Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Request for community input on User:GoRight

Although there is some support for restrictions, by far the most approved of proposal is a community ban. Most people supporting restrictions also support a full ban with equal preference. I'm therefore closing this discussion with a consensus to ban and blocking GoRight. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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

On February 7th, I made a conditional proposal[18] for GoRight's unblock after a lengthy WP:RFU request. He had previously been blocked by 2/0 for multiple breaches of policy which culminated in a de facto community ban.[19] I took responsibility for acting as an uninvolved third party to monitor GoRight's edits and provide guidance where necessary.

Presently, I'm less than happy with GoRight's progress in overcoming the behaviors which led to his indefinite block. Specifically, I'm seeing incidence of disruption,[20] harassment,[21][22][23][24] wikilawyering,[25] and failure to assume good faith.[26][27]

At this point, I would like to bring the issue for community review and input. Whenever I have blocked or unblocked in the past, my criteria has always come down to a certain formula: Does this editor's positive contributions outweigh his negative ones? I believe that everyone deserves second chances, and that's exactly why I offered to unblock GoRight after his RFU. However, at this point I'm having a very hard time justifying his continued presence. His helpful edits since the time of his unblock do not outweigh the additional time and effort that his less than helpful edits have posed on other editors. I would much rather see a change of editing patterns than another community ban, but at this time I feel that greater input is needed as that that dysfunctional editing pattern seems to be escalating rather than improving. Trusilver 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what I am expected to say here. I believe that all of my edits are defensible in that there is a story behind them but if the community agrees with Trusilver's assessment of them then the best course of action is to block or ban me. I will respond to direct questions otherwise this is all I really have to say. I appreciate Trusilver's assistance in the past and I accept that he is acting in the best interest of the community. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

History shows a recurrent pattern: (1) GoRight gets blocked; (2) GoRight promises to do better and gets unblocked; (3) GoRight behaves quite well for a while; (4) GoRight gradually lapses back to his former provocations, bad-faith assumptions, etc; (5) eventually GoRight crosses the line; return to (1). We are now in phase (4). Whether GoRight continues to steps (5)->(1) is up to him, though my understanding is that the terms of his unblock allow others to short-circuit the loop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of GoRight's edits are in talk and project space - this month alone disrupting existing disputes and filing frivolous ones, ignoring arbitrators, encouraging problematic editors, spraying talk pages with distracting requests, making thinly veiled threats, proposing sanctions against other editors, telling people to mind their own business while refusing to do so himself, ridiculing and annoying people, atrocious wikilawyering, etc. Those that aren't tend to be minor reverts of vandalism (and warnings for same). Indeed I've just scanned his contributions all the way back to the start of the year (over 1,500 edits) and was unable to find even a single substantive edit in main space.

While I would support restoring the community ban, I would equally support an MYOB sanction as suggested by TenOfAllTrades, likely modeled after Abd's editing restriction. This would be his third and final opportunity to prove himself by taking the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. -- samj _in^out 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just kind of stumbled across this discussion and checked a few things and want to make a statement. The pattern that Short Brigade points out is fact and in my estimation will probably continue. but I like the suggestion of Samj, and I would make sure GoRight understands this is his LAST option. I suggest the the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. Just an outsiders thought. Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with comments from Mlpearc. There's a lot of work that could use the help of editors like GoRight. Would GoRight be interested in working on non-admin maintenance tasks? What about creating requested articles or helping cleanup articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is a possibility for sure. Do you have some pointers to the types of things you mean by "non-admin maintenance tasks"? Creating requested articles may also be an option, but where does one go to find such requests? --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requested articles exists, but perhaps a more important task that needs doing would be [28]. If you worked on those articles (I probably should be taking my own advice), I am sure that the community would be very grateful. NW (Talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is tons of copy editing to do at Guild of Copy Editors; if you have good English skillz this is a place where wikignomes can thrive. Any help would be appreciated. Diannaa ^TALK 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Something also that I've been doing a little of, and not even scratching the surface, is checking school-related articles. These have a much higher than usual tendency for vandalism, and that vandalism very often gets by the recent change patrollers. Trusilver 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can help source Category:Unreferenced_BLPs, clean spam and cruft from Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Hell, there is a lot of stuff at Category:Wikipedia_maintenance. Another option is commenting at deletion discussions, you can pick the one you like more: WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:IFD or WP:DRV. Or just visit articles at random until you find one that a) you like the subject and b) it's underdeveloped; you can then expand it at will. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support (with equal preference) site ban or SamJ's proposal to impose a similar Abd restriction on GoRight. Only a few hours before commenting here, GoRight demonstrated that he already knew what a wikignome is and was tendentiously arguing that his contributions have been improving the project when by contrast, many incidents and existing sanctions suggest otherwise. If this was an editor who genuinely doesn't know what wikignome is, I'd be piling on the advice/guidance above, without any support for an involuntary restriction. But the very meaning of "final warning" or "unblock conditions" appears to be becoming meaningless. I cannot ignore what Short Brigade Harvester Boris has described, or the diffs in SamJ's comment, or the fact that this situation is not improving with mere voluntary measures and advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal for GoRight to consider The main problem seems to be that you have a very strong urge to get involved in subjects on which you have a very strong opinion (e.g. climate change) which you feel isn't covered neutrally on Wikipedia. But you have to understand that the way things are covered is almost always consistent with community consensus, and changing that is not an option. A better way to do something with your ideas in these matters is to write up an essay in general terms in which you explain what in your opinion is not going well on Wikipedia and then discuss that essay. Such activities are not disruptive. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree on Essay with Count Iblis ... working on essays is a productive path for GoRight to adopt. I proposed in the past that GoRight submit an essay to 2over0 as an unblock condition with demonstrated content production. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been intentionally mostly avoiding GoRight's edits after they were unblocked - why give myself the headache when the wonder of the wiki model is that we all provide checks on each other? The diffs above (and a little digging to be sure that the context is clear) indicate that they have not taken to heart the lengthy unblock discussions, past sanctions and formal and informal warnings, and advice from numerous editors. I am glad that other editors were willing to undertake this experiment, as I think GoRight genuinely cares about this project; I maintain that even editors with few edits to the mainspace can be very productive in generating quality articles. In the absence of a dramatic improvement in their approach to editing, however, I support a new indefinite block. Mandating that they go edit areas where they have not experienced conflict (viz. completely new areas of the project) could be a solution, but please please word the sanction extraordinarily carefully and clearly. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked, indeed urged, GoRight to avoid involvement in climate change articles during the early unblock period, but he has devoted most of his efforts to that field. Had I known that GoRight would also want to involve himself in the Abd fuss, I would also have counseled against that.

But GoRight is so clearly an intelligent and often insightful contributor that I cannot help but think that his skills would be wasted on wikignome work. He has some King Charles' heads, and he needs help with them. Some kind of behavioral ban would work well here, I'm sure.

2over0's original framework incorporated the following suggested limitations [29]

1. Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive.
2. Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption.
3. Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution.

I thought 2over0 had hit the nail on the head at that point, and it's a matter for some regret to me that he had not the time to follow through. Perhaps we should reconsider this rather than going for something more draconian. --TS 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was less an issue of time than that I decided with some regret that if I had not by the point I gave up after three weeks of intense discussion been able to communicate to GoRight why and how their editing had been detrimental to the project, then I would not be able to. I freely admit that I am not the most socially ept editor in the bin, but neither am I alone in being able to convince GoRight to change their approach. If the community can fashion a workable system under which this project can continue to benefit from their contributions without suffering the all to common negatives, I would support that unreservedly. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support Tony's proposal above, and also suggest that some sort of Chinese wall be erected between him and Abd as they appear to feed each others' worst instincts. I just found this blog from GoRight, with an attendant troll from Thegoodlocust. I change my view: let him hang. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I read it. Is it really that bad? I'm convinced we should embrace our critics, not ban them. I must say, I don't like how GoRight uses the term "pro-AGW". Nobody is "pro" AGW. Can we please use accurate terms? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    *sigh* My off-wiki activities are not germane here. The "About" page on the site tells you all you need to know. I am unaware of any policy that I am violating by running an off-wiki blog, but if such a policy exists please bring it to my attention so that I can take appropriate corrective action. Another user, much more prominent that myself, similarly runs a blog as well where he likewise comments on the comings and goings here, amongst other things. His blog has been discussed many times and the result is always that there is no problem with him doing so.

    @Viriditas : To be specific, the blog is NOT critical of Wikipedia in general but the Climate Change pages and the editing environment there specifically, that is to the extent that it actually is "critical". Regarding "pro-AGW" do you have some alternative that you feel would be more appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree that GoRight's blog postings should not be used to sanction him on-wiki, regardless of how constructive or unconstructive those postings may be. If we go that direction there are many so-called "respected admins and content contributors" who could be held to account for far worse postings in other venues. As for "pro-AGW," think about what that literally means: if anything, it is GoRight and like-minded editors who are "pro-AGW." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Off-wiki actions should be held accountable on-wiki. If we loose "respected" admins and content contributors, so be it. -Atmoz (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Right, while we have little or no control of what happens off-wiki I see no problem with taking it into consideration when discussing on-wiki activities. While the discussion appears fairly benign, Guy obviously takes offense and it's hard to see how commentating on a running dispute via a one-way channel could be anything but disruptive (imagine if everyone was doing this). -- samj _in^out 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

        For the record, everyone is welcome to comment there ... including Guy. --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    • Is it "that bad"? Depends on how you define "that bad". It's the usual conspiracy theory bullshit, it further stirs already muddy waters and as a result of reading around his writing off-wiki I now believe that his aim ere is to see his POV better represented, rather than to collaborate. Where he says his off-wiki activities are not relevant to Wikipedia, this is the precise opposite of what he's arguing in the case of the disruptive IP at AN. Obviously I find him tiresome, persistent and frustratingly tenacious in advocating what seems to me to be a politically motivated campaign to reduce the emphasis on the scientific consensus behind global warming, he's also given spectacularly bad advice to Abd who has quite enough problems of his own to be going on with, and he piles into any dispute where he perceives that science might be winning, the difference the blog post makes is that it persuades me that he's here for advocacy not out of genuine concern for the project. We have no shortage of tenacious advocates who cause a lot less friction than GoRight. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect 2over0's and Trusilver's opinions that the attempted rehabilitation has failed. At this point the most appropriate action might seem to be indefinite block (a de facto ban) with user talk rights, so as to permit the continuation of good faith discussion of GoRight's editing rights.

As GoRight has indicated that he doesn't welcome my input. I would also respect that and would not participate in discussion on his talk page unless invited by him.

I do not endorse Guy's opinion of GoRight's blog posting. Although I do not agree with it I do not think it betrays Wikipedia's principles. There are some websites that are well known troll-friendly venues, and I've been unstinting in my criticism of such activity both on and off Wikipedia, but I think GoRight's intent is altogether more wholesome. --TS 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not an admin, nor uninvolved, but I support a total ban of GoRight. He's a troll. He has always been a troll. He always will be a troll Has never once contributed anything positive to Wikipedia, except when he thinks he's going to get banned. Then he'll do some menial task until the shitstorm blows over, and then he'll continue on with the trolling. Repeat ad nauseam. -Atmoz (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't GoRight have something to do with the recent CRU rename? Whether you agree with the rename or not, his participation in the original discussion could be perceived as positive. I think he deserves a strongly worded "last chance" with a line drawn in the sand. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are thinking of this. The final discussion was unrelated but generally consistent with it. --GoRight (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• ~5,000 words were spent discussing 2 (changing 'hacking incident' to 'email controversy') and as an outsider applying the WP:DUCK test it's got POV pushing written all over it. Let's just agree to disagree that this should be "perceived as positive". -- samj _in^out 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  Unsolicited feedback. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• while (1 > 0); last_chance (GoRight); end Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• while (2 + 2 = 5); climate_change_articles; end Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - almost everyone asking for a ban on this thread is involved either with Abd or climate change articles, both of which would place them in direct conflict with GoRight. ATren (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  ATren, be very careful, see here why "2) Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed." This is what I did to get in trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• One does not have to go anywhere near Abd or climate change articles to end up "in direct conflict with GoRight"... visiting his talk page (or waiting for him to visit yours) is more than adequate. That's exactly the problem we're trying to solve - many of the areas GoRight works are existing debates (or turn into debates when he arrives) so we can either keep him from debates (MYOB sanction) or keep him from editing altogether (community ban). -- samj _in^out 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• I find it severely obvious that only people who have interacted with GoRight have an opinion on him. On the other hand, I find it interesting that you claim that every editor involved with Abd or climate change "automatically" is in direct conflict with GoRight. That does seem to indicate a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I find it very interesting that those wanting to ban GoRight have had some of their actions highlighted on the blog he started. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's interesting or in any way unexpected, for reasons that should be obvious. An argument that people he has mentioned on his blog are prohibited from commenting on his actions is -- well, let's call it curious, and leave it at that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a couple of the editors have also tried (and failed) to get websites deleted from wikipedia that were critical of them (e.g. encyclopedia dramatica). I think if these people can't laugh off criticism then they shouldn't be on the internet and certainly shouldn't be trying to ban people due to their own personal issues. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a red herring. GoRight's problematic behavior is on-wiki, and was already evident before the blog was started. Indeed the oldest posting on that blog was made either at the end of his last indefinite block from Wikipedia or at most a few hours afterwards. I also find the notion that Trusilver and 2over0 are posting about GoRight's problems in order to get back at him for the blog somewhat improbable. Let's concentrate on GoRight's actual problematic behavior, not his claims on an external site about the behavior of others. --TS 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What Tony said, plus most of this predates most of us even knowing the blog existed. Mind you, by the "logic" you used in respect of the "link" between me and Quiggin and Lambert, you and GoRight are practically married as a result of your posting comments there and you are therefore disqualified from participating in this debate. Sauce for the goose, as they say. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Guy is the one who brought it up, and he seems to have a habit of taking his off-wiki critcisms on wiki (e.g. [30]) and he isn't the only one advocating a ban (e.g. Atmoz) who have also been criticized on the blog. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how neutral you would be about a website that published an article about you written by someone who had taunted you about your sister's death and stating that your recently deceased father was a paedophile. I'd say describing it as "worthless" is comparatively mild, actually I think it's a cesspit and I can't wait for the day it runs out of cash, hopefully assisted down that route by a series of lawsuits for the egregious defamation they publish. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Thegoodlocust is also an active contributor and commentator "on the blog [GoRight] started", which apparently routinely criticises editors off-wiki. -- samj _in^out 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't a contributer which is why I decided to comment unlike the other people who are most obviously involved in a COI with regards to GoRight. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Broad consensus that a problem exists: suggest MYOB restriction

There seems to be broad consensus that GoRight's conduct remains problematic and the community would benefit from restrictions. While there is some sentiment that such restrictions should be regarded as the Last Chance Saloon, I don't think this would necessarily be productive because it might encourage some editors to try to trip him up. How about a simple Abd-style "Mind Your Own Business" restriction enforceable by blocks of escalating duration? --TS 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

MYOB wouldn't do anything about other problems such as attempts to provoke others. Further, since GoRight seems to be using Abd as his role model, any attempt hold him to account likely will be met with similar drawn-out and draining debate. I'm personally getting fed up riding this merry-go-round: at this point I'm willing simply to declare that GoRight is exempt from Wikipedia's behavioral standards and leave it at that. It would save all the block, unblock, reblock drama and the resulting megabytes of argumentation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to put him in a special category, why not just block him indef, that's pretty special. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He was indeffed, but then he was unblocked with a "final warning". Now it's clear that the problem behavior continues, yet nobody has rolled up their sleeves to reblock. Instead, some users were advocating yet another final warning in the form of SamJ's proposal (which I was barely ready to support, but I thought ok - equal preference to a ban is at least generous). Now, it's become even more hilarious with one user suggesting we shouldn't impose final warnings because "it wouldn't be very productive". This resembles a debate about weeds. There are people who appreciate its problematic existence and try to cut its source (that is, at its roots) so that the rest of the garden doesn't become adversely affected by the weed. Yet, some people protest with "no, this weed is a plant in the garden, don't harm it, don't uproot it, its presence is productive, if you think it's causing problems, just trim the top off and it will solve everything". For those of us who have had experience with weeds, that sort of comment is frustratingly clueless or foolish, depending on who it comes from, because it's known that nothing will change until the weed is uprooted. Alas, the sad fate for the Wikipedia garden. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People are not "weeds" nor do we treat them as outcasts. Your words are virtually identical to those of every dictator who tried to eliminate the opposition or tyrants who created scapegoats to blame for their problems. We should not dehumanize those who we view as at fault, but rather try to uplift them and give them our hand, even as they bite it. The old thinking that we are separate from everybody else, even our perceived enemies, is no longer valid. GoRight's faults are our own. This view is the only way back to the garden, where weeds and pests are an integral part of the discourse, a mosaic, a web of life. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your angle here, Viriditas. Comparing Ncmvocalist's frustration with a twice-indef banned user to the actions of a dictator trying to eliminate his opposition is taking an argument too far. Dayewalker (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas off-topic, blocked for incivility

Note: I've responded on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Viriditas seems to have continued to take his argument too far: "The blocking policies are a childish and immature response to a problem that will not go away. Virtual communities require a broad range of users to survive. When you narrow this pool to such an extent, the community will die...it should be easy...allowing problem users to enroll in a trainng program that will enhance their understanding of the site." Does anyone, other than myself, have four words in response to that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) More importantly and to the point, Wikipedia was not meant to be used as an MMORPG for noticeboard addicts and people with too much time on their hands who should be busy writing an encyclopedia or helping others write it. It's all about editors and readers and improving the relationship between the two. Too much time is wasted playing "noticeboard" and very little time is spent on improving editorial skills and retaining users. The threat of blocking and being blocked is about as effective as the prison system; In other words, it doesn't work at all. People come here because they want to contribute in some way. Everybody has a special skill or talent, and some bring real knowledge and expertise. That's what we need to tap into and develop; Everything else is pure fluff and a waste of valuable time. We don't need another little dictator who sees people as weeds ripe for the Roundup. Time to grow up. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And now you are making personal attacks, being uncivil, and soapboxing, which is in line with some of the misbehavior that has been brought up about you not that long ago. The community disagrees with your view about tendentious editing as it is counterproductive to either writing an encyclopedia, or helping others write it. Addressing tendentious editing has become no different to the weed comparison I brought up above, and it's a pretty understandable frustration. Nobody denies the fact that people come here wanting to contribute in some way; that they cannot do so constructively and use Wikipedia as a game, a battleground, and as something that does not comply with our core policies (be it NPOV, BLP, or others) is indeed the problem. That you (a) suggest I see people as weeds when I don't and (b) personally attack me by calling me a little dictator, when you'd already been told you were going too far, suggests that no amount of training (even by you) would satisfactorily improve the situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way. In the above, you explicitly compared editors to "weeds" who should be "uprooted". I responded by pointing out that this type of dehumanization was and is the preferred rhetoric of historical dictators and tyrants. Sadly, this aggressive POV is to blame for the disruption and disintegration of virtual communities and leads to their eventual downfall. I'm not sure, but it could be a symptom of hormones. If true, Wikipedia needs stable, mature people with real world experience making unemotional decisions about how to work with editors, not immature MMORPG addicts playing "noticeboard", and racking up blocks. We are dealing with real people, not blips on the screen. We all need to try harder to treat editors as real people, and deal with them on that level. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think you are, otherwise you wouldn't continue being uncivil. I compared Wikipedia to a garden and tendentious editing to the weeds that we find in the garden. I maintain that until the weeds are uprooted, there will be no satisfactory change in the long term - and this means removing the source of the problem. I'm sorry if you still feel "dehumanized" by such frustration. Even if I was to play along with your uncanny misinterpretation, that would still not warrant the uncivil comments (and personal attacks) that you've been making overall and the way you've tried to disrupt this thread. I request that someone prevents Viriditas from continuing to engage in such unseemly conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Note: Viriditas has been blocked for repeatedly engaging in the incivility above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth taking into account GoRight's interpretation of Abd's MYOB sanction (as clarified: "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you."). Here's the money quote: "Please note that the meanings of the words 'discussing any dispute' and/or 'comment about any conflict' are distinct and non-overlapping with the words 'participating in a dispute'". The moral of the story is that if the MYOB sanction is not 100% water tight then GoRight won't WP:HEAR it until we've all been dragged through clarification after clarification after clarification after clarification as we have with User:Abd (who has since declared that he'd rather retire than be forced to mind his own business). Sometimes the pursuit of justice just isn't worth the effort - there comes a point where we need to cut our losses.

Between this epic wikilawyering, the personal attack against User:William_M._Connolley a day or two ago and today's sporadic reshuffling of the municipal broadband article I'm leaning more and more towards restoring the indef block and leaving the onus on GoRight to explain (on his talk page) under what conditions he should be allowed to participate. -- samj _in^out 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust off-topic discussion of WP:NPA

You call that a personal attack? I've seen far worse - especially from the "victims" you are presenting. Besides, it is a valid point considering the whole Essjay business - some people will put forward their so-called academic credentials as a way to bend the wiki-winds in their favor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, this is a clear and recent violation of WP:NPA: criticising someone for displaying their academic credentials and cherry-picking quotes out of context is hardly WP:CIVIL - comment on the content, not the contributor. Essjay is irrelevant - there's no doubt that William_M._Connolley holds a doctorate, nor any imperative for other editors to take that into consideration. -- samj inout 11:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Wow that's how you read that? What specifically was GoRight's criticism - tell me his actual words that you find so offensive and not your interpretation. The fact of the matter is that WMC and Short Brigade (the other editor pushing for a ban) were criticizing people in actual sources for their PhDs - there was no criticism from GoRight that was just a lighthearted joke on his part. Anyway I could care less if WMC has a PhD, I have no idea if he does or not, his article doesn't have a source supporting that claim (last time I checked anyway), and it doesn't really matter since his PhD doesn't deal with the group of articles that he edits.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yeah nice try changing the subject there, but this is about GoRight's conduct, not WMC. GoRight is already on a last-last chance-- he shouldn't be running around causing trouble, he should be keeping his head down and avoiding controversy. Obviously this is impossible for him, thus, out the door he should go. Jtrainor (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Broad consensus for ban

I think it's clear that my suggested sanction would not be appropriate. GoRight's propensity for wikilawyering and antagonistic engagement would not really be addressed. I believe there is currently sufficient consensus to support withdrawal of the "final chance" and implementation of a ban from Wikipedia. --TS 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated above, though if GoRight were subsequently able to construct and explain suitable editing restrictions on his talk page (so as to demonstrate his understanding of the spirit of MYOB restrictions rather than trying to WP:LAWYER around them) then I would be happy to give him a last, last, last chance to prove his potential with substantive edits in quiet areas. -- samj _in^out 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. If you can pick through the shitstorm that occurred in the edits above, I think that Ncmvocalist made some pretty good points. Wikipedia is not therapy, and should not be treated as such. There are only two types of editors, in my mind, the ones that add to the project, and the ones that don't. Now, there are quite a few more respected editors than GoRight who I feel are a bigger liability to the project than he is, and they are in no danger of being kicked out the door. But still, my rationale behind giving GoRight a second (or third, fourth, whatever) chance was that he being contributing to the encyclopedia in an appropriate manner. He did this for a short time, then fell back into his old patterns. My first choice for a sanction would be a broadly construed MYOB and stay away from EVERY article that's even mildly contentious. Every person that edits on Wikipedia is a volunteer, we all sacrifice our time in the pursuit of knowledge. Because of this, every editor on the project deserved dignity and respect - This is why I'm usually the first to suggest that someone be given a second chance. But my patience isn't infinite, and something needs to be done. A ban is my second choice, I'd rather not jump immediately into it, but neither am I going to stand in the way of it. Trusilver 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• What would be the point? If he's banned/blocked he'll just cajole a well-meaning admin into unblocking him like he's done all the other times, and we'll be back here again in a couple of months. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If this turns into another defacto ban, and an admin gets cajoled in that manner, we can pass it off to ArbCom as it would be clear sufficient evidence that the community cannot resolve this issue with its own mechanisms. If this is a formal ban however, an admin would not be permitted to touch the ban without community consensus (if they did without a consensus, then again, it'd be passed off to ArbCom). As a community, we agree that there's a problem and it needs to be addressed - we need to demonstrate that we've attempted to address and resolve the issue through the mechanisms that we have available to us, whether it's through agreement, disagreement, consensus, or even no-consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• A ban is fine by me, if he's allowed to stay then he needs a MYOB sanction and topic bans from controversial areas as Trusilver suggests, but to be honest I can't see the point. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, unless someone can work out something truly brilliant along the lines of what TS quoted above from my unblocking discussion with GoRight. The Ban Appeals SubCommittee is probably the best place for any appeals. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have nothing personal against GoRight, but I can't stand Wikilawyering and I think he's had enough chances to change his ways. Too much drama over one person. I support a ban. -- Atama頭 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds on this. He's behaved quite well and quite abysmally. I'm willing to accept a MYOB sanction and a ban from all controversial areas broadly construed, but it begs the question: How many restrictions are we going to have to place on one editor before we call it quits? So support ban and weak support for broad restrictions. AniMate 18:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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

User disregarding consensus and guidelines, forcing edits through

User:Magicianbink has been continually forcing his edits through on the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 article and other video games in the same series. Me and several other editors have opposed his edits which consist solely of adding lists of music used in the game(s), and his responses so far have been: Personal attacks[31], forcing his edits through[32](by his own admission), and just circumventing the consensus, which is against adding the listcruft he wants to add. We have explained why the information is inappropriate, which guidelines apply, we have tried explaining how he could go about it in another way, the general response is: The rules support what HE is saying. So, the next logical step is bringing it here. Eik Corell (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

- Hello this is magicianbink, I have tried on numerous occasions to work with both Eik Corell and Falcon9x5 to find a way that i can update the article and provide information that is relevant to the the Tony Hawks Pro skater series, while i understand the a basic list of songs Isn't conducive to a good article i have explained my intentions of improving that format, which has only been met with further negativity. As a person who has followed the series and have used these articles for reference i can safely say that the consensus has in the past leaned toward content edited in a somewhat similar fashion to my own, and those editors have also been met by pressure and bullying by users that by my own experience have no inclination to compromise. I understand there are rules but there are also exceptions to these rules otherwise why would there be any debate at all or the need for any means of consensus if these rules were so set in stone Magicianbink (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like to point out that Magicianbink hasn't tried to "find a way" to update the article, and has essentially ignored the four separate times I've tried to give advice on how to include the music[33][34][35][36], three separate times on the alternate ways he can work on the list without leaving it half finished on the article itself[37][38][39], and has instead repeatedly reinserted the list (which I and Eik above feel is gamecruft, listcruft etc) without modification. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I have been slowly working on the article leaving it edited but functional, i have tried to come to an understanding about the relevance of the the music to this style of game and how i would like to slowly improve it. but instead of actual constructive feedback i got dismissive remarks and "wiki bullying". I understand their concerns but i have no intention of harming the article only to add to it and improve the overall value of the information contained thank you Magicianbink (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally i would like to point out the both Eik Corell and Flacon9x5 have been accused of over-zealously removing content by many other users, my goal was to reestablish what was there in the past only to have it once again removed Magicianbink (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna handle this or not? Eik Corell (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to provide an independent opinion on the situation at hand as I believe it is rather interesting. What we have here are two groups of users edit-warring for the past 3 weeks on several articles. All these articles have multiple issues ranging from grammatical errors to layout problems. Instead of fixing these issues, however, some users focused on razor sharp policy enforcement which resulted in alienating several new Wikipedia members that could be later asked to fix the aforementioned problems. As for now this activity has been counterproductive. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem on Race and Intelligence mediation

because of the spurious ANI proceedings initiated by Mathsci, here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Criticism_of_mediation_on_Race_and_intelligence, I now have had user:JzG close the mediation case without cause or discussion. I've reverted and left him a note on the matter, but if it happens again I am stuck, because I do not want to get in an edit war over the matter. I do not know precisely how to deal with an admin who would unilaterally close a mediation, against consensus (as there is no consensus to close the mediation in the thread above on even an attempt at establishing consensus in the mediation itself), and without any discussion anywhere on the matter.

I've had enough of this, and I would appreciate some administrative action on this matter now before it spins farther out of control. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

my mistake - I just now noticed that JzG and Guy are the same user, so he did indeed participate in the above discussion. however, the rest of what I said still stands. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, "spurious?" I don't think so. But yes, your mistake: you have been getting admin action, Xavexgoem and I are both admins. Oddly, the two admins involved are the ones whose actions you reverted and then asked for admin intervention. Ironic, no? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

spurious, yes. Closing the mediation is a matter that Mathsci could have quickly and easily handled on the mediation talk page. Instead, he chose to hijack a thread on a different subject and turn it into a vindictive attack on me for no particularly good or useful reason. I don't share his taste for drama-trauma, and I'm sorry if you do. However, all I am asking is that you respect what seems to be the actual mediation consensus that we should push ahead with it a while longer. I don't quite see what the problem is with allowing that, and I'd be happy to have you explain.

And just so you know, my attitude on admins is that they are just editors with a decent amount of experience and some extra powers. getting a sysop bit set does not make one smarter, wiser, more noble, or more correct than any other editor, and if an admin starts behaving as though that's what the sysop bit does, s/he should have it taken away immediately. I respect you for your experience, Guy, and normally I would listen to your advice. But when it comes to consensus decisions you get to argue your case in a proper discussion just like the rest of us more proletarian editors. or am I wrong? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly well-known fact that any issue brought to the admin boards can and often will turn round into an investigation of wider issues - especially in the not infrequent episodes of foot-shooting we see. Mathsci raised, in my view, valid points which you chose to try to deny. If you think admins are nothing special (which is true) then why are you soliciting admin action here? We don't usually take sides just because someone says we should. You have admin attention in the other thread, you've chosen to revert the actions of those admins and then come here asking for admin action to stop the admin action, which is bordering on surreal. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

to answer your first question: you'll notice that I am not objecting to Mathsci's concerns about whether the mediation should be closed, or that I might not be the best person to handle it. that is certainly something that should be discussed, if that's the way he feels, and I would be happy to discuss it. However:

1. There is nothing in that discussion that currently requires administrator intervention. The idea should have been shifted to the mediation talk page and carried out there, and we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution about it.
2. Mathsci never attempted to discuss the issue, he simply launched into an extensive diatribe in which he dragged out every thing he thinks I've done wrong since the first day I joined wikipedia, and kept harping on it endlessly. It was rude, uncivil, and totally uncalled for in any context, much less this one. I'm actually shocked that an administrator (such as yourself) didn't rein him in and insist that he adopt a more civil, productive tone; If someone had, we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution.

In short, Mathsci chose to ignore a number of quiet, simple, civil ways in which he could have expressed his concerns and resolved the issue, and reached instead for a protracted personal attack against me which quickly went beyond any mediation issues into pure nastiness, with no hope or possibility of a civil ending. I hope he got some pleasure out of it, because I can't see what other value taking that particular approach has.

To answer your other question, I came here because you seemed to be acting in bad faith, and I don't have the special powers of an admin to keep you in check. I was (frankly) worried that you were going to tendentiously edit war the mediation into closure against consensus, and then use your admin powers to block me if I tried to prevent you. with that in mind I came here looking for someone uninvolved who could match the special powers you have been given, and hopefully give myself a little breathing room. thankfully it turned out I was wrong, but you can see why I might be concerned about that kind of bad behavior, given the comments you've made about me here and in the thread above. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but unsurprising that Ludwigs2 created a new thread without informing me. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are still problems with mediation on Race and intelligence. Another editor emailed me about this exchange between Ludwigs2 and Xavexgoem.[40] [41][42][43] In the meantime I left this conciliatory message on Ludwigs2's talk page.[44] Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

<- The article Race and intelligence is being rewritten directly into mainspace. The request from Aprock and me that it be written on a subpage of the mediation case has been rejected. At present hardly any established editors are involved in mediation, with several single purpose accounts dominating the discussion. Ludwigs2 is also now editing the article. [45] That is exactly why the article should have been placed on a subpage of the mediation page, with its own separate rules. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also previously suggested using a draft page, so to as A.Prock. The editors currently active in the mediation are already in agreement with each other and don't need mediation. The majority of editors on the other side of the dispute, for unspecified reasons, have not been recently participating. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The plans to edit this article into directly into mainspace have been part of the discussion on the mediation page for at least 2 to 3 weeks. I don't know why the issue was not addressed at that time, or at any time prior to the beginning of editing, but consensus at the time that editing started was that it should be done in mainspace, and since editing has commenced I have requested that it be allowed to finish, if only for the sake of the David.Kane, who is generously volunteering his time and energy to the task. I have decided on the mediation page that we allow it to finish, and at its completion we can move it to a subpage if that is what seems best. That would require at most 2 minutes, so this is a non-issue.

Further, I have asked both Mathsci and Wapondaponda repeatedly to suggest revisions on the mediation page, which could be quickly added into the outline. that request is still pending, and I am looking forward to their input, but I would suggest to both of them that relying on procedure rather than participation is against the spirit of several wikipedia policies (most notably wp:BURO).

As a mediator I am constrained by the by the consensus (or lack thereof) that appears in discussion on the mediation page. as I have said repeatedly, if these editors want anything (closure of the mediation, editing on subpages, fresh hot coffee and bagels for breakfast) they need only raise the issue in the mediation page for discussion, and they will be heard. I cannot anticipate their objections, however, and I cannot do much about belated complaints over actions where they chose not to participate in the discussion. Silence=Consent, and while I can see now that they disagree that issue can be addressed at the appropriate time. the procedural matter is not significant enough to warrant disrupting the current editing process, particularly given the time constraints on the process.

I will also admit to a certain amount of confusion. both Mathsci and Wapondaponda have objected to the state of the R&I article (Mathsci quite vocally in a previous thread here), and the revised version - while not perfect - will certainly be an improvement over what it is replacing. I can't quite understand the sudden shift from complaining about the quality of the article, to complaining that the poor-quality article is being replaced. can one of you explain that discrepancy, please?

at any rate, I am issuing a challenge to both Mathsci and Wapondaponda, as follows:

• Go to the mediation page and make constructive, article-related suggestions about how we can improve or revise the new draft to be acceptable to you.
• If you choose not to participate with constructive, article-related suggestions, cease these constant disruptions on procedural grounds.

We are here to build an encyclopedia; we are not here to carp endlessly about procedural trivialities. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

POV and accuracy tags installed by me and detailed on the talk page [46] [47] were removed by an admin, UBER ^(talk) without resollving the dispute. He is edit warring with me as well. He has recently exhibited an ownership mentality of the page and his removal of these tags is further evidence of the problem. NancyHeise ^talk 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an administrator, and I cannot understand such a blatantly false assertion. The above user wants to include a POV tag in the article while the article is actively undergoing improvements and while there is an outstanding RFC on its content and structure. I reverted her twice but now I'm done. As I explained in the talk page, I don't want to get bogged down in an edit war.UBER ^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy: A review of the dispute indicates that you are attempting to bend the article into a sympathetic PR piece for the Catholic Church. This does not mean that the current version of the article is perfect either, but the direction in which you are attempting to move the content, and the manner in which you are doing it, is easily construed as disruptive. Use your most recent posts on the article's talk page to flesh out the ideas that you feel are represented poorly, using reliable sources, and then begin enhancing the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have listed the items on the talk page as an alert to the article's editors of the problems that exist in the article. I resent the statement "attempting to bend the article into a sympathetic PR piece" as a violation of WP:assume good faith. I have repeatedly asked the article's editors to go see other encyclopedias articles on the Church to be able to understand my complaints about the current article's problems. The items I am asking for are already part of other encyclopedias such as World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana as well as univeristy textbooks on the Church and scholarly sources. The present article's omissions make it a POV problem as well as the items it chooses to emphasize. NancyHeise ^talk 16:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and you have posted the same items at the RfC. So either let the issue play out in the various forums in which it is currently under debate, or return to the article and focus on building the content one issue at a time. For example, spend a week focused on just the contribution to global education by the Church. I'm a Catholic, and I can tell you that my POV is that the Church is currently lucky this article isn't solely about pedophilia at this point. I commend you for trying to expand content on the "good" still done by the Church, but bear in mind that the "evil" done by the hierarchy outweighs the good in the mind of many, Catholic or otherwise. A truly balanced and complete article on the Catholic church is going to have detailed examinations of the Church's charities, educational institutions, care for the poor and sick, hospitals, etc... but it will also have things like the Inquisition, Pogroms, warrior Popes, hereditary Popes, fascism/autocratic partnerships (see Italy, Spain, or just about any Latin American country), pedophilia, and a current Pope who in addition to fighting in the Nazi army, also appears to have been a career-long cover up artist for child abuse. The fact is, you're dealing with a complex 2000 year old institution that has been more focused on power than faith for the majority of its history. That, to me, sounds like the makings of a highly complex and interesting article, which necessarily requires a diversity of views, your's included, to be meaningful. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe this appalling list of misapprehensions and urban legends about the Church! Sounds a bit like Dan Brown's "history". The pope "fighting in the Nazi army!" A "lifelong cover-up artist for child abuse"! Catholic pogroms! "hereditary popes" ? Where do you get this stuff! This is why we need a balanced position on the article with people here who do not drink in every negative claim - however wild - made against the Church and want to publish it as true. Rigour in an article needs all sides present, and presenting information on the basis of reliable sources and consensus. Xandar 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye. He was only in the Hitler Youth, and he only spent a few years burying evidence of paedophile abuse by priests, hard to see why anyone would criticise him for that. Oh, wait. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Xander clearly knows what he's talking about: List_of_sexually_active_popes#Sexually_active_during_their_pontificate... :-) Plus, there is this, and this. Never mind this little ditty. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we have illustrations of all the issues you bring up in our long version of the article here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church. These were cut by the present article's creators. In the long article, we provide Reader with all points of view about the issues as opposed to eliminating all mention of them entirely as the current article does do. Although I have been accused of lacking good faith for trying to include article text that meets WP:NPOV by including both viewpoints on controversial issues, I have never been accused of trying to cover up "evil" done by the Church. In fact, one of the most important issues of the 20th century that the current article omits is John Paul II's numerous apologies for past Church sins and the Church's efforts at improved relations with people of other faiths and Christian denominations. These exist in the long version (see Industrial Age section under WWII paragraph[48].) The medium version of the article listed at the RFC is the long version minus all the quotes from scholars supporting article text and some pictures.[49] I improved the sexual abuse section of that article as well. As for your assertion that the institution has been more focused on power than faith, I have tried to include mention of the summary provided by Francis Oakley that the Church's contribution to society, in spite of its corruptions of the past, were to expose the people of Western Civilization to the Gospel and that this alone was the key ingredient that transformed Western society. Francis Oakley's book is a university press and the quote is on googlebooks here [50]. I think the same situation exists today, the present scandal exists not because people were following the Gospel but because they weren't. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)May I note that you, NancyHeise, frequently removed the exact same tags from other versions of the article? I have no problem with the article being tagged, however, I think it is disingenious to do so when there is an ongoing RfC on which version of the article to use as a base of improvements. Those tags could serve to tilt opinions toward your proposed solution and away from this version. I request that one of two things happen: a) the tags remain on the article but others may tag your proposed versions as well or b) no tags on the article or its suggested replacements until after the RfC closes. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that I was removing tags until the dispute had been resolved in favor of the consensus which is different from the present sitation where no attempt was made to address the issues before removing the tags. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please address the concerns that this may be skewing the RfC? Would either of my proposal be acceptable? Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of tags - is to alert the 5000 Readers that come to the article every day to find out information on the Church. Since the article has so many POV and factual accuracy issues, we have an obligation to alert those Readers about them until the article is fixed - an effort that everyone admits is in progress but not finished. These admissions are even part of the RFC so I don't see how they can skew it. NancyHeise ^talk 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per Template:POV The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. . If notifying readers is your sole purpose in adding the tag, then I respectfully request that you remove it as being a violation of the intended usage. Having the tag on only one of the three proposed versions in the RfC definitely has the effect of making one seem even more sub-standard than the others. As there are already admissions at the RfC that all three versions are flawed, may we then add tags to the other two proposed versions? Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The other two versions do not exist on the main article page. They are sandbox versions at present. If the RFC results in those versions being chosen, you are more than welcome to add tags and present a list of their problems on the article page. NancyHeise ^talk 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NancyHeise, your battle ground and ownership on the article needs to stop, and if you can't stop, it should be stopped for you. After years of complaints that the former, overly long and poorly sourced version was POV, a shorter version was put in place, and at your insistence, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church was launched-- this time, insisting that you not canvass. This effort to install POV tags-- which you wouldn't accept on your versions-- looks like yet another attempt to derail dispute resolution. I agree with Karanacs that if you want to install POV tags on the current version of the article, they also need to be installed on the older versions contemplated in the RFC, which were resoundingly rejected at mutliple FACs as POV and poorly sourced. By doing this now, in the midst of good-faith RFC, you have prejudiced yet another RFC: this behavior needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, the present RFC explicitly states that there are deep flaws with all three versions. The tags do nothing but alert Readers and editors to the POV and factual accuracy issues listed on the talk page. How do we get help if we don't tag? In addition, A POV DISPUTE EXISTS - fact - thus the article needs a tag. The tagged article is the one that exsists on the main article page. I think that not having the tag makes that version appear to be more legitimate than the other two - one of which was inappropriately eliminated from the page via a straw poll that was deemed inconclusive. I started to the RFC to amend that problem. NancyHeise ^talk 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You have yet again -- exactly as you did with canvassing in the straw poll-- prejudiced and undermined a good faith attempt at dispute resolution in an RFC that you called for and launched. Most clearly, tagging one version in the RFC as POV-- when the other two are resoundingly and long-condemned as POV, while the newer, shorter version is less so-- and then forum shopping to ANI during an RFC, prejudices the outcome. That you don't apparently see this is the highest hubris I have seen yet on this article, and that says a lot. The RFC that you launched is not going in your favor, so you tagged the article POV in the midst of an RFC you called for, for comparing several versions, when the other were long condemned at FAC as POV? This is utterly astounding ... it appears that you are unwilling and unable to let consensus and dispute resolution work on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line, for unvinvolved administrators: There are three versions of the Catholic Church article up for review at an RfC filed by NancyHeise. One of the versions is the current version of the article, the other two are proposals created by NancyHeise. All three versions face assertions that they do not meet NPOV and may not accurately represent their sources. Nancy just added tags to the current version of the article, and does not want them on her two sandbox versions. This appears, to me, to be an attempt to skew the RfC, yet none of us are willing to participate in an edit-war. What is the appropriate procedure? Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The sandbox versions are not the current versions. They not be a NPOV, but they are in her userspace and technically she can have what she likes there. The current version is the one that every person sees, so perhaps it makes sense for that one to be tagged, rather than other versions. If any of the other versions were the current article, they should be tagged as appropriate too. Aiken ♫ 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment While I don't agree with tagging only one version of the article, I just want to point out that the RFC points at a specific version of the article as the "short version", and that version doesn't have tags on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there really administrative action called for here? I've seen this dispute going on for weeks and it seems to be like mud wrestling without the dignity. Can't it be kept to the handful of admins who have intervened and choose to get their hands dirty, without clogging up AN/I with what will be an endless stream of text?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As SandyGeorgia noted, this looks like forum-shopping by NancyHeise. There is nothing that needs to be done here, not yet at least while the RFC is ongoing. Better let admins like Karanacs & SandyGeorgia who already intervened get on with it. Aiken ♫ 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. If UBER and Karanacs are supporting removing valid POV tags via edit-warring, that needs to be stopped. Articles have been to RFC with POV tags on them. The POV tags actually help notifying readers and editors that there is a dispute going on concerning the drastic non-consensus changes wrongly made to the page. I'm not sure how notifying editors to the dispute can possibly be "skewing the RFC", when the whole purpose of an RFC is to attract new editors to comment. I do feel that some seem to be trying to conceal the RFC by giving it minimal publicity and trying to stop others publicising it. As far as the dispute goes, it was set off by UBER's open breach of WP procedure through drastic non-consensus changes made to the article, which weren't stopped at the time. Since then I have proposed numerous compromise suggestions, which have not been taken up by UBERs party - who have remained totally intransigent. Xandar 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Uber's party" being roughly equivalent to "every other editor who's looked at the article recently", yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. UBER's party being the group that has driven off most of the other editors on the article with their constant personal attacks on other editors, failure to Assume Good Faith and refusing to edit collegially otr attempt to come to compromise. (Diffs can be provided if necessary.) Xandar 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The only page that matters, for anyone who's interested, is this one—you know, the one about that RFC you all wanted. 17 people have endorsed Vulcan's and Hesperian's comments about working from the current version. How many people have endorsed your comments? A grand total of two. You and Nancy.UBER ^(talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Largely because neutral editors and others opposed to you have not yet been properly notified of the RFC's existence, while your team were there on the page at once. And your counting is faulty again anyway. Xandar 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about NPOV concerns should continue on the article talk page. Further discussion here seems irrelevant to me. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated

Wehwalt mentioned the handful of admins getting their hands dirty, but in fact it's currently only me. Sarek was working on it, but he took part in the RfC and so can't admin the dispute now, which leaves Sunray and me to work out how to proceed. Sunray's not an admin so if the tools have to be used, it's going to be down to me, and I'm not particularly comfortable with that, given the arms and legs the thing has. Therefore if any other experienced editor, and particularly any other admin, would be willing to help oversee the dispute, that would be most helpful. Sunray and I had been discussing it by e-mail, but I set up a talk page today for us to do that publicly. Anyone willing to help would be most welcome there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated your comment on my talk page. However, for various reasons, I think it better that I not get involved as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're getting to the stage where we've run out of people willing to deal with this, maybe the next stage would be appropriate? :) Aiken ♫ 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable that it will end up there, but my hope was that we could at least get through the RfC without further problems. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope that it is not inevitable that this will go to ArbCom. If it is a content-related dispute, mediation would be more appropriate, IMO. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem was the non-checking of UBEr when he started ignoring all rules. I don't want a lengthy arbcom, which would have to cover everyything that happened since March 9th, but the refusal to compromise by UBER and clan is what has led to these disputes. There are still compromise offers on the table. Xandar 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Article should be removed from good article status, the review was recently and it has basically failed, article is disputed and in edit wars and unstable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's the responsibility of the reviewer (SilkTork), but any person can probably update the page. Aiken ♫ 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped SilkTork a note - I think our GA re-review has basically been overtaken by other events, but he's the lead reviewer so I think he should be the one to make any decision. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Struck some of the above - my apologies, I'd got the dates we'd look at the article mixed up. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, my pointing this out was to try to get editors to realise that instead of this minor point of view issue where someone thinks that some small point in the article is not in his opinion correct, this Good article status is what they all should be working on and now there is to be a lengthy arbcom case taking up even more of quality editors time while the article loses its good status? Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about filters.

There are a couple of pages I keep a particularly close eye on and often someone from a 69.151 prefix shows up and adds nonsense to these pages. As the second and third parts of their address change every time they log in, it's not a matter of dealing with a 'single' IP. I could request semi-protection, but A) they (currently) don't show up often enough to warrant it, and B) most of the IPs editing the page are making helpful edits and this would block them out.

As this is the only user editing the pages who uses a 69.151. prefix, is there any way to set a filter to the pages in question that would either block or autorevert any edits coming from this prefix? HalfShadow 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblocks would work, assuming a sufficiently narrow rangeblock could be tailored. Rangeblocks are usually only implemented for frequent abuse though, since they run the risk of blocking large numbers of legit users. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds like a question for one of our edit filter experts. —DoRD (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this is almost a literal list of the IPs he's using. As you can see, they change almost daily, but the first two numbers stay constant. (I'm not editing the page in question, it's just beyond vandalising the pages I'm referring to, that's literally all he edits.)HalfShadow 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

More appropriate is semiprotecting the articles. I semi'ed Turbo Dogs (your example) for a bit but it seems like they're not actually vandalizing there, so I undid it. What articles do need protecting? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just it; A good amount of the IP edits are actually helpful. He's not actually showing up that often, so he is manageable; I was just thinking if there was an automated way of cleaning up after him it'd be one fewer thing to do. HalfShadow 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are articles they're consistently problematic on, semiprotect those. If they're being helpful on other articles, leave them alone.

Unless they are consistently vandalizing in the same pattern, pattern detection with the edit filters is pretty difficult.

IMHO, at least. Someone else may have a better idea. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the Extension:AbuseFilter does support an "ip_in_range" pattern ([51] line 381) even though the documentation doesn't seem to mention it. Obvious thing to do is apply it to that group of pages. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That could work so long as you narrow down the address space. The 64 address space is huge. It's probably much better if you identify the ISP and determine that address range. Shadowjams (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ranges are 69.151.144.0/20 and 69.151.192.0/19, it's a southwestern bell dsl range in metro houston —Crazytales (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that temporarily filtering even a /16 range (even less so if it turns out to be just a /19 and /20 per Crazytales) across a handful of articles, and only for non-logged-in editors, will cause any big problems. It's nothing like a rangeblock of that size across the whole encyclopedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

Resolved

 – Not deemed to be a legal threat Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In this edit Bsw123 seems to make a legal threat towards editor Off2riorob. BSW123 was already at a level 4 warning and this edit caused an AIAV report, but it is always better to create to many reports, then having to little of them. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as a legal threat in any way. Can you please expand on your thinking? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any legal threat. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat, I dont know what results filters suggest, the editor has a last warning from me for inserting uncited synth content in the article.. this is the content ..In spite of her moral conservatism, Widdecombe currently writes a weekly column for the Daily Express, which is owned by a publisher of pornography, Richard Desmond.http://express.co.uk/search/Ann%20Widdecombe/1/created/40 the citation supports the fact that she writes a column for the express the rest is opinionated uncited synth. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess i am a little bit to jumpy today. "I will be reporting you for abuse of Wikipedia and seeking help in resolving this issue." sounded a tad like a legal threat, so i decided to just report it as such. If Off2riorob doesn't perceive it as one, ill just mark the case as resolved. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's apparent there is no threat of any kind there. I have tried to engage Off2riorob through his/her edit warring but he/she has refused to engage. I have now reported that user on the Administrators' Noticeboard for edit warring.Bsw123 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Which I've marked as no violation, and I suggest you take note of what I wrote there. To give an idea of why your repeated additions are synthesis and personal opinion, consider this similar - but equally invalid - sentence: "Despite being a member of a white supremacist organisation, person X still lives in America, where Barack Obama is President". Does that make it clearer? Black Kite 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's quite dissimilar in format to the statement I contributed (not least in that "still living in a country" is very different from opting to undertake (additional) work for a publisher of pronography) I assume then that the following would be acceptable: "Anne Widdecombe writes a column for the Daily Express, which is owned by a publisher of pornography"; i.e. acceptable if the introductory "Despite her moral conservatism" is omitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because you're still synthesising a charge of hypocrisy against Widdecombe based on two unrelated facts. Try this hypothetical one - "Despite being the owner of Apple, Steve Jobs is known to use a Windows PC" - the two unrelated facts synthesising an accusation that Jobs doesn't believe his own company's computers are as good as a PC. WP:SYNTH is quite clear on this issue. Black Kite 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet he loves Windows 7 :p --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how grown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this to Windows 7: It appears to be an improvement over Vista. Regarding the original complaint, it's not a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, those sort of 'I'm going to report you' threats happen all the time, usually from editors somewhat unfamiliar with policy who think there's some sort of central administrative body who rules on editing disputes and/or hands out penalties for ill behaviour Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan, Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery, Amaras Monastery

Please note that a person has been edit warring on the above mentioned articles, POV-ing them by adding the Azerbaijani names of Armenian monasteries. He has been edit warring for weeks now, and the user User:Quzeyli also sockpuppets using an IP, I request banning the individual and protecting the articles. Stepanakertsi (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles are protected as there is an edit war going on over content. One week semi-protect for both. SGGH ^ping! 11:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: new problematic (see my posts on the respective talk pages: [52], [53], [54] and [55]) reverts [56] and [57] by Quzeyli... Sardur (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Behavior of Breein1007 making fun of user who cant speak english well

There is this user Ani medjool, he cant speak English very good. So this Breein1007 (talk · contribs), not only follows him around and reverts all his edits, but also makes posts at talkpages making fun of Ani medjools english: [58] [59] [60] I'm sure there are many more posts by Breein1007 just like these, but these were all I could find right now.

The edits are at Arab-Israel articles which I think some sort of general sanction apply, and I'm sure this is unacceptable behaviour. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the user first. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, we are a broad church, and should be tolerant of different cultures; however, this is the English language Wikipedia, and could reasonably expect a basic level of communication in the English language; in this case, I don't see any "making fun", and I don't see any attempt to reach out to help this editor. That's unhelpful, but it's not an admin issue. Please try to talk to both parties rather than bring it here. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If Breein1007 is reverting edits because Ani medjool's command of English is not sufficient to provide high-quality English text, that's one thing, and legitimate (although the nice thing to do would be to fix the edits to bring them up to snuff), but I agree that making fun of Ani medjool's writing on talk pages by using pidgin English is uncivil and uncollegial, and he or she should knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's clearly mimicking a bad english writing style to mock the user. He should be blocked given his other recent trolling. This has nothing to do with the other user being able to communicate and has everything to do with this user following him around mocking him.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to apply some good faith when it comes other user's command of the English language. Afterall, we put up with American English. raseaC^{talk to me} 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu - Here is a randomly selected talk page comment by Breein1007:

"My knowledge of Arabic doesn't make me anything close to an etymologist. :) Anyway, based on the etymology, wouldn't it be appropriate to have the French word as well? I don't know what the word is, otherwise I'd put it in myself." [61].

Given that is their normal way of writing, this is making fun:

How know we that they no speek arab? It not for us to make guess like this because we no have reliable source to inform about this. So then we must to assume yes they speek arab.

This is making fun:

You" no make any "sense" when you post "your" comment like these one.

This is making fun:

But I only agree with you in you say that we need article on Israel steal everything in their "culture", "cuisine", "people", "language", "weather", etc! You bring up idea here so why I do not able to support? If you no want people agree with you then please no bring up ideas in wrong place.

They should stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit to a certain temptation to make fun of this whole conflict, as it mostly about middle eastern food, not any of the more relevant issues in the complex relationship between Israel and it's neighbors. (indeed there is already an entry at WP:LAME regarding hummus) Of all the ridiculous nationalistic arguments we have on Wikipedia, the ones about whose culture "owns" which foods are among the most ridiculous. That being said, clearly Breein is being deliberately nasty and should cut it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is particularly unclassy move, and one that goes against our general policies on user interaction and the proscriptions of the ArbCom I/P sanctions. Unomi (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the reporting user failed to notify, as required, the user they reported, but invited the third party to comment. Notification now done. —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to assume good faith and say that he is simplifying his words in order not to use big words that will confuse the other user. And a certain amount of frustration has to be allowed for (if the misspelling "speek" was intentional). I would suggest that cautioning the user would be sufficient. Blocks are not for punishment, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's clearly being scornful about the other editor's poor English skills. However, I agree that a warning would be sufficient if he cuts it out from now on. Edit: so I've done that, marked this resolved.Black Kite 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a slightly different take on this situation, having fixed some of Ani Medjools previous edits, and taking a closer look at his contributions aftwerwards. Since I think this requries admin acdtion as well, I'm unmarking as resolved. Feel free to re-close it if you think no further action is needed.

I agree that Breein 1007 is likely mocking Ani Medjood, and that this needs to stop. But what is being missed is that more than likely, Ani Medjool is not a new user, and is only pretending to have poor English skills.

He is using an exaggerated form of what he imagines a non-native speaker would use, but such a charade is difficult to keep up, and he slips up here and there, enough for the facade to be transparent. For example, perhaps the clearest, "signature" of AM's edits is improper use of the verb "To be", incorrectly writing things like "They all be by editor" instead of "they all are by ..." , or "this be disruptive edit" instead of "This is ...". but elsewhere, he lapses , and shows that he does do know the proper usage, as in here: [62] - "Israel is..", "Za'atar is not native".

Other examples include improper spelling of "Photo" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarkook&action=historysubmit&diff=351662249&oldid=292617019 - but here [63], which is earlier, he correctly spells it, consistently, several times, as well as here:[64]

Looking into AM's editing history, there are curious inconsistencies, and ample evidnce that this is not a new account which is quite capable of writing proper English. Consider his 3rd article edit, with the perfectly correct edit summary "added sourced information about adoption of arab food by Israel", or even his very first: "add more sourced information ..." - but a few weeks later, he has suddenly "forgotten" how to use the past tense: [65] -"this is source information" but still knows how to properly use "to be" - "the proof is shown" - (sadly, even this knowledge was lost a few weeks later :()

His first edit to wikipedia, BTW, includes a perfectly formatted "cite news" template, and is written in grammatically correct English: "Even in the United States, a country traditionally considered an ally of Israel, news media like the Santa Fe New Mexican state that..." His second edit is not just a revert, but one made with an edit summary that uses the uniquely Wikipedia-ish shorthand of "rv" for a "revert"

"Early" in his WP editing carrer, he knew how to properly address other users, even correctly embedding thier user name in edit summaries with the User: designation, as in here, but later, there was a curios regression to calling and addressing users as "the breein user" [66]

or consider this edit, (by an IP which is clearly the same user, as this edit shows) : "i did not vandalize. please do not accuse me of such things. vandalism is when destruction or damage is done under false pretense. i did not destroy or damage your page under false presence. other users have now notified you of your violation of the revert rule, so why do you not call their action vandalism? do you have something against me and my edits? " - is this someone with poor English skills? It is obvious that if AM is capable of producing the previous, that he is only pretending when he write something like "Breen user, please stop personal attack of me by patronize me bad english, as this be disruptive edit too. This be discuss of article, not "make fun of Ani Medjools english". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzu Zha Men (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you convinced me, and you've made a record incase anyone holds that warning against B1007. Many thanks for your analysis. That being said, I would suggest we reclose.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tzu Zha Men for that analysis. I too suspect that Ani medjool is faking his poor English, as well as his online identity as an Arab. There were mistakes in his Arabic language text on his user page. I noted this in this edit to his talk page, which prompted him to remove the text in question [67] in October last year.

Based on this linguistic evidence and that provided by Tzu Zha Men above, I think Ani Medjool is a troll who is faking an Arab identity to create disruptions at articles in the I-P area subject area. Many a reasoned debate has been derailed by his inflammatory and nonsensical interventions which often to do more harm to the position for which is allegedly advocating. I don't believe he is sincerely advocating for these positions, but is instead trying to make other editors who are, seem ridiculous by using extremist, often racist commentary and reasoning. This discredits those using policy based arguments to argue for essentially the same things (a kind of smear by association situation).

Can anything be done about this? Because its getting really really tiresome. Tiamut^talk 09:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing is called a straw puppet, the use of an account to "argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side." ← George ^talk 09:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of months back, I went back in Ani Medjools editing history and I myself noticed that he had a better english in the past, so there are several people that have noticed this. But I do not know if he is faking an "Arab identity". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same Breein1007 that flamed me for politely telling Gilisa I couldn't understand what he meant by "And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?". How consistent of him. Factomancer (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha! maybe we need a CU on Breein1007 and Ani medjool. Actually it would make perfect sense. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Highly doubt it anyone could pretend so well, let alone keep it up for months. It could be another user though. Also, might want to add this to your diffs. ← George ^talk 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that when Breein1007 first came to Wikipedia he immediately started moving articles and telling me that "as usual you are using" [68] its pretty obvious that the Breein1007 account was not his first account at Wikipedia and he has not told us his previous account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would indicate that he was an editor here before, but not necessarily that he is Ani medjool. Also, came across another rather uncivil comment towards Ani medjool. ← George ^talk 11:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree that Ani medjool's English is difficult to understand (about the worst I've seen on Wikipedia), but there's no need to be uncivil towards them. It's also possible that they're using Google translate or some similar tool to translate from their native language into English. ← George ^talk 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that there would have to be some sort of consensus that Ani Medjools (does that name mean anything to a speaker of Arabic, btw?) was actually faking it before any action could be taken. I think that would be beyond the scope of AN/I because of the length and need for evidence judging. Perhaps a RFC/U would be in order?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe "ani medjool" means something like "I'm anonymous" in Arabic, though I could be mistaken. ← George ^talk 11:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to see this thread really get into it, especially as it is rather stale by now and it might be wise to renotify the original involved parties. Is there anything that admins can do to help the situation now, in the opinion of commentators?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems surrounding the editing behaviour of both Ani medjool and Breein1007 have been ongoing for months now. Perhaps allowing people more time to present and look at evidence of their disruptions would be appropriate? What do you we gain by simply closing his thread and allowing both to continue on their merry way? For those of us who like to make productive contributions to the discussions and article content in this subject area, having users operating as socks or strawpuppets who make inappropriate commentary is a big problem, not a little one, to be swept under the rug.

To be clear though, it certainly should not be you (i.e. Wehwalt) that takes any admin action in this editing arena, per your pledge when you were elected to adminship that you would refrain from doing so if elected due to concerns raised about your partiality. Tiamut^talk 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What I would propose, or if you prefer, suggest, is that you start a new entry here at AN/I clearly setting forth what the problem is with these two editors and what you believe should be done about it. Right now, you're probably not getting the full input you want from admins because this is well up the page, under a fairly misleading heading compared with what is being discussed, and which was marked "resolved" for many hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Supreme Deliciousness wants to have a CheckUser done to see if Breein1007 and Ani medjool are the same person. I highly doubt they are, and I doubt that a clerk would ever endorse it. Out of curiosity Wehwalt, does a CheckUser check if two specified accounts have the same IP address, or does it check if a given editor has ever edited as any other account with the same IP address? I actually think it's more likely that one or both would be separate sock puppets of banned users, rathen than sock puppets of each other. ← George ^talk 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When Bree first turned up, AM tried encouraging SD to raise an SPI to identify Bree with all and any of four accounts that various of us thought were unlikely. However, Nableezy did come up with some suggestions for who Bree is that we thought rather more convincing. See the thread at User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/January#SPI. I can't remember whether an SPI was ever raised in the end. The addresses identified for Bree are in another country from that above identified for AM.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to suggest that you ask someone who is more familiar with the intricacies of checkuser than I am. But certainly, you may wish to open a WP:SPI investigation. Regarding Tiamut's comment, I am not proposing to take any action myself. I simply offer my advice, for whatever it is worth. Whether that pledge (which is entirely self enforced) is still valid, given a year and a half since my RfA and an ArbCom election in which I secured a majority of those expressing a preference despite my refusal to give a further pledge, is a question for another day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Such accusations and conjectures should be avoided. I find it very hard to believe that there is any connection between the WP identity of AM and Breein1007, such connection seem to be as nothing more than circumstantial-at most. But I do find it peculiar that AM choosed not to comment on this ANI even though the AN/I was opened on his behalf. I also don't think that AM faked his Arab identity, at least there is no real evidence for it. Anyway, only time will tell who he is.--Gilisa (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Draža Mihailović article

Resolved

 – All edit-warriors blocked.  Sandstein  17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I appear to be completely unable to keep sourced information in the Draža Mihailović article. A group of Serbian users (namely User:BoDu and User:FkpCascais) got together and edited-out everything they did not like about the article [69], afterwards simply edit-warring until their version remains on top. No matter how many sources I bring forth, no matter what I do on the talkpage, there is no way to convince these users to stop with the POV vandalism and leave the sources alone. I've also come under personal attack. [70][71] I recently finally decided to report User:FkpCascais for this [72], he has been blocked for a week but is still demanding that I restore his edit - I have no doubt he will resume as soon as he is able. User:BoDu is still here however, and has once again begun edit-warring the disruptive edit into the article. [73]

I am talking about this edit. The text has been radicalized to the extreme. Not only are the edits contrary to sources, not only do they delete sourced information, they also actually alter quoted historical documents, discriminate against professional scholarly sources on the basis of ethnicity and ethnic sentiment, destroy the neutrality of the text by incorrectly utilizing ideological labels in a childish POV manner, and generally ruin the quality of the text with appalling grammar and syntax. Nothing helps, it honestly seems like there is no way to keep the sources in there. I'm frankly at a loss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Brittanica claims that this issue is disputed. Serious historians such as Walter Roberts, Matteo Milazzo, Lucien Karchmar, Simon Trew, Heather Williams etc, claim that Mihailovic was a resistance fighter until the end of World War II. Therefore, it is clear that Wikipedia must not claim that Mihailovic was a quisling. BoDu (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The above is simply not true. :P None of these authors actually oppose the ones deleted from the article, the user is merely playing word games around the term "resistance leader". Draža Mihailović was in fact a resistance leader that collaborated with the Axis. Britannica is a misquoted tertiary source and refers to the legitimacy of post-war events. This is not at a dispute at all, but an attempt to edit out information personally disliked by the user. It may be useful to note that this matter had been brought up before, and that in blocking User:FkpCascais, Black Kite specifically listed this edit as one of the prime causes of the block, citing "exceedingly obvious" disruption. [74]

In either case sourced information is being removed for weeks now. Admin attention is sorely needed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough. There is a good faith content dispute there. This is not the forum, though certainly an admin may want to keep an eye on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there is actually no content dispute at all. The matter was plainly not even investigated properly, and the silly listing of obviously fake sources above has unbelievably managed to end all hope of assistance. The matter is very, very simple. Two users do not personally like the sourced information so they keep removing it and edit-warring over it without any listed references whatsoever. This is the most ridiculously obvious case of sources removal, yet there seems to be no alternative but to try and edit-war the sources back.

Unbelievable, anyone out there can remove five scholarly university publications and the text they support if he's just willing to edit-war enough about it. Good to know, next time I want to force an alteration into an article, I won't be so stupid as to spend weeks on research. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1) A few months ago I read several works on an issue, I did the research, I explored the position of the scientific community. It lasted a few weeks. 2) I posted the information in the article, listing five scholarly university publications as sources. 3) Two users arrived and removed it, then edit-warred to keep the information out. 4) I reported the matter on WP:ANI, nobody bothers with it, as we can all see.
How do I enter sourced information in Balkans articles of enWiki? Why do I even bother with sources and policies? What is the point of listing references in articles? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The content removals look like fairly blatant POV edit warring to me. I've blocked BoDu for 24 hours for WP:3RR and given them formal notification of WP:DIGWUREN. As the two edit-warriors are both now blocked there seems to be little point in protecting the article as well, but this can certainly be considered if disruption resumes when the blocks expire. Hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I've now also blocked DIREKTOR, who has made an additional revert subsequent to your block of BoDu, thus breaking WP:3RR. I am also marking this as resolved given that all involved editors are now blocked.  Sandstein  17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uff, maybe I should have protected the article. You can't win some days; I assumed he realised he was right on the edge of 3RR which was why he came here... EyeSerene^talk 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene, Sandstein and Wehvalt, don't you think that it is clear that Mihailovic's role in World War II is disputed issue? If so, please could you revert the edits to last revision. BoDu (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

droop speed control

Resolved

Revision history of Utility frequency

(cur) (prev) 15:27, 30 March 2010 Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) (26,438 bytes) (Please stop. This is just wrong and irrelevant. Undid revision 352963354 by Wdl1961 (talk)) (undo)

pls have some degreed electrical engheadline Subject/headline preview: (→droop speed control: new sectionrs stop this Wdl1961 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean this edit to Utility frequency. Please discuss this on the article talk page or with Wtshymanski himself (note, copy and pasting the history is not discussion) before you make an ANI report. Also take care to mind the three revert rule, and advise the people you discuss in this thread of its presence. I have done so for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 15:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And also, making requests in non-moon language helps other editors who don't speak moon language. Syrthiss (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left the following message with the other user:

Please be aware of an ANI thread another user raised regarding your edits to Utility frequency. It appears to be a content dispute at the moment with no need for admin attention, but if you could explain for the user who raised the thread (either on their page or the article talk) why you have made these changes it would be helpful. Also please take care to remember the three revert rule which applies to all edits other than those reverting obvious vandalism. Happy editing.

This should suffice, please try to engage them in discussion before you make an ANI report. If there are no further issues this can be closed. SGGH ^ping! 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

this has been discussed before. it is deletion of facts that makes wiki unreliable .moonlanguage there aint nothing there.Wdl1961 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not copy/paste this into the article's talk page again as it serves no purpose there. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a clearer source on "droop control" which may clear up the problem, from the PJM Interconnection online training materials for their power system operators. It's now linked on Talk:Utility frequency. --John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated POV-pushing by RevSpitz

RevSpitz has engaged in a pattern of POV-pushing edits despite numerous warnings. Most recent example is this one. Groupthink (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two edits in the last three months hardly constitute "a pattern". No admin intervention appears necessary for an account that is barely active. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's OK for a user to log in once every one or two months and make nuisance edits, even if repeatedly warned not to? Groupthink (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it turns out that this user has COI problems, too. Groupthink (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

BlackJack here has unleashed a torrent of abuse at me which includes numerous personal attacks, can he please be blocked. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

His comments seem pretty fair to be honest. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why calling somebody a cretin, coward and scum is fair? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to someone who has conducted via several IP addresses a campaign of invective, including numerous personal attacks, that is designed to provoke; and given that you have called me "bitter, twisted" and a "compulsive liar", it is hardly surprising that I have reacted as I did. By the way, RaseaC, I apologise for losing my temper but being called a liar is extreme provocation.

I would also like to draw admin's attention to this person (88.111.55.202) launching an edit war in Marylebone Cricket Club and Variations in first-class cricket statistics by removing source information and ignoring a reasonable request to discuss the proposed changes on the talk pages first. He carried on a similar edit war yesterday on an AfD page by persistently reverting to an irrelevant point. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In every conversation I've had with you, you've lied time and again therefore calling you a compulsive liar is a pretty fair description. Being called scum is also extremely provocation but did I start chucking insults at you? The external links I've removed are spam that were added by the site's owners, the website is entirely unreliable. I would like to draw an admin's attention to the fact BlackJack was indefinitely blocked until 12 days ago, having been given a second chance any normal person would be on their best behaviour not to repeat the experience. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

88.111.55.202 is just the latest in a long line of dynamic addresses used by this person to attack me over some apparent grievance of which I have no knowledge. Yesterday he was using 88.111.63.26 to wage an edit war in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore. Other IPs he has used include:

• 88.111.48.107
• 88.111.39.197
• 88.111.60.218
• 85.210.127.158
• 85.210.83.167
• 88.109.8.46
• 88.110.56.81
• 85.210.135.210

I believe he has a WP account but he will not use that when he is acting as a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the reliability of the website in question, I suggest that members of WP:CRIC decide on that, which is why I requested a discussion on the article's talk page. Since no one in WP:CRIC has objected to the site previously, I see no reason why it should suddenly be a problem now. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place? The only discussions on WT:CRIC I can find are all uncertain [75], quite negative [76] and very negative [77] about the source. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. The second one was way back in 2007 and was clearly a misunderstanding about copyright. The first was an honest question by SGGH. The third was a routine piece of trolling by User:Richard Daft. There has not been a formal discussion: I said that no one in WP:CRIC (except a known troll) has objected to the site being used and some have even quoted it in their edits. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As for him "not chucking insults at me", how about this one? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So accusing three well-respected WP:CRIC members of being sockpuppets without any evidence are the actions of a fair and reasonable person? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake as I thought one of them was you, having been given incorrect information by a well-meaning colleague. I have apologised to all three people and two of them have graciously accepted while the third is not active today. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a formal complaint about the activities of the person currently active as 88.111.63.26. He has previously been warned by admins on this page and WP:AN and he has alienated just about every member of WP:CRIC by his vindictive conduct. I recoomend a 24-hour block of the current IP and the establishment of a precedent to block any IP he uses in future. He is using the site to wage a war but he will not admit his reasons. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a step back mate, you've alienated just as many members of WP:CRIC as I have. How exactly do my actions merit a blocking? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WP:ANI is no place to continue a dispute, it is where people go to have problems taken care of. I advise both users to disengage, step back and breathe. Stop posting on each others talk pages, and stop posting here. An uninvolved administrator (which I am happy to state I am not) will come along and see if there is anything to be acted upon. You could both end up defending your own position so strongly that you end up with admin attention on you even if you are the victimised party. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I will withdraw and I have nothing further to say. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from archive, unresolved. --88.111.36.3 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing from this one now, because I have become too involved to remain objective since my investigations so far have led me too far down the road to believing that the two above IP addresses are involved (and should be added to, IMO) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. I hand the baton to the next admin who wishes to take a more objective approach than I could now manage. My apologies. SGGH ^ping! 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User page redirected to article space

I'm not sure what the correct venue for this is, so I'm asking here (WP:UAA seems to be for abusive usernames, which this isn't). A user (Docjudith (talk · contribs)) appears to have moved their page to article-space (at David Whiffen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). Verifiability of the article-space page aside, it makes it difficult to get ahold of this person, as they'll only receive "you have a new message" notices for changes to their old talk page. I'm assuming they've been acting in good faith, but is the page supposed to be there, and if not, how would they be appropriately encouraged to perform a proper user-space name change?

(ANI thread notification is here, though I have no idea if they'll see it, per above.) --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Smashville^talk 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In future you can simply blank the userpage and boldly move the talk page back where it belongs. –xeno^talk 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a simple moving of a draft article to article space, with the user's talk accidentally along for the ride. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos -language (or: things are heating up in the I/P-area again)

What is acceptable language on Wikipedia?

AnonMoos (talk · contribs) presently insists on the right to call Egyptian Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi for "that asshole" and a "bloodthirsty hatemongering racist", is this ok?

User:Tiamut and myself have tried to get him/her to retract his words here. We have also discussed it here. However, two other editors, Breein1007 (talk · contribs) and No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) seem to agree with AnonMoos.

If this is accepted to stand, does that mean that in the future any editor on Wikipedia can write: "as my considered honest opinion, sincerely arrived at after intellectual deliberations and the consideration of various facts over a number of years -- that Israeli leader <fill in name here> is a bloodthirsty hatemongering racist"? (see: [78]) --and not be blocked? ---Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My only contribution to this issue was to point out to Tiamut and Huldra that obviously AnonMoos does not agree with their reading of BLP and that posting about it repeatedly on the talk page is not going to solve the problem. Huldra apparently thinks she's ethically bound to post something bad about an Israeli now. Go figure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Calling living persons names like that, also repeated here March 28, is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP. I am blocking AnonMoos for 48 hours in enforcement of that policy and am also warning him about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I will redact, also as a policy enforcement measure, the current versions of the talk pages concerned. As to Huldra, you are getting very close to violating WP:BLP and WP:POINT yourself with your reply cited by No More Mr Nice Guy above, and I strongly suggest you remove it soon.  Sandstein  20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reaction. I was trying (after rather long arguments, both from Tiamut and myself) to get AnonMoos to see what kind of atmosphere their language could create, it was meant as a hypothetical situation. But in any case; I have redacted it. And I am relieved that this language is not found acceptable: it should´t be. Thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just read the guy's own words in his article, AnonMoos' assessment of the guy is not unjustified. He's progressive in many ways, but stained with hatred of Israel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One can describe a clear hatred of Israel (or antisemitic behavior, or abusive views towards Islam or Moslems, or...) in accurate but not provocative or abusive terms. If one chooses words to inflame and abuse and create drama, rather than describe in a neutral and impersonal manner, then one is outside of the bounds of WP:CIVIL. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What can be done to increase/enforce compliance with the requirements of the discretionary sanctions ? They clearly aren't working. These kind of disruptive firefights happen pretty much everyday in multiple articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Roman888

Hi there, could someone please block User:BastilaShan987? Their sole contribution has been to create Scandals in the Malaysian Armed Forces, which is a recreation of Malaysian Military Scandals, deleted as a copyright violation (now existing as a protected redirect). The user is undoubtedly a sock of prolific copyright violator and sockfarmer User:Roman888 so I ask for the user to be blocked as well. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone, however made threat to return again (and again). I suggest a range block in consultation with SPI or whomever is appropriate. SGGH ^ping! 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. He's already been through SPI once where it was determined a rangeblock wouldn't be feasible for him. So just going to have to keep up the chase! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Block stats, if such a thing was important. SGGH ^ping! 22:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiRecontributer47

I've recently nominated an article by this individual (under his former username, User:Alexking321, which was changed this morning at his request) for AfD, so I'm already involved and probably not the best person to deal with this. I'm just concerned (and puzzled) by recent events, such as [79] this one, where he gives another editor a final warning (as a first warning, and for what I'm not precisely sure), and [80], where he adds a spurious semi-protection template to an article. Essentially, this individual has created two articles, Chana Shapiro and Ariel Israel Zeckler, and seems to feel he owns them. I've nominated the first at AfD. Will someone uninvolved have a look at this editor's brief history and do whatever seems necessary? It might just be some friendly guidance that's required, but the pattern of edits and the lack of communication concerns me. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I erred a bit -- it seems as though he contributed two more articles, one of which was deleted, and has a 12-hour block in his log that I forgot to mention. The ownership issue still applies, though. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I Have an issue with the username change, which I have just flagged up on the Talk page of the admin who did the change Nihonjoe (see here) - in summary a 'new' user called Alexking321 was crated 1 min after the user change and has been editing articles that the original user edited. Codf1977 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with a name change specifically. If he's abusing multiple accounts, I see no problem with blocking both accounts. Otherwise, there's nothing for me to do here. The username change was handled entirely appropriately. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the way the change of user name request was handeled was correct - my issue is with the underlying reason for his/her request in the first place. Sorry if my comment was misleading in anyway. Codf1977 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is someone who has figured out how to game the system in order to avoid scrutiny. I've been seeing this more and more lately... an SPA account will pop up, make some edits, create some junk articles, request a rename... it's all just smoke and mirrors. It's pretty unlikely that someone else would randomly create another account named Alexking321. Both accounts should be blocked, Alexking permanently and the other one until he promises to stick to one account and stop creating promotional articles about non-notable people. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not adverse to blatant copyright violation either File:Anne-Marie-Hutchinson.jpg --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just had to fix her vandalism on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chana_Shapiro here Codf1977 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin have a look at this as both accounts are currently editing. Codf1977 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Privacy-invading troll User:Reportinprivacyviolation returns...

Resolved

 – -- user blocked. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

as Privacyproblemsbydavidtroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive mass nominations at AfD

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

The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP.

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#London_bus_route_articles, and has been for about a week now on how to handle non notable bus route articles, and the general consensus is just to redirect them. Currently there are several users going through each article individually and attempting to source where appropriate, and if the route is just not notable, make the redirect. This user is ignoring what is currently going on and has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth.

What do I hope to achieve from this thread? An admin with an ounce of common sense should step in and close all these discussions, pointing the user to the ongoing discussion linked above, and telling her to stop being disruptive. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jeni ^(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, the admin in question has now resorted to calling me a troll.[81] Is this really the example admins should be setting? Jeni ^(talk) 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No action is warranted here. There is no reason to assume these nominations are not in good faith. It is quite clear from the nomination statements that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE in a genuine effort to not nominate the routes that are notable. Indeed, when one looks at this raft of unsourced, unverified tracts of original research, it is clear that the nominations are quite proper. The community at large decides on the notability of articles, not individual wikiprojects.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the best course of action would be for BHG to stop nominating articles for now, but the ones already open should be left as they are, as people have commented on them. Consensus may well be different to that on the bus talk page, and the talk page discussion does not trump the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR which are the main concerns - lack of sources to assert notability, and original research.

I think you should tone down the hyperbole a bit though, Jeni. Saying things like "[This user [...] has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth" helps nothing. Aiken ♫ 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wondered how long it would take Jeni to try this.

Firstly, I am not on a mission to "eradicate every bus route article"; I have sought community consensus on deleting some of the most egregiously non-notable ones. Most of the articles I have nominated abysmally fail all wikipedia's notability standards, but rather than comment on content, Jeni has set out to simply derail the consensus-building process at AFD by disruptively posting attacks on me which have nothing to do with the articles under discussion.

I have since found that Jeni and a few other editors interested in buses have been using set of notability criteria (at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What_qualifies_as_a_route_notable_for_an_article.3F_ which take no account of established Wikipedia inclusion guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

It appears that I have inadvertently stepped into a walled garden, which is why evidence of the utter non-notability of most of the articles I have nominated for deletion is being met with diversionary accusations of misconduct.

Please can we just use AFD for its normal purpose of discussing the notability or otherwise of the articles concerned? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Jeni says "The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP"

Actually, I have repeatedly asked Jeni to provide some evidence of the notability of articles whose deletion she opposes, and have consistently been met with abusive refusals to do so. I invite anyone interested to read the AFD discussions and make up their own minds on who is putting themselves above logical discussion.

Oh, and for the record, I finished processing my list of bus route articles to scrutinise. We'll see what the outcome is of open AFD discussions on these articles, and then I will be happy to discuss with the bus projects how to move forward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Jeni's !votes and lack of AGF are bordered on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I looked into one of these cases in detail and found that the supposed lack of notability was false - a simple book search turned up numerous references, as one would expect for this famous form of transportation. This and other aspects of the matter indicate that the deliberations mandated by our deletion policy are not being followed. As the volume of nominations is already causing editors to give up in disgust, so that proper consideration cannot be given to the topics, these nominations seem quite disruptive. It may also be that nationalism comes into this - I seem to recall BHG and Jeni going at it over the naming of motorway articles and the animus generated by this may be spilling over into other transportation articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have 7 days. to provide those sources. I just read most of them and didn't see you provide any sources or say anything beyond making bad faith assumptions. If you found so many sources on one route, why didn't you add them tot he article? Sorry you want to keep an article and claim sources you need to provide them. I saw a couple AfDs where book sources were discussed but it seems that the book sources were trivial coverage. A sentence or two.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here a selection from the many I found. I'd list more but it's late.

1. Engineering Volume 209
2. Process control and automation Volume 8
3. Railway Gazette International Volume 107
4. The Commercial Motor Volume 135‎
5. The London RT bus: the story of London's longest-lasting bus

Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am delighted that Colonel Warden found sources I had missed for one of the articles. That's a good outcome at AFD: wider scrutiny resolves a problem someone had missed. But check through the other articles, and you will see several (e,g. 187) where even User:Alzarian16, the editor who has worked a lot on these articles agrees that it's utterly non-notable.

  But as to the rest of CW's comments ... wooooweee, that bad faith on stilts, with the power turned up to number 11.

  How I got into this is simple. Over a week ago I found an uncategorised Category:Bus routes in Cardiff, added parent categs, and took it CFD for upmerger at here. That discussion broght up concerns about the notability of bus routes, so I looked at the articles and AFDed 2 of the 3: Capital City Red and Capital City Green. At the CCR AfD an editor suggested I look, at the London buses, so I did: I took a random sample of 6, and found them so woefully lacking in references, and so devoid of any sign of notabilty when I looked for sources, that I AFDed them.

  I'm saddened to see that Colonel Warden's has leapt so rapidly into making false accusations of nationalism. I have nominated dozens of non-notable Irish articles for deletion, so I am quite happy to stand by my record of neutrality in deletion debates, and I think it's a great pity that there are a very few British people who seem to find it acceptable to launch into allegations of ulterior motives when they disagree with someone Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is par for the course here. It is quite common for something that someone likes which isn't notable to be nominated for deletion. Since there is no way to genuinely defend it it almost always results in a few things including assumptions of bad faith, insults, harassment, etc. As someone who often nominates for lack of notability I've been subject to all kinds of it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• We're talking about London buses here - one of the most notable transportation systems on the planet, about which numerous books have been written. Sources for such article are quite feasible and the relevant project is engaging in this work already. Nominating a great flurry of articles is quite unhelpful as it generates unproductive discussion of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quite, which is why we have London buses and Buses in London. Not every route is notable and worthy of an article. Aiken ♫ 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• The system might be notable. Doesn't mean every individual route is notable. Perhaps you misunderstood me. If you found sources that were relevant to an article why didn't you provide them? Claiming sources without providing them especially when asked borders on disruptive, especially taking into account your already numerous assumptions of bad faith. No one has demonstrated where anyone was supposed to know there was even a discussion going on in the first place even if it was relevant to whether or not they could nominate something for deletion. There are no notices on the pages themselves that I can find.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pointing out that a discussion is already in progress on the topic is now disruptive is it? I've had to put up with BHG's endless requests asking why I think these articles are notable, when I haven't even attempted to comment on the notability, and made it clear that I wasn't about to in that context. Jeni ^(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since that is irrelevant yes. Projects do not own articles and people are free to edit, change, or nominate them completely independent of what the project is doing.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please please do point me to somewhere where its been stated that projects own articles? I certainly can't see anything! I don't think half the people involved in that discussion are even in the LT WikiProject, I'm not! It's just a convenient place to hold a centralised discussion. Please stop making silly assumptions you know are blatantly untrue. Jeni ^(talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You claimed that since the projects were discussing these articles someone couldn't nominate them for deletion. That's ownership. Unless there is already an existing deletion discussion going on, anyone from anywhere is free to start one.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I claimed that since there was already an on going discussion (please do note the lack of the word project there) it is rather WP:POINTy to completely ignore said discussion, refuse to take part and continue on a mass nomination spree. Please please do read things :) Jeni ^(talk) 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand WP:POINT very well and I suggest you reread it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it fine. Please refrain from assuming bad faith. That seems to be a big issue for you in this matter. Is the discussion on a project page or not? Just because you didn't say "project" is irrelevant. The discussion is happening in relevant project space. Not at the pump. It isn't pointy at all to nominate something for deletion. It is an assumption of bad faith to assume that though since most of the ones I visited were good nominations there is an utter lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Going on your logic, any discussions which take place on a project page are completely worthless and pointless by virtue of their location. Sorry, doesn't work like that.. discussion occurs in the most convenient place where a group of editors get together and find something which needs discussing. Been around Wikipedia long? Jeni ^(talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, they just don't supersede deletion discussions or the requirements for one. Also can you show me where she was notified of the discussion prior to her nominations? I just checked a couple random route pages and cannot find any notifications on their talk pages that their fate was being discussed. And yes, I've been around wikipedia for years. Have you? It seems you've got a real problem remembering core behavioural policies and guidelines and you're really pushing disruptive now with your continuance. If you can't discuss this in a civil manner without assuming bad faith I might suggest you take a step back.--Crossmr (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Blurp, looks like me and Crossmr simulposted. Cross, I was replying to Jeni, not you. Jtrainor (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith aren't helping your case at all, Jeni. Frankly, the only thing I could accuse BHG of doing wrong in this instance is not batch nominating the London bus routes, thus forcing me to !vote delete multiple times instead of once. Resolute 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it seems that any way of bring these articles to AFD is going to cause objections. I thought it was easier to consider the routes separately, but after a few suggestions of batching them, I did batch the last group (a nomination for the West Midlands articles). Jeni's response was to accuse me of making a disruptive indiscriminate nomination which included "both notable and non notable routes" (tho she didn't identify which).

I don't know why it makes any difference to her, since she has posted at great length to all the other AFDs about her refusal to even discuss notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I wasn't serious in the criticism but that didn't translate via text.  ;) Resolute 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass Afd is a disfunctional method at the best of times, but when it makes it to ANI, well, assessing the articles and their potential properly and individually in good faith against the GNG, is now a mere pipe dream in the face of multiple cookie cutter JNN votes. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this as "disruptive". The AfDs are in proper form. They seem to be getting both "keep" and "delete" votes. They're not frivolous. Usually, we have this argument over spinoff articles from fiction fans who get carried away with enthusiasm. This time, it's bus fans. --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like major cruft. I suggested in the 187 afd that the folks working on these articles should compile them all into a wikibook instead of spraying them across N separate encyclopedia articles. A wikibook puts all the info in one place, which is almost certainly preferable for readers and doesn't cruft up the encyclopedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination and disruptive editing

User:Duke53 has been generally uncivil and made no constructive edits in the past few months. He has been called a troll on several occasions, and in my opinion, for good reason. I've raised the issue at CCN and at WQA, but only one outside opinion has surfaced (asserting the incivility of Duke53 on a particular matter). The CCN discussion illuminates Duke's manner of treating fellow Wikipedians.

The most disturbing example of incivility was when he recently stated: (light gray background mine, emphasis his)

"I'd almost forgotten how adept you mormons are at playing the 'victim'( even after committing mass murder at Mountain Meadows!)".

He is vehemently trying to discredit or scare away User:Routerone and generally seems to despise Mormon editors. On a few occasions, Mormons have attempted to edit his userpage, removing elements they found offensive, though Duke always restored the offending content (see his userpage history). For further details, see his contribs. Please block or seriously warn him as you deem appropriate. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Duke53 is probably beating that one item to death. However, Mountain Meadows massacre makes for interesting reading for those who think the Mormons were all sweetness and light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The offensive item, or one of them, was Duke53 posting an illustration currently in Temple garment, ostensibly to keep it from being deleted due to being "orphaned". There has apparently been some effort to take that photo out of Temple garment article on religious grounds. However, wikipedia's not-censored policy forbids that, provided the photo is what it says it is. That's kind of like the Muslims who want illustrations of Muhammad censored. Wikipedia doesn't do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yeah, Duke53 is really pushing the WP:CIVIL boundary, which has led Routerone (talk · contribs) to do the same. It's all outlined at CCN, though no uninvolved admins have really assessed the situation. Duke53 has been blocked before, and warned a zillion times (see User talk:Duke53, but still treads the line between outright incivility and just not WP:AGF. tedder (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

•Hi tedder, a zillion times ? Wow! I had no idea it was that many. Since you brought up the fact that I've been blocked before, let's review that. I was blocked twice, both over the essjay incident (how long ago was that, BTW? ); apparently friends of essjay's didn't like my insolent attitude over their handling of the incident. Oddly enough, you have neglected to mention Routerone's two recent blocks, which have occurred during this calendar year. I hope that you're not saying that his behavior is due to my edits. Tsk, tsk. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The part I forgot to mention was the lds church's official, systemic denial of any mormon involvement in that cold blooded massacre, which continues, to some extent, to the present day. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Please do look into the repeated vandalism at my user page. I have wanted that taken care of for quite some time now. Censorship is NOT allowed at Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the conflict for a moment, your characterization of Duke53 as a "troll" with "no constructive edits" seems completely inaccurate. He's got a good [82] number of mainspace edits, and a quick look at his contribs shows he's not a troll. Furthermore, he's allowed to put whatever he likes on his user page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've analyzed Duke53's last 500 contributions, dating back to the end of 2008. Here are some rough statistics for his mainspace contributions (counts may be off by a small number due to hand counting/classifying):

• Number of mainspace edits: 195
• Edits by topic: LDS (Mormonism) related = 69; Duke University related = 63; all others = 63
• Edits by edit type: revert/undo = 107; content deletion = 14; minor (cite tags, typos, wikignoming) = 63; significant content addition or constructive reworking = 12
• Breaking down reversions by topic:
  • Undo Duke-related vandalism (Dook, etc.) = 31
  • Undo drive-by removal of LDS temple garment images = 8
  • Revert non-vandalism (Duke-related topics) = 13
  • Revert non-vandalism (LDS topics) = 38
  • Other topic areas (reverting both vandalism and non-vandalism) = 17

I think a closer look at his contributions, particularly his interactions with other editors in both LDS-related topics and otherwise, would be merited -- not just a count of his overall edits. Also, for reference, note the RfC from 2007 that was closed when Duke53 got busy in real life and left WP for a few months.

Submitted for your consideration, alanyst ^/talk/ 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A little late to the ball aren't you, alanyst ? Making some time for a bit of tag teaming again ? I am impressed that you took all that time to 'analyze' my edits. To neutral admins: it might behoove you to take a look at alanyst's edit history and his uncanny knack of following me wiki-wide; he calls it watchlisting ... others have referred to it as 'stalking'.

As for that RfC, guess who started it ? Alanyst ! (another mormon) Coincidence, I think not. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the past I did keep an eye on your contribs and stepped in to try to resolve or defuse the conflicts you have gotten involved in. Several times I have helped resolve them in your favor or achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome. It has been a Sisyphean effort.

Incidentally, it should be no surprise, based on your contributions, that most of the editors complaining about your behavior are LDS; we bear the brunt of your hostility and contempt, apparently for no better reason than that we are members of a religion that you despise. But there has been no coordination as you imply; I simply visited my watchlist and was led here, on my own. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(on ANI and User talk:Duke53) Duke53 - Please consider this as a final warning on disruptive incivility towards other contributors to Wikipedia. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are core Wikipedia policy. We expect contributors here to treat each other in a collegial and adult manner. You are clearly not acting in a constructive, collegial, or friendly manner at the moment, and it's disrupting multiple locations on Wikipedia including ANI here and now. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here on your and others' related behavior - in a collegial, adult, and civil manner. Please don't push the issue further. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The behavior of Routerone and other editors doesn't excuse Duke53's behavior (nor does Duke53's behavior excuse anyone else's). This really needs to stop. Duke53, why not concentrate on something not Mormon related right now? If you don't want to be blocked, you are going to have to avoid anything that even looks like a personal attack. Note that what you refer to as stalking is something we refer to as WP:Wikihounding. If you think someone is doing this, you should bring a case against them with diffs, not call them a stalker. Just as anyone unhappy with your userpage should do what is normally done in such instances, bring a case here. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

TY, Dougweller. Don't you think that it's also time to address the repeated personal attacks against me, as well ? It's gotten to the point that any lds or pro-lds editor has been allowed to say anything they feel about me with no fear of recrimination or official action taken against them (for example, I haven't seen any warning on this page to them about being blocked). Their 3RR violations, vandalizing of my user page and edit warring have been tacitly 'allowed' for quite some time now as well. What's the sense of having rules if there is an elite group that is exempt from following them ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And one of the editors you are probably talking about has complained on my talk page that I've ignored you and told them off, so since I've made everyone unhappy I must be doing something right. :) I haven't been following it that much, but I did warn Routerone for vandalising your talk page and was also involved in obtaining a short block for him for sock puppetry, so I don't agree that there is any elite group. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth objecting to Duke53's veiled comment that the people who have trouble with his behavior are all mormon. Certainly myself and User:Baseball Bugs aren't. I'm sure there are more. Duke53's behavior is reprehensible no matter what "side" someone is on. Of course, Duke53 thinks I'm a terrible admin already, so take this with a grain of salt. tedder (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

" ... Of course, Duke53 thinks I'm a terrible admin already" And why wouldn't I ? I don't believe that admins should be able to pick & choose which vandalism incidents and 3RR violations they can ignore. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My formal request

Resolved

 – Pages Deleted. No further administrator intervention required. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat in relation due to my Rfa yesterday, however, I would like a sysop to delete all pages within my userspace, including my user page. I will be using the .js WikiBreak enforcer, however, effective now, I am leaving Wikipedia. I find it terribly sad and humiliating to a project who cannot and will not account or consider human error. Adminship is no big deal, however, when one applies for such, those individuals are harassed, scrutinized, and humiliated amongst those who they try to work with to build an encyclopedia. I attepted to offer my help, however, it is apparent that I do not matter. None of my work, contributions, etc. matter because I lack judgement skills, the ability to focus on community consensus, and the ability to respect those of whom I work with. I'm terribly sad, however, I will not be somewhere that I am not wanted. If I had realized that there was so much dislike and disgust when my username was seen amongst the site, I would have left a long time ago.

Human error is a fact of every day life. Four or five AFD's that were "incorrectly" or "prematurely" closed out of dozens makes no difference. I wish that instead of focusing on the negative side of things, individuals would have looked at the good in a user. Negativity does nothing but hurt Wikipedia, and due to the large amount and lack of respect, I am hereby resigning and requesting that my Rollback rights and User Creation rights are removed. With love, my family... Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just tag them all with {{db-u1}}, except for the talk page, I don't think that can be deleted at all except in unusual circumstances. No need for admin intervention otherwise. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Stickstickley

I don't know if this account has been hacked or whatever, but his User page (User:Stickstickley) is a mess of self-assigned barnstars with forged signatures. In addition, all of their edits today are vandalism. Woogee (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been temporarily blocked and the User page deleted. Woogee (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Violations of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:3RR by User:Beyond My Ken

I've been editing Wikipedia for years under IPs. I follow WikiProject Films. I saw that article Yesterday Was a Lie is noted as C-class with some accuracy issues. I read up and there was a deletion nom a few months ago. In the deletion nom, it was poined out by the nominater that there are contradictions in the articles "review" section. In the nomination discussion, Beyond (who singlehandedly controls the article) spoke up and said that he agreed there were "inconsistencies" and said that they were caused by some edit warring between himself and a sockfarm. He said that the article required cleanup by a third party. Since this time, the article has almost entirely been edited by him, but he hasn't fixed the errors. I point out that the errors mostly paint the movie in a less favorable light. I vivisted the article for the first time today to clean up these errors. Immediately Beyond jumped down my throat and started reverting. He violated 3RR. He placed a "suspected sock" tag on my IP address userpage with no evidence (I a;lready said he's welcome to checkuser me). He then got the page semi-protected, and reverted my constructive edits for the fourth time. I opened an account (this one), which he immediately edited the userpage as well and put a sock tag on it! I've tried to have reasonable talks with this man about the content of the article here here and here. All that accomplished was him ignoring me, calling me a "sock", refusing to address my specific questions about the article's accuracy, and - get this - saying that he will not "allow" the article to be edited by an IP or new account. "Allow" is the word he is using. This guy has some real ownership issues with this article. If you go thru and look you can see he's controlled this article for months (though he lies and says "a sockfarm" controls the article) and he looks like he's edited all the articles linked from it as well, so there's some real conflict of interest going on here. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so a reminder of the background here. Yesterday Was a Lie, and all the articles connected to it, were the subject of an attempt by a sockfarm to dominate and control their content. The farm has been blocked. The recent activity of the farm includes:

• creating an account - User:B-Wuuu - who linked all the existing blocked socks to his account, and attempted to give himself a "fresh start [83]
• attempting to report me for "Wikihounding", and carrying on the argument with an IP sock [84]
• creating a new account - User:Stoopach - who tried to insert unsourced personal information about the director (James Kerwin) and star (Chase Masterson} into their articles, then created numerous new accounts to try to delete my AN/I report about it and revert the deletions in those articles. [85]

I speculated at the time that all this new activity might be related to the upcoming release of the film on home video. A couple of days ago, an IP editor added innocuous information about the film's video release to the article.[86] Today, another IP editor from the same range attempted to edit the article back to something resembling the state it was in when the sockfarm had control of it -- downplaying negative material and highlighting positive stuff. [87] When confronted by me, the IP editwarred to keep the material in,[88] and refused my suggestions to discuss it on the talk page. .[89],[90] Shortly, User:EdJohnston semi-protected the page. Discuss continued with the IP, who created a new account User:DivaOfDan, and when became heated after I templated their talk page with a "suspected sock" template. That was perhaps precipitous of me, but I felt the evidence was good, considering the history, that this was another sock of Sorrywrongnumber.

In any event, this apparently pushed the new account over the edge. He's now called me an "asshole", a "Nazi with a God complex", a "douchbag" and some other things I can't recall at the moment.[91],[92],[93],[94]

It may be that I was wrong in my dealing with this person, but my suspicions were legitimate, and their conduct never improved and deviated from the sockfarm patter: same article, same argument, some kinds of edits, same MO. I think, although I may be wrong, that I offered enough affordances that if this was indeed an innocent editor unconnected with the sockfarm, they would understand my situation and my hesitancy and suspicion, and act accordingly, but that really never happened. This person has been fairly confrontational from the start, and never backed down. [95],[96],[97]

I would suggest that they be blocked for uncivility and disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC) (diffs to come shortly)

I can't speak for any sockfarm's but none of my edits downplayed anything, as can be seen in the diffs. My edits corrected inaccurate information that Beyond kept inserting into the article. He has never - not even now - addressed my specific points, just keeps talking about the sockfarm. This isnt about your sockfarm, man. It's about your ownership of an article that you are too close to. The bottom line is that he "agreed" (word he used) that the article had "inconsistencies" (word he used) and that it needed to be edited by fresh eyes. Yet when he didn't like the position that those fresh eyes brought, even though the position was simply factual, he immediately called the fresh eyes a sock and started warring. This man clealry has WP:COI with this movie for whenever reason. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh nice, anybody noticed this?!! Man worked on the film! Hows that for biased. what a class act - the guy has too many ANI's against him to count, and in one it looks like he tried to post the home address of the movie's filmaker?! AND he was a sockfarm himself to? Why is he still on Wikipedia please? This man is dangerous. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The "DivaOfDan" account seems suspicious. Only started editing in the last few hours and an early edit was [98]. Orderinchaos 05:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I already exaplined I just created the account a few hours ago because I page I was working on got semi-protected due to Beyond's ownership complex. And that early edit I mde was in response to Beyond making the same bad faith edit to my user page with absolutely no basis. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't expect everyone to wade through the whole history of this thing (and believe me, it's been going on for months -- the interminable nature of it is one of the things that has me on edge about any suspicious behavior), let me just say that the arguments being made here by DivaOfDan are exactly the same arguments brought up by the sockfarm everytime they bring me to AN/I! And isn't it intersting that this person, supposedly completely new to the problems surrouding Yesterday Was a Lie on Wikipedia, is able to dig up all those obscure things about me in a very short time?

You see, this is the kind of thing that raises my hackles and makes me think that everything is not all it seems to be, the kind of behavior that provoked me to template their page with a suspected sock notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Next time don't bother putting the sockpuppet template - which does about nothing anyway - and instead go straight to SPI. Tim Song (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is quacking way too loudly. Blocked indef as a sock of Sorrywrongnumber (talk · contribs). Tim Song (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll have to settle in for the long haul -- I'll create a user page with all the diffs on it so the next time this comes up I can just point to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not resolved at all. Just because you make up the fact that Im some sock of a sockfarm doesnt mean its triue. Go ahead and checkuser me. I got nothing to do with that stuff and my points are valid. This giuy is a loose cannon. So what, is anyone who doesn't like this guy a sock? 208.88.120.88 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So here is the blocked editor, evading the block.

According to his last comment on my talk page, he seems certain that a checkuser will clear him of sockpuppetry -- but, of course, meatpuppetry is just as forbidden, and telling people to fuck off and piss off, and calling them assholes and a nazi with a god complex is generally enough to get one blocked in any case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And editing article about film's you made is also forbiden, meatman.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And BTW Mr. Meatpuppet, how do you deinfe meatpuppet? Any editor whpo agreed with edits a previous editor made is automatically a meatpuppet? So any consensus = meatpuppetry? Bwasically anyone who disagrees with you is either a sock or a meatpuppet, eh? Nice. So it's impossible for anyone to legitimately disagree with your biased propaganda edits without them being a meatpuppet. Again man, you seriously need to STEP. BACK. Spend ome time with your family. Looks like you edit 24 hours a day on this thing. What, is stage management work in NY slow these days? Seriously how do you support your wife and 2 kids in NY if your on Wikipedia 24 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is kinda typical of the attitude of this editor, whether or not they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or whatever. I asked them -- with good reason, I think -- not to post to my talk page again, unless they were mandated to do so by Wikipedia policy, and the response I got was:

I'll post whenever and whereever I like as continuing content discussions are going on. You can always dleete. But that type of control issues, Ed, is why I called you a Nazi. That may work in your world of NY stage management but it doens't work in real life. [99]

So. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please block this IP for a while? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So convenient for you isn't it. I lose my cool, I admit, because you accuse me of totla bullshit when you know its total bullshit. So I lose my cool and then you can just change the whole subject to the fact that I lost my cool, rather than addressing the serious, serious bias issues at hand. Step away from the article. You're too involved. That's the bottom line, whether I'm blocked or not. Step away. Your cover is blown.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that all this information is easily available through the handy link on the article talk page. Clicking on the 'Thoughts' link at User:Beyond_My_Ken yields Ed Fitzgerald and googling that name + 'Yesterday was a lie' shows the users involvement in the production as the first hit. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Watch out Unomi - you say that and youre automatically a sock or a meatpuppet! Either agree with Ed or youll be blocked! 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't work on the film: [100] (page down to where it says; "One more thing, and may I please never have to talk about this film") In fact, except for a short music video I co-directed for a friend of mine, which never got any airplay anywhere, I've never worked on a film in my life. I'd like to, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well then, we believe you just because you said that. Sure.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly care about what you believe at this point, but others might be interested in knowing the facts, you never know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Still conveniently avoiding all the fact-error issues I brought up in my edits huh Eddie. So if you didnt work on the film why is someone with your name on the film? Why have you singlehandedly controled the article for months? Why are you so defensive of simple fact edits to it? Why have you edited the articles of almost eveyrone who worked on the movie and even the articles about critics linked from the movies page!? Why did you try to post the address of the filmaker? There is not way you are going to convince anyone you have no involvement in this - the WP:DUCK aplies here. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what, scratch that I lost my cool again. Focus on the content. You still wont say what about my content edits are false and why you insist on keeping the page with wrong information (like the festival reviews ect.)208.88.120.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Nope. For you, that boat sailed a while ago, at least as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm the sensitive type, but you don't get to visciously attack me in public, and then expect me to play nice-nice with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How convenient. That way you can ignore the facts. "For me"? What does that even mean? This isn't for me. This is for YOU. I dont care if you play nice; you already proved you cant when you started your ownership complex. This is for you, friend. You got one chance to prove you don't have a conflict of interest here, like people are starting to realize you do, yet you stay silent. I read the sock investigation against your sockfarm man, looks like you did the same thing there! When you were caught socking you stayed silent whenever you were asked if you were a sock. So your MO is that you stay quiet and shift the subject whenever you know you're caught. So basically we can take this as amdission of your bias.

Look friend You have an opportunity here to explain your clear bias but you won't. You hide behind "for you that ship has sailed." If I were you I'd start watching my own ass; your bias is showing through. By the way, since you said up there that "One more thing, and may I please never have to talk about this film" then why are you still obsessing over it? Right, I know it's because you have NOTHING to do with it. But because you don't like me personally youre not going to explain yourself. Guess what friend, your ship has sailed a long time ago too. Your cover is blown friend.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone could wrap this up?

(out) OK, two short points to make here, and then I have to stop, even though I'm having such a good time:

1. Really, shouldn't 208.88.120.88 be blocked by now, just on the basis of his edits here? Tim Song blocked the other IP the editor used, but this one's still swinging away, being quite personal.

1. I just went over to IMDB, and realized that someone has altered the "Ed Fitzgerald" credit there to be not just someone in the art department, but an art department intern! I want to thank whoever did that, as it gave me the best laught of the night. I mean, I'm 55 years old, I've been working professionally in the theatre since I was 19, and two or three years ago I was supposedly an art department intern!!!. Priceless.

Anyway, could someone please block this person? The account's been blocked, the original IP been's blocked, this is obviously the same person, so this is outright and blatant block evasion - and this "discussion" has taken up much too much space. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it was altered? Meaning you've been visitng that page in the past, huh? Wonder why since it has nothing to do with you, right? Well, I guess you would be offended if someone altered your credit to be an intern. Keep digging yourself in deeper. [attack redacted] 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also I should mension the account was blocked because of made up lies thrown at me by Beyond, and completely unverieifed and unconfirmed thru a checkuser. I could just as easily say your a sock Beyond and ask an admin to block you, right? Again, keep avoiding the real matters at hand, why don't you you're just prolonging the inevitable 208.88.120.88 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All for wrapping it up. Like Unomi (who Beyond will inevitably call a meatpuppet) point ed out, its easily verifiable that Beyond worked on the film - or at least that there is a strong likelihood he worked on the film, enough to warrant erring on the side of caution. Simple solution is to permanently block him from editing the article and associated articles that he's obsessed with owning. Allow third parties - not the sockfarm he hates so much - to make the factual corrections that Beyond already agreed to (and is now denying) were introduced because of Beyond's sockfarm edit warring with the other sockfarm. Reutrn neutraility to the article! for the love of all that is holy.208.88.120.88 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have hardblocked 208.88.120.88 for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. I've seen enough deception/harassment from this person from this ANI thread alone. –MuZemike 07:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - agreed. The personal comments are entirely unwarranted. Orderinchaos 11:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As a coda to this, the editor, now using the IP address User: 208.88.120.87 spent 40 minutes last undoing every edit I've made in the last few days before being blocked. I beleive all these vandalistic edits have now been undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I hardblocked 208.88.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) this morning as proxies. Tim Song (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

An AFD I am involved in is completely infested with socks. The main account User:Tasbian was blocked as an enforcement measure to do with the Arbitration case into Scientology. He has since come back many times and attempted to build an empire around a new list, which is the subject of the AfD (which, I emphasise, has nothing to do with Scientology, although IMO still falls under disruptive editing more generally), and has harangued (under his many identities) voters of all persuasions. Following the relevant SPI, his accounts were blocked, but he's created new ones and consistently edited from IPs. Now he's taken to messing with votes.

If the AfD were any other article I'd have semi'd it, but given it is a community discussion seeking community opinion, I've brought it here instead - what the hell do we do? Orderinchaos 05:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that AfD's 7-day clock runs out in a few hours. I see there are already notes about the socking (and blocking of them) there, so I'd wait to see how well closer ignores that mess and figures out the valid users' comments. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now closed as no consensus (User:Stifle (notified)). If you think the socks affected that, talk with the closer, file WP:RFD, and/or get some evidence of un-noticed socks that contributed (and may have been inappropriately considered as viable !votes). DMacks (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I based my closure on established users, and there were both numbers and arguments on both sides of the discussion. (In fact, the keep side was stronger, if anything.) I'm happy with the closure; you are of course welcome to file a DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Roman888 back again

Resolved

 – Ducked and blocked, Quack quack~!

Could someone please block User:Golongong as a sock of copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888? His edits have largely restored copyright violations to articles cleaned as part of Roman888's CCI. The content of his userpage aligns closely with Roman888's admin-bashing at the time of his block. I'll do the work over the next 24 hours to revert the copyvios.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I challenge this nomination as the individual above is on the premise that all new contributors are sock puppets. I am not Roman888 as claimed by this individual. I also wish to point out that this individual Mkativerata continues to abuse the system by deleting all contributions wholesale in the name of copy-right violations . Furthermore I called for this individual's right to make any further reports be curtailed until an investigation of this claims can be made. Golongong (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Roman I suppose it is about time for your second SPI. I just wouldn't want to see the sock of yours who gave me a barnstar blocked. I liked him. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the admins attention that Mkativerata is making unwarranted accusations that I am a sockpuppet. He has abused the rules on WP:CIVIL. He has the guile to threaten me in my User talk:Golongong. He has made accusations about me awarding him Barnstars. How is that for being rude. Golongong (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Look who's back, and using the same sort of rhetoric as he did in his earlier incarnation. Roman has used one of his pet expressions on the user page for User:Golongong, which should remove any doubt that this user is yet another sock: To certain individuals in Wikipedia some articles are their personal fiefdom. I mean, really, how many people use an expression like "personal fiefdom" in the same context? Drmargi (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quacks enough for me. Another gone. SGGH ^ping! 07:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request –MuZemike 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action: this one was copyvioing at a rapid rate. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And from me as well -- he's a continuous problem. Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't Roman888 he talks, edits and userpages just like him, and he is as familiar with Wikis ins and outs (as per his unblock message). Obviously an uninvolved admin to deal. SGGH ^ping! 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's already been declined... twice :) SGGH ^ping! 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Small spam spree on firearms articles

IP addresses in the range 96.14.x.x ( 96.14.33.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 96.14.46.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at least) are spamming spam links into firearms articles. I'm trying to ID a range to rangeblock, if others can look around and see if they're doing more (recent changes?) I'd appreciate it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also 166.164.190.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Edits are of the format:

*[http://www.fnscarrifle.com/ SCAR Portal information site "all things SCAR"]

...added into the External Links section. All the links I checked so far are to domain squatters, this is clearly some sort of spamming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They also hit Unidentified flying object repeatedly. I gave up and rangeblocked 96.14.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Someone may need to extend that if they return later tonight / tomorrow morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's IPs on two ranges, rangeblocking is likely to be difficult to maintain for this spammer so I have blacklisted the site. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's multiple sites involved. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to list them, only two are blacklisted thus far. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of article ownership, vandalism

Hello. I am a new editor who has been working to improve the article Not Myself Tonight. The article was in very bad shape and I made some major improvements to it yesterday ([101]). Later, some unsourced infomation, original research and other factors were added to the article that made it messy (addition of a producer's "nickname", Jamal Jones, and introduction of a poor sentence structute [102]) by User:Lil-unique1 and unreliable sources were added too ([103]) from User:Candyo32. I reverted both changes ([104])([105]) and made some other improvements to the article.

All of my edits were then reverted by Lil-unique1 ([106]), meaning that the unreliable sources, unsourced nickname, poor sentence structure etc returned. I reverted the changes ([107]) and left a warning template on his talk profile - I chose the "addition of unsourced material" template as one of the many that I could have used ([108]). Candyo32 then reverted the improvements again ([109]), so I left him the same talk message ([110]). Candyo32 voiced some concerns and we engaged in a civil conversation on our talk pages (this can still be seen there), but this user still reported me for vandalism ([111]).

After this claim was dismissed by the ruling admin, a rude and scathing attack was posted on my wall by Lil-unique1, in which some accusations were levelled at myself and my editing motives and the user tried to explain why his addition of original research should be ignored, despite the fact it contradicts the sources ([112]). For the record, I am not a "fan-based editor", claiming to own the article and/or "Christina Aguilera fan"; I am a keen editor who improved the article from its lowly state here [113]. Other contributions, which pass Wiki policy, have been added by other users and I have not reverted these. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this case. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Lil-unique1 and Candyo32 (because they may also be involved) of this thread. This looks like a content dispute to me, and that's not something that administrators have any remit to adjudicate. However, we can address policy and behavioural violations. A number of editors - mainly KingOfTheMedia, Lil-unique1 and Candyo32 - have been reverting. This needs to stop. The WP:3RR threshold is a bright line, and crossing it for anything other than obvious vandalism or WP:BLP issues always attracts a block. If the article wasn't currently at AfD I'd protect it for a few days to let the dispute cool down and give editors a chance to discuss their content differences on the talk page (per the suggestions listed at WP:DR and the good practice described at WP:BRD). As it is however we'll have to rely on goodwill and self-restraint; I'd strongly advise all editors to leave each others edits alone and try to work out their dispute on the talk page. The spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR will be applied to any further reversions. I'd also advise against any discussion of editor's motives for contributing; we comment on content, not on the contributor, and in the absence of compelling reasons to think otherwise we assume we're all here to improve Wikipedia. One last point: KingOfTheMedia, it might help to bear in mind that there are many reasons why edits are removed, particularly with new contributors who are unfamiliar with our numerous content policies and guidelines, and it may be that talk-page consensus determines some of your edits to have been inappropriate for sourcing or other reasons. It's sometimes best to propose edits on talk pages first to gauge consensus and solicit advice; it can help to avoid these sorts of situations. EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention to KotM that (if you're not already aware) we have something called "the Christina Aguilera vandal", and it's possible that in some wise your edits resembled this individual's "work". (I haven't looked into any of the particulars of this dispute, save for what's written here, so I don't know; I -DO- know, however, that I've seen plentiful mentions of their shenanigans on various noticeboards, so clearly they've been a problem.) GJC 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Endofcertainty

This user has been rather prolific creator this morning creating a number of articals consisting of list of books bublished by Zed Books

Rather than me go through each one and tag etc - can an admin have a look, and perhaps give the editor some help.

see Special:Contributions/Endofcertainty

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note their COI. I42 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Endofcertainty of this thread. Deor (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did with this edit. Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I didn't notice it because it was appended to someone else's speedy-deletion notification. Deor (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the articles were lists of books published by Zed Books - see e.g. Zed Books & Authors: The Middle East. They were all tagged as A1 by an IP editor; I began the process of converting them to PRODs since I though the context was fairly clear, but Nyttend (talk · contribs) deleted them as A1s while I was part way through. The parent article Zed Books has also been prodded; I've left the creator a note about the GNG and WP:CORP and an offer of help if they need it. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

West Virginia newspaper accusations of article tampering

Wednesday March 31, 2010 "Edits to online encyclopedia spark flap: Wikipedia user says Oliverio's campaign manager removed information from site" Ry Rivard, Daily Mail Capitol Reporter Charleston (W.V.) Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.com/News/201003300806 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.251.5 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a self-referential paragraph about the story from the article. I'd notify the admin in question of this thread, but I don't know their user name. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be me. The article (the IP was unclear on this) is Mike Oliverio. See further discussion on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do. :) I'll let him know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Big, big backlog. Admins?

Resolved

Some help over at WP:AIV, please. I've never seen a backlog this big, but I'm fairly new here. In any case... ALI ^{nom nom} 16:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the admins have trimmed it down to just two, recent reports. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed a pretty impressive backlog at the time, though! Amazing how this piles up, it was only left alone for less than an hour. All good now. ~ mazca ^talk 17:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was a biggun. Many were Report was good at the time, but is now stale. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.! –xeno^talk 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I add this?

Can I add Talk:Marina_Orlova#addition to the article now? I was told I needed to the quotes from the show in both languages which I have now done.--Sinistrial (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream

Some (preferably admin) eyes may wish to pay attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream as there seems to be some massive off-wiki canvassing and possible hostilities and off-topic banter going on there. Regards, –MuZemike 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering it was within a few hours of being a full week, in the interests of reducing acrimony I did a non-admin close as "no consensus to delete", since credible policy-based arguments had been made both ways. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a non-admin closure appropriate for this case, given that it has shown up here at ANI? I think an admin should probably weigh-in here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

If there's been canvassing, it should be closed by an admin. Dlohcierekim 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure "reducing acrimony" is a good reason to pre-emptively close as a "virtual keep." The arguments advanced by the page creator seem particularly weak when you actually visit the links and discover that none of the linked references mention the band, aside from a few playlist entries for a local radio station. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, my feelings about the sourcing arguments were probably influenced by being the creator of Atwater-Donnelly, and the trouble I had digging up good sourcing for it. I still don't see a firm consensus to delete Traveler's Dream, but if there's an admin who disagrees, I won't quibble. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I've undone your closure to let an admin take a look. No offense intended, I'd just rather let the AfD run to completion, rather than concluding there is no consensus a few hours early just after some more unbiased eyes have been brought in. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of ANI page to make it look like another editor engaged in vandalism

I would like to request that someone with technical knowledge look into some vandalism that occurred on this ANI Board. It was in the thread starting with my name "Zlykinskyja's conduct on AFD page." At the end of that long thread (closed today for archiving) there is a discussion about me supposedly engaging in vandalism, but I never made those vandal edits. Whoever tried to frame me engaged in serious dishonesty on the ANI Board. Although the last poster simply tossed it off as a simple error, I find that very hard to believe. There was indeed actual vandalism of the ANI thread, and the diff with the red letters looked like it was mine, but I never engaged in that vandalism. It would be very helpful if some person with good technical skills could look into this so that the person who engaged in such dishonesty could be held accountable. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a redirect to WP:AN that no longer shows in the history. ???? Dlohcierekim 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Xeno is assuming that the problem was caused by an extremely poor connection on your end garbling the line. I'd strongly suggest leaving it at that (and perhaps changing your account's password if it's not particularly strong), as any investigation is likely to end in either a "indeterminate cause" or a "compromised account" finding. The former would be a waste of time, the latter would mean your account is blocked. There is absolutely no upside for you in this; the movies may make it seem like any "hack" can be traced and identified, but the real world isn't nearly that neat and tidy. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This [114] is the edit in question. Do you remember writing the added portion of your comment? If so, it's likely you just garbled the text above it by accident. Think about the resources that would be necessary to hack your account - which is unpriveleged. See also Occam's razor. –xeno^talk 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)