Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine

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

User:Hubschrauber729

The User:Hubschrauber729 has been deleting citations for Israeli footballers religious beliefs and personal life. He tries to use his own interpretation of Wikipedia rules to remove content. He refuses to debate his removal of content and acts as a sort of ruler over any article that I have edited. Even in instances like the Dudu Aouate article and the headlines he caused in Israel for saying he would play on Yom Kippur, the user took off the categories. Secondly, a player like Oshri Roash, whose reference clearly states how visible he has become as Under-21 national team captain and his persistence to be a religious Jew, have been taken off his page. He took down Alon Harazi being the grandson of Holocaust survivors and many other interesting facts that are all cited! He deleted conversation that I put on his talk page and hides behind his own interpretation of Wikipedia law. I am requesting that he not be allowed to touch anything related to the Wikipedia Israel portal since he lacks knowledge of Hebrew and can not even do a simple search for references or citations. He is simply a vandal. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, I would suggest; therefore you need to take it to dispute resolution. I might suggest that you also WP:AGF, as the position as outlined by Hubschrauber729 might have some merit in it - the religious beliefs of football/soccer players (certainly those outside of Israel) are not usually notable - for instance, the Roman Catholic country of Italy plays matches on the Sabbath seemingly without comment. Also, it isn't usual for a players parents or grandparents history to be notable (unless the relative was also a player) and I would further suggest that an Israeli citizen being descended from a concentration camp survivor is not (regrettably) so unusual to be notable of itself. I think you need to review WP's guidelines on subject notability and perhaps open a dialogue with Hubschrauber729. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alon Harazi is a Mizrahi Jewish name. It is notable that his grandfather was a holocaust survivor from Poland because it qualifies him for an EU passport and to be listed as an Israeli of Polish descent. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I did try to have a conversation with him but he removes all my comments from his talk page (and labeled it 'crap' in the edit summary) and refuses to have any dialogue! I have no problem debating notability etc. but when someone says that Dela Yampolsky being one of the few non-Jewish players on the Israel U21 side has no relevance, than it shows me that they are unwilling to even debate. -NYC2TLV (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given Hubschrauber notice of this discussion, and an informal warning regarding the edit summary when reverting you. Let's see what they have to say, if anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All I have been doing is removing the category "Jewish footballers" from articles that don't have information regarding them being Jewish. As far as Dudu Aouate, I must have missed that. Also I thought stating a players religous beliefs was a violation of WP:BLP. Even as Jews being an ethnic group, its sort of hard to differentiate when something says "John Doe is Jewish". And about the edit summary, when someone says they are "stooping to my level" and calling me a vandal, im going to remove it because I believe it is nonsense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go on a one by one basis, but all these people are ethnically Jewish. You asked for citations and now I am bringing all the citations and adding to their personal life sections details of them participating in active Jewish communal life. So why did you take the categories out on Kfir Edri, Johan Neeskens, Tomer Hemed, Oshri Roash, Dela Yampolsky etc. etc. etc. I am not trying to make these guys Jewish. I routinely take the category out of profiles like Steven Lenhart and post on David Loria's talk page a source that he is not Jewish. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that when there is specific published RS controversy about his religious beliefs in relation to his field of notability, that the material is relevant. Whether religion is relevant otherwise i think depends on the degree of notability; ditto for grandparents--for really notable public figures we do seem to include that sort of information, but not routinely for everyone with an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Being Jewish doesn't mean that it is your religion. It is an ethnicity too, and most articles on Wikipedia note the person's ethnicity. Everyone from Sacha Baron Cohen to Jordan Farmar are noted for being ethnically Jewish, even if they don't believe in it. So naturally, Category:Jewish footballers from Israel should be noted too. -NYC2TLV (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this conflict a symptom of a wider problem with our categories? Category:People by race or ethnicity and all its subcategories (such as, potentially, Category:Catalan world citizens) is an invitation to label as many BLPs in this manner as possible. At least it will be read as such by a large number of editors. As a result, statements about ethnicity (possibly sourced) will be added to many articles where they don't belong. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't just debating the use of the categories but also the user's preference to consider Jews only to be a religious group. The user targets specific articles but remains silent on pages he edits of footballers of Turkish descent ala Ramazan Ozcan etc. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jews for the context of a WP article or category are people who self-identify as jews in any meaning of the word they personally care to use. We should no more argue tis than about the actual racial identity of someone who self-identifies as Black, or the particular sexual preferences of someone who calls himself gay. . In the extremely rare case where it actually is relevant to an article there will be sources discussing it. In my experience, people here or elsewhere who get involved with wether a person fits or does not fit into an ethnic or similar category are either trying to make a POINT, or are indulging unproductively in gossip. . DGG (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even true. Jews in Wikipedia aren't just those who self-identify as Jews, but also Jews who are considered Jewish according to halakha, ala Bobby Fischer. I am only trying to apply the category to those who the category should be applied to. By applying Category:Jewish footballers to an Israeli footballer who is indeed Jewish, I don't think I am trying to make a point. The user we were talking about is claiming that it has no relevance whatsoever. Even if they are black, or Jewish or Asian, according to Hubschrauber729, it has no value or purpose and shouldn't be on their profile. -NYC2TLV (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a resolution? The user is still targeting every contribution that I make to Wikipedia. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking once again for resolution. Or else we will have to edit every black, Asian, Jewish, etc. person on Wikipedia since it has no relevance to what they do. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

Resolved

 – PoliticianTexas banned by the community for copyright violations and egregious sockpuppetry. [14:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)]

(relisting this - still building consensus --Uncia (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Since our last report here [1], LamyQ (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images, the latest being File:ESPANOLA PLAZA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-01 and File:EspanolaValleyVolleyball.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-03. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a sockpuppetry case against him too, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). --Uncia (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting... x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this user is at the very least a PoliticianTexas meatpuppet. Uploading the exact same images as an indefblocked user? The chances of that happening are only slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Even without this to consider, this user clearly KNOWS about our upload policies--I counted at least three good uploads in his log. Blocked indefinitely. Blueboy96 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for PoliticianTexas?

Now that I think of it, is it safe to consider PoliticianTexas banned? This user has 21 confirmed socks and two more suspected socks. Sorry, but that's just too much disruption in a short period of time. Blueboy96 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background: DoriSmith has been tracking PoliticianTexas since about July 2008, see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. Dori and I have been collaborating since late August 2008 on tracking down his image copyright violations , see User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs.

The image search is a losing battle, because it takes him only minutes to find and upload a new image and it takes us hours or days to track down its source so it can be speedy-deleted. The process is eased somewhat because he keeps uploading a lot of same images (after we have caused them to be deleted) and we keep good records (see User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs).

The sock puppet case-building is also a losing battle. As soon as one of his socks is blocked, he creates another one and starts uploading again.

Most of his disruption is due to this copyright-violating activity. His edits are so-so and mostly concern minutiae such as adding tables of elected officials or updating the standings of his favorite high school athletic teams. If he stuck to editing text he probably would not attract anyone's attention.

Dori and I don't see any good solutions to the PoliticianTexas problem. We hope that he will get discouraged and go away but so far this hasn't happened. --Uncia (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(I think WP:CU are going to start hating me...)Is there an underlying ip or small range that can be hardblocked, or are they dynamic/wideranging? Perhaps a WP:Request for checkuser may find that he could be stopped from creating new accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a permanent community ban, although I'm not sure what that would do to change the current dynamic.

As part of an RFCU, I asked about an IP range block a few months ago, and I was told then that it wasn't possible. In the last month alone, he's used:

• 71.30.144.116 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.147.211 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 8 Oct
• 71.30.148.190 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.150.198 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.233.90 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.235.6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 6 Oct
• 75.88.239.68 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 76.26.108.145 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 164.64.135.194 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 207.155.116.232 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 5 Oct
• 216.135.172.188 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 216.243.118.166 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Sadly, it appears that it would take blocking all of k12espanola.org and windstream.net—and I'm okay with that, but I doubt many others would be.

And while I hate to correct Uncia, I just looked it up, and I've been keeping an eye on this user since May, off and on. Personally, I'd like to get back to (gasp!) editing an encyclopedia. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What a community ban would do is enable block-on-sight of all socks and revert/delete-on-sight of all contributions. It would also allow for unlimited checkuser requests. And based on his history, he's going to be back--this will just make it easier for us to deal with him. I've become more inclined toward "revert, block, ignore," but since we're talking about copyvios here ... Blueboy96 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. What's the process, outside a few people here saying, "yeah, that would be a good idea."? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[Note: I modified the above list of IPs to show that he's still actively editing/vandalizing, just with varying anon IPs.] Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[Ditto. --Uncia (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)]]

• Support ban. Definitely. I have some experience with this sockpuppeteer; no redeeming value. Tan | 39 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support a ban as per Wikipedia:Banning policy and, as needed, the use of {{Db-g5}} as per WP:CSD#G5: created/uploaded by banned user while banned. — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• A ban is sounding reasonable. This is not someone who is interested in working with other editors within the bounds that have been set up with regards to copyrights, verifiability, etc. Much effort of many editors is being wasted in dealing with this, and if a ban would make it easier, that would be good. Aleta ^Sing 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, IDK a-lot about this user but just a glance at the situation would tell you that a ban would be the best for everybody. SteelersFan94 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with SteelersFan. I don't know this user, but looking at the situation, I believe a ban would be a good idea at this point. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Created another new account

If you look at the contributions and history, it's clear that (as expected) he's created a new account: he's now editing as DeLaCueva (talk · contribs · logs · block log). As I asked a couple of days ago, what's the process to get him banned? And after that, what's the process from then on--go to RFCU, which takes a few days, and then clean up after him again every time? Or can Uncia and I just come here and report his new accounts and get him shut down asap? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually simple to enact a community ban--determine whether there's a strong enough consensus that this user has exhausted the community's patience. When that happens, any socks he makes can be blocked on sight, and any and all contribs he makes can be deleted and reverted on sight. Most of his socks (or in LamyQ's case, meatpuppets) are relatively easy to spot (though I'm not quite certain about DeLaCueva), so reporting them either here or at WP:AIV should be the fastest way to whack him. Blueboy96 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible DeLaCueva isn't one of his socks--but any time someone comes on WP and in their first three hours (1) creates an article about an Espanola school, (2) edits three pages to point to the new article, (3) reverts a fourth article (twice) to go back to a previous sock's edits, (4) removes SP tags from his user talk page, and (5) clearly doesn't know/care about either Edit summary or Preview, I'll tend to guess that it's another PolTx sock. Not to mention that those two reversions would have put him over 3RR if he'd done them using the IP he started with that evening. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this thread there are four supporters of a ban (DoriSmith, Uncia, Tanthalas39, Athaenara) and no opponents. Is it consensus yet?--Uncia (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban now also supported in this thread by Aleta and Steelerfan-94; total 6 in favor and 0 opposed. --Uncia (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Including me, make that seven, if you want to count an impartial observer of this ANI page, after reviewing the history. I think it's a shame that IP range blocks aren't possible. It's also a shame that there isn't an article or upload protection level between "semi-protect" and "full-protect" that prevents uploading and editing by users with less than some threshold of productive mainspace edit history. =Axlq 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

With the addition of GameShowKid, Axlq, and Blueboy96, I count it as 9-0. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm.... You're gonna seriously consider a community ban on the basis of the opinion of nine people? Come on, get real. Maybe this person deserves to be banned, I don't know from that, but it ssurely can't be done in such an off-hand fashion, as if nine people accurately represent the will of the community? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look up at the top of this section, Uncia says, "still building consensus"--that's the current status. He and I were just keeping a count of noses because people are adding opinions all over (and with the addition of Erik the Red 2, it's at 10-0). No one, to the best of my knowledge, is talking about closing this yet. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppetry case against DeLaCueva and 71.30.147.211, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (3rd). --Uncia (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a ban, but let's see the result of the sockpuppet case first. If it turns out that they are sockpuppets, then the user could just be blocked indef for socking without discussion here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go through the whole history (which I don't recommend, btw; it's fairly dull), you'll see that he's been blocked indefinitely 24 times. Twenty-four accounts, all of which have been blocked. Any time one is blocked, he just opens another the next day and starts all over again. That's why this has gone to talking about a ban. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning having a discussion about a ban, I'm sure the history warrants it, I was questioning the idea that the ban might be put into effect based on such a small sample. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolution of sockpuppetry case: DeLaCueva blocked indefinitely as sock puppet of PoliticianTexas. --Uncia (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. You don't know shit. seicer | talk | contribs 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ew. Well, to the extent that we don't seem to know where to go with a clear consensus that, in order to streamline cleaning up after all those still-proliferating socks, the banning policy should be applied, user DeLaCueva is just that much almost right ;-) What's next? — Athaenara ✉ 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Based upon the SSP result, the indef on the main account, the proliferating sockfarm, and the general disregard for copyright and site policies, I'll support the proposal for a ban. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin support for a siteban. Enough, I say. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a week, and no one's objected to banning this user. Moreover, DeLaCueva, per new evidence, is clearly a sock of PoliticianTexas. I'm going ahead and enacting the ban. Blueboy96 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

group of biased editors

The users Wikidemon (talk · contribs), GoodDamon (talk · contribs), and Grsz11 (talk · contribs) consistently band together, regardless of what time it is with seemingly no edit histories linking them together. The reason for my assumption of this is this edit which in my opinion is an example of them e-mailing each other and ganging up on Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs). They preform the following:

• Not allowing sourced, relevant pieces of information into the article through their team of fake consensus as seen here.
• They try and stop discussion from taking place as seen here.
• They both delete parts of talk pages alleging personal attacks as the reason (although they're aren't any) as seen here and here

Not to mention leaving template warnings on my talk page and the talk page of Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) that are blatantly misleading in their intentions. This is an on-going problem over the last few days/weeks with these editors. I would like an admin to take a look at this. Thank you. Digital^Ninja 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that these editors are Campaign staff is a very serious accusation to make, and constitutes a personal attack in the way you have made it without any evidence to support it.

I strongly suggest you drop this. --Barberio (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Accusing long-standing Wikipedia editors of a conspiracy is a bad idea. The discussion that was closed and ended was basically this discussion. I would stop this line right now, this is bound to go badly for you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that they may not be campaign staff, but they are biased never the less. I'm trying to AGF with them, but it's not the first time they've been talked to regarding closing down discussions prematurely. I'm going to stay away from the Obama article for at least 48 hours until I calm down out of good faith. It would be nice if they would as well. Digital^Ninja 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to AGF with them? If starting an administrative noticeboard complaint with a header that accuses them of being campaign staff is an attempt to exercise good faith, I'd hate to see you assuming bad faith. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to stay away from the article for a while, I think that's a good idea. However, suggesting someone else do the same is a bit ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion this evening concerned, among other things, a gross violation of WP:BLP on the Barack Obama page, which is under probation. I am the one who closed it down here. There was nothing premature about it. A BLP violation cannot be allowed to stand, especially such an obvious one. No amount of discussion makes a BLP violation OK for the article. And the warning DigitalNinja links to is from a POV-pushing editor who has been topic-banned. --GoodDamon 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll stay away until I have a clear head. It was just a suggestion that others do the same, either way I will. I strongly urge that the situation is examined by someone more familiar with Wikipedia than myself, and I stand by that. Digital^Ninja 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have to point out I was in no way asking that they BLP violation you're speaking of be included. I was speaking about my well sourced link to the Fanny Mae funds. And the top banned person you are speaking of is leaning the wrong direction (he's pro-obama). I was simply calling attention to having the discussing shut down prematurely, in my opinion. Either way, I'm going to take a break for a while. If anyone needs a response, please message me on my talk page and I'll reply this weekend. Regards. Digital^Ninja 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. If you're referring to User:Curious bystander, he's actually quite the opposite, and was topic-banned for attempting to insert poorly-sourced negative content and attacking editors who disagreed. --GoodDamon 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother responding to accusations made against me - if anyone takes this seriously I could. A self-imposed article break is a great idea for DigitalNinja, and I certainly appreciate the respectful tone in the above comment. The talk page and editing process have become quite a mess in the past couple days from a number of seemingly unrelated vandals, trolls, tendentious editors, SPAs, etc. It would be great if we could get an impartial adminsitrator to volunteer for hall monitor duty but I'm afraid they've all been chased off. So the duty falls on those established editors willing to be persistent and thick skinned. One of the tools in managing the talk page is to close down disruptive discussions. Another is to leave messages, templated or not, regarding article probation, editing practices, etc. That's what we're supposed to do -- certainly before edit warring, rushing to file AN/I reports, or using the talk pages to get into arguments with disruptive editors. It would be most helpful if we could have an authority figure urge the editors on the page to take more seriously Wikipedia's policies more seriously regarding civility, edit warring, NPA, etc., as well as article probation, if and when they do return over at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, wikidemon warns Grss about over-reverting, then wikidemon takes over reverting and finally Grss emails wikidemon. So why are they taking turns reverting someone's edits and apparently coordinating their efforts? It seems like an organized attempt to control certain articles. Also, if possible, I don't know how this works, but feedback from people involved in "their" articles is not really appreciated. I'd also like to add that wikidemon has come off as threatening, as if he had some authority to ban, and has closed off conversations (here and here) instead of answering questions I'd put forth regarding policy. I'd like to note that some people have dropped in, in support of my edits, but haven't signed in because they are apparently afraid of retribution by the "clique." Additionally, the content was not a BLP violation, it was factual and relevant for an encyclopedia article - but apparently not a fluff piece.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia users email each other, there's nothing wrong with doing that and you're going to have to find more than that to prove something dodgy is going on here. I agree he shouldn't be arbitrarily trying to shut down discussions. I actually thought you guys were being hard done by and that this report should be taken more seriously. But then I started looking at the diffs provided when I noticed that you lot wanted to add into the middle of a sentence about Obama's religious beliefs, information that he has been declared the "Messiah" - "Obama is a Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life and has recently been declared the Messiah by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan". And I thought, who's POV-pushing? Sarah 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be a bad example, but I also said in the discussion that maybe I should've put it in the "political and cultural image" section. When a major religious leader, especially from the area in which you live, declares you to be the Messiah, then that is notable and should be included in some shape or form. They also shot down the discussion of him belonging to the Chicago CSA since it is a socialist organization, and that is apparently slanderous. Oh, and there is video of Farrakhan declaring Obama the Messiah, and it was recently shown on Fox News - this isn't something I made up and it was sourced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors shut down discussions all the time on the page, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's one of the ways to keep things peaceful on the article. It's not arbitrary and it's not over POV. Discussions that use the talk page as a forum, for racist vandalism, to provoke trouble with other editors, or that degenerate into incivility and attacks with no reasonable likelihood of improving the article, all get closed. Personal attacks are deleted or redacted often. If you look at the page at any given moment about half the articles are closed, and that's with a 5 day archive. You don't even see the stinkers that got deleted - lots of N-words and talk about gay people. Most troublemakers get the hint, and if they don't they get blocked - usually they are simple vandals or sockpuppets. This backfires sometimes where we run into a tendentious or misguided fighter, or someone bites the newbie. But it's all routine article maintenance. Again, it would be wonderful if we could have an administrator in the house to shut down and delete disruptive talk page contributions, but without that the community hast to do it. I can't speak to each of the examples below, but I'm pretty sure none of the below editor's discussions were not shut down until he started getting abusive in his comments to other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being racist now? Or is it just subtle enough for you to deny the accusation? Also, you are flat out lying when you say that you shut down the discussion because I was being "abusive." Here is where you shut down the argument, and it was right after I proved YOU were wrong about simple logical deductions.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. But I will accuse you of very low comprehension of what you are reading. I don't accuse you of racism or sockpuppetry, and I don't lie, so please stop making things up. That is indeed among the conversations I and other community members closed for growing uncivil after they had degenerated past the point of any possible improvement to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah so your answer is that your accusation of racism was just subtle enough for you to say "that's not what you meant." I suppose this accusation of sockpuppetry when you refer to "those" editors doesn't include me now does? I can't wait to hear your twist on that one since you are obviously refering to me and DigitalNinja. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some better examples of edits they've shut down:

1) I sourced an article that Obama had been bumming cigarettes while on the campaign trail, but this wasn't notable enough to be included. HOWEVER, the fact that he promised to quit WAS notable enough to be included, and if you look at the article now, you'll see that it states that Obama quit - when that is at odds with the facts.

2) There is a small blurb on the Annenberg Challenge, Barack was chairman of it, I sourced that the 110 million dollars spent on improving education, under his leadership, didn't improve education in any measurable way. This is his only executive experience, and the results of it aren't "notable" enough to devote half a sentence?

3) The weakest of the three, I sourced that Barack signed a contract with and was endorsed by the Chicago DSA, which I use a simple syllogism with in order to summarize his association - syllogisms are allowed and not OR. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing disruption

One of the problematic editors here, Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is WP:Canvassing some rather aggressive editors he knows have harangued me here in the past.[2][3] Can we please wrap this up before it gets mean and nasty? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have their email addresses like you do with Grzz, et all, and so I can't privately get a posse to come to my rescue. I've noticed that you've spent MONTHS on this board - why is that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to counsel this editor about what's wrong with that kind of attitude but I am obviously not getting through. Perhaps someone else could help. To give a few pointers about Wikipedia, everyone here has everyone's email address. I'm not sure where to find it but there is a system for sending private emails to anyone who has indicated an email address in their "preferences" tab. Next question. I am on this board for three or four reasons. As a long-term Wikipedian who has written close to 100 articles and cares about free content more generally on the Internet I try to keep an eye on the goings on here. It's like a citizen attending a city council meeting. Where I feel I can help with a comment or question I'll jump right in, mindful that there's business to be done here on AN/I and it's not just a gab-and-complain session. Third, I am one of those "troll patrol" people you sometimes hear about. When I see something getting out of hand I do what I can, and call it to the attention of the administrators if I think it's ripe for a look. With only 1,400 administrators here we non-admins are often the eyes and ears of the admin volunteers, and we have an important role to play because we are often out in the trenches, article-wise, and spot small problems before they become big ones. Finally, people often drag me here to complain about me. I think I've become some kind of mascot among disruptive editors who wish I weren't standing between them and whatever nonsense they're trying to pull here. You should know that from your egging on the recently blocked editor who is vowing to devote his Wikipedia career to revealing my badness and doing me in.[4] Hope this helps. And please, until someone who will listen to can get to you with this advice, please do not assume that other editors here who disagree with an edit you wish to make are all engaged in some nefarious conspiracy. You might pause to consider the possibility that they are not only sincere, but might have a good point as well. Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading - it was sensationalized.Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - although knowing that the original heading read "Barack Obama Article and Campaign staff and/or biased support white-washing everything" does help readers get a sense of context for what the filer of the report might have in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as I pointed out to you before - which you scrubbed from your talk page. If you were so interested in an open discussion, then you wouldn't have closed the discussion on the Annenberg et all, information. You flat out declared the conversation was over and then closed it after I pointed out that simple logical deductions are allowed according to wikipedia policy. You then berated me for not assuming good faith after you shut it down when I proved you were wrong. As for "canvassing," you are doing that secretly not only through emails, but you were also trying to get an admin involved on your side here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone, please counsel the above editor on good faith, and making paranoid unsubstantiated accusations about other editors. I'll give a set of diffs in a minute, but this editor is severely misguided, which is leading to a lot of disruption.Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't mean you maintain it in the face of evidence to the contrary. I proved you were wrong on the Barack talk page and then you closed the entire discussion. What am I supposed to assume?TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means that you do not use conjecture, supposition, and syllogism to "prove" that editors far more experienced than yourself are in some kind of a plot to do evil on Wikipedia. Whatever kind of evidence you think you have that everyone else on the talk page is evil, obviously that is the kind of evidence you should not be making that sort of decision on.Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are using multiple straw men. It is really quite simple - I proved your argument didn't fit with wikipedia policy, that I was correct and you were not - and then you closed the conversation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you. You need to change your attitude towards other editors and editing the encyclopedia if you wish to continue editing here. Particularly on the Obama pages because they are under article probation. The sooner you do that, the sooner we can all get back to editing. If you continue, you are going to get blocked. That would not do anyone any good. So take a breather. You obviously won't listen to me, so listen to some other experienced hands if and when they take the time to look over this. Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Grsz11

Frankly I don't know how my name came up in this, other than the fact that I sent Wikidemon an e-mail. Today was the most active I've been at the Obama page in months (5 months to be exact), so to make an accusation of a continued campaign to shut out other opinions is outlandish. Also, none of the "evidence" presented refers to me, and I would like my name redacted. Grsz^X 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to be here either. We have inexperienced or just confused editors lashing out at things. You know that expression about catching a tiger by the tail? I think we have some confused angry editors by the tail. We're just at the wrong place and wrong time here. Sorry I haven't had a chance to read your email yet. You do have every right to send what you want to others, but in general I do prefer to be transparent about everything except certain sockpuppet-related issues, and of course any social networking matters that don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with.Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I left an e-mail instead of a message, imagine that. Grsz^X 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, what seemed like you two coordinating your revert war, by taking turns so you don't get 3RR, was simply a misunderstanding. Again - my bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean really, if we were tag-teaming, I wouldn't have gotten blocked. Grsz^X 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Locust, you making personal attacks as you did above isn't going to convince anyone. It just makes you look paranoid. Just because more than one person disagrees with you doesn't make this a conspiracy. Any editor can email any other (who has email enabled), and many editors post on the relevant talk page to inform them to check their email. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dayewalker, but if you look up a bit, I showed the sequence of events - Grsz11 was reverting posts until he got to his limit, Wikidemon warned him to stop, and then started doing the same reverts on his behalf. This is just a matter of record and I outlined it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked it up. I'm right. Again, more than one editor disagrees with you, so more than one editor has been reverting your edits. There's no grand conspiracy here, just a content dispute. Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't force you to read the evidence I've presented, which is obvious since you seem to think I was talking about reverts to me, when I was talking about reverts they've both conspired on against someone else. Again, I presented the evidence way up there, but if you can't be bothered to read it, then why can you be bothered to form an opinion?TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Well-informed opinion formed, thanks. You're making personal attacks based on the faulty assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be conspiring against you, based on the fact that one editor warned another about breaking WP:3RR. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's not the whole story now is it? Not only did he warn him about 3rr, but he then went and continued the edit war on his friend's behalf. As if that wasn't bad enough, they are emailing each other for who knows what purpose. This group of people have organized to edit war with the appearance of propriety and it is unacceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole story is as I have said above, more than one person disagrees with you. If that happens, more than one person will change your edits, especially if it involves WP:BLP. Why does it require a conspiracy for two editors who disagree with you, both active, to both revert your edits? As for a group of people organizing to edit war, your attempt at canvassing this evening certainly seems that. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are being completely unreasonable. As I have said before, the evidence I presented was of them working together in a revert war against another editor - not me. Why can't you understand this? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence? One of them starts an edit war, the other one messages him, and then continues the edit war on their behalf while secretly emailing each other. Why do you keep on attacking me by saying it is a disagreement with me? The evidence I presented had nothing to do with me. You need some perspective or to step back and let more reasonable minds prevail. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's your next round of personal attacks. My mind is quite reasonable, thanks. Based on what I see on this page, this conversation won't help, so I'll just let my part of this thread end. Dayewalker (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How are they "secretly" e-mailing if he mentions it on the talk page with a giant header? --Smashville^talk 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You think that is their usual MO? They screwed up - usually they aren't putting that kind of evidence on wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're a secretive cabal of Obama campaign staffers again? Uh-huh... So, how much longer does this "incident report" have to stay open? If necessary, I'm happy to have a checkuser run on me, just to clear up this nonsense. --GoodDamon 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser won't prove anything and you know it. If possible, i'd like to see the emails your little group has going back and forth between each other, but I don't see that happening. TheGoodLocust (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

GoodDamon, I think the admins are more amused than anything else, and playing with him at this point.<cabal-secret>Calling all agents. Uh-oh, he's on to us! Did he catch us implanting the electrodes? I hope he didn't read our white paper on the famous aluminum defense. Lay low for a while, I think we can hoodwink all of the admin agents here.</cabal-secret> Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait...What's this about you having two asses? HalfShadow 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wise trusted authority figure needed

A look at the past day or so of editing from Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows some serious problems. The question is why, and what to do about it. I don't think he's trying to misbehave. He simply doesn't seem to have a good grasp of what we're doing here in terms of content and behavior policies. Here are some diffs that may help. Please, folks, if you are neutral and wise and will take the time to guide him he can make a productive editor. If you let him continue he's headed to the block log for sure.

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH)[5][6][7][8][9]
• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[10][11]
• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[12][13][14]
• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[15][16][17]

WP:AGF problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]
• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[27][28][29][30][31][32]
• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[33]

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[34][35][36][37][38]
• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[39][40][41]
• "bullshit"[42], "whitewashed"[43] etc.[44]
• random disruption on talk page[45][46][47]

Again, I'm not advocating for the editor to be blocked or banned, but could someone please put a foot down here? Thanks, 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated an unthreaded version of my comment so that people can get a grasp of this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah? Does Farrakhan qualify as a "reliable source" in wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

commented version

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH)[48][49][50][51][52]

That is a mischaracterization of what I said. He signed a pledge with a socialist political organization and that is relevant. Also, at least one other editor agreed with me on this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And many more did not, pointing out that this deduction was not covered by WP:NOTOR. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And by "many more" you meant yourself and one other editor. Also, your argument that it wasn't "obvious" betrays your lack of understanding of simple logic. I used the EXACT type of logic that was explicity allowed under NOTOR. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[53][54]

The article says he quit smoking, and when I bring up the fact that he "bums smokes", which was the sources wording, not mine, it suddenly isn't notable. Also, at least one other editor agreed with me on this.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, many others did not. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, by "many others" you mean "Wikidemon."TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[55][56][57]

Not only was that on a talk page, but your assertion that he isn't is ridiculous. Me and another poster were flabergasted at how unreasonable you were being. Bill Ayers founded a terrorist organization, it was defined as such by the FBI and he bombed buildings - he is a terrorist.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And this was a rehash of a rehash of a rehash, ad nauseum. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a rehash since you and wikidemon refuse to see reason. A person founding and FBI-declared terrorist organization who participated in terrorist activities is a terrorist. You are plainly being unreasonable by your refusal to admit that. What term did you want us to use? "Freedom fighter?"TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[58][59][60]

The 3rr was redacted by the admin when I pointed out that I wasn't reverting. Farrakhan did say that, there is video, and he is an important religious figure - especially in Chicago. Oh, and at least one other editor agreed with my change, maybe more if you hadn't started throwing random threats around. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And this was the gross WP:BLP violation I referred to earlier. If Farrakhan says something absurd about somebody, that absurdity doesn't belong in the subject's BLP, any more than if I say it. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you have never explained how it is a BLP violation. Farrakhan is not only a major religious figure, but he is an important citizen in Chicago, especially Obama's district as they live in the same neighborhood. Obama has marched with Farrakhan, Farrakhan was named man of the year by Obama's church, Farrakhan and OBama's pastor went to Libya together, Michelle Obama and Farrakhan's wife have spoken together on boards. Again, Farrakhan is a major religious figure, and a major player in Chicago social circles, but the best you can come up with is that it is "somehow" a BLP violation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]

Just like your friend called my posts "random garbage" "trolling" and a few other choice words. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[70][71][72][73][74][75]

Well if you didn't take turns in revert wars and secretly email each other then it wouldn't look that way now would it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[76]

You closed a conversation after I proved you wrong - I can't AGF with you after that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[77][78][79][80][81]

You've accused me of racism, sockpuppetry, subtlely threatened me and closed my conversations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[82][83][84]

Because you were trying to whitewash the conversation, which only moved there after you closed it down on the Barack talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "bullshit"[85], "whitewashed"[86] etc.[87]

And you friend Grss said "fucking" - what is your point? Oh and last time I checked, about 5-6 other editors agreed with me that it was "bullshit." TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• random disruption on talk page[88][89][90]

By "random disruption" you mean I restored the evidence you whitewashed that the other editor found of you and Grss conspiring together? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not advocating for the editor to be blocked or banned, but could someone please put a foot down here? Thanks, 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(STOMP) Did that help? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually find this whole thing pretty funny. The entire complaint seems to be predicated on the fact that a user has his e-mail enabled...but the user who is doing the most complaining on this ANI has his e-mail enabled...You're going to have to find a lot better evidence than that to prove anything... --Smashville^talk 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not predicated on the email that is incidental. Grss was close to 3 rr for his reverts, wikidemon cautioned him to watch out, and then wikidemon started doing the exact same reverts on Grss's behalf. These is how these people work - they tag team edits they don't want into submission while giving subtle threats to those they are trying to suppress.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not tag team editing when a large group of unconnected people, who have stated and concurred in their reasoning for their editorial opinion, and who have given legitimate chance for someone to make their case, all take turns reverting the insertion of unacceptable material into an article from a single editor set on adding it. That is called consensus editing. --Barberio (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all they aren't "unconnected" - that's the point, they are communicating to coordinate their efforts. Second, you are hardly a neutral source since you are heavily involved in the article I mentioned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. Drop this matter. You are wrong. Your theory that there is a conspiracy based on the fact that one person e-mailed another is so mind-numbingly inane that it hurts my brain trying to figure out how someone could actually think what you are thinking. You are doing nothing more than disrupting the project. Stop it now. --Smashville^talk 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a strawman - you keep on bringing up the email like that is my only evidence. That is merely circumstantial. All it takes is a cursory glance at wikidemon and gooddamon's activities on the Barack Obama talk page to see how they shut down all edits they have an idealogical conflict with - regardless of revelancy or facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is probably going to be your last warning on this issue.

Please read the terms of the community approved article probation on articles and edits related to Barack Obama, and either understand that this applies to you and moderate yourself by stopping being a combative and aggressive editor, or refrain from editing these articles at all. You are currently risking a block for up to a year for your behaviour if you continue. --Barberio (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

I've taken myself off the case in terms of policing these articles, because I find it unpleasant, unsupported, and unrewarding.Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose agenda account, and the diffs cited above provide ample evidence of issues with assuming bad faith, personal attacks and personalizing the dispute, canvassing, and a WP:BATTLEfield mentality. The article probation specifies a low tolerance for this sort of thing. On the other hand, he's not been edit-warring that I can see, rather just going on at the talk page. I'd like to reserve this section for commentary from uninvolved editors and admins as to a) whether anything should be done under terms of the article probation, and b) if yes, what? MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest one final chance to back off and be civil, with a formal warning that if he doesn't, he will be blocked till after the election. --Barberio (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't uninvolved Barberio - isn't this thread supposed to be for those without an agenda?TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is classic disruption, anyone who disagrees with Locust is either involved or agenda-pushing. For the record I was completely uninvolved, and you didn't even try to listen to me either. Dayewalker (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And anyone, or when several anyones in many of the recent cases, disagree with the article owners, they are involved in disruption. Classic. CENSEI (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself have never edited this, or any other, related article. From my point of view, the central problem with this situation is in major violations of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE with regard to the Obama article:

1. The use of unreliable sources in the interest of providing "balance" to the article
2. The misrepresentation of information from "fringe" or "unreliable" sources as reprsenting a prevailing or mainstream viewpoint
3. The demand for inclusion of trivial or irrelevant information, out of balance with that informations importance to the article
4. A misrepresentation of NPOV to mean "not to MY point of view".

I have no idea who is in violation of these NPOV problems, near as I can tell all sides are. I would support an explicit statement that allows uninvolved admins to block any user who deliberately continues to violate NPOV in this way after being warned to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than the ANI here, I have not been involved in the related articles...The entire article probation seems written to prevent the exact behavior TheGoodLocust is exhibiting. And he seems to have no sign of backing down from his personal attacks...(and consistently making bad faith accusations despite common sense is very much a personal attack, in my opinion). --Smashville^talk 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If content you add is repeatedly removed by multiple editors, the logical explanation is that there is something wrong with that content. Going straight to conspiracy theories and implying that other users have banded together against you is both irrational and disruptive- and maintaining that behavior after being warned by a rather large number of uninvolved editors is doubly so. I support Jayron's solution. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't logical at all. They've been camped on on the Barack Obama board for months chasing dissenting opinion away. That's just a matter of record - just because a few of them have gotten together to do it doesn't make it "logical" or moral. You've heard of group think right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Fuckin-Men! CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it seems that we actually do have users contacting other users editing these pages to try to influence discussions... --Smashville^talk 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I told two users about this ANI because they've had similar problems with this group of editors. This was already mentioned. And, not that it matters, but I support Jayron's proposal too. I am reluctant to believe, due to the wikilawyering of the offending group,that the rules will be applied equally to all, or if it will just another hammer that they'll use to suppress dissent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why a group of editors communicating about keeping POV-pushing edits out of an article is somehow more objectionable than a group of editors communicating to push their POV into the article. —KCinDC (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't communicated with anyone to game the system and push edits. I just contacted this about this ANI because they know what kind of a problem this group has been. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that? We have evidence you've communicated with each other. You've already violated WP:CANVASS...how are we to know you're not e-mailing each other off wiki conspiring to violate other policies? --Smashville^talk 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but telling two other people who probably know more about these users problem behavior than I do isn't a problem. Plus, if I was doing "canvassing" then you'd expect a lot more people coming out of the woodwork in my favor - that is obviously not happening. These editors have a record of not just communciation, but COOPERATION - actions speak louder than words buddy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind at least reading WP:CANVASS? Explain to me you doing it with clear hardcut evidence isn't a problem, but it is a problem the other way despite any evidence. Wikipedia is BASED on cooperation and consensus. So if you have a problem with people cooperating or agreeing on Wikipedia, then you have no intention of being a constructive contributor. --Smashville^talk 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also guess it was implied but not specifically stated, I too support Jayron's proposal. --Smashville^talk 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be so glad when these elections are over. Meanwhile, Thegoodlocust, you are finding merely that others disagree with you, and some people hae emails enabled. You are quite new to Wikipedia; you have only edited Barak Obama, and to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. I strongly suggest you leave the articles of political candidates alone this election, and learn the ropes on less contentious topics. You can easily find articles which need attention at Category:Cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it first come first serve? This group of editors have been resisting any change they disagree with no matter the relevancy or the source. Just come over and look at what they have reverted. I've given plenty of examples here about things that don't "make the cut." They have decided him quitting smoking is relevant, but when I point out he hasn't quit smoking, with a good source, they just excise that and leave the "fact" that he quit in the article. That is just one ridiculous example. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're not trying to work with them. You're warring with them. Go read WP:TIGERS, take a deep breath, and think about it. Its not "first come, first serve" its "Wikipedia is not a battleground" and frankly, basic concern that you are unfamilair with our policies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert a BLP violation continues: [91] --guyzero | talk 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice how I added, "a sister organization of ACORN" with a good source, and it was immedietaly reverted? This is the kind of crap I'm talking about - NOTHING can be added to the article unless it is some pro-Obama fluff. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link shows you adding false content, with a 2007 source with content which a) does not support most of your edit and b) the part it does support has since been corrected. You're posting McCain ads, and looking for sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you edit Barak Obama, you must approach it from the attitude that you want to write the most balanced, accurate, and well-written article possible. You research, and what the sources say is what goes in, using NPOV, CON, and so on to determine content and phrasing. This is not a propaganda war zone. Now, slow down and calm down, seriously, or you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

96 hours for Mr Locust. Tolerance for WP:TE has its limits. Moreschi (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, now you are part of the conspiracy --Smashville^talk 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, this guy really is excellent :) Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. TheGoodLocust seems to have been confusing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules with Wikipedia:Break all rules. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree...I don't think any (logical) person would believe that the English have a pro-Obama agenda. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire poll-able world outside the US is pro-Obama, including Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom, not to mention Australia and Taiwan. Of course, Obama's popularity overseas is actually a negative - it just makes him even more suspect to Joe Sixpack. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, SS, your post did terrible things to me involving a glass of Diet Coke and my nose. :D On a more serious note, good block. Orderinchaos 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So, uh... Just for the record, can we close this now? As one of the secret cabal members editors named in it, I've rather get back to editing articles. --GoodDamon 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. I've just declined an unblock request from Thegoodlocust; if any admin disagrees with my reasoning, let me know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, can I formally protest TheGoodLocust's block...or if so will I be accused of being disruptive myself? If it's the latter, just disregard this and no response is necessary. Regards. Digital^Ninja 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you can protest all you like. However, three admins (including myself) have now reviewed Thegoodlocust's block and determined that it was appropriate. I think it unlikely that a protest will do any good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is kinda not cool. Grsz^X 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And this. Grsz^X 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore him. He's blocked, so he can't post anywhere but his talk page, it's not like he can properly harass you. Disengage. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I also protected his talk page. --Smashville^talk 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Jaimaster

user:Jaimaster is an aggressive POV pusher on global warming related articles. Since arriving here in August and fomenting multiple edit wars, he has been warned about this behavior, both by myself [92] and user:John (an uninvolved admin I asked to look into his behavior). [93] (Having reviewed your recent contribution history, and as an admin who has no previous history in this area, I independently agree with Raul that your behavior merits a block. ). This has not dissuaded him. During his latest round of POV pushing (using the false edit summary Gave the section a copy edit cleanup), in the global warming article, he changed several instances of "caused primarily by human" to "attributed to human activities" - a pretty clear attempt to white wash the article. I reverted, and (as par for the course with him) he began to revert war. I reminded him of the previous warnings about his disruptive editing, and he threatened to open an ANI thread on me. I'd like someone to look into his repeated disruption. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that a neutral admin will fully investigate this and find it to have contain no substance. I believe this ANI has only been posted in response to my statement of intent to post an ANI of my own regarding Raul654's behavior, per my response to his "warning" left on my talk page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244306725&oldid=244305293

I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August (that discussion available for review here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John/Archive_28#Disruptive_user_in_need_of_block) has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above. Jaimaster (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I think both of you are behaving very childishly. "Stop disrupting our articles..." and, "Over the next few days, we'll find out if the wiki is based on..."

Stop treating this like Battle of the Giants and start trying to do what's best for the project. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done what's best for the project - which is to revert his attempts to white-wash the global warming article (changing "caused by human activities" to "attributed to human activities"), using a false edit summary to do it. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening ban over content dispute

Administrator Raul654 has threatened to ban me for "disrupting" the global warming article with this grammatical clarification -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244262247&oldid=244195678

Per this talk dif -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244305293&oldid=240621874

I am at a loss as to how correcting a major grammar problem in the first line then going on to replace "caused by" with "attributed to" counts as "disruption". The latest official IPCC stance (IPCC being regarded as the most Global Warming reliable source) is 90% confidence in causation, lending itself to "attributed". In any case the reversion of the "attributed to" took out the correction of the major grammar problem on the first line, with no attempt made to fix it.

I believe this warning is a nothing more than a deliberate attempt to bully, and is in contravention of administrator guidelines per

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor),

It is my opinion that this warning should be withdrawn. Jaimaster (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this thread was started in response to my above thread, describing Jainmaster's disruptive behavior (for which he has previously been warned by multiple admins). Raul654 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the chronology. What you say here is not possible without a time machine Raul. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a dispute over the use of sources is a grammar problem. That seems to be a total mischaracterization of the situation, and totally disingenuous on yourpart Jaimaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "major grammar problem" is the missing "the" before "increase"? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, dispute over the use of sources? I dont follow. The dispute is over "attributed" vs "caused by". Neither was a direct quote from a source.

Roger, the first line was horribly written. Im quite happy with calling it a major grammar problem. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. And let's not snopak those crucial adverbs out of the discussion: there's a huge shift in meaning between "caused primarily" and "mostly atributed". This should have been discussed on the talk page first to obtain consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On review i pasted the wrong link (to a talk page comment of all things. I do not know why). This has been corrected. The link now points to the Global Warming edit that Raul654 says is "disruptive". This should clear up for Jayron32.

Roger, is not discussing a change of this type on a talk page, then reverting it back when the bathtub is thrown out with the water with a note of "inaccurate watering down" (which is most certainly was not) disruptive? Jaimaster (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple matter of principal to me. I believe I am being bullied because Raul thinks skeptics are equal to holocaust deniers (I can find a dif to support that last), and per our past interactions he knows I am such a person. If you, the impartial administrators of wikipedia, agree that my edit was disruptive and not a mere a content dispute, and as such warranted the warning given, please block me for a period you deem appropriate for wasting your time. Otherwise all I want is the warning withdrawn. (added - I wont be back till Monday au time to answer any other questions. TGIF, have a goodun) Jaimaster (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jaimaster's edit in the diff above was in no conceivable way merely "grammatical" or a "copy edit". It was a substantive edit which sought to dramatically change the paragraph to say something different than what it had said before. His edit summary was innacurate and misleading, and it's practically impossible, despite as much AGF as I can muster, for me to believe that it was not deliberately designed to be deceptive. Because Jaimaster's posts here indicate that he is intelligent and well understands the meaning of words, I find it difficult to believe that he truly thinks his edits were simply superficial alterations that did not radically change the meaning of the statements in the paragraph.

  Whether Jaimaster should be blocked or not is not my business, I'm not an administrator, but he certainly should be admonished to use accurate edit summaries, and not to change the fundamental substance of controversial articles without consensus on the article's talk page. While the center of the matter is indeed a content dispute, blocking may be appropriate for Jaimaster's behavior in editing without consensus and in attempting to hide the nature of the edit. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• That was no grammar edit, but a meaningful content change. Given the high profile and high controversey (never mind history) of the article, the proposed edit should have been brought up on the talk page first. At the very least, the edit summary, along with Jaimaster's post here about the edit fixing a "grammar problem," was wholly misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008
  • Calling a substantial content change a grammar change is, IMHO, tendentious editing, and depending upon the context would be good grounds for a block - at the time it was done, that is. And it should be taken into account if the editor's behaviour is subsequently be questioned. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a warning to Raul654's. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, it's a *huge* no-no to threaten to block someone when you are involved in a content dispute with them. This ArbCom ruling maintains that the editor is allowed to question your actions and this ArbCom ruling clearly says that admins are only allowed to use their tools during a content dispute in an emergency. This is not an emergency but rather a simple content dispute. Threatening to block during a content dispute that is not emergent is a violation of policy and ArbCom rulings. What say you? Bstone (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say, the warning was ok but Raul may not have been the one to make it, which is why I left one myself. Although I understand why Raul uses his admin tools on this article (and he may indeed see it as an emergency), it may be time to talk about whether there is community consensus for this, or whether it's allowed on some core articles, for some trusted admins. If the latter is true, I wouldn't mind seeing this written into policy. I see worries whichever way the consensus would go so I'm neutral but I do think it should be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Gwen, pursuant to this ArbCom ruling admins are instructed to not issue warnings etc while in a content dispute but instead use the appropriate noticeboards to ask for uninvolved admin attention. Raul did not do that and has violated the ArbCom instruction to admins. Bstone (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote verbatim where the decision says that administrators can't issue warnings. I am not seeing it. Administrators can't use tools when involved in a content dispute (and should not threaten to do so either), but any editor can issue warnings when called for. A warning means, "there is danger, be careful". Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul said "I'm going to block you" and not "You will/may be blocked." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the editor above asserted. My comment specifically recognized that threatening to personally execute a block while involved in a content dispute is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three topics in this thread. Thanks for clarifying your take. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, Raul very clearly said he will block the fellow. That is very different from issuing a TW warning or similar. It was a handwritten and threatening note coming from an involved admin regarding a content dispute. Raul should certainly know better. There is no way to whitewash this. Bstone (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone (I think). The edit in question was not a simple copyedit, the summary was misleading, continued reversion without discussion is disruptive, Raul is involved in a content dispute and he should not block Jaimaster. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But any of us uninvolved administrators can, if there is a need. Hopefully the parties will sip tea until they realize that this is just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the edits of Jaimaster and I find his edit summaries to be misleading. Jaimaster should avoid this type of edit summaries. AdjustShift (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The diffs weren't "grammatical corrections" at all but attempts to subtly bias the entire sections. Please don't hide behind the excuse of grammar corrections for policy violations. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per an earlier comment, I am in favour of a tier of trusted admins being permitted to use the sysop tools regarding articles in which they are currently involved in editing (outside of emergency actions). The definition of "trusted admin" is one of; any admin that would not use the sysop tools in respect of an article that they are currently editing or otherwise involved in - except in an emergency. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have no problem with Raul (or others) being a gatekeeper for the global warming articles, or even running checkusers to look after various areas of the encyclopedia, but he and they do need to recognise when a line gets crossed and they need to ask for opinions from others (and, to be fair, Raul does do that in most cases now), and think carefully about the threat carried by some of their comments. Not everyone stands up for themselves like Jaimaster has. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Carcharoth. New global warming editors are frequently bitten by Raul and others who quickly roll back good faith edits and cite mysterious consensuses from years ago to justify it. Except for obvious vandalism or sockpuppetry, I believe that we almost all agree that admins should not use or threaten to use their privileges (including rollback) to advance their own position in a dispute. Oren0 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that they may be justified in that. Linking to the older discussions would be a good step. Organising the older and perennial discussions into a FAQ would be even better, but I think that's already been done. See Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that the vast majority of new users who come to the global warming article are either aggressive POV pushers (like Jaimaster) or actual sockpuppets (like the recently uncovered scibaby sock Punctilius). Oren0 would have us re-discussing the same issues ad-infinitum, when in fact all the important things have already been discussed many, many times already - there's nothing mysterious about the fact that there's a consensus, or that they want to disrupt it without prior discussion. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So you do point people to the Global warming/FAQ then, do you? Let's put the question another way. If people raise issues not covered at the FAQ, what do you do? And I have yet to see a proper analysis of all the "new" users to justify such comments are "the vast majority of new users are...". Until there is such an analysis, that is your opinion (though you may well be proved right by such an analysis). Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
          • What do I do? I tell them what they are doing wrong and how they can improve their editing. Raul654 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there is unanimity here that Jaimster's edit was both disruptive and that his edit summary was transparently false. How do we proceed from here? Raul654 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it an ongoing problem that can't be dealt with by discussion at the talk page? I would note this thread somewhere, keep an eye out for similar behaviour in future, and request further action if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, didn't work, as this latest round of misbehavior has proven. So, again, how do we proceed? Raul654 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading User talk:Jaimaster/Archive1 and User_talk:John/Archive 28#Disruptive user in need of block. From what I can see (on the basis that there was no block), John was satisfied with what Jaimaster said there. Jaimaster has also said, above, that he or she thinks their behaviour has improved: "I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August [...] has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above." Given also that Jaimaster has said they won't be back until Monday (last edit on the 10th), then I suggest that you either shows what aspects of the behaviour haven't changed, or acknowledge that the behaviour has changed and stop referring back to the behaviour as a new user (if you can't demonstrate that they are not a new user, assume good faith and accept that they are). In either case, a response from Jaimaster when they return on Monday would be good, and I've left a note asking them to comment here before returning to those articles. I've also asked them to consider broadening their interests into other articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works outside of controversial articles.

If I may also comment, requesting attention with messages like "Disruptive user in need of block" (the message you left on John's talk page) doesn't really encourage independent review of behaviour (though John did, IMO, a good job of a fair review and warning). It sounds more like you are looking for someone to confirm your own opinion, which is perilously close to block-shopping. There is a reason why places like WP:AN3 are set up for the reports to be focused on evidence and not the way in which the report is presented. Something like "I'm concerned about the behaviour of user:X on article Y: could someone please review this" is more of a neutral request. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds more like you are looking for someone to confirm your own opinion - my opinion of his behavior has already been confirmed unanimously on this page. Not a single person disagrees that he was POV pushing in the article and that his edit summary was obviously false. This is one of those rare cases where the POV pushing is obvious from a single diff even to non-experts.

Jaimaster has also said, above, that he or she thinks their behaviour has improved... I suggest that you either shows what aspects of the behaviour haven't changed, or acknowledge that the behaviour has changed and stop referring back to the behaviour as a new user - Yes, we could take at face value his self-serving claim that his behavior has changed, or we could actually look at his behavior. In August, he was warned by myself and John because he was aggressively edit warring on a global-warming related article against consensus. (After which he promised he'd do better) He's on ANI now because he was aggressively edit warring on a global-warming related article against consensus. In both cases, he's the one who precipitated it. In both cases, he was warned, and in both cases, he tried to wiki-lawyer his way out of it. Other than edit warring over exactly the same diff again, I can't see how they could be more alike. Also, the fact the he's decided to spend 3 days away from Wikipedia is not reason he should be allowed to escape sanction for his misbehavior Raul654 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I said he should come back here before resuming editing on those articles. I too strongly disagree with people leaving for a short period of time to avoid answering difficult questions, but unlike some people who refuse to even post at ANI (including some admins), Jaimaster was responding in this thread, and did announce he would be away (it is the weekend, after all), and that shouldn't be held against him. As for your opinion being confirmed, opening sections titled "Disruption by Jaimaster" and "Disruptive user in need of block" are not the best way to set people off on a neutral and unbiased assessment of what is happening here. I can't stress enough that I'm not saying you are wrong, but that if you are looking for an unbiased review, that is not the way to do it. If you are not looking for an unbiased review, but merely want people to nod, then fine. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we put Jaimaster on a 0RR regime for all global warming related articles for a while. So, he can continue to edit, but if reverted he cannot revert. If he defies this restriction, he'll be banned automatically for some time. You then have a clear cut situation, the issue being whether or not he has violated his restriction. To avoid a ban Jaimaster will have to discuss what he wants to edit in the article, which is exactly the kind of behavior we want to promote. Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. Jaimaster does participate on talk pages, and that, in such articles, is the only way to achieve a lasting change. And that need to discuss on talk pages applies to any editor of those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support it too. If he makes a revert (except for vandalism, obviously), he should be blocked by an uninvolved admin for 1 month, than 2 months if it happens again, than a year, than indef. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has a clean block log, I'd start at 24 hours, then go 48 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and then go to RfC, and then ArbCom or a ban discussion. A topic ban could come earlier than that. I know people have different views on the steepness of such escalating block scales, and have varying levels of patience (those with little patience like to indefinite block and move on - but I don't think there has been an analysis of whether this encourages socking). Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as an reasonable approach to dealing with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now, Raul654, what about your own blatant edit warring in that article? --Abd (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting his biased changes back to the more accurate, consensus version that's been there for months/years. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the accepted way of dealing with POV pushers across Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many times I've seen that same reason given by edit warriors, who were blocked? The difference here is simply that by having more than one user taking this position sitting on an article, a minority POV can be excluded without the majority POV editors having to break 3RR. ("Majority" is not consensus.) That's the meaning of WP:Tag team. The edits made by Jaimaster were at worst, harmless, including the one you objected to so strongly. The arguments he made for them were civil and cogent. Perhaps it's time for an RfC on this. However, first things first, one step at a time. I'm inspired to take this to the article itself. See you there. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if you plan to defend an obviously disruptive POV pusher, you might want to stick a bit closer to reality. His edits were far from harmless, as pretty much every single other person on this thread has already commented. The claims he put forth - that he was only correcting the grammar - are transparent lies. Pretending that his edits were harmless, and claiming that his reasons were cogent simply proves that you have no credibility to speak on this topic. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread can be closed, someone needs to notify Jaimaster of the 0rr restriction. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. joseph school of san jose city

St. joseph school of san jose city was moved to a capitalized version, and the redirect deleted, but that shouldn't mean that the AfD discussion is closed just because the entry was moved. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was closed by a non-admin. This should be reversed. Obviously there was a mistake made somewhere along the line. -- how do you turn this on 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But how are users going to look at the article in the corresponding AfD if it is redlinked? My rationale was that the redirect should not have been speedied while the AfD was up, or at least until after the AfD was completed. But since it was speedied, there was no purpose to keep it open as there is no clear way for users looking at AfD's to see the article. MuZemike (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You should have moved the AFD to the correct corresponding name. Please reopen, and move it. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I was just about to ask that when you answered it. MuZemike (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-created the redirect as it seems like a legitimate redirect from different capitalization. I frequently type with no caps in the search box. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So do I, but the search function takes care of that. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bulbous

User:Bulbous has been using the Talk:Haile Selassie page for some time as a soapbox to make off topic attacks against the Rastafarian faith, as well as ad hominem attacks against me, in a manner that is really quite offensive to me, and have nothing to do with making edit changes to the accompanying article. I had merely pointed out to another editor that it was appropriate to also include Haile Selassie's own stated and reliably referenced views in a biography article, rather than rely solely on others' second-hand views about his political policies. Bulbous then rushes in, to derail the conversation into a discussion of how Rastafari has supposedly been repudiated. He has been continuing this pattern for a while as User:Squeakbox has also experienced his ad hominems. I am tired of being continually baited like this and am asking for it to stop. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel has been using the Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia article as a personal venue to pontificate on his views of the subject as being divine. Any editor who edits this article in such as manner as Til objects to has his edits reverted, usually without adequate explanation. The fact that User:Bulbous has provided challenges to these edits/reversions, in fact and in principle, is always mischaracterized as an attack on Til's value sets as opposed to defense of the truth and Wikipedia policy. This complaint is further evidence of bad faith. Bulbous (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The following [94] illustrates Til's continued reversion of a false statement which Til called "factually correct" in an edit summary. This figure is completely incorrect and was sourced by Bulbous, along with continued discourse on the article's Talk page, in which Til did NOT participate, despite being the principal involved in continued reverts. Bulbous (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redacted. In viewing the remainder of this page, it is clear that this is not the place to address content disputes. Bulbous (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "content dispute" of the article here whatsoever; that's the whole point. This IS the place to address your constant, gratuitous talkpage violations against the spirit of WP:NPA on myself and Squeakbox (please, read WP:NPA carefully, especially the parts relevant to harassing or persecuting other editors for their private religious convictions). These are merely your antagonistic cheap shots, with no relevance to the wording of the article. Talk:Haile Selassie tells the whole story. I had been having a discussion with a new editor, stating my view that Haile Selassie should not be mis-quoted on political subjects like Eritrea and the Mussolini war. That's a discussion of content. Then, you immediately jump in, trigger-happy, with totally off-topic ranting about the Rastafari Movement, and how all this somehow supposedly furnishes further proof in your eyes, that the movement has now been discredited and "repudiated". You're entitled to your opinion, but that is not at all the topic we had been attempting to discuss.

That talk page is in fact becoming unusable, because of your persistent and predictable, off-topic trolling against a religious faith that some of your fellow editors may practice privately, but which you apparently see as illegitimate. I certainly have never proselytised, nor told anyone else here what religion to believe or not believe privately; but you certainly aren't going to tell me what religion to believe or not believe privately, either. That is like a foolish dog who barks at a flying bird. I have exactly the same freedom to decide for myself what my beliefs will be, that you have to decide what yours will be. So quit it already. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you are using this page as a soapbox. Frankly, this whole tirade is a little emabarrassing. Bulbous (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to excercise restraint in this matter and not sink to Til's level, but I cannot continue to do so any longer. I've been watching the Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, Rastafari movement and related pages for the past two years and I have observed a clear pattern. Til Eulenspiegel and others have been zealously editing this page with a deliberate bias in order to promote a point-of-view and a religion. Any editor that changes the articles frequently has their contributions removed without explanation. Any editor that attempts to justify his edits on the talk page with reason, logic or Wikipedia policy is confronted as a bigot. Counter-arguments usually consist solely of ridiculous accusations of persecution. I'm quite sick of this. The last straw was Til's attack on three reliable sources (BBC, Time magazine and the Washington Post) which I have used to defend some of my edits. He went so far as to suggest that the entire Rastafari movement thinks those sources, in particular, are the three worst. Clearly, this editor is not grounded in reason, and as another editor of the Haile Selassie I article suggested on that articles talk page, his future edits will need to be carefully vetted for neutrality. Bulbous (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am asking urgently for some sort of administrative action on this User:Bulbous immediately. His persecutorial mentality is obvious from the latest exchange at Talk:Haile Selassie, where he consistently tries to steer each and every discussion about content, into an off-topic debate on the Rastafari Movement. I am now feeling backed into a corner by this persona, and am urgently requesting help. His relentless and vindictive crusade against me is making it quite unpleasant for me to continue editing, and ruining my entire experience with wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous is unfortunately a POV driven editor from statements such as "marijuana makes you stupid" to persistent running down of the belief that Haile Selassie is a divine being, it would be good if he could put his beliefs to one side or just edit articles about which he does not hacve passionate beliefs. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User Bulbous (with whom I have had no connection) has a history of reasoned contributions to Wikipedia and of generally restrained reactions to provocation. There is no evidence apparent of prejudice against beliefs or individuals.210.246.8.49 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting, actually, that the user calling for "administrative action" against myself has recently called me a troll, a bigot, a fool, "persecutorial", "vindictive", "antagonistic", "ignorant", and "uninformed". How long do I have to endure this? Bulbous (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have never called you a 'fool'. But whenever you can perhaps address what your specific concerns may be with the current article as it reads now, I will be glad to take part in discussing them, without any additional rancour on my part. The general off-topic grumbling that always seems to go on there instead, just got to be too much, and began to get under my skin. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(Comment from impartial editor, not an admin) - Til Eulenspiegel, it might be helpful if you could provide diffs; I've just read through the talk page and I couldn't see anything that obviously looked like "...off topic attacks against the Rastafarian faith, as well as ad hominem attacks against [you]". Beyond that, this does look like a content dispute: Bulbous apparently feels (and apologies if I'm misrepresenting here) that the introduction gives undue prominence to the subject's perceived divinity. The current state of the introduction seems (to me, at least) to be a reasonable compromise - the introduction *does* mention this, but is cited with a 600,000 figure for number of adherents. I think (and again, apologies for misrepresenting either of your views) that Til Eulenspiegel would prefer a figure of 1,000,000, and Bulbous would prefer that the section be removed altogether? If that's the case, and pending any clear evidence of soap-boxing or ad hominem attacks, it's difficult to suggest anything other than you both step back, accept the current compromise, and have a nice cup of tea (or your preferred relaxant). The 600,000 figure is cited, and remains in the article's introduction.

Incidentally, and speaking as someone who had absolutely no view on this until a few minutes ago, I personally feel that Haile Selassie's perceived divinity is notable (arguable more so than other religious figures, since he was himself an adherent to a different faith) but that the section could be expanded to explain why this is notable - i.e. add a sentence explaining his views on his perceived divinity - that he was a devout Coptic Christian and not a member of the Rastafari movement.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I do indeed prefer that the number of adherents be omitted, as it is not present in any other similar article. My feeling on the original statement was that it presented material that was specific to the Rastafari movement (number of adherents, when it was founded, how it was popularized) and not terribly relevant to Haile Selassie I - certainly not enough to merit mention in the lead section. I would think the issue of belief in his divinity is quite relevant. The current wording is a compromise made by myself when Til was simply reverting my edits without talk page commentary. I'm not even that concerned about the content at this point. I am only trying to point out an instance (contrary to Til's accusations) where I was editing in good faith and discussing on the talk page - and Til who is the complainant here, was not. Bulbous (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That dispute was a month ago, and the 600,000 figure has remained unchallenged by me or anyone else since then, but incredibly, that seems to be the 'content dispute' he wants to discuss. I admit 600,000 seems suspiciously low to me, but haven't found a good enough ref for a higher estimate. If I ever do I may get back to that question, but until then, I am content with it. Surely that is not what all this was about! Oh well I am ready for some tea now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the current state of play seems to be that Bulbous will assume good faith and engage in civil discussion on the talk page, and that Til Eulenspiegel will drink tea and then assume good faith and engage in civil discussion on the talk page? That seems reasonable - can you two (metaphorically) shake hands now? (Note that this is in no way any comment on whether either of you have previously not acted in good path or engaged in civil discussion - it's purely an assumption that you both will in future).

Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure that I have this all straight: Til posted here and "urgently" requested "administrative action" to be taken against myself, citing various unspecific accusations without any diffs. Then, he used this page and an article talk page to call me a variety of names and belittle me in several ways. Now, having been able to thusly vent, he is off to have "some tea". Is that accurate? Can someone tell me how I should feel about this, because I'm a little confused. Bulbous (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems accurate. I can't tell you how to feel, but it's worth noting that (a) no admin looked at Til Eulenspiegel's complaint and thought it worthy of sanctions against you; (b) Til Eulenspiegel has not provided diffs supporting her/his complaints; (c) Surely the over-arching goal here is to minimise disruption to the project, and move on?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! With Til off drinking Tea, are we considering the matter closed? Should he not withdraw the complaint that he so "urgently" requested so that we might move forward? Bulbous (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the humble opinion of this non-admin, I'd recommend considering the matter closed; if you want to demand that the complaint be formally withdrawn that would of course be your right, but I'd suggest that it might simply drag this matter out further. Of course, Til Eulenspiegel may voluntarily withdraw the complaint without any request to do so.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  04:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it might be worth archiving the talk page discussions in order to make it easier to focus on article-related discussion?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:RafaelRGarcia and User:Wallamoose

WOW!!! NOW HE'S CHANGING THIS INCIDENT REPORT!!! See Revision as of 04:35, 11 October 2008 (edit) and 05:33, 11 October 2008 ON THIS PAGE. He's changed the title and the order to make it seem like it's about me. Is that allowed? (Wallamoose (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Here's the Diff I think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=244511722&oldid=244511540

(Wallamoose (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

• Wallamoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Wallamoose received a Level 4 Warning from Bwilkins due to his verbal abusiveness towards an administrator and towards me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244470322&oldid=244456434 . However, he continues his campaign of abusiveness and sarcasm, in contravention of the Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244508955&oldid=244508416 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244506106&oldid=244504717 . I insist that he stop. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244510320&oldid=244507456 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244510865&oldid=244510058 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244509491&oldid=244509140 , among other links. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose's response: This user keeps harassing me. He's commenting to other administrators about what I put on my talk page and following me onto boards where he's never posted. If you could offer some suggestions on how to make him stop that would be fabulous. I'm sure he will be on here soon making all kinds of accusations. But keep in mind I've tried to just go about my business and do my own thing. Yet, he keeps following me to new boards like the ACORN board and the Keith Olbermann board. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Today, Wallamoose was given a Level 4 warning by Bwilkins for his behavior. However, Wallamoose used section headings to mock the WikiElf who gave him the Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=prev&oldid=244495761 . Administrator Bearian also gave Wallamoose a warning last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=238586467&oldid=238584660 . Proof that Wallamoose has been stalking me since last month is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=239058140&oldid=238811258 . Here, Wallamoose had blocked my Good Article nomination of William Rehnquist to complain about the Clarence Thomas article more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1&diff=241734629&oldid=238501623 . Even user Censei, who's been blocked for disruptive editing, recognizes the severity of Wallamoose's actions, and gave him a warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244185878&oldid=244023418 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose used purposely inflammatory section headings on his own talk page, and even tried to vandalize my talk page with them in the past. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARafaelRGarcia&diff=243565025&oldid=243564902 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=243962889&oldid=243962645 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244012446&oldid=244012276 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a retaliation. I've tried asking for help to get him to stop stalking me, it seems he's allowed to go through my history and harass me. Many of these citations are old and have already been dealt with. Now he's deleting my comments from a talk page where he followed me to harass me. Some nerve! I can already predict I will be punished for reacting to his harassing me. But if I knew how to make him stop I would do it.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Incorrect. None of the links in the first paragraph contributed to your Level 4 Warning. Neitherdid the first link in the second paragraph.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you stop it and leave each other alone. Its a wide wiki - surely you can find a place to work away from each other. Shell ^babelfish 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has received many warnings and ignored them. Can't you do something? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're both overdoing it here. Stop bickering. User:RafaelRGarcia, please stay away from Wallamoose for now. User:Wallamoose, you could be more civil about this. Please don't make any more comments about RafaelRGarcia. If you don't like an edit, cite a source, don't call it a lie. If the two of you must work on the same articles, stick to talking about sources on article talk pages, stay civil and don't make comments about each other at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you equating our behavior? Wallamoose received a Level 4 warning; I only received a Level 1. Wallamoose clearly has no intention of stopping his behavior. Check out this edit he made to his talk page about continuing to fight with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244504566&oldid=244504510 . And he's called me "brain damaged" in the past, as well as insulted an administrator repeatedly. He makes the prospect of working on Wikipedia very distasteful, and I can't believe nothing is going to be done. Check out this talk page heading he changed to mock Bwilkins, who gave him the Level 4 warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Don.27t_Worry..._both_sides_will_be_checked..._just_close_your_eyes_and_hope_for_the_best. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't equate your behaviour. I asked you to stay away from Wallamoose and I've asked Wallamoose to be civil. If you think peacefully building an encyclopedia has to do with score-keeping of sundry civility warnings, you're mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has vandalized my talk page four times just since yesterday, when he received his Level 4 warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&action=history . And just a few hours ago, he added, then re-added a sarcastic comment to an article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=prev&oldid=244513918 . RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Those edits aren't vandalism. Mistakenly calling them vandalism is the kind of thing that has stirred this up even further. Revert the posts on your talk page without comment (if you like), stay away from Wallamoose and this will very likely settle down quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, or perhaps trolling, because it's untrue and Wallamoose was continually trying to rile me up. I haven't spoken to him since Bwilkins gave him a warning, yet he continues to talk about me on other people's talk pages, and he attempted to use the talk pages of other articles to further cause conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKeith_Olbermann&diff=244488290&oldid=244484889 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=244488530&oldid=244469912 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAssociation_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=244487947&oldid=244461706 . He has no respect for Wikipedia mediators or administrators. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your notion of what's taken as vandalism on Wikipedia is mistaken. Have you read the project page on vandalism? If you do what I ask, this will all very likely wind down. If you don't, it won't and I'll begin to think you're being disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I will try to avoid Wallamoose, and if he continues to revert my sourced edits and generally antagonize me I trust I can come directly to you to stop him. RafaelRGarcia (talk)

Thanks. Yes, understanding how the Wikipedia community pulls off what it does can seem unbelievable at first and yes, you can come to me straight off if any more worries crop up. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I hope you've warned RafaelRGarcia not to refactor other people's comments as he did here - regardless of what the case or its outcome might be, that is unacceptable on so many levels, especially in the fashion that's it's been done here. Other than that, I agree with you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I saw others he'd done but not those. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That refactoring was done due to an edit conflict. Wallamoose submitted his entry here at about the same time I did, and because his was shorter I changed it to a response. If you want to talk about refactoring, try all the refactoring of talk page headings that Wallamoose did on his talk page, including changing Bwilkins's talk page heading to a mocking reference to rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244495761&oldid=244495480 . In any case, I really have to study now, and I trust that if Wallamoose continues to trouble anyone, I can go directly to either of you to enforce the many warnings he's received. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is unacceptable, period. If you were involved in an edit conflict, you then submit what you wrote as a response rather than what someone else wrote before you. This is no longer resolved - you need to remove the personal attacks on your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the many personal attacks against me on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose ? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't make personal attacks in answer to what you may take to be personal attacks. Moreover, I found this post by you on my talk page rather worrisome. If this is how you go about interacting with editors, it's no wonder you've been having problems. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I have to remove the notice on my talk page, but Wallamoose doesn't have to remove "He's got issues" and "You are obviously a sick and delusional individual" from his talk page? What's the rationale for that? Also, I haven't had problems with any editor besides Wallamoose, but Wallamoose has received warnings from Bwilkins, Bearian, and Censei, and been reverted or refuted on many articles. I'm really not the criminal here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, nobody's the criminal here. Please remove the personal attack from the top of your talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through Personal_attacks and do not see how my notice at all qualifies as a personal attack, but I have removed it to be cooperative. I object to your neglecting to instruct Wallamoose to remove the personal attacks against me from his own talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for WP:BLP violations at Talk:Clarence Thomas. I found edits like this whilst looking into his claim that Wallamoose had been making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the paragraph near the top of this discussion beginning with the words: "Wallamoose's response" has been refactored. This was the original paragraph at the top of my report, but was modified by RRG. The words "Wallamoose's response:" were added when it was moved. I'm not trying to make a fuss, but anyone reading about this disupte will get a false impression about the order of comments, which seems to have been the intent of the change. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is still stalking me, checking to see what comments I leave on others' talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=244591331&oldid=244586271 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not stalking. RafaelRGarcia this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stay away from Wallamoose. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add that your notion of doubling the length of a BLP so as to slip in more dirt is highly mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of slipping in more dirt. But some editors had made the argument that because the confirmation portion of the Clarence Thomas article was about a quarter of the article, that that portion was too long. If it's a question of proportionality, that's something that changes over time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about word count. Please also have a look at WP:Wikilawyering. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

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

According to User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Please_dont., it appears that after the recent block discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Pigsonthewing, Pigonthewing used email to do the similiar he was requested [95] not to do here. Docu 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you hear that the Titanic sank?

You are noting a talkpage comment dated 1st October, while the discussion you are linking is from 27th September to 1st October - or later, since I stopped reading at that point - so therefore that email occurred before the conclusion of the discussion and the confirmation of any restriction... Now, is there any particular reason why you were reviewing Andy Mabbutt's talkpage? Has the "...stay away from each other..." advice lapsed? I would suggest that if you are sanction shopping re Pigsonthewing then you had best make sure that your own house is in order first. Please stop, and stay the hell away from each other for the foreseeable future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Per LessHeard vanU, you'll be doing something constructive if you stay away from each other. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See also [96] [97] - Atmoz (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? It isn't Pigsonthewing, because Andy Mabbutt isn't so stupid and it won't be Docu for exactly the same reason. It's a troll, and trolls are born to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU: TenOfAllTrades should be able to clarify the exact date of the emails. The block was 27/28. If he continued after the 28, it's clearly unacceptable. -- Docu 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who left the warning for Pigsonthewing, I have to say that I'm also unimpressed by the way that Docu has conducted himself of late. (Why didn't he choose to notify me of this thread?) Since Docu commented on the warning I gave to Pigsonthewing on October 1 ([98]), one does wonder why he's only bringing it to AN/I now—ten days later.

This type of sanction-shopping is petty and entirely unhelpful. While redundant, I've left a warning on Docu's talk page that he needs to find non-Mabbett interests. Neither user should be campaigning in any way to encourage harrassment of the other. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we've stopped threatening to block Docu for being the only one whose signature doesn't rattle like a bottle of pills. Definitely progress. I agree, there will always be people you can't get along with, best to avoid them as much as possible, take them off your watchlist, etc., act like they don't exist. — CharlotteWebb 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just got this really odd note from TenOfAllTrades on my talk page [99]. It doesn't seem to occur to him that I might have looked at his contributions.

In the past TenOfAllTrades already came there noting that it's an "inconvenience of scrolling back" to get there [100] .. obviously it is if he was reading emails rather than editing onwiki. It was somewhat unclear what brought him there, as I don't recall participating in any discussions with him on pages other than my talk (did I forget one?).

Anyways, it might be interesting if he could detail the type of emails he received from Pigsonthewing and their dates which may have prompted him to post to my talk page. Possibly others received similar. -- Docu 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the "copyright" issue. He might want to publish those e-mails himself someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Having failed to stir up interest in one non-event from Sept, docu seems now to be raising an even more trivial non-event from Sept. Enough. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a request on 18 September for Docu to sign his talk page posts normally. (For the record, Docu had been signing posts with just his name, absent any link to his userspace and without a datestamp. The former is discourteous to editors who might wish to contact him, the latter can make it more difficult to follow the timing of complex discussions and breaks the functionality of some archive bots. I urged him to return to the standard sig or some variant of it, or to offer some explanation why it would be harmful for him to do so.)

I received exactly one email from Pigsonthewing, on 25 September, to which I made no off-wiki reply. He noted that Docu had blanked my request – essentially unanswered – from his talk page. I asked Pigsonthewing to stop emailing me in a message to his talk page on 1 October, and in that message noted that both editors needed to stay away from each other: [101]. (I had been travelling extensively during the previous week and had little time for Wikipedia editing.)

Also on 1 October, I renewed my request to Docu on his talk page. His response was to refer to his previous non-answers, and also to point to the warning I had left Pigsonthewing—implying that I was acting at the behest of POTW: [102]. Seeing as Docu clearly read my comment, I didn't think it a great leap to assume he understood that he should stay away from Pigsonthewing. To make that warning absolutely, explicitly, abundantly clear, I renewed it on Docu's talk page yesterday: [103]. The forum-shopping he started in this thread is a disruptive waste of time.

As to what brought me to Docu's talk page in the first place, it was his conduct on various noticeboards recently: first the obstinate refusal to sign his posts normally, now his inability to play nicely in the same sandbox as Pigsonthewing. (Note that I'm also unimpressed by Pigsonthewing's conduct at times, but as far as I know he did at least pay attention to the warning I left him.) I was not recruited secretly off-wiki as part of some conspiracy, and I'll thank Docu to stop implying any such thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove

Resolved

 – Good block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please undo the move of the article Dr. Strangelove done just a bit ago? Not only was it done without discussion, and therefore without consensus, but the move was made to the wrong title (no colon after the "or" and "learnt" instead of "learned").

This issue has been discussed before, and it was decided that keeping the article at the shorter and more common and well-known title, with a redirect from the longer title, was the best choice, instead of vice versa. The full title is addressed in the very beginning of the article, so it;s not being ignored.

Thanks for any help - maybe a note from an admin to the editor who moved it might be in order as well? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved back. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll drop a note on the user's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. After I put this note on the editor's talk page, I got this response, announcing his or her status as a "guerilla editor" who "fight[s] for what is correct". I assume that means that the person plans on moving it again, and since this is the user who put "Ten Little Niggers" on the Agatha Christies And Then There Were None article, I'm wondering if he or she really has the best interests of the project at heart.

Maybe move protection on the Strangelove article might be in order? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the editor is Jabunga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on Jabunga's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jabunga answered with a bit of page-move vandalism so I've blocked indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. His answer by moving your talkpage was hardly the correct way to address the issue. :) --JavierMC 11:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda shrill :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have brought this on you, but thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 11:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Thus endeth the guerilla megillah. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooof - mighty nice! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Disruptive editing shouldn't be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantaman

Nominated for speedy deletion a few months ago, warnings have been reconfigured and used for continuing self-promotion, linking to user's blogs, etc. Please check to see if this merits further action. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about that Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it the same way as the user page. Thanks for the catch. EyeSerene^talk 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for tending to this, EyeSerene. There are certain dubious contributions that are so painstakingly organized that I prefer to refer them to administrators, rather than revert them myself. JNW (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hda3ku

Resolved

 – Much ado about nothing. --barneca (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has some interesting subpages, such as:

• User:Hda3ku/ / / / / / / / / / / sdf - Jimbo's userpage
• User:Hda3ku/alt1 - Messed up copy of User:PrinceOfCanada's userpage
• User:Hda3ku/alt2 - Exact copy of User:Possum's userpage
• User:Hda3ku/main - Our main page

Should anything be done here? iMatthew (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• User:Hda3ku/pi should be added (do not click it, it is 1,000,000 kb!) D.M.N. (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah. iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/User:Hda3ku for more. iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would assume most of those are simply there as sandboxes - he's liked the layout of peoples' userpages and wants to play around with them to see how they work. In the absence of evidence of anything more nefarious, I wouldn't worry. Have you asked the user about them? ~ mazca ^t|c 15:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to drop by and let us know. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, some other user grabbed my userpage once, it's not a big deal. More than likely this fellow is just keeping them as sandboxes to learn about Wiki formatting. Also, that pi subpage is "only" 1MB not 1GB. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince asked me to reply here you can feel free to delete all of the pages in question the copy that i had of other users userpages were there so i could get more fimilar with the wikipedia html code im sory if i violated any rules but it was my interpretation that a could create any suppage under my username. Now that i think about it should that have all just been in a sand box? hda3ku (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Hda3ku, you haven't done anything wrong. --barneca (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why was I called here? hda3ku (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's considered courtesy to let people know when they are being discussed here, so that they don't get paranoid. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you hda3ku (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:M4f1050

Resolved

 – RBI — Coren ^(talk)

M4f1050 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 3 contribs. All defamitory to a BLP subject.[104][105][106] Received a L2 & L3 warning on the first 2. Do we really need to give him a L4 warning and wait for him to do it again before a block?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No. — Coren ^(talk) 15:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

One AfD listed for two unrelated articles - Scene (youth subculture) and The Scene

This AfD was originally for Scene (youth subculture), a subculture related to emo (a subgenre of hardcore punk music), which emerged within the last ten years. After filing the original AfD, an editor added The Scene to the AfD. The Scene is a social scene surrounding computer software which originated in the 1970s. The two topics are completely unrelated.

Two different deletion discussions are going on within the same AfD. This is is very confusing. I believe that if it is left as-is, neither article will get a fair discussion. I would like to request that an administrator split this into two separate AFDs, and move all comments related to The Scene to a separate AfD. There is quite a bit of confusion on the existing page, and I would appreciate it if someone would look into it. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Comments about The Scene have been redacted to the AfD talk page, and editors are invited to open a separate AfD for that article if desired. HiDrNick! 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, DrNick! I truly appreciate it. Whatever404 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:83.244.212.141

83.244.212.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be wreaking havoc, nominating valid pages for CSD etc., whist claiming to be User:Pigsonthewing and logged out. I seriously doubt it's him--it's just not his style. --RFBailey (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Olana North would be my suspect - see recent ANI. Occuli (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is the related User talk:Alkwingle who claims to be a meatpuppet of User:Pigsonthewing (highly unlikely). Occuli (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• If so, it would be a pork barbecue. :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've hardblocked the IP for 48 hours. There have been at least three other accounts involved with the disruption from this IP in the last two days. See also [107] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing - there is an editor commenting on two vandal edits to today's FA claimed to be Pigsonthewing. We are being trolled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

IP is an open proxy. Thatcher 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot like linkspam from multiple A-Class IP's

I noticed several IP's adding <small>'''''w w w . A n o n T a l k . c o m'''''</small> to a huge amount of random pages ranging from talk pages to normal articles. The IP's are located in different A-Class networks, so it looks like a fast switching proxy bot. While the IP's in question have now been blocked, i fear that whatever is causing this will simply switch IP soon to resume this. Since its not a link i don't think that it can be blacklisted, but in case this bot returns there is at least some record of it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This spammer has been active for months, though they've recently been on wikibreak. They are all the same person, all open proxies, and target very recently changed articles. See[108]. RBI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh*, guess my own short break from vandalism patrol made me miss this guys. Annoying really, especially since he is back yet again. Wasn't there some procedure that allows permanent block of open web proxies? If i remember well proxify.com is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of these 'bot spams' last night, unfortunately, I don't remember where. It had already been reverted so it was in passing. HalfShadow 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Open proxies get blocked by admins, usually not permanently but for however long they are likely to remain static. The ones used here are usually short-term HTTP proxies, and a block of up to a year is usually sufficient. They do get recycled if given a chance. An extension to sort-of-soft-block all of Tor was introduced a few months back, then disabled, then possibly re-enabled. I've seen quite a few Tor nodes editing abusively recently - does anyone know the status of this extension? There has not been, as far as I'm aware anything enabled to automatically block open proxies, though the software does exist. The text used by this spammer has changed several times over time, but it should be possible for a dev or bot to block it. This spammer has an account by the way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw three of them on Betty Shabazz last night. I reported the non-blocked ones on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, but I'm not sure how well-monitored that is. —KCinDC (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we throw the above named URL on the spamlist? SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the URL is spaced out in the vandalism. Presumably the pattern, with spaces, can be added, but the spammers will probably switch to a different obfuscation method. —KCinDC (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dancer81396

Dancer81396 (talk · contribs) does nothing but create and re-create 3tg and 3TG pages (about a nonnotable band), which are speedily deleted, over a period of weeks. —KCinDC (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. She'll have to find something else to do. --Rodhullandemu 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

...and a Level 4 warning added to the talkpage. Black Kite 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table misuse by 2 editors: Nomoskedasticity, Academic38 and 2 administrators: Toddst1, Jayron32

I looked over this article recently and noticed that there is a lot of "opinionated" information in this article. Almost 80% of the sources in this article refer to blog sites, which are posts that primarily written by 1-2 people. After wondering why no one has bothered to change this, I referred to the "history" page where I noticed a user PigeonPiece had tried to put up some information from factual 3rd party sources that was not opinionated, and was immediately taken down by 2 users Academic38 and Nomoskedasticity. I googled the history of these "blogs" and it stemmed from 2 users (coincidentally) talking about creating a defamatory page on the Oxford Round Table.

My main concern here is not the article, but the misuse of Wikipedia power privileges to create pages full of opinionated information by citing those. The other part of this problem is an administrator Toddst1 seems to put a block or indefinite ban on the users adding the accurate 3rd party sources while "warning" the other two editors mentioned above to seem like his actions are neutral. Recently, another administrator Jayron32 has been involved in blocking users suspecting them of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. After looking at the discussion, it seems like other person who came up Astutescholar had looked through the history for the sources PigeonPiece put up and believed that information was accurate enough to put back up there and in the process, both of these users were banned indefinitely by Jayron32.

My problem is that wikipedia is supposed to be a place of discussion and ability to add information to accurately display the subject/topic, and this article is internally controlled by 2 editors and 2 administrators and any other attempts by outsiders to get involved will automatically be blocked or banned by administrators Jayron32 and Toddst1. This poses a problem to the authenticity of the article, and also scares editors off from getting involved. I would like to add neutral and unbiased information, and I am able to, although I am sure that Nomoskedasticity and Academic38 will complain to "their" administrators and block me, and I have no intentions of adding any information if it will result in losing privileges for myself. In all fairness, I would like a neutral party of adminstrators to review this information when they get a chance. I honestly think Oxford Round Table should be nominated for deletion if this is how the page will stay, but I know if I did that myself I would be banned for one reason or another. Thank you for taking the time to review this. Treasuryrain (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let the other editors you've mentioned know that you have raised this matter for discussion here, so that they will have an opportunity to respond. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, it's pretty rare for an editor with less than a dozen edits in mainspace to make such an involved ANI report. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, not one of those references are to blog sites, and all abide by the relevant policy. Also, not to be rude, but per Toddst1 - it's best if users with under 100 edits avoid ANI so as not to draw suspicion towards them. Valtoras (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"This poses a problem to the authenticity of the article, and also scares editors off from getting involved." was mentioned above. I take no sides here. However, I have heard complaints that a small number of editors/administrator can control an article and drive away editors. I contribute to a technical message board and this was a complaint. Again, I am neutral in this particular dispute/article. I am not saying that this is or is not happening here. Chergles (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read this notice, my first thought was "Why would anyone want to launch a defamatory page against Dorothy Parker and James Thurber?Gladys J Cortez 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For a brand-new user, they sure know a lot about admins, sockpuppets, wiki-format, ANI, and deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasuryrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), it would be beneficial at this point to reveal who you are a sock of. Quite frankly, I don't see "abuse" here. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also worked on the article from time to time, but never acted as an admin. The actual nature of the organization is in my opinion open to some question, as are its methods of publicity; there has been a long-standing push by some eds. to keep material that I & Nomoskedasticity & the other admins mentioned all thought inappropriate content--the "accurate third party sources" are a list of papers given at the conference, a list of members, present and past, of its board of directors, and the like. I commend their efforts after i lost patience with maintaining this article. DGG (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock of any other user. For those accusing, please refer to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to help your understanding of what a sock puppet is. In fact, this helps me demonstrate what I was talking about. Minutes after I posted my concern, one of the involved parties Toddst1 came in and gave me the accusation of being a sock (see above) without addressing any of the issues to try to adequately address my concerns. I was just bringing up an issue that takes place on certain wikipedia articles with a group of editors and their alliances with administrators. This is the same concern that Chergles noticed. All I really wanted was an administrator who is uninvolved in the Oxford Round Table to see what has happened to the page. Editors with accurate sources and citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) should be able to put up information as they wish. I am coming from a neutral point of view and do not appreciate wikipedia pages that are bias. The Oxford Round Table, for example, contains a source that is a blog website full of opinions, false facts, and inaccurate and irrelevant information, which is the The Chronicle of Higher Education. I do not care what opinions they post on their blog website, but it should not carry over to wikipedia if it is indeed known as an encyclopedia. Also, a lot of the sources access dates are outdated, and information has changed since that time, and it is not updated because of the control the involved parties are administrating. DGG mentioned sources taken off being "list of papers given at the conference, a list of members, present and past, of its board of directors", so wouldn't it make sense for those to be mentioned in the article? It didn't seem right that two users can write a whole page and others are prevented from getting involved. If you look into this, you may understand where I am coming from. I am just trying to promote the reason wikipedia was created in the first place. Thanks. Treasuryrain (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, a better set of questions is where you heard about all this from and whether you have a conflict of interest? From what I remember last time this came up, there was a mailing list or internet discussion forum, and several people from there created new accounts here to edit the article and bring the dispute on to Wikipedia. Some of them have since gone on to become productive editors, while others haven't. Apologies for putting this so bluntly, but which will you be? Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasuryrain, this is the second time in two posts that you've made the false claim that the The Chronicle of Higher Education is a source for the article on the Oxford Round Table. Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us what information in the article is defamatory. As for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, you sure know a lot of policy for a newbie, and you have PigeonPiece's loopy logic and her constant refrain of "accurate third party sources" down pat. For the record, I added the information from Astutescholar that was correct on October 3, i.e., the info on the U.K. incorporation, which would be 8 days before you first posted here. I did not add the Listcruft she kept insisting on. As you say, this is an encyclopedia.Academic38 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Old discussion (one of them at least) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#Is it just me.... Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd request that nobody blocks anybody for sock puppetry without first compiling a formal report. The last time somebody shot from the hip on sock accusations surrounding this article, they stirred up an unnecessary drama. I recommend gathering all the new users involved in the recent edit war and checkuser the lot of them. If they are socks, that will be good to know. If they were canvassed here, we can advise them about our policies and encourage them to become productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • From the article history, I picked out User:PigeonPiece and User:Astutescholar and User:Educationatlarge. They've been blocked already as socks or sock masters. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar (September 2007). Actually, the block log for Astutescholar might be more helpful. See here: to quote the blocking admin: "Abusing multiple accounts: [109] and [110] show this". The block is recent (10 October). See also User talk:Astutescholar. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh dear. Jayron32 seems to have quoted the same diff twice in the block log. I'll ask what diffs he meant to quote. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now notified Nomoskedasticity, Academic38 and Jayron32. Toddst1 has already posted here. Treasuryrain didn't do the notifications, but in fairness, being a new user and defending themselves against sock-puppet accusations is excuse enough. So can we try and work out what is going on here. I have absolutely no intention of writing as much as I did last time... Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Compelling evidence

I blocked the this person's multiple accounts indefinately based on the use of sockpuppets to repeatedly edit war. I have never edited the article in question, and being accused of "misusing" an article I have never edited is funny. The compelling evidence in the block is this dif by PigeonPiece which was an established account at Wikipedia and this dif by Astutescholar which was created on September 18, while in the middle of the edit war, and only did edits to the article in question. I am at a loss to how two accounts could commit largly similar edits (these are almost identical) and be somehow unrelated. It should be noted that neither Astutescholar NOR Pigeonpiece (which are likely, based on all existing evidence the same person) has come forward to refute this evidence. Unless and until that evidence can be refuted, I stand by my blocks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Treasuryrain was an account created within a few days of Astutescholar, and while Pigeonpiece was blocked. his contributions history shows no prior contact with either editor or with the article in question. Take what you will out of that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mokele

I just removed this from an Afd discussion on a BLP article. By the way, the ip editing after Mokele's post is signed Guy - just to let you know. cygnis insignis 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC) It's a death threat!? I've been away a while, but surely policy hasn't changed that much.

Why? Removal of such comments from an AfD is inappropriate. BLP applies to the article, not comments on a deletion request. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, BLP applies everywhere. Please read the policy. -- how do you turn this on 21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have. It is to prevent sensitive and libelous information from being added to articles. An AfD debate is not an article, nor did the comment consist of sensitive and libelous information about the person. If someone tried to delete George W Bush, would you delete a comment that said, "The only notability comes from his screwing over America"? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A few eyes on the afd could help here. Cygnis insignis, who is complaining of BLP violations on the afd was, in fact, making them himself. A case of WP:SAUCE here. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the clarification of actual admins: my comment concerned an anonymous ip who vandalised referenced statements and claimed "Corrections by subject of site". I honestly don't know who or why they did it, but it was vandalism. I take great exception to the persistent implication by Scott MacDonald that I am contravening policy, especially BLP in main space - that has never happened! cygnis insignis 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't make it worse with lies. You referred to IP by bringing to attention his edit summary of "Corrections by subject of site" - and invited people to solve the "puzzle" of his "vandalism".--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When there's a likelihood the subject of a BLP has tried to cope with the article themselves, however clumsily, it shouldn't be called vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Gwen. That approach is very reasonable, but the first four edits here did not add info. They made substantial changes to referenced statements, reversing their meaning. It is very unlikely that it was the subject of the article, in my opinion. Regards, cygnis insignis 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So what was the "puzzle"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

... why someone would do it. My best guess is a disruptive user. BTW, the user who made the death threat (Mokele) just burned off my notice with a curse and reinserted a poorly referenced section in the article - one that four or five others have removed as per BLP. 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So. You asked people to "solve the puzzle" as why someone might re-arrange the article to be more flattering, with the comment "Corrections by subject of site"? You characterised the edits as vandalism, and raised the question during a discussion of the notability of Raymond_Hoser but you were not implying it could have been him, you were just asking an unrelated question about some random IP???? I say again, you are a poor liar.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I misread the comment that was deleted. It probably was best to delete the comment. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The user was not notified at all that the comment was deleted. With just the explanation of "I deleted it", the removal of the comment was indeed out of process. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) AfDs on living subjects are very difficult. We are not just speaking of the notability of a subject but of a person. We may publicly assessing how important someone is. That can potentially be very hurtful, and distressing to the subject (should they be aware of it). Further, in this afd, in addition to delete votes, at least some of those wishing to keep the article may dislike its subject. Decorum is essential here - as we are well within the spirit of BLP. Futher, in this particular case, I belive the subject has already complained about the article via OTRS. So any personal comments about the subject that are not strictly "on topic" cannot be tolerated. Wikipedia isn't a game for insiders here, we are dealing with real people and doing so very publicly.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Following on this, discuss only the sources on the topic (and whether they are meaningful enough to meet the notability standards), there is never a need to give personal opinions about the subject and moreover, whether they may be positive or negative has aught to do with WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy - proposed updating

By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

article referencing as per GFDL

Hi all. I'm an admin on one of the foreign language wikis.

Just wanted to double check:

If an article is translated (and a bit modified) from en:wp into our foreign language wikipedia, do we have to cite the en:wp article as a source of reference as far as GFDL licensing is concerned? Isn't it redundant to do so, or are other language wikis not considered in-house, so to speak? Thanks. --Zereshk (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Copyright on Wikipedia articles is held by the writers, and you need to link to the source article in order to make sure that the writers are properly credited. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the chain of history must be preserved. Probably, the easiest way to do that is in the edit history (preferably early) with a link there. Obviously, in-article attribution is also good but less robust against inadvertent or malicious removal. I'd suggest that the translator add the link to the original article to the edit summary of the original post as the very best method. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRANSLATION should help. Have a look at how the people using that process attribute their translations into English from other languages. See Carl Koldewey for a recent example. Template:Translation/Ref can be placed in articles to record it there, but as others have said, and attribution in the initial edit summary is good, such as here, though ideally adding a permalink in the edit summary to the version used to translate would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

checking my first admin action....

Resolved

 – A block is executed correctly. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is noncontroversial, but since it's the VERY VERY FIRSTEST adminn-y thing I've done. I want to quintuple-check to make sure it was done correctly: [111]? Si, or no? It's my first block EVAH, so I want to make sure I did it right. Comments?Gladys J Cortez 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It worked. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The proof. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you probably should have blocked for only 24 hours, as it was the IP's first block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those extra 7 hours were really an example of admin abuse... Are you open to recall? </sarcasm>31 hours has become the de facto standard first block for vandalism, so it was fine.--barneca (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am open to having all my major limbs hacked off with a dull machete, so there's that going for me. Gladys J Cortez 08:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've often wondered where the "31 hours" bit came from. Most of my vandalism blocks tend to be for 12 or 24 hours, 31 seems a bit of an awkward number to use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

31 hours covers the potential of an IP coming back the next day at the same time. A good example would be a shared IP at a school. Computer class is at 1:00 PM. Kids vandalize and get blocked. If a block is set to 12 or 24 hours, the kids could return the next day since vandalizing was "fun" during the "boring" class. With a block for 31 hours, this prevents the mischief from returning the next day as when the kids get back, the block is still in effect and continuing through the rest of the school day. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which...okee then, Saturday late-afternoon/early-to-mid-evening FAIL...hey, it's POSSIBLE they might-could be having a slow Sunday, right?? RIGHT?????!!??? (/quasi-frantic justification)Gladys J Cortez 08:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been using 31 hours as a default block duration for smalltime vandals in forever; it might just be a gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure it reduces repeat performances by a significant amount. Even outside of school context, the inability to simply "return tomorrow" appears to be strongly dissuasive. — Coren ^(talk) 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, please remember that in future all your admin actions now have blanket approval and require no double checks or appeal to the community for input in case you have concerns. Now you have "broken your duck" the cabal expect nothing less than unilateral action by yourself. ;) Pedro :  Chat  08:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I didn't have to deal with this one; Lankveil and Apokryltaros cleaned up after User:HowDumbAreYou, who moved Big Bang to Big Bang Myth. However, my question is... why does the log say that HowDumbAreYou protected Big Bang Myth? The user, who first registered in August, has only a handful of edits and does not have admin status. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If a protected page is moved, the target is automatically protected, and the log lists the protector as the moving user. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is relatively new, so it's still freaking people out when they see it for the first time; I've seen, I believe, 2 other similar threads in the last week. --barneca (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. I wonder if it is worth a tweak to the software to avoid such log entries? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, that would have skurred the bejabbers out of my new-admin self, had it been something I'd done. You'd have one of those panic-stricken threads, along the lines of "OMG! OMG! I FUBARred EVERYTHING! Main page baleeeetion! Jimbo banninated! OMG!!!" (no sig, as I'd have dropped in my traces, twitching slightly) So...um, how do we fix that? Or do we? (Would that be a "bug", or a "feature"?)Gladys J Cortez 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have to admit I saw my name here while looking for something else, and had a panicky "oh shit, what did I do!?!?!?" moment before I realised what was going on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

User:Tamiera

User:Tamiera ignores notices and warnings posted at User talk:Tamiera The reason for posting here is the repeated use of non-free images on the user page and the use of lock icons on pages that are not protected. The user has also received numberous vandalism warnings. It should be noted that the user has requested page protection [112] link provided for reference only.

The user has has placed protection lock icons on pages that are not protected [113] [114] [115]

The user has also posted vandalism warnings on other user's pages regarding edits that are over two years old.[116]

I would hope that adminstrator intervention might resolve the situation of disruptive edits without requiring the more extreme measures of blocking or banning. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The user also has moved pages that required administrative assistance to move back [117] Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a brief look at this account's edits, and I can't decide whether it's just someone with good intentions (and possibly English as a second language) trying to help out, or someone pretending to be someone with good intentions (and possibly English as a second language) trying to help out, with the intent of causing subtle disruption. Either way it plainly has to stop. I've put a message on the user's talk page, although I'm not all that confident that anything being placed there is actually being read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

User:Heyheygimmemore

Resolved

Heyheygimmemore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already as a {{uw-unsourced4}} warning level on his talk page from adding this gossip to Joe Jonas. His previous warnings 1 through 3 have all been related to adding rumors to album and single articles. Well after the level 4, we get a lovely series of edits to All I Want Is Everything (album), which you can see adds nearly every possible rumored song title to the album. Time for a tap with a blockstick.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

*thwap!* — Coren ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a good Mad response. :) Given the editor's petulance, along with his ID, and the temporariness of the block - if he doesn't improve his behavior, he should change his user ID slightly, but with more direct meaning, to "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat and other problems

A single purpose account, Gingerhillinc, is making legal threats [118] [119] and personal attacks [120] on other users as well as vandalising an Afd [121] [122] . Edward321 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacation time. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety, not directed so much at you, as at everyone who does this same thing all the time. If you hadn't done it, I have no doubt someone else would have. Clearly not a terribly productive user at the moment, but I'll renew my periodic plea that we don't keep interpreting stressed out, new editors saying "this seems like defamation of character", or yes, even something obvious like "Please leave it alone or we shall follow with legal action" as something worthy of a [WP:NLT]] block. Gingerhillinc isn't going to sue anybody, and all of us here know it. Let's save WP:NLT for the actual cases with a realistic chance that there's a legal threat. Someone warned the user about this before the block, we could have waited to see what happens. If we want to block for disruption or something, let's be honest and block for disruption. Let's not hide behind WP:NLT and pretend our hands were tied and a block was required. This isn't a vandal, it's a new user (or users, but that's another issue) making an honest attempt to create an article about their acting teacher or something, and being offended at the terminology typically user at AFD, but not so typically used by normal humans in everyday life. I can't help but wonder if a simple refactor of the offending phrase would have made this go away. Of course, now we've got an even more pissed off indef blocked user on our hands, so it's probably too late now, but maybe for next time. --barneca (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. NLT is partially for the "real" legal threats but mostly to ensure that people don't say "ZOMG, my lawyer will sue you if you delete this". although most users wouldn't be cowed by that, it is easier to just enforce a policy that ensures debate can't be impacted by legal threats. I'm sure any admin will unblock this guy if he says "I didn't mean it, I'm sorry" or something to that effect. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT does not require a block. I was looking into this as well, when I refreshed the talk page and saw Tiptoe had blocked the user. It's not worth a wheel war, but I agree with barneca that this may have been a time where an explanation was warranted, not a block. -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not invested, unblock if you see fit. Tiptoety ^talk 05:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said you were, Tiptoety. This is not a complaint about you, per se, just a bit of a lament at the atmosphere surrounding NLT. See Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Block should not be automatic for a longer discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across if I thought otherwise, I was just wanting to make it clear I am fine with a unblock if it is seen fit. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a "general lament" from me too. It's way past my bedtime, I was just still up to see if the Red Sox could pull this off (sigh :( ), so I can't follow through tonight, but if someone doesn't try to salvage something with this user tonight, I'll leave a message on his talk page in the morning. --barneca (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The best practice is to block them ASAP and tell them why, and tell them that they can appeal the block, i.e. they can withdraw their "threat" and say "I'm sorry". You don't want to be sending mixed messages on the legal-threats situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, Bugs...you think so?? Faced with a new user saying anything less-blatant than "You can expect to hear from my lawyers", I'd seriously consider saying "Please understand that (whatever they said) could be interpreted as a legal threat under WP:NLT, and as such could lead to a block of your account. I strongly urge you to refactor your original comment; also, please choose your words more carefully in the future. Thank you." Now, if they decide to view that as a challenge rather than an invitation to refactor, well, THEN I'd block them. But the path you suggest....well, it just seems a wee bit BITEy to me. (Of course, I'm a squishy-hearted new admin, and haven't yet experienced the dark underbelly of Wikipedia, so YMMV.)Gladys J Cortez 08:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This slightly less-squishy hearted admin that as a matter of fact /has/ experienced the dark underbelly of Wikipedia tends to agree with Gladys, here... Most new people don't realize that legal threats can get them blocked- in some cases they don't even realize they've made a legal threat. Giving them a chance to learn and grow is the whole point of WP:AGF. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most legal threats are totally frivolous, that the person making them has no intention of following through with what they claim. But once we start saying "Well this threat probably isn't worth blocking for" or "He's new and probably won't actually sue us", we get into that vague area that I'm uncomfortable being in. Users can be unblocked, when they withdraw the threat. But until they withdraw the threat, I tend to agree the best policy we can follow is "block if a user makes a legal threat". MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good way of looking at things at all. All that type of mindset leads to is pissed off users, and users who simply become disillusioned with Wikipedia and leave for good. Neither of those situations are positive. What does it cost us to leave the user time to reflect on the warning? In this situation, I would think nothing. If he had done it again, it would simply have been reverted and he blocked, everything tied up neatly. (and I'm with L'Aquatique; I've seen this type of situation with that type of response before, and it usually doesn't end well) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Don't realize they've made a legal threat"? Maybe the educational system has deteriorated further than I had thought. "Become disillusioned and leave"? If a newbie starts right in with threats, how likely is he to become a useful editor? Sure, warning them first is fine. And if their next edit after that isn't a retraction, they're outa here. The two axioms: (1) How badly do they want to edit? and (2) How much time do you want to spend messing with them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It takes very little time to check the user's contributions, see that they've made another legal threat, revert, and block them. Avoiding biting takes very few resources and keeps the our image shinier (I can't be the only one who has read forum posts and blog comments about people being driven away from here by biting?). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no end of users who have been indef-blocked for any number of reasons and have started or joined websites criticizing wikipedia. I know plenty of folks who go to wikipedia looking for information, who are unaware or only dimly aware of all the behind-the-scenes drama. The reliability of wikipedia as a source is what the public cares about and is the surest way to keep it "shiny". The primary focus in wikipedia should be on reliable article content, not on kissing up to belligerent users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user, and my warning on their talk page is still there (though I have removed the block template). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, there's more gray area here than you might think. A while back I was involved in a situation with a user who loved to say that people were slandering him. He would respond to any criticism with a demand that the criticizer remove the slander against this user's good name. At one point, he was blocked because his comments strayed too close to a legal threat, but was unblocked soon after when he retracted the comment. However, he still continued to say that people were slandering him, to the point that an arbcom case was started. Arbcom ruled that even though there was no actual legal threat ("you'll hear from my lawyer!") using legal terminology like libel and slander violates the spirit of NLT. I don't believe this user was intending to make legal threats, and he seemed genuinely surprised when he was temporarily blocked. It is possible to make a legal threat without knowing it, especially under the precident set by that arbcom case, it's happened before and it'll happen again.

People who make legal threats aren't [usually] an immediate threat to the encyclopedia, there's no reason why the response has to be "zOMG a legal threat, block baby block!" What do you have to lose by slowing down and at least trying to talk it out? The block button will still be there if discussion breaks down, and you may have saved a potentially valuable contributor. Seems like a win-win to me. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made my point for me. You messed around with this guy repeatedly instead of dealing with it once. "Genuinely surprised"? Genuinely clueless is more like it - or play-acting. Keep in mind that every minute spent messing around with a belligerent user is a minute not spent on something more useful - like article content, or dealing with other belligerent users, of which there is apparently no shortage. Experience will tell you pretty quickly whether someone is sincere about editing articles and may be just unaware of the rules; or if they are just on wikipedia to fool around and cause trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A good warning: "Please note that your statement [...] constitutes a legal threat. Under wikipedia policy, legal threats are not allowed. Please retract it immediately, or you will be blocked from editing." That's how to handle it. Polite, but to the point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to people who use legal threats? No fucking way, even the lamest ones may cause a serious chilling effect sometimes. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Durin was unfortunate, but situations like that are rare. To be honest, I'm not exactly clear why he left in the first place, it wasn't exactly a class-A legal threat. All I'm saying here is, be flexible. Take the time to examine each case on an individual basis instead of skimming, deciding it's a legal threat, blocking, and never thinking about it again. Rigidity will be our demise. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia's demise will be sincere editors driven away by belligerent editors that were cut too much slack by admins who should have brought the hammer down immediately, after issuing a reasonable warning that was ignored by the belligerent user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are cases where a legal threat is clearly just an empty threat, but I think the "block on sight" rule is a good one to follow if there's even the slightest doubt. As said above, it can create a "chilling" effect on an article, disrupt cooperative editing, and from what I've seen legal threats usually constitute WP:CIVIL violations as well. Users can always be unblocked and worked with if they retract their threats. We're better off adopting a no-nonsense policy as far as legal threats go, I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

That's the whole point of the unblock request template. A 31-hour block does no great harm, and far from taking the "shine" off wikipedia, it would tell anyone who cares to look that wikipedia means business and is not run by a bunch of Neville Chamberlains. If anything, a quicker trigger in dealing with misbehavior should enhance wikipedia's reputation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Durin left? As far as I can tell, they are still active. Just not on this project. Shouldn't take long for anyone to work that out, but I didn't realise until SUL (single-user login arrived). Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the user should have been indefed for vandalism and personal attacks, as well as legal threats. Also, it's hard to imagine that a user who said "we will press legal action" did not know they were making a legal threat. If we keep being nice to vandals and malefactors than they will keep vandalizing and doing ill. They won't stop harming Wikipedia just because we're nice and tell them to go play in the sandbox. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good block The user is operating a role account [123], making direct legal threats,[124] and violating our conflict of interest guideline (see prior diff and notice the words "our client"). I also see that the username appears to match the name of a business. I am going to explain these things to the user and invite them to create a new account, to be used by one person, and not to be used for COI editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

BareBones and Cabaret

Hello. The author of the above article is insistent about removing a speedy deletion tag from the page. I offered advice about the 'hangon' tag, but to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks all. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedied by Bjweeks. If the user tries to recreate it, SALTING might be beneficial. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and hoax insertion by 122.2.1xx.xx user.

This user has been inserting hoaxes into various articles in Wikipedia, especially in Survivor Philippines. His vandalism is becoming rampant. Here are the IP addresses that this vandal uses...

• 122.2.189.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.183.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.182.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.176.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.187.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.176.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.181.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.189.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.182.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Will there be anything done against this user? We need action against him ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 122.2.176.0/20 (anon-only, account creation enabled) for 10 days. Let us know how it works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only ranges used by this vandal are 122.2.176.xx and 122.2.18x.xx; there are no vandal edits from 122.2.177.xx to 122.2.179.xx. But we're never sure if the guy also uses 122.2.177.xx to 122.2.179.xx, so that'll be fine. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

122.2.177.227 (talk · contribs), 122.2.178.134 (talk · contribs), 122.2.179.253 (talk · contribs), and 122.2.190.155 (talk · contribs) all appear to be the same, but let me know if you want the range adjusted. These edits remind me of someone, but I can't think who. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an editor from the Philippines who added/created hoax articles on radio stations, if I recall correctly. Don't remember the name. Thatcher 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting a vandal who constantly turns Hong Kong TV/celebrity articles into Filipino TV shows and celebrities. He's in the 122.54.X.X range. See my edit history for more details. HkCaGu (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that the range block currently applies to any IP from 122.2.176.0 to 122.2.191.255 (generate 122.2.176.0/20 on this page to see). It should be sufficient, now. ~ Troy (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Zografski

My article about Vladimir Zografski is always vandalised. Please lock it for new user or something. I also think it is sockpuppets owning the same IP as me thats makes the vandalism. AlwaysOnion (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was only one user, and that user has been indefinitely blocked. Resolute 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

TTN mass nominating articles for deletion with the exact same wording

I don’t know what this guy has against fictional characters and television episodes, but every day he makes a spurt of deletion nominations with literally the same wording (see here). Surely the exact same wording cannot apply to every single article on a fictional character or television episode? I find this style insulting to those who wrote the articles as it says, “Sorry, but I don’t have to consider the individual merits of the articles you worked on or help look for sources as every character or episode article I see is the same and must be redirected or deleted.” And to top things off the only edits to actual articles I see (see here) are slapping on deletion boxes, merge boxes, or just going ahead and redirecting them. WTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has been 6 months since TTN has been placed on editing restrictions by ArbCom, and because he obviously feels that he now has the right to go back to the exact same behavior that led to the arbcom sanctions listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Remedies Based on the return of the exact behavior that led to these sanctions I propose, formally, that the community decides to return the same sanctions that recently expired, and to extend those sanctions indefinately. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block him immediately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that most of those articles have no merits on their own and should be merged or deleted, I think his nominations are excessively pointy; there's got to be a more constructive way to try and establish notability guidelines for works of fiction. Considering that this is only the repetition of behavior that caused a restriction in the past, I would consider it appropriate to return those restrictions (per WP:GAMING). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do so because he is not currently under restrictions. They technically expired 6 months after the ArbCom ruling, which was March 10, 2008, so he has been "free" from sanctions since September 10, 2008. Therefore, I wanted to get a clear go ahead from the community before blocking, so that we have covered all of the bases, and we are sure that we are ready to take the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason for the restriction was edit warring over redirects, not the actual actions of merging, redirecting, or nominating AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a request for extension here. TTN (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block and extend sanctions immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has already requested an extension of TTN's prohibitions, but its been pointed out that what TTN is doing is not the same as his actions before: he has followed WP:BRD appropriately for all of these and is neither edit warring nor using fait accompli tactics that he was admonished for. This is not the same behavior, and even a prelim review of the extension suggests that its the fact that this is not TTN's fault, but instead those that cannot compromise in defining better standards for fictional elements (My attempt to get a compromise WP:FICT in place failed because 25% thought it too harse, the other 25% too loose). TTN is being used as a scapegoat and easy target in light of the case, which also noted a general community sanction to get people to work towards compromise and that has not happened. --MASEM 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Going right back to the same behavior you just got out of proverbial "jail" for when your sanctions expire isn't a sign of being here to benefit Wikipedia, if the old behavior was judged to be harmful to the encyclopedia (hence the sanctions). If TTN is here for Wikipedia he should immediately stop doing these until the current RFAR request is closed one way or the other. If not, an enforced community break from deletion and redirection is probably a good idea. The stupid massive ongoing drama he triggers is too destructive. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, happen to agree with TNN's philosophy on these sort of crufty, fictional articles. TNN isn't breaking policy and his restriction was over redirects, as stated above. Unless someone can show how this is against current policy, no action should be taken. Tan | 39 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are we serious? There is an ongoing request for extension where at least one arb has said he isn't doing the same behavior that lead to sanctions. the previous request for clarification was archived with the same outcome. Don't block him. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the specific tools being used, TTN is attempting to use the availible tools to force his own, personal view of what Wikipedia policy should be towards articles such as these. The volume and number of the nominations and the obvious fact that each nomination is not carefully considered shows that TTN is simply looking to eliminate an entire class of articles. Now, it is true that the community has not made any consensus one way or the other on how to deal with these articles, and there may be good reasons for most of these to be deleted, however the act of making policy through massive AFDs, which is what this ammounts to, is exactly the same as making policies through massive redirects. The redirect tactic didn't work for TTN last time, so he is trying a new route. However, the actual behavior, which is attempting to personally create Wikipedia policy where the community has not done so, is the main problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)