Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎More Uninvolved Admins: legitimate dispute, not "unconstrutive." try not to silence valid posts
Line 376: Line 376:
===More Uninvolved Admins===
===More Uninvolved Admins===
While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{hat|collapse unconstructive response to constructive suggestion}}
:I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]]. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]]. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
::This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
::This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I am not claiming that. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I am not claiming that. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. <font color="green">[[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]</font> 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== [[User:Aditya Kabir]] and misuse of rollback feature 2 ==
== [[User:Aditya Kabir]] and misuse of rollback feature 2 ==

Revision as of 12:12, 2 August 2009


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    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

    Drag-5

    I'm doing this in a new section because the old one is just a back and forth between a handful of users and this needs more serious input that is not disrupted by the subject, necessarily. For the tl;dr crowd, skip down to the Cliffs notes.

    Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He had previously move warred over the location of Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), moving it to an alternate title four times until the page was protected from being moved again. During that time, he made these incivil and disruptive comments [1] [2]. Following a discussion where it was shown he had no consensus, he began a requested move discussion on the talk page. This is resulting in him still having no consensus for his request.

    Tonight is when the actual violation of WP:POINT began. He began a requested move discussion for the article Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in the past had been moved from Ninpuu Sentai Hurricanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when several articles were renamed to match official romanizations from the parent company. This is a violation of WP:POINT because "Hurricanger" was for the longest time the title used by the Latin alphabet-using online communities, so he is making a point by stating that one page has an official title as its name and the other one has one that he deems is not official because of the existence of an English translation (despite various users on the talk page bringing up evidence proving him wrong). He is also following his actions on a different website concerning the spelling of this particular item, but that does not necessarily have to be brought up in detail in this discussion unless anyone wants any specifics.

    The Cliffs Notes

    Drag-5 is violating WP:POINT by pointing out the disparities of the use of the more common romanized title (but not official English title) on one page and the official romanized title (but not the more common unofficial title) on another by requesting page moves. This coupled with his inability to work with other users constructively, civilly, and calmly ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) should be more than enough for a block of some sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ryulong seems to be constantly attacking me and removing my comments and using foul methods to block what is an innocent following of wikipedia procedures.
    ryulong seems to show a personal bias towards me characterised by repeated references to thing that exist in my personal life. he does not concentrate on the articles and the discussion of editing rather he makes comments towards myself.
    I am feeling a very strong harrassment by this user and this is proof of it.
    I have requested the moves on illustrated pages for sound logical reasons according to wikipedia guidelines and have produced evidence to back up my cases. I have made no comments that remotely support any theory that i may be trying to prove some point. my actions are focused on making wikipedia a more full and complete information source as they should be.
    I was quite bold with my original mmove of said page. this is according to wikipedia policy. we are meant to be bold. when ryulong reverted my edit i perhaps should have not reverted it straight away, I cannot change what i did at that time, but since those reverted edits i have acted according to wikipedia policies completely. ryulong, however, seems to continually attack me and use personal information to try and block my discussions and he even has removed some of my comments on hte discussion page without my permission. Drag-5 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, this is getting way out of hand. He and I have been edit warring over the inclusion of the move request at Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger, because we both claim that we are violating different policies. He is accusing me of violating WP:TPNO and I still feel the request is a violation of WP:POINT. I would like something definitive to happen and I don't care if we both get blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My impression is that the both of you have managed to make bogeymen out of each other and you are both taking it far too seriously. Also, in my experience, the common names rule usually trumps the official name. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but google is confusing, as there are more results for the official name than there are for what he is claiming is the more common name. So it seems that the more common name is the one where the page is currently located.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the lead of CliffsNotes to be enlightening. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. I always thought they were "Cliff's Notes".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shazam! I had thought it was "CliffNotes" until just now. I expect they are called CliffNotes because that's a little easier to say than CliffsNotes. However, I never read Cliff(s)Notes in school. I tended to read the condensed versions, by John Moschita. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, the specific nature of the personal attacks from Drag-5 likely say a lot more about Drag-5 than they do about anyone else. "TMI!" :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption on his part (edit war aside) is obvious, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong reported for 3RR

    Just to let everyone know, Ryulong's been reported for 3RR violation here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By a user who I'm a dispute with several hours after the edit war had ended after I compromised and allowed the move request to go on because Drag-5 was most certainly not going to give up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to solve it?

    I suggest an RfC over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu that would include all the recent naming disputes in that set of articles. An admin could be asked to close the RfC, with the expectation that blocks or move protection could be used to see that the verdict is followed, whatever it may be. After this RfC there could be a moratorium on new move proposals for any of the Tokusatsu articles for a period of time. I urge both parties to stop move warring, Ryulong to stop edit warring and Drag-5 to lay off the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. this would be the best course of action. I laid off the personal attacks almost immediately so i can assure you that is no longer an issue. I would be very happy for an admin to see over this. also I would be very happy to get some unbiased editors who know wikipedia policies and guidelines well.Drag-5 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a consensus on both talk pages that the articles are fine as to where they are. There do not need to be any moves of any articles anywhere, mostly because any subsequent requests by Drag-5 would indeed be intentions to make a point, although not necessarily disruptive. There is already no consensus to set a precedent and rename everything in Category:Kamen Rider, which was Drag-5's initial intentions. The subsequent request at Talk:Hurricaneger was a reaction due to the results of one requested move and a mutual knowledge of his activities on another website (which I reference here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no consensus on either page yet. consensus at the most basic level is an agreement. ther eis still no agreement oon either of these pages.Wikipedia:ConsensusDrag-5 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a supermajority/consensus not to move at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade. A consensus for what you don't want is still a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that a RfC would be good. Powergate92Talk 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like Ryulong, Drag-5 and Powergate92 would have to agree to ask an uninvolved administrator to study all these discussions and see if there is consensus on the article names. (You'd all be prepared to accept the answer, whatever it was). If the admin thinks there was not enough discussion to resolve this, a further RfC or further move discussions would need to be set up. If so you'd all agree to support that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Powergate92 is really an uninvolved party who just gets himself involved in everything. I brought the discussion here because I was waiting for someone to do something regarding Drag-5's WP:POINT violations, as I saw them. There is currently a supermajority against the move on one page, and I feel that the move on the other page is the WP:POINT issue as I state higher up at The Cliffs Notes (also there's very little input from other individuals on the second request).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not appear to have read Wikipedia:Consensus as it states quite clearly, concensus is not in numbers. EdJohnston, I support an admin checking over the discussions. Drag-5 (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is against you. And if an uninvolved administrator has to look at the discussions, that is what their placments at WP:RM should be for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support an admin checking over the discussions. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, Do you agree to abiding by an admins decision in this matter? Drag-5 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What decision will be made? There's a general agreement that you are wrong on one page and no discussion on another. An admin does not have to decide anything like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision will be if there is consensus for move or if there is consensus for no moveDrag-5 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Renewed disruption

    So, Jafeluv (talk · contribs), an entirely uninvolved user, came by and closed the discussion as "no move". Drag-5 did not think this was right because of how he interprets WP:Consensus. I undid the edit, and began this thread on his talk page. He undid me again (currently the next edit is a comment by someone else in a different thread on the page). This is extremely disruptive behavior, especially with this renewed thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    i used the dictionary definition of consensus. also the wikipedia page says that consensus was not in numbers. we were not agreeing so there was no consensus. Drag-5 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Drag-5 continues to undo other's closes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Take 2 where he clearly exhibits his lack of knowledge as to how WP:Consensus works: [10] [11].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rmcnew and Socionics

    User:Rmcnew has been, over the course of the last month or two, making extensive edits to the page on socionics, continually including a section suggesting that socionics has an esoteric foundation and verifiable relations to chakras, hindu mysticism, alchemy, and other things. a couple of people have written papers hypothesizing about such connections, which would be appropriate for inclusion. yet rmcnew continues to insist unequivocally that the socionics page must include a section claiming verifiable ties, and the role of esotericism in forming the foundation for the theory. this page has been going on for months, was recently the subject of an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics|AfD] ](mostly precipitated by mcnew's insistent action) which concluded that the page needed restructuring and improvement in accordance with the existing verifiable sources on the topic. rmcnew's presence is effectively blocking this rewrite, and he has continually provided the same unreliable sources to back up his claim, which everyone involved in the discussion (about 3-4 people) except him would agree is essentially hopeless. good faith efforts to talk about the sources presented and identify those which need to be changed have produced some good discussion and have helped to identify other parts of the article that need to be cleaned up (but can't, because of the ongoing dispute), but mostly more of the same, including a lot of name calling (mostly from rmcnew).

    i've had no idea what to do about this situation, and have continued to debunk his claims while essentially having given up any hope of ever resolving the situation. i think immediate admin intervention is warranted. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rmcnew is, in my mind, a vandal, period. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is against policy. Rmcnew is under the same obligation as anyone else to find consensus to support the changes he wants to make to the article. There may come a time that an administrator could warn him against reverting to a version of the article that does not have consensus. However I don't see any diffs in the above report, and the claim so far is that rmcnew's presence is effectively blocking this rewrite, which is a rather vague statement. At present, this is not definite enough to take any action on, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ask for diffs and ye shall receive: drawn out broad based edit warring by rmcnew, recreating the section on esoteric socionics several times, reverted variously by other users since the beginning of june. [12], [13], [14]. a quick overview of the talk page shows it absolutely cluttered with very unproductive and insistent argumentation, including name-calling and accusing others of editing in bad faith. rmcnew's most recent tactic is the suggestion that article abstracts about articles written in russian that nobody knows how to get a hold of discussing hypothesized correlations are sufficient evidence for the kinds of edits he's been making. the discussions there are very similar mcnew's comments below, which few people have tried to respond to. because of the ongoing edit war and an agreement to try to resolve it on the talk page, few changes have been made to the page by other users since july 14, at which point rmcnew made one last revert with the commentary of making his changes into the "final version;" fortunately nobody objected. i think there's easily enough to think of rmcnew as edit warring; whether that makes him an all-out vandal is an open question, but he could easily qualify in my opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that niffweed is twisting the truth. No one is really to blame for the edit war. The edit warring was resulting because of differing viewpoints on how socionics itself should be represented as a whole, and also because people (such as tcaudillig) were continually reediting parts of things that I had personally written to become out-of-context (since I am the only one who has been writing anything about the esoteric qualities of socionics) and also others deleting sections of the article out that had verifiable and substantiated sources that justified their existence. To be fair I have invited others to help edit the article in a way that we would all agree is neutral. Unfortunately, this has been a frustrating experience as many of the editors are still letting their feelings get in the way of doing any productive work and despite verifiable sources to the case are often more interested in "ignoring the exegetical context of the verifiable source evidence and instead using exegesis" and/or "unnecessary and unreasonable debunking (by eisegesis)" those sources that justify the positions of the esoteric article, than they are in actually doing any sort of cooperative rewrite. Now, when certain editors would finally be willing to put aside their personal feelings and beliefs on the matter and focus on actually doing a neutral rewrite that represents all differing sides (even those opposite to their own) the article rewrite would continue effectively. That is my suggestion and I hope others would see the reasonable nature of this request, and actually follow along with it. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I should also comment on niffweed's statement " rmcnew's most recent tactic is the suggestion that article abstracts about articles written in russian that nobody knows how to get a hold of discussing hypothesized correlations are sufficient evidence for the kinds of edits he's been making" should be addressed. The article abstracts in question are from a legitimate, verifiable, and official socionics journal that publishes socionic articles to the russian socionics world. In fact, they are from the school in Kiev that was founded by Alexander Bukalov, who knew the founder Ausura Augusta personally. The socionics school allows and encourages non-empirical (intentionally unscientific), mystic and esoteric views of socionics to be published officially in their journals in the russian speaking world. It is completely substantiated that the development of socionics has both an empirical viewpoint and a mystic one, and that there are separate schools that focus on either empirical methods or mystical ones. Most of their material is in russian, though they do have some english article abstracts of their articles that are translated. I have listed some of those below as well as a statement from Dmitri Lytov concerning the development of socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    History of terrorism

    I stumbled across this article whilst patrolling changes and reverted an unexplained removal of about 10kB of content, that did not appear to be agreed on the talkpage. I was subsequently reverted, and the user LSG280709 basically told me not to get involved in things I didn't know about. (To be fair, I've never read the article before so a lot of stuff has probably gone on that I do not know about).

    Looking into it a bit more there has been an ongoing battle at this page for a long time, that has escalated over the last month with repeated removal of content and then reversions. It has not been helped by fractious edit summaries, claims of consensus when there doesn't appear to be any and so on. Of the last 100 edits, about half of them are reverting.

    I wasn't sure whether to bring this to the edit warring page, or RFPP, but the dispute seems to have been going on for a long time and there are lots of conduct as well as content issues to look at. As well as the user mentioned above, the other parties I can tell are: User:Haberstr, User:Sherzo, User:Impala2009 and 92.239.38.135 (who was recently blocked for a week). Quantpole (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LSG280709 is a new user who has jumped straight into edit warring on that article and has removed several warnings from his talk page. My apologies, this was not true Theresa Knott | token threats 09:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked LSG280709 for 24 hours for recent egregious edit-warring to remove sourced content (well, some of it is sourced). I've also applied full-protection for a week, which can be extended as necessary. The article needs a fair amount of work and it's nature means it'll inevitably be something of a battleground, so although a few more blocks could probably be handed out they'd be after the fact and would prevent any talk-page discussion that might improve things. I'll keep it watchlisted anyhow, and more eyes would no doubt be useful ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was never a battleground before Haberstr starting pushing a POV, just check the edit history you'll see that when Haberstr isn't active on the page it doesn't have these problems. the LSG user is me btw i created to show that registered editors get different treatment to unregistered ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First I feel you have locked the wrong version of the page, the page is overlong and the definition section was removed a long time ago as the definition of terrorism article handles this complex issue well without the history of terrorism article trying to replicate it. If you look through the changes Haberstr actually deletes content that disagrees with his POV and reintroduces previously condensed material despite previous consensus [15]. If you read the vast about of topics started by Haberstr to push his particularly perspective i think this will become self evident to as it did to the other editors on the board. Sherzo (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You might like to read m:The wrong version Note, not in any way a comment on your polite request!  ;) The reason I reverted to that version was that it seemed to be the status quo version (as far as it was possible to tell), and LSG280709 had removed a fair amount of sourced material - essentially, I didn't feel their blatant edit-warring deserved a pay-off. However, if you can show a current consensus on the article talk-page that another version is better, I (or any admin) will happily change it around for you. As an admin I can't really start judging content, but if you believe Haberstr's editing needs examining, a request for comment might be a good way to get some outside eyes on things. EyeSerenetalk 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last consensus was that the article needed to be condensed an objective Haberstr has proved an obstacle to as he has repeatedly reintroduced condensed material, such as the Contras. The material that haberstr has added is of a highly POV nature that has repeatedly failed to gain any consensus and represents Haberstr personal POV, he also deletes sourced content hiding it among other edits that doesn't match his perspective, particularly in the WW2 section. The dates of the tags he placed are also misleading nor has he justified them on the talkpage I would appreciate in the very least that the dates on the tags reflect when he actually placed them. I know it maybe a burden but i feel you can only get a fair reflect of this case by reading the extensive talk archive that has been generated since Haberstr stated pushing a POV on the page. The last argument i would offer for the other less problematic version is that the current version is very long and causes difficulty loading. I would ask at the very least that that the material that is deleted in version be restored. in close i feel i must state that the current version is a determent to wikipedia and its aim of being a reliable academic source. Sherzo (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On what evidence did you base the fact that Haberstr's agenda version was the "status quo"? if your taking that by the fact other editors reverted by reverts thats just because they are knee jerk reacts by editors who can't be bothered to read edit summaries talk pages or their own pages as in this example User talk:Impala2009 &diff=302642349&oldid=302642266 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Section Restored

    I restored that section - it is vadalism to delte it . You are welcome as Administrator to state your judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiens (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    um, what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Hiens restored the section below. [16] Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Will Beback (Administrator)

    (Moved from WP:AN)

    I came across User:Will Beback on the Ridgecrest, California article. This user and others deleted allot of stuff in this article to get back at a user that they blocked. I wanted to add some of the stuff they deleted back and this user reverted it 4 times Potentially violating the three revert rule and then protected the article saying there been Vandalism , Witch there has not. This is what the article look like before they tore it up SEEN HERE. This what it look like now SEEN HERE. I just don’t think its fair for this Administrator to do what they been doing. I request that some of the info to be added back and the article not be protected. One more thing is this Administrator blocks users if they don’t like the IP address or user. I know frst hand.--71.105.39.114 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well first of all you're not doing yourself any favors with comments like this which come off as rather uncivil. Nor is edit warring a good idea, which you are both doing. This does seem to be a content dispute and not a simple case of vandalism, and I think Will Beback was likely wrong to refer to it as the latter, though I could be convinced otherwise. It does seem rather inappropriate for Beback to have protected the article, since he is clearly working on the content rather than simply reverting "vandalism" (see the July 25th edits for example) and therefore too involved to lock out IP editors from the article. If 71.105.39.114, who again is clearly edit warring and needs to go to the article talk page and work it out there, has even a 5-10% legitimate point about some of the content than Beback's decision to protect the article has essentially given him an advantage in a content dispute.
    I'd like to see what Will has to say here - I'll check and see if he's been informed - but probably the article should be unprotected, and then re-semi-protected by another admin if necessary, and all parties should go to the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look at the history and Will Beback's edits look fine to me. It is 71.105.39.114 readding and then edit warring over things that isn't cool. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly, but the question is whether there is, to at least some degree, a legitimate dispute about content, which at least for me is hard to ascertain after looking through the disputed edits. If so then the edit warring is bad on both ends, and the semi-protection by Will was probably inappropriate since he is involved. Right now it looks a bit like that to me but I could be wrong, and regardless I'll wait to hear what Will says. I've informed him of this thread. However this shakes out it does not strike me as a major issue at all, and probably could have been avoided had both parties gone to the talk page sooner (Will ultimately did, whereas the IP editor started this thread instead). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can kinda see where Will was coming from though, with things being completely reverted over and over, I can see where he thought immediate protection was necessary. I don't think complete protection was necessary though. I also can see where he should have asked another admin since he was involved to lock the page down for him. But, I don't think it was a big deal that he locked the page down himself since there was vandalism edits going on. I don't think he should do it again though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to take a less strident approach with User:71.105.39.114. If they establish a user account, I'd be happy to mediate in some way, if at all helpful. No need to scare away everybody who has a rough start, is there? Two cents... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely. Re-reading my first comment I can see that came out harsher than I intended. And even if they do not start an account, if they have legitimate points/concerns about the article content than User:71.105.39.114 is obviously just as entitled to edit as anyone else. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New editors sometimes have a rough start in Wikipedia, for various reasons. I committed a copyright vio when I first started editing as an IP, but fortunately the responding admin patiently explained the policy and let it go at that. We should handle new editors with kid gloves at first. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bigtime, the IP did take a threatening tone, so your chastisement was timely. Cla86, I'm glad I had some interested people helping me at first. The best way to describe WP sometimes is morass. Although I am surprised at newly minted IP's who navigate so well into the treacherous waters of the various administrator notice boards! Let's try to get our -presumably- young IP friend to calm down a bit. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this an administrator issue anymore? Can we just resolve this and just let this happen in the appropriate venues, where it appears to be going anyways? --Jayron32 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I only started editing this page the other day, so I'm not familiar with the full history that the IP user is talking about. I protected the page due to the IP's use of a false edit summary, [17], and his blind reverts. The editor appears to have been edit warring over the past several months and to have ownership issues along with a chip on his shoulder about the past interactions. I've asked him on his most recent talk to discuss his edits. Except for downgrading the rating of the article, it appears he's never used the talk page. If he would discuss his edits with the other editors I'm sure this could be resolved more easily.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, too, this message in which he implies that he can't be blocked due to shifting IPs.[18]   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the IP editor is referring to his or herself with the last diff then that's clearly no good, and the cited edit summary did seem to be misleading (although some stuff was removed). You seem to be admitting though that this was not vandalism, since you protected "due to the IP's use of a false edit summary," and as such I don't think it was appropriate for you to protect the article since you were not simply reverting a persistent vandal. I fully agree that discussion needs to happen on talk, but perhaps you can unprotect for now, and if the IP returns to revert I'm sure you can quickly find an admin to block for edit warring (you should not be the one to do it). If the IP editor starts talking on the talk page or just lets things stand as they are now then we're all good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unprotected the article. Let's see what the editor does.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a charade. This editor (The one behind the IP) and his socks have approached exhausting my somewhat limited patience for silliness. While semi-protection might have been a premature tactic to combat further vandalism, such as deliberately adding false material[19], this editor (MasterUser:Michael93555 is well versed in Wikipolicy, has openly declared his desire to have me blocked [20] and cannot accept that they have been blocked for sockpuppetry) actually succeeded in having an innocent user blocked through deception (see here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555/Archive)). This IP hopping user's intimacy and distortion of their own history as evidenced here plainly show malicious intent and a desire to manipulate everyone they come in contact with. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Leave Will alone, he has acted within policy at every step of the way.Synchronism (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, Ho is this User:Synchronism. How did this user get involved. I don’t even know them. I never talk or seen this user before. I never made a user name and I am not a block user.I think they think I'm someone else--71.105.181.222 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This si the first I've heard of User:Michael93555, but now that I look it's quite clear that the IP user is him. The tone and word usage are very similar, as are the topics of interest. The IP is obviously familiar with Wikipedia. I think a range block may be needed.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that that would be a good idea. But if you do the range block you would be blocking thousands of people and they wont be a able to edit. Do you think that I'm worth all of the clitoral damage. I know for a fact you all can't do a range block. But, I may be wrong. I hope you make a right choice. I don’t want to be responsible for this.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Disclaimer
    Well, it's pleasing to know all proxy users seem to lack intelligence; they basically scream 'Hey stupid, I'm over here!' and then wonder how they got caught so fast. HalfShadow 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was kind enough to leave a list of his recent IPs in this taunting message, [21], though they're fairly obvious.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you all that I can not be blocked. I think it’s a good idea to just to leave me alone and maybe you see that I'm not a big as a problem as you all are making me out to be. I'm a editor that wants be turned into a productive contributor, if I were "taken into hand" so to speak. That is, treated with some patience and a little kindness...--71.105.181.222 --209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, enough "fun" from the anon, a range block should be immediately put in place. The user is obviously not here for anything good and with posts that start with "I told you all that I can not be blocked", there is nothing good that can come from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think 209.44.123.1 is a seperate user from 71.105.39.114. 209.44.123.1 is located out of Laval, Quebec, Canada while 71.105.39.114 is located out of Victorville, California. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are open proxies all over the world.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think it might be high time to start finding them and shutting them down. The ones this anon is using to start. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest re-semiprotecting the Ridgecrest, California article. Cardamon (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some of the Verizon online ones I used.

    • Doesn't it suck... that you guys can't block me. I have over 1,000,000 IP address all over the world. It will take 1 to 2 years to block all of them at the rate we are going here.--Chris Avery (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not that much good coming out of Tampa, Florida anyway, is there? Not that we should believe what he says.... --Alvestrand (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he used any of those. Many haven't been used in years. I think he's just trying to get us to cause "clitoral damage".   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009

    There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

    Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

    Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

    Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.
    • The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D
    • Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.

    Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

    You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

    Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish.

    Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

    So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing new apparently

    I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.
    I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. Tiamuttalk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <outdent> Uh?

    • A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.
    • C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.
    • D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..

    I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal mentorship

    I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem. Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.
    No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian? The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship." Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you. Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all. Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More Uninvolved Admins

    While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature 2

    See also:User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature (Incident Archive)

    The roll back feature needs to be handled with care according to the policy. But it seems that User Aditya Kabir keep ignoring roll back policy by misusing this feature intentionally. His recent reverting action on this page ([22]) is indicating the violation of this policy. I left a message about this revert in article talk page ([23]), but he seemed ignore it. The user has again misused this feature by reverting this edit and made false accusation on user:Wbrz for vandalism and disruptive edit. Which is pretty much bad faith and personal attack. That edit made by user:Wbrz was not vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Rollback feature RBK should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism. But this is not happening here. --NAHID 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That first edit is distinctly dodgy. The editor had undid something the admin did, with the admin apparently in error, and an edit summary left to show where the error was. The admin used rollback to revert without edit summary. Prima facie, it doesn't look good.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have omitted to warn the editor about this AN/I. I have now done so.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we discussing the difference between this version and this version of the article Greater India? Yep, there was rollback involved, which obviously is a faster way to fix articles. Was there any wrong doing involved? And, why exactly is this person who is following me around, at times with some zeal (like here, here, and here... though it's kind of continuing process), trying to make an issue out of an edit summary auto-generated by twinkle? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And, I propose that you guys strip me off my rollback status and block me for a significant amount of time, and also post hideous threats to my talk page. Do something, anything. I really need to get this borderline troll off my back. There is much more to do on Wikipedia than suffering from a vengeful stalker. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aditya, I thought you agreed back here in May 2008 that you would use rollbackonly for “explicit vandalism/improper humor/edit test and suchlike. For the rest we have Twinkle, and even more appropriately, a simple undo.” Now you say you use rollback because it “is a faster way to fix articles.” —teb728 t c 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, dear. I am not saying that. If my suspicion of deliberate disruption was wrong. It was wrong. I never hoped to play god. You are most welcome to the lynching party. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate AfD closure on WP:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎

    Resolved
     – Duplicates deletion review. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎ was closed after being discussed for around 3 days. There was no chance of it being snowable, so it wasn't a legitimate closure of the discussion. Now users are edit warring over its closure. Could somebody please step in? I am somewhat involved as I placed my opinion on the AfD. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's about zero chance that we're not going to have an article on this eventually ... but the AFD shouldn't have been closed. --B (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whack!!! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh bother. I guess there's a deletion review going on. I didn't know until I went looking at the talk page of the closing admin. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The better question is the peculiarly schizoid defense of this stuff by wikipedia lawyers, given the general paranoia about images here. You can steal these images from this art gallery is OK even though it might harm that gallery's income, but you can't "excessively" display team logos even though such display can only benefit those teams? Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's a difference. Wikipedia's mission is to promote free (public domain, creative commons, gfdl, etc) media. These images, Wikipedia argues, are public domain and claiming copyright doesn't change that. We do not honor false claims of copyright. For example, plenty of state or college digital libraries claim copyright on images that are obviously PD by age. We ignore their claims and upload them to our heart's content. Personally, I think Wikipedia is wrong in this particular case - even though under US law, these images would be PD, as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, we are obligated to honor UK copyrights. But if Wikipedia prevails in court, then we aren't "stealing" any more than it is "stealing" to make a photocopy of a book by Mark Twain. --B (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I argued the last time this subject came up that the gallery did this to themselves by failing to prevent the public from just grabbing and downloading these things. This will be an interesting case, once it gets settled, probably sometime in Sarah Palin's second term as President. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, GMaxwell makes a great point on Commons - allowing someone to lock original works of art in a vault and then claim copyright on any copies of them effectively keeps non-widely-produced works from ever falling into the public domain. If I obtain - legally or otherwise - a rare work of art or literature, under the museum's theory, I can make a copy of it, destroy the original, and now claim copyright over it. This is not a tenable copyright policy. The Copyright Clause US Constitution says that copyright must be for "limited times", meaning that there cannot be perpetual copyright in the US. Unfortunately, even though the Constitution trumps the Bern Convention, Eldred v. Ashcroft said that "effectively perpetual copyright" is not the same thing as perpetual copyright, so I doubt the court would find that the museum's locking up the originals constitutes perpetual copyright. IP laws are insanely out of whack. Drug patents are 25 years, which is why medicine is so expensive - drug companies only have 25 years to recoup millions of $ in research costs. But copyright lasts generations after everyone associated with it is long dead. Go figure. --B (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read the actual court decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, it's at Wikisource. The judge analyzed the situation under both US and UK copyright law and determined that under both sets of laws, the NPG's images are not copyrighted. Of course, the NPG disputes this, and a US court decision is not binding on UK courts, but it suggests a blueprint for future action in the UK if the NPG ever wants to take the risk. Thatcher 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite all that, wikipedia does not seem to have the ethical high ground here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you are faulting the NPG for failing to to effectively prevent the public from downloading the high-res images. They tried their best. As the Guardian reported: "The gallery is halfway through a £1m project to digitise its entire collection: over more than 60,000 images are already on its website. In March a new feature was added – giving a low-resolution version of the complete works , but allowing viewers to zoom in on sections of images in high resolution. In March, Coetzee found a way past this software, and captured 3,014 complete images in high resolution". One of the issues that gets glossed over here is the circumventing of protection for the high-res images. And the fact that the lower-res images are freely available and not "locked up" at all.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget that the NPG offered the entire collection in medium resolution (the same as the two high profile German photo sets on commons) and were turned down, and then someone used technical means to rip and stich high res versions. I think it's Fucking Baffling that a person taking and uploading photographs of toys they own will (eventually) get all kinds of RfC, blocks, community bans etc. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The NPG offered the images in a "Wikipedia-only" license. We do not accept content contributed under such a license and have not accepted it since 2005. And even if we were willing to accept such images, Wikipedia's contention is that they are not copyrighted anyway, so there is no incentive to voluntarily restrict ourselves to low-res use. --B (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DinDraithou

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – dispute resolution is thataway. No need for admin action, and it would be nice if this conversation did not devolve to a state where admin action DOES become necessary. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user, DinDraithou, has been trouble all day today. Besides violating 3RR on Bourgeoisie despite a warning about that policy on his talk page earlier in the day, he has been abusive and uncooperative on discussion pages. On here and here, he has shown a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and spirit and furthermore, a lack of interest in learning about such things. He has demonstrated incivility through ad hominem attacks, mostly regarding social class, including accusations that editors, as bourgeoisie, were naturally biased and that most wikipedia editors are "irrelevant nobodies." He furthermore made unfounded claims of threats. He also declared that the article on Niall of the Nine Hostages "belongs" to the descendants of Niall, but only the aristocratic ones. This might be related to his suggestion that we "lock America out, lock the trash out" (in an edit summary on the Niall article).

    Seeing that this user had never received the 5 pillars on his talk page, I requested of an admin buddy that he do so. (This admin was offline and still is I believe.) When DinDraithou described himself as "new to wikipedia" and asked for my help, I wrote a note summarizing what I saw to be the problem and citing the 5 pillars. He felt patronized and betrayed since I hadn't done as he asked ("I asked you to deal with the problem") and declared us as cyber-foes.

    Although in some sense having good faith, this user seems to have no intention of contributing positively to wikipedia. Arxack (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry you've gotten upset by my early talk page style, but this complaint is vengeful and unfortunate. You should look over my actual contributions. Why did you appear in the discussion? DinDraithou (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What this user describes as his "early talk page style" has certainly tempered over the last hour, it was in full force at 6:59 Wikipedia Time, complete with an accusation of being a lower class POV-pusher, and the claim that I can't be trusted because I used the phrase "most editors." Arxack (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to bed kiddo, like you said you were gonna do, and we'll work it all out later. If you're as tired and sleepless as I am then that's why we're here. We don't know each other but it seems like it I guess. DinDraithou (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (out) Arxack, the message you sent DinDraithou looks perfect in my opinion—had helpful links and was civilly written. If DinDraithou refuses to be receptive and learn from it, that is his own choice and it's beyond our powers to change him. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, but judging by this userpage he just created then he might intend to go on being a class-warrior, and if that sort of POV-pushing continues then he may have to be sanctioned. For now I will just reiterate the 3RR warning, as edit warring is a much clearer violation and easier thing to deal with than chronic POV-pushing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think your analysis is fair. Neither the bourgeoisie nor Niall of the Nine Hostages are your areas of expertise. Thus another administrator or two will need to take care of this. As far as I can tell the complaint exists because user became very personally unhappy. He also became too personal with me. DinDraithou (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need those articles to be in my area of expertise to understand Wikipedia policy, and consensus, and when you are violating those policies. The issue here is not the content of the article, it's the way you are editing and the way you are interacting with other users. (As for getting "too personal", you made it personal when you started accusing editors of being 'wrong' because of their supposed class backgrounds, which is wholly inappropriate.)
    For now, I have warned DinDraithou; as for the article, I have restored the text that DinDraithou was edit-warring over, but this time with cleanup tags so that it is clear the wording may need to be changed or sources added (if it helps, people could also add a {{disputed-inline}} tag to each one). Hopefully that will settle things for now; further discussion about what to do with the language should be done at the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is exactly what I accused users of when they gave evidence of it, it being entirely relevant. I think you're forgetting the subject of the article. In any case I haven't deserved a warning more than the user making the complaint and you need to be fair here. Give him or her one too and we'll be fine. DinDraithou (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't only a warning, it was an attempt to teach you more about Wikipedia policies and how to work with people, since you yourself admitted that you're new here. Arxack will be given warnings when he does something wrong; so far, he has not made a single revert to that article, I don't see what he should be "warned" for other than daring to disagree with you. I am being perfectly fair. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you haven't done all your job requires. He admitted not knowing anything about Niall of the Nine Hostages besides what the Wikipedia article offered but he made edits anyway. Then he followed me to the Bourgeoisie talk page for unclear reasons. You'll note he admits to starting his career as a vandal. Look into how I started mine. Don't be a lazy admin. Thank you. DinDraithou (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't "follow" you, I went to the Bourgeoisie page because the report linked to there. And, again, Wikipedia does not require people to be an expert in the subject to edit, or comment on, an article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not only lazy but tired or distracted and aren't reading well. I said he, not you, followed me to the Bourgeois(ie) talk page. This is ridiculous. You've acted too quickly and made me look bad in favour of an admitted (former) vandal. DinDraithou (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't seem that you understand why you've been warned. This isn't about punishing us for the weight of our sins, it's about trying to encourage you to follow the wikipedia rules. The fact that I added sourced info to Niall without being an expert, that I followed your edits (as Rjanag once followed mine), and that I was once a vandal do not constitute any current issue. Your edit warring, refusal to provide sources for your claims, making responses on talk pages citing the presumed lower-classness of other editors rather than reliable sources, and your general incivility-- these things do violate wikipedia policy.

    We're not looking for you go grovel or do jail time. We're just trying to explain the guidelines that govern how users of any social class edit any topic of wikipedia. It's not a big deal if you start out editing on the wrong foot-- most of us do, actually, and it's no shame whatsoever. Those of us who get past that do so because they learn from their mistakes. That's all we're asking of you here. Arxack (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But then you made this childish complaint when I was causing no actual damage. It appears you were feeling "butthurt", if we can pardon the expression. DinDraithou (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin noticeboard is not the venue for two people to carry on a debate on this nature. Please take up a thread at WP:WQA or some other more appropriate venue. There is nothing for admins to get involved with yet, and I want to keep it that way. My advice is to take a little time to cool off, stop antagonizing each other, and if necessary pursue dispute resolution. Either way, this conversation is not appropriate for this venue, and I am marking it resolved. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum after several edit conflicts. I am closeing this discussion to further editing. Please just take a cool off, or if needed, pursue dispute resolution. This is not what this noticeboard is for. --Jayron32 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Altoids Man

    Could somebody please suggest an appropriate course of action about User:Altoids Man's behaviour? I'm talking about an ongoing episode at Mark Weisbrot (see Talk:Mark Weisbrot as well as User talk:Rd232 and User talk:JRSP). Note that Altoids seems occasionally to edit as User:71.106.93.112 and User:156.80.10.182 (in a "haven't logged in" way, not a sockpuppety way). He has at least recently opened an Editor Assistance Request on the content issue, diff, which is something, but still, his comments and attitude have been problematic. Thanks. Rd232 talk 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor notified about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the discussion on the Weisbrot talk page speaks for itself. I have found Rd232 to be unreasonable, He/She has not offered a single compromise in the editing process, while I have provided voluminous justification for proposed changes. (including yes calling him a clown on one occasion). Having said that, I will continue to provide substantiation for my proposed changes on the talk page and I have requested assistance of other editors who are not possibly emotionally involved with defending the Weisbrot status quo. Other editors have said that RD232 can be reasonable, while I have seen little of that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move forward. Thank you. --Altoids Man (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I'd hoped for something closer to an apology, but I guess that'll do if Altoids is now willing to discuss content, and do it civilly. Thank you to those who commented on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Rd232 talk 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon talk attack

    See edit filter 7 -- we're getting a huge proxy attack of AnonTalk spam. Help with blocking IPs would be appreciated. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like a doofus, but how would I go about helping? I can't see any of filter 7's details ("It is hidden from public view") and can't see of the IPs' disallowed edits. TNXMan 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you would need to make yourself an abuse filter editor to see that stuff -- if you do that, you'll see over 600 attempted AnonTalk edits. But they seem to have stopped, and Zzuzz and I have blocked all the IPs involved. Now I get to go back and check them all for proxies. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They just started back up again. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to help where I can. Should I leave a block template on the IP's talk page? TNXMan 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't bother, they're zombies or proxies anyway. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more of a general question, but should we block anons that did not make any inappropriate edits (because those were blocked by the edit filter) in the first place? I mean, what do we gain from doing this? I've just looked at a bunch of contributions from the IPs that were caught by Filter 7, and none of them seemed to have made any actual edits. So.. if the filter works as intended, why do we need to block anyone? --Conti|✉ 19:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for one thing, several of them are making repeated attempts to add AnonTalk spam, so blocking them stops further attempts. For another, at some point, the spammer is going to try to figure out a way around the edit filter (check the attempted edits, he/she is already doing that, albeit unsuccessfully), and we may as well deny him/her some of the zombie computers being used. Finally, all of the attempted edits make the abuse filter run slower. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If i can comment,as a /b/tard, Anontalk is known to do the following things to spam: Do a simple text spam or rely on Unicode characters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_ed17&diff=256371105&oldid=256371079 from 2008. Anontalk people are known to have a botnet. The wars between 4chan and Anontalk are quite notable. They spam each other wich results in side lulz. --Mixwell☞TALK☜STALK!!! 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I reported some known AnonTalk crap to the spam blacklist a while ago, but it's so backlogged that my report was archived without being read. Is there any magic formula I can invoke to get people to actually read my reports there, or should I just not bother? — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The spam blacklist will not work, as the links are just text, not an actual link. Prodego talk 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Well, that was bound to happen eventually. I would still like to know, though, whether to give up on the blacklist or not. I suppose I'll just see what happens the next time I report something. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing quick-fire spam-vandalism

    There is a current spate of vandalism/spamming coming from multiple anons taking the form of inserting [Type "www.Anon" into your address field. Follow this by "Talk.com" and press Enter. Bookmark the resulting page. Done!]. sample Mr Stephen (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All currently have the edit summary rukewl. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summary was Reverted multiple instances of vandalism. earlier, then changed to rukewl. Esowteric+Talk 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the Anontalk spammer again. If someone less incompetent than me can modify filter 7 in the edit filter we can probably foil this latest method of obfuscating the URL we've blacklisted. ~ mazca talk 10:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Dragons flight (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New pattern: [24] --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam bot: 195.50.135.218/217.114.3.220 (same as above)

    User:195.50.135.218 is spamming multiple pages with blatant advertisement e.g. example. The pages being spammed seem completely random and less than a minute apart.

    Oddly another IP User:217.114.3.220 has marked 195.50.135.218's user and talk pages for speedy deletion. On inspection that IP is also spamming in the same way.

    Automated spam bots? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked those, there are more continuing to appear. This seems to be an odd spam bot operating on rotating open proxies, as far as I can discern. ~ mazca talk 10:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many blocks and rollbacks later this seems to have just about stopped now. Keep an eye out. ~ mazca talk 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All of these IP addresses are transparent and/or open proxies. Google tells that very easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    and another ? User:69.30.227.98 Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEFCON alert level raised to level 1. Alexius08 (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone wants the info. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those already got blocked an hour or so by myself, Bongwarrior, or various others. For anyone following this, I should re-emphasise Ryulong's advice above - quite a few of these IPs can be easily identified as open proxies by putting the IP into a Google search. If it's the case, it's worth blocking them for a longer period as an open proxy, rather than just 24-72hrs for spamming/vandalism. ~ mazca talk 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    69.30.227.98, one of the spammers, spammed the user talk page of 221.194.139.248 where I'd just issued a warning, suggesting human intervention as well as automated edits. Also, at least one of the edits I undid was followed up by a repeat spamming of that article. Esowteric+Talk 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist twice for some reason. I'd suggest removing both and putting it on m:Spam blacklist.--Otterathome (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These spamming IPs are all open proxies, most of them dynamic, which can be blocked for a few months on sight. The spam generally follows changes in the recent changes list, which is why it can look like it's following you around, so it's important to check each edit is reverted properly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Related users:

    --Otterathome (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kookyunii needs to be reigned in

    Kookyunii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user doesn't seem to be communicating and appears to be doing some damage. I spent some time cleaning out the article Konkuk University where probably 90% of the article doubling content added by this user was cut and paste copyvio..which no on else seemed to notice making it all the more difficult to remove as I couldn't just revert. There are numerous warnings piling up on their talk page. There also seem to be some communication problems.--Crossmr (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've run across some of this user's edits, and can sympathize with Crossmr's experience... The edits are not simply wrong-- they could be easily reverted if they were-- but a mix of incorrect re-naming of subjects and article moves, combined with some good edits... In the editor's favor, after having been warned about the re-namings, this seems to have stopped. Dekkappai (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. Even after my warning about copyvio he got another one about category work. now I don't usually do much with categories so I'm not sure what he's doing, but I noticed he made several category edits a couple hours after being warned again, I'm not sure if those were bad or good but from his edit summaries, they seemed related to what he was being warned about.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And we're getting ownership messages like this: [27].--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant only the odd re-naming (the only issue I had with the editor) seemed to have stopped after his warnings. Yes, that reversion and edit summary do look troubling also... Dekkappai (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientology edits

    I'm not up to speed on the situation with this, and these edits may be 'ok' technically, but there are two new editors, DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) and Scientologist Perspective (talk · contribs) busy turning Ron Hubbard into a philospher and apparently working together, see [28]. Whether this needs action or not I don't know, and I apologise if I'm wasting people's time or being unfair to newbies. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter was blocked under username policy, and I've left a comment here on the former name if anyone is interested. Nja247 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    off topic musing
    There is often a fine line between a philosopher and a salesman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They both try to sell you something, but one doesn't throw in a free kitchen knife set. HalfShadow 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? Didn't Confucius say, "And if you buy my all-time best-selling book, Confucius Sez, you'll get Confucius: Sez Who? for half price! And as a free bonus, we'll throw in this personally-autographed set of electric chopsticks! Not available in stores! Limited time only! Call now! Operators are waiting!" To fill out this scenario, try to picture the distinguished-looking Confucius talking with the appropriate Asian accent, and delivered in the same manner as Billy Mays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Billy has been about as quiet as Confucius these days ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two appear to be the same editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) for WP:TE and calling two different admins trolls. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm filing an SPI report for good measure. I was skeptical about doing this at first, given the quacking. But this unblock request makes it pretty obvious those two accounts are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When they help us out by admitting it, standard procedure is to reduce the indef block by a day. Maybe even two. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock requests are clearly not serious, hopefully we will find out who this is. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinion needed re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star

    Resolved

    Hi fellow admins. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star has been withdrawn by the nominator because the article was expanded significantly after nomination but has a "delete"-!vote that was cast before the expansion. Could an uninvolved administrator assess the situation and decide whether it can be closed as withdrawn anyway? If possible, I'd like to nom it for DYK but for that it needs to be removed from AFD prior to the end of the 7 day period. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --Jayron32 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to recommend waiting to hear from ThuranX, who wanted to delete, as there was not a huge rush to get this closed and up on DYK, but I'm certainly not going to undo Jayron's close. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jayron.
    @Bigtimepeace: I had similar thoughts but on the other hand, Thuran is an experienced editor and I am convinced they will not object Jayron's close since their delete-rationale was not fitting the article after the expansion anyway. But we will see. Regards SoWhy 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw that Thuran expressed consent at Talk:Reality Killed The Video Star. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring

    This user 96.50.99.29 (talk) keeps trying to engage me in an edit war in the article Surviving the Game and calling my edits vandalizm. I have already warned this person before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_the_Game Dumaka (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you're edit warring as well. I would note also that you do not own that article - Wikipedia articles are collaborative works, and refusing to let others work on them is considered highly disruptive. Comments like "This article is not to be touched." and "Stop touching my article!" are not acceptable. Work things out on the talk page with the IP editor. I don't see any need for administrative action at this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, edit warring is a blockable action.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the edit warring is not currently underway, and nobody's broken 3RR. I've cleaned up the article some, but that's all that needs doing right now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    " This article appears to consist almost entirely of a plot summary. " -- so what is done, typically, to correct this? I mean other than nothing at all. JBsupreme (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    the best thing to do is to add real world information about the production and reception, including references to reviews of the workDGG (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, the plot summary can be pared down to a few paragraphs. The overarching basic storyline is fine, but a scene-by-scene recap of the entire movie is probably excessive. --Jayron32 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Fair Deal and SoWhy

    Resolved
     – Reporter blocked already. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These two users are personally attacking me by deleting everything I post which is eligible. SoWhy deleted my TrajectoryMetal page based on his biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Id33k (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wish the page met our criteria for inclusion but it looks like it doesn't. Alexa rank >100k and the article you wrote was a discourse on Turd Ferguson and McNuggets. Please don't link articles to the website for reviews either. Thanks -- Samir 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the o.p. has now posted an attack page, if someone who hasn't yet joined me in WP:FORMER wants to do the necessary. – iridescent 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this edit shows how much credibility should be given to this complaint. I've also taken a look at the deleted article, and endorse the speedy deletion. Id33k, please review our notability guidelines and what Wikipedia is not. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef, this friendly fellow clearly has no intention to contribute productively. ~ mazca talk 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wow, my first ANI attack post. Took me almost 10 months of adminship before someone started one. Although your case might have been a little stronger if you hadn't filled my talk page and userpage with obscenities. You know, people might think that arguments ad hominem are not very strong. As for the page, biased opinion? I never heard of that page before. You might want to try and make a case why this subject should be considered important or significant instead. Regards SoWhy 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat at WP:BLP/N re Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

    Resolved
     – indef WP:NLT Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a spate of contentious editing at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and it seems to have spilled over into what might be deemed an impermissible legal threat at WP:BLP/N[29]. Maybe an admin should have a look?--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. Block away. Clear legal threat. MuZemike 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... um, that threat was awesomely misguided! Resolute 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this constitutes edit warring or a civility issue or something else...

    Please forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place; I'm not really sure what category it belongs in.

    User:Gorillasapiens has been reverting legitimate, good-faith edits to Same-sex marriage in Maine. He admits on another user's talk page that English is not his first language; this is evident in the wording of some of his edits, some of which are overly verbose and confusing. I have tried to improve these sentences by making them more easily understood and concise, but he has reverted my edits and seems to think that I'm trying to change the meaning of what he wrote. Additionally, he has been adding material to this article from other articles (Same-sex marriage in New England and various same-sex marriage articles from other states); User:Knowledgekid87 removed this material because there was no need to duplicate it, but Gorrilasapiens added it back, and also reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate edits without any explanation.

    Anyway, if this is not the place to discuss this, please let me know (and please accept my apologies). Thanks. —BMRR (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it seems like a potential combination of a few different things, so this would be an appropiate place to put it. Now, let's get some diffs so it can be easier to assess the situation.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some examples. External links that I added, with clear/concise/easily understood descriptions -- and Gorillasapiens' changes, which were unnecessarily wordy -- Those changes were reverted by another user who thought simpler was better -- but Gorillasapiens changed it back -- so I tried to come up with a compromise -- but Gorillasapiens didn't like that either. Then he made this edit in which he added duplicate information from another article and changed wording so that it seemed like a future date had already taken place -- I changed the part about the future date because his wording didn't make sense -- but he changed it back. So I changed it again because his way was confusing and inaccurate, but he changed it again with no explanation of why. Then he reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate, good-faith edits here, here, and here -- without explanation. —BMRR (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This section of the user's talk page seems relevant to this discussion.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been edit warring at United States Senate as well. —BMRR (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How does a member of the United States Senate find the time to be edit warring on Wikipedia? Is it his day off?--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The US Senate takes off every weekend (and they basically get a month off after next week). -- Atamachat 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everyone well it appears as if my edits were reverted, I went ahead and redid some of what I had done as the user User:Gorillasapiens was putting things not related to the article and alot of Could's in place. Only things that were reveryed was talk about Same Sex marriage in New England in the Same sex marriage in Maine topic (Made a see also: link insted of putting the info in the article) and this one possible POV statement about what could happen if such and such happens.Knowledgekid87 (talk)20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure of a thread

    Would an uninvolved administrator or uninvolved experienced editor who has not yet commented please close the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Circumcision with a resolution or summary, as I had suggested here. Thank you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We've got POV-pushing mohels now? Gevalt! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We've also got AN/I's main character A.K.A Baseball Bugs in this thread.--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Baseball Bugs has been so active on this page that we should really rename AN/I "The Baseball Bugs And User Incidents Show"--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can just create a new page, BN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We could just redirect this page to Bugs' talkpage ... or vice versa (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed it after seeing Coppertwig's note here and recommended that it be sent to COI/N archive 35 as soon as possible. — Athaenara ✉ 09:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of my block

    An editor has called into question my impartiality in blocking him. Any review of my actions would be appreciated. The blocked editor is Juniorxin (talk · contribs) who also edits under IP 76.73.154.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have blocked him several times for inserting material under copyright into Beluga (sturgeon), as well as the disruptive editing. Juniorxin was concerned that his block was improper since the editor who first detected the issues and came to me was a real life friend of mine and fellow marine mammal scientist. I looked back and didn't see anything shady in my actions but I would welcome further scrutiny. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive, incivil SPA. The mistake was that the block was so brief. --B (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a compromise possible to include a mention of the Beluga caviar meal between U.S. and Russian presidents? It seems interesting to me, although I admit I'm partial to that sort of trivia that provides illustrative examples of how a subject is significant to society, involved in a traditional cuisine and made part of social practice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Sanchez

    Someone should restore the block on Bluemarine (talk · contribs) as he is quite confused that just because his block was lifted, he thinks so has his community ban, which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine. As the ban is still in place, he should only be editing his own talk page. Also a word on name calling would be appreciated. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting that Allstarecho recuse from further intervention in matters related to Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine. Matt Sanchez is not community banned but in limbo (which is why his account is unblocked). In May I attempted to normalize Bluemarine's editing status; Allstarecho's participation caused delays that prevented community consensus.[30] Allstarecho raised a red herring sockpuppetry concern about an account that has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of somebody else, and insisted upon unusual stipulations to Bluemarine's editing restriction, such as a stipulation about copyright even though Bluemarine has never violated copyright on this site, nor been blocked for it at any other WMF site. A few weeks afterward Allstarecho's extensive copyvios came to light and resulted in an indefinite block.[31] During the discussion about Allstarecho's conduct I refrained from mentioning his double standard about copyright, and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.[32] A discussion about Bluemarine's status has been ongoing at my user talk for several days,[33] and has stalled because Allstarecho insists upon exactly the same stipulations as before. PastorTheo has attempted to mediate and I left a note for Akhilleus, but Akhilleus has not edited for a week and a half.[34] Allstarecho appears to be leveraging the ambiguous situation to prolong Bluemarine's limbo, then Allstarecho initiates a new noticeboard complaint whenever Bluemarine does edit in an attempt to get him reblocked.[35] I had delayed re-initiating a status clarification request on Bluemarine, in hopes that the complications with Allstarecho could be worked out amicably. This appears not to be possible; he keeps pushing the matter. So requesting impartial administrative review of both parties. Durova288 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also relevant: Allstarecho was blocked by WJBscribe in June for edits to the Matt Sanchez biography.[36] Another thread started by Allstarecho about Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine in May.[37] Apologies for the less than ideal presentation here; this tends to catch me off guard during other endeavors. Will gladly answer questions as needed to clarify. Durova288 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The contention that he is "unblocked but not unbanned" doesn't make much sense - if an admin is willing to unblock him, he isn't community banned. I think the unblock (and unban) is a horribly bad idea, though. --B (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Arbcom discussion seems to have stalled (perhaps another shiney bauble caught their eye?) though as I read it the direction was towards affirming a cautious lifting of the ban per whatever editing restrictions the community deems appropriate. Would this be an appropriate time and venue to sort out what those restrictions should be? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 ([[UTC)
    • Bluemarine's arbitration sanction has expired. So the logical thing is to clarify his status within the community. That was what PastorTheo and I were trying to work out with Allstarecho. Here's the sanction I proposed in May.
    Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
    Discussion on that proposal got sidetracked and stalled until the thread archived. Durova288 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think allowing him on talk pages would be okay? That seems the normal course of action in cases of COI. Also, I think the last sentence can be shortened to: If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Short and sweet. We're all subject to the no personal attack rule and harassment is an overly broad and oft abused kind of accusation. Best not to open a can of worms and to keep things as clear as possible. The other article mentioned previously was Scott Beauchamp controversy. I like specific restrictions as opposed to "broadly interpreted" which (like harassment accusations) can be open to interpretation. Gray areas leave things open for dispute and controversy. Are there other articles of concern? I trust Allstarecho will weigh in. Also, I would add a statement along the lines of "is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial and of emotional investment so as to avoid confrontation and gain experience editing Wikipedia." ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your shortening of the last sentence sounds fine. I'm on the fence about talk page participation; not sure what's best with that. I think there were a couple of other specific pages where he got into difficulty before, mostly before I became aware of the dispute. The basic idea is that here's a fellow with an Ivy League education who speaks four languages fluently and travels to Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq frequently. If we could cordon things away from the old areas of dispute, he's got a lot to offer the encyclopedia. He's sat out his arbitration ban; best to give him a fair shot. Durova288 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually Durova, the WjBscribe block of me you raise above was in January 2008, not June of this year or any year. You conveniently left out that that block was also removed by WjBscribe as unwarranted. Aside from that, Sanchez is indeed under a community ban as it was never lifted by the community. He was unblocked because via stipulations by Arbcom that he can only upload files "for making the projects more accessible to handicap people". Even then, his community ban was still in effect. While Arbcom's ban has expired, his community ban has not nor has it been lifted by the community. IN fact, Arbcom members have stated that his community ban is separate from their ban and is still in effect. Therefore, he is still under community ban and should be blocked. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, here is what I proposed back in May (so saying I am stalling any attempts to resolve Matt's status is laughable at the least, ludicrous at the worst):
    Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.
    As one can see, this is essentially the same as your proposal except adding in the uploading of files, which he has violated copyvio at Commons before. And yes, I know Commons isn't Wikipedia but since Matt seems to always get "confused" about these matters, it doesn't hurt to include the notice. Nothing unusual about that at all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec'd) Was that? Apologies for any inaccuracy. You caught me by surprise with this thread, so I scrambled to reply. Would really like to get back to Photoshop asap. Durova288 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The ArbCom still appears to be considering the matter.[38] Are we seeking to supersede their effort? Either way, the user shouldn't edit until his status is resolved.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see much indication they are moving toward a decision any time soon and what comments are there seem to indicate that the community should make a determination. I don't think anyone is trying to usurp Arbcom's role, just to help resolve the situation. As most everyone seems to agree that it's time the ban is lifted, the editing restrictions seem to be the main details that need to be worked out. I don't think continuing the current limbo is good for anyone concerned. Do you have an opinion on what editing restrictions would be appropriate? Or do you think we should anticipate something happening with the stalled Arbcom proceeding? When do you think that will happen? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last vote came 24 hours ago, so it doens't seem entirely stalled. The ArbCom rarely moves quickly, and I don't see that there's any rush with this matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My revised restriction would read: Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator. I also think a mentor would be helpful if someone is willing to volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova is his mentor. Additionally, "advised to avoid" makes this whole thing pointless. It should say flat out "is to avoid" not "advised to". Also given the vile personal attacks in the past by him where he has referred to people as fags, gay jihadists, gay terrorists, etc., the part about personal attacks should not be removed. And finally, it's pointless to even discuss the stipulations of his unban here until the current discussion at Arbcom has ended. I didn't even start this thread to discuss stipulations but to request that while he still under a community ban, that he be blocked.. or at the least, told firmly not to edit anywhere except his talk page until he has been notified specifically that his community ban is no more. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, to Child of Midnight)That proposal looks fine. Durova288 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally regarding Allstarecho's input (I repeat the request to him to recuse), I announced to the Committee my intention to resign from all mentorships in June. Am staying with Bluemarine only provisionally until his status is normalized and a new mentorship is underway. Durova288 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I will not recuse. It's obvious above by your misrepresentation of facts - even if they were done in haste - that someone else familiar with the issue should be allowed to weigh in as well, not just you. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Three things are obvious: that a hasty reply to a developing situation may be imperfect even when made in good faith, that you take a persistent interest in Bluemarine (with a decidedly slanted tone), and that you apply wildly different interpretations of the copyright policy regarding yourself and Bluemarine. I did all I could to prevent that from reflecting poorly on you at the admin boards, but by continuing to press the issue you force that to come to light. Durova288 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take "persistent interest" in anyone that is community banned but not abiding by it, while being aided and abetted by others. Also, I have not applied any "wildly" different interpretations of copyright policy. In fact, as I stated at the discussion on your talk page, I am already under the same restrictions and the difference between Sanchez and I is that I know when to stop. He continues to violate copyright by uploading copyvio images at Commons. I have not requested anything for him that I am not under myself or woudln't accept myself. The only reason you keep bringing up my own transgressions is to deflect the attention away from Sanchez and to cast me as someone to be ignored in this matter. And I hold no grudge for that, but I won't let you or anyone else make false accusations and present blurry facts in this dispute. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not get sidetracked. I have revised the editing restriction proposal per Allstar's comment. Are there other articles or topic areas that need to be included? Is it okay to let him edit the Matt Sanchez talk page? I'm not trying to rush things and I think we should leave the proposal up for a while to allow additional comments and to make sure it's agreeable and appropriate. I'm also okay with running whatever is agreed to by Arbcom to allay the concerns of anyone who thinks we are bypassing them? My understanding is that Durova would like to pass the torch of mentorship. She's served admirably in difficult circumstances and I think it's only fair to call for a new volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks fine to me but again, I'd await the outcome of the current Arbcom discussion before actually putting this proposal before the community. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to, arbcom only gets involved where the community cant solve the problem. A community ban is void as soon as one admin is willing to unblock, because the ban, by definition, works like that. Well, he's unblcked. We've agreed on the editing restrictions to apply, we're done here. --Mask? 08:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ladgy

    User has been making frivolous and vexatious reports to WP:AIV, including Kww (talk · contribs), Charmed36 (talk · contribs), and TheWoogie (talk · contribs) with no warnings given whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this user is making such reports in retaliation to either reverts on watched articles or for talk page messages received. Can someone help out here, please? MuZemike 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If just trying to make them stop reveting the article for their is no need to and im not trying to block myself and it was not if grude or furiosity kk. And the solutuion that came to pass was 24 hr block and pg protcect thats all just to make them stop.Ladgy (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ladgy has been edit-warring over a redirect on Broken-Hearted Girl for some time. It's one of those "rumored but unconfirmed" single articles that fails WP:NSONGS by a wide margin. There isn't any particular reason to even have the redirect, and, since Ladgy won't leave the redirect alone, I've taken it to AFD. At the very least, we'll get a consensus about what to do with it there.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ladgy, AIV is not the purpose for that. AIV, quoting the page, is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Settling content disputes or revert-warring are not the purposes of that page. You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution, which starts at the articles' talk pages involved, and then you work from there if said dispute is not resolved. While I'm at it, don't continue to forum-shop at other places if you don't get your way, such as requests for page protection (see [39]), let alone cite "vandalism" as a reason for protection when it clearly is not. Nobody owns articles here; we discuss actions taken – not write them off as vandalism. Now that the article has been nominated for deletion, I suggest you start discussing there. MuZemike 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet investigation on the run. — Σxplicit 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar IP edits at Katy Perry related articles

    This has been going on for months, and I've come to find a resolution to end it. These IP addresses all seem to begin with 201.209 (one is registered to CANTV Servicios Venezuela). They generally edit KP related articles, rarely doing helpful edits, but always leaving things to clean up and leaving many minor edits in a row (see Katy Perry discog history). Known relevant IPs: 201.209.224.71, 201.209.230.203, 201.209.250.7, and a brand new one 201.209.234.83. They seem to work progressively, one taking over after the other has had complaints on its talk page (with no reply), which along with the similarity between edits, makes me think it is the same person. As you can see I have left quite clear messages on a couple of the talk pages, of the IPs which were used for the most amount of time (as well as at the KP discog talk page). If you read those comments you will see a fair outline of the problems with their edits, blatently changing sourced material, removing vital parts of the tables, removing sourced and notable charts without requested discussion, removing sourced releases, altering table codes, etc. The IPs are also active on other articles mainly related to KP and altering charts, etc. There is never reply to talk page comment or edit summaries, so I don't know how to get the message across. Thought about taking this to RPP but am not really sure this could be considered recent vandalism or whatever. And I am also not sure what an Admin can do about this, especially if they keep popping up under different IPs. So what is the best course of action? Any help would be appreciated, I'm sick of coming to WP every day and having to revert the same old crap! At least I know what to expect though, hey? heh. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt there's much to do but revert. I've chased down this particular rat-hole before, and I'm convinced that it's one editor. It would be possible to semi-protect all Katy Perry albums, and it might have come to that. My advice is to simply follow up the warning steps, treating each edit as vandalism, and report to AIV when you hit final. He's not very smart, and doesn't know how to reset his modem, so the blocks slow him down a bit, and I've managed to get it up to a week that way. I've also had good luck with getting response at RFPP with a detailed report showing how it's a hopping IP with similar garbage edits time after time. CanTV is a major ISP in Caracas, so I don't think a range block is viable.—Kww(talk) 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats by User:86.150.30.99

    Resolved
     – Semi-protected again.

    See this diff: [40]. I have blocked the IP for one day. Not sure exactly what else should be done about it, but I figured posting it here was a good start. --Chris (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a recurring event on the editor's page, from various IP's. The page was semi'd for awhile but the editor asked for it to be lifted. I suspect there's some sort of playing around going on there, but it's hard to tell, since the targeted editor is only editing sporadically anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    81.158.102.90 now blocked as well for block evasion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just turned in 86.148.185.51 for the same thing. Should the page be semi'd again? Or, since the editor doesn't seem to care, should we care? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: Would an admin please semi protect the user's page because it is unacceptable for a user to receive the nonsense posted there, and they might feel like they are giving in by asking an admin to do it. Why not protect it and leave a note that if the user would like it removed, please ask. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already posted a formal semi-protection request. Actually, it was semi'd before, and the user asked for it to be unprotected to see what would happen. The editor has not edited since July 22. I just don't think wikipedia should tolerate threats of violence, even if the specific user doesn't seem to care. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sock needs a drawer to put him in...

    I'm about ready to block him as an obvious disruptive sock of SOMEBODY, but it would be nice to have a drawer to place him in. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already contacted Versageek and Dominic to help out because he was all up in my grille.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, I caught that. I'm just looking for the go ahead to just block him as an obvious disruptive sock. I don't have someone to place him with, which would be helpful, but I'm not sure that is necessary here. Just asking for confirmations on my hunch. --Jayron32 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dominic gave me the following other accounts:
    We can't find a sockmaster :/—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More names:
    "Powerline And Knife Guy" suggests the MascotGuy or MascotGuy copycat, but as Dominic told me, "Oh, looking a bit farther back on this range, I see there are dozens of blocked accounts. It's a banned user of some sort."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was recently in a discussion with this user on my talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. I think we should block the lot. Is Dominic compiling a list of these somewhere? When I do block these, I'm going to credit him as the checkuser who confirms the abuse. Actually, it would be very helpful also if he could block the underlying IP/range as well. It would be helpful if he would comment here directly as well. Dominic? You out there? --Jayron32 04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's doing something somewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we all. Actually, I gotta get some sleep. I have a long drive tomorrow, and will be away from Wikipedia for a few days. Could another admin possibly pick this up and block these accounts? I really havta split, and do not have the time to follow through on this... Sorry! --Jayron32 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this user is a sockpuppet of either TAway (talk · contribs), DougsTech (talk · contribs) or Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs). Remember them? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be. I just blocked and tagged them as User:IslamForEver1 socks. Should we discover the main account, IslamForEver1 can be linked to them. Jehochman Talk 04:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser filed

    I have filed a checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet to see if the user is a sockpuppet of either TAway (talk · contribs), DougsTech (talk · contribs) or Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked Dominic and he's told me there's no crossover. All three users are not even on the same continent as the rest of the group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in other words, they're not related? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless they moved across oceans.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be using open proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would someone use open proxies in the same nation on the same ISP repeatedly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no clue, but it was just an idea (probably not a good one) that popped in my head when I read this. I have seen other socks/vandals jump across the globe on open proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think my suspicions are correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no idea, I was just interjecting an idea. No more, no less :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of User:Creatureking

    Hi. I'd like to get some sort of administrator involvement regarding the disruptive editing of User:Creatureking. I've filed a WP:AIV claim, however it isn't entirely clear whether the user is guilty of vandalism as much as simply being disruptive. I maintain that persistent disruptiveness in light of warnings constitutes vandalism, however others obviously disagree.

    Here's the story: User:Captaincold is apparently a fan of Space Ghost programs, and contentiously created a slew of new articles for extremely minor characters (ones that appear only on one or several episodes) from Space Ghost and a few other programs/movies. Here is a list of several: Tansuit, Thunder Cleese, Brak's Mom, Brak's Dad, Sisto, Creature King, Metallus, Council of Doom, Lokar, Alexander Knox (Batman). Other editors and I took these pages through ProD (declined) followed by AfD, in which all of them resulted in a Delete or Merge result. Captaincold began to revert the redirects stemming from these AfDs [41][42][43], recreate previously deleted material[44], and received a warning [45] for this behavior. All seemed to be going tolerably well up through July 24th, when Captaincold stopped editing Wikipedia. On July 25th, User:Creatureking's account was created, and the user began to exhibit identical behavior in editing identical subject matter, indicating that the user is a likely sock puppet. Relevant edits are here: Thundercleese[46], Brak's Dad[47], Creature King[48], Lokar[49], Tansit[50], Metallus[51], Blimp (Space Ghost)[52], and Sisto(edit reference deleted when article was re-deleted). I was responsible for all of the escalating warnings for this behavior with Creatureking[53][54][55].

    How can we take steps to get Creatureking to acknowledge and abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions? I was thinking a three-day block for vandalism would at the very least get their attention. —  X  S  G  04:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an editor re-direct his userpage and talk page to a Wikipedia article/talk page

    User:Ray from texas has set up a re-direct away from his userpage pointing to a Thin Lizzy album. He also re-directed his talk page to go to the talk page of the album article as well. Seems to be "not quite right" to me. GripTheHusk (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the user authored that article in their user space and then moved it, with the redirects as an unintentional side effect. I've removed the talk page redirect, at least; other editors need to be able to contact that user without confusion. I haven't altered the userpage redirect, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attacks and libelous statements

    I have been subjected to numerous personal attacks and libelous statements on this page Talk:Ninpuu_Sentai_Hurricaneger I hope there is something that can be done as i am concerned about defemation of character. Drag-5 (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No such thing has happened. You clearly state (on another website) "hurricaneger ends in neger, which to me is offensive..." What has been said on that talk page is not a personal attack nor is it libelous. Stop trying to disrupt the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    it is libelous. it is labelled as a racist comment which Is completely untrue and is deffamation of character. and ryulong, please stop saying "Stop trying to disrupt the project." I am not disrupting anything, this is getting more than a little annoying. I am trying to improve wikipedia. Drag-5 (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't toss phrases like "defamation of character" or "libelous" around with abandon. they are terms of art which might be interpreted as a legal threat. I trust that you aren't trying to make a legal threat, but just be careful. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not tossing those terms about with abandon. I take this very seriously. The things that have been written about me on that page are indeed libelous. I want something to be done about it. Drag-5 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SOPHIAN

    SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from a one week block he earned by edit warring and uploading a picture of Obama's birth certificate and spamming it in unnecessary articles as described on the noticeboard report Hopefully his block was meant to help him rethink his editing approach that had earned him five blocks in five weeks. Though he has not committed any policy violations, his initial edits since his return unfortunately do not look very promising. His first action was to delete all comments on his talk page, referring to the discussions there as "garbage" in his edit summary [56]. He can do whatever he wants with his talk page, but deleting comments is generally not best practice. He then proceeds to suggest a "compromise" regarding the use of a reference that all the regular editors to the article E1b1b agree is now obsolete. Before receiving feedback about his "compromise" he proceeds to implement it, and is even edit warring over his "compromise".[57], [58]. On the article Genetic history of Europe, he reverts without a single discussion on the talk page [59]. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyciol's redirects

    A couple of weeks ago I had confronted Tyciol (talk · contribs) about his redirects in which he took any red link he found on a page and redirected it to the article (as far as I can tell). This resulted in the names of real people ending up at articles that may or may not have anything to do with them. I advised him that this activity was not really helpful. Tonight, I just managed to find another such redirect and gave him another heads up. I've gone back a month through his edits, finding redirects made of common Japanese given names and surnames to the same locations as the articles for the combinations of these names. I've tagged as much as I could with {{db-r3}} as there is no way that people looking up these names will have any use in finding these articles (a redirect for the composer of a particular film was redirected to that film), and it also hinders new users or any user from making an actual article on the individual. This has made up my last 200 edits. I think some more indepth clean up will be needed, and I just want to make whoever is going through CAT:CSD doesn't think I'm crazy for tagging these pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=305621144"