Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MuZemike (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 20 December 2010 (→Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni: A moose once bit my sister...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors

Last Dec 15, CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) removed a statement in the public opinion climate change citing that this is the sentence by savillo as shown below.

1. (cur | prev) 18:20, 15 December 2010 155.99.230.57 (talk) (24,690 bytes) (→Issues: see talk page Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Sentence by Savillo Removed) (undo)

Savillo did not write this but his comment was used as a reference. The statement that was removed blamed the IPCC and if you go to the reference citing the comments of Savillo- there is no mention of IPCC. IPCC is a very sensitive issue and Cac 155.99.230.57 (talk) will just state freshly that this Sentence by Savillo removed. What kind of editor is CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk)? Does this person has the immunity to blame a statement to someone in the reference even the the author of the reference did not write it? and the reference's comment does not support the statement? It shows that CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) has a low IQ, doesnot analyze the situation, an imbecile or an idiot. Blaming someones statement to the author of reference is a very grave error and ought to be punished severely.I know CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) is old to be taught how to and to feel sorry for therefore she/he has to suffer the consequences. Documents are documents and she has to face them. He/she is highly irresponsible, worthless, uneducated, unethical, not urbanized and a bullshit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The contributions from this group of IPs, including 69.31.68.51, 69.22.185.186, 69.22.185.187, 69.22.185.189, and 69.22.185.191, have been largely incomprehensible, but it is obvious that they need to learn about a number of Misplaced Pages's policies, including WP:RS, WP:NLT, WP:NPA, & WP:TPOC. As most of the recent IPs have been within one range, I wonder whether a range block would be appropriate? If not, a block for the last of the list would seem to be a minimum requirement. - David Biddulph (talk)

In the meantime, have a look at . Attacks and garbage being thrown around by the same series of IPs, all from the same ISP. Perhaps a rangeblock/checkuser is in order. I've blanked the attacks and vulgarities from that talk page- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just rangeblocked 69.22.185.184/29 for a week. Um, at least I think I did. I think I followed the instructions, but I'm not sure how to tell whether it actually worked (first time I've done a rangeblock). Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The justification of the fault of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) who comes from the University of Utah or uses the IP of the Univ of Utah has been deleted in the Talk Page of Public Opinion on Climate Change. It was clearly written there. Now the users page of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) cannot be retrieved because it is owned by the Univ of Utah-- who cares if it is owned by U of U... as long as the user is irresponsible and has committed a crime... the user is always a criminal and will be charged..U of U you better look for this user and fire this user from your univ... This user is extremely a shame to your institution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.70.39 (talk)

Brave acts can be ruined by accidents! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this recent A.N.I. thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Something_Unusual, which involves these same IP users (both "CaC" and the 69.xx IPs). Same users, same article (Public opinion on climate change). From the above comment, it looks like an even bigger rangblock may need to be placed. (?) This IP user (69.xx) also does not seem to know or care about WP:No legal threats, WP:No personal attacks, etc. 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is demeaning to use or cite Savillo's statement without his permission. If he wants to write something he'll have it published authored by him. So pls donot use him to play the tug of war between those who are in favor of IPCC and those who are not. When he makes his comment there was no mention of IPCC but Cac meant the opposite when Cac stated that the removed statement was Savillo's and it was clear from the beginning that it was not his... this is another display of plain stupidity among the editors of wikipedia supposedly a useful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a better rangeblock may very well be helpful here... :-( 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC needs to say sorry to everyone whom Cac hurt while doing the reckless assertion... I think this resolves the issue..Will you accept this proposal-forwarding this question to all other concerned users: 69? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@69.31.68.5: While I do apologize for your misunderstanding, I do have this in reply:

1. My assertion was simple: the sentence cited a forum post, which by Misplaced Pages's guideline was not acceptable.
2. I made my intentions clear in my first reply. It was not meant to be about Savillo or the IPCC. It was your decision to believe otherwise.
3. I do not find your claims credible. You may believe what you want, but the objective is to convince others of the same.
4. You are incomprehensible. While your tone makes your intentions clear, I have trouble understanding what your reasons are, or lack of thereof.

I apologize in advance if you find this brash, but I find a terse dismissal to be in my opinion an unsatisfactory resolve. I do not appreciate your threats against myself or my institution nor do I find them credible. While under the presumption of your threats, I do not find that a discussion with you will lead to a satisfactory resolve, and resign from involving myself thereof. --CaC 155.99.230.219 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Users 69 could not comment because they are blocked. Nevertheless, I have this opportunity to say that your tone is melancholic to dilute the heart but your statements are flirtatious that require a second look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the seperate 69.xx IPs are different people. I believe that they are probably the same person under multiple IPs (they may be dynamic, or the current 69.xx IP could be the result of the person resetting his own IP).

The fact is, the sentence that was removed from the article was taken from a forum post where someone was giving his own opinion, without citing any reliable sources in his post. Such forum posts are not reliable sources, thus they do not qualify for inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles. With as many harassments, personal attacks, etc. as you are throwing at this sensible IP editor (155.xx/CaC), it is a wonder that an administrator has not already blocked you by now. But one sure does need to block you, though. 06:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this issue has already been enlightened but what you did Retro00064 you fueled it to a more fiery piece... this will continue further.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.45 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Retro00064 you need to apologize to CaC and Users 69 for re igniting this issue again amid the ongoing enlightening peaceful process between the two parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.46 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologize for what? Making sense out of all of this? The fact is, it does not matter whether Savillo wrote that sentence or not. The reference was citing who wrote the forum post that backed up the sentence in the Misplaced Pages article. Here at Misplaced Pages, we write a generic sentence that makes a claim, then we cite a reliable source that backs up the claim in the article. It is not necessary to quote the source exactly as the source wrote, as in many cases that could cause a copyright violation. In this case, CaC removed the sentence and citation altogether, so any arguing about the sentence quoting exactly what Savillo said or not is just a pile of stinking crap.

There is no need to apologize to CaC, as I support his removal of the sentence. Read my last post in this thread (above), and read my explanation of the fact that the Savillo forum post is not a reliable source.

Are you hearing all of this?

The reason that you need to be blocked, 69.xx, is not because you disagree with CaC's changes. It is becuase of your harassment, incivility, legal threats, personal attacks, sock puppetry (and claiming otherwise), etc. What a foul mouth of yours that you expressed on CaC's talk page.

Any administrators to the rescue, to close this case? 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you know it, now this IP user has flipped his lid and reported me at WQA! :-P 05:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Misplaced Pages, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland" appears bogus and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care. Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is that SergeWoodzing is introducing anglicized names for Swedish places and people that do not really exist, according to his own ideas of what the anglicized (or Latin) form should be. "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland"; "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", "the Smallands" are not current. There is no basis for pages like Carl of Vermillandia. The second problem is that Woodzing tends to makes discussions very personal and dramatic, see Talk:Värmland#"Wermelandia" as Latin ? and Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Small_lands_equals_Smallands?, User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska/Archive_2#Accusation, etcetera. (And I have no recollection of interaction with the ip-number above, who seems to be keeping tabs on me.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Vermland" is just your invention, I will remove it and "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland" are not the same thing; do you understand why the difference shows that your interaction style has a problem? I'm not keeping tabs on you. I remember from one discussion involving Physchim62 that I linked above. The other stuff I found by clicking around, looking into SergeWoodzing's complaint after he made it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This suggested it was an invention, based on Woodzing's taste alone; "will look for sources later" is not appropriate editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your diff shows collegial editing on your part. Deciding that "Vermland" was a Woodzing invention without bothering with a Google search shows serious lack of AGF. " is gay (will look for sources later)" needs instant reversion. Treating this Vermland thing with the same urgency shows unnecessary combativeness on your part. It's better to talk it out, and explain your view with more tact, as you did here. My usual suggestion in wiki-disputes is to try to write neutrally to the other person, as if you were writing for article space, no matter how badly you think they are acting. If you find yourself reacting sharply, slow down and rewrite to cool things down. I think you're a good contributor so I wish you wouldn't find it so difficult to follow our norms. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I had become a bit too irritated after Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Removal_of_cross-reference. I suspect that terms like "Elsinland" may be hoaxes, to say it very bluntly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see some problems with SergeWoodzing's editing at that page. I can't find any English-language sources for "Elsinland" including in the OED. Google book search finds "Elsin land" is mentioned in The Faerie Queene and one other very old book, so Elsinland is either an error or a rare archaic word. Pieter, you seem to think SergeWoodzing is pushing some political POV about Swedish royalty. Is this some content dispute transplanted from svwiki to here? Anyway, getting into "street fights" across multiple projects isn't the way to handle such disputes. It's better to make a matter-of-fact complaint including some diffs, that uninvolved editors can look into. In this case we may need some help from uninvolved Swedish speakers--are any available here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing's anglicizations of Swedish names is mostly a local issue here on enwp. When this is about the names of ancient or mythical royalty, I am not really interested (which did not prevent Woodzing to start discussing me here anyway). But now he is introducing new names (or re-introducing antiquated names) of places and regions in Misplaced Pages that then spread over the internet. I find that undesirable. Maybe Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sweden is a good place to find uninvolved editors that are interested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let's discuss the bulk of these details about exonyms and such on the talk pages of those articles! If Kuiper feels he has a general case against me as disruptive or detrimental to the project with such or other things there are other ways for him to bring that to the attention of the community.

What I am asking for here is a further investigation into Kuiper's behavior and of mine. He is currently active on English WP only to nitpick and try to irritate an always easily irritated SergeWoodzing. Since Kupier is currently blocked for uncivil behavior on Commons (where he does most of his work asking for image deletions), in a way he is circumventing that block by attacking me here with his usual sarcasm and ridicule, as he considers me to be one of the several users there who have complained about him "for no reason" (as he always sees it).

I am glad to admit - again and again - that I make mistakes like everybody else and am truly grateful for the assistance of any constructive, civil user in correcting same. There is a big difference between that and the always abusive Pieter Kuiper, whose behavior has proven to be incorrigible (or I would never have asked this) and makes me lose sleep, even get physically sick at times - literally. I am over 60 years of age and have never in my entire life been subjected to anywhere near the amount of instances of sheer cruelty that this Pieter Kuiper has subjected me to. Not to mention the way he treats many other users, one of whom I know (above mentioned Eikner). That has nothing to do with the work issues on WP - just attitude and behavior.

There is sufficient evidence, I feel, to substantiate that that behavior stems from a very strong and thus scary personal animosity that developed long ago in Kuiper toward Emil Eikner, me, the Southerly Clubs and anyone else associated with that organization, for reasons that are unclear to us, perhaps political (wrongly assumed, if so). That animosity isn't going to go away.

So, again, what I would like administrators to investigate and neutral users to discuss here is whether or not we can get a permanent ban of this kind:

• Kuiper will not edit or comment on the talk pages of articles where I or my predecessor Emil Eikner (but not Kuiper) have done a lot of work, and I will not edit or comment on articles where he (not I) has done a lot of work.
• Kuiper and I well never complain about each others work except if we start a thread about it in this kind of forum.
• Kuiper will not comment on any other discussions where I became/become involved before him, and I will not comment on any discussions where he became/becomes involved before me, except where the behavior of either of us may be an issue, and then never on the talk pages of articles.
• Kuiper will not enlist known friends of his to represent him in circumventing the agreement, and I will not enlist any such people of mine to do so either.
• Kuiper and I will stay off each other's talk pages.

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS If and when we continue to discuss them elsewhere, it is unlikely that many "uninvolved Swedish speakers" exist to discuss the issues of English exonyms and such - by nature and nationality they cannot be uninvolved. I am a professional expert on this subject, and I think such matters must be determined by editors who are qualifed to realistically assess the reactions to those items of all the readers of English (not just Swedes) who visit this project. Not many Swedes are qualified to do that, when it comes to matters Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of SergeWoodzing being a "professional expert". And on wikipedia, also acknowledged academic experts will get banned when they believe that arguing from "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal sources" can replace proper referencing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SergeWoodzing (SW's participation at Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong#Double_epithet_interpreted is pretty tendentious, enough that I wondered for a brief moment whether Ottava Rima spoke Swedish. He got considerable pushback from other users there too. This (after a disagreement with that user over another Swedish name) seems rather pointy. SW's enwiki edits are almost exclusively about European royalty (mostly Swedish, including historical/legendary kings like Styrbjörn the Strong), maybe making him unfamiliar with wider enwiki editing customs. He has 2390 mainspace edits to 890 articles, with 5 or more edits to 143 articles, and 20 or more edits to just 7 articles (a lot of the rest are minor stylistic edits). In the content debates I've looked at between him and Peter Kuiper (PK) so far, it seems to me that PK's arguments usually make more sense, and SW in some instances may be messing up wiki content. So removing one of SW's opponents via an interaction ban doesn't seem like a great idea on that basis. PK and SW have been / are in conflict on Commons (I haven't looked into that much yet), so maybe that is spilling over here. Short of a content RFC about SW's edits that would probably interest very few editors, I don't have bright ideas what to do next. PK, are there other issues with SW's editing that you want to bring up here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, this stuff about testing the reactions of English speakers isn't how we do things here--it is considered wp:original research and not allowed. When there is an issue, we go by published sources. I looked over the Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong discussion and I didn't find your "native English speaker" argument to be even slightly convincing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS: In this section, can we PLEASE discuss Kuiper's uncivil manners as I see them - which is what I started it for - and start separate threads about any possible misdeeds of mine in article content? If they need to be addressed, what I am asking is that that is done by editors who do not go out of their way to insult me personally every time. Is that too much too ask? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do next here. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. I guess I can ask at WP:SWEDEN for uninvolved editor comments to Talk:Värmland etc. I'm a bit sleepy right now but I'll see if I can post a few more suggestions later. Pieter Kuiper has only edited at that page once since commenting here, and his post was within reasonable bounds of civility. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have quieted down, which I guess is always good. It will probably get archived soon; please feel free to open a new thread if issues arise again. Some general requests/advice:

• (Mostly to SergeWoodzing): it's not worth getting stressed out (Wikistress) about editing conflicts. Of course it happens to everyone anyway if they edit enough, and it builds up over time. The most effective cure is to quit Misplaced Pages completely for a while (Wikibreak). I've done that many times. A lesser measure is to switch temporarily to editing a different set of topic areas. But there are various sources of annoyance in Misplaced Pages that simply never go away; editing healthily is partly a matter of learning to get used to and/or avoid such annoyances, rather than burning out trying to fight them. Also, while you've been around for a while, almost all your editing has been focused in one very narrow area, which makes you in some ways like a new and inexperienced editor. It could help your understanding if you were to branch out into other areas.
• (Mostly to Peter Kuiper): Thank you for being somewhat more diplomatic than before; please keep it up.
• (To both): My suggestion is that the two of you agree to never revert the other in the same article more than once, and any revert should be accompanied by brief discussion on the talk page which should be kept polite. If you don't reach agreement fairly quickly, ask for help from other editors at WT:SWEDEN (I'm presuming this would still be on Swedish-related articles) and accept their consensus. If that doesn't work, try content RFC's.

Let me know if the above sounds helpful. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion regarding User:Kagome 85 and User:Blackmagic1234

• Blackmagic1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Kagome 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki)

I honestly do not remember how long ago this was, but let me start from the basic beginning, as I remember it;

Blackmagic and Kagome at one point were lovers. I'm not certain if this point was before or after they came to wikipedia.. but I do know each knows of the others' original username. At some later point, they broke up.. and began a two and a half harassment campaign against the other. I came onto this around maybe 2009; Blackmagic was being harassed and cyber-stalked by Kagome. I looked into the matter, got some socks blocked, and suggested WP:CLEANSTART to BM. I tell him to stay away from articles he has edited, and refrain from even mentioning his ex or editing any similar articles.. instead, as they came back on, this was thrown back in my face? They did more than go on a wiki-stalking revert spree of a previous sock of hers.. They listed off her real name in almost every single edit summary. Some time recently, at least int he past year, I took them both to this forum for the very thing mentioned above.. a two-way harassment campaign, and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert.

Reason for ban request

60+ socks later(combined, I've lost count, just check out their sock categories), I am frankly sick and tired of reverting the socks. Let's make it easier; block on sight, rollback allowed.. ban them from the site indefinitely until such time they can grow up and leave each other be. I really, really am sick of dealing with their disruption and harassment of each other. Misplaced Pages is not therapy.— Dædαlus 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Also, I'm not going to bother notifying each because nowadays, with their ever-increasing amount of socks, I'm not sure they would even see the message. I did also warn both prior about this discussion, so they knew it was coming. Lastly, if anyone can find each of their latest socks, feel free to notify them of this discussion, but I don't believe they'll see it because they'll just already be on to their next set of socks.— Dædαlus 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As a further note, I forgot to mention that yes, BM has socks but at some point, I just gave up and began tagging them all as Kagome 85. They're both using the same range, so as far as I'm concerned regarding technical, they're the same person(they act the same anyways).— Dædαlus 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - As proposer.— Dædαlus 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  Hi DaedlusIt'll be good if you were to summarize in one line what the editors are supposed to support or oppose in order to provide editors summarized clarity. Regards Wifione _....... 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per details provided above by the proposer. Wifione _....... 08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question Are we banning one, the other, both, or are you claiming they're the same person and calling for a ban of them and their alter-ego? N419BH 09:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• From what I'm reading, he's asking for a ban of both, and noting that they share a range and act very similarly to one another. —Jeremy 09:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Details appear convincing, so lets ban the both of them. Use of multiple socks is something I feel Misplaced Pages needs to take an extremely hard line on. Add in the outing and vios of WP:BATTLEGROUND and it looks clearcut for a double ban to me. Jusdafax 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• They've exhsusted my patience, that's for sure. Support showing both of them to the door until they grow up, which, at this rate, could be decades. - KrakatoaKatie 10:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Huge wasteful time sink. Ban both of them. I'm wondering though: are you sure they're really NOT both the same person engaging in a long-term trolling campaign? If they edit from the same range that makes it even more suspect. In any case, ban both, revert on sight without breaking 3RR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert" Actually, Blackmagic is not currently blocked... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because George blocked one of his socks. He abandoned the BM account and created a sock under the pretense of CLEANSTART, but didn't follow CLEAN at all, and as noted began harassing his ex.— Dædαlus 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sock George blocked BM under, Burp.— Dædαlus 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban on both. If a new account is created and stays away from these issues then we will never know nor need to - as soon as an account or ip starts repeating this behaviour it can be blocked. Whatever the situation, it should not involve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, based on above, but they both need to be notified and be given a chance to come here and defend themselves. Maybe they have a case to make, maybe not, but they should at least be given the opportunity. Saebvn (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - valueless disruptive time sink. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Recommend periodic checkuser requests of each to check for all socks that haven't be found. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per evidence presented. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP hopping vandal

Since December 2, an IP has been persistently vandalising various pages, especially those related to Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. Some of the vandalism is fairly sneaky, such as wikilinking random words or changing spelling, eg "Vain" to "vein". Other vandalism has been blatant, like changing the gas in "Lilly's "Green Gas" science project" to "Dirty Tan" and then to "Dirty Blonde". Other examples are changing female names to "Chanel" and there's just plain ridiculous stuff. The random wikilinking is a trait exhibited in every one of 122123 edits so far made by this editor, who has used 1314 different IPs so far, all of which are from Verizon's pool.

IPs used so far

• 2-5 December 108.17.101.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 7 December 108.17.99.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 9 December 108.17.100.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 9 December 108.17.96.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 10 December 108.17.106.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 11 December 108.17.105.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 12/13 December 108.17.102.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 13 December 108.32.6.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14 December 108.17.105.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 16 December 108.32.11.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 17 December 108.32.15.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.32.3.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.32.4.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.17.100.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

new entries

• 19 December 108.32.1.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There are too many pages affected to protect them all. Would a rangeblock be appropriate? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I'd think you need two or three. —Jeremy 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Kids across the USA are off on Winter Break, apparently. Let's get the rangeblocks in there if we can. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And we have another one to add to the list. I see it's back to changing names to "Chanel" again. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Verizon needs to be informed of the abuse, don't they? Shouldn't they? 123 edits is pretty ridiculous. Dusti 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So they could do... what? No ISP is going to give a crap, sadly. However; perhaps a very short rangeblock for the holidays might suffice. --Errant 21:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have some options for the rangeblocks. We can get all the IPs with:

• All IPs listed starting with 108.32.x.x = 108.32.0.0/20, - 4,096 addresses
• All IPs listed starting with 108.17.x.x = 108.17.96.0/20 - 4,096 addresses

We can go smaller with rangeblocks for the addresses starting 108.17.100.x and 108.17.105.x, but there's no way we can get the rest of the IPs listed without blocking 108.17.x.x. What should we do, and for how long? - KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like more input before I place these rangeblocks. In the meantime, I semi'd List of Hannah Montana characters, as it's certainly had enough recent IP disruption. I looked at the other articles in that genre and they haven't received nearly as much recent activity.

Thoughts, anyone? - KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is winter break. I say we just hard block the entire USA. That way the little kiddies can't attack Misplaced Pages. I'm joking obviously. I'd say that someone file an Abuse Response thing to contact Verizon. Isn't there a bit much collateral damage on those rangeblocks? Sure the IP isn't using a proxy of some sort? I'd block for 3-5 months. If vandalism continues after the block is lifted, switch to 6-8 mo. If it continues after that, which I doubt, just block indef. Someone could file an sock puppet thing on this, if you think it would help. Mr R00t 04:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done it. :-) The smaller ranges, 108.17.100.128/26 and 108.17.105.0/24, block 64 and 256 addresses respectively, but his dynamic IP has changed from the 108.17.x.x range to the 108.32.x.x range just today. I agree that WP:ABUSE is a good idea, but they're backlogged and short on volunteers. Should I just semi all those pages? That's not as big a sledgehammer, but still... - KrakatoaKatie 05:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Different IP, different country, no mention of Chanel but the rest is all still there. Is there some airborne virus they haven't told us about? And the first post by this IP was made only 22 minutes after the last post made by the last IP listed above (108.17.100.183). That seems too coincidental. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm concerned that protecting the pages might just force the IP to go to other pages, another has just hit List of Hannah Montana main characters so I say go ahead and protect away. These pages don't see (m)any positive contributions by IPs usually, so nobody is going to suffer because of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't see any dissension here, so I've semi'd those that have been hit so far for one month, to get the entire US campus crowd back in school, which won't be until the start of the third week of January (guess how I know that?). If he/they does/do go to other pages, let me know or list them here and we'll get those too. I think this is more effective and with less damage than playing whack-a-mole with them. - KrakatoaKatie 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As I feared, the IP has moved to Cory in the House. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd it and gave him the final warning. Feel free to final warn the rest of them, if they vandalize again. We can still block him the old-fashioned way, without a rangeblock. KrakatoaKatie 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Range block request

A long term vandal I'm tracking is currently active on the range 76.203.72.0/22. His last two used IPs are 76.203.72.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked when it was used last week) and 76.203.75.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (in use within the past hour).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The individual is now editing on 76.203.72.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The range above would indeed prevent this vandal from continuing his editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Socking and other baseless allegations by User AllahLovesYou

Please mind reviewing the activities of User AllahLovesYou, this User is very disruptive for nothing. He accused me of socking twice and his allegations were rejected here for the first time and here for the second time. Also when I asked this User to take a break he allegedly again accused me of abusing him as well as other editors here when this user's actions were not echoed by others then he resorted to sock puppetry accusations. Also, time and again this user identifies others by religion and not by user name. He keeps on calling me Shia though I have never said what's my religion? Humaliwalay (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Humaliwalay" translates to "I'm a Shia of Ali" in Indian languages. The word "Shia" translates to "Party" in Arabic language. Someone who creates such a user name wants to be proudly known as a Shia and I only mentioned this one time in the SPI which is ok when helping admins for investigation purposes, and I don't see why in such a circumstance mentioning this would be considered wrong?
• I have not filed a single SPI on Humaliwaly. User:SyedNaqvi90 was using socks and was constantly reverting my edits at a time when Humaliwalay was also constantly reverting my edits in the same articles for the same reasons so there was lots of suspecions about them being the same person, and I filed that report on SyedNaqvi90.
• While I'm improving articles, I wanted to share my opinion so I left a comment for the community to read at a talk page. Humaliwalay responded to that comment of mine by telling me "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." I think anyone can notice the rude tone in that, it's basically saying 'stfu you idiot, and go to hell'. I believe that such talk should not be tolerated in Misplaced Pages. Humaliwalay is reporting me everyday and filling my talk page with bogus warnings, etc. I told him this was annoying but he said too bad. I feel that Humaliwalay is obsessed with me in a negative way, he probably doesn't like me because I'm not a Shia, and anytime I leave a general comment to the community somewhere he thinks I'm writing to him. I constantly advise other editors to learn to accept everyone regardless of race, religion, belief, nationality, etc. That's how I grew up.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

HUMALIWALAY no where contains the word "Shia". "Shia" when translated in Urdu means "Dost" "Friend" No where in my User name is the word DOST. Now this User is translating my Username as per his convenience. This makes me feel that I am discriminated I don't think that's needed here. - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever Humaliwalay or Hum Ali Walay translates to, it doesn't matter much anymore (unless there's some suggestion the name is offensive or used in a disparaging way). If it's true that it can be translated as 'I'm a Shia of Ali' then AllahLovesYou can be forgiven for thinking that Humaliwalay is Shia and happy or proud of it to be identified in that way. However now that Humaliwalay has stated they do not translate their name in that way, there's no reason why AllahLovesYou should continue to translate it that way and in particular if Humaliwalay has no desire to talk about their religion AllahLovesYou should stop talking about or referring to it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't name Humaliwalay a Shia, instead I stated in a sockpuppet investigation "Both belong to the minority Shia sect of Islam" and that was needed to make the case strong. As I stated above, the word Shia is Arabic (not Urdu) and it translates to "Party" (not Dost). It refers to the party or followers of Ali (cousin and son inlaw of Islamic Prophet Muhammad). Hum Ali Walay can translate several ways, and one is "I'm of Ali's Party". User:Humaliwaly revealed his name on his user page as "Mohammad Sajjadali Rizvi", and any Muslim who is familiar with the name "Rizvi" knows that it belongs to Shias in the Indian subcontinent. Other editors who know or have knowledge about Humaliwalay stated in the SPI case:

• User:Faizhaider: "I and User:HumAliwaley share same surname i.e. Rizvi are Indians and Shi'a"
• Aliwiki: "Rizvi Sayyeds of India are wel-know in all Shia world like Ali Asghar Rizvi"

This is not descrimination. Majority editors in Misplaced Pages are non-Muslims, and if they mentioned somewhere about me belonging to Islam I don't think I will be rioting about it because anyone can clearly see this in my name, my user page and the articles I edit. Humaliwalay telling me this "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." is unacceptable in Misplaced Pages per incivility and personal attack.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Basing assertions about someone's faith on their name is not only discriminatory, it is illogical if one truly believes in a 'world religion' as I understand Islam claims to be. Or does one's name predetermine whether on can follow a particular faith? In any case, the fact that someone is Shia rather than Sunni is of no consequence to Misplaced Pages, I'd hope. I'm not sure of the exact quote, but doesn't the Qu'ran say something like "let us compete in good works"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrumo, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Me mentioning to an admin at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizhaider "Both belong to the minority Shia sect of Islam" is not discriminatory because I was only trying to convince the admin that both accounts were used by the same person. The editor whom I filed the SPI on (Faizhaider) has stated "I and User:HumAliwaley share same surname i.e. Rizvi are Indians and Shi'a". You can't be going around calling every time someone mentions someone's race, religion, or sect an act of descrimination. For example, when a black man robs a 7-Eleven store and later a witness tells police the robber was a black guy that is not descrimination.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all participants for their just opinions. Now I hope the brother AllahLovesYou does not label me with any religion. I do not feel the necessity of Religion here. I am here to take what I do not know and to share what I know. I am a learner and want this to happen in acquaintance rather than sectarian division. I hope I won't be let feel discriminated henceforth. Thanks in anticipation to brother User AllahLovesYou. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay, you're welcome. Just so you know I also belong to Sayyids, I have nothing against Shias, a people who I view as educated and progressing. But when it comes to religion, we all have different opinions so let's try not to force our opinions on everyone.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alleged inappropriate use of rollback

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

I just had a reminder I sent to them about WP:NPA rather rudely reverted by Ryulong. Isn't rollback only supposed to be used for clear vandalism and not things like this? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And another one... this time removing their notice of this ANI report. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ryulong&curid=10736166&diff=402988351&oldid=402988332 Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you invited his wrath by deleting his entry at WP:AIV, which was totally inappropriate. As I said on your alternative talk page, it is not your place or mine to decide whether an AIV entry is "stale", unless it's an entry you or I created ourselves. That decision is to be made by the admins. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback can be used for other "problematic" edits, where the reason for having done is clear, such as was rolling back that unhelpful edit of yours. You've been told before, you don't understand enough about the policies here to be making edits like that. At least, you've shown little or no understanding of the policies. You're becoming disruptive again. If it carries on, you'll be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And how is informing them of this AN/I thread a "problematic" edit? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart, you triggered this entire incident by removing someone else's AIV entry, which you had no business doing. Learn from it, and don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The entry in question was over 2 hours old at the time, having not been replied to and no action taken on in that time. While other reports were being handled. Clearly it was stale and would have been removed anyway. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was 2 weeks old. That page is for the admins to manage. Let them do their jobs in a way they deem appropriate in a given case. Don't mess with others' entries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're lucky you got away with just getting yelled at by the user. I would have taken you straight here and asked for a block for disruption. Ryulong actually showed some restraint. I recommend you box up this section and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I agree with Baseball Bugs, its no wonder why Ryulong left you some uncivil comments but Ryulong, please remain calm when making comments. Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Second point here: "To revert edits in your own user space." Not a misuse of Rollback. Doc talk 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already had one Admin threatening to misuse their Sysop tools over removing comments from my own talk page. Bidgee (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I always like to point to WP:BLANKING. If this guideline segment is incorrect, then that should be clarified. An editor in good standing can do what they want (within WP's rules) on their talk pages, I always thought. Doc talk 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is my thought also but I've pointed the involved Admin about the discussion in this thread/topic. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This diff is presented without context. This was the previous edit. The "Cut it out" I would have thought was obviously in respect to the acions for which I had just wanred him? - brenneman 10:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's "actions", not "acions". It's "warned", not "wanred". We try to sign our posts here, too. Welcome back, Secret... Doc talk 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a, I've asked you before, have you ever read a policy page here, or do you only try to, say, kind of copy what you think others are doing as you stumble along? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the various policies of wikipedia and thought I was editing within them (With the report at AIV being over 2 hours old with nothing done and all). But clearly I wasn't Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart, this comment is totally off the mark. YOU CAUSED THIS INCIDENT. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an opportune time to add something similar to my user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't do something like that until you see how this turns out. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball; regardless of who caused it: 1. It's my talk page and 2. Ryulong made the uncivil comments. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had not deleted the AIV stuff, which was more uncivil than anything he said to you, this would not have happened. You're starting to sound like the guy who killed his parents and then asked for the court's mercy because he was an orphan. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened: It is still MY talk page! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not "own" your talk page. If you want an editor not to post on your page anymore, you ask him politely. You don't post a so-and-so is prohibited banner. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be "Wabbit Season" for you after this. Doc talk 08:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's DUCK season and I insist that you fire! Whose Your Guy (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be da foist time, Doc. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"This doesn't look like Pismo Beach! I shoulda taken a left at Albacoicke!" Doc talk 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was flood season? No wonder why people are trying to sand bag me! ;) Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo, taken from a Bridgee over the Bidgee. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Like a Bidgee over troubled water..." Okay - I'll shut up now. To the rest of you: "Shut Up! Shut Up! I'll sue you! I'll sue all of you!!!" Totally kidding, BTW, so don't try "reporting" me. "Andy Kaufman and the wrestling match... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah..." Doc talk 10:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late, I've already indefinitively blockaded you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself sued "Mister Lawlor"! Duhhhh! I'm from Hollywood: I've got the brains. I'm not some dumb hick from Nashville, Tennessee! You'll never see me again in Nashville! I shall return!" Doc talk 11:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough joking. Is Barts1a allowed to keep this up, even if he no longer singles me out?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's essentially an "enemies list", and that is usually not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's a baiting list. I shall ask the user to remove it, but I believe we should remove it ourselves should he decline. S.G. _ping! 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it. Would you mind harassing this guy for having one as well? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't edit my page" is far more civil than "you'll be reverted on sight if you edit my page". Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the normal practice, and if the user won't comply, then WQA can come into the picture. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For both, it would be best to cite a specific rule violation before triggering another incident. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such lists shouldn't be existing anywhere, it's like users setting up their own interaction bans. Leave it to ArbCom, and don't advertise it to each other as a bright red flag to a bull. S.G. _ping! 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally a request not to edit one's talkpage serves as a disengagement notice, to de-escalate a situation. Barts1a's notice violates NPA, as it accuses people of stuff. Regardless of whether it is true (and in Ryulong's case I don't think it's justified), Barts1a should not have that on his page. The other guy is just requesting certain people not to edit his talk page, which is acceptable. ALSO, Barts1a should know that while he can request another editor not edit his talkpage, he cannot enforce the request if the communication is reasonable (eg it's an ani notice which the other editor is required to give him). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List has been removed. Next time i'll just state who and not why... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a

OK, I'm going to throw this out: Why are we putting up with this? Barts1a has already been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and now he's at it again. He's inappropriately removed a report from AIV, he's brought a user here for using rollback on his own talk page, and he's made a shitlist on his talk page (removed now, but still). I think this guy should be shown the door for an appropriate period of time in accordance with previous blocks. I'd do it myself, but I'm about to go to sleep and I don't like making blocks I can't answer questions about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Because he's enthusiastic, and it would feel like beating a puppy? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but however cute a puppy was, if it kept tearing things in your house to pieces, surely you'd restrain it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart has actually been on wikipedia for a good stretch now, so the trouble he keeps getting himself into is a bit hard to figure - but it mostly seems to come down to ignoring the good advice he's gotten from quite a few users. My first brush with him was at AIV on November 29, in which he interposed himself into a complaint I made about the user "Lunalet" (who has since been sent to the phantom zone, but that's a side show). I advised him that he shouldn't be telling admins how to do their job, and that led to him posting a complaint here (sound familiar?) The current situation was right much mind-numbing: doing something way out of line, and then taking it to ANI when the editor became understandably livid about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am in favor of blocking him for a long time. The benefits of his Huggling are overwhelmed by the disruption he causes and the amount of other peoples' time he wastes. If I felt there was any chance that he was learning from past mistakes, and all of the advice he's been getting from lots of different people, I wouldn't feel this way. But coming off a 1 week block, it only took him a few days to resume disrupting multiple places, and the problem is not only lack of knowledge, but lack of desire to learn. I think there's enough evidence now that he is unwilling or unable to modify his behavior, that we really need to ask him to find somewhere else to spend his time. This is simply not working out.

  If someone disagrees, now is the time to speak up, because I'm leaving, but if he's not blocked when I get back, and no one has given a good reason not to, I'm going to block him indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - Barts1a has been clearly disruptive in the past and now. His disruptive editing has caused us to be exhausted with our patience. So with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - the amount of energy that multiple editors have sunk in to trying to help Barts1a learn to edit collegially and within guidelines has crossed the line from "useful input" to "giant timesuck". I thought perhaps with time Barts would catch-on, however, given that his editing style shows zero sign of improvement despite the daily stream of advice and assistance of others, I now believe this editor and Misplaced Pages are simply incompatible. Barts1a can always request an unblock in the future should he have an epiphany and is able to commit to editing in a non-disruptive, non drama-mongering fashion. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution noting this is my consistent position, and one of the issues raised is not consistently applied, as Dylan Flaherty appears to have copied the these people are enemies of mine type of list. which, oddly enough, includes Bart1a. If the "shitlist" is grounds for a block for one user, ought it not be grounds for another user? Collect (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The "shitlist" is merely the straw that broke the camel's back here. Barts1a has an extremely recent history of not having a fucking clue about what he's doing when it comes to various guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think "extremely recent history" is not entirely correct. A "continuous unabated history" is perhaps more accurate. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Barts1a said a couple of days ago that he was going to stop trying to be a wikipedia admin, and take photos for commons instead, which he seems to have done . If he would only contribute more to articles here, it would be much less problematic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Standard offer if he continues to do well on Commons. The amount of uncluefulness I've seen is blockworthy IMO; thses threads are a waste of time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block for a reasonable period of time I am afraid. Barts seems to almost wilfully ignore advice and cannot resist the temptation to go around ticking people off, telling them what to do, scattering inappropriate templates around and removing other peoples edits. He also removes complaints/advice from his talkpage. I'd have more sympathy if there was a GF content issue but content does not really figure much in Barts career. Fainites scribs 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With very narrow exceptions, there's otherwise no rule against deleting stuff from your user page, as it's assumed you've read it. Although in this case, I wonder if that's a safe assumption, since the advice he gets seems to go in one ear and out the other. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know there's no rule against it but given his inablility to absorb and act on advice, despite his complaints page, it's a worry at how selective he is about what he does and does not keep.Fainites scribs 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This may sound crazy, but if the complaints and criticisms were posted on his "complaints and criticisms" page, maybe they would be better received. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lengthy comment: Taking another look at Bart's history, I have to say that Ponyo is onto it. Bart created his account in October of 2006. It sat idle until June of 2007 when he made 4 edits. He then made 1 edit in August of 2008, and then 9 edits in February of 2009, including nominating himself for adminship. He was quickly persuaded to withdraw it, but it's clear he's had his eye on adminship almost from the get-go. He edited sporadically during the next 1 1/2 years until this past summer, in the June-July time frame, and has been pretty much full time since then. Now, the point of this megillah is that he's been on here off and on for 4 years, and has accelerated from valid corrections and vandal-hunting to where things are today. Around mid-November he nominated himself for the ArbCom, and proceeded to argue with the editor who had rightly told him that he didn't have enough mainspace edits, partly chiding the editor for being "unfriendly", when the editor was merely being factual. A pattern begins to emerge, and keep in mind that was just a month ago, and it seems longer somehow. Soon after, he began began escalating his "playing-admin" approach, which is when he and I first crossed paths and when he started attracting a lot of attention, especially during early December, when he managed to get himself blocked 3 times in the space of 5 days. I thought things were getting better after that, but then this outrageous, and frankly laughable situation today, where he deleted someone's AIV entry and then complained here when the user got mad at him for it, has really made me wonder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from the accused I do hope that people have watchlisted my talk page on commons because if this proposed block goes ahead; that will be the only place where I can post photos I have taken for articles. If nobody has my talkpage listed on commons and I am blocked indef here; there will be no point in taking photos as they will never get to be used! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest you respond to the issues presented here rather than worrying about your photos not being used. A little explanation and apologies, along with changes in regard to the worrisome behavior expressed here, will go a long way toward resolving this thread favorably in your regard. N419BH 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he said something a week or two back about how everyone dislikes him or something. That completely misses the point. Nobody dislikes him. They dislike his approach to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Sorry about that; just needed some time to formulate my response. Firstly I would like to show the diff that triggered this whole mess, the AIV report and it's removal. As you can see there were 16 revisions and 2 hours during which the report was neither commented on or acted on. I honestly beleived that it was a stale report and that I was acting within policy to remove it. I didn't realize I'd be getting a rather stubborn response from Ryulong for it. When I tried to communicate with him after he left this message on my talk page, I was rather rudely reverted which is what bought this here. I will admit that I didn't realize the rollback policy was way more lenient on use within userspace.
    • I would like to issue an apology to everyone involved in this dispute for wasting their valuable time putting up with my bulls**t over the past few months or so, I voluntarily forfeit my rollback and reviewer rights as clearly I do not deserve them at this time. I hope that I can redeem myself in your eyes. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll repeat here what I said on your talk page: You keep talking about "policy" at AIV. What policy? I looked at the AIV guidelines and didn't see anything that resembled "non-admins are free to remove reports they consider to be stale."
      • And adding here: And stop already with the apologies. Just stop doing stuff that admins are supposed to do. Article-correction and vandal-reporting are good things for editors to do. Just stay on this side of the line. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's part of the problem; there isn't one. When I say "policy" I mean the sum of the various policies as a whole. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • As I have said on my user talk page; I think a good solution would be a page ban from the various noticeboards; this way I can still contribute positively to the encyclopedia while having a very good incentive to stay out of problematic areas. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You can impose your own "page ban" by simply taking those pages off your own watchlist. That's how I stayed out of trouble at the political pages, for example: I simply stopped seeing them. But I'm still curious to know, where did you get the idea it was appropriate to remove someone else's entry from AIV? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
            • See my talk page for a response to this question Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Well everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but he has gone a little too far. Block for a good amount of time, but not indefinite (maybe 6 months to 1 year). Or as an alternative, maybe we could try mentoring him? Narutolovehinata5 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution - If we had a rule against hit lists, then it would presumably apply to those kept by admins. This looks like selective enforcement of a non-rule to cover for general irritation. I am not Bart's #1 fan, and it's rare to see Collect and I agreeing on, well, anything, so take this as a hint that perhaps the feeding frenzy here is wildly inappropriate. Do not block. Dylan Flaherty 00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O_O I honestly did not expect that! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Since I'm not sure what editing restriction Floquenbeam is referring to, I will add here that I Reluctantly support block. I think it's clear that Barts1a has no ill intentions here - he's not operating with malicious intent, he truly wants to help the encyclopedia, and he's doing what he thinks is right - but trying to explain to him that how he's going about it isn't working is like talking to a brick wall. So many threads, here, on his talk page, and even on the ill-fated editor review he started after his last block expired, have all told him the same thing - slow down, pay attention, listen to what people are telling you - and he's just...not hearing it. I've tried to talk to him on IRC, with the same results. Every explanation someone tries to give is met with a "yeah, BUT..." and he just goes on doing what he thinks is right.

  I would very much like to see Barts1a redeemed, because I think he's capable of being quite useful to the project, but I simply see no evidence here (or have seen, in the past month) that he has any willingness (or perhaps ability) to actually absorb the incredibly important advice people are giving him. And unless he can give any indication that he intends to at least try to become less (unintentionally?) disruptive, rather than this pulling-into-his-shell "I'm sorry that everyone hates me" routine that he's giving today, I can't find any justification for letting him carry his blundering here.

  The only out I can see at this point is if he is willing to accept very restrictive mentoring, wherein he clears all his policy-based (or "policy"-based) edits with a mentor before making them, but he would need to fully and enthusiastically commit to such an agreement and not try to dance around the edges of what's allowed. I have a feeling that will be difficult for him, and thus I don't hold out a lot of hope for a mentorship solution. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposed and accepted

Barts1a and I appear to have come to an agreement; even though I was one of the people above with a pitchfork and torch, if it's OK I'd like to give this a chance to work. Unfortunately, I'm logging off for the night, but I'll check in tomorrow morning. Although I guess I can't call dibs on how things are worded, I would appreciate it if people didn't decent en masse on his talk page with more ideas for other restrictions. Let's give this some breathing room. Only a request, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a's proposed restrictions

• a topic ban from all noticeboards (I think it a good sign that you thought of this independently)
• not using Huggle (I've gone back and seen several times you've reverted something as vandalism when it wasn't)
• avoiding contentious articles and their talk pages
• accepting a 1RR limit (ie you can only revert someone once in any dispute)

copied from my talk page, I have indicated that I will accept all of the above. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm encouraged that Barts1a has agreed to these restrictions, but I do think that having a mentor would help him to stick to them, and I would recommend he find one. In the meantime, I think it's worth seeing how things work out, so I oppose the suggested block and support the editing restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support this over an indef. I would like to make the addition of

• may appeal these restrictions at ANI(?) after
• any breach of these restrictions will result in an indef block with the standard offer

• Does this sound reasonable? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, sounds reasonable, possible request for a degree of relaxation after ten weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to see this tried - I keep hoping each time that Barts1a will finally modify his behaviour to avoid these problems, only to see that he hasn't. Maybe this one will work. If not, I guess we'll be out of alternatives. - Bilby (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Fetchcomm's proposal sounds very reasonable to me. 28bytes (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• And to me. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 04:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support The fact that Barts has already agreed to this strongly encourages me. I would add that Barts should seek out a mentor to help guide his development as an editor. In particular, what defines a "contentious article"? A mentor will be able to help him make that determination, and a second set of eyes will help put out any embers before they become fires. N419BH 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support these restrictions (and, that being the case, Oppose a block) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda328

I'm not sure where to report this, but this seemed like the most appropriate place. If it's not, I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.

I've been having an issue with Propaganda328. They've been inserting content into the Rafic Hariri article that I consider fringe conspiracies cited to a non-English source whose reliability has not been established. The content was originally inserted by an Iran-based IP address, 94.182.19.94, which is slightly troubling as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been implicated in the assassination, and I'm not even sure if Propaganda328 can read the Russian source they're reverting back into the article. I've removed the content three times; Propaganda328 reverted me three times. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining that I considered the source to be of questionable reliability, the content itself sounded like a fringe conspiracy, requesting a translation of the non-English source, and explaining that the verifiability burden was on editors attempting to insert the material. Propaganda328 replied that "All theories are to be included," and proceeded to reinsert the material. I then opened a discussion on the user's talk page, explaining the issues with the content, noting that I wasn't interested in edit warring over the material, and requesting that they self-revert, lest we have to go through the noticeboards. The editor refused, replying simply "Temper Temper". So, that brings me here.

To be clear, I'm not here to discuss the content. I'm not asking if the source cited is reliable, I'm not asking if the content added was a fringe conspiracy, and I'm not reporting the editor for edit warring the material in. I'm here because of the editor's behavior. They've continued to push the material, while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the article talk page or any sort of consensus building, failing to establish the reliability of the source they're citing, and failing to provide a translation of the Russian source they're citing, despite my explicit requests. Would appreciate if someone can look into the issue or advise. Thanks. ← George 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are reasonable content edits in the contrib history, but major issues with interactions with other editors. I suggest an "official" warning regarding their communication behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care, I just don't know how to prove that a reference is reliable on wikipedia. And as for the translation, can't you just copy and paste into Google Translate? I mean you already know it's in Russian(that's what I did to read it). I know it wouldn't be translated perfectly, but it will be readable.

You should watch the other side's news channels from time to time, the French Guy, Xavier Laroche, was in an interview on Al-manar a few days ago. I already knew about the Uranium missile long before I saw the Russian Magazine reference on wikipedia. However, it should be noted that if you use google, you will get a hundred links to many news sites, which all reference Odnako for the theory(including al-manar site<ref , scroll down to the last bit), so can the source be that bad for wikipedia when so many news sites use it? Even when you write in the article "Explicitly according to Odnako and none else"?

Okay, now I know what you're thinking: "Ohhhh! This guy is obviously a propaganda tool working for those Iranian Hezbollah trying to spread lies all over the internet to cover up that they killed Hariri! I must fight for the truth!". But okay now, really, I don't care who killed Hariri, because as far as I'm concerned, he's not a martyr, he's an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality. So if you think I don't want Hezbollah to be implicated in his killing, you're wrong, cause I'd consider it the greatest honor if Hezbollah were the ones who executed him. But I just wanted that text included because I'm 100% positive the theory has enough weight and popularity among the population today to be placed as a side theory on wikipedia, whether I like it or not.--Propaganda328 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at what you've just written:

1. You don't know if your source is reliable, nor how to find out if it is (despite my telling you twice that the way to get it checked at WP:RSN), yet you're edit warring to include it.
2. It appears that you're either unable or unwilling to provide a translation of the source you're citing. Do you even understand Russian? Did you include the source based on a machine translation of it, and keeping that translation to yourself? Or are you just adding the source because you think it says what you want the article to say?
3. You said that there are "a hundred links to many news sites" that support your content. And yet you failed to link to any in either discussion I've opened, nor even mentioned that any The only one you've now mentioned is al-Manar, a Hezbollah affiliated
4. Do you understand what WP:FRINGE says? Do you understand that extreme fringe theories should not be included in Misplaced Pages articles? Based on what you've written, it appears you don't believe that, even though I've told you three times now.

I don't think that (or care if) you're associated with Hezbollah. However, based on what you've written here, it's clear you are very personally opposed to the subject of the article, the assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, whom you describe as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality." I don't know like or dislike him, and I don't know what an "2irish" is, but you definitely should not be editing this article. After reading that, I'm hoping an uninvolved administrator considers topic ban Propaganda328 from this article, and all articles concerning Rafic Hariri. ← George 02:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Access Denied's bad-hand sock account

• Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From what I first saw of this editor, he didn't seem too bad. I remember him being brought to this page because another user thought his username violated policy, but community consensus found that it did not. I saw them again a few times, but I've been rather busy as of late, so I don't remember any of those times besides that one. For the most part, the appeared to be a constructive editor.

Now, when I see their user talk page, it seems that they are on an 'indefinite wikibreak'. Today however, I found this to be utterly false, it seems they had created a bad-hand sock account named Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs), which they used to troll several pages including this noticeboard, and then their own talk page.

They were found to be a sock after smelling of one, and being CU'd when I contacted one in regards to the suspicious behavior.

I'm frankly disappointed that this user would do something like this, and I very much await their explanation. Below are two sections transcluded from their talk pages; one from their first user account, Access Denied, and one from their sock account, Wpeditmanbob2. Both master and sock have been notified: , .— Dædαlus 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, I took their behavior to this noticeboard for review.— Dædαlus 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD's response

This account was previously indef blocked and community banned. The community ban was lifted on 31 August 2017: , with no additional restrictions. User is now editing as User:CactusJack.

Discussion (AD sock thread)

Forgot to place this section here. But anyway, currently AD's main account is blocked for a week due to the socking. I would be lying to say I think that's enough.. the only other thing I want is an explanation.— Dædαlus 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is another classic false-positive case. There have previously been several false-positive cases. Many trusted users know who Access Denied is. There doesn't seem to be anything that explains why Access Denied, a well-trusted and established user, would operate a bad-hand sock puppet account. I'd like to know how strong the CU evidence is. HeyMid (contribs) 09:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean you're afraid it -could be- a false positive; you don't actually know. And it's  Confirmed, not  Likely or  Possible, but confirmed.— Dædαlus 09:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see the technical evidence. Yeah, confirmed is the closest connection possible. HeyMid (contribs) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, can we add some more accounts to the mix. I'm stating that the following accounts are  Confirmed as being related to Access Denied (talk · contribs);

• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Smiling happy pie man (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dkfjb (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There are also issues relating to vandalism and block evasion around an IP address which I will not identify at this time. However, and I really feel that I need to state this here, the case is rather unusual in that all these vandalistic socks are created on a mobile device (an iPod Touch) that AD uses. AD also uses a desktop system & interestingly, this system has never created any sock accounts. These edits from the socks are so inane and puerile that I really kinda have to suspect the 'kid brother' card will be invoked here. These socks are mostly on-and-done in around 10 mins or so. I want to hear what AD has to say, though ... - Alison 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied was caught in the autoblocks as a result of the blocks of Smiling happy pie man and Dkfjb, so this is correct. We can't exclude that his brother was operating the above accounts; mobile devices may easily be shared by others than the owner. And if AD forgot to turn off the iPod (assuming he owns it), his brother then could create new accounts. The behavior of the above accounts seems to be too abusive to be socks of AD. Why would AD operate vandalism accounts? Also, how could you identify that the accounts edited via an iPod? I, too, am interested in hearing what AD has to say. HeyMid (contribs) 11:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the ipod actually belongs to AD, e.g. do AD logged-in edits come from it? Maybe we're seeing a wifi access point being abused. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same iPod, over multiple disparate domestic IPs so that tells me it's not an abused WiFi node - Alison 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the edits all took place in a constrained period of time: Novermber 24 from 19:23-19:51 and December 18 from 1:41 to 2;38. If this has been an inappropriate use of AD's mobile device, perhaps this will help identify who the culprit is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brother would have made an edit like this, which seems too timely to be happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by the fact that the most recent sock (Wpeditmanbob2) was knowledgeable about the help desk, WP:ANI, the blocking policy, and the {{unblock}} template. I'm really wondering how his brother would be that knowledgeable (if we assume that the sock was operated by his brother). Also, this inappropriate revert is interesting. I am fully aware of the fact that AD sometimes makes disruptive headers (see this edit, for example). Also, the "Wp" part in the sock's username (which is an abbreviation of "Misplaced Pages") is also something worth thinking about. If the three accounts mentioned above were all operated by AD, I'd support an indefinite block of AD. But before taking any further actions, I think we should wait for a response from AD himself. For now, I'd say we don't know either way (whether it was someone else or AD himself). HeyMid (contribs) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all linked in some way with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, but I don't know quite how. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the first impression is TFM. However, the problem here is that CU confirms the sock edited using the same mobile device AD has edited with, and CU has never mentioned TFM. The poor text language in the sock's edits explains why a mobile device was used. It is very difficult to make two edits within 4 minutes using a clean language. Also, in this edit, several users are mentioned. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the TFM account and associated socks were being run through a different device, and the AD account and associate socks were being run through his ipod. The same person could be editing from both a desktop computer and an ipod and easily maintain the subterfuge of being two different people by posting within minutes or seconds of each other. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the CU above (at least as I understood it) the AD account (but not the socks) did use a desktop system. I presume this is not linked to the TFM account although it's possible this was not looked in to specifically. Of course the TFM could be using a different desktop system perhaps in a different location (or just using a proxy or different connection) from the AD account. Note of course if the iPod was used at the same time as the TFM account and if they are the same person the iPod will need to have a wifi connection different from whatever connection the desktop is using or otherwise one of them would need to be using a proxy or whatever or there would I presume be some linkage. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD always struck me as an unnecessarily aggressive editor, though I wouldn't have predicted the socking. Go for a longer block if you want. Trolling that lame from a sock account sounds like a breaching experiment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very curious pattern. I would definitely like to hear from Access Denied over this. I do know that at the time he was asking for the autoblocks to be cleared, he was away from 'his desk' (ie the fixed system) and using the mobile device only. I believe he said he was at his parents. It does sound like an "ooh, can I play with your new iPod" scenario. Will we wait for AD to respond please. No damage is currently being done I believe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well this is extremely disappointing; I agree with others that I didn't expect such behaviour from AD, but nor would I believe a "my brother did it" response given the nature of some of these edits (one edit to ANI was "lol I wish eagles wuz here to see dis", referring to another regular contributor). I suspect AD was trying to see if they could get away with trolling from a sock account, and fortunately they cannot. I note also that while I usually found AD to be a good editor, I did once see cause to leave him a comment about the list of "funny" vandalism on his user page, after viewing a diff he had just added and having to promptly ask User:TFOWR to RevDel it (the diff to which he linked, that is) and asking AD not to feed the trolls by linking to offensive vandalism. If that's the sort of thing AD finds funny, I suppose I can't be too surprised by this. GiftigerWunsch 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit you're referring to was not made at WP:ANI; it was made at their user talk page while the account was blocked. Also, do you mean you believe AD intentionally created a disruptive account in purpose of getting his main account blocked indefinitely? I do believe AD is aware that CUs can detect sockmasters of sock puppet accounts. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it was indeed the user's talk page. And no, I believe AD intentionally created an account to let off steam anonymously and to see whether or not it'd be traced back to him. Checkusers can and have confirmed the relationship, certainly, but that only happens when there's reason to suspect a connection already, since checkuser isn't used for fishing. GiftigerWunsch 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How reasonably certain are we that AD is not User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I must admit, when I saw what Wpeditmanbob2 was doing, my mind instantly went to TFM instead of AD for a connection. this comment in particular is interesting, since as far as I know, SandyGeorgia has not yet been involved in this case, but SandyGeorgia WAS an ardent supporter of TFM in the last case. Why the connection drawn here? I know that AD and TFM were seen "fighting" during TFM's most recent block, but given the propensity of both of them to run good-hand/bad-hand accounts, couldn't that have been simply more subterfuge? I'm not sure this is anything more than me just thinking out loud, but has any checkuser been run to investigate THAT connection?--Jayron32 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Spot on what I've been getting at above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

See also User:The Thing That Should Not Be. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the contributions style. This situation seems to be growing like last summer's oil leak. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for coming out of retirement to poke my head in, but what does this have to do with me? The fact that we apparently retiredwent on an indefinite wikibreak at nearly the same time seems to be nothing more than a coincidence. The Thing /_C 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Was AD involved in the Bad edits r dumb ban discussion prior to the Fat Man one, Jayron? I'm about to head to bed so I can't check, but wasn't it established that Fat Man = Bad edits? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about AD's involvement in that case, but The Fat Man has himself positively identified that he was Bad edits r dumb. --Jayron32 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no doubt at all that Fat/BErD was one guy. I wonder if his "brother", user Mike R, could shed any light on this saga? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Smiling happy pie man (talk · contribs) account sounds really ducky, as Access Denied (talk · contribs) was renamed from I like pie it tastes good (talk · contribs); you'll also want to block:

• Access Denied's left shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's left sock (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right sock (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mono (talk • contribs) mono 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Those accounts have not edited, so have not been used against policy. Plus, it is pretty obvious they are not trying to hide. If he uses them to avoid his current block, we can block them in turn. But lets not go overboard here... --Jayron32 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• This incident is extremely appalling. Although I've found Access Denied to be an editor who tends to feed the trolls, I never would have expected that he would stoop so low to sock disruptively. I think that Access Denied is disgruntled with the The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) affair. His most significant edit before retirement was a reversion on The Fat Man's talk page. This socking is intended either as a protest, albeit immature, of The Fat Man incident or as an effort to dig a deeper hole for The Fat Man, incriminating him with more socks. If the latter, he probably did not expect a CheckUser to be run due to the ducky nature of the socks and so did it through his own IP/phone. Since Access Denied has shown himself unworthy of the community's trust, I would support a lengthier block, though first I'd seek to hear his account of this. Goodvac (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the kid brother hypothesis...You would be surprised how much information about Misplaced Pages friends and siblings can learn by knowing someone established on Misplaced Pages. If one of my close friends had the desire, they could easily cause issues on pages I frequent and with editors I associate with most commonly, as I discuss them offline as well. Sharing of iPods is also easy, as I loaned mine to a friend of mine for up to a month at a time in the past. It is also hypothetically possible that if it was a sibling of Access Denied they could just pick up the iPod and use it when he left it unattended for a bit, quitting their disruptive behavior a few minutes later when they got bored or Access Denied extricated the iPod from their possession. Socking disruptively like this is too far outside Access Denied's character for me to not believe this is a coincidence of unfortunate proportions. Ks0stm 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For me the mention of SandyGeorgia in this edit would seem to give the "kid brother" point away. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the allusion to SandyGeorgia would not be coming from a brother. In addition, Access Denied frequently complains about small text and recently increased the text size to 140% in his monobook.css. With his sock account, he complains that "the wikipedia font is so TINY is it almostzImpoSSIBLT2READ". Also, Access Denied seems to be the type of person that follows web evolution (or whatever you call it), explaining his sock's reference to the W3C. Goodvac (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must say I find your theory quite compelling: that AD was trying to imitate TFM, either to get TFM in trouble (less likely) or just plain troll (more likely). I can't say I'm surprised - I don't fully accept the "otherwise good character" statements in this thread. AD was on a downward spiral from the moment his premature RfA closed (refer: posts on TFM's and YellowMonkey's talk pages and involvement in the latter's RfC and RFaR). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh geez, I am suddenly reminded of the Robdurbar incident that occurred a while back. Let's not further speculate on the matter and close down this thread; this entire discussion is already giving the trolls new ammo and more reason to come back, and we should not be doing that. The explanation from AD will come when it will come, so there is no reason to open up a new discussion about it. In the meantime, let the block stay in its place, as perhaps a preventative measure just in case it really is him. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community, of course there will be a thread to discuss the behavior. I'm not sure how many people have AD's talk on their watchlist, but I'm sure there isn't much. There is no guarantee that AD will ever give an explanation, but at least here we can centralize things a bit. Lastly, DNFTT is not a reason to close down a discussion of this type; this was a good-hand-bad-hand case, not a case of a user who has done nothing but troll. I don't really see how you could say DNFTT applies here.— Dædαlus 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time of writing this, AD's talk page is watched by 58 users, so that's a plenty amount for a non-administrator. HeyMid (contribs) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still can't say for absolute certainty, judging from the dispute above, that whether or not the BROTHER clause does apply to AD, and by extension we lack knowledge of whether or not "an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community" is true. But I am pretty sure that people (me for one) will be watchlisting his talkpage for a response. And the DNFTT case may go both ways; this user, be it AD or not, has trolled with the Wpeditmanbob2 account, and that's a definite no-no, especially when such person responds with stuff like this to ANI. But really, I feel we should move on. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm kind of distressed to infer that Ipods send info identifying the specific device as part of http queries, unless we're talking about a regular browser cookie that AD forget to clear. I'm glad I don't have an Ipod. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UA's(user agents, Firefox for example, is a user agent) are usually unique to the device the browser is used on.— Dædαlus 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Browsers have a "useragent" which identifies the browser, and I would assume that a iPod's browser is distinct from ones like Internet Explorer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User agents usually don't uniquely identify the specific device. They normally identify the OS and browser version, but not the machine serial number or anything like that. So if you use Firefox under Windows, the UA would be something like "Firefox 3.6.1 Windows Vista SP2". If you had two separate computers both set up like that, the UA string wouldn't be enough to tell them apart. That's why there is controversy over flash cookies and the very existence of Processor Serial Numbers, for example. It could be that the Ipod Touch sends unique info, and that might be handy for sock detection purposes, but it's not welcome news from a general privacy perspective. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OT but if you are concerned about privacy, be aware it's been argued the amount of info your browser gives away including installed plugins, fonts etc can sometimes form a unique (albeit changing over time) fingerprint in some/many? cases Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why would he be abusing multiple accounts since he knows what's right from wrong. I didn't think he would do this until I saw his contributions. He helped me how to install Igloo back in October when I had rollback. He even decided to retire but then he changed it to an indefinite wikibreak. Sometimes people say that they retired but they faked it by still editing. WAYNESLAM 15:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

He mentioned that his grades were falling badly, so I wonder if this is his method of enforcing a wikibreak. I hope it doesn't become common. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

L.O.L., I know. There are other, better ways to enforce a wikibreak, besides making yourself look foolish, such as a script that you set to the wikibreak's end time, and then it will automatically log you out every time you try to log in, until the wikibreak's end time arrives. :-D 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Three Strikes and You're Out?

I think maybe its time for admin intervention with Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated WP:IDHT

Previous ANIs (relating to this matter)

• September 29, 2010
• November 15, 2010

Today he's recreated the article in dispute at (I Only Know Him) In The Dark and despite repeated warnings he's added unsourced information to the parent article Can't Take That Away from Me. In this edit he uploaded an album cover which was of HQ and 1000×1000px (too big) as well as adding information about leaked songs and used twitter/youtube as sources for speculated information. Funnily enough after I reverted it an IP address made the same edits here without the change to the album cover. Lilbadboy has been warned before about uploading inappropriate images and I believe he simply cannot understand/comprehend or follow wikipedia rules. He has even uploaded a watermarked image here which he has claimed under fair use for being his own work yet on flicker the same image has even more watermarks and is clearly marked as "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED".

I rest my case. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking at your difs and the editor you mention, I think enough is enough and a block is needed or even a ban. I am especially concerned with the copyright problems and lying about it. No, we can't have editors behave like this. Definitely need to stop this and now. I would also recommend salting the article the editor keeps recreating to stop that from happening too. --CrohnieGal 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Lilbadboy312 has caused enough disruption to Misplaced Pages and has utterly failed to understand the rules in a collegiate manner. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse blocks

Please note that I blocked Uachtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and CanadaNoveScotia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for making the same inappropriate talk page additions as PLehany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to talk pages loosely related to Child sexual abuse. It seems an obvious attempt to pretend to there being multiple editors supporting the changes, but it seems unlikely that new editors would make the same violations as WP:TALK without making exactly the same edit, using WP:UNDO.

As I have been involved in content editing in some of the articles, I'm putting the blocks up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits have also come from 86.42.13.231. --♦IanMacM♦ 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention IPs, but 86.44.252.83 was also used. (Do we need to inform those IPs by {{ANI-notice}} now?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, it's almost certainly the same person each time anyway:)--♦IanMacM♦ 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the blocks. Maybe the IP or if it's multiple ones though I only saw the one, should also be briefly blocked (unless it's one that doesn't rotate than also block it permanently). --CrohnieGal 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way I submitted an SPI request, in case the editor is sophisticated enough to have created additional socks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly disruptive to spam the same post across several article talkpages, using different accounts to possibly evade clean up. I am only concerned that the project is not being suckered into allegations of pro paedophile censorship, since the content of the disruptive edits may indeed be suitable for placement in the appropriate article. I am noting this concern in case the situation does arise, but otherwise I think WP:BEANS applies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be closed now. The SPI that Arthur Rubin set up confirms they are socks and they are all blocked except of course the IP's. I don't think anymore is needed here unless there is more problems going on that have not been added here. --CrohnieGal 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible abusive sockpuppetry

I am currently involved in an editing dispute with Rahlgd (talk · contribs) at Template talk:Ethnicity in Mexico and Talk: Nahua people - a new account has appeared recently Mapudunganpanzer (talk · contribs) - this account has only edited articles related to Chile and indigenous peoples of Mexico - both topics that Rahlgd has edited extensively - and more than half of his edits are in support of User:Rahlgd in disputes with me - arriving at articles the user had not previously edited. His name is a combination of Mapudungun the language of the Chilean Mapuche ethnic group and "Panzer" - User:Rahlgd's other big interest is weapons and military. Apart from the fact that both users argue based on their personal experience instead of by using sources. User:Rahlgd has a history of disregard for wikipedia policies such as copyright and WP:V (this can be seen at his talkpage User talk:Rahlgd). I am suspecting that something underhand is going on here, but I don't know how to deal with it. I would appreciate some extra attention on the issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry-related suspicions should be looked at via WP:SPI.  Sandstein  20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI states clearly that in some cases it is better to go via ANI - in this case because I am not sure that an actual SPI is warranted - perhaps this can be settled by WP:DUCK or perhaps I am not justified in my suspicion at all. Actual advice would be appreciated.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mapudungan panzer is me too. i use that account when i log in through my phone. Sorry, not meant to be sock puppetry Rahlgd (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

It may be better if you use an account that is named similar to your main account, and that you cleary link the two accounts together on the accounts' respective user pages, to avoid confusion. Having a seperate account for use on less secure devices and networks is okay, but it is important that you cleary link the two accounts together on their respective user pages. 05:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is no ok, he has clearly been using the second account to make himself count double in content discussions. This is the definition of abusive sockpuppetry. He is only coming out now because he was nicked.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus seems to be correct. Diffs Mapudunganpanzer makes some argument about what should be in an ethnography template; Rahlgd copy-edits his own argument, then indents and agrees with himself by saying "Exactly." He is (or at least, was) pretending to be two different people (albeit in a really obvious way) in order to try to force a concensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think some sanction or at least a sharp warning would not be out of place.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Celibacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved – we cool --Jayron32 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a negative response on my talk page from an IP that I warned for (what I believe to be) vandalism of Celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Dear Nlu,

I spent about an hour of my personal time to rewrite the intro of Celibacy. In comments, I have specifically stated that articles must be written in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. "Celibacy means having no partner" is very lame. Moreover, definitions were wrong. Yes, I also removed a source request there, which was not needed anymore anyway since I rewrote it.

You reverted my edit, came write about vandalism on my page, moreover, jumped to the last warning right off. I demand explanation within the next 24 hours, or I will a) revert YOUR edits and b) complain about your behavior to an administrator.

Thank you,

184.163.123.4 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This was my response:

Read WP:NPOV. Your "definition" of celibacy is not in accordance with neutral view of what the term means. If you continue to do what you've been doing, expect to be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, I re-read 184.163.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s edits on Celibacy, and I still believe that it was vandalism. However, I would like a second opinion on it. I'd also like a second opinion on whether I 1) should have given no response at all; 2) gave too harsh of a response; 3) gave too lenient of a response; 4) should reword my response. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edits are not vandalism. They may have not belonged in the article, but vandalism is very narrowly defined as intentionally trying to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Insofar as the IP believes his edits to be improving the article, they are not vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM. Now, that does not mean that the edits are allowed, or should stay in the article. There are many things a person can do to run afoul of Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies, and only a small subset of that is vandalism. Please do not call things vandalism when they are not, because it leads to undue bad feelings all around. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified 184.163.123.4 of this thread. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32, I believe it is vandalism because they were edits that the IP editor should have known to be not acceptable and still wrote anyway; note that WP:VAND's parts excluding bad edits from the definition of vandalism deal with good faith edits, which these are not. It is different from a situation where the IP editor's edits are only violative of, for example, WP:NPOV, but had done so without knowledge that his/her actions are violative. The edits were clearly made to provoke and to make an unwarranted point, and therefore count as vandalism as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Nlu, but I have to totally disagree. I don't see how the IP's edit counts as vandalism, by any stretch, so you'll have to explain your stance more. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained — I believe the edits are vandalism because they were done in bad faith — and I believe that I also have indicated that I believe reasonable minds might differ on this. But in any case, what I am still not hearing is any additional thoughts on what should be done (if anything) as to this IP's edits. I am hearing no disagreements that the edits are inappropriate, so whether vandalism or not, the question now is what to do with them. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question took the "lame" definition of celibacy (the kind of explanation you would give to a child when you don't want to get into the gory details), and expanded it in an inaccurate direction. But it doesn't look like bad-faith, it just looks like the IP doesn't know what he's talking about, and that's not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how bringing my comment to a general discussion would resolve Nlu's incompetent action. Please explain to me how you consider my edit being of "bad faith". To me "bad faith" is intentional mischief on an article, which perfectly suits the definitions of vandalism. As I mentioned, I was rewriting the introduction, and unless you consider, among other things, me bringing in original research, unsourced material and claims, or subjectivisms, I see no way of you interfering with my edit. On a side note, none of your arguments, justified or not, can possibly explain why you jumped to a warning straight off, as on no occasions to my knowledge does Misplaced Pages have a final-warning-first policy, unless it is an edit consisting of vocabulary relating to the word "penis". And by the way, you have 12 hours left. Thank you, 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP, reading your edit, it is clear to me that you are trying to redefine celibacy to mean 'being unmarried' - you even explicitly state that celibate people might have sexual intercourse, which is pretty much in contradiction to the standard definition of celibacy. While I don't think I'd call your edit vandalism myself, I can certainly see how it could look that way. You are clearly distorting the definition of the term to an exceptional extent, and it is only through a conscious effort of will that I can give the benefit of the doubt that you might actually believe what you wrote (which is the only thing saving this from actually being vandalism). --Ludwigs2 02:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I would call this "original research", however only if what you refer to as "standard" definition comes from a well-known dictionary. I was willing to include a paragraph that would state "do not mistake celibacy for sexual abstinence", as to my belief, and I do believe in logic and common sense, a celibate person can freely engage in a one-time sexual relationship with an individual, or to say so, lead a life of constantly engaging in sexual relations with different individuals. The key element of celibacy, to my point of view, is the absence of civil union, even if that union extends to the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". Also, a person deprived of sexual relations is not necessarily celibate, which proves by deduction of the contrary that thinking so is wrong, as many relationships within a civil unions can be of asexual nature. 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP must gain a consensus on the talkpage, before implimenting changes to article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you treat IP like dirt? Maybe I'm just too lazy to log in. Geez, go outside sometime, people! 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your status is irrevelant, IPs & registered editors must get a consensus on a talkpage, so as to impliment such changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please indicate what policy you are referring to and since when is such a policy in effect? Thank you,184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD - You Boldly made changes to the article. Your changes were Reverted & now you must Discuss why you wish to make the changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will henceforth inquire on this policy before editing other articles. Thank you,184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not belive that the IP user was truely vandalising or acting in bad faith. From the way the edits look to me, I think that the IP was acting in good faith and trying to improve the article (regardless of whether any of it is the absolutely right definition or whether it follows the style guidelines), which is not vandalism, nor is it in bad faith. Vandalism and bat-faith edits mean that the edits are being made to disrupt, cause problems, etc. Trying to make the article better, whatever the style of the edits, is acting in good faith and is not vandalism. The IP user made the edits to the article, and Nlu reverted them. This may be a content dispute, so thus the matter needs to be taken to the talk page, so that the involved parties (and other editors) can discuss the changes, and come up with a consensus on whether to implement them or not. Is this not the way that we should properly handle content disputes? This is most likely something that needs to be discussed over at the article's talk page, as I do not se where any real administrator action is required. 02:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, things are cool now. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks at User talk:Dylan Flaherty

With this edit by Anarchangel (talk · contribs). I think it sets a record for most admins/editors attacked in a single posting, hitting Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), Fcreid (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), and myself. Anarchangel has already been warned several times about making personal attacks, and here also appears to be trying to stir up trouble with an editor (Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)) who was recently topic-banned from Sarah Palin. Kelly 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Undo, maybe RevDel, block, move on. That's uncalled for. N419BH 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think RevDel would be a good idea. Kelly 21:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section for now per WP:NPA, and left a level 4im warning at Anarchangel's talk. I think this edit meets the WP:RD2 and WP:RD3 criterion for revdel as it's quite degrading. I don't have the requisite buttons though so someone else will have to make the final determination. N419BH 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NPA blanking is appropriate, revdel is not, given the way that diff documents aspects of a long-term edit dispute. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - those are personal attacks and there's no 'documenting aspects' of anything. It has no place anywhere on this project, and I've deleted the edit under WP:RD2. KrakatoaKatie 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie - I see it's still in the history for the two subsequent revisions but I don't know if anything can be done about that. Kelly 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The next revision needs to be revdel'd as well, and my blanking might need to be revdeled as well to get it completely cleared from the public archive. N419BH 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are certainly personal attacks deserving NPA blanking and maybe blocking the poster, but per WP:CFRD which says "not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations" (emphasis as in original), revdel is inappropriate. The message made a bunch of disparaging comments about the editorial judgment and personalities of various users and admins, and it included a bunch of links to various news articles (cnn.com, washingtonpost.com, etc.) which had apparently been proposed for inclusion in the Sarah Palin article but rejected by opponents, i.e. it documents a content dispute. It did not contain any profanity, threats, wishes for anyone's personal misfortune, or anything like that. It just called people things like "arrogant tool", "major timewaster", etc., which is what I'd consider "ordinary" incivility of the type WP:CFRD specifically says not to revdel. So I think the revdel should be undone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, as I didn't see that it rose above ordinary incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad call, Sarek. That fully met the RD3 criteria, and to overturn another admin's actions without the slightest hint of discussion? In one edit we have grossly insulting four editors, and libelling a BLP. Courcelles 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It really, really didn't meet RD3. Nor are the BLP accusations of misconduct (with sources waved around, which may or may not substantiate them) obviously BLP violations when discussed on a talk page, never mind BLP violations warranted RD2 deletion. Rd232 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The post sets a record -- hitting BLP gross violations, including charges which would have to be instantly removed from any BLP, hitting NPA gross violation, and asserting that "every brain cell (I) have is turned towards evil" which rather reduces the amount of AGF I can provide the poster (heck - I am known for routinely opposing draconian punishments - which I would not feel obliged to oppose in such a case as this). Indef, I say. And mean it. BTW, it does, indeed, rise well above "ordinary incivility." Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was even a way to turn individual brain cells towards evil. Now of course I want to learn how to do it. ;-) 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much if the comment is stricken or not. The main thing is to prevent such gross incivility in the future, and a block would be a good start. I've been blocked for a hell of a lot less than calling other editors "evil" and "stupid". By the way, Anarchangel wrote: "Thank the stars Ferrylodge gave up WP." Anarchangel, if you're watching, please visit my user page.

:-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't rev-del it. It's a silly rant that serves to illustrate the editor's true colors. If rev-del'd, the editor's attitude might be harder to discern. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Anythingyouwant, I'd support a 1 or 2 week block. Indef is excessive, as it is not a throwaway account. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the RevDels: We seriously need to back off on RevDeleting personal attacks. Personal attacks only reflect badly on the attacker, and there needs to be a public record of these things so that people who are not admins are free to read and judge for themselves when commenting here. This is twice in about a day that an ordinary, run-of-the-mill personal attack was deleted from the record, which is unacceptable. This is a clear over-application of the RevDel policy, and needs to stop. Because RevDel removes information so that non-admins cannot see it, it should be used VERY sparingly; overuse sets up a situation where non-admins are made to feel like second-class citizens, whose opinion doesn't matter. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be used in cases like this. --Jayron32 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Super-strength-family-size agree with Jayron32. Any trend to RevDeleting things which don't absolutely have to be RevDeleted (when blanking suffices, as here) should be stopped in its tracks. Rd232 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with not revdeleting this and with a much more sparing use of revdelete. It's useful to have this sort of thing on the record when an editor becomes a continuing problem. Revdelete should be saved for the kind of thing that really makes even an experienced and jaded editor's eyes pop out of his head. I've had some personal attacks made against me that I certainly don't want revdeleted, in case I ever have more trouble with the same editor and need to show the community what sort of discourse he favors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• - Support - one week block, user needs to be aware comments such as that are personal attacks and will result in a removal of editing privileges, why some passing administrator hasn't seen the diff and just blocked for a week or so is hard to imagine. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment JW responded at in reply to my query. Collect (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

JW is right. Anarchangel pulls this kind of personal attack all the time. You can go to his/her talk page (not talk page archives) and see warning after warning after warning for personal attacks. Anarchangel accuses one editor of "paranoid antii-UN fantasy", and says about another editor: "I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys. One or the other is in critical shortage". Now this, and still no block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "all the time" is overstated, but yes, those two PA's are there on the page. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• In light of this discussion I've blocked for one week with this proviso "Having reviewed the discussion and comments by various users, I have blocked you for one week. This block may be shortened if you give an unambiguous indication that you understand the reasons for it and won't engage in that type of abuse again. Alternatively, the block may be lengthened if your attitude is otherwise." Let's wait and see if the user clues up, adn then decide what to do.--Scott Mac 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an indication like that would be most welcome from Anarchangel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good block, given the past PA history visible on the user talk page. I started to think 1 week was a bit much for a 1-time incident, but I see there's already been a build-up. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats at User talk:Skovalinsky

Skovalinsky (talk · contribs) created her talk page imploring that Wikipedians "stop connecting the name 'SM Kovalinsky' with sock puppetry'. Skovalinsky proceeds to say that she was hired by some company in 2008 to write articles for clients and soon was banned. She threatens legal action if the supposed accusations of sockpuppetry persist. The sockmaster is Smkovalinsky (talk · contribs). While this may simply be a WP:DENY matter, should anything be done about the legal threats? Goodvac (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user must either withdraw the threat or face an indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Even before seeing that I started a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Wrong name concerning this issue. While the legal threat is unacceptable, this is an actual problem which we should address.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is more a case of not overlooking legal threats. I agree with Will's post at Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Wrong name. Petrosianii is the older account, so it shouldn't be a big fuss to list him/her as the sockmaster. TNXMan 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the sock tags are changed now. User:Smkovalinsky still has a tag, but as a sock instead of a puppet master. Since the username belongs to a live person, and other factors, I could see deleting that page outright.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This account claims to be a named living person, but provides no proof. This account has now posted the full name and address of that living person on their talk page, along with a lengthy rant about the purported misdeeds of another living person, again with no proof. Every post above assumes that this poster is who they claim to be, but without a molecule of evidence that it's true. The account should be blocked, their pages blanked, and the poster referred to OTRS. Only OTRS can adequately verify their identity. If this person is who they say they are, the OTRS volunteer can take the appropriate action; if they're not (if this is a joke, or a Joe Job) then we'll have done the right thing by removing the material that the real living person could, quite reasonably, find defamatory. Either way, BLP applies to user and talk pages too, and new accounts that appear and declaim "I'm XYZ and I'm mad as hell" shouldn't blithely be taken at their word. 87.115.159.188 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. How do we know you're really 87.115.159.188? You might also be spoofing. ;) If the user, real or otherwise, has further problems we can address them. I agree that blanking the two user and talk pages is reasonable, given all the circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with deleting the page as a possible outing attempt, and leaving a message advising the person to contact OTRS if they have a problem. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate block evasion by IP sock

• 66.71.97.39 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.71.97.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1103/Archive

I'm reporting two IP addresses used for socking and block evasion. I had tried to counsel this person not to do this, but they have stated unambiguously that they intend to evade the block: . Beyond that, I think it's pretty self-explanatory if you look at the two IP talk pages and the archived SPI case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

66.71.97.32/28 would be the range to block here. It's pretty small, but perhaps it would take care of this? — HelloAnnyong 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, do you think there is any chance this editor will do anything useful if unblocked? The history is somewhat difficult to parse. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HA (the blocking admin from SPI), thanks. Looie, I'm conflicted about this. It really looks to me like this person just wants to edit in WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and they did some medium-competency work on Calcium reactor in the past. So, when I first got involved, my hope was that they would make a clean start and become a policy-abiding contributor. And there does seem to be some perception on this person's part that no one except me is willing to listen to them, and they just want to put their past behind them. But you will see at their talk that I tried very hard to get them to do this the right way, and they are pretty determined to ignore my advice. And I don't know the whole story of what got them blocked originally (the SPI archive seems to be incomplete). So I'd be hard pressed to endorse an unblock at this point. Previously, HA suggested to me at his talk to use WP:OFFER, but no unblock any time soon, and I suppose I could be talked into agreeing to mentor them if they came back under a pretty strict editing restriction (ie, no editing outside of aquarium fish), but I'm not confident about that, given what has happened so far. I'd be very much influenced by what other, uninvolved, community members think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(I haven't done the rangeblock yet; I'm curious to see that others think as well.) — HelloAnnyong 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

About that rangeblock, I should note that they say that they are at that IP through the end of the month (probably university semester), but will move to another IP in January. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• And now: TonyPSU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Here's the part I'm not getting: in this edit, the user stated that "I went back to my account and protested the block", but I see no evidence of that on User talk:Antony1103. They were told on User talk:Toner89 (a confirmed sock) to go try on the original account, but all they did was blank their talk page. I don't really want to invoke WP:CIR here, but this is just getting worse and worse. — HelloAnnyong 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I also found that somewhat cryptic, but I think it refers, not to anything done since I started communicating with them, but rather to when they were first blocked, before the socking in response to the block began. I think they put a request to review the block on their talk, probably not very well thought out, and the reviewing admin (very likely correctly) declined, and that's what this is referring to. I've tried to go back and figure out what that was all about, and I'm afraid I haven't been able to piece it all together, because some of the record seems to have been deleted. I've seen mention of something about bad bots, no idea what that was, and I've seen the user make some incivil comments about those who blocked them.

I, too, am coming to the conclusion that this boils down to WP:CIR. But if you look at the last few diffs at User talk:66.71.97.39, the user may have made this decision for us, saying that they've decided not to edit here any more.

My advice at this point: go ahead with the IP rangeblock, including blocking new account creation, since we have no guarantee that they won't try again to come back. And then consider the matter closed and done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Re: "I went back to my account and protested the block", User talk:Antony1103 has been blanked a number of times, and looking at previous versions reveals a number of old unblock requests, which I'd guess is what that comment refers to. Is there no possibility that this is someone who genuinely wants a clean start? Is there no way anyone can try to help rather than just saying "You didn't do it the right way, so go away" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I appreciate you saying that. As I've indicated above, I've been going back and forth on what I think about this question, and I'd welcome input about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

Lanternix (talk · contribs) has a long history of poor editing in topics related to Arabs as well as Christianity in the Middle East. The user has long been edit-warring to maintain the view that Egyptians are not Arabs. To give the latest example, at List of Arabs, Lanternix has been removing the names of all Egyptians, including Gamal Abdel Nasser (rvs: ,,). Because Lanternix believes that Egyptians are not Arabs, the user is forcing that view on every Egyptian. Never mind that Nasser considered himself an Arab, or that sources invariably call him an Arab (see for example the title of this book). Lanternix has also been edit-warring on issues related to conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. For example, the article Damour massacre includes that this was retribution over the Karantina massacre. Lanternix has repeatedly edit-warred to remove sourced material on the death toll at Karantina and replacing it with a much lower number despite sources disagreeing with him (rvs , , ). The user has also been edit-warring at the article titled Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. This article had been titled Arab Christians when others, hoping to put an end to Lanternix repeatedly removing any mention of Egyptian Christians from the article, agreed to rename it. This rename has not ended Lanternix's persistence in edit-warring on whether or not Egyptian Copts are Arabs. These are all of the edits Lanternix has made to that article since late November, see if you cant find a pattern: ,,,,,,,. A similar edit-war has been taking place at Religion in Egypt with Lanternix and another user reverting one another without end or any discussion about the reversions (rvs: ,,,,,. In the article Egypt, the user has been edit-warring to include a passage for which there is not a single source cited, though the user laughably says in one edit summary that they are restoring "deleted referenced material" (rvs: ,,, (note the user has broken the 3RR on this article today). The user had edit-warred over this material in the past, and returned to reinsert it again a few days ago. The past discussion on the talk page is here. The user often makes no comments regarding their reversions in either their edit-summaries or on article talk page, choosing to only interact through the use of the undo link.

This user has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit in accordance with the policies of this website, regularly reintroducing poor sources and removing quality ones, edit warring until others are either exhausted or fed up to continue cleaning up their poor edits. I dont know what can be done about the user's editing short of a long block, but something should be done. nableezy - 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really funny how the user Nableezy is accusing me of things that he himself/herself does: edit warring, reverting for nor obvious reason, trying to impose pan-Arab labels on non-Arab people etc etc. I am totally willing to discuss matters and reach middle grounds, but I will not be doing so unilaterally. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 01:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this issue seems a little complex for this noticeboard, a request for comment might be a more appropriate forum. Kelly 04:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue is edit-warring across a range of articles, at times making edits such as this which can fairly be described as vandalism, edit-warring that includes a 3RR violation today at Egypt. If this board is ill-equipped to handle such an issue then I apologize. nableezy - 08:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a revelation that the Copts are constantly oppressed and killed by an Egyptian leader who does it to distract the muslim Egyptians from the fact that he's an Israeli puppet dictator.--Propaganda328 (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting that I have blocked this editor for 48 hours (they already have a 24 hour sanction for disruption) for making this unhelpful and potentially inflammatory comment within a few hours of them being reported to this board for, um, making unhelpful and potentially inflammatory responses to other editors when being questioned about their conduct. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I will comment only on edit warring on Egypt.Yes, Lanternix added not sourced info, but there are lots of sources that prove the added info.In his addition Lanternix linked to well-sourced Nag Hammadi massacre and Kosheh Martyrs. I am sure Nableezy knows about those articles . So at least some (most) information added to Egypt by Lanternix could be sourced, and should not have been removed from Egypt.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sources and references for the disputed paragraph in Egypt have just been added. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, please note that a related discussion is taking place on this page. Thank you! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very straightforward. This is obviously a long-term issue for Lanternix. 8 reverts on 3 articles in 9 hours is not a sign of cooperative editing. His prior day of activity (Dec 14) and the active day before that (Dec 12) form a clear recent pattern. Dec 14. Dec 12. This is an ongoing problem that a short 24-48 hour block after the fact won't address. I am issuing a strong final warning and asking the user if they will avoid edit warring. In my opinion, further incidents of edit warring should be rewarded with week-long plus blocks and/or month-long plus topic bans. This is classic tendentious edit-warring, which is not that complex at all. --Vassyana (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User warned. --Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block

This user User:LouisPhilippeCharles is blocked. But he is editing under his old account User:Tbharding. - dwc lr (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have hardly caused a problem my fellow Wikipedians. If this is good bye, Adieu </3 The One And Only (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd the old account for block evasion. If they'd like to come back or have the block shortened, they need to work that out with their current account. Shell 03:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously blatant block evasion is not acceptable, and I know there have been a series of issues in the past, but I'd welcome a further attempt to reach a better resolution with this user if that is possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is socking while blocked suddenly no big deal? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The sock puppeteer acknowledges he has no intent or ability to restrain his edits to comply with admin restrictions here. And why should he? Even as a pitch is being made on this page to reach a "better resolution" allowing him to resume editing, he is using yet another sockpuppet to evade the one-month block as seen here. This sockpuppet needs to be blocked, as do the others that have or will be used next. FactStraight (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for a week. I support indef block for LouisPhilippeCharles. Favonian (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Once they agree to abide by the policies and guidelines of the project, and those restrictions applied to their account to better ensure that they do so, then they are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia. Socking because they feel they have a greater need to edit than to comport themselves to the will of the community does not indicate that they are capable of editing in the collegiate and consensual manner that is required of all contributors. I suggest resetting the 1 month block presently, and am willing to be proven wrong when they return. Any more of this nonsense, however, and I think Favonian's suggestion may be taken up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Support indef block and further attempts to reach a better resolution with the user. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bush tax cuts

If there's anyone uninvolved on the subject left, could you take a look at Bush tax cuts? Thoroughgoodness (talk · contribs) moved it three times to Bush-Obama tax cuts, and after the third time, Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it to end the move warring. There's currently a move request open to move it from "tax cuts" to "tax rates", but a fair number of people (me included) have said to move it back to the original location. I don't know about starting a new discussion to move it back while the other discussion is still running. Also, I have notified Thoroughgoodness about the Obama article probation, which I believe he invoked by trying to hang Obama's name on that article, in defiance of pretty much all reliable sources to date. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Courcelles protected the page without reverting Thoroughgoodness's move first. :-o 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know? Protection always happens when the page is on the wrong version! Kelly 04:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is metaphysically connected with the theory that an open-faced sandwich always hits the floor jelly side down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend letting the move discussion play out, there seem to be plenty of editors working towards consensus without need for an immediate imposed solution. Kelly 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets leave it where it is now, see where the discussion goes, and then move it to the most appropriate name once the discussion plays out. That is the textbook way this is supposed to be done, Courcelles handled this exactly right. --Jayron32 04:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Double L.O.L.! X-D 09:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughgoodness (talk · contribs) blocked as a confirmed sock of DavidYork71. TNXMan 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Being as how banned users are not allowed to edit, shouldn't his move be reverted? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done, and unprotected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  I endorse Sarek's action here, didn't know that a banned user was behind this. Kelly 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Neither did I. ;-) 23:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Nor did I until I saw Tnxman's report. The puppetmaster has more socks than Hanes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging and false accusations of vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That's enough!! Any more bickering regarding this issue here will result in blocking. –MuZemike 09:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just now, User:THF reverted the removal of two tags from Charles G. Koch. This is problematic for two reasons:

1. The tags claim there are WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues, but two editors have tried for 6 days to get THF to list any open issues and he has refused. This is an example of tendentious editing and a violation of WP:NPOVD. Essentially, he is abusing tags to permanently mark the article with a badge of shame.
2. The edit comment reads "Reverted 1 edit by Dylan Flaherty (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by MBMadmirer. using TW". This is an abuse of the Minor status, an abuse of Twinkle, and a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and most likely WP:NPA. This is entirely unacceptable under any circumstances, as it insults me by calling me a vandal.

I would like this dealt with promptly. Dylan Flaherty 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Promptly? Its a template removing spat - Usually it is better at ANI in cases like this where there is no immediate issue that is desirous of administration, it is better to take a little time for a look at the overall situation, there is discussion on the talkpage but no consensus that I can see for Dylan's removal of the templates, and it's not as THF claimed, vandalism to remove templates without consensus, its closer to disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rob has it right. If there's debate going on, the usual procedure is to leave the template in place until consensus is achieved; and reverting and re-reverting of potentially valid content is not "vandalism", it's edit-skirmishing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that it's not vandalism, which leaves the issue of THF calling me a vandal, twice. Dylan Flaherty 06:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he should not have called your edits vandalism. Now, what do you want done? --Jayron32 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misuse of the term "vandalism"; the correct characterization of the problem is slow-motion edit-warring. Four editors have added the tag, and Dylan persists in WP:IDHT and removing the tag in violation of WP:NPOVD. The extensive discussion on the talk-page demonstrates that there is not drive-by tagging by any stretch of the imagination; Dylan, however, several times a week, issues a demand that editors restate what has already been stated about problems with the article. THF (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm removing the tag due to WP:NPOVD, which does not permit leaving a tag on indefinitely as a badge of shame. Now that you've apologized, you can redact your accusation. Dylan Flaherty 06:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Removal of maintenance templates is considered a type of vandalism (there are even warning templates especially for that issue), but yeah, this seems more like a content dispute and possible disruption by DF than a vandalism issue. It is bad form for Dylan to be removing the templates while the issues are being discussed, and I can see why the other editors' frustration level is rising. Kelly 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelly, please be careful not to misstate the facts. It is bad form to leave tags on for weeks at a time without any clear list of items to be corrected. Thank you for trying to help. Dylan Flaherty 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is actually the same type of WP:IDHT behavior that led to Dylan's recent topic ban from Sarah Palin. Kelly 06:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See, now you're going from misstating facts to making inaccurate generalizations. Consider that multiple attempts over the span of days were made to get THF to provide a list of issues, and all of them have been resisted. Clearly, if anyone is guilty of WP:IDHT, it's THF, and perhaps you. Dylan Flaherty 06:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a personal thing, DF. Baseball Bugs is right on target. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If I accused you of vandalism and called for a topic ban, that would be impersonal, right? Think it through. Dylan Flaherty 06:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - As a note, WP:NPOVD is a wiki essay and as such it can't be violated and is not an excuse to remove templates without consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say to that, as it has no bearing on this discussion. But thanks for trying to help. Next time, you might want to do some research first. Dylan Flaherty 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you unable to look up and see what you reported at this noticeboard just above, that , "This is an example of tendentious editing and a violation of WP:NPOVD." - as I said to you, it's only an essay.Off2riorob (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add the DF was involved in a conversation about an edit war to remove a similar tag. Here is the evidence: User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Removing_warnings where Magog the Ogre said: "There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC is misrepresenting a separate incident -- one in which he (LAEC) was blocked for edit warring over a bias tag. He was attempting to use the tag as a bartering chip against talkpage consensus, and in bad faith. The quote from Magog was directed at TFD (who is not THF, though LAEC makes the switch below). LAEC's posts here are more examples of inappropriate piling on. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "in good faith". Excellent catch, there. Dylan Flaherty 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we have an admitted WP:AGF violation now, too. Anyone who thinks that I haven't discussed the reasons for adding the tag should simply review the talk page. Two other editors agreed with my assessment and readded the tag after Dylan edit-warred to remove the tag; others agreed with me on the talk-page. The problem here is WP:EW and WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE by Dylan. He refuses to edit collaboratively, and wants to WP:OWN the page against consensus that his edits violate policy. That he's brought his one-man editing dispute to ANI and wasting editors' valuable time with this is further disruption. THF (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs for bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ask for what is already provided. Dylan Flaherty 06:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean where he called you a vandal? He already apologized for that. Is there any evidence besides that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology without a redaction is worthless. And, to be frank, it's not much of an apology, as it then falsely accuses me of edit-warring.

User:MBMadmirer is a big fan of Koch and has repeatedly brought up issues that he has with the article. Not everything he asked for was acceptable, but we've worked together to resolve the issues he's found. I mention this as a classic example of good faith editing.

MBMadmirer has joined me in asking THF to please list any open issues. We've tried for days now, with no effect. It's almost as if THF wants there to be uncorrected issues so that the tags remain indefinitely, as a badge of shame. I posted diffs of some of the more recent requests, as well a diff of the sort of evasive answers THF gives. Dylan Flaherty 06:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

THF says above, "Anyone who thinks that I haven't discussed the reasons for adding the tag should simply review the talk page. Two other editors agreed with my assessment and readded the tag....; others agreed with me on the talk-page." Is this not substantially accurate? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree: it's not substantially accurate. More accurately, THF is currently alone in claiming the tags belong, and he has been uncooperative in terms of offering any hint of what might induce him to join in the consensus against the tags. Dylan Flaherty 06:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD, care to respond (if you are not on vacation yet)? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, Dylan is lying: . See also the talk page, where I repeatedly listed my concerns with the article, editors agreed with me, and Dylan then claimed that I hadn't justified the tag. His 06:50 claim demonstrates his WP:IDHT. He actually left a remark on my talk-page thinking that this ANI discussion vindicated him, which shows how far he just doesn't get it. THF (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for proving that you are still unwilling to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Your argument ignores the diffs I posted, in which you are asked again and again and again to just post a list, and you have refused to do so. So, while I won't say you're lying, as that implies intent, I will certainly say that your argument is false. Dylan Flaherty 06:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the Kock Talk page for the first time, I think. I see TFD raising substantive concerns numerous times, e.g., in "POV tag redux". I'll have to agree with THF at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LEAC, then maybe you can help him out by doing what two of us have been asking him to do for days now. Take his "substantive concerns" and turn them into an actionable list. Until then, you'll have to pardon me for not taking that claim very seriously. Dylan Flaherty 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you asked me several times to post a list after I posted a list on 12 December, and while I was on a business trip. I then responded by pointing you to multiple threads that remained unresolved, something I have done a second time in a new thread. Your repeated demands that I repeatedly post a list that you then refuse to discuss is simply badgering harassment. Your lie is your false claim at 06:50 that I was the only one who wanted the tag: multiple editors reverted your edit-warring to remove the tag, and I provided the diff. Everyone here unanimously agrees that Dylan should drop this: admins, can someone close this disruption by Dylan or confirm that I don't need to waste time defending myself here? This is WP:CTDAPE when I have to spend hours on meta-conversations with vexatious accusations Dylan makes. THF (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Dylan Flaherty 07:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF, we are talking here about your removal of tags. You say he has provided no justification and applied them in bad faith. I have determined that he has provided justification and apologized for the vandalism claim. Game other. The tags stay, per my understanding of the Magog the Ogre quote I gave above and for other reasons. There is no additional hurdle TFD needs to jump to package them up into a list that you are demanding. Let's move on to addressing the issues raised. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC you're in no position to judge this situation. You misrepresented the quote above by implying that it was directed at Dylan. You (LAEC) were eventually blocked for that dispute over a tag. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Casting this as being about my removal of the badge of shame is a fine example of trying to boomerang this by blaming the victim. Dylan Flaherty 07:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, PrBeacon, I was banned for restoring a BIAS tag I placed that several people edit warred to remove. I learned my lesson. So I have direct experience here. DF is wrong to remove the tag in this case. I base that on the discussion we had and my reading of Koch and my previous experience on exactly this topic. I supported that with direct quotes for the blocking admin directed to the one removing the tag I placed. Now DF is removing the tag. I am providing him with the benefit of my experience. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there wasn't much benefit. You were blocked not banned. Then you continued to argue at the article's talkpage for several weeks. There are plenty of other more experienced editors who can judge the merits of this case, your presence here is more heat than light. It seems like you're only here to keep poking him. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spinning again. Yes, I was blocked, but as to your heat/light comment, the SPLC page to which I had added the BIAS tag because it looked like an SPLC advertisement turned out to be --- an advertisement. Numerous cases of massive direct copying from the SPLC were identified by me. Other problems of a lack of any criticism have been identified and addressed by numerous other editors. The page is substantially better now as a direct result of my adding that BIAS tag. I'm not poking--rather, I'm making effective changes and working with the community to make more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong again. The bias tag has nothing to do with copyvio problems, as others already told you. No one's adding criticism because of the tag dispute. Your continued attempts to take credit for current collaboration there are absurd. And rehashing it here is further disruption. If anything, it shows a parallel between the two cases, not the disconnect you keep repeating. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spinning again. The page looked like and was an advertisement. I added a BIAS tag for that reason. True, there was a better tag to add. But the purpose and the end result were the same and the page is vastly improved. I take credit because if you look at Talk you'll see others tried to do what I did for the same reasons and failed because of the buzzsaw of people protecting the advertisement. I simply persisted and broke through. As to disruption, you admitted on DF's Talk page that you are only writing here to spin me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeating it over & over doesn't make it true. And you don't get credit. I did not say I what you claim at his talkpage. I am challenging your baldface lies because no one else is. Perhaps it's time we take the issue to WQA because you can't keep accusing other editors of this crap. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do. It may be the only way to stop your spin machine that you wrote on Dylan's page you will continue to do until others join you. In the meantime, I am signing off for the night and will not be able to respond to your spin further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's your head that's spinning, because now you're just a broken record. What you see as 'spin' is what others are seeing as a collective reality -- which you've shown little regard for here or anywhere else. Apparently your book banning campaign spills over to other areas of censorship. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Waiting

I'm still waiting for this to be redacted. Dylan Flaherty 06:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming to ANI, starting vexatious threads, and making demands in a tone of righteous indignation is not going to go well. You'd do best to let this drop. --Jayron32 06:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you'd be fine with my using WP:NPA as a justification for redacting his insults? Dylan Flaherty 06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what I mean is walking away from the entire issue, taking a few days to let things cool off, and then approaching the discussion at the article talk page with a cool head is what you should do. This entire thread is nonproductive. --Jayron32 06:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and how many days do you usually take off when someone falsely accuses you of vandalism and won't redact it? Dylan Flaherty 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's never happened to me, which should tell you something about how I tend to interact with other users. I also don't make demands for other people to redact anything. Things have never been said about me that I have felt need redacting. --Jayron32 06:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you've lived a charmed life. Great for you, but I'm not sure if it's provided the perspective necessary to understand this situation. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, even if you have the "right" to have the statements redacted, (I don't say that you do, I am merely conceding it for the point I am about to make), it doesn't make you look better by demanding that right. It only makes you look petty. If you want to come off looking better than people you are in conflict with, then don't act indignant and don't make demands. In fact, you look best when you ignore perceived slights, and move on with things. Even if you are in the "right" here (and I don't say that you are, I am merely conceding that you may be, just to make my point), then you overcome your own rightness by your behavior. Being right becomes less important in the face of the way you are acting. Eventually, people will stop coming to your defense even if they agree with you, solely because of the way you behave. --Jayron32 07:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing this. It sounds like you're suggesting that I should simply allow people to slander me and do nothing about it. But you can't be saying any such thing. Dylan Flaherty 07:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If what other say about you isn't true, it only reflects badly on them... --Jayron32 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe that at all, and it doesn't matter what I believe because the rules are quite clear on this. He abused Twinkle, he was uncivil and launched personal attacks. He needs to be blocked and have his Twinkle removed. In my humble opinion, your refusal to do that reflects poorly upon you. Dylan Flaherty 07:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You have the rights to your opinions. It would not be the first time that someone has felt that I had done something which reflects poorly on myself. --Jayron32 07:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, I have the right to request that admins enforce the rules. I am asking that he be blocked and have his Twinkle removed. Are you refusing? Dylan Flaherty 07:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To do what you demand, merely because you demand it? If there is a consensus to sanction someone, via comments made by several editors, which indicate that someone deserves to be sanctioned, then admins will act. Admins don't block people just because one person makes a demand, no matter how forceful the demand. No, I will not block anyone because I don't see where there is any consensus among others that there needs to be a block. --Jayron32 07:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my demand or with consensus. This is a straightforward enforcement of the rules you are sworn to uphold. Admins do block people because they personally noticed that the editor broke the rules. Are you now claiming you lack the authority to block him? Dylan Flaherty 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that this conversation is going nowhere, and I am disengaging now. I can do no further good here. Other admins will read this and come to their own conclusions on how to proceed. Vaya con dios, Dylan Flaherty. --Jayron32 07:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you should be really careful about asking for a block, which would clearly be inappropriate here. Blocks are not punitive; per WP:BLOCK, they are preventative, to prevent disruptive editing. Like persisting in wasting editors' time with WP:TEDIOUS arguments after a consensus has developed against you, your edit-warring, and your WP:BATTLE tactics. WP:BOOMERANG might just happen if you keep asking for a block--especially since you are unapologetic about your own unclean hands. THF (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am, more than anything, reminded of how rape victims are treated on college campuses. They're told that pressing charges never works and will only make them look bad. In fact, the college just wants to hush things up so that it doesn't look bad. In the meantime, rapists escape to rape again. Dylan Flaherty 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:Battle and WP:Boomerang come to mind. Off2riorob (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall one time when I demanded an apology from a user. I don't do that anymore. It's about as likely to succeed as... as edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've been called a vandal and a liar. I fail to see why I should sit back and accept such treatment. Dylan Flaherty 07:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the price of fame. But if they call you an "upstart", then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer a more serious response at this time, or none at all. Dylan Flaherty 07:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Um, folks, with this edit here, Dylan has once again done something he has been told repeatedly no to do: refactor (in this case removing) the comment of another editor, LAEC. I'm tired of correcting him on it, so someone else should probably restore the comment... Doc talk 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF. That was not something I did; it was a merge error by Misplaced Pages. Dylan Flaherty 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given the above, it's rather difficult to, especially since edit conflicts are in regards to two editors editing the same section, and there is usually(re, always), a notice that comes up speaking of said edit conflict. Given this was in a different section, it's difficult to see that happening. Further, if there was an edit conflict, it comes into question why you chose to let the comment be deleted.— Dædαlus 07:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC restored it. It was there before your edit and it was gone after your edit. And you are known for refactoring comments. Sheesh... Doc talk 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF's comment came at exactly one minute after LAEC's, so I can see an edit conflict happening, however, that does not explain why DF decided to not restore LAEC's comment, as as we all know, the Edit Conflict notice displays the new text and your text, showing you what was there, and giving you the chance to add in your edit again as well as the text of the person you came into conflict with.— Dædαlus 07:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Please consider assuming good faith on the comment removal. It is a problem with the edit conflict handling part of the MediaWiki software, I believe. I had it happen to me once, and almost warned the user for it, but another user had already asked if it was an 'oops', and it was. Accedential comment removal can be easily mistaken as a bad-faith edit. If the user was adding a comment in seperate section from the removed comment in the same edit, then it may very well be an accendential removal, and not a bad-faith edit. 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Daedalus969, from what I remember, I had come back and discovered that my comment had been accedentially removed. The problem can easily occur without the user even knowing that they accedentially removed the other user's comment, especially if the latter comment is in a seperate section or thread from the former (when it happened to me, the otheruser was editing in another thread. It happened right here at waaaaay-too-busy A.N.I., also). 08:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is something that has come up quite recently with Dylan, however. This isn't about failure to AGF on my part: he has a habit of removing the comments of others. Doc talk 08:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright; I'll resume AGF'ing for now.— Dædαlus 08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the many edit conflicts, Doc. I got two edit conflicts when I posted my first comment, the second one containing Daedalus's comment. I continued with posating my original comment, and then did a seperate expansion in reply to Daedalus. When I then posted it, I noticed that there was no newline, so I fixed it. Then I noticed a typo, which I then corrected. I had no more edit conflicts in those 3 edits after my original comment. There was also another user who commented in the midst of my edits. They really need to add a feature to the MediaWiki software that shows whether someone else is currently editing or not (especially on a waaaaay-too-busy page, like here at A.N.I.). 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this sure is taking WP:BOOMERANG to new lengths! I have a solid track record of taking full credit or blame for what I actually do, as opposed to what happens due to bugs. The fact that even this is pounced on just goes to show how far the blame-the-victim mentality of bad faith pervades this page. Dylan Flaherty 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is against you, just drop it now. As to your track record, I wouldn't say that's entirely true, and you know exactly why.— Dædαlus 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea, but I'm not asking, either. Dylan Flaherty 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dylan: I think you confuse WP:BOOMERANG with something else. Only an editor can "shoot themselves in the foot": it's not about the perception that others are doing it to you or "turning things around" on you. You opened this report, and it is not going your way. You can blame others, but this is a "boomerang"... Doc talk 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, and what's happened here is that I walked in and was shot in the foot. Dylan Flaherty 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what that means. It means you walked in and shot yourself in the foot. Really, just stop.— Dædαlus 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this conversation

I think "Drive-by tagging and false accusations of vandalism" has proven to be false or has been apologized for. Perhaps someone should close this conversation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for LAEC to be asking for this closure? He has a dog in the fight. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's wildly inappropriate, but this whole report has been mishandled from the start, so just let it go. Dylan Flaherty 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But wait! Dylan just compared me to a serial rapist in his 07:36 comment. Does this mean I should hold ANI hostage for several hours and hector several administrators to take punitive action? Unlike him, I'm not here for WP:BATTLE and am now disengaging, but I do hope an admin eventually does something about his edit-warring and disruption and tendentious wikilawyering complaints. I'm not the first victim of his harassment; see also the frivolous WP:WQA complaint he made this week. Dylan has a very bad habit of provoking editors with WP:IDHT, and then throwing a disproportionate fit when they step a toe over an imaginary line, despite having been warned multiple times by multiple administrators that this is counterproductive. THF (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be clear to anyone that it is not accurate to suggest that I compared you to a rapist. I'm also not shocked that you're eager to close a report that is, as hard as it may be to believe, against you. Dylan Flaherty 08:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The report has been proven false, and one particular incident has been apologized for. Time to move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not true. But thanks for trying. Dylan Flaherty 08:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict)))Partly true, actually; it's time to drop the stick. You aren't going to get your demands.— Dædαlus 08:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that your report of THF's "drive-by tagging" is true? We know your report of being called a vandal is true, but THF apologized for that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nether of those are true, but for people who claim they want this dropped, you sure are verbose. It's obvious that the admins here are not going to follow their own rules. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply claiming something doesn't make it so; consensus is pretty obvious, and if you don't drop it, Dylan, it will surely boomerang on yourself.— Dædαlus 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I love it when you threaten me. Never stop. Dylan Flaherty 09:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, claiming there is an "intentional boomeranging"" here again shows that you are not understanding what "boomerang" means. Or that blocks are not punitive. Read the essays/guidelines/policies: don't make up your own interpretation of them. Doc talk 09:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I didn't threaten you, I just told you what you were already told by an admin; drop it or something will happen. Do I really need to cite the diff, when it is so clearly posted above?— Dædαlus 09:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting

At this point, I've been falsely accused of edit-warring, vandalism, lying and removing other editor's words. Does anyone assume good faith? I know I certainly assumed the admins were acting in good faith, but they've collectively chosen to endorse this feeding frenzy by allowing THF to go unpunished. Dylan Flaherty 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't going to stop unless something is done,

Per the above; this user has been told several times now to stop beating the dead horse, but they continue drag it on and demand something they won't be given. Given they were already warned to stop, I believe they need a stern-er reminder.— Dædαlus 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. -- This may surprise you, but I don't recommend blaming the victim. Dylan Flaherty 08:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The only blame that exists is the blame on yourself; only you are dragging this on with your demands, and there are only two ways to stop it; you do so voluntarily or you are made to do so.— Dædαlus 08:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to Agree. This page is a "Dylan sandwich", with lengthy bookend threads devoted to him. And now no one is assuming good faith here? This is getting kind of obvious... Doc talk 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Really now, this is ridiculous...I only read the bottom half third of this thread (so I don't even know what started this) and still got a good enough glimpse of Dylan refusing to lay off that I would agree with Daedalus here. Ks0stm 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that this thread has been dead since the admins refused to enforce the rules. I wrote "Still waiting" and walked away, only to find these people still talking, and mostly just talking trash. This will go away when they let it.

In any case, if you've only read the bottom half, then you're not in any position to comment. We have enough trouble here with hasty conclusions; let's not add to it. Dylan Flaherty 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction, you were told to drop the issue after you created the 'waiting' sub thread by several users and an admin or two; instead, you proceeded to create another thread on the exact same matter. That is not 'walking away'. That is continuing to beat an already dead horse, a dead horse that by now is pretty much a smudge on the grass.— Dædαlus 09:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making hasty conclusions; I saw the dead horses you've left in your wake, so to speak, and had a large enough body count to make my own conclusions as to this point (I read starting at the bottom and moving up). Ks0stm 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

KBE and OBE and British Isles naming dispute

• Captain Fearnought (talk · contribs)
• Dunlavin Green (talk · contribs)

I am not sure whether this incident falls under WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names or not. These two accounts seem to be operated by the same user. They are spending their time removing references to the British Isles and any use of OBE or KBE awarded to personalities born in Ireland. I came across their edits on Europe and noticed that two different accounts had made identical edits to the BLP of Liam Neeson. Similarly Bono, but not yet Bob Geldof. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"They are spending their time...". A quick look at my edit history will show this for the paranoia it is. Captain Fearnought (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Run an SPI. It's best to clear up any suspicions of sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The edits to Europe a year ago and then today are not very different. Current arguments about "post nominal letters" seems the latest twist in the British Isles naming dispute. There does seem to be a slow edit war going on at Liam Neeson with occasional drive-by contributions from Dublin IPs. Liam Neeson was born in Ballymena in Northern Ireland and grew up in Belfast, so on the face of it would appear to have had British citizenship by birth and certainly in 1999 when the OBE was awarded. (He now is a US citizen.) Wouldn't it have been an honorary OBE otherwise, like that of Pierce Brosnan? Now in that case he was born in the Republic of Ireland. There is an OBE after his name in the article. He is also now a US citizen. Something very strange is going on here. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting involved, but here is an official article, even a video, about an honorary degree he received from Queen's University, Belfast, In the official release he is quoted as saying “My home will always be Northern Ireland. I have often found that no matter where I meet people in the world, there is a path that leads back to Queen’s. Queen’s University flies the flag for the arts in Northern Ireland and beyond. It is to be commended on its commitment to the arts sector and in nurturing new talent through its broad range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses." Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's basically content stuff. Your concern of sock-puppetry is the 'big issue' here. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but I was sorting out this mess in my own mind. Getting back to Europe, their editing does seem similar and their general interests seem almost indistinguishable. Mathsci (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend you open an SPI, just to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have requested CU with some additional input from Doc9871 on my talk page. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed as sockpuppets here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunlavin Green together with an IP added for good measure. So much for "paranoia", Captain Fearnought. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note - While they have been  Confirmed they remain unblocked. Shouldn't Dunlavin Green be blocked indef as the sock and Captain Fearnought (& the IP) for some standard length? Doc talk 19:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts now blocked indefinitely per checkckuser confirmation--Cailil 20:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And tagged. Looks resolved to me! Doc talk 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdel?

Do any of the recent edits here by USer:XMAS2010BITW (now indef blocked) warrant revdel? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've the removed the abusive edit summaries, and removed the vandal's talkpage access. Rd232 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And apparently I shouldn't have bothered, since checkuser now says the vandal is actually a sock of the account being abused, so both idef'd... Rd232 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how bizarre - thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on though... Are you sure that's not a shared IP? Iamred1 was complaining about an autoblock before, and I don't believe XMAS is the same person. Grandmasterka 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, it does seem odd. I've asked the checkuser (Muzemike) to comment here. Rd232 20:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not look like a public IP (i.e. from a computer lab or anything). Otherwise, it looks like it's all coming from the same computer to me. –MuZemike 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This also supports my findings. –MuZemike 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong

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

I am requesting review of User:HelloAnnyong admin actions in relation to this case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phrasia - The sockmaster had been blocked for previous socking and was vandalizing the integrity of the wikipedia with adding a hoax - a picture of himself to an article, User:HelloAnnyong at first gave him a three day block, I complained and he tells me to settle down like its my fault and then he raises it to two weeks. The user is quite simply a disruptive repeat offending sockpuppeeter hoaxer and is detrimental to the project yesterday , tomorrow, in two weeks and indefinitely , which is how long his block for these actions should be. Please review, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're coming off like a four-year-old whose brother's just been grounded for a day when you wanted him grounded forever. Settle down is right.  f o x  18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, WP:NPA? GiftigerWunsch 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that's not an attack. He's escalated this far too quickly.  f o x  18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And you couldn't have pointed that out in a way which doesn't attack his character by comparing him to a four-year-old? I'd think that's pretty insulting by anyone's standards. It's likely o2rr needs to back off from this, but that was just a completely unnecessary comment. GiftigerWunsch 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I asked for a review not a personal attack. What is too quickly? I went to the trouble to make a report and it is poorly actioned by this Administrator and then after I complain to him he raises it to two weeks and I complain again and he doesn't reply, I am able to ask for review of the Admin actions without being attacked? I don't need to back off anywhere, I expect decent administration, when it is not given it is so self defeating and just makes the whole thing seem a waste of users time, three days - what was he thinking.Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I love how you're taking a harmless analogy as an attack. Anyway, HelloAnnyong is an administrator, not a judge. It's up to him how he deals with it. Take it up with him, don't just suddenly out him in the stocks.  f o x  18:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since as an uninvolved editor who thus far agrees with you that this has been escalated too rapidly, I was the one to point out that comparing someone to a four-year-old trying to shit-stir, surely that's an indication that you could have chosen a rather less offensive "harmless analogy", Fox? GiftigerWunsch 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That was at both of you. Edit-conflicts. And really, if that's offensive, then, wow.  f o x  18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um.. wow. First off, I've been busy looking into other things both on and off-Wiki, so I apologize for not replying immediately to you, I suppose. In terms of the case, the master had been blocked back in May for a week for puppeting using one of the accounts that came up again in this case. The case wasn't reported, though, and it seems to have been just based on behavior. So here we are seven months later, and the case actually went through a checkuser and was confirmed. Perhaps three days was a bit light given the user's block log, but since this is the first time the socking has been confirmed, I thought not indeffing would be slightly less bitey. Anyway, I increased the block to two weeks, so this should be moot now. I'm not really sure why this needed to go to review, though, all because I didn't block enough. — HelloAnnyong 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Even raising to two weeks is not enough for a user that has this - I have been very bad in the wikipedia community for the past years, but I'm going to change my ways, have you know.' - on his userpage and is a vandalistic hoaxer who uses sockpuppets in editing that is detrimental to the fabric of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, what on Earth are you chasing? An apology, the chance to be proven right, or for HA to step down? It's hardly clear.  f o x  18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O2rr: So you think that the worst case scenario, having to block the user indefinitely if they resume after two weeks, is worse than dragging the community through this mess? GiftigerWunsch 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an apology, I don't want to be proven right, I don't want anybody to stand down. I want this administration action to reflect the users actions, imo that is a thankyou - goodbye - indef restriction Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thus far it seems that the blocking admin and three uninvolved editors disagree per WP:ROPE: so again I ask, why does this warrant a trip to ANI with hardly any discussion with the blocking admin? Or indeed to AN, where the thread was originally placed. GiftigerWunsch 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROPE. There's never much of a problem if the block is too short. One of the 1699 other admins can block them again when the problem starts up again. No big whoop. --Jayron32 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment makes it seem pointless to make any effort to take the responsibility of making a report. Oh don't worry three days would be ok, if he does it again someone will block him again. Reports need actioning with a degree of reflective expectation or user, well I am, will get disheartened and not bother removing hoaxs and not bother making reports as its not worth it and for expecting a decent level of administration and for questioning admin action am called and likened to a four year old child. I could get more than a three day block for telling an Admin to fuck off. This user wanted indefinate block and I would have done that immediately, if three days was correct and I am wrong to complain then I disagree completely. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please drop it. Reblocks are easy and there was no need to bring that here, much less the way you brought it here, to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I discussed with the admin I asked him to increase the block he didn't reply, I told him I was going to request review and I notified him that I had. I am able to request review without being attacked. It was very poor administration and I reject it. No worry, I won't make any more SPI reports if this is the way they are treated.Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, you gave me eight minutes to respond to your comment before reporting me. I apologize for not staying in front of my computer for those eight minutes. — HelloAnnyong 18:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked how many mins but you knew a situation has arisen about your admin action and you should have stayed and dealt with it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like, at the very least, you came here to stir things up when an admin didn't answer a post fast enough for you. That's not on. The account was already blocked, there was lots of time to deal with any worries you may have had. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a review of admin actions is allowed isn't it? Or am I just supposed to accept whatever they do? If you disagree and have a little chat and then notify him, its perfectly within allowances isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not how you've handled it. You badgered HA from the start and then kept on, bringing it all the way here. Most editors watching this now are likely much more worried about your behaviour than the two week length of the block, or how HA handled it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will, request review of admin action if similar situations arise, in the same way, so if you think I shouldn't do that then you are welcome to restrict me now. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review is ok, give it plenty of time though and please, if you hope to be heard, be more careful with how you word things. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Close? I think it's been made clear by at least 4 uninvolved editors that there was no need to bring it here in the first place, and it seems to be the consensus that it's better to see if they hang themselves after two weeks. If an uninvolved editor could close this now, we can all go do something more constructive. GiftigerWunsch 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou again

DinDraithou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by me a few months ago for warring over page moves. He proceed to launch a number of insults against me and several ethnic slurs against Scots , and, according to my perception, started targeting articles I had started as an editor. This was detailed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#xenophobic_postings

He has recently tried to start an edit-war at another I created, insisting that Domhnall mac Raghnaill was a 'flaith', rather than a chief (flaith is just an Old Irish word meaning 'lord', 'chief' or 'prince'). He had just created an article on 'flaith', so to appease him I put it back to 'chief' retaining flaith as a piped link. He reverted, and wrote 'Deal with it. I've reverted you for perpetuating the use of the wrong term. Chief is wrong. Flaith is right.' So I offered it as 'magnate' instead; got reverted again. The 'dispute' seems to be over now, but nonetheless the poor behavior is continuing.

He bares grudges quite seriously, launching multiple WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations both to me and indeed even to User:Giftiger wunsch for not being favorable to him on his last AN/I thread. See At the moment he is also committing a variety of conduct violations at Talk:Lady Gaga. He has been subject of many behavioral threads in the past (search the archive); usually he is defended by User:Finnrind who, although acting in good faith, is doing very little to check the user's behavior. Please note that the user removes everything 'negative' from his talk page, so you have to go through the diffs individually to see his misconduct history properly. He has had so many 'warnings' already, real action of some kind is needed.

I gained his animosity in the course of performing my administrative duties, and I don't feel either I or the community should have to put up with this any longer. I have tried to get User:John back involved, as this user was largely responsible for DinDraithou escaping sanction on the last AN/I thread, but John seems to have been busy. So with reluctance I bring it here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been somewhat busy. I didn't remember this user until Deac jogged my memory. I have left them a warning for a personal attack. If it's reoeated I think we could go for a longish block, 48 hours to a week. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to approximately recall this thread a while ago, but don't recall being the target of personal attacks or AGFails; is this recent and I haven't noticed them, or are you referring to an old comment? As far as I'm aware, I haven't had any particularly memorable interaction with this user, or any interaction at all recently. GiftigerWunsch 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deacon, this doesn't have to continue. It looked like we had finally reached an arrangement, things having cooled down at Domhnall mac Raghnaill, and then I find out you were asking around for support. Everyone look at Talk:Domhnall_mac_Raghnaill#Admin_intervention, and note that I have told Deacon in the past to stay away from my talk page. What he does is make a revert or two and then leaves a cute message, essentially a taunt, at my page. See Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross#Titles. He tried to scandalize my edits as "controversial" when in fact they were very well supported. DinDraithou (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@ GiftigerWunsch That's the thing, you haven't had any interaction ... but he still remembers you: 'That discussion then got wild when some guy who wasn't even an admin (and still isn't) came in pretending like he was' Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fact I had forgotten about GW until you posted the thread at Talk:Domhnall_mac_Raghnaill#Admin_intervention, where I call him "some guy". DinDraithou (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look at the situation, but is there anything recent that actually warrants sanctions? The content dispute aside, all the other diffs appear to be pretty stale (from August or thereabouts), unless I'm missing something. GiftigerWunsch 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check out the catalogue of WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations on Talk:Domhnall mac Raghnaill and Talk:Lady Gaga ... all from the past few days. That's why I opened the thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the conversations, I do see a couple of personal attacks, yes; namely accusing you of lying to the community in an attempt to get them banned (which as far as I'm aware is untrue, so it appears defamatory), and calling another editor a "fantasy geek" on Talk:Lady Gaga along with a rather nasty note; the latter of the two I have just redacted. Addendum: and of course there's the continued unfounded accusation that I have claimed to be an admin, but since I wasn't mentioned by name I'll WP:AGF and assume that he wasn't referring to me. GiftigerWunsch 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Add to that belligerent edit-warring (enough on its own for a block), removal of cited material, tendentious tagging of the ODNB as an 'unreliable source', suggesting I only edit to make myself 'look smart', suggesting I requested John's intervention merely to win a dispute, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross#Titles. DinDraithou (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My response to Legolas in Talk:Lady Gaga was too harsh, but he has been bothering me there for months. See Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_9#Gays.3F. Also his first comment in Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American. included "tabloidy shits" and an accusation of OR. DinDraithou (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As usually (:o) I'm defending Din Draithou... Or rather than defending, I'm pointing the attention to that DD has responded favourably to Johns final warning and promised not to do this again. A block at this stage could be nothing but punitive, so I'm not sure what other kind of admin-intervention than the warning already issued would be relevant. I'm not up-to-speed on the Lady Gaga stuff, but with regards to issues bordering the North Channel DD will have to show good faith in DoP's contributions and comments, regardless of previous administrative sanctions applied by DoP. This is an area where both editors are active, and they're bound to edit the same articles again. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse vandal

Pretty much speaks for itself. Netalarm 19:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User blocked. Elockid 19:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Fellytone

This is a username that's been around for about a year but is intermittently active. The editor seems to have rather strong ideological convictions and i'd be rather surprised if this is the sole username in front of the actual editor. At any rate, his over the top combativeness and strong ideological convictions are problematic, particularly in the BLP arena. I encountered him at CounterPunch a few days ago. He wanted to put in some criticism by strong political opponents of the magazine's editors, sourced to opeds, that the magazine and its staff are antisemites (an israeli court convicted an ideological opponent of a CounterPunch writer of defamation for just this charge a few years ago). Another editor remove this edit, and explained why on the talk page. Fellytone's response was to attack the other editor as biased, writing Could you imagine if the United States government issued a warrant for Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints?. The other editor took issue with the characterization of himself and the magazine and asked Fellytone to stop . At this point i got involved on the talk page, agreeing with the removal and the reason and reminding Fellytone of edit warring rules (he'd gone to 3rr while trying to insert this information). I also wrote that just because someone accuses someone they don't like of antisemitism in an opinion piece that doesn't justify including that information in an encyclopedia article. His response? I'm simply proving that the Misplaced Pages guidelines you're slapping on your posts are compatible with the criticisms that a few "assholes" are making for an immigrant monkey like Cockburn and his motley crew of crazed conspiracy theorists and left-wing intellectual midgets and likewise accuses me of the same bias he slapped on the other editor I'm not the self-righteous one here arrogating to a magazine that shares my political orientation the status of immunity from criticism. I too ask him to stop accusing me of bias for which he has no evidence . He insists he's going to soon reinsert the same material, i tell him that he doesn't have consensus for that . He again accuses me of bias And yes we've been able to co-exist for hundreds of years in such a society without sending anybody to a Siberian gulag. Like I said, I welcome any further input from any of your ideologically aligned Misplaced Pages friends to take a look at this section and make a judgment as to whether or not the criticism section go on the page.. A day or two later he heads to my talk page to write Right so unless you have anything to say or ask any one of your ideologically aligned Misplaced Pages friends to rebuts the arguments I've made on the Counterpunch talk page, I'm going to put the criticisms back on. I won't have your feigned absence filibuster my attempts to get the (warranted) criticisms against that left-wing rag of a magazine put on its Misplaced Pages page Then reinserts the edit . A third editor then also agrees the information should not be placed in the article .

As people that know me know, i'm not a member of the civility police. If someone called me a jerk or an asshole i'd laugh. But he's consistently attacking other editors who disagree with him (and in my view are trying to enforce some basic blp standards) as biased, and doesn't seem to back off when warned. At the meta level, i have strong suspicions that this is a sock, but since it could be any of a host of different banned or departed users, and no way to say which, it's hardly the point. Even if Fellytone's legit, he's going to at minimum have to rein it in, famliarize himself with BLP, RS etc... He doesn't seem willing to do so at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Eustress' block of Racepacket

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved – Everyone makes mistakes. It is important that we learn from them. Nothing further to do here. --Jayron32 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am calling for a review of the block made by User:Eustress on User:Racepacket on the grounds that Eustress was clearly involved in the content disputes at hand.

• Part of his block rationale is based on edits by Eustress that were reverted (see )
• Directly involved in content disputes with Racepacket at Cornell University ILR School, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, and Johnson Graduate School of Management
• Eustress took it upon himself to full-protect Cornell University ILR School and then http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cornell_University_ILR_School&diff=403229279&oldid=403015743 unprotected it] to block Racepacket.
• Eustress, being a (former) student at Cornell, has also displayed a clear bias and WP:OWN issues with all articles related to Cornell University. This is evident at Talk:Cornell University/GA2, which I failed the GA nomination due to numerous verifiability issues as well as a case of plagiarism. As a response, he has criticized me for the handling of the review and maintaining non-NPOV stuff as witnessed here.
• He also accused Racepacket of "tag-bombing" when all Racepacket was doing was legitimately pointing out serious sourcing, verifiability, and plagiarism issues in other Cornell-related articles.

For the reasons explained above, I feel that Eustress' block of Racepacket was inappropriate and, even if said block was justified (which IMO is not), to say the least another uninvolved admin should have blocked instead. –MuZemike 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I blocked Racepacket for the following reasons:

1. edit waring (continuing to push a preferred naming of the ILR School despite warnings 1, 2, and 3 to wait until the WP:REQMOVE he initiated is closed and since his behavior has now spread to multiple articles 4, 5, and 6)
2. disrupting the community (tag bombing 7)

Because I didn't see anything at WP:NAS saying that an involved admin cannot exact the block, I went ahead and did it myself. If it was inappropriate for me to do it myself, I apologize. I am, however, more than happy to discuss the validity of the block. I feel MuZemike's allegations above are false and likely attributable to an altercation he and I recently had involving Racepacket (see here). Any help and consideration is welcomed in this matter. —Eustress 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of WP:INVOLVED. I suggest the block be lifted. In these cases a block of an established editor by an involved admin (whether the block was correct or not) can do more damage than an erroneous block by an uninvolved admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This block by an involved administrator should be reversed immediately, and Eustress cautioned never to do this again. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked I was unaware of WP:INVOLVED, so I have since lifted the block on Racepacket. However, I still feel the block justified. Thank you for your help. —Eustress 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How is someone who passed RFA 71:1 6 months "unaware of WP:INVOLVED"? The mind boggles. More helpfully, I would suggest you consider yourself involved on anything related to Cornell editing, and therefore refrain from admin actions on that topic. Rd232 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In the light of the above comment from Eustress, I have added a "when not to block" section to WP:New admin school/Blocking to mention being "involved"; development welcome. Bencherlite 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the unblock very much. I don't think we have much else to discuss at this point. –MuZemike 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sets of eyes for an inactive/involved admin

I'm concerned that 2010 in LGBT rights seems to be turning into some sort of low-level revert battleground. Although I've been unwilling to voice the concern explicitly, (and his battling with a ban evader complicated matters), it does vaguely look like Lihaas (talk · contribs) has, for all practical purposes, essentially taken over the page. I am not the first to note that Lihaas seems to have somewhat idiosyncratic criteria, cf. meco (talk · contribs)'s comment here. In particular I am concerned at Lihaas' insistently sweeping reverts (every time he deletes all content of any nature that has been added for the period since September, with some justification, e.g. grammar, not exactly sound), and some of his templating (i.e. restoring a {{clarify}} template demanding "hat is the precedence set as a "right"" of the Chimbalanga and Monjeza case). I haven't really been an active admin in years, and am basically involved here, so a couple pairs of eyes would really appreciated. Circéus (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To do what? I have on each and every occasion used the talk facility that so many editors utterly refure to do, simply choosing to edit away and have their version listed on. On each occassion i have piecemeal taken apart and discussed matters as in 2010 Ecuador crisis, Paedophilia, Irish general election, 2010, Fuck for Forest (where you will also note meco's comment as absolutely rubbish in that he pushed for a war to further edit without discussing. Don't take my word for it, see the talk page that he still refused to return to. )and instead of blindly quoting meco you should first see what his "strange notions on what is appropriate editing practices" refers to!)) You can also see 2010 Baghdad church attack where the other editor later asked me to check up the article for review when a new editor abrubtly came in refusing to discuss. Likewise I have answered every query for this on the talk page that both the sockpupper and now you dont want to discuss (where i have now restarted a conmversation to make it easy for said editor who refuses to want to discuss adn see the said talk pages, yet wants it spelt out on a platter for his own case. Misplaced Pages can't do his bidding that he wants his version in without discussing as he said on my own talk page "I am NOT going to slog through months of back-and-forth arguments steeped in sockpuppetry. I want to hear your reasoning for that specific revert and removal of three months of information, many more and often better sources etc." -- just because he wants that doesn't mean he get it, the onus is on the editor seeking this change (where 2 other editors have come in on the part to support/request the cahnges being taken), yet i still did it. If he doesnt want to discuss then, frankly, that is his problem. I have also said on his talk page im willing to discuss each ofhis concerns, and then he resorts to an ani conversation to escape discussion. (see the page he ahs doubt it, after bending to his whim he still doesnt discuss)(Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).

You have not actually answered most of my concerns (even scratching some grouping of events to editorial disagreement). Though I fundamentally disagree with your content definition assertion, your reverting and argumentation (this rant is not exactly a good start as far as I'm concerned) has not been very encouraging. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be more than happy to leave the page to get choked by your approach (I have other editorial projects), but I'd rather at the very lest attract fresher sets of eyes to what's going on. Circéus (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why dont you discuss it? There is a talk page with all content on there, if you have a problem then see it or ask. Im not a mindreader to see what you expect. if the rant is not a good start to your concern then youre always welcome to start your own encyclopaedia where your will can rule the roost. What arguementation? That i acceded to your whim and did in fact go to the talk page before you refused to even see it (as duly described on my talk page). Thats fine then, if you dont want to discuss changes as ive been ever willing to do (and backed by evidence on here as opposed to your concerns that are, in fact, a rant), then youre fine to go wherever else you please.

And if i have "taken over the page" then how come 2 other editors supported the same initiative to have the content removed? vs. 1 (with the sock puppet obviously discounted) who misinformed the discussion that he ahs been watching it for awhile, he hasnt or else hje would ahve seen talk.

Morever, this is not the behaviour of an admin to go about willy-nilly demanding to have everything spoon fed to him to make a decision because he had a problem. He should be level-headed and pursue what he had a problem in, not simply others! his "admin-ship" should certainly be reviewed!Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 and reference style changes

Brief summary User:Bender235 was advised in two ANI threads to stop making minor stylistic changes to references, but refuses to desist. Now he is spamming article talk pages about the same stylistic changes (contribs). I have notified the user about this thread on his talk page.

Longer description A recent ANI thread about User:Bender235 closed with this summary (link) :

It is clear that multiple editors have objected to the mass-conversion, either by reverting, or by asking Bender235 to stop. Bender235 is reminded that, even though he may not have broken a specific rule, he did cause a degree of controversy, and is therfor advised stop making changes to {{reflist}} in articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In a slightly earlier ANI thread, Bender235 was advised

... For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot. Rd232 talk 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 has interpreted this to mean that he can still make the edits if he spams all the talk pages of the articles (talk page edits; search for "reference") He has not stopped making the edits in question, despite the clear language of the ANI threads.

Starting the same conversation on dozens of articles is completely counterproductive. Moreover, Bender235 is aware that his edits go against this Arbcom finding:

"Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits."

At this point, it is starting to look like a firm editing restriction, backed up by possible blocks, will be necessary. The pattern of IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very clear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think at this point we need to make it an explicit editing restriction: Bender is prohibited from making changes to the style of existing references in any articles. For most editors this would be draconian, but Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this. As a result, he should be forbidden from making any such changes. If he cannot be trusted to make good choices, then we should remove the option. --Jayron32 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Erm, there is a conflation of issues here: the previous ANI thread was about changing references/ to {{reflist}}. That will soon be moot, since the proposal to change the CSS at Misplaced Pages:VPR#styling_.3Creferences_.2F.3E_like_Reflist appears likely to be closed (at some point) as consensus for, and then that's moot. That still leaves the column formatting issue, which is also under discussion at VPR, less conclusively. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with posting such column-formatting style suggestions on talk pages, thought it would be preferable to get a style guideline that simply approved it so it could just be done. At any rate, if we want to agree that editors shouldn't make such proposals on lots of talk pages, fine, but for now I don't see he's doing anything wrong with that. Rd232 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Both ANI threads reflect the same underlying problematic behavior, which is making mass stylistic changes to articles. The fact that bender235 makes more than one type of stylistic change only reinforces the pattern. The problem with making the same suggestion on numerous talk pages is that it makes discussion very difficult, by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question. This is the point of the Arbcom finding I quoted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"...by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question"

That is wrong. For example, I asked whether I should implement {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} here. Now if someone would've replied: "no, please don't do that, because on WP:MADONNA we've always used {{Reflist|2}} and would like to continue to do that", I wouldn't have changed anything on this article or any related. But as a matter of fact, I was asked to do the exact opposite. —bender235 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. I was adviced not to change the reference list style w/out testing the local consensus. So I did test the local consensus, and asked if anyone objected the change. In most cases, nobody object, and in some cases people even encouraged me to do the change.
I really don't know what you want me to do. If I act per WP:BRD, it's wrong because I allegedly "impose" my prefered style on articles ignoring the local consensus. Now if I turn BRD around and start the discussion first, I'm "spamming the talk pages". What the hell I'm supposed to do? —bender235 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's completely clear from the quotes above what you are supposed to do: stop making these stylistic changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So in your opinion, no one should be allowed to ever make these kind of changes to articles, even when it has been discussed on talk pages a priori? Then your opinion is wrong. —bender235 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say "no one", "ever". Jayron32 has explained, above, the problem that this thread is about: "Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this". You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes; that the MOS explicitly discourages them; and two consecutive ANI threads asked you to stop. Continuing to make the same edits under those circumstances is patently inappropriate, and escalating them by also spamming talk pages verges on violating WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So this "rule" is only supposed to apply to me? Because of your Wikihounding that led to two ANI, one of which I actually posted?

"You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes"

No, I am not. That was why I was asking on the talk pages in the first place. To find out what is consensus. And people replied, and said: "yes, colwidth looks nice, please change". —bender235 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the "I didn't hear that" aspect again. How many people need to tell you there isn't consensus for the changes? Two ANI threads asking you to stop is more than enough. It appears you're just filibustering at this point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to memore like you've made up your mind about this and aren't sufficiently assuming good faith or listening to Bender trying to figure out how best to handle this. Rd232 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it seems like you still haven't gotten the point. The notion that "there is no consensus" may be correct globally. However, I was specificly asking on each article, whether local consensus was pro or con. So your assertion that I was ignoring consensus is just nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume for the sake of argument that I go to every talk page you leave a note on, and point out that I disagree. What then? You know that various editors disagree with the changes, not just me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you told me numerous times here and here that I have no right to decide on the reference style of articles I haven't contributed to before, that "rule" would apply to you here as well. Which means your objection does not count, unless you have contributed to the specific article.

Obviously that "rule" conflicts with everything from WP:OWN to WP:BOLD, but you made it up, and you repeatedly uttered the fact that I have breached that "rule". —bender235 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that anyone can object is a key reason why it's silly to make style changes as you have been. When there are disagreements, our firm rule is to keep the established style, and there is no limitation on who can object. In practice people don't object if an article is changed by its frequent editors in the course of heavy editing, but they do object to widespread changes by editors who have never edited the articles before. This is well known to people who follow the MOS or WP:CITE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:DRNC? I guess not. —bender235 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that essay about content edits. But random stylistic changes (e.g. ENGVER, reference formatting) are not the same – these should be avoided, and reverted when they are made. We have a longstanding consensus, in the MOS and in arbitration cases, that editors should not change between optional styles in articles, and that making such changes is, in general, disruptive rather than productive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You agree with the essay on content edits? WP:DRNC doesn't even apply to those edits, because how can there be an a priori consensus about a content change or addition? That would be absurd. —bender235 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a prior posting on the talk page, with some reasonable time allowed for possible responses and consensus respected, I really don't see the problem. The whole tenor of the previous discussions was not forcing style changes, by fait accompli editing, and if Bender has stopped doing that (I haven't checked), then there's no real problem, is there? It might reasonably be decided that we should change policy (or possibly interpret existing policy) to declare that proposing this on lots of talk pages should be prohibited, but it seems a perfectly good faith action, and mentioning WP:POINT in this context is really not appropriate. Now if someone wants to point to a policy basis for disallowing this, or to propose creating one (and request Bender to stop pending the outcome of that discussion), fine, otherwise, this thread doesn't really seem to have anywhere to go. Rd232 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's silly to require people to go around dozens of talk pages making the same comment: "I object, and therefore per WP:MOS the policy is that we keep the established style". This is what the arbcom case is getting at: it's not appropriate to go around making so many edits in a way that exhausts the ability of those you know disagree with the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I only see one solution for this dispute: WP:CITE has to have a clear recommendation on whether columns are allowed, or disallowed. Because if there's a recommendation to have them, everyone should be allowed to implement them. And if there's no recommendation, no one should be allowed to, and the feature as a whole might be deleted. Which brings us to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Final proposal. —bender235 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how hard this is to understand. Stop making any changes to reflist formats until the VPPR proposal concludes with consensus in your favor. It's not rocket science. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I understood it. I thought I was urged to not make "mass changes" w/out finding out the local consensus. So I tried to find out the local consensus. But okay, I'll stop doing it until WP:VPR has come to a conclusion, on way or the other. —bender235 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Columns are allowed" or even "Columns are recommended" is not the same as "Columns are required". Something that is allowed, but not required, is called "optional". Per CBM, MOS, wiki practice, and numerous arb precedents are that if something optional is done a particular way in some article, leave it alone unless there is consensus to change it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the main point that needs to be explained to Bender235 is that, through the discussion that was undertaken at Village Pump:Proposals, the coding for both types of referencing is going to be changed so that they are identical. Therefore, no changes between the two styles should ever be made again anywhere on Misplaced Pages unless Reflist is needed to add specific dimensions (which is a fairly rare occurrence). Therefore, Bender needs to stop changing these referencing styles permanently, since they will be the same exact thing. Silverseren 04:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Slag (slang)

Could someone with a few minutes take a look at Slag (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It looks like a bunch of schoolchildren adding the names (and sometimes the ages and schools) of other people to the article as an insult. Example. I've already requested semi at WP:RPP but there probably needs to be a bunch of warning and blocks handed out, as well as a bunch of RevDels. Kelly 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu got it. They'll have to go and look after their baby sisters or something useful instead. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The example edit I gave by Peridon (talk · contribs) (now deleted) was very strange - Peridon is an established user. Kelly 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a case of Peridon, I assume, reverting the reversion of the vandalism by accident, rather than the vandalism itself--Jac16888 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it hid the revert of the vandalism, so it's OK. Seems to be taken care of to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That page probably should be semi'd for longer than 48 hours, since the abuse has been going on much longer than that. A similar page, Slut, has been semi'd indefinitely. Kelly 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't disagree with that, since I earlier today indefinitely semi-protected Piers Morgan. Arguably the same sort of thing. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've extended it to 3 Jan, to cover school hols. Can review when that ends if you like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, thanks Elen! Kelly 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni

Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Needs to have talk page privileges revoked, the reasons being obvious once you look at his talk page history. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Reblocked & RevDel'd Rodhullandemu 23:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This user just blanked ANI here a little while ago. I saw it blanked, and went to revert it, but I was not fast enough to beat Elockid. ;-) While the revisions have been revdeleted, the edit summaries may need to be deleted as well. 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, for the ones that reflect on real persons. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you may have missed one revision that may be in need of deletion. 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary from 23:40 should probably go too, as it's about Buddha. Although all of his edit summaries and comments were stupid and funny. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you molested colds, Bugs. First I've heard of such a thing. Oh, and Retro00064, you've got an IP extolling your virtues over at WQA that you probably didn't know about. Doc talk 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'd actually pay money to see that, just out of sheer curiosity. HalfShadow 04:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Colds are typically caused by a rhinovirus, although with that character's limited knowledge of English (he must be the guy that wrote the credits for Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he would probably think that means I've molested rhinos. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones? –MuZemike 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, I had no idea of that. :-O L.O.L. That IP is crazy. Take a look at the ANI thread CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors at the top of this page. Could someone block him, please? I have been waiting for someone to block him for ages. :-( 04:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Scope at Talk:Libertarianism

Hi,

As a result of continuous edit warring, Talk:Libertarianism has a restriction on discussions of article scope until February 2011. The restriction allows for collapsing article scope discussions.

Two editors (User:North8000, User:Born2cycle) have uncollapsed a scope discussion (Talk:Libertarianism#the_use_of_the_word_libertarian, diff1 diff2).

I would appreciate it if they were very gently reminded of the scope limitation by an outside administrator; and, if an outside administrator would collapse the topic. Both North8000 and Born2cycle are aware of the restriction against scope discussions through long term participation in the article; and, the discussion itself contains the suggestion to read the "warning at the top of this page," as a previously uninvolved editor launched the discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

dismiss no reason to collapse reasonable discussion in talk. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The only behavior requiring admin attention here is the collapsing of reasonable and pertinent ongoing discussion about article content involving half a dozen different editors by User:Fifelfoo and User:BigK HeX . No one needs to be reminded about the scope limitation. Article scope was not even being discussed in the discussion in question here. No article edit warring is going on. The repeated collapsing of productive and appropriate discussion is disruptive and uncivil (disrespectful to those involved), and I welcome an uninvolved admin to evaluate the situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by several IP adresses

The article on Antonio Petrus Kalil is vandalized by several IP adresses, removing referenced material, despite a request to discuss changes on the talk page. - DonCalo (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. It may be bad, it may be not allowed, but it is not vandalism. It is a content dispute. Edit summaries make it clear the user in question is not trying to degrade the quality of the article. Protection for the sake of stoping the ongoing edit war may be in order, but the person who is editing via IPs is not vandalizing the article. --Jayron32 04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion ...

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion and refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so. He finds older images I uploaded that don't have the newest template, and instead of adding a template himself, or asking me to do so, he tags them for deletion and I notice them when I see the red link in the article or my watchlist. I end up just reuploding the fair-use image and adding the newest template. In a fraction of the time to go through this, he could have added the newer template, or notified me to add it or suplement the existing rationale. Instead we end up with a ritual that wastes everyone's time. Previously I had almost every image I loaded nominated for deletion by a user that I had opposed in an AFD debate. They spend hours adding a deletion tag to almost every image I added, including images of my own face on my userpage. Image deletion shouldn't be used as a punative measure or retaliation. Any comments? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What individual user are you talking about? 03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is User:Jsayre64.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards