Delicious carbuncle (talk | contribs) →Unbanned user's ISP contacted by an admin with claims of "libel": I'm not here to create drama or respond to trolling |
→User DystopiaSticker - attack/POV only account: new section |
||
Line 935: | Line 935: | ||
* {{userlinks|Nick1444}} |
* {{userlinks|Nick1444}} |
||
Nick1444 continually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Nick1444&namespace=6&year=&month=-1 uploads] images with proper licensing and fair use rationales despite a [[User talk:Nick1444#Final warning on uploading images|final warning]]. [[User:DiverseMentality|<font color="D24A4A">'''Diverse'''</font>]][[User talk:DiverseMentality|<font color="9F1616">'''Mentality'''</font>]] 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Nick1444 continually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Nick1444&namespace=6&year=&month=-1 uploads] images with proper licensing and fair use rationales despite a [[User talk:Nick1444#Final warning on uploading images|final warning]]. [[User:DiverseMentality|<font color="D24A4A">'''Diverse'''</font>]][[User talk:DiverseMentality|<font color="9F1616">'''Mentality'''</font>]] 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== User DystopiaSticker - attack/POV only account == |
|||
*{{user|DystopiaSticker}} |
|||
Obvious POV warrior who appeared on Wikipedia only to stoke the Coulter fire has now resorted to shameless [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&diff=prev&oldid=278465815 personal attacks]. Given zero constructive contributions and a slew of warnings in the past (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DystopiaSticker&oldid=276490098 this version] of his talk page, before he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DystopiaSticker&diff=prev&oldid=277319410 blanked] it), I don't think this one is here to do anything but cause disruption. Thanks in advance! //[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>( [[User Talk:Blaxthos|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Blaxthos|c]] )</small> 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:11, 20 March 2009
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Stevertigo/Obama topic ban
Shatt al-Arab again
I'm currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The issue is our usual brand of toponymical irredentism (in this particular case, Iranian).
I'm edit-warring instead of limiting myself to discussing calmly in the article's talk page because in this particular article the latter option has proven time and again to be utterly pointless (see the archives): these people simply refuse to follow our naming conventions, instead using Wikipedia as a venue to promote their preferred terminology.
My talk page attempts to explain our naming conventions are characterized as "unfounded, and contrived, arguments", and not even read anyway.
The relevant sections of the article's talk page are:
And I'm edit-warring at 1975 Algiers Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too.
The relevant talk page section is: Arvand.
Anyone bored enough to take a look at this depressing issue ? Best, Ev (talk) 16:38, 16 March – 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking at it now. Do not continue edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. This issue looks to be a bit of a doozy. I have protected the page for the time being on the most recent version. This is in no way an endorsement of the current version. It looks like this has been going on for several years, and at least one effort at mediation was closed before running its course. Given that there appear to be legitimate gripes AND nationalism driving this, I would strongly encourage opening a case at RfAr and trying to get some kind of closure on the matter. There is certainly a fair amount of room to address the actions of many editors involved, but I think this will just keep going around in circles without some definitive statement to fall back on. I'm open to other ideas, but given the number of years this has gone on, it looks like RfAr is overdue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of how much an arbitration could help here, at least at present. Although the issue itself won't go away anytime soon, the Iranian editors demanding the use of the Farsi name instead of -or at least alongside- the standard English usage are always new people. Neither BF (he asked to be addressed so) nor User:Nepaheshgar became involved until 13 March 2009 (four days ago). So, I'm afraid the issue could be easily dismissed as premature, or even considered a content dispute.
- Probably the best option involving the Arbitration Committee would be to make them aware of the situation and then wait for the current West Bank - Judea and Samaria case to run its course and see if the issue is handled there (if, because the cases are not exactly equivalent: for the averange anglophone Arvand Rud doesn't have the subjective connotations that Judea and Samaria do; it's just that it's not the common, standard name of the waterway).
- But in essence it's a really simple issue: whether the article should be written using the most easily recognized name, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (along the spirit of our naming conventions policy), or whether it should take into account the grievances of Iranian nationalists who dislike/dismiss our current naming conventions (and common English usage itself).
- I think we can handle this without arbitration, by simply blocking the editors for disruption (i.e. persistently violating our policies and guidelines; in this case, our naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names). Previous warning, of course. We shouldn't allow so much liberty of action for the introduction of nationalist grievances in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I agree blocks would be appropriate here. BF's brazen-faced display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [4], from the cover of his friends' tag-team revert warring, is far beyond the line of any legitimate content dispute. This is willful ignoring of policy, it is a behaviour issue, it is disruptive, and as such blockable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I've given BF a short warning block (24h), since he inexplicably resumed revert-warring on the 1975 Algiers Agreement article, after failing for several days to address the challenge (which was pointed out to him even by other editors who were generally on his side) that the text verbatim quoted on that very page doesn't support the claim he is making. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. I've changed the protection level to semi from full. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time, Fut.Perf. & Hiberniantears; I hope that this will put and end to the disruption. I could have issue the warnings & possible blocks myself, without posting here & taking time from other administrators; but I feared that ensuing complaints of "conflict of interest" & "involved administrator threatening/issuing blocks" would drain even more contributors' time than what your actions have required.
- Just so that you know, having now taken the time to check the treaty's text (United Nations Treaty Collection: Treaty Series, Vol. 1017, No. 14903, pages 54 to 213 – see details) I found the following:
- The treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation (signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975) uses the name Shatt al-Arab (or equivalents), as do various of the accompanying documents.
- The accompanying joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in the Wikipedia article, mentions "river frontiers or boundaries", without actually naming the waterway.
- The name Arvand is absent from all documents.
- These edits verge on outright vandalism. Details at Talk:1975 Algiers Agreement#Arvand. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, an RfA is going to have no more effect than any other previous effort since we cannot here cure the hostility between Persian and Arab cultures. To see the Farsi name Arvand Rud not equally or preferentially displayed with respect to Shatt al-Arab is an insult to Persian nationalistic pride – notwithstanding the clear fact that, through accident of history, the latter has become the name universally used in the English-speaking world, and the former all but unknown. The naming issue has been shown multiple times to be moot with respect to WP policies and guidelines (for example, see Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Policies vs. polls), but since these don’t provide the “proper” result, I’m afraid there’s not going to be an end to this. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there can be an end to it if we finally resolve to enforce our policies. Block them. Anybody who lets their "nationalistic pride" influence their editing shouldn't be here in the first place. Don't wait till they break 3RR. Don't wait till they make personal attacks. Block them for deliberate editing against policy and failure to work towards NPOV, which constitutes ipso facto blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, an RfA is going to have no more effect than any other previous effort since we cannot here cure the hostility between Persian and Arab cultures. To see the Farsi name Arvand Rud not equally or preferentially displayed with respect to Shatt al-Arab is an insult to Persian nationalistic pride – notwithstanding the clear fact that, through accident of history, the latter has become the name universally used in the English-speaking world, and the former all but unknown. The naming issue has been shown multiple times to be moot with respect to WP policies and guidelines (for example, see Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Policies vs. polls), but since these don’t provide the “proper” result, I’m afraid there’s not going to be an end to this. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I get the feeling that no matter how rigorously the policies are enforced, this particular area of irritation won't go away, or even subside. The hatreds are too ingrained, and Wiki too accessable. I'm all for moving every article remotely associated with the topic to a seperate Wiki, and leaving them to their own devices. Not really feasible, but a guy can dream. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Viktor van Niekerk
I'm involved in a long-running dispute with User:Viktor van Niekerk regarding his ownership of the ten-string guitar article.
This was previously a soapbox of Viktor's, which he defended by personal attacks on anyone who tried to fix it. This went on for more than a year in fact, during which time a number of other editors just gave up. If newbies, typically they just left.
I have managed to make some progress, largely owing to a block another admin put on Viktor for incivility. However he is now back and has commenced a program of harassment in order to get his soapbox back. He is particularly aware of its high Google rating when compared to his own personal websites on the subject.
See my talk page, particularly User talk:Andrewa#General reply and User talk:Andrewa#Personal attacks, and some recent diffs from Viktor: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] .
I fear that this will just escallate until Viktor is eventually banned. Any help greatly appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you haven't even used your admin powers since February, let alone "abused" them. (This information you dug up should be useful in solving the content dispute.) I see no personal attacks, personal vendettas, or whatever else Viktor alleges, as in this thread title: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Objective_Expert_musician_needed_to_resolve:_Editor_abusing_his_admin_status_in_personal_vendetta.2C_supporting_misinformation. Viktor, if you are reading this, and I presume you are: please back off on the accusations, assume good faith, have a look at our conflict of interest and no original research policies. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just seconding what Antandrus says. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't abused them, and Viktor knows I haven't. See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for his first attempt, and note that it was resolved to this effect on 4 March 2009. The other diffs I give above include several subsequent repeats of the same allegations, and surely this counts as both harassment and disruption. He has also posted similar material elsewhere on the web, naming both me and Wikipedia, see for example this post to the 10 String Guitar Yahoo! group.
- Viktor has been active on Wikipedia since 31 January 2007. He is intelligent and determined, and able to quote policy when it suits him, but shows no willingness to acknowledge it at any other time.
- I think we need to resolve the behaviour issue before it will be possible to properly address the content issues. Viktor is bold now in his harassment because sadly, similar tactics have always worked for him in the past.
- The diff you quote of my research into Viktor's credentials actually worries me a little. Viktor has now posted a 3rd level NPA warning on my user talk page, possibly in retaliation for my posting one on his, and referring to the talk page in question. I posted this material there because Viktor was quoting himself as an authority, and there seems doubt as to his actual credentials. I think it's legitimate rather than attack as he himself raised the topic of his credentials, but it's the only even borderline thing there as far as I can see.
- And it is borderline, in that it's really no solution. The solution is for Viktor to stop quoting himself as an authority. But how? Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - From what's visible at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar Viktor is consistent in using "status as admin" and is not claiming Andrewa used or abused his "admin powers." A few colorful firefights notwithstanding, the admins tend to support one another and it's hard for the lay editor to tell if an admin is "abusing" his or her status when a couple of unrelated admins drop in supporting the admin's POV on an issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please be very careful about giving any credence to Viktor's accusations. Viktor has been active on Wikipedia for over two years, and has in that time happily quoted policy when it suited him.
- The charge that I have abused my status as an admin is simply false, I have done no such thing and there is no evidence offered that I have. Yes, it's a harder one to decide either way than the more specific charge of abusing my sysop powers, and yes, that is probably the very reason that this phrasing has been used.
- Similarly, the charge that I have a vendetta is simply false. My motives are twofold: To improve the articles concerned (see Viktor's version if you haven't already done so), and more important, to make Wikipedia a safer place for other editors to do so too (difs available on request for the many, many stale personal attacks that went unchallenged and often the victims just left Wikipedia, apparently unnoticed). Yes, these both do involve standing up to Viktor, and no, he does not like it. That is not my fault.
- Be aware that my contact with Viktor has been purely as a result of Wikipedia, but that Viktor's consequent attacks on me have also been made in several other forums, and may continue there, see [12] [13] [14] and many more postings to that group. Another place he has been particularly venomous is Myspace, but at least some of those pages have thankfully been deleted. More recently he has linked to diffs and previous versions from Wikipedia page histories, and may be expected to do so again.
- IMO Wikipedia is not the place to address what he has said in these other forums, I must decide whether to do so myself or whether to just hope that others will form the opinion that Viktor's credibility is not sufficient to undermine my own. But I do ask you to be very careful about making statements that he may be able to quote, possibly out of context. I realise this is not always possible! Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My dispute is about contents. If you want to take this further, please at least take note of the contents problems.Andrewa is making this personal. My disagreement with his edits are purely based on factual information. I seek to maintain academic standards (such as not linking to or including proven misinformation) while Andrewa (be it in his capacity as admin or editor?) has repeatedly included misinformation as well as defending it by making very dishonest claims (such as that "four" equals "eight" and that there is no difference between saying one or the other) [15]. I need hardly point out that this conduct is unscholarly and unethical. Here is the evidence and there is more, if you ask me for it:
According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:
After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin/editor Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:
Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [17]
Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator/editor, deliberately posting false information (after being warned it is false). Let us first consider the contents of this argument:
The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:
"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)
Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these 12 notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.
However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [18] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.
Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings". So why is Andrewa falsely claiming that they are saying the same thing and linking to misinformation after repeated detailed explanations to him (off wikipedia) about this content? If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).
Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his powers as admin/editor to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (here under "Sources" [19] and elsewhere) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- NO, Viktor. I see bullying and abuse here, but it's not Andrewa who is doing it. Please read the behavioral guidelines I linked above. Read them. Don't wait; don't post another WP:TLDR; don't deflect from the actual issue, the issue that brought you to this board, which is the way you are behaving: you need to assume good faith of other editors, be calm and polite and engage with them civilly: go read the guidelines I linked, and then, even more important, abide by them.
- Regarding your claim, "Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements" -- you need to read WP:COI. You may not publish your own research here. Your website, as it is self-published, is not a reliable source; it is not independent, and it is not peer-reviewed. Please go read our policies and guidelines. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it time for a topic ban? Frankly the idea that the biggest paragraph (the historical dispute) has three things cited with one simply saying "a lot comes from here" is the biggest problem. I'm going to watch the article and if nobody can find sources for all the flowery language ("luthier noted for his innovations", "inspired by", "As was his practice, he sought advice", "concerned with the problem"), I'm dumping it. The tone is wholly appropriate and the entire Repertoire section feels like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- And yes I took a hatchet to the article when a scalpel was probably needed. Most of it was unsourced and the language was a mess. Find some source, even one that's not reliable as a starting point, and discuss things on the talk page before putting it in. Games of "I know the truth" from anyone isn't productive, but feel free to revert and just ignore me if you guys wish. Sometimes, getting everybody mad at an outsider works wonders for corroborative effort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- A topic ban on Viktor, if it applied to Narciso Yepes and the ten-string guitar and related articles, would effectively ban him completely. He has indicated no interest in any other topics. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've warned Viktor and have also brought up the big worries about OR and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please supply proof of whatever I am being accused of in relation to Andrewa. I have not seen any. On the contrary, I have ample proof of my discussions with Andrewa off wikipedia. We have been through the contents issues I've raised. Andrewa has persisted in linking to unreliable sources and defending his actions by claiming there is nothing inaccurate in his sources. I cannot assume good faith any longer. How can one assume good faith when an editor has been pointed to reliable resources (published texts by Narciso Yepes in musical journals) yet still supports online sources that are not scholarly or peer-reviewed? How can I honestly assume good faith when an editor says there is no difference between saying "four" and saying" eight"? How can I assume good faith after I've explained to this editor in quite some detail, repeatedly both on and off wikipedia, the difference between Marlow's claims of "four" resonances and Yepes's statements of "eight" resonances? How can I assume good faith when this editor on 8 March (knowing better) still claimed that there is no difference between saying four and saying eight resonances and that the sources he supports contain no misinformation? This is a very simple matter: saying four resonances (C, Bb, Ab, Gb) is most certainly not the same as saying eight resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#). Seriously, how can anyone assume good faith when an editor claims 4=8? And that after I've gone out of my way to explain the contents to him. We have even met in person and he had the opportunity to ask me about the contents of this matter. But still Andrewa has persisted in defending factually inaccurate information and making accusations against me that are unfounded. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
For the last time
Viktor, this is not about content, this is about your behavior as an editor. It's about you personally attacking others, and not following our no original research policy. The issue isn't about whether you're right or wrong, but whether you are following policy, or not, and you are clearly not. Stop posting your content dispute here, it is pointless and drags away from the issue at hand.
There so far seems to be a rough consensus by uninvolved parties to topic ban you. Does anyone else support or oppose this?— Dædαlus Contribs 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please supply proof of your allegations that I am attacking/harrassing Andrewa. This is not the first time Andrewa has made false allegations against me:
Here here, under Sources, Andrewa makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites".
Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music. Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.
Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group. So there also Andrewa has made a false accusation.
So have I "harrassed" him? Or is this another cry of wolf by an editor who has been failing a contents dispute and resorts to getting me banned from wikipedia so he can express his POV?
Please supply proof of harrassment. I can also supply proof of Andrewa's attacks against me.
Please also supply proof of breach of policy. I too can supply proof of Andrewa's breach of policy, for example WP:LINKSTOAVOID, by linking to to pages with known misinformation, myspace, and yahoo groups.
Please supply proof of the alleged "original research". Everything I have posted in the ten-string guitar articles on wikipedia (prior to Andrewa's considerable rewrites) could be verified by referring to Narciso Yepes's published articles and interviews in musicological journals, by referring to proven facts of physics in acoustics textbooks, and by referrign to published sheet music for the 10-string guitar.
It takes more than empty allegations (from however many editors) to ethically ban someone who is simply trying to uphold standards of scholarship and factually correct information on wikipedia. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Viktor, you can either listen to what people are telling you or keep on repeating your claims until you find yourself topic banned from the subjects. Those are your options at this point and it seems that you would rather win a few points today by repeating your same arguments than be allowed to edit on those articles. Nobody cares about the content dispute since it seems quite clear that neither side can clearly produce reliable sources justifying their beliefs; you conduct on the other hand is maddening. I would heavily support a topicban and we'll see if Viktor really cares more about neutrality and getting a good article or just getting to say what he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support topicban, extremely broadly construed. Wikipedia has absolutely no place for people pushing a POV or using themselves as sources, and the sooner we come down on it, the better. //roux 05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support temporary topic ban. While I want to believe this editor can calm down and make an honest attempt to present his case in a rational and concise manner, his behavior in his multiple postings to various noticeboards of the same or similar TL;DR complaints makes it extremely difficult to believe that he isn't pushing OR or a POV and isn't otherwise engaged in tendentious editing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- oppose of a user ban,
support edit protection on the articles which amounts to a topic ban for all of the involved parties,and suggest WP:MENTOR, involuntary if needed. From what he has written on the talk pages Viktor seems cogent enough. His technical explanations of resonance, and other reasoning on the subject clear and easily understood by this layperson. The goal is channeling that talent and energy into useful WP article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Revision, I looked over the recent edits to Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. They seem fine to me and so I've struck out the edit protection part of this note. I'm concerned about the tone of recent messages such as on 11:28, 18 March 2009 and 11:34, 18 March 2009 and still suggest mentoring. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof
Plase note that the allegations made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [20]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)
The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February [21] and here we have Andrewa responding [22]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [23] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [24].
Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.)
Now I intend to edit the articles with references to reliable, verifiable sources. I will NOT waste any further time in this pointless argument as I am innocent of harrassment against Andrewa, who merely wants me gone so he can have his POV. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The latest round
Please see this dif and this dif for Viktor's current stand. I think we are making progress, but there's a way to go. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Note also the timestamps on my post and Viktor's post above. I've spoken to him about sequencing of threads, as he has often posted new ones to the tops of talk pages. Perhaps someone else would like to support me on this? It's a minor point perhaps, but annoying, and IMO indicative of exactly the attitude that needs to change. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Block of Viktor
Seriously, does anyone think the discussion at the article talk page is getting better? More walls of text from Viktor including more assumptions of bad faith. I've had enough of these games. I've blocked him for a week. Between the COI, the harassment, the sarcastic insults, the sockpuppetry, he's had more than enough time to play here. Years of this is more than enough. Asking for review because honestly if he comes back and doesn't change, I want to make it permanent and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You know what, I was wrong on the sockpuppetry. That was an misreading of the facts. I've notified him of that. However the rest is there still. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'm sure y'all have viewed this archived WQA regarding similar issues. As much as I would hate to think we needed to topic ban Viktor, the incessant belief that its "my way or the highway I'm going to insult you until the ends of the Earth" are not productive, not does it fit the collaborative model. I believe Viktor has much to add ... but cooperation, and a few doses of common sense seem not be part of his arsenal. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I support the block. After many warnings and even bits of begging, he began again with the PAs. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why is this block not indef and/or coupled with a permanent topicban? //roux 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Partially because I have been involved with the article and don't think it would be prudent for an involved admin to do it. I've been chewed out enough for heavy banning on the Macedonian articles already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Viktor's past behavior
In hindsight, it actually should have been indef, as, if anyone bothered to read the WQE BMW provided, we'd see that he was previously blocked for 1 week for the same thing. The -exact- same thing. As far as I've learned, when users are blocked for things they've been blocked before for, the blocks are usually lengthened.
After reading this WQE, and looking at this user's behavior now, I do not see that he has changed in the least, and I do not think he will change his behavior at the end of this block, as he has already proven that he only thinks his blocks as a minor setback, and will return to what he has been doing when he was blocked in the first place.
If this does indeed happen at the end of this block, I would support an indefinite block, however, I don't see why we should let him continue to do what he was originally blocked for, after he's shown so clearly he doesn't intend to change.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposal A (no chance)
Those in favor of an indefinite block now, as this user has shown they can't change, and they have no desire to change their behavior they were blocked for.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
COmment The editor is consistently uncivil and has made no effort to work collaboratively or by consensus. the ownership issues he demonstrates are among the most extreme I have encountered, and there is no basis for believing that he will relinquish his soapbox nor change his style in favour of a more reasonable or accommodating approach. A permanent ban is appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I note here, one of Viktor's acts was to eliminate all mentions of Ramirez's view (his book versus Yepes' speeches), which makes more sense when you consider the language on his talk page that "the heirs of Narciso Yepes have invited Van Niekerk to continue his research interests". I think the COI interests are much more serious than it looked like before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having looked into this even more, I agree with Ricky. I think the articles may have been targeted for "clean up" before some kind of commercial project is launched. It's worth noting that the source Viktor has disputed is someone whose name is used in the marketing of an "entry-level" 10-string guitar and his edits have been strongly written to discredit this person (mostly on a single published observation about the resonance brought on by sympathetic vibration of strings, which is one of the piths of a 10-string guitar). Aside from these worries, I think both sources have been cited to support more assertions than either reliably can do. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposal B (chance)
Those in favor of an indefinite block should he continue said behavior after his most recent block expires.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, this was my thought, but I wouldn't mind if someone else wants to, considering his refactoring of his talk page to eliminate all other views and just post his screeds. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to give a final chance here. TO be honest, the topic is one that makes me go "huhwha?" - if he's an expert and willing to work within our guidelnies to help with it, that's great. If not, then he can take a walk. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne
There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to point out that User:Arcayne is not an admin, not that this makes any difference on a content issue. Black Kite 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Notified Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Erkikektic and Marfoir
- As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages [25] [26] . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. [27] [28] Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Wikipedia policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Wikipedia policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. [27] [28] Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages [25] [26] . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."SPI guide? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will voluntarily remove myself from the mediation process entirely and leave it between you, EEMIV, Marfoir, THF, Cool Hand Luke, Bignole, GlobalCluster, and everyone else involved with the content issues if it makes you feel better. Let the investigation against me proceed, but don't use me as your excuse against resoloving the dispute. Erikeltic (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm amazed. What a mess one simple discussion has turned into. Oy. Welcome to Wikipedia. Marfoir (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree; a content dispute turns into a discovery of possible meat (or sock)-puppetry. Quick, someone get the movie rights to this. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems as though every person who posts about 'Admin Abuse', 'Bullying' etc. doesn't realise that they will be subjected to a thorough examination as well. It's funny watching them try to redirect everyone to their original complaint, once people have got wind of their meat or sockpuppeting, violation of the policies they link to etc. Great way to kill an evening. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now, Erikeltic (not Marfoir,which has been oddly silent while E remains somewhat active), has updated his user page three different times. Initially with a non-free image and the caption "victory is mine" (this after a consensus was reached in an article that he was a part of). When he was advised he could use such in his user page, he replaced it with an anatomical drawing of an anus with the caption: "Indeed, they are everywhere". Lastly, he updated it with a childish ditty about his interests: a pun on articles to tell his detractors to 'bend over and kiss my ass, you people'. Now, I get that folk are allowed to clever up their page, but I am fairly sure that this user - who is still awaiting the outcome of an SPI - uses the wiki as a battleground; the comments about winning and calling the folk on the losing side of an argument assholes.
- This user has spent a majority of their time either making uncivil comment in article discussion, creating pointy subarticles, wikihounding others, meat-puppeting (or socking) and turning their userpage into an insult. I am wondering why this person is still here. I am quite certain that they see the inaction here and at SPI as apathetic of their behavior; indeed, I think he sees it as approval for their behavior. I don't see it as improving until someone steps in.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be getting out of control. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Argh, the topic on this was archived by bot without any resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#Edit_warring.2C_plus_suspected_sockpuppetry_on_both_sides. for the background to all of this over the past few days. I am far too real world busy today to keep up with this but it defintiely needs more eyes, I have been whack-a-moling sock IPs canvassing for AfD votes and removing disruptive comments for the past few days. Mfield (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I added a {{cool talk}} template to the discussion if it helps. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- TheGoldenSubpageTester, given the rampant sockpuppetry that has surrounded this article, I am concerned that your edit history begins today and you're obviously an experienced user (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis). Did you have a legitimate reason for creating a new account? --Boston (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I added a {{cool talk}} template to the discussion if it helps. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Most admins are clever enough to sort out the socks and SPAs when evaluating a close to the AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
it never stops Special:Contributions/86.163.154.2 Mfield (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) off wiki canvassing too[29] Mfield (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Following up from this report a few days ago, User:Tiramisoo seems to have added sockpuppetry to his repertoire. According to User:Dougweller both at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Digital_Revolution and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sirians, User:Tiramisoo is also likely User:GodivaCake. GodivaCake decided to remove the AFD notice at Sirians which Tiramisoo created "issued resolved" and Tiramisoo decided to remove the AFD notice at Category:Digital Revolution here. Note that I've warned Tiramisoo about the AFD notice but I'm wondering about the multiple comments in the (not a vote I know) AFD and frankly there is still a large issue with editing without summaries or discussion, from both accounts as he changes. Since the Digital revolution category is up for deletion and he's not likely to win (I don't put much weight in the "there are interwiki links so it should stay" arguments and I hope the closing admin feels the same), he's now moving articles to his Category:Information Age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm otherwise removed from this situation, but I recently closed the CFD discussion in question as delete. I'm concerned about the sockpuppetry, but I can't find a formal SPI report for either account. User:Dougweller said CU was positive, but I'm not sure where that was formally demonstrated, or if he just asked someone informally to run a CU. In any case, he could follow up with this and block one or both accounts for votestacking. As for User:Tiramisoo, the user has a history of being very unresponsive to concerns voiced about his edits. I'm willing to take action on this if dougweller is unavailable, but I would like to hear from him too, if possible. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I've just done a bit more legwork, and even putting the sockpuppetry issue aside I have seen enough—wow, he has done some really outrageous things, in my opinion. And these have been repetitive, and as I've said he's been very unresponsive to polite inquiries. I note he has made numerous edits after the notice to this discussion has been posted on his talk page, so he's had ample time to respond. A short initial block seems in order. Please keep me informed of the problems if I can help in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This editor edits in a similar way to User:OregonD00d. Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I ran the CU for Dougweller.
Confirmed Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) = GodivaCake (talk · contribs) = OregonD00d (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've imposed an initial temporary block on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and added ones of similar length to GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) so it will not be evaded, but the original one I imposed was only 31 hours, so after it expires we may need a reconsideration of the situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest indefinitely blocking GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) - the latter because it's been inactive for several months, the former because it is newer than Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), with an explanation on the latter's page. dougweller (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- OregonForests (talk · contribs) was indef blocked last year (same person). There was another account, but I can't remember what it was right now. Something forest or Oregon related. Katr67 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- SaveTheForests (talk · contribs) No longer editing, but it would be good to keep track of all of them. Katr67 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure; and thanks to everyone. I'll indefinitely block all that have been identified except Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and will provide the appropriate explanations. I suggest we all keep an eye on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) after the block expires, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- For tracking, if you'd find it helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your good work. dougweller (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- For tracking, if you'd find it helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure; and thanks to everyone. I'll indefinitely block all that have been identified except Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and will provide the appropriate explanations. I suggest we all keep an eye on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) after the block expires, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- SaveTheForests (talk · contribs) No longer editing, but it would be good to keep track of all of them. Katr67 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- OregonForests (talk · contribs) was indef blocked last year (same person). There was another account, but I can't remember what it was right now. Something forest or Oregon related. Katr67 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest indefinitely blocking GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) - the latter because it's been inactive for several months, the former because it is newer than Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), with an explanation on the latter's page. dougweller (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've imposed an initial temporary block on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and added ones of similar length to GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) so it will not be evaded, but the original one I imposed was only 31 hours, so after it expires we may need a reconsideration of the situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I ran the CU for Dougweller.
- This editor edits in a similar way to User:OregonD00d. Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Motley Moose AfD
An ongoing AfD for this blog has been rather hotly contested. Ok, whatever, it happens. However, SPA's have begun to proliferate (and one just reverted his SPA tag) -- four tagged as such so far, 2 in the last 15 minutes. Just asking for eyes, really. I guess it's inevitable when fans of a subject are by definition on the web a lot. The direct link to the AfD is this one [30].Bali ultimate (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- and the latest is now edit warring over his tag [31] [32].Bali ultimate (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Might I suggest you not worry about the tags? From what I see, they're spouting "per nom" and arguments not tied to any mentions of policy or guideline. Since this isn't a vote, any respectable closer will disregard those and concentrate on the relevant arguments (which appears to be over trivial sources, but there's such bad faith attacks and such that it's a bit hard to read through). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- While i appreciate your comment, far too many AfD's that i've been involved in are swayed by "voting" (for instance, a number of failed AfD's on articles that clearly violate policy magically succeed, for instance, when a socking user is uncovered). While I agree they shouldn't be, in a consensus oriented culture, when closers are supposed to be uninvolved, and reading through the AfD makes the head of someone who hasn't been following closely's head spin (sub threads, claims, counterclaims, socks, SPAs, etc...) it is very easy to take a count, see it's not obviously one thing or the other, not obviously a nasty BLP, and say "no consenus". And I don't blame admins or other editors for this. We're all volunteers, life is short, real life is there, time is limited, blah blah blah. But it is in fact a real problem, however much we might wish it isn't. It shouldn't be a vote. But sometimes it is (unfortunately). Bali ultimate (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Might I suggest you not worry about the tags? From what I see, they're spouting "per nom" and arguments not tied to any mentions of policy or guideline. Since this isn't a vote, any respectable closer will disregard those and concentrate on the relevant arguments (which appears to be over trivial sources, but there's such bad faith attacks and such that it's a bit hard to read through). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the sad thing is that it's just a repost, created out of process by Ks64q2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The original AFD closed as delete, the DRV was withdrawn, and the issues which caused it to be deleted were never resolved. The creator of the article removed the db-repost tag himself again and again and again. This is the second controversy in recent memory that has involved an article creator removing CSD tags from his own article, which I still believe should be treated as a bright-line offense: inexcusable under any circumstances. There's no reason to even have an AFD on this thing: delete it as a repost, and make sure that Ks64q2 understands that the next time he removes a speedy tag from an article he has created, he will be immediately blocked.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather let it run its course, lest that cause a early closure DRV. Then I'm advocating closing the AfD for a nice long time period so that preferably multiple admins can talk about it and then deliver a decision, the better to not have this happen again. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fun fact! I was reported twice at 3rr for restoring the db-repost tag after Ks64q2's deletions. I'm wondering now if removing db tags is in fact vandalism and restoring them is exempt from 3rr? Or is a creator allowed to delete these tags after all? Or was no consensus over the process ever established?--Sloane (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather let it run its course, lest that cause a early closure DRV. Then I'm advocating closing the AfD for a nice long time period so that preferably multiple admins can talk about it and then deliver a decision, the better to not have this happen again. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the sad thing is that it's just a repost, created out of process by Ks64q2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The original AFD closed as delete, the DRV was withdrawn, and the issues which caused it to be deleted were never resolved. The creator of the article removed the db-repost tag himself again and again and again. This is the second controversy in recent memory that has involved an article creator removing CSD tags from his own article, which I still believe should be treated as a bright-line offense: inexcusable under any circumstances. There's no reason to even have an AFD on this thing: delete it as a repost, and make sure that Ks64q2 understands that the next time he removes a speedy tag from an article he has created, he will be immediately blocked.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Post for clarity on above events As reported to KWW; The "speedy deletion" was sources two days into the AfD discussion, and the user who posted it on top of the AfD notice was rebuked by an administrator. Furthermore, again, please assume good faith; you're not the only one who has suggested I acted in bad faith in restoring this article, but a simple review of the logs will show this not to be the case. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Important Comment We have people making both affirmative and negative votes on the article now after it was dramatically changed from it's original version of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. The two users here, "Ultimate Bali" and "Sloane" were responsible for the edits. I find it confusing why they would drastically edit an article they had already voted to delete in the form you see there, especially as many of the predications in the AfD Discussion both ways were on the original version. This could lead to a flawed AfD on DRV, which I would like to avoid at all costs. Could I have an admin make a judgment call on this? I'd like the version there restored, and let people take a look at the article the way it was for most of the AfD discussion. Any problems could be brought to the talk page to be edited by the community after the AfD process is complete. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ks64q2 is once again making things up. I have made only two minor edits to the article. I fixed some refs and deleted a space here: [33] and I changed the title of a section and deleted an unsourced statement here: [34]. Other edits were not only made by User:Bali ultimate but also by User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:SarekOfVulcan as well. Also, I'd like to see some examples of the claimed "affirmative and negative votes on the article". Not that it matters much, because there is nothing wrong with editing articles when they're up for deletion. In fact, it is a good thing, as it can lead to the article's rescue.--Sloane (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Except that again, sir, those edits dramatically changed the tone, format, and meaning of most of the article- hands down. If you would like to suggest the edits were made in good faith, I would again question why you adamantly vyed for the article's deletion... and then, and only then, chose to edit the article. The same with user "Bali Ultimate". Again, it strikes as odd behavior. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ks64q2 is once again making things up. I have made only two minor edits to the article. I fixed some refs and deleted a space here: [33] and I changed the title of a section and deleted an unsourced statement here: [34]. Other edits were not only made by User:Bali ultimate but also by User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:SarekOfVulcan as well. Also, I'd like to see some examples of the claimed "affirmative and negative votes on the article". Not that it matters much, because there is nothing wrong with editing articles when they're up for deletion. In fact, it is a good thing, as it can lead to the article's rescue.--Sloane (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stop with the passive aggressive use of "sir." It's annoying when followed by pointy discussion of other's "odd behavior". This is not the place to discuss content, but since you continue to make uncivil accusations about other editors... the article, in my (and i suspect sloane's) opinion is that it had uncited extraordinary claims and weak (at best) citations for the rest. Often, people who argue for deletion, also try to apply policy to the article itself. That's it. Agree or not with my opinion about the article. But I will ask you for the 7th time (at least) today to stop attacking the motives of other editors, or provide iron clad diffs backing your attacks up when you do. If you chose to address my conduct again, without solid diffs or policy based arguments, i will go beyond the witiquette request filed about you today and seek remedial action (who knows if anyone will listen to me?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. I apologize if pointing out concerns has become unsolicited attacks on you; you've yet to acknowledge that the situation I described could certainly be taken negatively, whether or not it represents what happened. This sort of ad hominem attacks on my character are only distracting, sir, and instill great worry in me that it will taint this whole process irrevocably. However, if you feel that my behavior has been inappropriate, I invite you to indeed bring it to an Administrator's attention. I must say, very honestly, the way you have doggedly pursued this article, as well as the other articles, userpages, etc that other users involved with this discussion have created/are involved with is absolutely terrifying- I feel like it borders on outright harassment. Actually, please; would you inform an administrator for review on this for me? I don't feel as if things can continue this manner. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stop with the passive aggressive use of "sir." It's annoying when followed by pointy discussion of other's "odd behavior". This is not the place to discuss content, but since you continue to make uncivil accusations about other editors... the article, in my (and i suspect sloane's) opinion is that it had uncited extraordinary claims and weak (at best) citations for the rest. Often, people who argue for deletion, also try to apply policy to the article itself. That's it. Agree or not with my opinion about the article. But I will ask you for the 7th time (at least) today to stop attacking the motives of other editors, or provide iron clad diffs backing your attacks up when you do. If you chose to address my conduct again, without solid diffs or policy based arguments, i will go beyond the witiquette request filed about you today and seek remedial action (who knows if anyone will listen to me?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ongoing edit warring over the SPA tag for Louisprandtl (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). He has 19 total edits at Wikipedia, 12 to this AFD, the rest to his userspace. He has removed the SPA tag 3x. I'm also at that limit. Now, Ks64q2, who continues to make uncivil attacks on other users (as per this witiquette review here [35]), has removed it again. How will a closing admin know that this definitional SPA is in fact such, when the tag is not there? As for his demands - has he provided a diff once or cited policy?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As I suggested in this edit summary, WP:AGF, a guideline, should be able to trump WP:SPA, an essay, in the highly unusual event that a user actually contests the SPA tag. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's no reason not to assume that some SPA's have good faith. They're still SPA's, and labeling them as such has nothing to do with how good their faith may be. So I don't see any conflict between WP:AGF and WP:SPA that would allow one of them to trump the other. And while I can imagine good-faith reasons for thinking that it might calm things down to avoid pointing out someone's SPA status, I think that trying to hide relevant information from the closing admin is generally a bad idea, and remains a bad idea in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bali Ultimate had been tagging me unfairly as SPA even after being pointed out that my account has been since 2006 (granted I don't edit much) and then leaving rude comments on my talk page [[36]]. There is a point when this constitutes a personal attack.[[37]]. I've left his personal attack up on my talk page. --Louisprandtl (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may be a borderline SPA or not, but you are at least the second editor of the blog who is voting on the AfD. You pointed your connection out yourself, which is good, but the AfD is now badly skewed by the keep opinions from people with a strong COI (editors of the blog), people who have been canvassed (a "neutral" message sent by the article creator, but only to selected members of the Article Rescue Squadron), IPs, and single purpose accounts (not LouisPrandtl, others). There are also some truly independent keep opinions, but it is hard to judge the AfD through all the smoke and noise. Good luck to the admin closing it :-) Fram (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, I'm a reader of the blog and posted there but not an editor of the blog. There are substantial differences between the two. Secondly this SPA is being used as a harassment tool now by Bali Ultimate and he is being abusive about it and personally attacking me as reflected by the statement he left on my talk page.--Louisprandtl (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Editor" as in one who edits there. You have account number 14, even below the account number for account Motley Moose (18), and registered one day after the first registrations started and in the month before (according to our MM article) the site was actually established. You are clearly one of the 25 people who created the site. Fram (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- An Editor of a blog is normally who retain editorial control, post frontpage diaries et al. I don't have any such role in MotleyMoose. I normally post comments and diaries there just like I do at MyDD (where I post mainly) or at DailyKos as a regular user. However you're right in pointing out that I do have one of the first user numbers at MM but I do not have any editorial powers nor am I the creator of the blog. I've been upfront about my participation at MM, however cannot take the credit at the level that you're suggesting. If you Google my username, you'll get over 17000 hits, mostly with postings or links to MyDD (Jerome Armstrong's blog).--Louisprandtl (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Editor" as in one who edits there. You have account number 14, even below the account number for account Motley Moose (18), and registered one day after the first registrations started and in the month before (according to our MM article) the site was actually established. You are clearly one of the 25 people who created the site. Fram (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, I'm a reader of the blog and posted there but not an editor of the blog. There are substantial differences between the two. Secondly this SPA is being used as a harassment tool now by Bali Ultimate and he is being abusive about it and personally attacking me as reflected by the statement he left on my talk page.--Louisprandtl (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may be a borderline SPA or not, but you are at least the second editor of the blog who is voting on the AfD. You pointed your connection out yourself, which is good, but the AfD is now badly skewed by the keep opinions from people with a strong COI (editors of the blog), people who have been canvassed (a "neutral" message sent by the article creator, but only to selected members of the Article Rescue Squadron), IPs, and single purpose accounts (not LouisPrandtl, others). There are also some truly independent keep opinions, but it is hard to judge the AfD through all the smoke and noise. Good luck to the admin closing it :-) Fram (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bali Ultimate had been tagging me unfairly as SPA even after being pointed out that my account has been since 2006 (granted I don't edit much) and then leaving rude comments on my talk page [[36]]. There is a point when this constitutes a personal attack.[[37]]. I've left his personal attack up on my talk page. --Louisprandtl (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's no reason not to assume that some SPA's have good faith. They're still SPA's, and labeling them as such has nothing to do with how good their faith may be. So I don't see any conflict between WP:AGF and WP:SPA that would allow one of them to trump the other. And while I can imagine good-faith reasons for thinking that it might calm things down to avoid pointing out someone's SPA status, I think that trying to hide relevant information from the closing admin is generally a bad idea, and remains a bad idea in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As I suggested in this edit summary, WP:AGF, a guideline, should be able to trump WP:SPA, an essay, in the highly unusual event that a user actually contests the SPA tag. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lemme point out, disregarding the whole SPA thing, making edits to an article is perfectly fine during AfD. Perhaps not if they were deliberately trying to sabotage it so it would fail, but that's a rather serious fail as the sources are being hashed out and whether or not they are in the article or not isn't much the point. Editors are encouraged to improve articles during AfD so that they unambiguously meet the GNG or a SNG and are verified. Does this make it harder for the closer to determine which comments were made where? Yes, but let the closers worry about it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. As I pointed out in the AfD, It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Unfortunately this has only worsened and is certainly not helping the article improve with content being added then quickly deleted. If an admin would be willing to step in this might make sense. I'm disappointed at the personalizing of this and what seems like piles pf bad faith. If there are actual socks then address that appropriately. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment User:Ks64q2 has now been blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will put a stop to his edit warring.[38]--Sloane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Other editors, including yourself, have part of the problem rather than the solution. If this were only about Ks64q2's actions this would have been resolved long ago. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment User:Ks64q2 has now been blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will put a stop to his edit warring.[38]--Sloane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am of opinion that the four editors have done the same things not only here but also on the AfD; bickering, edit warring, attacking, soapboxing.--Caspian blue 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not to be a prude and all, but is it really necessary to swear in edit summaries? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to bring completely irrelevant stuff to this ANI discussion? A user fucked up, and notes this when he self-reverts. So? Fram (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because it is totally relevant. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Teacher! Teacher! I wouldn't dream of getting one of my fellow pupils in trouble... but do you know what Billy said at recess?" Badger Drink (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because it is totally relevant. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to bring completely irrelevant stuff to this ANI discussion? A user fucked up, and notes this when he self-reverts. So? Fram (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
More Motley Moose
User:Ks64q2 continues to have some rather extreme ownership issues with this page. I've been in a heated dispute with him over this article he wrote (no sources is the problem) and so won't edit again til we get more eyes to avoid veering towards an edit war. I have made changes to the article in the past day or so, as have 3 other editors. [39]. I and the other 3 have all been reducing length by removing uncited claims. I and two of these editors are largely in agreement on the talk page about what's being done. The latest series of edits were by User:Ricky81682 largely citing BLP concerns involving uncited claims i.e. [40]. However, Ks6 has just mass-reverted all these changes for the third or so time since yesterday evening with the deceptive edit summary "editing page with suggestions kept from intermediate editors" [41] when in fact he reverted every last edit [42]. He's now making some minor tweaks to the article that are neither here nor there, but using false edit summaries (perhaps to convince editors problems have been addressed?) For instance "Editing for BLP conflict for Jerome Armstrong, per his page and MyDD" is the edit summary; actual edit? Changing "left to form Puma" to "left to form the organization Puma."[43] Obviously, things are already heated, there have been reports here, there, everywhere. But how can we work in good faith to remove unsourced claims and PUFF from the article when this is what's happening after all this scrutiny?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This will glady stand up to a detailed editor review, and I would be happy to have anyone compare versions. This was not a revert; this was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account, and an extreme polishing of the current account. I'm sorry, but I can no longer say that user "Bali ultimate" is editing this article in good faith. It was not until he loudly advocated for the site's deletion that he took an interest in editing it, and he made drastic changes that completely changed the article, adding comments like "the democrat party" and "the motley whatever it is", changing passages from "... in the Web 3.0 style pioneered by Drew Curtis" to "... will be moderated by Drew Curtis," etc. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly inappropriate behavior. If this stands, and the AfD passes, it will be a flawed judgment no matter the outcome. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- "This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" Here is the diff [44]. Others can judge for themselves. But your statement looks to me to be an.... untruth (unless in some wikilawyer way you're arguing you considered all our edits, but came to the conclusion that they were all worse than your prefered version).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
See also: WP:AN#Possible harassment. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear... Also see, unfortunately: WP:WQA#User:Ks64q2. Any chance of drawing the madness to a close? onebravemonkey 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I vote for an indef block due to the dishonesty. //roux 13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- And also also: here. I'm assuming that the point is to scatter this liberally across WP? For the record, my view is at the aforementioned WP:WQA thread, so I won't repeat myself here, only say that possibly adoption and everybody taking a deep breath and counting to ten is in order. onebravemonkey 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it appears he has been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR. onebravemonkey 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- And also also: here. I'm assuming that the point is to scatter this liberally across WP? For the record, my view is at the aforementioned WP:WQA thread, so I won't repeat myself here, only say that possibly adoption and everybody taking a deep breath and counting to ten is in order. onebravemonkey 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Not sure much will come of it but for the record, Ks64q2 does not account for all the edit-warring and other problems here. I think our policies on civility were breached early on by a few editors, many who likely are experienced enough to know better, and tap-dancing on the edge of policy doesn't help articles either. Consensus, in part, means working with not opposed to one another. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
User creating MANY one line pages
I have come across this user [45] who has been creating a ton of pages like Ancorichnus. The entire content of the page is "Ancorichnus is an ichnogenus." I then tagged one such article for CSD here [46] and the author removed the tag without providing an explanation here [47]. I don't see how that 4 word article meets the qualifications for the wiki, but other editors and administrators are encouraged to comment on the situation. Do we normally accept such articles for the site? DougsTech (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- These articles — stubs — are acceptable. I've reverted your invalid use of rollback in which you removed content that was added by the author of the article. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I notified the user of this thread. We need all of the taxonomy articles we can get (IMO). These articles are marked as stubs and the creator has a history of working in that area, so it is reasonable to believe the articles would be expanded. Granted, the stubs are cryptic and I would suggest the creator should provide a tad more content before moving forward, but otherwise they are not detrimental. Seems like there is an essay or something about giving a stub time to expand before tagging for CSD. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Users who feel those stubs are too short may assist in expanding them. The edit tab is your friend. =D Thanks to IP Address Man for the warning about this thread. I do love it ever so much when users who have a problem with my editing run off to tattle to the admins instead of discussing it sensibly. As for now I have to go. I've run out of time I meant to use editing because I had to come over here. Abyssal (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Abyssal's idol during his youth was the actor, Stubby Kaye. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your attempts to lighten things up, but the non-sequiturs do not always help as much as one would have hoped. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, how about this approach then: "LEAVE THEM BE. There's no rule that says an article has to be fully developed upon creation." Do you like that better? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. But, ideally, the best way in this particular case would be to develop a better "template" for the stubs based on other genus articles. That would have probably avoided any type of CSD tags in the first place. Also, the OP could have AGF a bit more and tried to discuss on the creator's talk page instead of templating a regular. But that may just be a deletionist/inclusionist difference of opinion. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, how about this approach then: "LEAVE THEM BE. There's no rule that says an article has to be fully developed upon creation." Do you like that better? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your attempts to lighten things up, but the non-sequiturs do not always help as much as one would have hoped. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, yes, a four word taxo stub with one wikilink and no references is not CSDable, and can easily be fleshed out later. However, the onus really should be on the page creator to give it at least the bare details that give it actual information value; if nothing else its lazy editing. Abyssal is a good and prolific stub creator, and he does return to flesh out his stubs, so I am not really concerned, but I still think we should take pains not to dilute our standards for stubs too far. It really, really doesn't take much to make even a brand new stub not look like crap, and {{sofixit}} is not an excuse for creating and then abandoning a barely tolerable article (regardless of the size). Bullzeye contribs 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And, once again, an article creator removed a CSD tag with no one blinking an eye. This is getting ridiculous. Under no circumstances should the creator of an article remove a CSD tag from that article. Ever. —Kww(talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- False! Abyssal removed the speedy, then was templated with {{uw-speedy1}}, and then a different user (User talk:Cunard) removed the speedy. That is absolutely the right thing that happened. Therefore, Abyssal did not get away with the error "with no one blinking an eye". He broke the rules, DougsTech called him on it (by templating him), and then a third party removed the speedy. That is how it should be. First, Abyssal should not have removed the speedy, but second, it should have been declined anyway. I'll drop Abyssal a note requesting a) better stubs, and b) no more de-tagging. And to DougsTech, please slow down a bit and check things out more carefully before tagging, but otherwise keep up the hard work! --64.85.216.254 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Creating the articles is not a problem. Than none of them are sourced, despite his being warning that unsourced articles are a bad idea is the crux of the problem. Why are no sources being added. The articles are little more than "XXX used to be." Without any sources, we cannot evaluate whether these are legitimate or just made up. We can assume good faith for now that they are legit, but why should we put up with mass quantities of sourceless stubs. If they were sourced, I'd commend this user, but as it is now, we cannot tell the difference between good stubs and out-and-out hoaxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
New user who is impersonating an administrator ([48], [49], [50]), faking barnstars by other users on his talk page, faking talk page comments by other users [51], perpetrating a hoax [52] and impersonating a prominent real life person by his user name (violating WP:REALNAME) and self-description.
For context, see the vandalism and hoax edits that have been going on in the article Kaspersky Lab since January by numerous IPs and one-purpose-accounts, e.g. KasperskyHimself, Kasperski69 (blocked), DmitriMedvedev (likewise impersonating Dmitri Medvedev), Hwahwahwah (blocked), TheHelperBot (likewise impersonating a bot), 66.104.111.66, 173.15.141.106 and others. I would also appreciate it if someone would have a look at the request for protection for that article.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible that it could be a misspelling of Karpersky Antivirus (I cannot find the link), which is a commercial antivirus software? MuZemike 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Kaspersky Anti-Virus is a product of Kaspersky Lab (the vandalized article). Eugene Kaspersky is the person impersonated by this user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the user is still claiming to be an admin, is still making changes to other people's comments on his Talk page, and is still claiming to be Eugene Kaspersky. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've reverted the claim to be an administrator. Mostly so that when I claim to be one no one will see through my evil scheme. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- User blocked by seicer for username, maybe the userpage should be blanked/deleted/redirected. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any possibility that Mykleis21 (talk · contribs) is the same person? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- See also 67.128.73.38 (talk · contribs). ArakunemTalk 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Only one way to find out. Call Shari Lewis! MuZemike 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Shari went to the Great Puppet Show in the Sky, some years back. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Only one way to find out. Call Shari Lewis! MuZemike 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- ... and everyone has been very worried about Lambchop, as she hasn't said a single word since Shari passed away. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that movie: The Silence of the Lambchop. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The sequel--Silence II: Return of the Mint--was awful, though. //roux 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that movie: The Silence of the Lambchop. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- ... and everyone has been very worried about Lambchop, as she hasn't said a single word since Shari passed away. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Australian Communications and Media Authority
I direct the attention of other administrators to the activity at Australian Communications and Media Authority around adding a "forbidden" link, as detailed in the article "Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator". A bevy of warring IPs and actual editors over the specified link, with no particular consensus to add what I would consider a link that would not be added to the article if it were not "forbidden". What action, if any, should be taken here? - Nunh-huh 07:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Adding some context from the other side here. The quoted article is a non-reputable news source in australia. The big ones are ABC, fairfax and news ltd, who have all covered the issue of this page being blacklisted on their vairous news outlets. There has been quite a concensus already. I have counted 10 users, including two random admin users, who have put the content in. We have had a few users come in, such as Nunh-huh who have deleted it without engaging in discussion. I also note that nunh-huh breached the 3rv rule just then. Do look over the history around 2-3 days before making decisions. And do read the 6 references included around the sentence ( most being absolutely reliable news resources: fairfax, and news ltd ) to see this is actually very relevant to ACMA right now. Thanks! --Reasonwins (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've requested proection to the article but has not been protected yet. I don't believe it's relevant to add the website link in the article as it's clearly trying to bring Wikipedia into the issue which is something the community doesn't need. Bidgee (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also another reason why the link shouldn't be added as it's clear the activists are doing so to disrupt the site (See: Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator). Bidgee (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page has now been fully protected, it was protected by User:VirtualSteve. It was my impression that the goal of protection was simply to stop edit warring and not as an edorsement of any particular version of the article. Indeed the very notice that VirtualSteve added to the top of the page indicated this (the standard editprotected template). Yet right after protecting the page VirtualSteve edited it to remove the link, effectively protecting it at his preferred version, instead of the version that just happened to be up at the time. I beleive this is not an appropriate use of admin tools. If he intendeed to intervene as an univolved admin he should not have made an very controversial editorial choice right after protecting the page. 189.105.47.108 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having already discussed this with VirtualSteve, I do agree with his actions, if not fully with everything he stated with them. It was initially ip/new_user blocked, which meant older users could still edit. However a couple of users kept engaging in a revert war so VS locked it in the same state. He has locked it so that people could discuss the validity of the change in question. I also note a couple of users have engaged in that discussion, but the ones that originally raised this issue remain silent. Perhaps they are just offline. But this wouldn't be the first time a seemingly random user came and removed that content without much reason, and never came back to discuss their edits. Anyway, engage in the discussion so the arguments can be evaluated, is my suggestion. --Reasonwins (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page has now been fully protected, it was protected by User:VirtualSteve. It was my impression that the goal of protection was simply to stop edit warring and not as an edorsement of any particular version of the article. Indeed the very notice that VirtualSteve added to the top of the page indicated this (the standard editprotected template). Yet right after protecting the page VirtualSteve edited it to remove the link, effectively protecting it at his preferred version, instead of the version that just happened to be up at the time. I beleive this is not an appropriate use of admin tools. If he intendeed to intervene as an univolved admin he should not have made an very controversial editorial choice right after protecting the page. 189.105.47.108 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also another reason why the link shouldn't be added as it's clear the activists are doing so to disrupt the site (See: Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator). Bidgee (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've requested proection to the article but has not been protected yet. I don't believe it's relevant to add the website link in the article as it's clearly trying to bring Wikipedia into the issue which is something the community doesn't need. Bidgee (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't fret, lillen. Steve did the right thing and abided by policy. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- A side issue is of concern after the page was protect User Scarian has used his mop to edit the page and reinstate the link[53], to me this this is an abuse of the tools. Gnangarra 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Admins are required to protect the wrong version of the page. If that was neglected, it's up to other admins to see this happens. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- one Very funny essay, I was pointing out that the admin edited the page after it was protected to insert material that was under discussion as per WP:PROTECT When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version. Gnangarra 00:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. This is not a joke. This is wheel-warring. Hesperian 00:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- one Very funny essay, I was pointing out that the admin edited the page after it was protected to insert material that was under discussion as per WP:PROTECT When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version. Gnangarra 00:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Admins are required to protect the wrong version of the page. If that was neglected, it's up to other admins to see this happens. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- A side issue is of concern after the page was protect User Scarian has used his mop to edit the page and reinstate the link[53], to me this this is an abuse of the tools. Gnangarra 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't fret, lillen. Steve did the right thing and abided by policy. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This very much looks like a disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The link doesn't appear to serve an encyclopedic purpose and is simply being used to provoke a third party. SoWhy and VirtualSteve did the right thing here by protecting the page and removing the link. --Farix (Talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now it is back, because an administrator chose to wheel-war over it. Hesperian 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is a reputable source for this story now[1] cojoco (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's quite amusing that the ACMA page has been locked due to the presence of an anti-abortion website blocked by ACMA, yet the much bigger story, the leaking of the full blacklist, cannot be added to the article. cojoco (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is a reputable source for this story now[1] cojoco (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now it is back, because an administrator chose to wheel-war over it. Hesperian 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
72.183.76.76
WP:AIV declined action on this because the editor hasn't edited in over 4 hours:
- 72.183.76.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The sole contributions from this ip to Wikipedia are to add fanstory.com links to multiple articles, edit-war over the links, edit war over tags in Mike Martin (politician), and to add a promotional link (mothercopper.com). This editor has ignored multiple warnings by multiple editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to see any circumstance under which a link to fanstory.com would be appropriate for wikipedia; it seems to be an online "writing community" with no more rigor than any old wiki. Even in the rare event that a given "story" is claimed to be written by a given Wikipedia article subject (as appears to be the claim in the case of Mike Martin), fanstory.com isn't a reliable source that the named person really wrote that story. I'd suggest we add fanstory.com/* to the link blacklist, and zap the places it's already mentioned. 87.114.148.185 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good point on fanstory.com, though I some of the current links might be acceptable per WP:SELFPUB even though they were added against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The header of WP:WPSPAM says that persistent spammers may be reported at AIV. I just looked in WP:VANDAL and it *does* mention spam. It's possible the admin didn't think a spam block was justified unless the last edit was within four hours. (The admin who declined the block has been notified in case he cares to comment). EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good point on fanstory.com, though I some of the current links might be acceptable per WP:SELFPUB even though they were added against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd argue that fanstory.com fails WP:SELFPUB's "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" clause, as there seems to be no effort made there to verify that a story that claims to be written by Joe Bloggs really is, and not by Joe Bloggs' arch enemy trying to make him look like a jerk. (I was 87.114.148.185 yesterday, apparently) 87.112.92.44 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I confess I did a simple two stage check here. The report was made to AIV at 22:38 and I declined two minutes later [54]. The IP's last edit was at 14:41 [55]. That gives an elapsed time of almost exactly 7 hours. Secondly a quick WHOIS indicated the IP was from an ISP selling to the general public, and likely to be dynamic. AIV expressly states that a vandal must be active now and 7 hours cannot even be vaguely considered "now". I think the issue here is contradictory information at AIV, SPAM and VANDAL which helps no-one. Ronz's report was accurate, but in my personal opinion the wrong venue. I would have thought WP:ANI would be better for these types of situations, with more eyes and editors with greater proficency at checking just how dynamic the IP may be able to weigh in. However without better clarification of when AIV should be used, and with the long standing consensus that it is only for active editors, it is likely these kinds of issues will continue to occur. Certainly I did not mean to imply that Ronz's report was a mistake as it was not. Pedro : Chat 07:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- fanstory.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
Mainly here, a lot of IPs. I am feeding this to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've hardblocked the IP for a week, for spamming, as he came back and reverted all the removals from earlier. If anyone wants to adjust the duration or type of block, feel free --Versageek 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Influencing a change in a source
User:Ratel states here [56] that he contacted the Encyclopedia Britanica to have one of their articles changed. The article in question is being used as a source for disputed content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not true, and this is a frivolous misuse of the noticeboard. The Britannica article was used as a source for Drudge Report, then one of the editors, (Collect), managed to insert an ill-advised change to the Britannica source, I contacted Britannica and directed them to the Talk page concerned at Talk:Drudge Report and they obvious had a rethink on the change they had allowed, and reversed it. User ChildofMidnight should be cautioned for mischievously misusing this Noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The personal attacks from Ratel do not belong here. The exchange where I indicated thet the EB accepted input from people (allowing proposed changes in an edit box) was clear, and I indicated that to show this I proposed a change which was accepted much as a "flagged revision" would be -- and the full interaction was made clear and transparent. Ratel, however, sent a post to the EB wherein he apparently made personal accusations about me which I regard as beyond the pale. My contact with EB was clear, and consisted solely of a minor wording change (from stating the "fact" that Drudge Report was conservative to saying it was "widely viewed as conservative." That Ratel immediately wrote to EB [57] [58] specifically accuses me of using an alias (Ja,es Canterbury works for EB), and accuses me of being unethical, [59] where he actually does the unethical -- this is AN/I after all ... "1 take into account that I have been maintaining this page for years ...I try to listen diligently to criticism of content when it makes sense, but just remember, I'll be here editing this page for many more years. If unsupportable edits are forced onto the page because of sheer numbers (thanks probably to some behind-the-scenes canvassing), they'll eventually be removed. 2) I have written to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subversion of their content and pointed their editorial staff to this Talk page. They'll soon see why that change was suggested by one of our members here, and I hope they will revert it, and lock it. Indeed, I have requested same. User:Ratel" Which not pnly accuses me of improper activity, it is an admission of grossly improper activity by Ratel, and an attempted "outing" by Ratel claiming I am "James Canterbury" which I am not -- Outing is bad enough, but a false outing is what? What we have is false OUTING, false accusations of subversion, false accusations of CANVASS, and a distinct claim that he will remove any edits he does not approve of. Recall, it is not as though "conservative" does not appear in the article - it is there mre than any other adjective by a large margin. Collect (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you read where they say above that this page is NOT for editing and content disputes? ► RATEL ◄ 13:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be about parties accusing each other of behavior that violates wikipedia rules, so this would seem to be a good place for it. P.S. Ever hear the expression "non-denial denial"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has! ► RATEL ◄ 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're alleging unethical behavior. That certainly seems like a matter for the ANI page. Unless you think no disciplinary action is needed for any of the participants in this discussion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has! ► RATEL ◄ 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be about parties accusing each other of behavior that violates wikipedia rules, so this would seem to be a good place for it. P.S. Ever hear the expression "non-denial denial"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you read where they say above that this page is NOT for editing and content disputes? ► RATEL ◄ 13:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in "influencing a source". Two days ago I noticed an error in a source - a disagreement between what they said and what their source said. So I contacted the editor. They got back to me, said they had made an error, and a few hours later the error had been corrected. That's part of what makes a reliable source reliable - they cite their sources so that you can double-check them, and they correct errors as promptly as they can. On the other hand, if a source can be influenced one way and the next by what's said on Wikipedia...they probably aren't the most reliable source... Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't Stephen Colbert postulate exactly this scenario? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposing an indef ban for User:RMHED
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already indef'd, with 17 socks confirmed by checkuser to date Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of RMHED. Recently one of them has been edit warring and disrupting WP:DRV. It's time that the community say "adios" to him/her. So I propose an indef ban on him/her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jeez, I always found him annoying and pointy, but didn't know anything about socks. Can you point us uninitiated to some linkies? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RMHED/Archive. Horologium (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And the proliferation of socks to attack Jimbo was about what? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)
- Probably best if you started reading here. –xeno (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, now I remember... well, if he's continued with the attempts to sock, I see nothing wrong with an indef. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably best if you started reading here. –xeno (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- And the proliferation of socks to attack Jimbo was about what? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)
Short list of RMHED socks not in the category:
Accounts:
- Forward_planning_failure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Fruitynut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Golf is poetry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gyroreadylp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vestedsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Keenspeak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Hoursdaily908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- IncIncLtd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- GGH 56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sandy462 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Untilgunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mythatom5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP addresses:
- 88.108.147.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.189.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.157.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.202.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.156.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.252.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.192.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 88.108.159.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Many others from 88.108.128.0/17 and possibly 88.108.0.0/16.
There are many more accounts and heaps of IP addresses. The above is just what I could find by browsing the histories of Jimbo's userpage and talk page. I have written Tiscali, his ISP, about the libelous edits he made to Jimbo's userspace, but I don't know if they will do anything. In any case, at least for the past few days, RMHED has gotten smart enough not to try that any more (random disruption doesn't violate the terms of service of any ISP I know of, but blatant libel does). At least not while logged out.
Aside from that, this comment from his latest sock indicates that he has no intention of stopping his disruption. Fortunately, as far as I can tell, his access node is a /15, so even if has access to the entire node, rangeblocking is not too too disruptive.
Oh yeah, I strongly support the ban, (probably obvious) although for the most part, he has been blocked on sight anyways, so I guess this would just turn de facto into de jure. J.delanoygabsadds 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- J.delanoy, when you speak of "libelous edits" and "blatant libel" are you speaking of oversighted edits, because I haven't seen anything that appears libellous, merely insulting. Can you clarify? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is the additional weapon of WP:CSD#G5 so that the drama that is started before the sock is caught can be speedied, the Afd's and Drv's s/he starts...etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ban. Way too much disruption, and I know from experience of User:WJH1992 that Tiscali will do nothing about him. --Rodhullandemu 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support the ban, since it may help those who are trying to deal with all the sock edits. A ban does not have to be forever, but for now, it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - per J.delanoy and because that is alot of socks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 19, 2009 @ 03:24
- Support - no-brainer. //roux 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - agreed with Homer. Too many socks and way too disruptive. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there a diff to the said libelous comment for review? seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- [60] This is fairly representative, though it got much worse at time. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ban. Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Chris 09:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Willking1979 (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I support such a ban. FWIW, a bunch of sockpuppets that I found last year were certainly related to RHMED and quite probably were his. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. It's a pity - RMHED has in the past appeared to be a potentially constructive editor, just one with some seriously misguided ideas. Unfortunately, he seems to be going out of his way to play the crazy nut at the moment, so I think a ban is the only reasonable option at this time, without prejudice to reviewing it in the future if he calms down. ~ mazca t|c 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Suppport and, while it's not for here, may be worth exploring a cross-wiki ban as he has been disruptive on other projects GTD 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - per J.delanoy rdunnPLIB 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lets keep Wikipedia clean! Chillum 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse per Mazca. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, for en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Not so much a present AN/I issue as not knowing who to ask
I've noticed what could end up being an issue, and when I looked further into it, noticed some possible abnormalities in the process that resulted in a change to the MOS. I've been trying to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, but I feel like my larger questions are being evaded and finally, the editor suggested I should talk about it at the Village Pump, where he had posted a notice about a template change, although the post has now been archived, or at MOSNUM, except that is where a consensus (of four persons) decided on something that was ultimately, and possibly deceptively, slipped into the MOS. I don't know that this is currently an AN/I issue, but I feel like others need to know about what has gone on, and comment on it. One of the responses the editor did make was essentially, "So what if the MOS is changed? You can choose not to follow it", which seems to be a bit naive regarding process around here. The editor responding has only been registered here since November, and doesn't seem to have worked much on articles outside of his template change editing, so I am certainly willing to assume good faith regarding his knowledge of proper process, but when I really dug deeper into what has occurred, what to me is a major change has had no community approval although the change would effect just a little less than 25% of all Wikipedia articles. I'd appreciate some feedback about where to raise these issues, either here or on my talk page, if these events seem as major to others as it does to me, and how to proceed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you give us a hint of what this is about specifically? Like what the change is? TIA Tom 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a good starting point: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Template swap for Neuroscientist biography articles .28no visual change.29. –xeno (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Tom 04:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's where I've been trying to get the answers, although I'm not getting them. It was a change to the MOS birth and death date template that is in the MOS to be used. It's basically been slipped in without discussion by anyone but four persons and is slowly being inserted into articles. I can't find where consensus was obtained definitely for this change and I honestly feel that the way it is being presented is a bit deceptive. The posting regarding it has been called a proposal, but I don't see how something is a proposal when the MOS has already been changed and the proposal states that the MOS recommends it. It's basically a decision that (maybe) was made by four persons. This is a tremendous change to what we use in all those article. I think what's happened is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to add more commentary, when I started looking for actual consensus to change the template, I don't find any consensus. I find discussion, mostly taking the form of proposing a change to a "family of templates", discussion taking the form of instruction to those that questioned it, and no clear consensus in any way. The discussion I found was here, which doesn't to me seem to any clear definitive consensus, or even a conclusion for discussion. The next discussion was here, requesting the MOS change, based on "concensus opinion from the prior discussion almost universally supported the less complicated syntax of the new templates" (referencing the discussion on the previous link. It was posted at 3:55 pm, 11 March 2009 my time, and his conclusion that it be done was posted at 12:41 am, 12 March 2009. This is less than 9 hours, citing a consensus that I can't clearly determine. Is this how things are done here? I sincerely feel like this has been surreptiously done and yes, I have a major issue with it. The other issue is that he has created a marriage template [61] with no outside discussion, which itself may not be an issue, and has to now inserted it into over 100 articles [62]. I'm not sure about this template, and fundamentally don't oppose it, but this isn't how I expect that things occur here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a good starting point: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Template swap for Neuroscientist biography articles .28no visual change.29. –xeno (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) These changes from {{birth date}} to {{birth-date}}, etc., didn't receive community input and will massively delink dates in infoboxes in a non-reversible way. It is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary_injunction prohibiting any such date linking or delinking until the case is resolved. 62.147.38.252 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that comment or its validity and can't comment on it. However I can add that the editor has also gone ahead and made changes to many infobox person templates doc pages inserting this new template into those infoboxes [63] (see edits of March 14) citing This change has concensus, please refer to Manual of Style birth and death date template guidance and talk page discussions. I will note that the consensus he refers to is basically the discussion between 5 persons on the MOSNUM talk page and to me, it is not clear it was a consensus to institute WP-wide changes. Even the "consensus" was described as four individuals who thought the templates had merit. Maybe this is an issue for here, but in any case, if it is not, please direct me to where this issue should be brought up. These changes effect over 600,000 articles - over 22% of all Wikipedia articles and the wider community has not had one iota of input into this change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the wider issue, these new templates still seem to link dates. –xeno (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it requires a specific parameter with a linked date to be inserted in order for the dates to be linked in the infobox. Used as they exist, there is no date linking from the templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but as long as it doesn't replaced a date-linked template with a non-date-linked template it wouldn't fall under the arbcom injunction. To answer your original query, perhaps initiating an RFC would be the best way to get wider attention to this issue. –xeno (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where would you suggest one be started that would get the widest notice? Obviously doing it at MOSNUM wouldn't get a lot off attention since it all started with a "consensus" there that wasn't a very clear consensus determination? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Right, but as long as it doesn't replaced a date-linked template with a non-date-linked template it wouldn't fall under the arbcom injunction. To answer your original query, perhaps initiating an RFC would be the best way to get wider attention to this issue. –xeno (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it requires a specific parameter with a linked date to be inserted in order for the dates to be linked in the infobox. Used as they exist, there is no date linking from the templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- {{birth date}} and {{death date}} etc (the "old style" templates) don't create linked dates anyway. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(undent) It is suggested that there was some subversion of the MOSNUM process. Then why not bring this up at MOSNUM? We went through an extensive discussion last month regarding the merits of plain text dates (5 May 1955) versus numeric (1955|5|5) syntax templates, and there was only one voice of opposition, and the opposition was to deprecating the old template. No one asserted that the arcane syntax of the old templates was more desirable. All others favored the templates upon which this family of date templates is based. Users are free to use the old templates, and the old templates were not deprecated, so all we are talking about here is where contributors are pointed to for the best choice on birth and death date template use.
That's it. So what is all this hooplah about? Let's get some perspective here. If there are some global issues larger than MOSNUM, then why not comment on the Village pump thread concerning these templates? None of the folks posting here have posted either at MOSNUM or Village pump. I am not really sure what is expected from administrators.
Finally, to 62.147.38.252, this has nothing to do with linking/delinking. As you can see in this edit[64], there is no change to the old article. If the link is there, folks can leave the link just as it was. If there was no link, folks can leave it without a date link. It's the editor's decision. The old template does not allow this flexibility. As for my edits, I leave the articles as they were. If they had a link, I leave it. If they didn't I don't add one. I am completely neutral about it. I can see both POVs and really don't care which way that issue goes. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I brought this here to find out where the real discussion needs to be broached. But actually, after having given this much thought, I do believe this change violates the arbcom injunction. As you have said, if date delinking is overturned, then all that needs occur to the first birth/death templates is a change to the template itself. No one has to go back through and check to see if a user opted to add the parameter that links dates on your template. De facto, if a user does not add the linking parameter to the template when adding it, delinking is automatic and there is no way to quickly and efficiently correct this should the arbcom case overturn delinking. That you've added the templates to 2500+ articles and changed the MOS in turn extends that to what should be occurring according to MOS and the infobox per project, which is indeed widespread. Effectively, it violates the injunction and I am beginning to think that the arbcom case may be where this needs to be discussed. I've seen you say that no one objected or questioned this, but that's not true, the more I look, the more I find questions by editors. Instead of really answering those questions, we keep getting thrown a lot of technical jargon that at first read, even to those of us who have extensive education, seems far too complicated to know how to address.
- You keep wanting to take this issue to the Village Pump, but that is not the place for a long and extended discussion or to work out extensive issues and as you note, your post didn't get much response. There is a reason for that - it isn't something that people who read and post to that page are accustomed to debating. Also, your posting has been archived for a few days now, so it is no longer there. MOSNUM is not the place to discuss it, as you can see, nobody was aware this change was occurring except for what basically was 5 people. That's not community. The discussion was actually about the merits of the start and end date templates. At no time that I can find was there ever a discussion about implementing this on a wide basis or to extend the discussion specifically to birth and death date templates. And there was never specific consensus to request a change to the MOS that I can find.
- I believe the MOS change was done surreptiously, citing a consensus that is not clear to anyone of whom I have asked opinion and there certainly was never a consensus to go ahead and request a change to the MOS or by extension, the infoboxes for individual projects. Projects have never been approached about this aspect of your template. Nobody knows. You have already gone through and changed far too many infobox template doc pages which changes the recommended infobox formatting for a myriad of individual projects. The change essentially mandates delinking because it can't be undone if the parameter is missing. Meanwhile, this is a birth and death date issue. There has never been a need for time zone distinctions, the adding of hours or seconds anywhere I have ever seen in regard to the date of birth or death in a biography article. It is meaningless and unnecessary in that sense. All in all, it really does appear that this effectively violates the arbcom injunction since it has already been put into effect, although that was done on maybe the agreement of 4 out the 5 individual editors in the MOSNUM discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sneaky attack page creation
- Jalen Cotton (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Expired2day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.114.57.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Brought here by User:Enviroboy
This is slightly too complicated for AIV. Earlier today through recent changes, I discovered the above IP vandalizing Jalen Cotton, turning the article into an attack page. I reverted, warned multiple times and eventually reported the IP to AIV. The article was only recently created but was empty so I tagged it with {{db-nocontext}}
and informed the original author Expired2day. The original version of this page is not an attack page and may have been, as I assumed, a good-faith attempt at an article.
The strange thing is that the IP's vandalism included a picture that was uploaded to the Commons by Expired2day. Based on that, I have a strong hunch that Expired2day started the article with the hopes of getting it past the new page patrollers just so he/she could return to create the attack page later (editing from the IP).
Because I brought this here, I removed my report from AIV. I'm not asking for a CU - the IP needs to be blocked regardless. I just thought that this is a little more complicated than what I'm used to so I might as well bring it here. If I'm wrong about this, I sincerely apologize to Expired2day. EnviroboyTalkCs 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- While I'm not an admin and can't view the deleted page, I wonder if it was intended as a vanity page. Look at File:JalenCotton.jpg's licensing tag- own work by uploader. And it's a mirror picture. Therefore, it's pretty likely Expired is Cotton, and wrote the article about himself. I'm not sure what the attack page consisted of, but depending on what it was, it might be someone who knows Expired/Cotton and did so as a prank after being shown the article. That's something you see a lot with school vandalism (though the IP isn't a school IP); people in computer labs, etc. editing WP in groups and vandalising articles the others are reading. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was not a vanity page; it was about a female Indian Governor (in India). EnviroboyTalkCs 04:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify further, File:JalenCotton.jpg was uploaded but never used by Expired2day. EnviroboyTalkCs 04:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can probably add User:Redsred to that list (see their talk, not to mention the bizarre edit made here. //roux 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Somebody like Redsred who plays jokes at ANI is more likely to be another sock of RMHED. The work of the above IP (now blocked) appears more like nasty vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:Redsred's 3rd edit was to remove the block notice from User:NiceHotShower. -- Donald Albury 13:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Somebody like Redsred who plays jokes at ANI is more likely to be another sock of RMHED. The work of the above IP (now blocked) appears more like nasty vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw the page, and was a little unsure as to which was the real article. The name Jalen Cotton did not seem (to me) to be a typical Indian name, so I assumed it was the guy in the shades - but not 100% convinced. As Enviroboy knows, I was therefore reluctant to revert, so I just stuck the same csd template that was on the "Indian" page on that as well (then Enviroboy reverted again...). Having seen both pages and the Enviroboy suggestion, I concur and believe that it was indeed a well thought out piece of vandalism. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can probably add User:Redsred to that list (see their talk, not to mention the bizarre edit made here. //roux 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Old Header
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Redsred has retired. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The timezone header was not intended as vandalism. Just as a joke. Apologies for any confusion. --Redsred (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- So THAT's where that came from. I just assumed everyone on the system was in the UTC time zone anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
User Jersay for the 3rd time
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
User:Jersay has once again reverted cited information from List of terrorist incidents, 2009. diff. He has been warned over 9 times and blocked twice for identical vandalism. He has been reported here 4 times I think. The code for list articles make it extremely difficult to revert "cannot be undone" edits, forcing editors like me to copy and paste each and every line instead of one big copy edit. I'm anticipating a definite block/ban, if this isn't the place can someone direct me to a higher authority? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why do we waste our time mollycoddling people who pull this crap? Months of warnings and two blocks have had zero effect. It's WP:RBI time. //roux 05:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned he might carry a bias towards Somalia. A significant majority of his reverts have been on Somalia-related incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Would reporting to WP:AIV be appropriate? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- After two blocks, he still undoes these list entries and never leaves a Talk message. It seems that his mission in life is to delete things that (in his personal opinion) do not qualify as terrorist incidents. Due to the difficulty of reverting his changes to these lists, I'd support an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- How can this be done? I don't plan on spending hours on noticeboards demanding a ban, so could we pool some volunteers? You're an admin, right Ed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- After two blocks, he still undoes these list entries and never leaves a Talk message. It seems that his mission in life is to delete things that (in his personal opinion) do not qualify as terrorist incidents. Due to the difficulty of reverting his changes to these lists, I'd support an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Would reporting to WP:AIV be appropriate? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned he might carry a bias towards Somalia. A significant majority of his reverts have been on Somalia-related incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's broader than just Somalia, or just terrorism. Jersay is an extremely prolific editor of articles about wars, terrorism and conflicts generally. He's stepped hard on people's toes over the recent crimes in Northern Ireland, he's got views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he pushes his POV that civil unrest constitutes a revolution. He's made responsible editing of the various list-of-wars articles very difficult. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jersay is a tendentious editor of the highest order. Regarding his involvement with Northern Ireland related articles, firstly he created Second Northern Ireland Revolt. During the deletion discussion for that article, he moved it to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland. After the deletion of the article, it was reposted at Republican Violence in Northern Ireland, Paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland 2009 Paramilitary Conflict. While this was happening he was constantly adding details and a link to the article to List of wars 2003–current and List of ongoing conflicts (example diff 1, example diff 2), claiming it was a war or conflict that started on 11 February 2009, which ignores that both the Real IRA and Continuity IRA (two of the participants in the "war") have been active for over a decade. In more general terms, he seems to have his own definition of what incidents are terrorism and which are not. Constrast this addition with all his removals of incidents he says are not terrorism. The source makes no mention of terrorism, and while a grenade attack on a commercial establishment may be terrorism it may also be a dispute between criminal gangs especially when police have yet to determine a motive. O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Jersay (talk · contribs), with a message that they should re-evaluate their editing with regard to considering the opinions of others if they are to appeal the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "New" editor Canadian87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems very familiar.. O Fenian (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Reporting user:Nukes4Tots
Please see Nukes4Tots edits to clubbed thumb talk page and how he followed me to clubbed foot article to purposely revert me with the message that he doesn't like colons. He is just harassing me. He's at 4 reverts on clubbed thumb talkpafge just to include a personal attack on me and to make a joke about the disabled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger.iphone (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There may be a BLP issue associated with making unsourced claims that various US actresses have clubbed thumbs. That's an aspect of the underlying content dispute that might interest admins here. As for the remark "are you blind?" - I'm not sure it constitutes a personal attack requiring admin intervention; it seems more suitable for discussion at Wikiquette alerts. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- User Ginger.iphone is asking for a "Do-Over" here. He/she already went to an admin with this and did not get what he/she wanted. See Diff. That admin had the same opinion expressed here. The edit to "clubbed foot" was to correct grammar. See Diff. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- LOL. Nice try. You selectively choose one revert to the article that hides your stalking disruption. Did you think the users here wouldn't check the article history to see your first two reverts and how they differ? LOL Ginger.iphone (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- User Ginger.iphone is asking for a "Do-Over" here. He/she already went to an admin with this and did not get what he/she wanted. See Diff. That admin had the same opinion expressed here. The edit to "clubbed foot" was to correct grammar. See Diff. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re
- Reporting User:Nukes4Tots
Combining post from below --64.85.216.254 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) User:Nukes4Tots is now at 5 reverts on a talk page and claims the rules of an article don't apply to a talk page. What has he reverted 5 times? The phrase "are you blind?"because I won't allow him to look at a picture of an actress to ascertain and diagnose her as having a clubbed thumb for listing her name in the article. I said original research and he only keeps asking Me if I'm blind. I am not blind, but a loved one was, so I continuously remove the unnecessary attack and he has edit warred 5 times to include it. Then he stalks me to clubbed foot to revert war over a grammar correction I made with his message "I don't like it" get him to stop stalking me and stop revert warring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger.iphone (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Clubbed thumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Asking, once, if someone is blind can be dismissed as a thoughtless remark. Reverting the removal to restore the question, several times, is more serious, and I would classify it as "bloody-minded" (Brit.: aggressively stubborn). Continuing to revert, after being told that the question is offensive, moves into the territory of personal attacks in my opinion (and User:William_M._Connolley seems to agree). However, neither editor should still be edit-warring after so many reverts.
- As I see it, the underlying content dispute is resolved (the article should contain no questionable claims about living persons without reliable sources - a pretty safe interpretation of policy), and on that basis I would hope that the parties can find a way to de-escalate this. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- WTF? I think this appeal to an admin gives some indication of the worldview of our oversensitive friend - yup, lets ban an editor for using a frequently used phrase (even if it isn't perhaps said in the most civil of terms). If this carries on there may be a new medical condition on which to create an article; Clubbed Dick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Nukes4tots, please bear in mind civility in your transactions on here; "are you blind" isn't necessarily the best way to interact with people. For all you know they may actually be blind, and not appreciate your comment. Ginger.iphone, please calm down. It might be a good idea to drop the stick at this point. Tonywalton Talk 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um, not quite what I meant - incivility is incivility, and should be avoided, but attempting to get another editor blocked/banned because some relative or friend (or friend of a colleagues relative's homehelps neighbour) is said to be effected by a disability that is referred to in a common figure of speech is simply dickery - for instance, please do not say "bear in mind" because one of my ancestors was eaten by a bear and his wife then lost her mind; You are an unfeeling brute, so please apologise or I shall demand that Jimbo sack you...! The horse that Ginger.iphone needs to step away from is a high one, indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Nukes4tots, please bear in mind civility in your transactions on here; "are you blind" isn't necessarily the best way to interact with people. For all you know they may actually be blind, and not appreciate your comment. Ginger.iphone, please calm down. It might be a good idea to drop the stick at this point. Tonywalton Talk 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Rename vandalism
Refer to Special:Contributions/LConway93. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe those have all been fixed now, and the user is indef blocked. A few admins are at work deleting the leftover redirects. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, him again. Sock of AngelaSchmidt (talk · contribs) and Nintendo nintendo nintendo (talk · contribs). Looks like we have another 'lifetime achievement' troll. Isn't that marvy... HalfShadow 06:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- With the exception of reverting move vandalism, how often does a legitimate user need to make so many moves so quickly? The limit seems to be 16 moves per minute (counting talk pages as a separate move), which is faster than most users would ever need. I suppose it's a WP:PERENNIAL somewhere, but would it be worth considering restricting that ability somewhat by allowing fewer moves per minute? --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The smart way to do this is probably to use the new Abuse Filter. Algebraist 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- With the exception of reverting move vandalism, how often does a legitimate user need to make so many moves so quickly? The limit seems to be 16 moves per minute (counting talk pages as a separate move), which is faster than most users would ever need. I suppose it's a WP:PERENNIAL somewhere, but would it be worth considering restricting that ability somewhat by allowing fewer moves per minute? --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Unblock please
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I have agreed to unblock User:Kendrick7 after what I believe to be a genuine apology for his personal attacks. However, I am at work and for some reason Special:BlockIP is triggering our firewall. Could someone unblock him with the reason ("Apologised, agreed not to repeat behaviour"). Autoblock is #1359927. Thanks! Black Kite 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I've unblocked them ... let me know if there are further problems. Kbthompson (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
User:YLHamdani
- YLHamdani (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a misleading username; Temporarily blocked account for disruptive editing, would like another administrator to take a look at the username issue - possible impersonation of Yasser Latif Hamdani. . -- I had reported this to WP:UAA but since I blocked one day for disruptive editing, the bot will keep removing it. Would appreciate another administrator looking into this. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
IPs behavior
Recently I have witnessed constant nonconsecutive edits by few Ips, namely 203.56.87.254, 124.190.113.128. My observations, let me presume that those IPs controlled by the same person.
Connection between IPs
- Stared to edit in similar time:
- 2008-04-01T23:26:19 (203.56.87.254)
- 2008-04-02T06:31:24 (124.190.113.128)
- Similar affected articles:
- Same pattern of edits:
However, those IPs crossed the line then started to mocking from Lithuanians:
- how is it vandalism when i all i did was revert the article back to what it was before known-nationalist M.K. got to it?
- Would you read how these Lithuanian dogs treat our fellow countrymen on the occupied Vilnius Region (especially the names) and then tell me whether the Lithuanian version of the Bronson's name is so interesting ... (translation from Polish)
- i think the lithuanians are just doing this to spite poles, damn garsva-ites (mocking Kazimieras Garšva vio of BLP)
- you're a hypocrite lokyz (changing polish to polonised and lithuanised to lithuanian
- Tyszkiewicz is more known than Tiskeviciweirweriwerhiw (as both Tiškevičius and Tyszkiewicz still has living descendants such name mocking is vio of WP:BLP as well)
Therefore I ask, that appropriate measures be taken in order to prevent further violations of basic WP policies. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Warned both; most diffs are rather old. If uncivil behavior continues, I'd support a block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Going by the IPs and the times (April last year?) I wonder if these two are the same person. One IP is a company in Melbourne, the other an Australian ISP. The edit from the company is at about 23:30 UTC, 09:30 local, the other is 06:30-ish UTC or 16:30 local. Edits from work and home, perhaps? Tonywalton Talk 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
not sure where to go with this if you read here:[91] rdunnPLIB 13:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked. WP:RBI. I think this may be User:Manhattan Samurai, but Ryan probably knows. --Rodhullandemu 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's Hamish Ross (yawn). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Unbanned user's ISP contacted by an admin with claims of "libel"
I am quite concerned that an admin has contacted RMHED's ISP, telling them that User:RMHED has committed "libel" on Wikipedia. When asked about the libel claim, the response was, to say the least, not very reassuring - "Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was". Contacting ISPs may be a good idea, but surely this should only be done in extreme cases (this isn't even a banned user), and only by official Wikipedia representatives (i.e. "the office"). Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: User:RMHED is now banned, but was not when their ISP was contacted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I found it disturbing that, when I asked above where said libelous comment was at, that they pointed to a diff that contained no libelous content. Rude? Yes. Libelous? Far from that. To contact an ISP and harass a user over that is a bit over the top. seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I have cause a problem here. I certainly did not intend to. A few months ago, I wrote an American ISP about a serial vandal who was taking advantage of a /8 to daily vandalize TFA. At the time, I did not think contacting ISPs would be a problem, and I apologise if I have overstepped my bounds here. I will avoid doing this in the future. J.delanoygabsadds 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it's a long term serial vandal it's worth a go, but not for someone who was an ok contributor for a while and only went a bit wrong for a few weeks. Unless you mean that RHMED was the serial vandal. Such abuse would have to be long term or very serious in order to contact an ISP in my opinion, and false claims of libel shouldn't be made to try and cause trouble for someone- that would be almost "libelous" :) Sticky Parkin 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, per Sam Korn's comments above in the ban discussion, it seems like RMHED has been socking and disrupting for quite some time. //roux 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps true, but this was not known (as far as I know) when the ISP was contacted. RMHED was not banned and was not labelled a long-term abuser. This has the appearance of being related to RMHED's attacks on user:Jimbo Wales. Outside of that, it was simple vandalism and a bit of trolling. The response seems, to me, to be inappropriate for the level of annoyance that was being caused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, per Sam Korn's comments above in the ban discussion, it seems like RMHED has been socking and disrupting for quite some time. //roux 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it's a long term serial vandal it's worth a go, but not for someone who was an ok contributor for a while and only went a bit wrong for a few weeks. Unless you mean that RHMED was the serial vandal. Such abuse would have to be long term or very serious in order to contact an ISP in my opinion, and false claims of libel shouldn't be made to try and cause trouble for someone- that would be almost "libelous" :) Sticky Parkin 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I have cause a problem here. I certainly did not intend to. A few months ago, I wrote an American ISP about a serial vandal who was taking advantage of a /8 to daily vandalize TFA. At the time, I did not think contacting ISPs would be a problem, and I apologise if I have overstepped my bounds here. I will avoid doing this in the future. J.delanoygabsadds 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't in the business of controlling user's actions off Wiki like this. This isn't really a matter for ANI. Was jdelanoy disrupting? No. Was he involved in stalking? No. Was he making legal threats? No (it was a complaint, which anyone can file about anyone, ISPs get them all the time). Why is ANI linking to other ANI? Drama begetting drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- An admin contacting another editor's ISP is likely to be seen as a representative of Wikipedia, especially if they identify themselves as such. I don't know if that was the case here, but it seems naive or disingenuous to pretend that admin actions off-wiki are unrelated if they spawn from incidents on-wiki. I made this a separate thread so as not to derail the discussion of banning RMHED which was proceeding to its obvious conclusion. I believe there are a couple of serious issues here, and your accusation of drama-mongering isn't helping address them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Neon white's unhelpful commentary at WQA
Neon white (talk · contribs) has periodically made a series of unhelpful commentary at Wikiquette alert. During 2008, I found problems with his commentary and would make a note of that in the threads themselves. By November/December when a frivolous claim was filed against me by a now-blocked user, but there was no change in his commentary. As a result, I responded with this - relatively short to read for yourself, so I need not recap. Now I find a pattern, despite some useful contributions, so I've made a note at his talk page again. What I've defined as unhelpful is contained in both links, and particularly on the first occasion, another uninvolved editor, Eusebeus, has agreed with me. This doesn't require administrator "action" as such, but I'd like this reviewed by other eyes - I think it's possible that an administrator will get through to him. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would, but he believes that by stating some users are here to simply stir up drama, that it is considered a personal attack. Whatever. seicer | talk | contribs 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pffft. That wasn't a personal attack, and I was the one it was aimed at. (I don't agree with it, clearly, but you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to consider it a personal attack). Black Kite 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I considered it a personal attack, it was unhelpful. Civility applies in WQAs too. --neon white talk 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pffft. That wasn't a personal attack, and I was the one it was aimed at. (I don't agree with it, clearly, but you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to consider it a personal attack). Black Kite 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh, let's not push people who are generally helpful and genuinely trying to help away from the so-called "cesspool" that is WQA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree there's nothing to discuss here. Neon white recently participated in WQA that i filed. And i thought his comments weren't particularly helpful. However, it was clear he was trying to help, was civil, and given that forum is to seek input from uninvolved editors (who will have a range of opinions and responses) who cares if I or anyone else feels he gets it "wrong." Someone else can chime in on the relevant threads and say so. The mere fact that he's present and giving input, reading the background to disputes and so forth, is a service he's trying to provide.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, after a few nudges in the WQA, there are no issues with WQA regulars, because they are generally helpful, BMW included - but I have difficulty adding Neon white into this subcategory. He's of the belief that he thinks he's always correct and helpful - but that's the entire problem; I responded to these two incidents on his talk page, but these are not the only episodes where he's demonstrated a lack of clue. When a pattern emerges (like above), or this becomes a more regular problem, then it destroys the entire purpose of having Wikiquette alert if it goes unspotted. This would be quite easily resolved if someone got through to him: that a problem needs to be addressed.
- Bali ultimate, your comment doesn't stick - the lot of us are here voluntarily helping out whether it's at WQA, ANI or wherever else on the project - this isn't about intentions. Tendentious editors are often in the mindset that they are helping this project - the fact is that their input is seriously not helping. I'm not saying, nor do I think, that neon white is a tendentious editor, but it's just an example of a problem that doesn't just go away by leaving it as what it is: a problem. A lack of clue at this stage in dispute resolution can not only escalate problems, but can end up adversely affecting the rest of the project, particularly in terms of time spent.Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Ncmvocalist is the one making the unnecessary drama as assuming bad faith against Neon White. I also agree with the idea that Seicer's such comment, "spastic" is totally unacceptable not only as an editor, but also an admin. (Remember some user was blocked yesterday for saying "retarded") This thread is a waste of time.--Caspian blue 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "He's of the belief [...] he's always correct and helpful" isn't an assumption of bad faith; if anything, it's the opposite. I think Ncmvocalist makes an important point that seems to elude many here: an editor can be unhelpful, unproductive, even disruptive, while acting in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It might not be bad faith but it is pretty presumptuous to think you know what someone else believes. I have never suggested i am always correct and helpful. WQA is limited in what it can resolve. So often you are merely stating your view and hoping editors take note. --neon white talk 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must disagree with your stance. This matter brought up here is nothing necessary for administrators' eye. If Ncmvocalist concerns so much on Neon white's general conduct on WQA, then file a RFC/U. No need to make a drama here. I rather am disturbed by his diversion from the main issue on Seicer's incivility.--Caspian blue 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are still upset that I've ruled against your continuing battles with various Asian-related articles. seicer | talk | contribs 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're again diverting your incivility issue to unrelated matters or blame others. But you're completely wrong. I've always been disturbed by your incivility before you even became an admin (eg. your RFA). I expect you behave like an admin. --Caspian blue 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would've been wiser to disclose that in the past, you've engaged in conflict with not just myself on multiple occasions, but apparently with Seicer as well, and therefore lack the neutral eyes of an administrator that was requested. Indeed, you seem to reinforce the precise point of this thread, much like Hans Adler below, of users genuinely severely lacking a vital sense of clue in their commentary. What I've learnt from this thread is that factional problem editing, that pervades Wikipedia, is at its peak. Still, it is of heightened importance that I acknowledge that SheffieldShild is the only other administrator that has provided necessary input in line with my request - *bows down* thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, no, but since you're very "maturely" resorting and diverting to the unrelated matter, I must say your "wonderful" past regarding your "substantial complaints" many times and your acting as a "unauthorized admin clerk" both of which caused many controversies. Regardless, I wonder why you did not make this spin-off file to WQA where the original pertinent complaint was filed. A user pointed out the term, spastic used by the admin is inappropriate and offensive to some people, so striking it would be better for everyone to remain civil. That should be really no big deal but your support for Seicer and urge to others to "understand" the background why Seicer said so is odd enough. Then why can't you see the possibility of people taking offense to the term (actually the target is just one editor)? As for requested objective eyes, can you say objectivity in regard to Seicer given your past? I only can your contradiction. I understand why SheffieldShild's comment is only valuable to you is because he is the only person not to criticize this filing. Good to know. Just for clarification, I have only a couple of direct encounters with Seicer for his rude comment at the article of Korean cuisine way back and his RFA. However, his incivility is nothing new, but I've not care because his activities are not my matters. The only encounter with you is some user's unblocking thing. I almost forgot about the case until you and Seicer mentioned the "past".--Caspian blue 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would've been wiser to disclose that in the past, you've engaged in conflict with not just myself on multiple occasions, but apparently with Seicer as well, and therefore lack the neutral eyes of an administrator that was requested. Indeed, you seem to reinforce the precise point of this thread, much like Hans Adler below, of users genuinely severely lacking a vital sense of clue in their commentary. What I've learnt from this thread is that factional problem editing, that pervades Wikipedia, is at its peak. Still, it is of heightened importance that I acknowledge that SheffieldShild is the only other administrator that has provided necessary input in line with my request - *bows down* thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're again diverting your incivility issue to unrelated matters or blame others. But you're completely wrong. I've always been disturbed by your incivility before you even became an admin (eg. your RFA). I expect you behave like an admin. --Caspian blue 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see you are still upset that I've ruled against your continuing battles with various Asian-related articles. seicer | talk | contribs 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "He's of the belief [...] he's always correct and helpful" isn't an assumption of bad faith; if anything, it's the opposite. I think Ncmvocalist makes an important point that seems to elude many here: an editor can be unhelpful, unproductive, even disruptive, while acting in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Great, For those who are blind or who have difficulties reading and comprehending text, it clearly states that I am tired, not retired. What a good comment on the top of an admin's talk page.--Caspian blue 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This complaint about Neon white is a complete waste of time unless Ncmvocalist learns something from this thread. Both of Ncmvocalist's complaints on Neon white are unfounded and border on the frivolous. I am prepared to assume good faith, but then the fact remains that Ncmvocalist is rather thin-skinned and not assuming good faith:
- Ncmvocalist's first complaint against Neon white was for trying to get a WQA thread back on track. If the first reaction to a WQA complaint is "Yet another frivolous report by a manipulative tendentious problem editor - within a few days, he's managed to file 3 complaints which should say something on its own." from the accused, that's not going to change the behaviour of the problematic editor (in this case apparently Kris, who complained about Ncmvocalist; but I didn't look closer into this).
- Ncmvocalist's second complaint was because Neon white responded "Please do not attack WQA contributors. That is unacceptable." to Seicer's "Now you are creating drama to simply create drama. [...] Stop taking words out of context, and stop being perpetuating drama."
It seems to me that in both cases Ncmvocalist attacked Neon white for constructive feedback to unconstructive WQA contributions. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As far as i am concerned this is purely based on personal reasons and has nothing to do with my comments. I comment on his hostile attitude towards another editor [92] and Ncmvocalist didn't like it. I've been successfully involved in dispute resolution for as long as i can remember and never had any problems and successfully mediated many disputes. Accusing an editor who is trying to resolve a situation of "creating drama to simply create drama" is simply not acceptable. WQA volunteer are not there to create drama, they are there to help. Editors are required to assume good faith on that matter. This is all in Wikipedia:ETIQUETTE which i would think WQA contributors should be familiar with. --neon white talk 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - could we maybe wrap this up? A couple of people who don't like each other got their knickers in a twist over each other. Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, walk away. This thread has already attracted more than enough of utterly uninvolved people coming in to sling mud, as is their wont. Ncmvocalist: grow a thicker skin. Neon white: you mean well, maybe some people don't always see it. Both of you: stay away from each other until you can play nice. Everyone: have a cookie and some ice cream. //roux 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Indefinite blocking of User:Rjd0060!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Could somebody look into this? I'm not sure what went on here, but it seems to have something to do with the new abuse filter. The "explanation" is incomprehensible to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "abuse (BOT) 42qyz" Something needs to be fixed, and fast. seicer | talk | contribs 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- That block was from January and was the User:AntiAbuseBot, not AbuseFilter (abuse filter does not block users). And Maxim was just testing Twinkle block templates, and I was in conversation with him on IRC. No need to panic. :-) Thanks Orangemike. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved admin
- Noelle North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - previously deleted page - requesting an admin to delete it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
thanks for the quick work.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This brand new article, as the title might suggest, is a festival of racism and innuendo about the arabists who control whitehall, the "fanatical supporters of Arabism's wars and bigoted policies." Etc... It's been AfD nominated because the nom couldn't find a speedy criteria that fits. However, it's likeley a recreation of Racism and the panarabism ideology which was speedy deleted in february. [93]. I think it would be best if it's deep-sixed out of process as quickly as possible. Here's the AfD[94].
Legal threats at Lifehouse (band)
User:Lawyer33 (and, IIR, several others/socks) was blocked for legal threats at Lifehouse (band). These typically involved vague reference to a "cease order" ([95], [96], etc.) "in effect to any fans who are tampering with this page. Ben Carey is not an official member." Now, we have User:Lawyer12 again removing reference to Ben Carey being a member of the band saying, "The Official Member lineup is available. Cease & Desist EXCESS editing."[97] (I have added Carey as a member, sourced to a Manila Times article.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- One sock was User:Lawyeruniversal2. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be a well-intentioned user who is resorting to sockpuppetry, threats, etc because they don't know how else to correct the content in the article. (The band's website lists three members. Ben Carey is not listed.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how "sockpuppetry, threats, etc." squares with "well-intentioned", to be honest. If I think a story in my local paper is inaccurate I don't start out by assuming the way to get them to retract it is by chucking a brick through their window and screaming bogus legal threats through the hole. It's also possible that the Manila Times (which describes Carey as "the newest member of the group" in July 2008) is more of a reliable source, or at least a source with less potential for COI, than is the band's own website. Perhaps the lineup has changed since the article was written - slinging bricks isn't the way to put that point across. Tonywalton Talk 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be a well-intentioned user who is resorting to sockpuppetry, threats, etc because they don't know how else to correct the content in the article. (The band's website lists three members. Ben Carey is not listed.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yasser Latif Hamdani
I've indef blocked (overriding a related WP:3RR block) User:YLHamdani, who claims to be the article subject and was adding unsourced info the BLP Yasser Latif Hamdani; info which another user, User:Yasser Latif Hamdani (also claiming to be the subject), claimed was wrong and potentially dangerous to his person. Another editor claims to have verified the latter's identity (see WP:BLP/N). The indef-blocked user also published an email address on the talk page which appears to belong to the latter editor (though this isn't verified). I'd like another admin to review my actions and/or comment on what else might need doing. Thanks. Rd232 talk
201.209.224.71, 201.209.224.208, 201.209.234.93
I think we need a short range block against 201.209.0.0/16, or semi-protection on Katy Perry discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I Kissed a Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Hot N Cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
First, we had 201.209.224.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who persistently added a bad chart to Hot N Cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and vandalizing the Finnish chart positions. As you can see, his talk page is full of very explicit warnings about it. He was blocked for 31 hours. During that block, 201.209.234.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pops up, and adds the same bad chart to Hot N Cold, and vandalizes the Finnish chart position. That IP was blocked for 31 hours. That block expired this morning, and now we have 201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserting the exact same bad chart into another Katy Perry song. I scanned the last 100,000 anonymous edits, and the only anonymous edits from that range are this particular editor. That tells me that a one-week soft-block on the range will do less damage than semi-protecting all the Katy Perry articles.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- One week softblock on 201.209.224.0/20 enacted. Please update this info if the IP range spreads outside those boundaries. Black Kite 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
User has been blocked for page move vandalism; I had noticed a similar pattern of edits with a few accounts and was already thinking of mentioning it here. The other accounts are User:Testsgreat (who is also blocked now), User:Eukaryotic, User:Grantmister555 and possibly User:Onlyboat. —Snigbrook 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I tend to take comments like the one this idiot left on my talk page seriously. He's been blocked, banned and kicked off the site, but I feel it's necessary to follow up with a ormal request to his IP and possible reporting to local authorities. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Nick1444
- Nick1444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nick1444 continually uploads images with proper licensing and fair use rationales despite a final warning. DiverseMentality 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
User DystopiaSticker - attack/POV only account
- DystopiaSticker (talk · contribs)
Obvious POV warrior who appeared on Wikipedia only to stoke the Coulter fire has now resorted to shameless personal attacks. Given zero constructive contributions and a slew of warnings in the past (see this version of his talk page, before he blanked it), I don't think this one is here to do anything but cause disruption. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)