next year or sooner and do the same thing (as he already did these days), I think he is wrong.

I think that he should either be indefinitely blocked for misrepresenting his 'retirement' and for violation of above policies, and/or that his edits should remain and user page unprotected so that users can respond to his nonsensical accusations.

And BTW, in his 'important' comment, User:Hillman selected few quotations from a scientist that has published over 100 papers and I think half a dozen book. I am sure if User:Hillman had published only a third of that, I would be able to find quite an absurdities in it. I did find absurd paranoid accusations in only few pages that he wrote in last few days, as can be seen on process equation deletion page. In addition, all the things he wrote about on deletion page of 'process equation' have nothing to do with the topic of the article 'process equation'.

In addition, putting an indefinite block on CH would be compatible with his wishes of 'vanishing' and will 'discourage' his future temptations for editing. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is not Chris Hillman. Wikipedia is not an isolated island on the internet. Bad physics articles written here do have an impact on the physics community. It is well known that wikipedia is not good at dealing with fringe and pseudo science in a NPOV way. Chris Hillman is an ex wiki editor, but he came here to complain about an article and a fellow scientist as a member of the scientific community, not as a wikipedia editor. He raised some serious issues, so we should listen to what he has to say.

What's the point of raising the issue of Hillman's status as wiki editor? Is it to let Lakinekaki write wiki articles like one based on his paper Quantum bios and biotic complexity in the distribution of galaxies in peace without being bothered by criticism? Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I didn't complain on him placing my name in bios article deletion page (and other editors knew who i am long before CH came to discussion, which can be seen from my talk page), but I do however object him mentioning my name in unrelated articles in an attempt to discredit me as an editor. What in the hell has intermittency to do with anything? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad physics articles written here do have an impact on the physics community. I see. So physicist need to be protected from bad physics and fringe and pseudo science. They don't have reasoning abilities to distinguish between those, so they need our help. It is good to know this. Lakinekaki (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noooo, laypeople, innocently relying upon Wikipedia and thinking that fringe theories, extreme minority views, and outright whackjobbery are more important than they really are or are even mainstream have the impact on the physics community, in terms of funding, attention, and time wasted in educating/debunking/fighting off/re-educating those fooled. The recent antics of the pro-Cold fusion crowd in attempting to skew Wikipedia coverage to give themselves some positive mainstream cred should have been a clue. --Calton | Talk 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Enforcing Neutrality/User:GreenEcho blocked indef (Klaksonn-related)

Resolved

 – Blocked; blocks endorsed. 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) (alternate account GreenEcho (talk · contribs) has just been blocked indef for the never-ending unacceptable behavior (massive edit warring, incivility, combative attitude, never AGF plus the blatant sockpuppetry record). This can be summarized as follows:

• This user was caught operating a sock farm a few weeks ago (more than 15 socks making us believe they edit from different continents). This user attitude's has been related to banned user Klaksonn (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn.
• This user was given a chance partly because we don't have Klaksonn data to compare with. Though we could block him for ban evasion (blatant similiarities in behaviour), this user was instead restricted to use 3 accounts for three different areas of interest. A few weeks later we discovered that this user chose to abandon them and create new ones in clear breach of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. So this user has been given another chance for a fresh and clean start a few days ago. After a long discussion between him, me and a few admins, we finally agreed that he'd keep the newly created accounts (Enforcing Neutrality and GreenEcho for two different areas). That was our belief in a fresh start. Some admins believe that was lenient. Yes, it was. It was leniant but the purpose of it was to show this user the basis of out Wikipedia concept of forgiveness and flexibility. user:Enforcing Neutrality was unblocked hoping it would be used to continue an ongoing mediation process. Alas, he's not got back at all to that mediation since his unblock. Instead, hes engaged himself in continuous edit warring with different users in different articles. He has accused some of taking advantage of his block to try to unprotect one article. He had been informed that nobody took advantages of anything. Once unblocked, he didn't retract that accusation. He used it again and asked that the article remains protected. In contrast, he went to the RfPP to request an unprotection for another article where he was edit warring with other set of editors.
• This user is misleading everyone when stating on user:Enforcing Neutrality's user page that "[He created an account because people who edit anonymously are not taken as seriously]". This is avoiding scrutiny and is totally misleading of course.
• This user has appeared dozens of times here on AN/I. Everytime for a different issue. Everytime involving different users. Most of the time, he'd be the one who starts threads here. See above thread for yesterday's example.
• This user incivility has been noted plenty of times. Nothing changed and this could be a clear sign that this user can be no one else except Klaksonn (talk · contribs).

There could be another chance to be given to this user but the direct links which lead us to banned user Klaksonn (talk · contribs) (through Kloksmann (talk · contribs) that I got to know about lately - CheckUser was done by another colleague) leaves us no other choice now except getting some peace and order. Therefore this user is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Klaksonn/Kloksmann (ban evasion). Indeed, Klaksonn was blocked by user:BrownHairedGirl was blocked for "Persistent incivility and disruptive editing."... an attitude very familiar to this user and to many admins. Please review. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support FayssalF's action. (I had blocked GreenEcho earlier for a 3RR violation). More background on the case, including a previous unblock discussion, can still be seen at User talk:GreenEcho. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Count me among the admins who view this as overly lenient (perhaps no surprise there). This guy was strongly suspected to be a reincarnation of a banned disruptive user and was caught red-handed using about 13 accounts simultaneously? And the response was to restrict him to "only" 3 accounts? I'm not opposed to second chances or forgiveness, but the editor in question clearly didn't perceive this as a second chance or accept that he might bear some responsibility for the situation, which is a recipe for failure. The guy was totally unrepentant and finally offered a grudging non-apology apology where he explicitly stated that he didn't believe he'd done anything the least bit inappropriate. He's then been complaining in an entitled fashion about which 3 accounts he was restricted to, complaining that people dare to checkuser him, and complaining that people are actually keeping tabs on all of his socks.

I appreciate that this was done with the best of intentions, but sometimes I wish we valued our constructive, law-abiding contributors more. Giving this guy 3 socks to edit-war and file frivolous AN/I complaints, when he's not been willing to meet anyone even halfway, seems almost disrespectful to the people who are the targets of his edit-warring and vexatious litigation. Good editors burn out fast here, and the effort spent trying to rehabilitate unrepentant sockpuppeteers could be better spent supporting them. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. I think the unblock was not inappropriate, but this user has just squandered his absolute last chance. Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced info

Resolved

 – blocked Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris0619 (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced info to various bio articles, often with unsourced quotes and/or BLP-issues. Does not respond to warnings. Final warning 24 July. I reverted two additions today on Ciara for unsourced quote and WP:BLP issues. Requesting short block to get user to respond to issue. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention that he/she has been previously blocked for this same issue. Blocked for 1 week with a warning that continued behavior like this will lead to a much longer block. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon vandal/harrasser

Resolved. Mehndi semi-protected, some IPs blocked.-Wafulz (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I am being harrassed by an anonymous editor, editing under the IPs User:59.92.45.199, User:59.92.42.151 and User:59.92.27.210. I know his anon status makes things hard to deal with, but maybe you could have a look nonetheless. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.139.247 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Quicklinks: 59.92.42.151 (talk · contribs · logs), 59.92.27.210 (talk · contribs · logs), and 86.29.139.247 (talk · contribs · logs) - Eldereft (cont.) 15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

155.212.94.131

Resolved

 – schoolblock

Please see recent contribs: [33] Thanks. — Alan^✉ 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can report things like this to WP:AIV, but I've blocked it for 6 months as a {{schoolblock}}. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the link - will use it another time. — Alan^✉ 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reporting it! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

Resolved

 – Baseless accusation. --barneca (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice there is no section specifically for reporting admin abuse. I doubt this will do any good, since it doesn't appear Wikipedia is concerned with punishing cases of corruption despite its inevitability within a system where one group has power over another group or groups, but well, Tanthalas39 is a corrupt admin. For example, check his edits from July 24th on Hilscher. He accused user Hilscher of using an account for nothing but vandalism when this was not the case, then reverted the attempt to contest the block and protected the page. While the user was clearly being disruptive, and possibly also trolling, it is clear the account wasn't only being used for vandalism, and there is no accounting for the same admin indefinitely blocking, reverting the contest, and protecting the page. Someone who does that does not deserve admin privileges. Similar incidents are throughout his editing record, if anyone bothered to take a look. No body can say I didn't try. --66.190.62.245 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The situation speaks for itself, I have no comment at this time. Tan ǀ 39 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Spent 5 minutes looking into this, and now I want my 5 minutes back. Completely baseless complaint. Tanthalus' actions are fine; one unblock request had already been declined by another admin, Tanthalus removed a second, abusive unblock request and protected page to prevent further abuse. We're better off without Hilscher. --barneca (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this help desk thread. Tan ǀ 39 16:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like a reasonable block. More to the point, you are obviously Hilscher (talk · contribs) (et al.) using an IP to evade your block and complain about it here. If you'd like to appeal the block, please take a look at the steps listed here, or consider emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, rather than dodging the block with an IP and posting an apparently groundless accusation phrased in the third person here. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, Tan. Didn't your momma tell you not to join cabals? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Levin Edits, Trouble Brewing

Resolved

 – 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war going on over at the Mark Levin page, radio host. I posted about a similar dispute that arose a few months ago, and now the trend is happening again. Two users are at the center of this. There is one user who adds content that may or may not warrent inclusion, but doesn't copy edit well enough so that it is encylopedic, nor does this person take the time to find reference for it. A second user keeps reverting it, not assuming good faith, not giving a chance for discussion, includes insulting edit tags, and seems to refuse to engage in discussion claiming that it was "settled months ago" when it was not; furthermore this person has a history of malicious sock puppetry accusation, both time accusing me in his edit summaries. Both of these users are behaving so poorly that it is fustrating, I've tried to get somewhere, but just been insulted for my time. Also I let the user who accused me of being a sock that they were way out of line and told him to engage in the discussion rather than simply reverting. I don't think that this will happen though, the edit history does not bear it out. Please when an admin gets a chance can they step in/monitor the page and issue some warnings? Editing is fustrating when this sort of thing happens. Rocdahut (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ynot4tony2 (talk · contribs) and 74.68.132.134 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hrs for edit-warring. Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection of a non-blocked user's talk page

Unresolved

 – Unprotected. Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right to me. Should this page have been protected? --NE2 01:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not if they're still editing, imo. Did you ask the protecting admin about it? –xeno (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I referred him here, where he can participate in the discussion. --NE2 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why there is a long edit war on that user's talk over sock puppet tags there. If it really is an abusive sock, put the tags on the user page. Jonathunder (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving the tags to the user page, protecting that, and unprotecting the talk page. Any problems with that, you'll have to refer the matter to someone else as I'll be gone until next Monday at least. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is complaining here should explain better. The "bad" user is accused of being a sock of someone who retired last year. I don't know of any rule that has been broken. Retiring or right to vanish is ok in WP. It does not mean you are banished forever. Unless there is more to it, picking on the user is not right. Presumptive (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the funny thing is that Rschen7754 admits to being a sock. See that person's user page. Presumptive (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So do I admit to being a "sock"! It's the abuse of multiple accounts which is forbidden; having ones is discouraged without some sort of legitimate reason, but is not disallowed. I hope that helps. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those involved in the complaining and its not as simple as you made it out to be. See both Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345 (2nd) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x+talk. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's still no reason to fully protect the talk page of an editor who hasn't even been blocked. I hope Rschen will think twice before locking an editor out of their own talk page in the future. It's acceptable only in very select cases, and it was pretty clearly not a good idea here, whatever disruption the editor may or may not have been causing. -- Vary | Talk 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly hasn't been established that 75.47 is Artisol2345/AL2TB/Splat5572, and, as someone who's tried to clean up after them, I'm not convinced. --NE2 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way NE2, speaking of "cleaning up after us" I've boldly decided to add all the junctions you removed back into the exit lists if you haven't noticed already - (e.g. from Bayshore Freeway back to U.S. Route 101 in California). Splat5572 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've already been reverted, not by me. --NE2 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not debate the inclusion of freeway exits here. Take that to your talk page, now that it is unprotected, or to the relevant article or project pages. Before this thread spins out of control, is there anything more to be resolved here? Jonathunder (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, since the user's talk page is now unprotected and some editors have started using it, and since this user is responding to messages, I will mark this thread resolved. If there is legitimate concern this user is an abusive sock (and not all socks are abusive, as noted above) there are places to report that. If there is just concern about freeway exits or other normal editing concerns, discuss them in the appropriate places. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --NE2 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Splat5572 has filed an arbitration request. It's probably not going to go anywhere, but he says he is AL2TB but not Artisol2345. As the only one currently editing is Splat5572, and particularly Artisol2345 hasn't edited for almost a year, is it really appropriate for his user page to be protected with a sockpuppet template? --NE2 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally submitted an arbitration request because well the 75.47 IP advised me to do it sometime in March, and I didn't have the time to do it now. Anyways I'm fine right now. I removed my request. (Though I really don't know if I should take anymore advice from the 75.47 IP; he edits my user and user talk pages a lot, so I decided to do the same thing to him. Yes, it didn't get us anywhere.) Splat5572 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see User:Rlevse helped you withdraw the request, beat me to it. Since you have had bad advice about the use of Arbitration, let me point you to the description of dispute resolution so you can find out how to solve future problems. Arbitration is the very last line of dispute resolution. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rschen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked as a sock of Splat5572 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), confirmed by Thacher. seicer | talk | contribs 04:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if calling them socks is appropriate, since their editing periods don't overlap. It's certainly a username policy violation though. --NE2 05:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by 138.88.35.77 in Edit comments

See the edit history of 138.88.35.77 which matches the pattern of 69.143.196.173 who has only recently begun editing but has already established a record of ill-considered and intemperate language in edit summaries/comments. Similar comments appear in the same articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

Certainly inexcusable edit summaries. Try leaving a more stern warning on their talk pages if they do it again, and if it continues, a WP:WQA might be in order. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, appears to be the same individual. Left final warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in my opinion WP:WQA isn't really a good venue for things like this. Since very few admins hang out there, the best we can do is ask people to stop. If it's a dispute between a couple of long-standing accounts, talking things through at WQA is extremely helpful. But if you are talking about a disruptive editor who has only recently begun editing, especially if it's an IP, WQA isn't really equipped for it. The person has no incentive to compromise (since they are on an IP with not many contribs) and since very few people with the banhammer hang out at WQA, the most likely result for something like this is, "Hmm, yes indeed, that is unacceptable. Try ANI." heh ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MountCan, probable sock of banned User:House1090, causing trouble again

Resolved

 – User blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested a checkuser from Alison a few weeks ago on this account, result was: "likely." I didn't take action because it seemed like he was doing no harm at the time, but he's acting up again, so requesting an indef based on his contributions today, particularly to User:Haha169's talk page. Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more information on User:MountCan: MountCan's edits at Chino Hills, California are very similar to those of House's sockpuppet User:Ie909: This one yesterday compared to this one on November 7, 2007. The pattern of edits try to change things about the San Bernardino, California area. His edits seem fairly consistently involving that geographical area and have the same poor grammar, like his entry on my talk page here, as House. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check also Alanray's talk page:User_talk:Alanraywiki#Chino_Hills_Vandalism. This guy House/MountCan is probably a kid, but he's a nuisance that continually makes unsubstantiated accusations and mainspace messes. The rationale for the prior ban still holds. Amerique^dialectics 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do me a user cheak to stop this rummer type sort thing I am not House MountCan (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling this one  Confirmed based on updated evidence; geolocation, checkuser evidence, and the stunning similarity to the already-blocked User:Salcan including IP range and various other technical details - Alison ^❤ 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alison. First admin to uphold the prior ban and indef MountCan gets a California barnstar from me! Amerique^dialectics 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Norman Francis

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for 4 days. 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on over at Norman Francis between two anons. One is adding unsourced personal opinion and the other is removing it, neither using edit summaries or discussing the changes on the Talk page, just reverting back and forth. I've issued a 3RR warning to both of them, and a BLP warning to the one inserting the personal opinion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 4 days. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day

I've been taking flack for blocking User:Frederick day as a sock of indef blocked User:Fredrick day then reverting all his edits as a banned user. The thing is, is he banned? I said yes considering the length of time since his block, the fact he's created socks to evade that block and no admin has so forward as being willing to unblock. Others may disagree though so I'd appreciate comments on whether or not he's banned. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone is free to revert my revert of any edits that are perceived constructive - you'll obviously take responsibility for the edit, but it's no big deal IMO. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor is banned, de facto, by virtue of being indefinitely blocked with no administrator willing to unblock. In the past, there has been dispute over whether a single admin was sufficient to reverse that presumption— but this does not appear to be the case for User:Fredrick day. As far as I'm concerned, this is a banned user and the block-revert of his sock is exactly correct. — Coren ^(talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the banning policy - a defacto ban ONLY exists as long as noone is willing to overturn - if soemone is, then the defacto ban cannot exist. A community ban needs consensus to be overturned, not a lone voice(just clearing things up for everyone). Viridae^Talk 06:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd keep his contributions reverted for now, as per WP:BAN. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the user being blocked, though I dunno about edit reversion or if he's formally banned. I mean, I certainly wouldn't unblock him, though it seems that this incarnation's edits weren't all bad. If there's support for a ban I'll add it in myself, though I'm looking through the edits now to see if there are any that are really needed to remain, but for now I'll hold off. Wizardman 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, revert any that you wish - you take responsibility for the edit, but if they're constructive, there's no problems at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of who was criticizing your action? It seems to be exactly appropriate and precisely following all guidelines on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one. I don't want to make a big deal about it, but finding someone reverting your talk page in order to remove an innocuous comment by another editor, without explanation, is rather disconcerting and looks like vandalism. If I hadn't gone looking for this report here I wouldn't have any idea what was going on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had posted, a short while ago, a notice here about Fredrick day. Frederick day helpfully moved it to an existing discussion (where he also acknowledged being Fredrick day), and where it may have been a bit buried.[34] I'll remember that trick if I ever need to cover something up. As to reverting all the edits as a banned user, my major complaint about that would be that Ryan's revert didn't state that as the basis, the one I saw. My guess is that most of those edits were basically good edits. I restored the one that I saw that Ryan had reverted. In my report here, I noted that he was not necessarily being disruptive (beyond the fact of block evasion), though he was certainly assertive -- which can be a problem dealing with new editors. He originally "sacrificed" this sock to point out to User:DGG about problems with what has now become Iraq War misappropriations. I did go ahead and complete some of the work he was doing on that article, I hope he finds it an improvement. I'd suggest to his friends -- or other editors -- that following after Special:Contributions/Frederick day or Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite and restoring the ones that are appropriate could be a good thing. Ryan is correct, though: you will be taking responsibility for them, as if they were your own. I'll restore ones that I happen to see. After checking. --Abd (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

before following up on his request at my talk page, I did check prior history--the name was so close that with my usual insensitivity to spelling I thought it was exactly the same & was puzzled to see it. (Abd helpfully reminded me to use caution, just in case I hadn't noticed.) That and a subsequent complaint were quite to the point. We seem to have a dichotomy between our insistence on removing work of indefinitely blocked editors and suggesting the pick a new user name and behave impeccably & nobody will notice. DGG (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was WTF time for me for a while, until I figured it must be a variant spelling.... There should be no insistence on removing the work of blocked editors, but it is generally legitimate to do so, that is, any editor who thinks it to be safer for the project to blanket revert. Anyone else can then review and restore what they are willing to take responsibility for. When I did this for another blocked editor, Fred called it something like meat puppetry, which, of course, it wasn't. Ironically, one of Fd's little pranks was, when he knew I was watching his IP edits, and reverting most of them, to sprinkle some traps in BLPs. It's actually the only time I've gotten a serious warning. I figured that if some bad text had stood for months in a BLP, it wouldn't hurt for it to stand for a day more. But, no, the sense at AN/BLP was that this was a terrible thing and that each edit should be checked before removal, and I got a personal autographed warning Stop Now, Do Not Pass Go from Newyorkbrad. (The BLPs that were involved were for porn stars, and the allegedly defamatory material that I restored was actually well-sourced and not controversial. But it looked bad, and Fd knew it. Since I didn't care to do the research to find the most sterling, reliable source, I just dropped it. Did I really care if an article on a porn star had all the facts? Or, for that matter, that each and every edit of Fd be removed? No to both questions.) I would not have advised removing all those edits.... but Ryan was free to do so. I think Fred was on good behavior. Nothing I've seen was clearly bad, or uncivil by Wikipedia standards, and, in fact, I've reverted back most of what I've seen. I even voted Delete in an AfD that Fred had voted in, reverted out. Yes, pigs can fly and hell sometimes freezes over, but it was really a quite bad article that Fred found. Look, my position is that we need all kinds of editors, and my big objection to Fred was the incivility and edit warring. If he could learn to cooperate consistently (it looks like he's capable of it), he'd be a valuable member of the community. He did some awful stuff. But we don't -- and shouldn't -- punish. Just protect. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you the leader of the brigade which had the User:Allemantando account indef blocked despite an evident change in attitude? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was someone who noticed that Allemantando was possibly Fredrick day within about two days of registration, was involved in nascent edit wars with him and saw the damage done, but didn't do anything serious for almost a month, even though I saw disruption early on. I arranged for a friend of his to try to restrain him, and it worked, a little. But when he pushed and baited and continued to make a huge fuss about the mere fact that his edits and behavior were visible, I finally filed an SSP report and RfCU. And I don't recall demanding he be blocked. The fact is that he bailed before the process was complete. If he had simply come clean, or, later, had been willing to negotiate terms of a return, he might be editing yet. As has been shown, he could still be editing if he simply were discreet about it.

The rest I pick such obvious names is because of the level of hypocrisy this project displays. Everytime, I get blocked, invariably I get an message off one administrator or another who basically says "just sock quietly and avoid the areas you edited before" (and half the time it's the same admin who are here saying 'block this disruptive editor'). I don't want to sock quietly - if I wanted to do that, I could and would be entirely undetectable by the community - CU is a fairly blunt tool that is easy to avoid. But I don't want to do that, I've never wanted to do that because it avoids community oversight on my action and past conduct. I'm not being blocked anymore as a preventative measure, my block is now a punishment block - none of my accounts (whatever claims are made here and people can check the logs) were blocked or warned (*never* warned) for their conduct or editing beyond that week of fuckwittery towards the end of my time as Fredrick day (which is what? five months ago?) they are simply blocked for being me. The last time I went looking for unblock a couple of weeks ago and was discussing it with a number of admins, by an *amazing* coincidence - some edits from an ISP (*not* an IP, an ISP - one that has ten million customers) that it's said I've used in the past were dragged up and that was used to kick me to the kerb once again. It's a neat trick because at one time, I used all of the five largest ISPs in the UK - so with @ 25 million customers - I can be kicked to the kerb forever at simply saying "there he is!". --87.113.75.200 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And he still doesn't understand. Yes, the current case of User:Frederick day is an example where an editor who was editing within norms was blocked because of prior activity. The problem is that when someone has been disruptive, again and again, we start to expect it even if they aren't being disruptive right now. This is not punishment, it's protective, even though in this particular case, there is little difference in the action between protection and punishment. By extensive, in-your-face, I-can-do-anything-I-want-and-you-can't-stop-me, yes, Fd has set up conditions where he probably cannot quietly edit unless he avoids any ... disruptive behavior. The problem, again, is that the difference between "disruption" and "strong editing" is not crisp, at all. The situation is really classic. Once an editor attracts sufficient negative attention to be blocked with a block that sticks, even if that editor returns and behaves in a manner that would normally hardly raise an eyebrow, those who oppose the editor's approach will scrutinize the behavior for flaws. Take a look at User:PHG. It's been quiet lately, no huge fuss seems to be current, but he's been blocked for *good* edits that allegedly violated an ArbComm restriction, when, on the face of it, they did not, and when that was pointed out, it was "wikilawyering."

But if we are concerned about justice, I'd suggest looking at how Fredrick day behaved with respect to the block of User:Sarsaparilla, who had done very, very little to deserve being blocked, who was blocked without warning for offenses that, again, would hardly raise an eyebrow. And who pursued his block-evading socks? Why, none other than our friend, Fredrick day. Sarsaparilla was creating excellent articles, making good edits, etc., and it was all being removed because he was a block evader. Where was Fredrick day then? If he's going to write about hypocrisy, perhaps he should look at what he could actually know directly, what is visible to him when he's not on the internet. It's a good place to start, actually.

He is almost certainly lying about the IP. But if not, remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? That coincidence won't continue to happen. It was not merely that the IP was from a major service provider (he's exaggerated the risk of that), it was the content and coincidence of articles of concern. Sure, there are lots of editors out there who might, say, vandalize a user page. How many vandalize my user page? Not very many. Take a look, they almost all came from his location. Is there something about me that enrages certain Brits? Very recently, there has been Fd-like behavior from the 87.112-87.115 range, edit warring with ... me. But the article is Routemaster. Did I try to get this IP blocked because it could be Fd? No. I asked for semiprotection. The IP is still welcome to contribute. With discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And Fredrick day is still welcome to return as an editor, if he will openly acknowledge what he did, all of it -- which allows for the possibility that he's not the only person in the world who might do something nasty -- and if he will then engage not to repeat the behavior, and accept a short leash for a while. That's all. It was offered before, and he simply bailed. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I still reckon that pursuing an unblock of the original account is better than trying to get back in via socks. From what I recall, several of the "the should never come back ever, socks are bad" comments came from users who have been happy to approve the overturning of permablocks on accounts for editors they like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's not going to happen - I've socked and therefore I must be *punished* regardless of what any of the accounts were actually doing. --87.113.75.200 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From as I see it, your block is preventative, because you are constantly making new names to draw attention to your self, which is disruptive. Hard work and remorse are a better way to win support than flouting rules and showing off while doing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I would urge Ryan to WP:IAR and stop unconditionally reverting FDay's changes. The reason we have the rule that contribs from banned editors can be removed is so that we don't have to vet every single change to see if it was in good faith or bad faith. Especially in the case of pov pushers or subtle vandals, that can be challenging.

But FDay's issue was never one of good faith or of constructive edits; it was one of civility and assertiveness. There is no reason to believe his contribs were in bad faith. If he made personal attacks that offended other people, the damage has already been done. I just don't see a purpose in reverting his changes, and so I would say WP:IAR and stop doing it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted him as a banned editor - they aren't allowed to edit, so we remove any edits that they do manage to make. I'll do that in the future as well - if someone wants to take responsibility of the edit, they are free to revert me back and take control of the edit - it's no big deal, but that's what we do with banned editors. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can understand that if a user is allowed to make socks to get around his block and continues to act disruptively, than you cannot use "IAR", because IAR is for the best of the encyclopedia, and allowing people to think that they can get away with such disruptive actions are not for the best. Also, by going around and making multiple socks and acting in the manner that he just did above as an IP (assuming that is he), then he has broken AGF by his own admission. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the relevant section of the policy only state that banned users' comments "may" be reverted, so you don't even need WP:IAR; the policy even goes out of its way to say that it isn't the case that helpful edits "must" be reverted. -- (nonadmin) _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

@Ottava: I'm not saying that FDay should be allowed back to the project just yet. Granted, I really wish he'd stop with the IP socking and such, because I thought as Allemandtando he was a very valuable and civil contributor -- but I absolutely agree we can't let people back under these conditions.

I'm just saying that wholesale reversion of all of his contribs is unnecessary and not beneficial to the project. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question On a related note, is anyone willing to unblock him? We certainly have a continuum of views about his reasons for socking to avoid the ban. but I view the creation of an account "frederick day" after "fredrick day" as an inartful unblock request. So does anyone want to step forward and unblock him? Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on ANI (somebody wanna dig it up?) about allowing Frederick to return from the desert and contribute to the community. While it is largely recognized that most of his contribs these days are positive and that he probably has a genuine desire to contribute in good faith, the consensus was that using socks and IP socks to demonstrate as such is inappropriate, and to unblock him would be to reward sockpuppetry, thereby screwing up any deterrence effect we have in regards to block-evading socks.

The preferred method to rejoin the community would be to quit it with the socks and contribute to a different Wikimedia project for a few months, to regain community trust. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as a non-admin), that that would be more helpful. la-wp could do with more helpers if he wants a suggestion. (you might learn something too!) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that an outcome like that is self enforcing and sclerotic. We shouldn't treat bans/indef blocks as broad philosophical stances. We should treat them as actions against editors for disrupting the community (or rather, to prevent future disruption to the community). this isn't a moot court, so specific case by case actions shouldn't impact future decisions about unrelated incidents. To be clear, I'm only responding to you because you are the messenger. I'm not assuming you share those feelings or that you should share in my distaste for that outcome. I'm not an admin (and if I were, I wouldn't unblock him because I'm 'involved'), but the community shouldn't be motivated to take a hard stance against 'issue X' in such a fashion. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Given his persistent socking, I've hardblocked his range 87.115.0.0/18 for a week. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that doesn't block me - so someone might want to want to look into that because it affects other editors rather than me. --87.114.36.65 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now are you blocked? MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Day, can you please stop? It is actions like this which causes a problem and harms the community. If you really want to edit and contribute to Wikipedia to make it better, why do you continue to act in this manner? Its harmful, causes problems, and increases tension. It is not really fair to a lot of the members of the community. If you would come back to merely apologize, that would be one thing. However, this seems rather harmful and distressing. I implore you, can you stop these actions? Sure, you may feel slighted. Sure, you may feel that some people contradict each other. But there are a lot of good people out there that are affected by the things you do. At least think of them. There will be range blocks to stop you, which will cause problems. There will be sock checks to find you, which will cause problems. Innocent people will probably be hindered. Why will this happen? Because of your insistence to act in a "rebellious" manner, and for what reason? What purpose do you really hope to get out of all of this? Attention? To upset things? If you merely want to be respected and have your posting privileges returned, then you need to realize the damages that come about from your actions and stop this. Give it some time. Get in contact with some of the blocking admin. Prove that you want to help, not hinder, and please stop going about this in the manner that you are doing now. It won't help. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's obvious opposition, he is officially banned as of now. Wizardman 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of a formal ban. Frederick day has been a disruptive user at times, has socked quite a bit, but they have quite a lot of constructive edits intermixed with them. I think they do have some intent of constructively editing to the project, but obviously, for now, he won't be unblocked. I'd suggested to him that he edits another project for a few months, to show that he can constructively edit Wikipedia, and then return here and seek a review of his indef block. I disagree with the upgrading of the indef block to a formal ban, and I'm probably standing alone here, but if that's the case, then so be it. I wanted to make my opposition known. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it steve - in many ways, I'm actually glad to see a bit of clarity - it beats what's go on behind the scenes for the last month "how long does blocked forever mean? FOREVER", "so should I just start a new account in secret ? NO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER", "couldn't we discuss some criteria for my return? NO BECAUSE YOU ARE BLOCKED FOREVER", "So I might as well just edit in secret ? NO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER AND A DAY". At least this way, my block will be shown for what it is - a ban. --85.214.34.238 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, Fredrick day is pretty much impossible to block, without advanced systems that we don't have in place. They could be put in place, but Wikipedia is almost paralyzed from my point of view. Whack it on the head and a finger twitches. Short of some major structural changes, in how we utilize our volunteer labor, I'll repeat it: it is impossible to block him. He has access to not just one IP network, but many, and easily. He's said that he can pick up a number of unsecured routers in his neighborhood (which is clearly densely populated). It's believable. In addition, he has one or more direct access providers, with one or more major ISPs. The range 87.112 - 87.115 is obviously one of them, I'd guess that he gets a new address in that range just by rebooting his modem. Then, should you block that entire range, he just picks up a neighbor's router. Or maybe he walks down the block to an internet cafe. Or maybe he drives around in his car. You can, with a lot of effort, and a fair amount of inconvenience to other users, make it slightly inconvenient for him. That's about it. I gave up a long time ago asking for IP blocks, even when his IP persists for a day. Oh, did I mention that he knows how to use proxies? Now, the real trick: if what he's stated in the past has been true (which must always be questioned with him), he has other accounts, so all this talk about registering a new account and editing quietly is ... rather silly. I suspect that he has specific IP *and computers* that he uses for these other accounts. In other words, the only way to even get close to identifying him would be behaviorally. And he's careful. He changes his behavior. Now, from various clues, I have come to suspect certain users. And I am not going to reveal who they are, unless I find I could actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and even then I might not reveal it. Why? Because punishing Fredrick day has never been my motive.

If he's got an account that is not disruptive, I wouldn't go after it, generally. I didn't act quickly on Frederick day (the new spelling), thought about it for a day, and then did file a report. After others had already acted, apparently. I filed a report, months ago, on another suspected sock -- the only one that didn't result in a clear identification -- based on an IP "accident" and some behavioral evidence. It came back "possible." Perhaps because of the IP. Partly because there is a good chance the editor is not Fd, but mainly because the editor wasn't disruptive, I dropped it. Again, assuming it wasn't him, that is part of the damage from extensive socking. It creates suspicion. Fredrick day is claiming that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't -- so he might as well do it. But that is a very old and very dangerous argument, and it shows, unfortunately, that the welfare of the project isn't first on his mind. His own opinions are first, his own unrestricted freedom of action comes first. So, he will continue to remain blocked, I'll predict, at least for the time being. With the accounts that, as he has said many times, he "wants us to see." The others, he continues to do what he wants, and he's careful to keep them partitioned.

Fredrick day showed, in his actions as Fd and as Allemandtando, a certain kind of poisonous attitude. When I came to suspect other editors, I saw that same poisonous attitude, only restrained, only expressed when the editor felt safe. Are they Fredrick day? That certainly doesn't prove it. There is plenty of poison to go around, and if Fd's computers were to melt down and he became indisposed, Wikipedia would still have to deal with massive incivility and factional division. He isn't the cause, and so I don't consider "getting rid of him" to be the solution. I'd rather try to find a way to include him. But that won't happen until he also recognizes what I've been saying. It's not personal.

As to deleting his contributions, the bottom line is that any editor may do it. I don't recommend it, but, on the other hand, in reviewing some of the User:Frederick day edits, there is a certain edge to them. He was correct, generally, that is, I haven't seen any edits that would, properly, even result in a warning. However, a very experienced user popping into obscure articles that are being edited by the clueless, who doesn't take them by the hand, welcoming them and guiding them through our sometimes arcane process, but figuratively bonks them over the head with Wikipedia rules, this does some damage. So there is some value in reverting him; on the other hand, it can raise false hopes for the clueless. Whew! -- they think -- dodged that bullet! And then comes the AfD and it snows Delete. I found it a rewarding exercise to follow Frederick's edits in detail and to restore some and to deal differently with others. He was always "right," so far, but his actions weren't always the best that could be done, because of that missing welcoming element. Bottom line: there is no policy requiring his edits to be reverted, nor those of any blocked editor. But any editor may revert on sight, without harm, except for the BLP problem I mentioned above. And if someone doesn't like it, they can revert them back, thus taking responsibility for them. If his friends care about his contributions, they are perfectly welcome to take up what I've done to a small degree: review all his edits and restore the ones where reversion was a loss. And then, if someone doesn't like that restoration, they have someone to complain to, a responsible party. --Abd (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Abd, I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but I think it might be a good idea to let someone else "look after" User:Fredrick day, as it could be interpreted that your disagreements with him are turning into a personal vendetta. I first encountered him while opposing one of his deletion nominations, and since then it seems like you have appeared everywhere he goes. I obviously don't know what is going on in any other person's head, but it seems like someone could easily get the wrong idea. There are a few responsible and incisive administrators in the above thread who are looking at this, so it's safe enough to leave it for others. Now I'm off to take my own advice and edit an article that needs quite a bit of work! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, Grey Knight. One question, though. What "disagreement?" The last few days, yes, I have appeared in many places he went (as User:Frederick day. Restoring his contributions, more often than not, or in some way trying to make up for them being more or less automatically reverted. "Vendetta?" Strange vendetta, I'd say. As to "incisive admins," yes, some are involved. And I've gotten appreciative email from more than a few. So.... what? --Abd (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over tooth advice on the Ref Desk

There's a bit of an edit war brewing over a question that (I believe) seeks medical advice over on the Science Reference Desk. The original poster sought to know whether the appearance of a new tooth in his pregnant wife's mouth was related to her pregnancy.

The established practice at the Ref Desks in response to a question seeking medical advice is to remove the question and replace it with boilerplate text (Template:Rd-deleted), along with – where reasonable – a more detailed or personalized explanation of why the question was removed and couldn't be answered. The relevant guidelines are at

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice

I've been going back and forth with StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over whether or not this question seeks medical advice (within the definitions provided by our guidelines) and brought the matter here rather than get sucked into further edit warring with StuRat. Apparently, the matter was too urgent and important to discuss at the Ref Desk talk page prior to engaging in edit warring.

I admit that the tipping point for my decision to remove the thread was when StuRat offered his armchair diagnosis ("coincidental natural eruption of a wisdom tooth") and prognosis (normal part of human growth") to a pregnant woman.

Ref Desk posts:

• Removed by TenOfAllTrades (and replaced with boilerplate): [35]
• Restored by StuRat: [36]
• Removed again: [37]
• Restored again by StuRat: [38]

Discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Tooth advice
• User talk:StuRat#RD diagnoses

I leave the matter in cooler, more capable hands than mine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to remove it, certainly a great deal of the replies seemed to take it as a request and they sure jumped in to help diagnose. that's a bad idea, and your removal the right solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be extracted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ba-DUM-bum. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke. It's fair to say that anyone who comes to a "website that anyone can edit" seeking medical advice might want to first make sure their life insurance is up to date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop that. We don't give professional financial advice either. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall us giving professional anything advice, come to think of it. The key here is that the question wasn't "What's the deal with new teeth during pregnancy", which would invite a general answer, but "What's the deal with this particular tooth in this particular person's mouth during this particular pregnancy", which invites a specific diagnosis of a specific situation. Good removal. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an informative note: the question's original poster has commented on the meta-discussion and clarified his intent: diff --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At two different talk pages, it is said that I opined to keep the question. Wanted to answer at this all-in-one gathering that I consistently favored to remove the question, and I thanked Ten_of_trades for his going beyond the call of duty for explaining to me personally the exact policy which he followed, and I find no fault whatsoever. I only criticize the exorbitance of creating a discussion about a discussion about a question. I summed it up already through an analogy Sentriclecub (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bureaucratic cousin to the concept of a pre-meeting meeting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock report with broader issues at hand

I would like to try to get some Admin input to this sock report sooner rather than later. I have outlined my position and concerns there.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lynch2000s

Lynch2000s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I'm not sure where to report this, so I'll post here. This isn't really serious, but the user keeps adding unnesecary piping (|) to links and italisizing where it isn't nessecary. The user has already been told not to do so, three times, and likely has stopped, but there remains about three dozen articles in which this is still present. I'm reluctant to use any rollback, because this might be good-faith, but undoing takes an hour. Please advise, and try to help out if you can. I have already told the user this absolutely isn't nessecary, except when italisizing publication titles, etc. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the user's edits are OK, the user appears to be a sockpuppet of Lynch1000s (talk · contribs). Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also of note, dozens of overwikification edits have been reverted after posting the first request to refraim from doing so see the users talk page User talk:Lynch2000s - most of the reverted edits have not been listed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked Lynch2000s indefinitely for block evasion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is acceptable as long as you clearly explain any non-obvious reason for reverting. — CharlotteWebb 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the block of the sockpuppeter be restarted (Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy)? Ian¹³/t 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Wilhelmina Will's no holds barred DYK race -- I propose a temporary ban for her

User:Wilhelmina Will has resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries,[39][40] for which she has been warned on her talk page, and to reverting substantive edits in articles in order to obtain the correct number of words for DYK.

Apparently she feels so secure in doing this that she is willing to admit that is her sole purpose for reverting.[41][42] I posted before on AN/I about her plagiarizing articles, and talked to her about it, but she did not respond other than to warn me away from her and admit she didn't understand what she had copied.[43]

This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace).

Based on this I have asked that the Mesodermochelys article be removed from candidates for DYK.[44]

She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

Is this what Wikipedia should be featuring on its main page? I don't think so. I think the main page needs a break from Wilhelminia. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the DYK criteria are much stricter than the criteria for inclusion, an editor whose entire purpose is to create articles for DYK and rack up "medals" wouldn't seem to be bad on face. I can't speak to the specific problems this editor is generating but the underlying act should not be suspect in any way. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Willing to edit war, revert edits that increased accuracy and clarity in order to have the right number of words, and calling another editor "revolting" are fine by you if used for DYK, then? Ugh. --Blechnic (talk)

(ec) Oh please, Protonk, you seriously think that adding pointless verbiage to an article just to jack up its word count for DYK (which she admits doing - follow Blechnic's links) is serious, useful, appropriate editing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know anything about the specific actions the editor in question has done. I'm just contending the general premise of this statement "This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace)...She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award." Protonk (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

She certainly did edit war for the purpose of the number of words for DYK: "My reason is to keep the main body of this article above 1500 bytes. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

then the problem is the edit warring, not the motivation. the solution (DYK topic ban) is a unique and probably helpful one. I'm just defending the notion that an editor may edit to only contribute to DYK. If we had a (hypothetical) editor that did so without introducing factual innacuriacies, without edit warring and without plagarising, we would lavish them with praise. the underlying motive isn't the problem here, though it is probably key to the solution. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps something like a topic ban? No further DYK submissions from Wilhelmina until the community decides to lift the ban? If that's all she's here for, she's not doing the encyclopedia any favors. (Disclaimer: I have not evaluated Blechnic's post on the merits, but if his factual claims are accurate - which I have no reason to doubt - some kind of a circuit breaker ought to be tripped) (Another disclaimer:I am not an admin) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I suggest, no DYK submissions or credits for Wilhelmina. I'm more concerned now, after working on this latest article, about her accuracy. She clearly does not understand extinct organisms--what she is currently writing about. --Blechnic (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps the stated DYK criteria are stricter than the criteria for inclusion, but in practice, an editor can plagiarize an article from another source and have it included in DYK--then we have a big fat copyvio linked from the main page. Wilhelmina Will's behavior is sufficiently problematic that I think she (?) should be given a temporary time-out from DYK--there are credible concerns of plagiarism, and the personal attacks aren't helping. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame - there are oodles of straightforward stubs (especially in geography and botnay) just itching to be expanded out there without having to get mired in technical detail. I note Fritzpoll has offered to mentor, which may be constructive (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any kind of ban is the answer. Wilhelmina, though a little unorthodox, is a quality contributor; we should not be persecuting her for adding new content. Further, I see little difference in the diffs you've presented, Blechnic; there is no need to go searching for a conflict merely because you dislike a user. I see no inherent problem with trying to get a lot of DYK medals; the end result is lots of high-quality articles for the project. GlassCobra 05:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dislike or like her. Her contributions are not quality, most I've seen are copyvios or wrong. Her science is really bad. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was no reason to revert just to get the article up to the correct size. More can be added to the article, if that's the only DYK concern. The personal attacks while reverting to the ever-so-slightly longer version are problematic. Not to mention the factual accuracy of DYKs "extended" in this manner. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra, follow Blechnic's links, look at her edit summaries and talk page comments. Wilhelmina clearly admits that she's making changes for the sole purpose of jacking up the article's word count just to fulfill her "dream of having made 5000 DYK articles". That is just not on. A DYK ban is the least disruptive way of dealing with this. She could still edit the rest of the encyclopedia to her heart's content, but her incentive to commit copyvio's and insert useless verbiage would be gone. And the ban could be lifted as soon as she sees the light about her conduct. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the history of Mesodermochelys, I agree that there are problems with Wilhelmina Will's conduct. But can someone point me to a diff illustrating the copyvio/plagiarism issues that people are talking about above?  Sandstein  05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was another AN/I, not this one. She copied a few phrases for this that should be, in my opinion, in quotes, but the article has mostly been entirely rewritten at this stage. I'll see if I can find a link to the other AN/I.--Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to at least most of the discussion.[45] I think her latest response to this AN/I thread[46] will pretty much say it all, along with her calling me a "revolting" editor in her edit summaries while reverting substantive edits to keep the number of words high enough for DYK. She didn't respond to the first AN/I, and her initial response to me expressing concern about her copyvios, as I noted above, was to warn me to never "cross paths with her again."[47] --Blechnic (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start a tally, then:

• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Until editor gets her act together and accuracy is part of it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Based not only on the attacks in the edit summaries, but even moreso the reversions to simply keep it at the right technical length (versus actually improving the article), I support a decent-length topic ban from DYK for WW. S. Dean Jameson 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per Dean Jameson's reasons (personal attacks in edit summaries, accuracy issues, edit wars based on article length for DYK), I think I'd also support a temporary DYK ban for WW. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina until she clearly starts producing accurate quality articles and shows more civility. (I also think that DYK encourages this sort of thing, earlier this year I found and dealt with multiple issues of copyvio from an editor collecting DYKs). Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Mesodermochelys isn't the only palaeo article created by her that has been a problem. I've made to make major changes to Mystriosuchus and Corsochelys to make them in anyway accurate. In addition, many of the palaeo articles created by her lack any information altogether (see her sea turtle creations). She seems to be trying to increase the number of articles out of the article request process, which is commendable; however all her palaeo article either are lacking in information or have serious accuracy issues and some copyvios. Mark t young (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here, it seems to be you, Blechnic. Just stop it, okay? Sceptre ^(talk) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, it seems that Wilhelmina Will may have been brought up on AN/I more than the twice I brought her up ("everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here" implies a larger number than two including this one). However, I did not bring her up these other times she was brought up here at AN/I. --Blechnic (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think Blechnic deserves great credit for persistence in refusing to let an unpleasant problem be swept under the carpet. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with JohnCD.ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the short term per Mark T. Young, taking his owrd (and others) on copyvios and inaccurate material. I wonder if the situation could be saved by close monitoring and am opne to the idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support both a DYK ban and a possible overall short term block. As someone who has a few DYKs under the belt, her actions to attempt to rack up more is not only insulting to other DYK editors, but shows a complete lack of full respect for the rules regarding a DYK. In the last AN/I thread, I was ready to give Wilhelmina the benefit of the doubt, but the continuing on going problems and her responses to these issues make me feel that something more needs to be done here. I was suprised the last thread did not result in a block as she seemed to be ignoring all comments and the offer of mentoring to help correct a major issue with the use of copyrighted material, posting of blatantly false information, and the use of herself as a source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, both a DYK ban, for a couple of months, and a short block for civility violations. Editing Wikipedia should be about improving the encyclopedia, not collecting awards. When someone edits an article with an edit summary indicating that the goal of the edit is simply to increase the word count to the DYK minimum rather than to improve content, this clearly demonstrates problematic and unproductive attitude both to DYK and to Wikipedia in general. Also, the edit summaries in the first two diffs provided by Blechnic are really unacceptable. There is no excuse for deliberately insulting other editors and the fact that the sole purpuse of WW's edits, according to those edit summaries, was to insult Blechnic, makes it even worse. I would think that a short civility block for WW is warranted just for that. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban as proposed, plus mentoring/adoption if anyone is willing - I seem to remember that someone offered, but I can no longer find that on her talk page. We need to find out whether this editor's undoubted energy and enthusiasm can be channelled towards helping to build an accurate encyclopedia, rather than accumulating number-of-articles-created points and DYK credits. (In view of the amount of trouble it seems to be causing, I wonder whether the whole DYK system is maybe more of a hindrance than a help to WP?) JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support; DYK are not an ends, and savaging articles to make them qualify, quality be damned, is not acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support civility block, not just topic ban. This bald-faced lie in regards to the personal attack diffs provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this comment not directly related to the topic ban

It is incivil to accuse others of lying. Blechnic's diff's prove that there was a "code" used. However, unless you can prove what that code means, which is impossible, then you are being incivil. I recommend that you strike your inappropriate accusations now. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC) "5o 7h8t 1 d0n'7 5e3 th3 n8m3 of 7h87 r3v0l7ing 3d1t0r" is hardly a code. it's Leetspeak. 5 = s 7=t 8=a 0=o. Claiming it's not obvious what she's saying is facetious at best. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC) And where is the target mentioned in your "translation"? For something to be a personal attack, there needs to be a person. So far, all you have done is prove that Jaysweet has acted incivil by calling someone a liar. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The target (as mentioned in the above discussion) was User:Blechnic. She made the somewhat obvious personal attack three times whilst editing Mesodermochelys (see [48] from between 22.53 yesterday to 00.04 today). Mark t young (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that is something that is impossible to prove, as "Blechnic" does not appear, and any claim otherwise is a clear contradiction to what was provided. Now, could you please stop attempting to rationalize a clearly incivil accusation as made above, which only provides support that people are here not because they are in the interest of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The fact that she tried to claim that the phrase (whether or not it was a personal attack directed at Blechnic - as it seems to be, since she's using it when undoing his edit) was some reminder to herself justifies Jay's comment. –xeno (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, what you don't understand is the difference between "lying" and "mistaking". Calling someone a liar is incivil. Claiming that they were personally attacking someone, i.e. "provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community", and their claim that they wont is a lie has nothing to do with what you stated above. This is about her supposed "lying" about attacking Blechnic. This cannot be proven. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC) No, she lied. She claimed it was her own personal code, when it's been proven beyond any doubt that it was Leetspeak. S. Dean Jameson 18:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC) To spell it out, for anyone who hasn't looked up the references: the message was "5o 7h8t 1 d0n'7 5e3 th3 n8m3 of 7h87 r3v0l7ing 3d1t0r", repeated three times in edit summaries, each time immediately following an edit by Blechnic. That is easily read as Leetspeak for "So that I don't see the name of that revolting editor". Wilhelmina claimed it was code for "Reminder: Work on Jamie Howarth's page today." That's the entirely reasonable basis for the accusation of a "bald-faced lie". JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC) No, thats clearly a misrepresentation. She claimed she wasn't attack Blechnic. The previous person said that she was. I pointed out that there is no clear object, and the use of "liar" is a clear violation of Civil: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel." Calling people a liar is not allowable on Wikipedia. It is severely incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The lie was in her trying to claim that the edit summary wasn't an attack on an editor. Whether or not it was an attack on Blechnic is, quite frankly, a red herring. Someone ought collapse this entire argument as such. –xeno (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with collapsing this. It's turning into a theatre of the absurd. Ottava Rima's accusations have spilled over onto several talkpages, and now Ottava Rima has reported me to some etiquette noticeboard for supposed incivility in calling him/her on her baseless accusations. Collapsing this is probably the best idea. S. Dean Jameson 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK topic ban and civility block. Plagarism is unacceptable, as are personal attacks. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• SupportDYK Topic Ban and Civility Block, and civility and plagarism probations. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support If Blechnic, in return, is warned over lack of AGF ("This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals") and told to stop making personal attacks ("The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately."). These actions are not beneficial to an encyclopedia, and instead harmful. These actions are escalating actions and result in further problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those don't look like personal attacks to me, but straightforward reporting of the user's behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Corvus, you cannot have a more clearer situation of a personal attack than saying someone lacks the ability to read accurately. That is clearly an attack on their person. Remember, NPA states at the top: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This was a clear breach. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair OR, that is an oversimplification of what Blechnic said - assuming good faith, we can assume that Blechnic was not saying she couldn't read, but couldn't understand the technical details of scientific journals. Not an uncommon problem, even for researchers in the field! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If I oversimplified "inability to read", then I apologize. However, the language seems to be inappropriate, and this could have been solved by a simple redaction to say there have been problems resulting from her edits that remove the scientific accuracy, instead of blaming her "ability" as the root cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While there may be a case for warning Blechnic, I fail to see why the decision about Wilhelmina Will should be conditioned on some warning to Blechnic. —SlamDiego_←T 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Because Wikipedia is about preventative, not punitive, and personal attacks cause discontent between users, which will spiral the problem further out of control. The response to incivility is not to be incivil. We need to state the facts of the case, not discuss the attributes of others, and be as objective as possible. Otherwise, problems escalate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing against a warning for Blechnic. (I have not formed an opinion on that.) I'm asking for why the response to Wilhelmina Will should be conditioned on warning Blechnic. If we simply couldn't communicate with Blechnic (and thus could not make a warning), should we let Wilhelmina Will continue? —SlamDiego_←T 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. It just seems like the situation happens around those two interacting, so the solution would have to be based on their mutual interactions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose any sanctions against Blechnic. That Ottava Rima is agitating so loudly in Wilhelmina WIll's favor, to the point of now creating two separate disruptive off-topic threads is absurd, and I ask that she be warned by an admin, and any further distracting sub-threads be 'rewarded' with a block for disruption of an AN/I thread. It's clear that Ottava is willing to risk his/her reputation, such as it is, to save WW, which is not going to work. As such, the warning would not only be to keep this AN/I focused but to prevent OR from his/her own worst impulses. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx, your comments show short sighteness when it comes to fixing the topic, and ignore the fact that I've dealt with mediation between users quite often, have an extensive background in the DYK topic area, and that I already recommended WW be prevented in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK ban until she gives reason to believe that she will adhere to the spirit of DYK when submitting. That would mean no copyvios (taking Mark T Young's word, which I have found to be reliable in the past) and meeting the minimum DYK requirements legitimately, withiut playing games. I can understand the frustration of falling a few words short and thus rewording things to use a few extra characters and being reverted, but there should be a better way to extend an article that needs extention. Rlendog (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off track with all the arguing. There is clear consensus for a preventative DYK ban. However, we need something constructive to assist her with editing articles based upon academic citations. Can I suggest that mentoring is a condition of her DYK ban being recended? Mark t young (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be absolutely necessary. I have already made an attempt to talk to her. Based on her response, we will find out if such a thing is possible on her end. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note - this was posted and there appears to be two DYK regulars who suggest opposes to the above in some form or the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The only two "suggested opposes" at DYK are me and Bedford, who raised an alternative to a ban that I agreed to support should WW follow up on it. I will always support anything short of a ban, particularly if the user facing the ban shows an inclination towards working for an alternative solution. That seems pretty straight-forward. However, Will has not shown any inclination to anything but continuing to created bad and wrong articles and edit according to her personal desires rather than accuracy.
  • Also DYK users have a link to this discussion and explicit notice of the nature of this discussion should they choose to come here and participate. It is not necessary for anyone to suggest their voices. Did you post a note at Bedford's talk page to let him know you were speaking here for him here at AN/I, thouhg? Thank you, also, Ottava Rima, for speaking for me, but I have clearly spoken for myself above. Please do not speak for me. --Blechnic (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • PS I did let User:Bedford know that you spoke for him here, as you have not notified him, according to your user talk contributions history.[49] --Blechnic (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The only two "suggested opposes" at DYK are me and Bedford" it sure seems like you were opposed in your excessive pursual of this and the extreme lengths you are taking: "I think it is a little excessive. I suggest possibly cooling down a bit. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)". So far, there have been quite a few people questioning your eagerness. Now, you definitely aren't helping your case by acting condescending. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic is acting "condescending"? I have to say, tu quoque... S. Dean Jameson 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that she could no longer self-nom until five of her articles were nominated by others,and later placed on the front page. ANI has proven unreliable, and instead of a mass lynching, it is best if those most knowledgeable about DYK practices meet out a reasonable and fair punishment that does not discourage creativity, but does encourage competent prose.--Bedford ^Pray 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN doesn't just apply to articles, you know -- or are you suggesting that "outsiders" are incapable of making judgments based on the available evidence? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominations are not limited to regulars in DYK, anyone can nominate. It was my suggestion, originally, that editors at DYK also discuss a solution, simply because editors at DYK and editors monitoring DYK are the DYK community. There is no door keeping anyone else out, though. The post is linked above, feel free to drop by and contribute to a solution if you like. --Blechnic (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from DYK for a little while. Right now the concerns of plagiarism and the associated drama have reached the point where her continued participation at DYK is harmful. Vickser (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jablonski

Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I removed two items from this disambiguation page because they linked to articles that had been deleted for notability reasons. They keep getting re-added by various anonymous IP's, several of which have been blocked immediately thereafter as open proxies. One of these entries is about a computer programmer. Hmm.... I suspect socks. And last night a new anon IP vandalized my user page. So what can be done about this? These "editors" will not respond to my attempts to communicate. I'm bumping up on WP:3RR, so I'm bowing out of the edit war, but I think this page may need semi-protection and these IP's may need to be blocked. At the very least this page needs more eyes patrolling it, as we're either dealing with a sophisticated sock puppeteer or a bunch of meat puppets.

• 163.139.53.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - single edit "account", vandalism to my user page.
• 193.146.209.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - two edit "account", revert of 5th removal (my 3rd revert) and 6th removal by User:Duffbeerforme
• 80.191.160.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - single edit "account", revert of 4th removal by User:Caiaffa, now blocked as an open proxy.
• 72.52.220.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - two edit "account", both reverts of my 2nd and 3rd removal, now blocked as an open proxy.
• 72.148.164.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - four edit "account", revert of my 1st removal, vandalism to Arab, and a self-reverted vandalism to Nuthatch.

Steve Carlson^Talk 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR. The additions are in clear violation of the disambiguation page manual of style. swaq 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and fixing it for a 7th time. My interpretation of WP:VANDAL and WP:3RR is that this behavior is tendentious editing, but assuming good faith, not necessarily vandalism. Am I understanding that wrong? Steve Carlson^Talk 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article for a few days. Hopefully our IP-hopping friend will get bored and move on to something more productive. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that will help. I will keep an eye on the article after next week and re-report it here if it continues. Bracing for another personal attack on my user/talk page.... Steve Carlson^Talk 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. In this case with the obvious block avoidance I find it hard to assume good faith. swaq 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now this person has actually created an account, Billthebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has started making disruptive edits to other Jablonski-related articles:

• Jablonski diagram
• Jablonski by Pahls v. United States

Steve Carlson^Talk 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Billthebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked, but the assaults on my user page continue via an anon IP 203.162.3.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think my user page (and preemptively my talk page) needs temporary semi-protection. Steve Carlson^Talk 02:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now semi-protected my user page, so the vandalism there has stopped for the moment, so the focus has returned to anon-IP vandalization of Jablonski diagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now semi-protected) and most recently Wanda Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I think all articles linked from Jablonski are potentially at risk. Steve Carlson^Talk 04:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And now more vandalism to Wanda Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Bobthebill. I waited a long time before doing this one and it was reverted almost immediately. I am beginning to think that there really might be something behind this WikiAIBot thing he was bragging about. Wonder how long it will take this one to come after my user page? Steve Carlson^Talk 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)