Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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:Anthon01

(Moved from WP:AN) east.718 at 21:43, February 2, 2008

It appears that this user is being subjected to remedies under the homeopathy probation, but may not have been informed of that probation and so not may not know that remedies could be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps an independent admin can take a look? —Whig (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Without comment: [1] R. Baley (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, why was Anthon01 removed from that list? —Whig (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. [2] Anthon01 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second action against me in 2 days. Why? Anthon01 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was properly notified, but more to the point, the reason given for the block is 'stonewalling'.... What is 'stonewalling' in this context and are there diffs that demonstrate this supposed behavior? I know what stonewalling is, in a general sense, but I don't know how it substantively differs from 'continuing to disagree'. Disagree with whom? The consensus? Obviously there IS no consensus, any way but even if there were, disagreeing about it is not disruptive in and of itself. I thought you were allowed to express your disagreement with the consensus (if there is one), as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Is there a policy or guideline that describes the parameters of 'stonewalling'? I don't want to accidently violate a guideline or policy that I may not have heard of. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Probationary sanctions were imposed by an uninvolved admin (see here), who also implied there were some checkuser findings being sorted out. Those sanctions can be appealed here, if that's Anthon01's intent, in which case I'd suggest briefly making a case and allowing input from other uninvolved admins. You could also ask the admin placing the sanction for specifics if that's your concern. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The stated reason for the block is "stonewalling". Was that accurate? or was he blocked for some other reason? What was that reason? Someone's suspicions? Something that was implied? What is the specific reason he was blocked? Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the edit warring rages on with nary a warning or block or ban in sight, except me. And guess what. I haven't touch the article at all. By an admin who has express his disdain for alternative medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Presenting a case? How long will the case stay open? Will Guy come by and take another swipe at me trying reveal my indentity an accusing me of being a meat puppet and commanding to leave, as he repeatedly does? Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, you're not making a very persuasive case. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I just caught you using a half dozen accounts to edit war for the past six months across multiple pseudoscience-related articles and had the results verified via checkuser, the more germane question seems to be if you can evade a block. east.718 at 20:02, February 2, 2008

Half dozen accounts? Please read the checkuser account carefully. You're making alot of unfair accusations here. You are wrong. Ask FT2 if I have a half dozen accounts. You should do you homework before accusing me. Anthon01 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again wrong. Will I be given enough for me to comment and other admins to comment? Anthon01 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your comment on the Checkuser report here? Why is it wrong? Lawrence § t/e 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relevant link .[4] Quack Guru 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. I know you have you work cut out for you. This problem is a big one but you've pointed your adminstrative arrow in the wrong direction. Note as I have left the problem has gotten worse. Just consider that I may be a moderating force instead of an extremist. I have reached consensus with a number of editors including Jim Butler, Art Carlson and Scientizzle and Arthur Rubin. So far I am unimpressed by your efforts in this case. Your block of JacobLad is unimpressive. [5] Used once for 1.5 hours and never never used again. Please delete as you can see I have no need for it. Anthon01 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this on my talk page. And let me say it here before Guy comes through for his drive-by accusation. I have absolutely `nothing to do with Ilena. Anthon01 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While there was strong suspicion in the beginning that Anthon01 might be Anthony Zaffuto, the partner of User:Ilena, I no longer believe this to be the case and think that no one should raise this accusation against him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will comment here once I have completed my defense there. Anthon01 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sent my explanation to FT2 and am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

(copy from my talk page) You learn mostly by floating around WP. I notice from reading talk pages that some editors have more than one account. So early on in my experience here, I decided to try it as experiment. I used JacobLad on one day and one day only.[6] I wasn't sure what the point was and didn't know there was a problem with doing until after. I still don't know what the rules really are because I see others talk about openly on there talk pages. Anyway I decided it didn't interest me and haven't used it again since that day.

Bottom line is, with one exception on 1 day, I use one account and one account only, that is Anthon01. FT2 can confim that.

I have a computer at home, a computer at the office, a computer at the library. My computer at the office is static. My home computer is mostly static (cable service). There is a time limit on how long you can stay inactive before you are automatically logged out by WP servers. More in a momment. Anthon01 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2: I think I can prove to you that I didn't willfully evade a ban, but I will have to do it at least partially by email because it involves discussing IP addresses. Are you willing to do that? Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So I use different computers for convenience. FT2 can confirm that when I login using all those different IPs, I alway use the same account. I think in the last 2 months I have posted a message using an IP only twice, both times erroneously as I didn't notice that I had been logged out by the WP server. I'm sure all of you can relate to that. I was blocked only once, back at the beginning of December I think. FT2 can confirm that the IPs he has found were not used during that time. Anthon01 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

...

I have no idea whether the libraries computer are static or not. I have only posted from there rarely. Why do I post from there? I have access to full-text journals. SO I can read the whole article before commenting. Could you imagine how much better WP could be if we all had acces to full text instead of depending on an Abstract? Anyway, thats the reasons for all the different IPs. Now East718 has accused me of having half a dozen different accounts. Wrong. Please read checkuser over. FT2 can confirm that. More to come ... Anthon01 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(End of copy from my talk page) Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting purely on the sock concerns (and not on any other article editing matters): Quick summary - The information available supports AGF on the sock concerns, with lessons hopefully learned about the perils of not logging in, that no harm was done with the Jacoblad account, and no malice seems to have been intended. The editing both logged in and logged out, and under multiple IPs (home, work etc) was problematic and might have led to further sock concerns, but hopefully Anthon will avoid that in future. I have taken steps in private to address that. (My comment). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While Anthon01 may appeal to some few collaborative situations with some editors (a couple of whom share his POV on many alternative medicine matters), he is pretty much constantly in conflict with editors who are scientific skeptics and supporters of mainstream POV. Those conflicts cannot be ignored or undone by a few favorable situations when editors of his own persuasion support him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a recent example where consensus is reached with mainstream editors, and not editors of [my] own persuasion.[7] I will find another. Anthon01 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I still want to know what 'stonewalling' is, precisely, and see the diffs in which User:Anthon01 engaged in this behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise how can I defend myself properly. Anthon01 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01

In contrast to Anthon01's statement above, I find the actions of Anthon01 while using his sock puppet, JacobLad, quite "impressive" and a significant violation of policy here. Talk about a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny! I noticed the edits by JacobLad at the time because they occurred at a very opportune time for Anthon01. Why? Because at that exact time period (minutes) we were engaged in a very heated discussion (with Anthon01 being backed up by Levine2112, both of whom are very strong advocates of chiropractic, a competing profession) about edits that made quite false implications about my own profession of Physical Therapy.

This diff is the last edit in the section where the discussion can be found, so the whole section can be read on that page. I tried to improve the false phrase by a rewording and the introduction of very good sources. They continually reverted it. You will notice that the List still fails to contain a single mention of chiropractic in any manner, even though numerous attempts have been made, even with good sources, to include its pseudoscientific aspects (vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, vitalism). This situation is caused mainly by the efforts of Levine2112, who claims to be a "chiropractic advocate" and has admitted he is here "to protect chiropractic's reputation." [8] The edit history of the List shows this charge to be true. This type of deletionism of well sourced inclusions needs to be stopped. It is disruptive protectionism and violates NPOV policy. When Anthon01 arrived, they became a tag team to protect chiropractic.

By editing the Physical Therapy article in the manner which he did, Anthon01 was effectively taking revenge by attempting to smear my profession. He was trying to do it at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and then he used a sock puppet to do it at the PT article itself. He also edited it using his Anthon01 username, in cooperation with Levine2112.

It is important to note that I respect NPOV, even when it goes against me and even when it means the addition of nonsense, as long as it is encyclopedic and properly sourced. That is why I didn't revert his additions or edit war with him and Levine2112, since the additions were properly sourced and to some degree true. Whether they are a notable POV is another matter, since the same can be said of some aspects in most mainstream medical professions, and most aspects of all alternative medicine. It is an especially ironic situation, considering it is an example of the Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy being used by two believers in alternative medicine and pseudoscience. They delete obviously good sources that criticize their favorite profession, and then attack a mainstream profession in revenge.

All of mainstream medicine has issues of this type because we are working with inherited techniques that seem to work, but are sometimes uncertain. Fortunately they are dumped if proven to be ineffective. That last part isn't mentioned by them in their edits there.... Within alternative medicine, and to a large degree chiropractic, this is not the case. Applied Kinesiology is itself a notable example of a pseudoscience being practiced by a rather large number of chiropractors. It is also an article which Anthon01 tried to dominate when he arrived here.

What should be done about this misuse of a sock puppet to edit disruptively (even when using good sources) is up to admins to decide. It was definitely not a collaborative situation. Just because it happened some time ago, doesn't mean it should go unpunished. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This definitely puts the use of the sock, together with copious volumes of other disruptive activites on the part of Anthon01, in a new light. Thanks Fyslee.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Prove it! Anthon01 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) are you not under some administrative restriction now? (2) your posts here speak for themselves. I rest my case.--Filll (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well consider me ignorant. I am under no admin restriction. Please clarify. Please consider WP is very new to me, and certainly this process of adminstrative review is. Anthon01 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Re: copious volumes of other disruptive activites. Prove it. This is hyperbole on your part. Anthon01 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is a bit too dangerous for me to engage in this sort of provocative and confrontational activity. I leave it to the admins who have already dealt with you and I suspect might deal with you further in the future if an attitude and behavior shift is not imminent. I hope so.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider striking out some of your inflammatory comments? Anthon01 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully decline to do so, until such time as I am informed by some authority that this was a mistake or has been rescinded, and Fyslee informs me that he was mistaken. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: This is mostly a rant. Theres is absolutely no need to respond to most of what you have written here as it belongs on a talk page. If you would like we can take it to your or my page, or a talk page if you find that more appropriate. If there is a specific violation policy that you think I should be penalized for then state it and I will respond. Anthon01 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: Please provide diffs. Anthon01 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth having this user around?

Can anyone point to one positive contribution this user has made? If not, should we consider, perhaps, a community ban? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this editor actually do any editing? While communication is an important part of the wikipedia process, it has to be balanced with contributions to our primary purpose - that of creating an ecyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of this balance. I think before a community ban, the editor should be encouraged to spend some time doing some editing... --Fredrick day (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 has done sufficient editing for the encouragement to be unnecessary. SA's point stands. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a fair point, sadly. The sheer tendentiousness by which he has handled his "defence" here does not suggest future promise, either. Orderinchaos 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reaction by his opponents to requests for diffs to substantiate the accusation of "stonewalling" (such requests have been made three times above and twice below by User:Dlabtot and twice above by User:Anthon01, and answered zero times) can, ironically enough (unless I've missed something) be reasonably characterized as stonewalling. —Random832 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a diff. Did you miss it? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of all kinds of problematic edits

• [9] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
• [10] Falsely claiming lack of consensus.
• [11] Disregarding a study to suit his POV.
• [12] Adding a red herring comment to further his disregard.
• [13] Adding emotive language to further insult the person offering the study.
• [14] Wikilawyering to push his POV.
• [15] Jumping to conclusions about how a review's "determination" will affect future research (as if that's Wikipedia' concern).
• [16] More Wikilawyering pretending that editors who are perhaps more steeped in NPOV than any other part of the encyclopedia don't understand it.
• [17] Discounting a survey based on raw numbers rather than considering the sampling (a common tactic of POV-pushers who wish to denounce a less-than-flattering survey).
• [18] Quixotic comment: perhaps meant to convey distrust of a source?
• [19] Pure stonewalling.
• [20] Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source.

I could keep going, but will spare the reader. Just go through his contributions. It's not hard to see that this user does not so much disrupt discussions as much as he destroys them with questionable rhetoric and ridiculous repetition.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing diffs. I will review them and comment later. Anthon01 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Why did you feel you needed to comment on each the diffs? If they're so damning, shouldn't they speak for themselves? Anthon01 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is User:ScienceApologist, one of the main combatants in this WP:BATTLE, who is providing this 'evidence', rather than User:East718, the blocking admin... Dlabtot (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have personally checked all of the diffs that ScienceApologist supplied. None of them seem remotely problematic to me, all of them seem perfectly appropriate. The last one, which ScienceApologist characterized as "Ad hominem dismissal of a reliable source" is particularly contrary to the fact that Quackwatch has been found to be an unreliable and partisan source by the Arbitration committee. —Whig (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, we know that you are not neutral on this issue. Please refrain from lobbying. I am unsure why East718 has not commented. The continued battling here is not helpful. Please send an email to East718 asking for a response, Anthon01. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be neutral on this issue, however. I am correct in pointing out counterfactual descriptions of diffs if nobody else will do so, as Anthon01 is entitled to have someone point that out. —Whig (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent him an email. ScienceApologist isn't neutral either as we are often on opposite sides of an issue. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

East.718 has not been online on 5 Feb, and only made one edit on 4 Feb. It's likely that he hasn't seen this thread. Horologium (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the statement that QW was found not to be a WP:RS was clarified to state that some QW pages are not reliable. Whig's statement above qualifies as censored tendentious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How so? Do you mean that incorrect statements are qualified as tendentious. Anthon01 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that Whig's statement is a misinterpretation of the ArbComm ruling as clarified. As it's being used in an edit war, that makes it tendentious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link to the ArbComm ruling? Anthon01 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Try here. Those QW links were ruled to be unreliable, but further discussion on WP:AE led to modifications not reflected in that ArbComm ruling. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I suppose to do with WP:AE link your provided? My question is serious. Is there an effective way to search through past AE decisions to locate QW related decisions? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to express concern that Jehochman has asked Whig to refrain from lobbying because Whig is not "neutral" on this case. However, neither is Jehochman or anyone else here (including myself)...and because there are a lot more people here who have strong POV against homeopathy and Anthon01, the result is obvious and predictable. I sincerely hope that all penalties against Anthon01 be voided until an independent and/or outside group analyse the situation. Anthon01 has continually be a gentleman, but he has also had a backbone, and many of us have continually seen an active effort to mute people who express a pro-homeopathy point of view. Considering all of the strongly worded antagonistic and even offensive statements that exist in many articles related to homeopathy, the individuals who try to provide some balance by providing RS, V, and notable references that just happen to provide a positive view of homeopathy are often harrassed, have their contributions deleted completely (not just partially), and have had efforts like this one to mute them. Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no response from East718. Its been 3 days. Anthon01 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeeny (talk · contribs) → GeeAlice (talk · contribs)

Just a heads up that I've filed an RFCU about Jeeny (talk · contribs) and GeeAlice (talk · contribs). It does not look like previous disruptive conduct is about to reform any time soon. — Zerida 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a notice on GeeAlice's talk page about this or the RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Notified GeeAlice, though I suspect she knew given that she deleted these quotes from her user page [21] (which User:Jeeny also used to have on hers) after I filed the 3RR report. — Zerida 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the quotes because of rude behavor by Zerida, and others. Zerida kept reverting a tag I placed on an image to be renamed, Egyptians.jpg to Egyptians collage.jpg. I posted to his talk page asking why, and he responded rudely. I was trying to explain the reason for this change, now this. ←Gee♥Alice 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I have indef blocked GeeAlice (talk · contribs) per the outcome of the checkuser. A no brainer since she logged out and started editwarring on the RFCU. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that User talk:Jeeny was deleted because Jeeny claimed to want to execute the right to vanish, but plainly has not done so, should it be undeleted? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lot of that going around lately, huh. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before she creates her next sockpuppet--I've seen it before. It doesn't stop their pathological obsession or stalking either. However, I don't think it was a good idea to delete the talk page; with such abusive users, all the evidence goes along with it. — Zerida 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page should definitely be undeleted. In fact, I seem to recall posting to this very board a while ago that Jeeny was going to be a problem user.....⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, problem users that use the right to disappear as a fast exit strategy should lose that right if they reappear. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• As the bowl of petunias said, "oh no, not again". I confidently expect this to carry on through numerous further iterations. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An inevitable outcome I am sad to say as long as there are editors/admins who feel the urge to provide support and protection to troubled and troublesome users. While it is quite clear to at least some of us that someone this disturbed not only should be nowhere near Wikipedia, but should have been blocked long ago, others apparently disagree! I have this vague memory of the project being about "building an encyclopedia", not running a social service clinic, or a forum where we "hang", keep each other company, and let people run roughshod over every policy and guideline to maintain our POV. — Zerida 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit-war

Hi, I was recently banned so I took a break and haveing been said that, I feel I should ask for help before it escalates. Here's the situation, I've been trying to edit on an article and I provided a reference in the form of a narrative from the video game itself, but there seems to be some people who don't feel I can interpret the narratives portrayals. I do believe the below adheres to my right to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyway, here's the page: [22]

"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." InternetHero (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The short version is, you personally are not a secondary source but rather an agent of original research. Find an appropriately published secondary source with the game narrative and you may have something to work with -- though simply having a source is not itself a guarantee that the material is suitable for inclusion (I make no judgment either way here). — Lomn 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what's being added: plot summaries are almost always sourced to the fictional work in question, because they are neither interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims. But if you, InterhentHero, are doing any more than provided a straightforward plot summary, you should use secondary sources. Natalie (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. What type of source is the games' narrative? I don't even feel I'm making synthetic claims at all. In a nutshell, my interpretaion of the narrative doesn't fall far from simple translation. The character obviously uses the words, 'feel', 'owww', and 'me', yet the other editors feel that this isn't sufficient evidence to interpret that the character does have some self-awareness. For all we know, the other characters could be all cross-dressors, but the only place-holder here is our reason telling us that it is logical that they're not. I feel I'm simply using logic. Does such an interpretation fall further from the narrative than I think? InternetHero (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The game itself is a primary source, and can be used to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" (WP:PSTS). Unfortunately, if there is disagreement among editors about your representation of a narrative, it may be best to concede your point, whatever its merits (since by definition it is not therefore "easily verifiable" to them), and concentrate instead on finding a reliable source to support the information you wish to add. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like your straying too far into interpretation to be using the game narrative as your only source here. While your claim does make logical sense, it is a synthesis of new material to claim that a character has self-awareness because it uses certain words. So finding secondary sources would be your best bet here. Natalie (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:VoABot II

User:VoABot II just reverted my edits to Jerry Hall where I added several references substantiating that Jerry Hall and Grace Jones shared an apartment together. This was hardly spam! 64.122.14.55 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. bibliomaniac15 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted to add three references because none of them were particularly strong. Only one was a blog. But all the references were removed in the revert. 64.122.14.55 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So try re-adding the references that weren't blogs. A bot can't be perfect. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can try adding them one at a time using {{cite web}}. Ones that don't make it can be added to the article's talk page. OTOH, a blog, another wiki, and one person's report are hardly reliable sources.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating bots could be perfect but that it should be mended as I have obviously found a defect. I am well aware my citations are far from the most reliable, however, methinks that is better than nothing there (the point is, everyone is welcome to add content and I was trying to exercise my ability by contributing; I was not trying to deface by adding links for purposes of promoting such sites). The suggestions about adding one citation at a time and adding the remainder to the talk page is a good interim workaround. 64.122.14.55 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat blocked indefinitely

I have blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs) for what seems to be a bizarre pattern of disruption - odd "joke" edits such as [23], adding provocative discussion to Jimbo's talk page when Jimbo has nothing to do with it at all, edit warring with other users on their talk pages, making POINTy userspace pages that have been repeatedly speedied, among many others; all with very contribution to building our encyclopedia. Others have tried to reason with/warn him, such as at User talk:Zenwhat#Your purpose here and User talk:Zenwhat#Only warning, but it really just seems like he's only here for general disruption and trolling of the project and its community. I think it's clear that the community is at the end of its rope with him, and I have blocked him indefinitely; I welcome any further review or comments from the community. krimpet✽ 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

About time someone stopped the trolling. β^_command 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and endorse indef block. I think we've had enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this block. I also posted to Zenwhat's talk page recently here; seems no amount of hinting is getting through to an obviously intelligent editor. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2):From what I can tell of the timeline, his only edit after the final warning was a reasonable discussion of "the Register" article on Jimbo's talk page which in itself isn't reason for block. Granted some of his edits have been "weird", he hasn't done anything block worthy after the mentioned final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This was an older one. I had been musing on what to do myself - [24]....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Might be a little abrupt, but sometimes enough is enough. RxS (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block per these edits: "inclusionism the force of evil," "inclusionism and deletionism are evil," [25], [26], "The inclusionist cabal," [27], [28], and [29]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which happened before his final warning.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been expecting this block for a while. Yes, there's a chance that he'll behave better if someone unblocks him, but more likely, he'll just be re-indef'd in two weeks or so. --Carnildo (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"For instance, I assume that your constructive PETA and WP:V are just a cover for your anti-Libyan POV pushing. " Joking or not, that's trolling. Endorse the block. — DarkFalls ^talk 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Been watching it since this [30]. Endorse the block, trolling needs to stop.--Ѕandahl 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the block, it just seems so sudden, from the look of his talk page the user was discussing about a warning concerning his behavior shortly before being blocked, perhaps it would have been wise to let that discussion continue (since he only edited mainspace once after it was started) or at least issuing a shorter block before the indef. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this block - Zenwhat's mostly meta-editing, and a lot of it's silly, but very little of it crosses the line into truly disruptive.

Mostly or entirely meta-editing is an issue, which has been held to be something which isn't good and needs to be corrected. Crossing the line with silly stuff has also been held to be a problem.

But this block fails to AGF and fails to give the type of clear warnings and good-faith efforts to work with the user to correct problematic behavior that we expect.

I am strongly inclined to unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a reasonable case, I think. From the support for the block it sound like many people find him annoying, but this in itself isn't reason for an indef block. Maybe people with serious concerns about his editing would consider an RFC? An indef block is a harsh step if other dispute resolution avenues have not yet been explored. Friday (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How are edits like this not disruptive? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also done before his final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's disruptive (on the disruptive side of being silly, but disruptive). No warning, no shorter block, straight to indef because of this? This exceeds the tolerance band for "exhausted community patience". Failure to provide adequate feedback to problem users and adequate opportunity for reform is a massive failure of administrator good faith. Mentor? Sure. Shorter block? Sure. Warnings? Definitely. Indef right now? I am wondering if it's necessary to file an arbcom case. Hopefully both the community and Krimpet see reason and adjust response accordingly.

If all he does for the next month, after being properly warned and helped and talked to and shorter blocked, is more disruption, then I stand aside. Lacking those efforts... this is wrong, here and now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block from the diffs provided and my interactions with the user. Lara❤Love 05:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I've encountered Zenwhat on various pages and generally found his comments to usually be somewhere between comically strange and trolling. Unfortunately his comments have been mostly toward the latter lately. I endorse this block. Mr.Z-man 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would advocate that an unblock be applied only if he is mentored, otherwise remain blocked. I might be biased, as I have only seen the more negative sides of him, but the mere existence of blatantly POINTy requests and actions and trolling over an extended period of time is too poignant to ignore. AGF does not mean we don't react if we keep getting slapped in the face. —Kurykh 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is extreme overkill. Blocking itself is a last resort, and indef. blocking even more so. Do shorten this block, per the blocking policy. This user has gotten two blocks in their time here. Is there any reason to believe that a 24 hour block would not suffice? -- Ned Scott 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, no other blocks or anything of the sort, just jumping directly to the banhammer seems inappropiate, and I feel that the block was placed to get rid of him because he has a tendency of being "annoying". - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Support block, though uncertain on length of time. Zenwhat has little to no understanding of our basic policies, and even when they are explained, he responds with nothing more than contempt. Here he refers to me as a single purpose account and POV-pusher. There is no doubt in my mind Zenwhat is a reincarnation of a former editor (banned or retired, again I'm not sure) and his edits do nothing to benefit this project. With that said, Zenwhat needs to immediately change his ways, but there is a chance he could be a productive editor if he does so. - auburnpilot talk 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a block is in order, but we shouldn't conclude an indef block yet. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, indefinite doesn't mean infinite; it just means the length of the block hasn't been decided or will be determined by the future actions of the blocked user. Sancho 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the indef block given much of what I've seen over the last several weeks. But since I can reasonably guess it'll be shortened, I'd support a namespace ban, no edits to the project space/project talk space for 2 months, excepting Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Possibly extending to other "discussion" spaces, depending on a more detailed examination of his edits. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think that might be too extreme. Give him a 24 hour, or even a week long block. He's only gotten one other block other than the one he has now. I've come across him in the project talk namespace, and while I thought his comments were a bit off the wall, I didn't consider it disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, please do remember that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite," whatever precedent may indicate or imply. An unblock or shortening of the existing block is still on the table. —Kurykh 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a shortening of his block to a week or more and then a Wikispace ban after that, besides requests to AIV, RPP, and the like. I think that indef blocking is overkill in this case, but the trolling still warrants a block for a longer period of time. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block. The user has been bordeline trolling at the Village Pump for some time; his discussions are unneccesarily provacative. I would support an unblock ONLY under the condition that he receive a ban against all non-article editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would people support a reduction to 48 hours with a further warning? He's had a 24 hour block, for a similar reason, 48 might be a good middle ground for a next step. RxS (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if that includes a temporary ban on project space. - auburnpilot talk 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The original indef block makes more sense than a reduction to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, too bad the blocking policy doesn't think that way. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he'll get the message enough that we won't need a project space ban. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits seem silly. If we believed that the user was interested in stopping the problematic behavior today, then there would be overwhelming support to overturn the block. 48 hours is not a magic number, unless we are in the business of handing out "sentances" for "crimes", and last I checked, that was not part of an admin's job description. Unless the user agrees to abide by a Wikipedia: namespace ban, I don't see where any arbitrarily shortened block would serve any purpose at all. This block is not an attempt to stop an imminently disruptive behavior, this is a chronic problem and deserves a permanent solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Our procedure for handling chronic problems is warn, warn, warn, try to mentor, warn, block short period, warn, try to mentor, block longer period, warn, warn, try to mentor, block slightl longer period... and repeat a bunch until indef is the last option left.

If that procedure is followed and at the end of it, Zenwhat remains disruptive, then pull the plug. But this action has unacceptably foreshortened the endgame. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

INdeed. I agree with you 100%. I was questioning the wisdom of a 48 hour block for this. Again, we are not a court system, we don't hand out punishments. One of two things must be true: The user either poses an iminent threat that we need to stop NOW (i.e. edit warring or 3RR), or the user has exhausted the patience of the community and is no longer welcome. The debate should be about unblocking them NOW or leaving it as an indefiniate block. The inbetween stuff is pointless, as it serves no purpose. We're not lawyers working out a plea-bargin here. We're trying to decide if this user poses a net risk to Wikipedia. If they don't, unblock them now. If they do, leave it up indefinately. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think he should be blocked at all, but I figure 48 was something to make those who wanted indef something they could see as reasonable. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a bit concerned about the timing of this block relative to the arrival of an article critical of Wikipedia which Zenwhat claimed to have been a (apparently unwitting) part of. Feels like someone felt he borke the first rule of Fight Club Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a link for this? -- Ned Scott 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This link? Endorse shortened block and project space ban. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not even 48 hours. His only edit after the final warning, was not a disruptive one and he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place until he violated that final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So he is allowed to disregard all previous warnings, but if he supposedly heeds the final warning, which shouldn't be needed in the first place, he should be unblocked? Every warning should be a final warning. —Kurykh 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Say what ???? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No but at least that should have been taken under consideration before blocking, usually blocks are issued when a violation happens after the final warning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecX5): Considering it was given as a final warning, even named as such on his talk page, he shouldn't have been blocked until he violated it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ecXmany) Endorse unblock (with extreme reluctance, because I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia's a more pleasant place without him) for several reasons, primarily those put forward by User:Allstarecho. If he violates his final warning after being unblocked, he should receive escalating blocks. He's just not a clear enough troll to warrant an indef. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Haggling

So, we've got quite a crowd endorsing the indefinite, and a few strongly objecting. How about a week? It's not at all obvious to me that dispute resolution methods short of the indefinite block have been exhausted. Friday (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather want a guarantee that he will change and his understanding of what the consequences of another such violation of our policies here will be, rather than an arbitrary block duration that is almost meaningless. —Kurykh 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't make someone turn on a dime. Lets ask for reasonable improvement. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat has an unusual contribution history. His very first edit (and 3 subsequent edits) were to his monobook.css file. His fourth was a revert on The Transhumanist's user page. Has anyone done a check to see if these users are the same person? Zenwhat is clearly not a new user when he signed up for his account. It's possible, of course, that he had been editing for some time under an IP address (which is allowed), but it's more likely that he is either a reincarnation of another user, or a sockpuppet. None of that is necessarily against Wikipedia rules, but this account has been used from the start primarily for disruptive and bizarre project-space edits. If the account is a sock, then it should be blocked and the user told to stop doing silly stuff and to edit from his main account. If not, the user should be restricted to editing only articles (no project space or user space) and put on vandalism parole. *** Crotalus *** 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted to being a previous user and having re-regged after forgetting his old password. He's not so much a sock as he is a nuisance. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with a temp/indef project space ban is that we'd have no way to judge if he's gotten the message. I think he's proven he knows the behavioral guidelines well enough to know the effect he has by his editing patterns, he's gotten warnings...48 hours seems right. Can we get a general agreement on that? RxS (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, see my comments above. A any temporary length block is arbitrary. It would be punishment, and we do not punish. Either unblock now, or leave the block up. If we believe the user will cease the problematic behavior, then there is no reason to leave the block in place. If we believe the user will not cease the problematic behavior, then what is the point of simply allowing them to continue the behavior in 48 hours? What is magic about 48 hours or 1 week or any other number? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not any amount of time. As I said above, his only 2 edits after the final warning, were not a disruptive ones and he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place until he violated that final warning. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then unblock, we can't predict what pattern he will take if he only was able to edit the mainspace once after receiving the final warning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd have a point if this was a regular vandal, but we're talking about an experienced user who should know better. He's gotten enough feedback to know that his edits were a problem, whether they were official warnings or not. RxS (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No number is magical. But the answer is likely to be somewhere in between "unblock right now" and "never unblock". A few days block would help make it clear to Zenwhat that many editors find his behavior problematic. Friday (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will oppose any unblock that does not contain the guarantee that he will change his attitudes, behavior, and actions, and a method of dealing with him if such circumstances arise again. Enough of his disruption and trolling. —Kurykh 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block is way, way overkill here. Not appropriate at all. Bstone (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat has retired per [31]. MBisanz ^talk 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not pay that any mind. He's obviously upset (with a right to be), and so I don't think it's fair to say that his retirement is permeant. Regardless of that, his account should be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not reviewed Zenwhat's edits and know him only from interactions on my talk page. Mostly he has come there and joked around, but not in any particularly bad way if I recall. We have had some tongue-in-cheek discussions that I enjoyed. However, article space joking around is of course Not Funny(tm), and I don't approve of that. But making fun of Cade Metz's bizarre rantings in The Register seems like a good thing. I would recommend and request that he be unblocked but under a very firm request not to joke around in article space. Of course I say this not having reviewed his contributions, so I could be wrong. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems largely NOT with his article-space edits, but with his unneccessarily provocative edits in the project-space, such as here at ANI and on the Village Pump. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is "provocative"? The blocking admin said that the last edit (straw?) to JW's page was "provocative", but clearly not everyone sees it that way. R. Baley (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be diplomatic. He's been trolling the project discussion pages for some time. That is the central issue. Again, leave the block up or unblock now. The rest of this seems like we're plea-bargining over a punishment, and that is not why we block people. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone looked over Zenwhat's recent contributions at Wikipedia Talk:IAR and Wikipedia Talk:WIARM since Miszabot'a recent archive? Scroll down some, it's hard to miss Zenwhat accusing, and harassing other editors as a first line of argument. Then the appeals to logic( a personal and solipsistic variety). Does Zenwhat wish to contribute to Wikipedia? In any meaningful way? The rants on these talk pages are contrary to efficient use of the Wikipediaspace talkpages, and these are policies. Not that Zenwhat is the only disruptive editor to show up on such pages, or the worst one ever, of course. Newbyguesses - Talk 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is not the first step

A ban is the last step in the process, not the first one. The first step is giving this user specific ways he/she can improve, possibly through an RFC. He's come across my radar before and I've raised an eyebrow, but he's obviously a good faith user and it's worth taking a chance on trying to help him improve. --B (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is banning him. We just want to see a commitment to improvement. How hard is it to achieve that? All I see is whimpers of "too harsh" and "should be unblocked" and "blocked after final warning," yet I see no genuine attempts or proposals of committing Zenwhat to get his act together by the naysayers here. —Kurykh 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe that final warning did what you're wanting? We will never know since he was blocked anyway, will we? Especially since he's now retired from WP. Shame too. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I have lost any good faith on Zenwhat heeding warnings, given his prior responses to them. —Kurykh 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(to Kurykh) No, that's not how it works. We don't care if he says sorry and gives us puppy eyes. This block is extreme overkill. We have other ways to deal with this, and any blocking is seen as a last resort. If you don't like that, Kurykh, take it up with the blocking policy. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who doesn't want the unconditional unblock, as you can see from this thread. And I don't need him to give puppy eyes and say sorry. I just want an explicit commitment from him, and a detail of consequences were decorum be breached again. This is common procedure in these cases. I just don't see why we are allowing this one to be the sole exception. —Kurykh 06:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that he was given a final warning, he did not cause any further violations and yet he was indef blocked anyways. That is plainly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is all over the place. How about an unblock for now with a strong warning that there are serious concerns about his behavior. The point has probably been driven home effectively over the last hour. It also has to be made clear that Jimbo's comments above do not sanction his editing habits. Let's head off any more drama, and see how he reacts to all this? RxS (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support an unblock now. I know I said something different WAY back there, but yes, the point is made. If the problems return, the block can return. He's hardly "under the radar" now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have grave concerns about due process here. It seems to me that several possible steps in dispute resolution and blocking procedure were skipped. As much as Zenwhat irritates me, this is a miscarriage. I'm discomfited by it. I would support a week's block, but indef is far too extreme. - Philippe | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked and put on probation

See User talk:Zenwhat#Unblocked - I have unblocked Zenwhat as there is clearly disagreement here as to the appropriateness of the block. I have also left a more clearer and wide-ranging (and less bitey) warning and probation statement there.

I invite admins to work with him with friendly discussion and cautions as appropriate. As I noted on his talk page, further serious disruption should be met by (short but increasingly long) blocks as per policy. I am not giving him a pass - I have applied longstanding user sanctions policy here. If he continues to be disruptive act appropriately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the block, I think there is something special about this user. The user is over active, intelligent and very aware of the wikipedia policies and its history. The user knows the system from a high level perspective: See how the user responded to me at [32], it closed my mouth to some extent. I am mostly interested to know this user, admittedly the strangest user I have ever seen on wikipedia. I originally thought that the user is over active because he wants to become an admin, and tried to check this hypothesis, but as of now, I think the user is just active in nature. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is [33] worth seeing. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That [34] is extremely clever! And of course has some insight, inasmuch as it simply applies the eightfold way to Wikipedia. Leaves me with a grinding sense of envy that I didn't do it. Anway, what are you guys doing blocking this guy, whose major contribution seems to be to make you think when you're rather not? Ignore him if that is the case! Banning or indef blocking (too little difference these days between the two given editors dislike of going against each other) is very harsh. And should be reserved for clear vandals, not gadflies. Definition of Clear Vandal, in case you've forgotten: ISP user who erases article or part of one, and inserts "Johhny suuucks *&%$." SBHarris 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He's Back

[35] Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against issuing any blocks against against this user whatsoever . As I mentioned above, this user is special and the above diff provided by Charles proves this further. This user may have things to say and I for one want to listen if there is anything to be learned. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I have now blocked him for one week for his behaviour since his unblock. You can see my explanation on his talk page[36]. Feel free to extend, unblock, or whatever else is appropriate and has some consensus here. Fram (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block. What was wrong with village pump post? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That it was trolling / stirring up drama by alleging secret information right after a warning against trolling? It was a pretty good own goal, though, as the financial statements had just been published less than an hour before Zenwhat's post. I don't know if one week was the proper block length, but some block was probably necessary if we want "probation" to mean anything. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

... And that he removed comments by others when he removed the thread he started. You are not allowed to remove the comments by other people just because you change your mind for whatever reason. Doing this when one is only just unblocked and put on probation was not the best move. Fram (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the validity of his claims but why was it trolling?

And removing the section he had started does not create sufficient ground for a block; all the other comments were responses to his original comment after all. The proper way was to archive it, though, but this is a minor thing after all... --Be happy!! (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First, while the terms of Georgewilliamherbert's probation do preclude the use of Wikipedia primarily for meta-discussion, and Zenwhat did post a meta-discussion post. But he later removed it. It should be apparent that the removal of the post was an indication that Zenwhat regretted the post or at least realised it would cause disruption; or that, instead of immediately blocking Zenwhat, he should at least be engaged on his talk page. By removing his post he has, at the very least, proved himself somewhat reasonable and sensitive to the terms of probation.

Zenwhat is already on a short leash, and realises that now. He also realised that posting the thread was disruptive, and in his realisation removed the thread. And now we are blocking him for his actions upon realisation, as opposed to reinstating the thread, archiving it and counseling Zenwhat? Ridiculous. --Iamunknown 15:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat recognises that he should have archived rather than removed. However, the notion of this being a "1 week blocking offence"-type disruption is ridiculous. The discussion was still preserved in the history (an argument that Jimbo Wales has used to justify courtesy blanking of ArbCom pages). The edit summary makes the fact that the intent was to prevent disruption clear. Fram should reverse this block. Failing that, and even in the absence of an unblock request from Zenwhat, another admin should step in and rectify Fram's mistake. Fram's decision to restore the section - unarchived - appears not so much an attempt to preserve comments as it was an attempt to hold Zenwhat up to ridicule. I base this on the comment Fram made on Zenwhat's talk page (now stricken) that the section in question made him look a fool. This was not a cool and dispassionate use of tools based on an objective look at the situation, and the block should be reversed on that basis alone. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just a case of someone wanting him blocked and using the terms of his probation as an excuse. Georgewilliamherbert's stipulations do not prevent Zenwhat from meta-discussion. Georgewilliamherbert only pointed out that Zenwhat's meta-discussion are considered controversial and objectionable. He didn't outright say "don't post meta-discussion". The Village Pump post was not in violation of the probation terms nor was it disrupting. In fact, many users were engaged in the conversation. He does have the right to remove something, especially since he felt he put it there in the first place out of anger. He even had the best possible edit summary explaining his removal. This block as well is foul. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the policy change where it is allright to remove posts from other users just because you initiated the thread... And the best possible edit summary? He didn't want a flamefest, so he removed a post that was (according to you) not disruptive, and where no flames or even smoke were apparent... Fram (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

After all the discussion about his first block, and then an unblock and a warning he writes Based on a certain inside informer I know, I have learned that in 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation has been squandering your donations?? And spamming it on editors talk pages. I think a week is fine....that's pretty dang close to a classic case of trolling, no matter if he did remove it later. Endorse re-block, if someone wants to adjust the length that's fine, but it's clear he learned nothing from the first go around. RxS (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this block supposed to be preventing? Blocks are, after all, preventative, not punitive. Given that he deleted the thread himself, he sort of seems a low risk of re-offending. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It prevents the exact type of behavior the user would continue in if left unblocked. that is what it prevents. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems he undid the offending post. If this sort of behaviour or other behaviour breaching the probation was to continue then there would be merit for a block, but a single offence of questionable intent doesn't seem to cut it. I'd rather see how this travels before we get a decision. Have unblocked per the discussion here and on Zenwhat's talk page - does not preclude further blocks if he offends again, but I think he's got the message that change is expected of him. Orderinchaos 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are far worse users who get a bye here at Wikipedia

Interesting how this particular user seems to have gotten the goad of some of the *ahem* usual suspects. Sure, this user is rough around the edges (kinda like me) and has done some things that are provocative -- perhaps even to the point of trying the community patience. But that you guys would see fit to block Zenwhat indefinitely and then hold the hand of many of the other argumentative weirdos that use Wikipedia as their personal playground for disruption is beyond me. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Zenwhat's announced retirement has quite possibly closed this matter. I personally hope that there will be no need to return to it in the future; a satisfactory solution looks unlikely, and Zenwhat's approach makes it doubtful that his work could have the intended positive effect on the community. --Kizor 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of his comments are kinda crazy, but I've found some his input to be helpful and positive. So no, you are wrong. This block is unnecessary, and should be undone. I'll give a standing offer to Zen that if he wants anything posted, I'll do it for him. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There was some well-intended bits in there but the tin-foil hats required made much of it, ironically, static which they seemed to object to. Benjiboi 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NiggardlyNorm

NiggardlyNorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Carlossuarez46 blocked NiggardlyNorm as a result of the latter's comments to the former at User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Major_Garrett_deletion. Norm has requested an unblock and I'm inclined to grant it as an obviously unjustifiable block. Since Carlos appears to have logged off for the evening, I wanted to bring it here before taking any action. Any objections to removing the block? --B (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I support the unblock, I also support and early close at AfD for the bad faith nomination of the article for deletion, so that after NN returns, he can build the article nicely. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I revised the article under question somewhat with a new reference and section division. I hope that helps! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not a bad-faith nom. The article was one sentence long, and it wasn't even a particularly good sentence. The nominator speedied, the article was re-created, so he took it to AFD. He shouldn't have blocked an editor for personal attacks when he was the subject of the attacks, but let's not go overboard in assuming bad faith, please. -- Vary | Talk 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominated, then immediately blocks the author under the most specious of reasoning? That IS bad faith. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI to anyone reading this, I've unblocked him. We can leave this up here a little while longer in case anyone else has something to say about it or the blocking admin wants to comment. --B (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone here know what the word Niggardly means? I don't think KikieKate or ChinkyChuck would be acceptable either. Charles Stewart (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone in the Wikimedia universe does. ;) <-- extraordinarily rare emoticon placed there because, in my estimation, to fail to do so would be a violation of WP:CIVIL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Niggardly" means "miserly", but, some are sensitive to the use of this word [37]. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We even have our own article about it: Controversies about the word "niggardly". Natalie (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, apparently some people feel that calling a person a bot is OK, and that denial of one's humanity is not problematic, perhaps more especially from someone who has deliberately chosen a name that - while technically not a slur - is clearly meant to stir up emotions, just like I know that Spic & Span is a cleanser and fag is a cigarette, so who have called me those must be complimenting my cleanliness and my similarity to a cigarette. Yeah, right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that his name isn't a racial slur. The mayor of Washington fired someone for using it several years back and was roundly criticized by basically everyone in the media who speaks the English language. This word and the racial slur are completely unrelated in their derivation. If he were editing articles about racial issues ... ok ... that would strain the ability to assume good faith ... but he isn't. As for his conduct, if there was anything out of line, responding with a template only inflamed the situation. --B (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said: Technically not a slur, but calculated to cause controversy. We have a username policy that is not limited to actual racial slurs, but includes names calculated to disrupt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To borrow an example from Radley Balko, what next: we ban usernames with "chicanery" in them so that no Chicanos take offense? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• WP:AGF: people aren't under obligation to anticipate every misconstruction of their username. Niggardly is a legitimate word in polite discussion among people who know their etymology. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of its similarity to a racial slur, use of the word is obviously and needlessly provocative. Coupled with an abrasive tone, it's not irrational for another editor to have their guard up when dealing with this user. The Major Garrett AfD nomination was entirely appropriate, and the reaction by Norm was a little more aggressive and confrontational than it needed to be. Did Carlossuarez46 overreact? Maybe, but nothing that deserves any kind of sanction. Torc2 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility User:Calton

Resolved

After two requests for civility,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=189856899

User:Calton persists in making increasingly uncivil remarks and unsubstantiated, if not boggling, accusations about various users, such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen&diff=189873578&oldid=189867643.

His vitriol began shortly after I and User:Boodlesthecat reported User:Griot.

Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor is this a new sockpuppet. It's obviously the return of an obsessive edit-warrior and self-promoter, the indefinitely blocked Telogen (talk · contribs) aka blocked-for-six-months 76.166.123.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) aka Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Forum-shopping again for her crusade about the evilness of Griot and her perceived enemies. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. Oh, and this IP was itself blocked a month for sockpuppeting back in November. That part is obvious: the Checkuser is only to see if there's a connection between the IP -- which has a history of sockpuppeting -- and her new ally.

This IP also seems to make a lot of odd claims in hoping to make something stick, including the physically impossible -- unless she has evidence that cause-and-effect works backwards? --Calton | Talk 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

False accusations and acidic insults only serve to confirm User:Calton WP:CIVIL violations. In fact, I have no idea what this user is talking about. I started sharing this apartment in January, and the rest is mind-boggling to me. Someone named Jeanne and a User:Telogen, who User:Calton clearly defames and/or dislikes and apparently shares this with User:Griot, and User:Boodlesthecat, who has a solid history as a good editor and member of the community. Is this what Wikipedia is about? I thought we were an encyclopedia, building and sharing knowledge, not a vehicle for personal vendetta, political POV pushing and slanderous attacks. If I stand corrected, then Wikipedia is reduced to a shock blog, and I will not participate in that.

User:Calton is correct on one point. I do use Time Warner, the second largest ISP in the U.S. 4.1 million subscribers. Thank you for your attention, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=189912532. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just see a duck going quack quack. Keep up the good work Calton. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. day, I hope that when check user reveals Calton's accusations are false, you'll be large enough to apologize. Supporting incivility, a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, is wrong. Your comments are disappointing. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The anon IP 76.87.47.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for six more months by Ryulong (talk · contribs), thus ending at least this bit of excess drama. --Calton | Talk 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers there's a boatload of socks on that IP. I'll check them all tonight, unless Ali beats me to it. :) Thatcher 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Time out

Ms Spicuzza is a writer / reporter for the SF Weekly magazine, see [43], who contacted the Wikimedia foundation PR staff and has been talking to a number of Wikipedians.

She has a particular angle about a local story in San Francisco that she's interested in, yes, but she is a legitimate press contact as far as I know and the Foundation know. I talked to her on the phone for about 20 min a few weeks ago, as have a number of others.

If there is an abuse case going on here, please get REALLY REALLY SPECIFIC about what's going on and who is doing what - if it is not Ms Spicuzza (User:Marynega) then don't tar her with participation in it. If it is, please let me and the Foundation (Cary Bass and Sandy Ordonez Jay Walsh have been working with her) know asap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be Jay Walsh rather than Sandy Ordonez. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - We appear to have two different Ms Spicuzza's - User:Marynega is the one I am referring to, who I talked to on the phone, etc. I have no information regarding Jeanne Marie Spicuzza and wasn't initially aware that these were two separate people, I thought it was confusion over the name. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure that there are two Spicuzzas (Spicuzzi?). Over half a year ago, User:Telogen and sockpuppets, who probably belong to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Telogen, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza), were in a dispute with Calton and Griot at the Ralph Nader article.

Now, User:Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) wants to write an article about Griot [44], because his "name has come up quite a bit in [her] reporting" [45]? This seems quite odd, especially since User:Telogen has recently reappeared as User:76.87.47.110, restarted the edit wars on Ralph Nader, and started threads complaining about Calton and Griot (including this one). I hear ducks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Marynega left messages on the talk pages of 3 of the confirmed sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen asking them to contact her. Another sock connected to this group is User:GridiotinSanFranciski, an obvious impersonator of Griot (and already blocked on that basis). Something strange is going on here. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to state that my run-ins with J.M. Spicuzza are only tangentially about Ralph Nader and my only connection with User:Griot is we both have been targeted by her: an "enemy of my enemy is my friend", perhaps. My original interest was her vanity bio and its related articles and edits -- an article which, BTW, I'd put on my watchlist and left alone for several months, waiting for something to happen before I finally nominated it voting on its deletion and others at AFD. Which she took very badly. [Altered original comment: man, my memory is slipping]

I'd also like to state that I don't think Mary Spicuzza is the same person as Jeanne Marie Spicuzza -- Mary has a record of being a bonafide reporter for an alt-weekly in San Francisco -- but I suspect that there's a HUGE conflict of interest going on here. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pfistermeister

Can an admin take a look at the behaviour of User:Pfistermeister at the Hamlet (1996 film) page? Almost every contribution there seems to be a WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF & WP:NPA violation, including:

• twit
• This is *idiotic* and *sub-literate*
• Don't degrade the page by your amateurish hostility to anything you don;t know.
• Under-informed contributor degrading page.
• You reveal yourself to have a desperately inadequate knowledge of the sources, as well as distinctly poor reading skills. (Or do you have some kind of agenda? Perhaps you think this is 'your page'....?). and (same diff) Clearly you know nothing about any of this. You are out of your depth. You are an inept amateur degrading the page. Please stop.
• I have already shown that you have inadequate knowledge of this topic; your accusation that I have somehow contributed OR merely reinforces the impression and (same diff) I will not give way to an amateur who merely wants it deleted.

The user talk page suggests the user has a bit of a similar problem on other pages. I've given a warning of sorts here. AndyJones (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot that a lot of those seem to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That's really arrogant edit summarizing, nad fairly arrogant editing, too. If he does any more at all, I'd support a block. ThuranX (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned as to civility; deferring to a more experienced user about OR and so on. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interventions. I'll post back if there are further problems. AndyJones (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further infractions, today:

• the difference between us is that *you* do actual damage to pages you *know nothing about* and (same diff) what you insultingly and cluelessly call 'my personal theories' and (same diff) Happy now, amateurs...?. I have given a further "warning" here. AndyJones (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pfistermeister's broken 3RR, and has clearly passed into the realms of WP:TE. He continues to assert that because HE is not wrong, the information belongs in the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Further violation of WP:NPA: You and your under-informed chums are applying a manifest double standard to my contributions on a page you seem to think is your personal property. AndyJones (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And another: Your antipathy to me is making you irrational and reckless. AndyJones (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or do Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and the talk page of the article nominated for deletion appear to have more socks than a branch of Sock Shop? _GB^T/C 17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you, and the whole thing has been giving me an itchy block finger from the outset. I found "one or two" SPAs when I first responded to an OTRS complaint about this:

• Obscuredata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tepid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Academic38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Drstones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• OrionClemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Amelia9mm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Franknfair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Academic2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Coligny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Clearly we can add a few more to that inglorious list:

• Billingsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Slintfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• InformationKey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LAstride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jrichardstevens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

What say, block the lot? Guy (Help!) 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. AfD a pointless mess, being used to continue some pointless vendetta. Not that the article talkpage is much better. Relata refero (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would another admin please review this huge number of blocks? While it seems likely that some of them are either sock or meat puppets (I even filed an SSP report on some of them), I think others have demonstrated a willingness to work within Wikipedia guidelines. Blocking the lot of them as "disruptive SPAs" seems excessive. Pairadox (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is overkill. I'm looking at Jrichardstevens (talk · contribs), who is requesting unblock. His explanation of how he found the AFD seems reasonable and he is a long-time, though infrequent user. Unless someone can offer a really good reason for this block, I'm inclined to remove it.--B (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please include Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) in your review, since nobody else seems to be looking at these. Pairadox (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These are all single purpose accounts with an agenda of either promoting or knocking a marginally notable company. We can do without them. All of them. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note the newly created User:Athoughtforyou, another SPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at Nomoskedasticity, I see no reason for this account to be blocked. It's focused on a single article, yes, but it is not being disruptive about it in any way that I can see. Sandstein (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, unblock that user then. The rest can stay blocked, at least until the deletion debate is finished, and forever if the article is kept. They are bringing an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, and that is all they are doing. We simply don't need that. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

With your agreement, I've granted Nomoskedasticity's unblock request. Sandstein (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Review of three of the above blocks

I agree with B that this is overkill. Three are quite clearly not single-purpose accounts. I agree in principle with the blocks of those editing the article and AfD disruptively, but I don't agree with the lengths. The Oxford Round Table situation needed sorting out, but some of these accounts are new (only 2-5 edits), and probably arrived here to take part in the AfD, but, if handled correctly (a stern warning, for example), could learn their lessons and (in time, after learning how things work around here) contribute to Wikipedia. They could be, for example, American or Oxford academics, who, if properly guided and introduced to Wikipedia, could really provide some good contributions - this at least argues for a warning and guidance, rather then being labelled SPAs after only 2-5 edits (sockpuppets excepted, if we can identify them).

One of the three accounts that are, in my opinion, examples of collateral damage is: Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm.

I also looked at this thread from Guy's (JzG's) talk page, about the block of Jrichardstevens:

• [46] (Revolving Bugbear raises concerns)
• [47] (the account holder also objects to the block)
• [48] (Guy's reply)

I've urged Guy (by e-mail and on his talk page), to look again at:

• Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens
• Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm

These are as far from being single-purpose accounts as it is possible to be (remember that the Oxford Round Table article was created on 13:10, 9 December 2007):

Jrichardstevens: Account created 4 November 2005

Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Wikipedia namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more. But given his reaction to the block Guy placed, that may no longer happen.

Amelia9mm: Account created 25 May 2007

Two minor edits to the article in question. Absolutely no reason to block.

If we look at the account creation dates for the accounts listed in that ANI thread, we see that all the accounts, except three, were created in the period from December 2007 to February 2008. Two of those created before that period are the ones I've mentioned above. The other one is Drstones (who created the article in question):

• Special:Contributions/Drstones
• Account created August 2006.

And indeed, when we look closer, we see that the initial edits of this account are fine:

• [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]

And from later:

• [55], [56], [57]

For Guy to say the following in the block log "Disruptive single purpose account", is incredibly frustrating, and a flagrant abuse of the SPA label. I understand fully that he was acting out of concern that this conflict, which apparently includes an off-wiki legal case, was being brought on-wiki, but that doesn't mean he or we have to suspend judgment on these issues. These three accounts are clearly not a single-purpose account, regardless of whether it was disruptive or not. The Drstones account is a bit different, because he created the article, but it is still clearly not an SPA. Maybe disruptive, but not an SPA.

I think Guy owes all three of these accounts an apology for incorrectly calling them "single-purpose accounts" in the block logs, and I think he should apologise in this ANI thread as well. I am incensed that blocks like this are still being handed out, and that the SPA (single-purpose account) label is being abused like this.

And there is more.

Look at the sequence of events in the ANI thread:

• Gb posts at 17:08, 8 February 2008 - with an initial query
• Guy posts at 17:50, 8 February 2008 - long list of alleged SPAs
• Relata refaro posts at 18:17, 8 February 2008 - a brief agreement
• Guy blocks 15 of the accounts between 19:46 and 19:48

What does that brief timescale (less than 3 hours), bad blocks, bad advice, and small amount of input remind anyone of? It reminds me of the recent MatthewHoffman arbitration case. The difference here is that the objections to some of these blocks are slowly but surely arriving, and as far as I can see, Guy has provided no justification for his incorrect labelling of three of these accounts as "single-purpose accounts". If there is OTRS or Foundation or checkuser concerns specifically linking these accounts, then that needs to be made much, much clearer.

Oh, and there are actually 17 accounts listed there: Franknfair was blocked earlier for legal threats (so why did Guy list that account as one to be blocked?? Surely he should have looked into the account history before listing it at ANI?). And Coligny seems to have slipped through the cracks - looks like Guy forgot to block him at all. That is not the mark of someone doing a careful and thorough job. Getting things this badly wrong is not good.

I'm left asking myself - was I the only one to bother reviewing all the accounts that Guy blocked? How can ANI be so bad at doing a review like that? Why did Guy take a single reply in that thread, after it had been up for three hours, as an OK to indefinitely block the lot of them?

Note that two of the blocks have already been lifted: Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity, but one of the blocks, the most unjustified of the lot, had a block review declined! See the next bit below.

I've been following this on and off all day, along with e-mailing several people to ask them to review Guy's blocks, but the last straw was the following hideously unfair review process, where the reviewing admin is not being independent, and is just accepting without question what Guy says:

• [58] (unblock request)
• [59] (Trusilver answers)
• [60] (asks Guy for a reason)
• [61] (Guy supplys reason)
• [62] (Trusilver declines unblock request by parotting reply from Guy)

Guy said: "A group of people have brought an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia, this dispute includes real-world legal action and has prompted complaints to the Foundation. This user is one of a group of single purpose accounts with no history outside this subject. I blocked the lot."

Trusilver accepted that reason without so much as a murmur, and went back and declined the unblock request. It is clear that Trusilver looked at the edit history in question, so why didn't he point out to Guy that his claim of "accounts with no history outside this subject" was patently wrong?

Please look at the account creation date and look at the two edits this account made to the article (early on in the history and with no apparent connection to the later conflict). If Guy had any other evidence (eg. checkuser) then he needed to actually say this. Amelia9mm has made a total of 12 edits in the nine months since she registered an account. I made a total of 6 edits in my first six months here. Please don't bite the new editors!

For some questions arising from this, see the next section below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions arising from these blocks by Guy

To sum up, my questions would be:

• (1) Blocks: Which accounts should be unblocked or have their blocks shortened? Jrichardstevens and Nomoskedasticity have already been unblocked. Franknfair was blocked in January for legal threats. Coligny was never blocked. I think Amelia9mm should be unblocked straightaway, with full apologies and the incorrectness of the block noted in the unblock log. Drstones, who is more involved as the creator of the article in question, although not an SPA, should be reviewed along with all the other editors (including Nomoskedasticity) for the "legal concerns" Guy mentions, but I don't think indefinite blocks are appropriate. Two of the editors: Billingsworth and InformationKey blocked for sock puppeting - more sockpuppets may exist.
• (2) Blocking reasons: Why did Guy block all these accounts without checking their history properly? Even a brief look at the account creation dates and the contributions shows us that three accounts (Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens, Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm, Special:Contributions/Drstones) are clearly not single-purpose accounts, and were created and were editing before the article even existed.
• (3) Speed of blocking: Why did Guy act so quickly (3 hours) instead of waiting for more input from ANI?
• (4) Advice given: Why did Relata refero give the advice he did? Does he stand by his comment?
• (5) Responsiveness and defending blocks: Why did Guy continue to insist they were all single-purpose accounts when objections began to arrive? Why does he object so strongly to his blocks being overturned? Do people sometimes think it's not worth challenging a dismissive and confident block handed out by Guy?
• (6) Other reasons: If there were other reasons for blocking the accounts, why did Guy not say so?
• (7) Role of ANI: Why did no-one reading the ANI thread spot that some of the accounts were not single-purpose accounts? Did anyone even bother to review all those blocks, or did they just trust Guy's judgment?
• (8) Failure of block review process: Why did Trusilver not carry out an independent block review of the Amelia9mm account and instead parrot the reason he was given by Guy?

I really hope it is possible to get proper answers to all eight of those sets of questions. I've already posted to Guy's talk page, and I'll notify Trusilver and Relata refero now. I have already e-mailed Guy and Trusilver, and several others (communicating by e-mail because of some silly wikibreak I was trying to stick to), but I'll keep everything on-wiki from now on (other than replying to the e-mails I sent earlier). I've also notified the three accounts in question: [63], [64], [65]. I've also notified Nomoskedasticity and the previous participants in this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of these. They need to be reviewed by a checkuser with OTRS access. At least one (that I removed) was a flagrantly bad block. JzG says there is OTRS evidence that needs to be reviewed so I don't have enough information to make a decision. --B (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even after reviewing the evidence by Carcharoth above, this looks awfully like a meat puppet ring which sprang into joint action over this particular nomination. I don't believe JzG has done anything monumentally wrong. If we start getting mindlessly bureaucratic such as the above, we are giving trolls a free pass to take over the encyclopaedia and AN/I becomes even more useless than it already is. We make people admins in order that they can deal with crises - this AfD qualified, in my view. Orderinchaos 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

...and the terrorists trolls win! You remind me of what the Bush administration, and other like-thinking politicians, keep saying as they flush civil liberties down the toilet. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with due process. Those who follow my contribs on here will see I've unblocked quite a few people, sometimes controversially, because the case built against them here is a house of sticks based on speculation. I was merely commenting that I don't think the above 8 questions help the encyclopaedia and just introduce more bureaucracy. A real life example - when a suburban party gets out of control and the neighbourhood's getting trashed, the police will typically arrest and detain most of the people they find at the scene - even as many as 400 or 500. As the following hours proceed, it will follow that most of those people (all but maybe about 10 or even less) will be freed as the investigation proceeds, usually after a couple of hours. Does that mean the police should rewrite their rule book? No. I'd be sympathetic to the blocks being struck off the accounts' records in such cases if a review finds them to have been totally mistaken (as I believe was the case with Jrichardstevens) but I think in general policy is being managed acceptably. Could be better, but so can most things. Orderinchaos 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a person marginally involved in this (someone called me in to Oxford Round Table when it was getting a bit out of hand and I secured consensus for removal of the worst of the poorly sourced material), I think JzG acted in a timely and sensible manner. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about assessing blame. It's about determining the disposition of these users. At least one of them is a professor at a major college - SMU. We have a real problem on this encyclopedia with chasing away experts. If the blocks are 90% right and 10% wrong, we need to identify and unblock the 10%. The best way to do that is if someone with checkuser and OTRS access could take a look to see which ones are socks and which ones were making edits for which there is evidence of problems in OTRS. --B (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who mentioned blame? I gave up OTRS access a few months ago, but the activity here has been particularly egregious and blatant. The evidence is on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but do we expect outsiders to know how things work at wikipedia, and when they oh-so-suprisingly fail to do so, block them for it? Viridae^Talk 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If they come to abuse Wikipedia, yes they must be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How the hell do they know they are abusing wikipedia if they don't know what rules they are breaking? Seriously when it comes to the academic establishment, we might want to try and educate them about how wikipedia works before breaking out the banhammer. Viridae^Talk 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Have reviewed and in my opinion:

• Amelia is most likely a good faith user. Needs to be educated re our RS and BLP policies re other edits.
• Jrichardstevens is fine and should be unblocked.
• Drstones is clearly an SPA and the block should stand.

Orderinchaos 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Drstones edited other articles before creating the one in question. He edited two other articles after creating the one in question. In any event, even if he were an SPA, there's nothing that says we block all SPAs - we only block those that are disruptive. On the surface, I see someone who doesn't understand our policies and practices, but I don't see someone who is intentionally disruptive. --B (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article he created, battled to defend and has invested more than 90% of his edits in is now being handled by OTRS. Those who have reviewed that evidence have said there is a strong case. That's good enough for me - we should show some responsibility as a Top 10 site here when outside bodies take the trouble to bring these things to our attention. Orderinchaos 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Has a Checkuser reviewed the situation? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but I can't say for sure. I'd run with the assumption that they haven't, though. Orderinchaos 02:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Amelia9mm should be unblocked, she's not a SPA and she doesn't have any obvious connection to the sock/meatpuppetry affecting the article and the AfD. Jrichardstevens is already unblocked. For the rest, a Checkuser request might bring some clarity. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Amelia9mm has been unblocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to notify here. I agree with the Checkuser request idea, not sure how to raise it though! (Normally it's by username, but there's so many here.) Orderinchaos 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this out for myself - #2008012410015146 is the associated OTRS ticket. Basically, these users are coming in from an outside forum - this diff from a now-blocked user sums it up pretty accurately, and this appears to be the forum thread in question. A CU should be able to see if any of these accounts are sockpuppets, but I suspect at least some of them are separate users of this (fairly highly trafficked) forum who are only barely familiar with how WP works. I'd suggest looking into unblocking the non-disruptive ones, though of course they should still be considered as a bloc for matters related to this article and AfD, and the AfD closer should take that into account. krimpet✽ 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the Chronicle forum, and I think Krimpet is right--many of these SPAs are probably people who were reading the forum and decided to join in on the fun at Wikipedia. I suppose this falls under WP:MEAT, but it doesn't look like it's being coordinated by any particular person, nor are there any posts on the forum telling people to go to Wikipedia and take a specific action. So, I'd agree that their votes shouldn't be given much weight at the AfD, but if these editors are interested in becoming productive contributors to Wikipedia, we should unblock them. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just bring it to checkuser already. I declined Amelia's RFU and given the exact same circumstances, I would deny a similar request. On the surface, there is nothing that Guy did wrong with the possible exception of maybe being a little quick on the block. Amelia has very little of an edit history and dropped in to participate in a hot button issue after a long time between edits. That smells extremely strongly of a sleeper sock to me. At the very least it is incredibly suggestive. The amount of work that's gone into this whole thing is downright amusing. Checkuser...problem solved...it all comes out in the wash. Trusilver 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed. But this probably won't be "problem solved"; I'd place a bet that some of these users are going to come up as "unrelated". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question

I'm sure I'll get accused of trolling again, but seriously.. An AfD by JzG/Guy of the Oxford Round Table article and then he starts blocking people left and right that are participating in that very AfD? Sets off bells for me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's an important detail that was left out. Umm ... yeah, that's bad. --B (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that he blocked many people who agreed with him that it should be deleted. So it's hardly the egregious violation of COI that is being suggested here. Orderinchaos 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He used tools in a dispute that he was involved in. There really should be no further discussion beyond how sharp a reminder/reprimand is appropriate. Jd2718 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Oxford Round Table shows most of those users having been editing or discussing for a consensus since at least December 2007. How could they be considered SPAs? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Raja

Well, in short what I am going to write here will look like one of the sections above 3RR violator continuing after block. But it is much more than that. Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violation on Talk:Bharatanatyam; disruptive edit warring over project templates again. This block was imposed on him, after a previous block on 72 hours for disruptive edit warring. After this block, the user was clearly advised by the block admin like this:

“ I have blocked you for 72 hours because I find your behavior to be disruptive. I know there is a disagreement over the template on the article talk pages, but given that you are in a David vs. Goliath scenario, it would be best if you discuss, instead of blanket reverting. If you continue reverting, what good is that going to do? Do you honestly think that the other editors will suddenly give up and stop reverting you? The matter, like any dispute, cannot be resolved by continuous revert warring. Discussion is the only way you can move forward over this matter. The duration of your block is 72 hours because you had a 3RR block just four days ago, and yet it seems you continued the edit warring just as soon as you got off the block. I hope you come back from the block eager and willing to get involved in a serious discussion with the editors you are in disagreement with. ”

This advise apparently did not have any effect on the user, and hence again, the user's repeated revert wars, without discussions or without gaining consensus, led to him to the above mentioned 2 weeks block. The block is now expired, and the user immediately started posting the disputed template literally hundreds of article talk page (Eg: [66], [67], [68]). At the least, after multiple blocks related to that template, the user was expected to start a discussion with wider audience, and should have arrived at a consensus before using those templates. But unfortunately, that has not happened.

Even he doesn't even hesitate to involve in revert wars, after being blocked multiple times for revert warring; some of the latest revert wars being: [69], [70], [71].

The main concerns here are: Lack of willingness to discuss; revert-warring; repeated offense even after a clear and strong advise from an Admin, and yet after multiple blocks;

Well,now, thats the "3RR violator continuing after block" part of the story, and next comes more. Severe personal attack on me, calling me racist. Please look into the section: Talk:Veerappan#Removing_WikiProject_templates and that gives complete picture instead of me writing about it. And now, you admins decide if there is any racist attitude displayed from me. On the other hand, you decide how the discussion is totally dragged out of context when I asked the question how the person (of that article) is related to the so-called civilization. I am strongly offended with this personal attack.

Next: I am totally confused and wondered, with what this user's intent on Wikipedia are. Please see this edit which is made after his latest block expiry. He has gone ahead and termed Cinema of Karnataka as Cooliewood. I have never heard that term before, and I am a member of Karnataka wikiproject and a contributor to Cinema of Karnataka. This is most concerning issue because, one of the meanings of Coolie is A contemporary racial slur for people of Asian descent, including people from India, Central Asia, etc. Whats more, even Google search couldn't determine what this user is saying. For starters, Karnataka is an Indian state, and apparently this is a severe insult on Wikipedians from that state, and ofcourse on the state's film industry. This kind of gross incivility is highly unacceptable in a community project such as building an encyclopedia.

I have reported all these to an involved Admin User:Nishkid64 and he suggested I start an ANI discussion on this, and here it goes. Thank you, - KNM ^Talk 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• The "Cooliewood" diff is absolutely unacceptable. The Tamil film industry is sometimes called Kollywood, but I cannot believe that this was a genuine mistake.
• Templating talkpages is always problematic. I remember the to-do about India-Pakistan templates on Indus Valley Civilisation sites some years ago. That being said, there is nothing per se wrong with templating [[Talk:Veerappan] with a Tamil or Dravidian wikiproject template. The exchange that KNM posts reflects badly on both users.
• He's been blocked for edit-warring for two weeks. I suggest that he be given a little while longer for the "Cooliewood" diff unless he posts a good explanation for it.
• I don't see any reason for an indef. Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that template has been the centre of much controversy in the first place. The Cooliewood slur has a lot to do with Wikiraj's failed attempts in the past to sell the whole of South India and everything existing in South India as Dravidian (music, literature, architecture, people, cuisine, clothing, etc etc) as "Dravidian civilization". A page he had creeated to that effect was removed because there was no concensus that such a civilization existed or exists. Unles the heart of the issue is resolved, this problem will continue. The racial slur is only a small issue in the big problem of "race". Extending his block will not help. And may I ask, what does a dravidian template have to do with a person?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Relata refero: In the original post, I have not written about why there is a dispute over these templating, because it is plain content dispute, and WP:ANI is not meant for that. That is why, I was just writing only user related items. But if the discussion on template dispute is required, well and good. The simplest summary is, Wiki Raja is posting {{WPTAMCIV}} template on hundreds of talk pages, while there is no such thing called Tamil Civilization! The current link of Tamil civilization just redirects to Dravidian civilization, while Tamil Civilization is a red link as of now. And the user was (and has continued now also) posting {{WPDRAVCIV}} template too referring to an earlier version of Dravidian civilization article which is now deleted.

Please note: The current article was created by an admin (User:Utcursch) after the earlier version was deleted per an AFD discussion, because there was no such particular civilization "Dravidian civilization" existed. The validity of these templates apart, the user was asked and advised (as shown above) for initiating discussion and gain consensus before simply adding the templates. I believe, now its a good time to sort out both these issues, one is content dispute on those templates, and the user misconduct and incivility. Thank you - KNM ^Talk 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite understand that the template issue is beyond this board. The template, however, is linked not to any article but to a wikiproject; if you feel that is problematic, I suggest taking it to WP:Miscellany for Deletion. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand what you are referring to as "unacceptable" in Cooliewood diff, whether it's providing the diff itself or Wikiraja's edits. There is no doubt that Wikiraja made that edit meant as an insult to Kannada film industry due to his long lasting disputes with members of WP:KARNATAKA. It sure is an racial insult term and it hurts to see someone using the term so freely in an encyclopedia. I'm sure he used the term deliberately because there is not even one instance so far that the Kannada cinema industry is referred to as Cooliewood. He has clearly shown his intentions of editing Wikipedia after being given so many chances. No discussions, no consensus, severe personal attacks including accusations of racism on KNM, gross incivility, repeated violations of 3RR and frequent revert wars. Let us also not forget, the account User:Wiki Raja is a sockpuppet account of User:Indrancroos. User:Wiki Raja account was indef blocked because of sockpuppetry, but the user requested admin Aksi_great that, he intends to continue with Wiki Raja account instead of Indrancroos account. Blocklog here. Gnanapiti (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant that using the term was unacceptable, which is why I suggested extending his block. Relata refero (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* How many more violations from wikiraja do we have to endure before he is packed off for good? I've been on wp for around two years now and I've not seen anything quite like this. Here's a guy who's been blocked multiple times already for repeat offences which cover the entire gamut between simple edit warring to sockpuppetry to uploading obscenity and yet his victims have to continue to grin and bear it. I'd really like to know why?

Personally, I am usually against permabanning editors for anything.. but there has to be something that can redeem an editor -- some useful contributions, some evidence of being a collaborative editor.. something... anything! In wikiraja's case, I see nothing - absolutely no contributions worth mentioning or to even use as a fig leaf for his indiscretions.

As for his templates and taking it to MfD, well.. we've been down that torturous path before. No sooner does a template or article get deleted (or rewritten from scratch) than he comes up with a mutant strain of the same thing! It was 'Dravidian civilisations' yesterday and 'Tamil civilisations' today. Wonder what it will be tommorrow. Expecting other editors to keep hauling him and his templates to TfDs and MfDs and AfDs each time is insensitive and an insult to those editors who have better things to do on wikipedia. And the cooliewood thing ... *sigh* how much more juvenile can it get!

In short, this editor has not a semblance of constructive edits to boast of and has done disproportionately more harm to the community and the project than good and the community is better off without him. He's been banned for 3 month stretches at least once before (perhaps twice) and if for some esoteric bureaucratic reason we cant permaban him, I recommend that he be locked away for atleast 6 months or a year this time. Sarvagnya 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As per Relata refero's suggestion for me to explain, I shall. Since the beginning of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations we have tried to present a diverse array of Dravidian cultures such as the Tamils, Malayalees, Telugus, Kannadigas, Brahuis and so forth. Even before the formation of this WikiProject I have noticed on the Classical dance of India page that classical dances from three Dravidian states were presented accept for Karnataka. Finding this rather odd, I have went out of my way to create a page for Yakshagana which was praised by Gnanapiti here and here just to find out that there already existed such a page. As a matter of fact I have tried my best to promote all Dravidian groups here on Wikipedia by even creating special user templates such as these, and include the different Dravidian scripts on the WikiProject page here (ie. Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil). Why on earth would anyone think that I have something against Kannadigas? For everyone's information, I have been able to find Mollywood for Malayalee films, Tollywood for Telugu films, and Kollywood for Tamil films. However, with the same situation as with the Classical dance, I was unable to find a similar name for Kannada films. So, the name Cooliewood was found from this web site and thus, I have used that term to categorize Kannada film along with the other "Dravidian woods" for film. If I have offended anyone on this matter, I humbly apologize for the misinterpretation and misunderstaning this may have caused for some folks. As a habit I like things in order and complete and thus felt that Kannadiga topics such as film and dance should not be left out of Indian, Dravidian, or whatever topic. As a token of sincerity from my part I will remove the link from that page and will rename it to Kannada film. If anyone still has a grudge against me, then that is on you. I've already said my piece. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Sarvagnya here. When Wiki Raja states that he has been promoting "Dravidian culture" that is the onus of the problem. What is "Dravidian" and "Indo-Aryan" is obviously disputed. Dravidianism is generally a racist philosophy, terming North Indians and Brahmins as "invaders" and "Dravidians" as "victims of light skinned oppression" (in quotes for educational value). A very important string of edits got Wiki Raja's sockpuppet Indrancroos (talk · contribs) blocked a while ago [72]. This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page) of Wiki Raja's attitude towards the pages he edits.Bakaman 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I was new to Wikipedia almost 2 years ago. However, after being blocked I created a new name to start new on a clean slate to edit and created legitimate articles as a contribution to Wikipedia. Proof can be seen in two WikiProjects, several articles, and expansions of numerous articles. Our project focuses on promoting articles comprised of all Dravidians (Tamils, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Telugus and other groups not properly represented). Other groups include but are not limited to Tuluvas, and Brahuis, for example. As a matter of fact, I have also voted to keep the article on Brahmin Tamils here since Brahmins are a part of the Tamil civilization, while Tamil civilization is part of the greater Dravidian civilzations. If you disagree with some of the articles, you are clearly entitled to your opinions. Also, it is not nice to compare fat people with feces. What do you have against fat people? Wiki Raja (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No one compared fat people with feces. Bakasupraman just commented that you added picture of feces and fat people on an article about Indian martial arts. Don't try to provoke people by making unfounded statements. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Shel Silverstein

Shel Silverstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the page history. A number of IP addresses, all the same except for the last digit, have been tag-teaming to destroy this article. Please semiprotect the article and block every one of these IP addresses for 24 to 48 hours. It is hard to assume good faith in the face of a concentrated, intentional attack. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• 199.216.110.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.216.110.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.216.110.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, those IPs resolve to the Government of Alberta. Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't leave off 199.216.110.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Corvus cornix_talk 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 72 hours. I'm unconvinced that the IP's need blocking, as their recent vandalism is restricted to the one article. Caknuck (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of neutrality tags on disputed statement on Canada

User Quizimodo: has removed {{dubious}} tag place by me from Canada page. Similar incidents on Dominion page have led to page being locked. The rules about this and edit warring have been explained to him. I don't want this happening on Canada page. References:

• Talk:Dominion#Justification_for_tags
• Editor views on subject
• "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."NPOV disputes

--soulscanner (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner user has been wholly disruptive and uncooperative since Sep., when this editor advocated for one position on the 'Canada' talk page regarding Canada's status/entitlement as a 'dominion' only to reneg and hyper-react (initiating a number of confusing polls), use substandard references as a crutch for his point of view, and then withdrawing from the discussion. A conciliation was arrived at 'Canada' in this editor's absence, which this editor now has a challenge with. As well, this disruptive editor has barely discussed the issue on the 'Dominion' talk page 9nly doing so after repeated requests), adding 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags to long-standing and sourced content without discussion or claiming that the references do not support the content (which is blatantly false), while producing little evidence to counter them, and threatening and then submitting a request for arbitration (without seeking other modes of dispute resolution first), only to withdraw it a short time later. He has since brought his dispute to the 'Canada' article, with the addition of tags on few notions which said editor continues to disagree with despite stability and evidence otherwise.

This is rather untenable. So, I hereby request that the 'Canada' article be locked, and/or that an administrator scrutinise Soulscanner and possibly sanction said editor for continuous disruptive behaviour. Quizimodo (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My observation is that Quizimodo is unwilling to accept any sort of other view on this matter, and is removing and content that is not to his liking. He has reverted the tag three times already today. There is no hurt in having that tag on the content until the dispute is resolved. The reason the content is long-lasting, is because Quizimodo and other editors have edit-warred in the past, removing content, until other editors, including myself, just got frustrated and left the discussion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not removing any content, only the disruptive tags which are being placed. Alternatively, there is 'no hurt' in discussing topics on relevant talk pages first and not acting as precipitously as Soulscanner has: his abortive RfA is but one example of this and is revealing of ongoing disruption. You and Soulscanner have also had plenty of time to contest relevant content, but have been unwilling or unable to or merely resort to confused polemics without cited backing. I am willing to compromise -- for example, I suggested a number of conciliatory options on the 'Canada' page during the last scrum, including the one regarding Canada being noted as a 'semi-autonomous polity' upfront, which Soulscanner has again taken issue with -- but the intransigence of these antagonistic editors (including the responder) makes this increasingly difficult. And, Wikipedia is not your mother: if you can't take the heat, you don't belong in the kitchen. Quizimodo (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not spent any time (over the past three months) on this specifically because of your disruptive behaviour, which consistently reverts any edit which is not too your liking. I am not going to get into a war about this, but your behaviour is just as disruptive if not more than Soulscanner's. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No comment. Quizimodo (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This diff is of interest. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify here for the ease of others' comprehension: I've not done what Soulscanner has accused me of. This trend of blaming me for collusion with another editor so as to suppress Soulscanner continues from his virulent claims yesterday - with notices [73] and reports a plenty - that I intentionally vandalised his retaliatory 3RR report against me. User:Spartaz blocked him for harrassing me, but then reneged on his decision. I initially thought Soulscanner harmless, but now I think Spartaz, or someone else, should reconsider the unblock on Soulscanner. --G2bambino (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Later addition: I see now he's clarified that I did indeed not remove the tags he speaks of. Still, I find this constant need to follow him and make sure he isn't involving me in something I'm not party to increasingly annoying. --G2bambino (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is reversed not reneged. (I withdrew the block in favour of a warning). I would appreciate another admin reviewing whether or not this ongoing behaviour complained of by G2bambino is harrassing. Having made a right of a prat of myself yesterday I don't think I have the credibility to intervene in this situation further so I won't be blocking anyone involved in this right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you're right; I only meant reversed. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend this Dominion dispute be resolved by Mediation. Anything to put this behind us. My major concern in all of this? Article stability (surprise, surprise). GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The incident was part of a misunderstanding. I've apologized for my part in that. The relevant administrators would attest to the fact that neither you, me, or the administrators came out looking good in that one. Keep in mind that you conjured up fanciful conspiracy theories about my motivations too. The moral of the story is to assume good faith at all times. The relevant question here is whether there is a dispute about the terminology used in the lead. I think there is. Leave the personal attacks alone and assume good faith. I applaud that you uphold my right to put the tag on there. Lets leave it there and work it out on the Dominion page with a mediator. --soulscanner (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, despite your reminders of good faith yesterday, you went and violated them again today with another spread of false claims against me, not 24 hours after the last. What would you like me to say? --G2bambino (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected this, explained it, and apologized for it. You can at least acknowledge that. I'm not going to rehash your imperfections from yesterday. This isn't about assassinating someones credibility. It's about removing neutrality tags. --soulscanner (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as dismissive as you. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation was recently declined/withdrawn at Requests for arbitration but with the observation that it needed for uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on the page and for mediation or other dispute resolution to be pursued. It would be appreciated if someone could follow up on this so the situation doesn't worsen any further. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beyt_Tikkun

This AfD has turned horribly uncivil. I will admit I am a party to this and do not have clean hands. I believe an admin needs to step in and mediate. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! What would the good rabbi think of such violence?

Seriously, though, nobody's said anything particularly blockworthy yet, you all need to calm down, that's all. You bit a newbie, and three people accused you of lying. Bad, but not terrible. Take a break, the AfD has some time to run, everybody will calm down. Relata refero (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2 years, 9 months and 19 days on wikipedia and I am a newbie? The three who accused me of "lying" are all of the same opinion so it's not uncommon to see these sorts of tactics. I believe an uninvolved admins mediation is important in order to reinstate civility. Bstone (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he said you bit a newbie, not that you are one. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it after discussion in IRC. 5 days and just a few edits seemed like not enough. However the reaction has been a bit visceral. Bstone (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read through your comments there, I actually do agree with your application of the spa tag as appropriate. You have to agree that it is easily perceived as bitey though. Ok, you don't have to agree to anything, poorly stated. I 'hope you agree that it could possibly, even easily, be perceived as bitey though. I agree that the debate there is on the warmer side, but not nearly as warm as I've seen it before. I would recommend dispassion. In my experience (which is far less than yours Bstone so please don't take this as condescending, but rather with a grain of salt) is that not replying to every comment that is in opposition to your own opinion is a better way to go. You've made your point there. Others have made there points there. Let the closing admin weigh the discussion against the policies and guidelines. It'll be closed in 2-5 days, (if it stays the way it is now, probably as no consensus), and we can all just move along nicely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is bitey. But it is also an official wiki tag and uses official wiki wording. If there was a different tag with nicer wording I would have certainly used it. I don't mean to come across rude but adding SPA does have a certain tone with it. Now they are saying I am lying and I assume that's in reference to discussing it with folks (including some admins) in IRC before adding it. I can ask those folks (including the admins) to chime in here in order to verify that I did indeed discuss which tag is appropriate. I believe that I have been neutral in terms of my tone while those who have stated I am a liar have been just the opposite. As far as responding to the opinions of keep, I am desperate to know how people can opine keep when I cite several wiki policies which indicate the basis for their opinion is indeed mute. As of yet none has responded which leads me to believe there is little to respond to. Still, my tone has been neutral and the bite came from the wording which I had absolutely no control over. However, stating I am a liar is tactless and against etiquette. Bstone (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed I added a couple of wiki tags myself to the AfD discussion. I hate the spa tag, but it was placed appropriately. I think a better tag could should exist, but doesn't. What I'll usually do personally is just right a message on the editor's talkpage first (without any templates at all, which are impersonal to say the least). I'll keep watching the AfD, if anyone gets further out of line after the "be nice" and "not a vote" tags, I'll act appropriately (warns, strong warns, or immediate blocks for harassment (though unlikely)). I don't think it will be a problem though, it seems to have calmed a bit in the last couple of hours....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am taking a wikibreak for the next day or so. Perhaps a quick note on the talk pages of those screaming I am a liar about tone and tact? Bstone (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents. This is a good idea to take a break. When Bstone questions every single voter who disagrees with him/her, that does not create a constructive environment. An example of this tone was set by Bstone's comments when s/he stated, "I am simply setting the record straight where people err." By not responding to each vote in favor of the article, or at least by not responding like this, then the tone of the discussion can become more constructive. Let's all take a break from this and let other people have their say and their response. Culturalrevival (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(to BStone (edit conflict)  ::::::::::Absolutely As soon as one of the previous commentators posts anything else there related to you, your position, your experience or in regards to this particular AfD, after seeing my template tags. (To be fair, none of them were made aware of this AN/I post so I won't be magically showing up on their talkpages either in an effort to keep drahma to a minimum). So, to resolve this, the next time something is posted....40 lashes from Keeper.. Cheers, mate, enjoy the WBreak...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Incarna Gaming Network / underconstruction template

Incarna Gaming Network has just been created and has been tagged with the 'underconstruction' template which places the the following text :-

This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.

However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days. (emphasis mine) While actively editing, consider adding {{inuse}} to reduce edit conflicts.

I'm unhappy with the wording on this template - should templates have wording that suggests that an article cannot be tagged for deletion just because the template is on the article? Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

While I also disagree with the line "Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days" (If someone needs that much time, the article should be created in userspace), this is a discussion that should probably take place at Template talk:Underconstruction. — Satori Son 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense for me. Create a non-notable article with this template, knowing that without it it will get speedy deleted, and let the non-notable content stick around long enough for it to be picked up by Google so that it perpetuates throughout the Internet before getting deleted here. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly thinking about tagging it for speedy deletion anyway, considering the only source that this even exists is its own website. Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, ignore the rules and mark it for CSD myself. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also been bold and removed "Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days." from the template text. The fact that an article is under construction does not exempt it from our deletion criteria and the template should not imply that. Exxolon (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you also reword WP:YFA. Taemyr (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A touch of canvassing

Perhaps someone might be kind enough to have a tactful word with user:Allstarecho about canvassing, and also point out that yes we do delete biographies where the subject expresses a clear preference for not having an article, if the subject is of marginal notability (e.g. a not terribly significant musician with a part in one indie film). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean edits such as this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that and a bundle of others; they all came along to !vote Keep. Which is fine as it goes, but as I say, canvassing is not really encouraged. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the word has been had, check his talkpage (also, I think the note was posted before this thread). Avruchtalk 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me state, for the 3rd time (2 in other places) that I was not canvassing. I was notifying people who have particpated on the articles talk page in the past. What should be reported here is that you removed content while the article is under protection and then nommed the article for deletion. And thanks for letting me know I was being discussed here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not attack the user unless need be. The edits were perfectly proper under WP:CANVAS. Lambton ^T/_C 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPA

Re: this diff, would someone other than me tell JzG/Guy to lay off the personal attacks? Had it been me, I'd be blocked for sure. Additionally, the attack should be removed. I will give someone else plenty of time to do that before I do it myself. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Allstar, you were incredibly rude. You were blocked by Jimbo only recently for "unrepentant incivility", and you have personalised that deletion debate to a remarkable and wholly unjustified extent; I note you've also been blocked for WP:BLP violations and edit warring. These are a bad combination. We are dealing here with an upset article subject who feels that he has been deliberately snubbed and insulted by Wikipedia. Do try to show a modicum of tact. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making sure to point out that I've been blocked by Jimbo. There is no BLP issues regarding the Bannan article. He even hosts the very same sources on his own web site. But that's not the issue here.. the issue here is your attack against me. Can you stick to the issue please? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you went over the line, Guy. Please tone it down a bit.

That said - Allstar, this is a BLP issue, and you are not showing it due WP:BLP sensitivity at the moment. It's also an OTRS issue, and on current review it appears like there's a serious problem with your behavior on both accounts. I'm going to also log this to your talk page, but this is a final warning regarding abusive behavior and this article topic. No more. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not done one thing disruptive or in violation of policy regarding this AfD. Mind pointing out specifics? Thanks. And you threaten to block me but just tell him to "tone it down a bit" ?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that I have removed the personal attack. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You accused him of trying to sneak it by people. Counterattacking is not a wise or ethical response to claims of canvassing. Whether what you did met the technical definition of canvassing or not, your comment was rude and uncivil and failed to assume good faith about Guy's motivation and tactics. Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't *accuse* him of anything. I *asked* him if that was his intentions. There is a difference. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's sophistry, and coming right after you at least borderline canvassed I can't AGF anymore about your intentions on this particular AFD.

...especially since Guy also "just asked a question". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You aren't normally abusive or problematic, but this is a particularly sensitive question, and you have been particularly insensitive for a bit here, and the combination is not OK. Please take a short break and re-engage on the topic in a manner which won't increase drama and incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think Gwh's comment is probably best for all. While ASE is not always sunshine and light, I don't think his comment is excusable, but the reaction has been a bit overboard as well. So let's all step back? The AFD itself is approaching WP:SNOW, the picture issue needs to be checked out, and I personally would like to hear from the subject of the article why they're all-fire against the words "openly gay" being in the article when they have blared their sexuality in half a dozen interviews. In other words, can we work on the encyclopedia rather than each others' nerves? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Handling sock puppetry (block review)

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Sedlam (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? Avruchtalk 00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated in a more recent note at my talkpage (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, here, where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Brady (broadcaster)

Resolved

 – IP blocked by AndonicO

Would someone have a look at the history of this. Serious BLP issues. IP adding content saying Philip Brady is gay and adding sources that do not mention Philip Brady anywhere in them. He's been warned numerous times and has been told directly that none of the sources he keeps adding mentions Philip Brady anywhere in them, much less anything about Brady being homosexual. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a serious violation of the 25 revert rule... Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

HAH! Okay, at least we got a laugh out of it. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR/25RR applies to BLP issues?? I didn't know.. I came across is initially where all the IP added was that the article subject was gay. Looked like vandalism to me. Revert. He kept adding, then started adding sources that don't mention the guy. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was WP:VAN, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BLP. I guess admins can take their pick. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to get this straight, what the IP did violated 25RR, reverting him/her didn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors requiring correction on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

There remain some errors on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The following decision was altered, reversing the original reporter (me) and the reportee (G2Bambino):

[74]

Could someone please reverse the reporter and reportee back to the original. It now appears as:

[75]

I'm not going to get into altering this myself for obvious reasons. It came about because of a good-faith typo editing error by G2bambino.

G2bambino's original posting against me was deleted by me (unintentionally) and no administrator ever saw it. I submitted my complaint minutes after his, and thought it was a duplicate post of mine. So I guess it's only fair to restore this one and have an administrator rule on it.

[76]

I know this is a mess that neeeds to be verified and no one wants to deal with it, but the record should be corrected. Is there some uninvolved party that can handle this maybe?

--soulscanner (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against the restoration of this report, but I wonder about the worth; the report is actually against User:Quizimodo; every edit linked ([77], [78], [79], [80], [81]) is his, not mine. I've only made two edits to Dominion in the past two months.--G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

 – now within the limits --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV has a backlog over half an hour old. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD problem

Resolved

I non-admin closed this AfD because the article had been speedied (for the second time today) by an admin. The article was, however, recreated in short order, and has once again been tagged for speedy deletion. What's the best thing to do in such a situation? The article has, I think, no chance of surviving an AfD, but it doesn't really fall under the letter of CSD A7—the rationale for its speedies—either. My first thought was to reopen the AfD so that it could be deleted in such a way that recreations would be speediable, but I thought I'd ask here first. Deor (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend undoing your AfD close and re-noming it for AfD, then let it run its course. If it gets deleted at the end of the five day period, then gets recreated, it can be speedied for db-repost. Corvus cornix_talk 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's apparently been speedied once again, and salted this time, so I guess there's no further problem. Thanks. Deor (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What?? Why did we delete this?? There was clearly notability in the line: "It was freezen cold" on the list of reasons it is special/different/notable. Metros (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Then go to WP:DRV. Otherwise no further admin action needed. —Kurykh 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was being facetious ;) FCYTravis (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Another good example of why we need </sarcasm> markup. — Satori Son 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Contentious MFD, need admin eyes (about to end)

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

---

Guys, please check out Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments, and note sub-area Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments#Voting_tallies where the attacks are now free-flowing. Time's almost up for this one. Full disclosure, I nominated this after a very heated and pitched ANI discussion between other users the other day. There was a previous notification on AN but it's gone stale. Lawrence § t/e 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this amount to canvassing? Argyriou (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this canvassing, by asking admins to look at an MFD that is starting to spiral with NPA violations? Lawrence § t/e 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By bringing the MfD to the attention of a group which has shown a higher-than-usual propensity to have a particular opinion on the merits of preparing RfCs in userspace before filing them. The only personal attacks I see there are from Cumulus Clouds and you. Argyriou (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By which you mean "administrators?" Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By which I mean administrators of the sort who will file an MfD without bothering asking the user involved why the page was created or whether the user intended to file the RfC to remove pages allowed by policy. And the sort who would speedy-delete such a page, or advocate doing so, against policy and precedent. Argyriou (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This type of unprovoked incivility will fit in perfectly there. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, given the state of this MFD, I don't really see what one more incivil comment is going to do to that one. In for a penny, in for a pound really. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: MFD over borderline attack page closed, User:BQZip01 was directed by closing admin to submit the alleged evidence by next Wednesday to DR, or the page could be deleted. Lawrence § t/e 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Leaving Wikipedia (Adam C)

I am leaving Wikipedia over the Arbcom case, to this end I have deleted the Reqwuest for comment on me, as there was a lot of accusations and such in there, and I'm not going to havce that show up under a search for my name for the life of Wikipedia. I will be going through and deleting my name from various other places as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam C 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think deleting RfC's is covered in RtV... That will probably be restored, and the AC case won't be deleted, so you should request courtesy blanking via e-mail or get a name change as part of your RtV. Avruchtalk 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• If the user is leaving Wikipedia—and in any event, will not be using administrator tools for awhile per the arbitration decision—I can't imagine what possible reason there would be to push for undeletion of the RfC, especially since this user edits under his real name. I am, as I invariably am in these discussions, more concerned and saddened by our losing a dedicated user than by the question of which project pages may be deleted or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, so should anyone be. I don't recall seeing or hearing about other RfC's deleted for the same reason, I assumed courtesy blanking was the standard here to preserve access to formal processes. (We don't even generally delete talk pages). I still think a protective name change would be a good idea, as he can't remove every edit he's made with his real name and all the places it still appears in his signature. Avruchtalk 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is not supposed to be an all out stab at ArbCom, but the RfC showed fairly strongly that Adam should keep his tools. I'm not sure why they haven't listened to this. There was no prior RfC to give him feedback about his actions, just straight into an arbitration case and proposed desysopping. It's not as if he was even the worst admin we ever had. I've discussed this on the arbitration talk page to no avail - it's a little upsetting that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More than a little. For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible. If I say anything more about the situation at this point, I'll probably regret it later. MastCell ^Talk 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, for what its worth. What is the point of suspending in favor of an RfC, if only to unsuspend and ignore the result? The whole point was because lesser forms of dispute resolution had not occurred. If the result of a lesser form of dispute resolution was to be dismissed, then directing people towards it was a waste of time. Avruchtalk 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. I have a number of fairly strong opinions about this particular case and its handling from start to finish, but this is probably not the best time or forum to express them. MastCell ^Talk 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this was handled very badly. So much for the test case. Are you all satisfied? What purpose did it serve? Who else is next?--Filll (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• No. "For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible". Pig's arse. Since when was it better for decent editors to leave? You can stick WP:CIVIL up your a++e, because if that's what you think, you are fools. Sorry for my bluntness.

If decent editors like Adam are on the point of leaving, and a whole group of scientists are discussing a boycott, then there is something very seriously wrong. I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia (1st edit last August) but I got quite keen quickly, and had 3 DYKs in January. Not much compared to many editors, but I was quite pleased. But now I'm pissed off with the whole thing because somebody who doesn't know much about some articles that I helped to expand has fly tipped POV tags all over them and there's nothing I can do to remove them. No contributions by the editor other than the drive by tagging. I've tried discussion, moderation of the articles, but a flat refusal to talk has been the result, leading to me becoming less civil in my remarks than WP demands, and if I don't back down then I'll get a ban, I suppose. Just because of drive by tagging of articles that I think are OK, well sourced. etc. That's Wikipedia.

The most important, probably fundamental thing here is that it seems to me that Wiki is at the tipping point. Is it going to be an authoritative encyclopedia, or a playground? This is the question that is now arising daily on ANI and across Wiki generally. If you want the former, then analyse what it is that is pissing the serious editors off, and change it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very sad that Adam was driven to resign. He was an admirable Wikipedia editor, and his leaving is a serious loss to the project, especially science articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is a definite loss for the encyclopedia, and I am quite dismayed at the result of this case, which seems to have put a strong contributor and user in the impossible situation of being selected by ArbCom to be made an example of. Awful, awful precedent. FCYTravis (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am so disgusted that the situation with Adam has been allowed to degenerate to the point where he feels no choice but to leave. The ArbCom members who have forced this situation should feel ashamed, and should recognise that they have severely damaged their reputations and credibility. I will have more to say about this once I am able to write something appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to write anything appropriate about this for a while now. (Deleted rant). To Adam, I hope you change your mind. To Arbcom, message received loud and clear, though I don't imagine it is what you intended it to be. R. Baley (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding dumb, which ArbCom is this from, I looked at the most recent couple cases, and didn't see AdamC listed at all. ThuranX (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman. I guess it hasn't closed yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. People who keep the pedia clear of fluff, like Adam, and people who write excellent articles, like Giano, are subject to various sanctions for incivility; but people who think they are working to minimize drama - Guy, to choose but one of several examples, and David as well - are not? What does this say about our priorities and effectiveness? What baloney. Relata refero (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave, Adam. I hope you will reconsider. I reiterate comments made by others who have asserted your value to the project and to science articles in particular. Orderinchaos 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I too am sorry to see Adam go, his contributions to the features article on evolution in particular were superb. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also sad to see Adam go, although I don't see why he is doing so now in such a histrionic way. I don't see that the Arb Com case was acutally closed with any particular remedy against Adam. I was a participant in the RFC and I think it was pretty clear from the RFC that Adam did use his admin tools inappropriately in disputes he was engaged in. I think that it is very clear by the admin guidelines that Admins should NOT do this. I don't think it is clear from any of the discussions that Adam every really admitted that he did anything amiss. I don't think that the high quality of many of his contributions gets him out of having to follow the rules, or, when he was wrong, admit that he was wrong. At this point, I don't think that he should be taking matters into his own hands by willy nilly deleting any discussion that contains his name as he exits. He should have another admin or a bureaucrat help him figure out what he can do to remove his real name from the encyclopedia. You are not an island, Adam, you are part of a community. Stop being a lone wolf. Abridged ^talk 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) NOTE the following mass deletion of my user page: [82]. Abridged ^talk 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that Adam did apologize and promised to be more careful. He did agree to give up his tools for 6 months willingly and be under probation for another 6 months. My understanding is that Adam objected to the wording of [of Fact #9] and had asked repeatedly that it be modified. Others agreed at the RfC and at the Arbcomm talk pages, including some Arbcomm members. I hope Adam reconsiders, but I would not blame him for coming back under another name, or never coming back. I also think there is a limit to how much hounding a person can take, given that this is an unpaid hobby.--Filll (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

From the discussion of that point, it looks like the arb com bent over backwards to accomodate him, but were unable to go to the extent of changing a true statement to an untrue statement to save face for him. Honestly, Fill, at some point everyone has to be held accountable for their actions. Abridged ^talk 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we can beg to differ on what the Arbcomm did and did not do, and I suggest that I am not alone in interpreting things different than you do. However, in terms of holding everyone accountable for their own actions, I wonder why you were not held accountable for yours?--Filll (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What the bloody hell are you talking about?????? Please supply a diff if you are going to make bizarre vague accussations. Abridged ^talk 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he allowed to remove his name from archives, per WP:VANISH? Such as here (AN archive), here (ANI archive), here (the Signpost), and here (a user's talk page)? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this is the (not unexpected) result of an ArbCom "experiment", I don't really care if it's technically allowed or not. Perhaps we should not try to keep finding new ways to poke him with a stick. That is all for now. Civility Rules! (if not for thee, then for me), </no sarcasm> R. Baley (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second. Am I right in thinking he actually deleted Abridged's user talk??? Isn't that just more abuse of admin tools? And look at the all-caps edit summary, too. [83] and [84] If I'm right in what I'm seeing -and I can hardly believe that I am- you guys are actually defending this user? This is the last straw for me. I defended this user as being basically a good guy who needed to admit his mistakes and reform. I would have been happy if he'd done so. But this really sucks. He can't even leave WP without deleting someone else's talk page? And other huge disruptions? This is exactly the kind of abusive behavior he's being desysoped for, and he obviously hasn't learned a thing. No, one can only say the ArbCom took the measure of the man, and made the correct decision. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Codyfinkedrholarhan

Resolved

 – Blocked

I just found Codyfinkedrholarhan (talk · contribs) which I assume is a sockpuppet of Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I'm just quitting for the evening and don't have time to follow up. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef: it does help a little when they admit it; fish in a barrel. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

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

Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant".[85] The policy on User names says to avoid names that are offensive or promotional. WP:sig suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.

I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature,[86] and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,[87]. The first request was immediately archived,[88] and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.[89]

For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i religion has teachings on the succession of authority, and anyone creating divisions are considered dangerous and shunned, labeled "Covenant-breaker". The implication is that there is a Covenant in the religion to provide unity, and anyone who breaks away is not under the Covenant. Jeffmichaud belongs to one such group with a handful of followers who call themselves the "Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant". Changing his signature in the middle of a debate over Baha'i content was his way of promoting his ideological claim in the face of other editors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is completely not the point. We have a Wikipedia policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop shaking the straw man, please. Or is that Reductio ad absurdum? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —Kurykh 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over User:Rama's Arrow a few months ago. --Rodhullandemu

Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? Rudget. 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC) This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ JuJube (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. Rudget. 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

yo

Resolved

 – blocked

turn this robot off. it's being very disruptive to my work. it takes a lot of time as it is to accomplish all that i do, as the heir to the Aqua_Teen 52 throne, and i cannot live with this robot being all paranoid and disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqua teen 54 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of being disruptive to your work: [90]. Tell Frylock we all said "hey"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

New user User:Lostanos tagging other users as confirmed socks

(reports combined - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Lostanos (talk · contribs) has tagged at least a dozen user pages as confirmed socks of Hkelkar (talk · contribs). Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lostanos (talk · contribs)'s entire edit history is sticking Helkar sockpuppet tags on Users' User pages. Corvus cornix_talk 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please block this guy ASAP and delete all of his nonsense edits. Corvus cornix_talk 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - might be an innocent explanation, but there's something certainly not right about those edits. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we go about cleaning up his mess now? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just spot-checked about a dozen of the accounts Lostanos tagged, and all of them were indefinitely blocked as socks of Hkelkar. But they were all blocked on October 26, 2007, so I agree there isn't much value to posting a bunch of sock tags tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

They just asked for an unblock claiming that all the tags were on blocked but untagged hkelkar accounts... which appears to be correct, on spot check of 20 of them.

It's obviously not a real new user, and it's really darn suspicious to me... but I'd like second opinions on whether to leave blocked or not. One thing that occurs to me is that it might be Hkelkar doing a PR stunt run.

In the meantime, I think maybe just leave the tags as is, as they appear to be right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My immediate thought was an Hkelkar sock. Corvus cornix_talk 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say there's enough here for a checkuser, to see if it is a hkelkar sock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was way ahead of you on that one. Filed and listed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this isn't Hkelkar. It's more likely to be User:Kuntan than not. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Entirely possible, but the question remains: how in heaven's name was this disruptive? Relata refero (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat

Since no admin seems to have the sense to have unblocked User:Zenwhat yet, I'll make this a new section. This user was blocked for removing a section he started on the village pump [91], with the edit summary "Too angry when I wrote this. I don't want a flame-war. I changed my mind. This thread is getting deleted."

He was trying to make the situation right, and got blocked for it. Some users can be a pain in the butt, but guess what, no one has to edit Wikipedia, no one has to go to discussion pages. If people like Zen drive you mad, edit somewhere else, but you don't get to block them because you don't like them. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• This user's pattern of edits to project-space have been very eccentric, to say the least, and unhelpful. If he is unblocked, he should be restricted to editing only articles and their corresponding talk pages. *** Crotalus *** 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we should block people for personality qwerks. Unless they're actually being disruptive, don't block them, or restrict them. Criticism of the Foundation, however misplaced it might be, is not banned from the Village Pump. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the interesting quirk to look at is the pattern of making edits and either deleting them or claiming "oh well, I do silly things". Making mistakes is one thing, continually making mistakes with the justification that one makes mistakes is another. No I don't have a set of diffs. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• We users are often reminded that blocks are to protect WP and to prevent disruption, and are not used punitively. The blocking admin's rationale was that removing the comments of other editors was unacceptable. Zenwhat recognises he should have archived rather than removed. The comments have been restored, and the discuaaion in question is archived. There is thus little "protective" benefit to be had in continuing this block. Since I know that punitive blocks aren't permitted, the situation here must be that no one has noticed the discussions above or that not removing the block is an oversight - after all, none of Wikipedia's admins would ever act to punish an editor. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Zenwhat seems to have a history of acting, then recognising and apologising for inappropriate actions. To the extent that this statement is true, then the protective benefit of a continuing block is to prevent the disruption caused by these recurrent mistakes. The time-out also gives pause for reflection and hopefully self-remediation. Franamax (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have spent a lot of time on two serious efforts to convince Zenwhat to become more responsible in his actions. He accused me of violating WP:AGF and WP:AHI by criticising him. I invite those who feel that blocking Zenwhat was unjustified or not necessary to prevent further disruption to read my two long conversations with him (see my talk page). If this does not change your mind, then presumably I approached it in the wrong way and would like to get some feedback on my talk page. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if this was just a "personality quirk", that would be one thing. But this user seems to live to stir up the shit with twisted arguments that I have doubts over the sincerity of. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I missed this second thread, but per above, I unblocked about an hour ago. Orderinchaos 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Though Zenwhat is "retired" now, there is previous User:Nathan admitted, and see above similar edit pattern (briefly) a user banned? called something similar to User:Karmaisking. Are there issues of the socking nature that deserve more attention?

Interacting with Zenwhat on WP talkpages recently has been a rather frustrating experience.

I have no problems with Zenwhat being unblocked at this time, however, if the user comes back from retirement, some remedies (ie agree to abide by talkpage guidelines, and respect both WPspace and mainspace as decent venues for building knowledge, not a battleground).

Other editors have commented on Zenwhat's energy, prolificy, and remarkable tendency to hurl accusasions, of CABAL, assume bad-faith, invoke IAR, SPADE, -ICK, etc. The incivility is the main issue, and the user will not acknowledge the need to drop such nastiness in the future. But, then, they've retired. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking him was not the most smartest thing to do, since he has a history of becoming 'Hostile' towards other editors that disagree's with him, I'm not going to Bite him or call him a troll though his attitude is nothing less than what an actual troll does, he earlier created to policies on Meta called Precisionism and Don't be a crybaby with the latter being the one which defines his attitude perfectly..Previously he edited as an anon, where his attitude has been similar and he also had personal Grudges against editors like Sceptre and also making personal attacks against him as well as near edit warring here and on a deleted article maybe to enforce a POV... I don't think this person will ever contribute positively to wikipedia and thats why I disagree with the unbanning...--Cometstyles 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are the meta essays he wrote particularly bad? I for one find the "Don't be a crybaby" essay, while unfortunately named, a particularly illuminating essay and the approach with which I (try) to approach Wikipedia. --Iamunknown 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates.

I'll repeat what I told another admin just earlier to keep it simple:

"I'm not sure why you told me to go to ANI, the first thing I saw was a notice board telling me to report vandalism at the page that I reported it on. I'll explain the issue to you, perhaps you can help.

Ned Scott is taking ownership of templates that he created on the grounds that he has every right to make each template a unique color and size. Personally, when viewed on the pages these templates are featured on it detracts from the article, and in some cases is a technical issue of being difficult to read due to poor color choice and cause the template to look bad on lower screen resolutions. This is not the reason I posted his username on Admin intervention, the reason is how uncivil he has been towards me and how poorly he has been going about "fixing" the problems that he sees.

He has been using the undo function on about 30 separate templates reverting back to, in many cases, his last personal edit of that template. The problem with this is that in addition to removing the unsightly styling he also removed code tidying that I performed and worse other user edits that include things like adding and updating links, so on and so forth. I have brought this to his attention I believe three times now, but he continue to, by the definition of the word, knowingly vandalize these pages destroying positive and useful edits made by multiple users.

I invited him to discuss the styling issue he had with other members of video game project and me and kick started the discussion. Responses have mostly been that other felt the same way as me about personal styling on what's suppose to be a standardized way of navigating between pages of a related article. In that same discussion another admin warned Ned about using undo, and Ned's response was that he'd stop. He has not stopped. The most recent act of vandalism marks the fourth time he's done blind mass-undos and despite being told in plain english, continuing to ignore changes made by other users. In a few cases other users were turning his edits around in protest, and he goes and revert their changes as well.

Ned has been wholly uncooperative with me about this, I have attempted to communicate and failed, I have brought him into discussion and failed, I have given his very merciful warnings and failed. Unless someone intervenes and puts a stop to it he will continue to disregard his infractions and fellow Wikipedians. He even pulled his own warning off the intervention page, tell me yes or no if that was acceptable behavior.

It is far beyond a simple disagreement and I regret not putting it on the dispute page earlier, but this immaturity is destructive to this project and needs to stop."

If this is the best place to seek help regarding the issue then that's fine, but Ned should know better than to do a blind undo when he's been told repeatedly they are destroying valid changes. He's behaving childish towards me, calling me a liar, etc., and will not attempt to create middle ground. I don't have the patience for blunt-faced attitudes like this so I need help. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a few things wrong in this post. For one, never have I claimed that I created these templates.. I'm not sure why Aeron thinks so. Second, only originally did I completely undo his edits, since I saw his other modifications as minor technical changes. Since then I've made sure that those edits were saved, and made independent edits to add back in custom options that the templates originally had. He's completely wrong about me restoring to a completely older version, even though I've specifically pointed this out to him more than once.

WT:VG#Navbox custom styling, does it improve or reduce the quality of an article? is the discussion he is talking about. You can see that User:David Fuchs's comments, and my response to them, is very different than what Aeron describes. Two editors responded in the discussion that they felt general template standardization was desired, but that's about it.

You can see my original comments to him regarding this issue: [92], [93], [94]. If anyone could please talk some sense into Aeron I would be greatly indebted to you. -- Ned Scott 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Might as well get in on this while I can. I first encountered a conflict with Aeron here and again here. Notice that I didn't revert the template code back from when it looked like this because I generally agreed with the navbox look; the only issue was the width which I thought didn't look so great when the entire right side of the template is empty when at full width (on my screen). I was going to revert him again on the issue, but then User:Servant Saber got involved, only to revert himself which I found odd, so I checked his talk page and came to this discussion (I'm the 'other guy' he refers to btw) where Aeron talked about how the template at 50% the screen width would look very different then at my full width. Realizing this, I did a test by shortening my browser window and realized what he was getting at, so I went along with his edits. Then Ned got involved and (since I've had a good amount of experience with Ned in the past) I knew things were going to heat up since in my experience Ned can be very steadfast in his points and likes to do things quickly without much hesitation, or so I've come to realize through working with him for close to two years now on various issues. I knew that if Ned started reverting things, Aeron probably would too, and if he did that, Ned would just revert him again, and I see this is what happened, which of course leads us here.

My opinion on this issue falls on three template which I created: {{Key}}, {{Strawberry Panic!}}, and {{Higurashi no Naku Koro ni}}, so naturally I have them on my watchlist, so I was able to notice when the code was being edited. After either Aeron or Ned would edit, I'd come in and create a middle ground so the template still looked nice rather than disjointed, but I didn't revert either of their edits, mainly because I didn't want to get in the middle of it. In the end, the discussion about template widths made me agree that perhaps putting the template on full-width is better, but that's pretty much the only thing I agree with Aeron on regarding these templates. I do not see a problem with the colors, even though I've never used them myself, but that's because I'm too lazy. Also, I saw at {{Navbox}} that there are two bullets you can use in the template, {{·}}, and {{•}}, and seeing as I had a choice between the two, I chose the former since it was less obtrusive and looked better, though Aeron later reverted me on {{Key}} with this edit, saying that the much bolder separators are easier to see on higher resolution screens, and since I didn't feel like edit waring over such a tiny issue, I didn't really care, even if I do prefer the less bolder bullets. This comes back to Aeron's template standardization efforts, and the fact that he is not leaving any room for any deviation from a single standard, but I say what's the point in even having two different bullets to separate links in a template if we are only ever going to use one because it's "easier to see on higher resolutions". Same thing goes for template colors and width choices, since they are still a part of the navbox template code, and they were put there so people wouldn't have to only make a single choice when making a template and could somewhat color outside the lines a bit if they felt like it.

In short, there's no real policy or guideline preventing users from being a bit creative or having the choice what bullet type to use for a given template, and I do not think Aeron really has any real backing in order to systematically alter all the templates used on Wikipedia under a single standard due to there being no consensus as to use a single standardized template or not. I'd recommend Aeron start a discussion at WP:MOS or someplace similar which could get a community-wide discussion going as to whether templates should all look exactly the same or not, rather than just a tiny discussion at WikiProject Video Games.--十八 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a classic case of WP:BRD with Ned conducing the reverting part. There is no guideline or manual of style recommending the use of {{Navbox}}, so it is left up to the individual template editors and the related WikiProjects on whether to use it and how. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TRECA

There is some disruption on the article for TRECA. A user, alternating between three accounts, keeps inserting material criticising the school and its superintendent. In my humble opinion, their edits violate Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is neutral, no original research, biography of living persons, by targeting the superintendent, and information must be verifiable.

This has been going on since at least November 29.

Accounts in question

• Tommooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.241.244.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.241.241.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was going to provide diffs, but the users' contributions above will show you all the diffs you need because they're single purpose accounts. What can be done to address this problem? I wasn't sure where to post this, since it wasn't technically a 3RR violation and may involve sockpuppets, so I hope this is the right place. Thanks, Somno (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. As for Tommooney, given that he/she has only received one warning, let's see if he/she reforms himself/herself. If not, the user should be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given that the article is stubbed and unsourced, the temptation is to perform the nucliar option and delete it under WP:MORETROUBLETHANITSWORTH. Black Kite 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

True, it's not a great article. It's not even a good article. But maybe if the POV-pushing is stopped, other editors might be encouraged to improve it? I hope so. Thanks for your help Nlu. Somno (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed], seriously I agree with Black Kite, a quick search [95] brings hits connected to the association itself and the third party sources appear to be directories. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article PRODded. — Satori Son 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed {{prod}} as I believe the article should not be deleted. If there is belief otherwise, please AfD it. --Nlu (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's posts in RfC

I've written the following in response to Arcayne's latest lengthy response to two editors on Talk:Harold_Washington#RfC:_How_much_importance_should_be_placed_on_Mirth_.26_Girth_in_Harold_Washington.3F.

"wikipedia's policy's on civility including alluding to other editor's being less informed, intelligent or otherwise seemingly inferior to you are simply not acceptable. Not if you're in a bad mood, not if you feel you've explained everything already or for any other reason. In your latest (and, to me, excessive) reply to me you've insinuated that I'm "huffy or stupid", have "nothing but a bag of personal feelings", called me "parochial", non-objective; you've insinuated that I want to use anything but reliable sources which is simply false. I think you've again crossed the line but I'll invite you to ANI to see if I'm off-base on this."

As I'm one of the involved parties I didn't think I should post a civility warning on their talk page. I also didn't comment on their response, in the same edit, to another user that also seems to be full of borderline statements. This RfC has been a series of editors who state their concerns and this user verbosely counters apparently swaying no one. Personally I would have walked away, however, I feel their aim to install an image that the majority of those editors on the RfC have deemed unneeded is persistent and needs to be addressed. Benjiboi 10:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Previous request for advice. Benjiboi 11:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Arcayne gets away with a lot of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, largely since his comments are just so lengthy. El_C 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good summary. He's gotten better since joining, but he can backslide. ThuranX (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I admit that I can get pretty hot under the collar - as those who have posted in response here have, as well. I will also admit that my growing frustration with what I feel as a small group of three people determined to ignore/misinterpret wiki policy, guidelines and instead display rather OWNish behavior in the article has allowed me to forget to be more patient and polite. I will certainly work on that, and I had in fact apologized for my slip. Feeling a bit like Sysiphus made me lose my temper a bit.

While we are on the topic, it would be splendid to have some admin eyes on the article. Two editors - of which Benjoboi is one - have ignored my suggestions that they consult with an admin on the policy on point, or seek MedCab. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin? El_C 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I think it might be helpful if it weren't just myself pointing out policy and guidelines. I certainly feel that way, esp. when the sole reasoning for keeping the image out is the 'i don't like it' corker. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Avram

A couple of years ago we had a fellow edit warring on this article about a micronation, repeatedly inserting his own version of the article in place of versions produced by consensus editing. Today it appears that he, or a copycat, is back. See edits by Grandduke of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Probably no action is merited yet, but going by previous experience he can be pretty persistent. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of Neutralhomer

Per pretty clear evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neutralhomer, I have indefinitely blocked Flatsky (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used only when evading blocks. Flatsky's edits all took place during periods when the other account was under a block (within an hour of his Sept. 3 block and two days after his Jan. 10 block). Because of this, I have also reset that Jan. 10 block. Just posting this here for other eyes on it. Metros (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's getting to the time when we'll need to kick Neutralhomer out for good. He's causing more problems here than he's solving. The next block should really be indefinite. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have done it this time. He's had plenty of chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I did have that thought, but decided to just reset it. If anyone wants to open discussion on an indefinite block or just put one in place, they'd have my full support. Metros (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Usercompare β^_command 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer - Alison ^❤ 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer clearly desires to help edit Wikipedia, but his interactions with Calton and JPG-GR tend to be disruptive. Could we try to think of some creative solutions, as opposed to extending the block on the main account? Here are my thoughts.

• One thing that seems to get him into trouble is his use of automated reverts, like TWINKLE & popups. Why not remove all popup-enabled tools from his monobook and then protect it? If he wants to add a script, he could ask a sysop. (I recall that he and Riana are on friendly terms.)
• Also, does he edit in the same areas as Calton? If not, I say we limit both of their interactions with each other. (I say "each other" because interactions, initiated by whomever, between Neutralhomer and Calton, tend to result in Neutralhomer getting blocked.)
• I'm not certain how we can manage his relationship with JPG-GR ... as I recall, they frequently edit in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could do some type of probation or mentorship with an admin?

What do others think? --Iamunknown 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The blanking and protection of his monobook was done on one occasion - I think TW is a problem for him but his incivility is far worse. I've often interacted with him *during* his disputes and he's been perfectly friendly to me, and turns around to be as rude as possible to his 'opponent'. JGP-GR has been civil in his interactions with NH, despite his attitude, so I wouldn't object to a mentoring relationship there - I think it would be best to have an admin experienced in that area. Calton goes out of his way to belittle Homer, but if the latter is banned from interacting with him (I'd say they should both be, but Calton doesn't go looking for NH, it's the other way around), I'd be satisfied. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reality check: when Neutralhomer stalks my edits by blindly reverting and then proceeds to leave a series of actively insulting messages on that my talk page ("Ma'am"?), then that is NOT "go[ing] out of his way to belittle" him, at least not on this planet. I had not the slightest awareness of his newest incarnation before he inserted HIMSELF into my awareness by the aforementioned behavior. That's a problem with his impulse control and nothing to do with me. --Calton | Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdsdfsdf

Resolved

I draw your attention to User:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdsdfsdf. I'm 99% sure that someone with that user name isn't here to do much good --Capitana (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of WP:U (lengthy and random username). For future reference, there is a dedicated board for reporting inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA. Sandstein (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User making up episodes of Transformers: Animated

A User at 170.215.129.70 keeps making up the plots of episode of the Transformers: Animated TV series and adding them to pages talking about it. For insytance he would add things like "According to the synopsis for episode 10, "Contagious Slobber" Bumblebee gets a rash on his mouth and Ratchet, Prowl, and Bulkhead try to remember what the rash was made from." These episodes seem to be completely nonsense, not real, and every time I remove them he re-adds them. Mathewignash (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a return vandal. – Steel 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

IOND University

The user over there is claiming that the content on the article is criminal because it hasn't been approved by IOND. They posted this link attesting to that: Here. They said the information is false, but the cites are from state or government or IOND themselves. At first I thought it was just someone removing criticism, but it occurred to me that it might be more serious than that, so I'm bringing it up here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They are violating WP:NLT< it looks like. I've reverted teh blanking ,but also removed an uncited statement. ThuranX (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. Hopefully he'll reply or use the discussion page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: on OTRS now at [96]18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

User:JGJGJGJGJGJG

An admin might want to inspect the contributions of this user. They've created a number of pages in the wikipedia space that make little sense. As well as some strange coding on their userpage/subpages. Their name may be a violation of policy too. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At first blush, the newbie appears to need an education, yes, especially in what's allowable image-wise. Feel free. But a couple useful little stub articles seem to have come from him/her so I'd recommend to be nice for now. The username is fine (I've gotten screamed at for blocking worse). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of "confusing usernames" at the username policy talkpage. Interested editors might like to comment there. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Image:Questionmark copyright.svg? I'm not sure I understand what's going on there, but this user created it with tags claiming that it's on Commons and protected, which obviously it isn't. If this image really is transcluded in a lot of places and really isn't protected, that's just mischief waiting to happen. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I had deleted that earlier, and again just now. I listed WP:CSD#I8 as a reason but now that I think about it, I guess it's an WP:CSD#I2 - there is no image. The user is just creating the page for the image, not uploading a new copy. There is a version on Commons which is apparently transcluded a lot and is rightly protected there. Here it doesn't appear to be used that much. But someone should ask why he keeps creating the page all the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyrus111 making a mess again

Sorry, you archived before I got the opportunity to respond.

Unresolved incident resubmitted because the user came back to insert [97] his undue stuff again without any intention to resolve the disagreement per TALK. Quote:

This user tries to revive Aryans and does not mind to use false references to fill Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA) (and reinsert stubbornly) with WP:UNDUE gibberish:

[98].

Moreover, he tries to put material together in a way that constitutes original research (WP:SYNTH), even though he does not manage for the "simple" reason that his sourced references don't support his claims for a bit. This is POV-pushing and in violation of WP:NOR. To be sure, this does not have anything to do with a justified encyclopedic compilation using proper quotes. One example of this abuse of sources out of three:

• His own quote "The Kurgan's thesis is the predominant model of Indo-European origins and likely the origin of the spread of R1a and R1a1." he sourced with Mallory (1989:185). Apart from the very one-sided inaccuracy of the first part of this statement, Mallory was absolutely agnostic of the gene R1a1 in 1989.

I don't know yet what policy he is violating by putting references around his claims using quotes that don't match, still this looks a pretty serious violation of something.

1. An assessment to the abuse of his sourced references you'll find at Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Iran_and_Central_Asia
2. We also had discussions here:[99]
3. And also here: [100]

Please do something, because nothing works to make him stop.

Rokus01 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute? It looks like one, and it is not for Administrator attention (Administrators cannot weigh in on content disputes with their various tools). If it is, then see dispute resolution. Looking at that, I suggest a request for comment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute. This is trolling and vandalism. The WP:UNDUE information that the user keeps inserting here, without even bothering to TALK or produce sensible arguments, makes reference to sources that say something completely different. The guys from Third Opinion don't have a clue either what's it all about, hence the problem is not what content this user wants to insert so badly: it is about why an article should suffer this kind of abuse and face imminent protection, without first addressing the vandal. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. rudra (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what a diff to a random personal attack of some user (known by the way for quoting attack accounts and sockpuppets) has to do with content? Please don't troll around here to obfuscate this incident. This is about editwarring on undue information abusing references saying something completely different. Rokus01 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Undue information"? "Abusing references"? Spells "content dispute" to me. rudra (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, content is not the issue. The bad behaviour of the editor is. And why you try to obfuscate this incident again? You'd better spell "content dispute" by reading the procedures:

If a situation needs quick attention, report it to WP:AN or ask for page protection. They will take it from there. [101] (Note: page protection is what I try to avoid)

Why urgent? Because (1) Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias, (2) the editor does not bother to discuss the issue or explain his point of view on TALK and (3) is determined to editwar about it. Rokus01 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Retepretep

This user is editing 1.HNL articles and i have no idea where he comes up with the content. I believe he's been doing it on other articles too. And he's persistant too. A little help would be nice. [[102]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malez (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Janko Tipsarevic.jpg

Resolved

 – Image deleted as copyvio. Sandstein (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if this is a problem, but I'm posting here just in case. The image was uploaded by Milaneus (talk · contribs), originally as non-free. See his talkpage, a bot notified the user. Also, check Google Images for "Janko Tipsarevic". You will notice there is an identical image from ABC Australia. However, (see his contributions) he later uploaded the image as pd-self. See the current image. However, the image is still non-free because on the ABC Australia site, it gives Getty Images or something like that a credit for the image. I also find it unlikely that he took it himself. Is there a convincing metadata for his pd-self? I'm not very familiar with this stuff, so please look into it. I don't think he knows how to specify a proper fair use rationale, either. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, based in part on his comment to you, I highly doubt that he is the photographer Ryan Pierse who took this picture. Speedy deleted as copyright violation. I will investigate whether this editor's other uploads also need action. Sandstein (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like my talk page content restored

Resolved

[103]. At deletion review it says to contact the admin who removed it, but the admins page is protected and no one who is not an admin can write on it. He deleted my user talk page and then put some stuff back, but stuff he puts back dates only to several weeks ago and I believe the whole thing should be restored. Can I put it on deletion review now since I can't contact him? Abridged ^talk 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a complicated situation, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with an admin exercising their Right to Vanish by deleting someone else's talk page. Is there something I am missing that would somehow make this appropriate? — Satori Son 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at it, it seems that the recently VANISHed admin has been amending all reference to themselves - replacing username with "VANISH", etc. I also don't think it is part of the remit for a sysop to part delete anothers talkpage to remove such content. Abridged, can I make a proposal? If I or another admin were to undelete the missing content would you then archive it? I have no idea what relationship you and the other party had, but taking it off your "front" talkpage while allowing access for all other purposes may be a reasonable compromise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The material deleted is, frankly, somewhat slanderous, and she refused to let me simply replaace my name with a proxy. Leave it deleted unless she will let me bloody well vanish. - Vanished user 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adam, this is rather disruptive. Please don't edit war with people on their userpage - much less on ArbCOm pages [104]. If you think revisions need to be deleted, ask an impartial admin to look into it. I have some sympathy with your wish to redact your full name, but I recommend you do so with the agreement of other people. Removing even any mention of your Christian name seems a little ridiculous. WjBscribe 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what oversight is for? —Whig (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is for revealed personal info and the like. This doesn't raise to that level to my understanding. Vanished user, why don't you just apply for a rename and then it would be more palatable to remove your name from all archives? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have. To User:Vanished user. - [[WP:VANISH]|Vanished user]]

I'm pretty sure that's not what Wknight meant. — Satori Son 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I see now that an actual name change request was filed but declined. Sorry. — Satori Son 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I see the rename is becoming contentious too. Figures. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions: Is the current series of changes by Vanished User something that any editor could do if they wished, or does it require administrator power?

How long does a person retain Admin status after they vanish? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion can only be done by administrators. Account renames can only be done by bureaucrats. Changing your name on talk pages and archives can be done by anyone. For some reason, the thread initiator is reverting the name changes. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored these edits. Adam, this is not the way to go about this. Request for these deletions to be made by another admin. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to archive (I'll figure out how to do it). There was nothing slanderous against vanished user by the way. If vanisheduser had just asked me, I would have helped him, but I just feel he should have gotten others involved rather than doing this by caveat on his own. Abridged ^talk 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawing up attention to oneself is a perfect way to vanish. </sarcasm> Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know these editors but instead of the rudeness and bad attitude going on why can't the editor just take everything out of the archives? It seems like a simple solution then all of the drama and behavior. Just my opinion but to me this is just common sense. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you may have misunderstood. Most of my talk page content was deleted and I had no access to it at all. This is why I posted here, to get the content restored. It has been done, and it has been archived as someone suggested above. Abridged ^talk 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Teddy.Coughlin

User Teddy.Coughlin is constantly adding false information into articles after I told him to stop. When I did so, he kept on adding false and unsourced information.

He is also operating an IP address 24.63.6.149 and doing the same thing.

He was blocked previously (Username and IP address), but it didn't work. So I am requesting a long term block on the username and IP address since final warnings are not working at all. Momusufan (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He is still continuing to add false and unsourced information as of this writing. Momusufan (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to give us concrete evidence, with WP:DIFFs, that this is about purposeful disruption rather than about a content dispute (which we do not mediate here; see WP:DR for more information). Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

here is some diff's to prove it. [105] [106] [107]

The IP address is making similar edits as well. Momusufan (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not persuaded me why this needs administrator intervention, and how. These edits look unproblematic to me. If you simply think the user adds wrong information, see WP:DR. You should then only come back here if you can clearly show that this is an issue of systematic vandalism. Sandstein (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jazzing up text with html

Resolved

 – Article speedy deleted

A new user has been jazzing up an article (apparently about himself) with html. I reverted it as I presumed it's a violation of WP:STYLE to do this, but I can't actually find anything at the style page that forbids this. Are you allowed to do this or not? Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd classify that as disruptive. You should politely inform the user on how we format articles, and report him to WP:AIV if he continues to apply idiosyncratic HTML formatting. Sandstein (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was originally listed for deletion, but I tagged it to be speedied, which was rejected, so the deletion discussion has been resumed. The article creator tried to remove the speedy-deletion tags, which I warned them for. I'm still surprised this article was rejected for a speedy deletion- it has five cleanup tags on it, and appears to be an advertisement and non-notable... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a blantant copyvio and should be speedy deleted. Lara❤Love 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(after EC)It looks like the jazzed up version was copied/pasted from here. The jazzed up version was then toned down to wikipedia standards but the information remained intact. AngelOfSadness talk 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object, then, if I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Article has already been deleted. Momusufan (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who rejected that speedy, but I just deleted it. It's not only blatant advertising, it was also a copyright violation in its entirety. A copy/paste including HTML tags of their own website. Unsourceable and placed here only to promote themselves. Lara❤Love 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Question - if its his own website, written by himself, why is it a copyright violation? Isn't he simply releasing his work under GNU Free? Avruchtalk 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But getting back to the basic principle - where does it actually say you can't use HTML extensively in creating an article? I've always assumed you can't, but I haven't come across anything in the policy pages that says as much. Shouldn't there at least be a line or two in the style guide about this? Gatoclass (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

129.133.124.199 - Continued hostility and incivil behaiviour

Previously posted comments like: "I know it galls your sanctimonious self-image to have to face your own hostility, but that isn't my problem", "...clearly you've been acting like a petulant child..." "Stunning. I mean, if you had no ethical pretensions whatever, then your bitter unscrupulousness would be expected", and so on. Was blocked for uncivil behavior and removing material like this when the editor didn't agree with the references.

After the block ended has continued personal attacks with claiming that he's being stalked, sock puppet allegations, "If you can't curb your aggression, why don't you consider therapy? Your content is wrong, and the game you are playing is borderline psychotic." and continued claims that he's being attacked with no evidence provided of that yet. I'm not sure if a block is appropriate but the editor has been exceedingly hostile toward a bunch of editors. Any ideas? Sasquatch t|c 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for us to accept such conduct under any circumstances. I'm applying a one month {{schoolblock}} to the IP, up from 2 weeks last time, so that the editor may come back with an account if he thinks he's learned to behave civilly. Sandstein (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully support this block. It's this kind of trollish behavior that can drive away valuable contributors, and we should not tolerate it whatsoever. — Satori Son 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would also highly recommend a block to the user's other IP of abuse, User_talk:159.247.3.210, see the history and talk pages of Theta Nu Epsilon, Wesleyan University, and others where abuse is recent, and in the case of the Theta Nu talk page, ongoing. The last time this user was blocked, s/he shifted to IP 210 and created quite a bit of bad karma at the Theta Nu Epsilon article; that page is now protected indefinitely and the talk page discussion has broken down as a result. Removing this person's input from editing that talk page would, I believe, be a breath of fresh air to the other editors and allow them to resolve some of their difficulties. In any case, thanks so much for attending to this; it's been an ongoing problem across several articles for a long time. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The same IP was also very abusive on Talk:List of collegiate secret societies for quite a while, as well. They don't seem to understand what being civil is. Corvus cornix_talk 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog From Hell

There's a backlog up the wazoo at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets; I count about 30 cases there. I just posted my first one and am unfamiliar with how SSP works; could we get some aid to whittle it down? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

IP editor being disruptive -please help

Editor 201.245.216.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continuing an ongoing wiki-campaign to disruptively add (randomly inaccurate) information to infoboxes of multiple celebrities without discussion. I noticed this latest time here (edit on Michael J. Fox page diff). Some of the other IP's doing the same thing (most likely the same user) here:

201.245.218.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

201.245.216.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

201.245.218.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It's all s/he does, I'm tired of dealing with it, more eyes please. And please check all of the latest contributions. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla, R. Baley (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to file a suspected sock complaint. You may be able to take action against the user via that route as well. Lambton ^T/_C 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jovin Lambton, and thanks for the suggestion. However, I think it's pretty clear that it's the same user here, so the main questions are: 1) Is the level of disruption worth a range block, (2) how many/what type of users will be affected by a range block?, (3) How long to implement it? I don't know any of those things, so in the mean time I'll just save the post, and if/when it comes up again, re-post with the new info as needed. Is it dull? sure. But it's about all I can do on my end. R. Baley (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I would support any effort to block this editor if the use of multiple IPs has had the effect of generating false consensus. Lambton ^T/_C 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP - incivility, refusal to discuss, what to do?

Hi there. At Palestinian people I'm dealing with an anon IP that has twice accused me of being a "mossad agent" [108] [109], despite having asked him after the first time to avoid personal attacks. He is also repeatedly insisting on inserting text, unsourced and poorly composed into the introduction, without respecting the fact that almost three months of discussion went into formulating the first sentence of said introduction. I don't know how to deal with this. I've asked him to discuss on his talk page. His reply (to the negative) is here. I don't want to revert him again (I already have twice and I'm not into edit-warring). The article content is degraded by his edits and he won't discuss alternatives. (See talk page section here: [110]) Please help. Tiamut^talk 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article as the changes are messing up the article's appearance. Nakon 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If the ip reverts/re-introduces their text without discussion I suggest warning them that they are editing against consensus, that per Bold, Revert, Discuss they have been reverted and any changes made without discussion will be reverted as vandalism/disruption. Following such a final warning you can a) revert without fear of violating 3RR, and b)report transgression to WP:AIV for admin attention (which will likely be quicker than coming back here). Any report to AIV should mention both the existing consensus and this discussion for quicker resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your help and advice. He seems to have calmed down now and is engaging in some discussion. I am hoping that will last. Again, thank you. Tiamut^talk 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note, this last week, besides being called a "Mossad agent" as above, I was also accused of being a "racist" against Israelis [111] by a user that was subsequently blocked. Can't please anybody these days! Tiamut^talk 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm... A mossad double agent? An anti mossad mossad agent? Possibly even worse than that, a NPOV warrior! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

is this disruptive?

Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And Tons of IP's, is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency - (created by Amcluesent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), List of Special Response Units, Serious Organised Crime Agency and others. Attempts have been made on his talk page and the editor claims he works for the NPIA, see [112][113][114][115]. All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. I've reported this to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency. Although many of the edits seem good, i don't think ive seen his type of editing before--Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over and am AGF'ing it. I have made similar comments to those as yours (i.e. please use the preview function) and made it clear that I am a Brit, and made some hopefully helpful suggestions, so they don't think they are being hassled by a bunch of ex-Colonials. I haven't mentioned it there, but I think they were a little upset at being referred to as a vandal. I must admit it was quite satisfying to tell a rozzer person connected with law enforcement what they should be doing - and one from the Met, at that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking if "making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency -" is disruptive, is it that you are trying to get someone to agree that it is disruptive so the person can be banned? Is what you describe disruptive, the answer is no. It's more like a not so good style of editing. Spevw (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your reading a bit much into the question, obvious disruption would have resulted in my blocking him myself. When editors attempt to contact a user about the particulars of certain behaviors with little or no result, community input is necessary. Example being LessHeard vanU's comment may be able to establish communication better than those of us who have already tried.--Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ang Lee & Lust, Caution (film) TW vs CN disputes

There seems to be a bit of a cold war going on at Ang Lee, Lust, Caution (film) and probably other, related places. In particular, User:TheAsianGURU has made multiple edits to Lust, Caution (film) to remove or dilute references to Taiwan, such as [116]. I got involved when I noticed that they had removed a sourced fact and used a misleading edit summary. Can someone step in before this gets out of hand? Thanks. David Lodge (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean this edit. The one you point to is an innocuous edit by an anon IP. Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mike0001

On February 5th, User:Mike0001 edited the Rough Collie article by adding some NPOV remarks, an image of his pet collie, and a spam link. I reverted the changes and left him a level 1 NPOV warning. The next day, he put back the image again[117], which was again removed as it did not comply with WP:IMAGE (doesn't illustrate the text) and the article is far too short to support anymore images. Two days later (i.e. today), Mike reverted that removal, as well as edits in between calling it "vandalism"[118]. I undid again, and apparently he has decided that he is going to edit war over the issue. We have been back and forth for almost an hour, with him not only trying to readd the picture, as well as breaking the article in attempts to denote a whole paragraph as needing citations. In readding the picture, he also reuploaded it (first as Image:Shadow Rough Collie.JPG then as Image:Lamtara Golden Spritzer.jpg), seemingly in an attempt to disguise that it is a picture of his pet collie. I've attempted discussing the issue with him on his talk page, after leaving another warning, but he continues to just put it back and put it back.talk page diff, since he's since erased all messages I finally left him a 3RR warning (which he'd long since violated), and he responded by leaving me two.[119][120] He also seems to be engaging in edit disputes on other articles including Faust (History), Boiling to death(History), and List of nontheists (History) among others (a quick look at his contribs show quite a few, but these are some of the most recent). Anyone undoing his NPOV, unsourced, and often blatantly wrong edits is apparently a vandal.

At this point, my temper is too high to keep dealing with him, and in undoing his mess, I've also gone past the 3RR mark, so I'm asking for admin intervention. While I was working on this report, the was been protected, to a previous bad version, by another admin. As soon as the protection is gone, I'm sure Mike will continue his campaign, and meanwhile he will continue to cause problems on other articles. Collectonian (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

merged from other thread. Black Kite 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User Collectonium seems to think that he is the only person allowed to edit the Rough Collie. This is not WP policy! Also Lamtara Golden Spritzer is registered, has a pedigree, and is called Shadow by his family!

All the edits I make here and elsewhere are well justified. I am a retired academic! NOT a vandal. Mike0001 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of Image:Lamtara_Golden_Spritzer.jpg in that article, and is referring to User:Collectonian - I fixed the spelling and added a link in the header. —Random832 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an actual report, or a response to my report two up from this? Of the latter, can it be moved up to keep the conversation in one place. Collectonian (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: restoring as there was no discussion and it was archived after only one day...

Admin Arthur Rubin blocked again for 3RR

I've blocked Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for WP:3RR on Alex Jones (radio) per this 3RR report. Since this editor is an administrator and has been previously blocked before for edit warring on the same article, I'd like for the community to see if there is a possible need for an article probation or other restrictions for this editor. Thanks, Nakon 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should leave it at this block for now. Being blocked twice for edit warring on the same an article within a month is a bad sign, true, but I don't think it indicates a need for anything beyond a slightly longer block. If it continues, we may end up back here, but I think we can see if he'll stop after this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is of course bad practive for any editor to edit war, especially an administrator who should be setting an example to the community. Although the edit warring took place on the the same article as the previous block, we shouldn't hold the fact that he's an administrator prejudice our actions here - how would we react if this was an editor without +sysop? We'd give them their block and that would be all - we wouldn't suggest community restrictions against them on an article. I agree that a block was reuquired, would you consider reducing it down to 48 hours rather than 3 days? It's more in line with similar blocks in the past (yeah, I know it's a pedantic issue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice User:Hereward77 was blocked for edit warring on the same article just a few weeks ago and made at least 3 reverts, as did User:Snowfire51 but who has not been previously blocked. I know we hold admins to a higher conduct standard, but neither of these other users were even warned for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I only made three edits to this article, and tried to get this editor to discuss them repeatedly. I warned him he had already violated WP:3RR, and he blew me off and continued. I stopped at three, and even though I disagree with something on the page now, I have elected to bring it up and clarify it on the talk page, rather than violate WP:3RR. I had no desire to enter into an edit war, I tried to discuss things to gain consensus and this user was not interested in anything that took his edits off of the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked User:Hereward77 for edit warring as well. He didn't technically violate 3RR, but multiple previous edit warring blocks including one for edit warring on the same article means that he should definitely know better.

To Snowfire51: edit warring does not only become a policy violation after the 3rd revert, it is disruptive from the first. Consider this a warning. Mr.Z-man 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning received. I stand by my contributions as evidence that I understand policy, and will uphold it in the future. No hard feelings. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread reactivation (JzG blocks)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks, where I've reactivated a thread that people may have moved on from, so I'm notifying people here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Various users stalking and harassing User:Charles

Hello. Over the past few weeks, several people have been harassing User:Charles, calling him a sockpuppet, troll, and various other things, impeding his ability to work on the encyclopedia. I have dealt with this situation twice, short blocks had no effect whatsoever. Please see here and User talk:Keilana/Archive2#Complaint about a stalker for more information. I do think there's a possibility of sockpuppetry between the users mentioned (not Charles), and would recommend an indef block on Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and I vonH (talk · contribs). Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this report, Keilana. Tfoxworth initially was the subject of a report here a year or so ago (my memory is a little fuzzy on that matter), but it didn't go far because the report was not really noticed (much more must have been going on at the time) a pattern had not yet really developed and it certainly appeared then to be a content dispute. However, over a period of weeks and months it developed into stalking behaviour involving this user, another user who claims to be his wife (I vonH, and therefore his meatpuppet, at the least, on the basis of tag-team reversions and stalking) and a number of proven IP addresses, all of which can be viewed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth. Initially, the sockpuppets were all tagged and categorized as a means of organizing a report which was filed more or less at the same time as a previous WP:AN/I report. Over the passing weeks and months, Tfoxworth's and I vonH's behaviour has been consistently disruptive and aggressive and has usually been targeted at me but now also at others who may or may not share my viewpoint. More specifically, I should say people who oppose the two users' viewpoints are those who are targeted. This is a long-term abuse situation that has been steadily going on and I truly feel it should be dealt with accordingly with a final ban, discussed here as a record of the situation. There have also been a number of other similar stalking editors in the past that seem to arrive in a cascading effect but I have not been able to make as clear of a connection between any of them as the obvious connection between the presumed Mr. and Mrs. Foxworth. Charles 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Tfoxworth and I vonH have *just* turned up reverting a lot of the changes made to a number of articles. Charles 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor abusing Rollback privileges

Resolved

Undead warrior (talk · contribs) has created a number of footer templates for music artists which are OK except the user did not use the correct/standard/consensus colour format and instead has chosen the "more metal" black colour scheme. No big problem. An attempt was made to correct the colour format but the user has decided to vio WP:OWN on the templates and is using his newly acquired rollback permissions to revert constructive edits which are clearly not vandalism. Some of these edits are [121][122][123][124][125]. The user left a talk page post here in which he states "If you change the colour I will just keep changing them back" Which shows that the user intends to continue to violate WP:OWN and may also ignore WP:3RR to do so. And... for these reverts... is using the 'Rollback' function which is intended for vandal hunting and not edit warring. Can someone take the time to explain WP:OWN, WP:3RR and the proper use of 'rollback' to this user. Perhaps a little WP:CIVIL explanation would help as well. 156.34.234.144 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this appears to be an abuse of the rollback privileges. This is not clear vandalism that is being committed and he even admits this himself when he says that the changing of the colors is a matter of "personal preference". I think his rights should be removed. I'll leave this here for a bit longer before I do just to get input from other admins first. Metros (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it clearly looks like abuse of rollback. Removing it seems reasonable. Friday (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

based on the evidence given, the editor is using the rollback tool for edit warring behavior. Jeepday (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally the editor was given the rules that Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits. [126] prior to engaging the inappropriate behavior. Jeepday (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite got to it just as I was about to edit it. Metros (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse fully. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, clearly a misuse, hence why I removed it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears editor is using rollback to edit war. Removal is very reasonable.--Ѕandahl 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, also, and endorse Ryan's removal. Sarah 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have recieved a little bit of warning before being revoked. The warning came and then the privelages were removed. (i might have spelled that wrong) Either way, I did not know that the rollback tool should not have been used as I had used it. I thought it was being used justly. I had warned the user that his edits were un-constructive. I had reverted them previously and told him where to find the standard template. He just kept on re-doing his old edits without justification. Undeath (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, so you didn't read the message left upon being given rollback, nor did you read the extremely clear instructions at the top of the WP:RFR page when you filed your request? I'm sorry, I hardly consider that Ryan's fault. Daniel (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The user's edits were unconstructive because they were at odds with you? GlassCobra 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the notice because after I had edited, I had to wrestle my match. I read the instructons, and I thought that I had given fair warning before I reverted using rollback. I say that his edits were unconstructive becasue they were accomplishing nothing. He just changed the color around. Plus, I have been trying to convert certain templates over to the new template, which, when I was going through this, I would get an edit conflict thus loosing my changes. I have now successfully(spelling?) created the new version of the template for Sentenced. Undeath (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And after re-doing another template due to another edit conflict, I have successfully(spelling?) created Satyricon Undeath (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) And "unconstructive" is so clearly the same thing as "vandalism"... also, why were the edit unconstructive? Is standardizing color unconstructive? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having that very conversation with the editor right now at User_talk:Metros#Templates. My main question is why is it "constructive" to make the templates a non-standard color (black) but "unconstructive" to make it the standard colors. Metros (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NLT Block/Blanking review

Would appreciate another set of eyes. TheDivineDiva (talk · contribs) added fairly clear legal threats to the Captain & Tennille and Toni Tennille articles and talk pages. After a warning, the editor placed another legal threat and I disabled the account. The Captain & Tennille article was also blanked, which I initially reverted. On review; the article does lack sources and I would feel it falls under the BLP guidelines since the text deals with the group members in some detail so I "reset" it myself. Any other opinions are welcome; and admin actions are open for review. Kuru ^talk 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in email contect with legal representatives of Tennille - we're making good progress at the minute regarding a compormise and what to do with the article. I deleted Toni Tennille the other day as a BLP violation as it was completely unsourced - I'm currently looking at the Captain & Tennille article and considering what to do with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the final warning was given at 1:09 [127]and the editors last edit was to Toni Tennille at 1:06 [128] then they edited to the talk page at 1:12 [129], would seem to a a copy an paste so, would seem they had a chance to read your comment before final post. I might suggest just a cooling off block of a few hours, and longer later if the behavior reoccurs, the possiblity does exist that they did not see the warning until after the 1:12 edit particularity if they did not refresh a screen between 1:09 and 1:12. Jeepday (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be assured that a block would not help the situation. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I cannot react to off-wiki negotiations; only the on-wiki manifestations. If they will cease with the legal threats, I'd have zero problems with an immediate unblock. Alternatively, an unblock performed by you on the assumption that they will understand the situation. Kuru ^talk 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise you'd already blocked the account. Your block was certainly within policy so it should stand for now. I've emailed the party again - hopefully I'll get a favourable response and we can get a consensus on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Nishkid64 blocking users based on favoritism

I have filed a 3RR report on Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) here only to find out that Admin Nishkid64 says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman and not have him blocked here. However, when I went over the 3RR, he blocked me instantly here. This is straight out favoritism and an abuse of power on this admin's part. It is not fair that one editor can have such privileges to avoid being blocked for 3RR violations. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not presented any evidence that this is due to "favoritism". The circumstances may have been different. Alternatively, he may have simply taken two different courses of action at two different times; there's no algorithm for how to deal with 3RR reports. -- tariqabjotu 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect if one has broke the 3RR rule, doesn't that entitled the editor to be blocked? Correct me if I am wrong, but on the 3RR page it states, "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. The rule applies per editor." This was found on the 3RR page here. So, please let me know if 3RR only applies to particular editors (race, caste, creed, sex, nationality). Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And doesn't the same exact page you just cited say the following: "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action."? So, in this case, Nishkid64 made some judgment here. Metros (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, I blocked you in September for disruptive edit warring over the addition of WikiProject templates on talk pages. In January 2008, you violated 3RR over the same WikiProject template on an article talk page. I had told you before to seek a consensus before adding those templates back. You failed to engage in such discussion and you violated 3RR, so I blocked you. Also, I did not handle the 3RR report you filed. Bakasupraman contacted me off-wiki hours before, and asked for my thoughts. I reviewed the situation, told him he had violated 3RR, and issued warnings to both Baka and Relata refero. I chose not to block the users because they were engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I was going to protect the page, but I decided to leave it alone for the time being. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So, would it be ok for me to edit war just as long as I have dialog on the page? Wiki Raja (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR violations are handled separately. You engaged in repeated disruptive edit warring, so I blocked you. Bakasupraman has a history of that behavior, but I didn't think it was appropriate to block him (and Relata) when they were both engaging in serious discussion on the talk page. If you had been engaging in serious discussion and violated 3RR, an admin might consider just protecting the page, instead of blocking. However, like I said, it's an admin's call. Different situations need different action. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Fairdeal08 (talk · contribs) has apparently decided to employ WP as a personal soapbox -- or perhaps "pulpit" is a better word -- by continuing to insert a personal essay about belief into Talk:Agnosticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity‎, and, finally, in article space, at What to believe. He's been given multiple instances of advice as to why this is inappropriate, but shows no sign or willingness to understand said advice [130] [131] [132]. I don't think he's here to contribute, personally, just hijack, but if someone wants to take run at him, be my guest. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article has now been deleted as patent nonsense, and I was about to do that myself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is follow up at Wikipedia:Help_desk#I_need_help_with_a_vandalism_deletion_of_my_article_pages Jeepday (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block review of User:TlatoSMD by Rlevse

• TlatoSMD (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• See here

I personally agree with this indefinite block, but I think because TlatoSMD has made some contributions worth keeping and has been an editor on the English and German Wikipedia for some time the ban should get wider review. Avruchtalk 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to disagree with the blocking admin's rationale left on User talk:TlatoSMD. The disruption and incivility needed to be permanently stamped out. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I fully support this block, and would have advocated an indefinite block on Tlato long ago. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this block. Just as 3RR isn't licence to revert an article 3 times, everyday, no matter what, DRV isn't a forum to rehash every XfD that closed against one's interests. Also, the continued incivility from this user WP:NPA and his attempts at WP:GAMEING the system are a major issue. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse the block per the sound rationale left by the blocking admin. TlatoSMD is a disruptive SPA who has tried so hard to game the system for weeks now, and has repeatedly disrupted deletion processes in an attempt to push a POV. The incivility is just icing on the cake. --Coredesat 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per my comment on the user's talkpage [133]. Disruptive and combative user. WjBscribe 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• An indef block is excessive - I would recommend a temporary block. (The following rationale for this has been copied from TlatoSMD's Talk Page)

While it's true that TlatoSMD can use a bit more tact in his commentary from time to time, indef blocking seems wildly inappropriate in this situation. His confrontational and "snappy" responses and exclamations are a result of what this individual perceives to be unrelenting attacks and POV-pushing by both regular editors and admins. Although he may have stepped out of line several times with his tone and heavy-handed words, I can't say I completely disagree with his interpretation of what has been happening on Wikipedia, especially in regards to PAW articles and their editors, for the past year or so. A great deal of misrepresentation is occurring, biases are clouding both editing and discussion, and a multitude of editors are refusing to engage in direct debate, preferring to completely disregard positions they personally disagree with. The fact that a number of admins have been either apathetic to TlatoSMD's situation or, in fact, engaged in the very same nonconstructive practices just mentioned has frustrated TlatoSMD quite a bit. Placed within such a hostile environment, and ignored by many regular editors and admins alike, TlatoSMD began to pick his words with less tact than is expected. Although some may be correct in asserting that some sort of block is in order, maybe even longer than several days or a week, indefinite blocking this individual would not benefit the project as a whole. Wikipedia will be hurt if it loses yet another intelligent, well-read, and usually civil editor, who's not afraid to speak his mind and to point out policy violations and POV-pushing when they occur, even at the risk of opposing many influential Wikipedians. A temporary block may be in order, so that TlatoSMD rethinks his approach to commentary and regains appreciation for civility, but an indef block will do nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia or its articles. The controversial PAW articles will definitely suffer, and an indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, to respond quickly to the reasons provided by Rlevse for the indef block. First of all, I fail to see any conclusive evidence that TlatoSMD is a single purpose account. Although a great deal of this user's recent edits have focused on PAW articles, his contribution history, via both his current and previous accounts, clearly shows that he has edited a variety of articles. Besides, being an SPA is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for indef blocking. Next, his "snappiness" and (what can be deemed by some) uncivil behavior can be addressed with a temporary block - no indef block is necessary. Besides, this is only the third block this editor ever got, and all the blocks were recently received in regards to the ongoing discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Adult-child sex" article and of the various drafts that attempted come up with a quality representation of this controversial subject. Then, even though this is a very "icky" topic for many, TlatoSMD followed proper Wikipedia procedures in contesting the deletions just mentioned. Thus, his actions to this regard should not be grounds for an indef block. As for the supposed "canvassing," this behavior can be addressed by warnings or a temporary block - once again, no indef block is called for. Lastly, this editor is quite capable of editing articles constructively and civility, as his editing history clearly demonstrates. To assert that TlatoSMD is "not here to be constructive" is to blatantly ignore all his contributions prior to his controversial conduct in the recent debates. There's much that this editor can contribute to Wikipedia. And, yes, enforcement of policy and emphasis on NPOV are just two of the positives that TlatoSMD generally brings to the table. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're misquoting me, I did not say he was a sock, I said his admitted doppelganger account, see this prior version of his user page. Also, I protest your claim this is censorship, the issue is incivility and disruption. As for his good edits, that is not a defense, per Jimbo's link below. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading a part of your comment. I have now adjusted my response to account for the assertion that TlatoSMD is an SPA. As for the "doppelganger" comment, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand. As far as I know, many editors mistakenly create several spellings of their username and only end up using one of the account. Since this is his primary account, and the combined contribution history of his current and previous account show editing in a variety of articles, I fail to see what makes TlatoSMD an SPA. Besides, as stated above, being an SPA, even if this was true of this particular editor, is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for an indef block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also no assertion that your particular indef blocking of TlatoSMD is censorship. What I said was that this "indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense." I'm not saying that this is true, but it's foolish to deny that such observations are being made about the project, especially after a number of controversial indef blocks in the past year or so. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Has he been blocked or banned? Regardless, indef is def excessive. Firstly, he is not a Single Purpose Account as was said in the blocking rationale on his talk page. At least, not according to his contribs history. Blocking is not supposed to be used as punishment or to make a point, regardless of what Jimbo says. I'd say a timed block, as in 24 hours if he hasn't been blocked before to 48 hours if he's only been blocked once before to a couple of days or week depending on recent past block count, would be more appropriate in dealing with his incivility. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked, not banned. Even if one accepts the argument that he's not an SPA, there's still plenty to support an indef on this highly disruptive user. Short blocks have not worked. There is way more than his incivility. His statements (see quotes I made on his user talk page) show no sign of acknowledging the collaborative nature of wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, Avruch has my deep respect for bringing this here, even though he agrees with the block, because bringing it here for wider review was the right thing to do. Good call and thank you.

Keilana will of course support the block because TlatoSMD rightly challenged her deletion of a page without rationale.

When we are talking about a permanent ban on a user, we have to really look at it. Why? I have seen vandalism-only accounts and vandalism-only IP's blocked for 24 hours, only to go through the entire process again. I have seen the most aggregious name-calling and personal attacks go without rebuke at all. But TlatoSMD is uncivil and warrants a permaban? That is, quite simply, ridiculous.

So, why is this user being banned? Because he is right. Not entirely, and not always, but he is absolutely right in that he demands that Wikipedia policies be followed, and he has made no attempt to hide his feelings about clear policy violations. Pages that do not warrant deletion are being deleted. Personal attacks on him and others go without even warnings. And when he responds in kind, he is banned. What sort of precedent does this set?

There is the canvassing issue. Firstly, let's even assume it was canvassing (which it was not); is canvassing once worthy of a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Of course not.

TlatoSMD is by no means a Single-Purpose Account, and even if he had an uber-narrow focus, so what? Sockpuppet? No. Focused editor? Sure, why not? Who cares, though. His contributions have been very good and he has spent more time and effort on articles than some who only have worked to tear articles down. Are we going to start banning everyone who edits in a narrow range?

The bottom line is that this ban is egregiously over-the-top. I can agree that TlatoSMD has been aggressive. TlatoSMD has even rufled many feathers (gasp!). But to be permanently banned for this? Come on now... don't we all, as a community, have better things to do that force this issue? How about blocking intentional, blatant vandals for more than 24 hours at a time? TlatoSMD deserves time to cool off and continue editing constructively.

Let's drop this block to 24-36 hours, shake our collective finger at him, and move on...

VigilancePrime (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

For what it's worth, I'm not supporting the block because he " rightly challenged [my] deletion of a page without rationale". First of all, I did provide a rationale, which he disagreed with. Fine. He had every right to DRV the article. However, after the n^th incarnation, it became clear that he was an SPA. He has acted uncivilly, and the net gain to the project of unblocking him would be much less than the net loss from all the drama and incivility that follows him around. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime--There's way more to this than Keilana and other edits. That three admins deleted that page shows there's considerable support to do so and that TlatoSMD is not correct in his actions. And again, he is not banned, there is a difference in a ban and an indef block. Your claim that he's being banned because he's right is ludicrous. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though he is not technically "banned," TlatoSMD is now incapable of editing articles, so how is this different from a ban? ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like the verifiability vs. truth argument. He may be right, but right is subjective, and his opinion of right has been shown to be against consensus. I have also refactored your comments' formatting and removed the annoying red box. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:OracleGD blanking his warnings

Resolved

 – Users may remove warnings from their own talk pages; this is taken as confirmation that they have been seen and read. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This. I warned him to not blank his warnings, but he just keeps doing it over and over again. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a peek here: Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. He may blank the warnings if he wishes. Charles 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

From his own talk page yes, it is considered proof they saw it. If the reason(s) that caused the warnings continue, he can be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles is right, and just beat me to the punch. It's true, any editor can remove warning messages (or anything else) from their talk pages. The warnings will be in his page history, if an admin needs to refer to them. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see... thanks. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)