Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661

List of wordgirl characters, Emily
this is evidence of a dispute that has been going on for months. I have reverted a number of edits on the List of WordGirl Characters article about emily with no clothes, or her "going to the beach", and they just keep putting it back. I have told a few of these people that this has to end, but they insist on being annoying. Action needs to be taken, now, before this dispute gets editors blocked. N.I.M. (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following this; I think the only solution is protection Pur ple back pack 89    01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please do that, i don't know how, pluss, i'm not an admin. thanks. N.I.M. (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not sufficient vandalism to warrant protection at this time. If a particular IP or editor persists in vandalism, you may warn them, and if they still continue take them to AIV. Trebor (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Treb, the problem is that the IP keeps bouncing around. The vandalism is the work of multiple IPs, and it's happened regularly for quite a while now.  AIV won't work; we NEED protection.  Full stop. Pur ple back pack  89    17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, perhaps head to WP:RFP. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pb89, one more time and and i will ask that the article gets protected for a brief period of time. action needs to be taken now, not later, I would rather this dispute end now, now, right now. seems to me like these people are putting it there on purpose just to agrivate us, and it's not just ips, there were a few named accounts putting that in the article. This dispute ends now. I left a message to those people on the talk page of List of WordGirl Characters Please take action right now, before the dispute goes haywire. thanks, N.I.M. (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone has protected the article, and i tell them that they did a great job, thanks. N.I.M. (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

N23.4
I've already posted this at AIV, but maybe some other eyes are needed, especially for future reference. At the language ref desk, a German user sneakily spammed by posting a link and asking, "What language is this?", knowing full well it's his own website, and he's trying to increase the click-count. He had posted this same spam link out of the blue at the Help Desk on the 15th, which was quickly reverted, hence he tried this different tack. Worse, though, is that an editor said when he clicked on it, his PC started to act up. That suggests worse than spam, it suggests possible malware. And just now, when someone un-linked it at the ref desk, the user attempted to re-link it. I think the user needs to be given Das Boot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While posting a warning on his page, I noted that the user has been spamming almost from the beginning and was told not to, but has continued to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move It (Culcha Candela) has no assertion of notability and should be speedied. Culcha Candela itself seems somewhat spammy.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor created that spinoff article about the "Move It" number for the sole purpose of posting a spamlink. I recommend deleting that article stub. As for the group's article, that could be something to be discussed in more depth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Try for the song article, noting the link, and AfD'ing the group, again noting it (also) being a vehicle for a spamlink? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't AfD the band, they're clearly notable. Not sure about the single, but since it was a bare "was a single by ..." I've redirected it back to the band. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I think the user needs to be given Das Boot": You want to give him the boat? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I indef'ed them a while back - I am now considering the content... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was kind of a cross-language pun. :) In any case, his boat has now been sunk, and editors are working on rounding up the flotsam and jetsam. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Marooning him (on de.wp, too) would probably be the best option. But, to keep up the Das Boot theme: Rohr eins bis vier bewässern! – Jawohl, Herr Kaleu! -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm coming to this a little late, but isn't this the sort of thing that an entry in the local Meta-Wiki spam blacklist? When this troublemaker finds that she/he can't link to this site, she/he will tire of this game very quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested that on the ref desk page, though I wasn't sure where that blacklist was. There were two problems, at least. One was the spam link about that band. The other was a link on the ref desk pointed to some sort of German "one-hit wonder" page, or some such, that at least one editor thought was screwing up his PC, suggesting the possibility of malware. Both of the sites in question should be added to the blacklist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's only being added to the en wikipedia, then the local blacklist is where this should be added at WP:SBL ... but I'm suspecting this may be on multiple language sites, so blacklisting at meta:WM:SBL may be the better course of action. --- Barek (talk) - 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * i will notify seth at the next occasion. he was extra selected to deal with this kind of (german language related) spam problems here on en.wp as well as on meta & de.wp, where we have put N23.4 on the watch list (here). thx for your carefull attention and best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Slakr Blocking of User:LSorin account with WP:EW but not further explanations
User:Lsorin was blocked for one week by the administrator User:Slakr without being explained the exact reason from the WP:EW. I suspect that the administrator blocked, my account with regard of content of the article in conflict of interest and against the Edit warring policy: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. and However, according to wp:administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. As well I must add that all my edits were have been commented in the "reason" section of the edit or an the very long discussions on the Coanda-1910 talk page and the other pages involved. Part of the articles content discussions leading to the blocking--Lsorin (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you chose to stop edit-warring on that article (and related ones) with your continual claims that it was the first jet-propelled plane (i.e. ), against all consensus, then perhaps you wouldn't get blocked repeatedly. Just a thought. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern in this request, is not about the content! Please read again: is about the action done by the administrator based on the content, which is against the WP:EW policy. And regarding the content, consensus was tried several times, just to be ignored ( examples   ). My continual claims that it was the first jet-propelled plane, are supported by the Good research from WP:NPOV Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Please check the sources in my third consensus build-up proposal. Please join the discussions.--Lsorin (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you here? That was your 3rd block for editwarring, and your unblock request was hardly serious and was denied. And you've been unblocked now for 6 days. There's nothing here for Admins to do. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To avoid further blocks I did kindly asked several times the admin which blocked me to point me out the rule I did break. Being blocked for content dispute is against However, according to wp:administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. which admins are supposed to follow, or are they?--Lsorin (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What administrative action are you requesting? I can block someone, delete an article, protect an article from editing, or unblock someone.  Which of those buttons would you like me to press, and where, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since User:Slakr has never edited the Coanda article or its talkpage, how are they a party to this dispute or have a conflict of interest? I'm sorry, you're not making much sense here, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the links to 'consensus' that this user has presented, and I think that part of the problem is that he's misunderstood the term 'consensus.' Consensus does not mean 'What happens when I present the argument and sources that show to my own satisfaction that I am right.'  Consensus is what happens when the involved people agree together on the best version of the article.  It looks like that has happened- I don't see anyone agreeing that your preferred version is the one that should be in the article.  That happens to all of us sometimes.  It is frustrating and disappointing, isn't it?  If you've explained your reasoning and presented your sources clearly, you've done everything you need to do.  A point comes when continuing to beat a dead horse does not accomplish anything but distracting people from the work of improving other parts of an article, and it's time to just walk away and work on something else for a while.   It's happened to all of us, and we all understand how you feel; people only get blocked when they continue trying to fight a dispute which has ended. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very nice reply FisherQueen. Please don't mixup the problems. The incident here is not related to the 'consensus' build up on the content or the missing of it (check the current discussion related to the content and please join as well). My complain here is about the action of being blocking related to the content, which is against the WP rules and without being pointed to the exact proposition in the WP:EW or rule from that page which I did break, so that I can avoid that in the future.--Lsorin (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have mixed up the problems. There isn't really an 'editing dispute' anymore- it's just you, trying over and over to get your desired change into the encyclopedia.  That's stopped being helpful, and started being disruptive.  When people disrupt Wikipedia's work, instead of helping, they do get blocked.  Stop thinking of the exact words of the rules, and instead, think of the results of your actions.  If your actions result in a better encyclopedia, then you don't get blocked.  If your actions result in lots of wasted time for other users, lots of bad feelings, and no improvement to the encyclopedia, that's called 'disruptive editing,' and you will usually get blocked for it.  Each block is longer than the previous one.  Eventually, every user either learns when his edits are helpful and when they're disruptive, or else they are blocked for so long that they stop editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your reply. So were is that rule which converge to my 'disruptive editing' written, except your reply above? I tough that WP is based on written rules. And can you please explain how my edits are 'disruptive' when my edits have been done according to those rules, like for instance the best and most reputable authoritative sources available listed in the talk page. If you can WP:AGF, then you must be able to understand that I trying to make that particular article better by following basic rule like the ones presented in WP:NPOV and WP:IRS. Please point me out the written rule, I did break with my 'disruptive' editing.--Lsorin (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Those are both violations of rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The rule in question is here: an editor is blocked 'when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.' I think perhaps you are confused by the list the follows- the list is not a list limiting when people can be blocked, but simply a list of some of the most common reasons for blocking.  Any time your conduct interferes with the creation of the encyclopedia, you can expect to be blocked.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, Lsorin, you are incorrect; wikipedia is not based on written rules, it's based on community consensus. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  16:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless Lsorin has a specific answer to FisherQueen's question (above), it doesn't appear that there is anything for admins to do here. —DoRD (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what an administrator can do to another administrator if he/she is breaching the conflicts of interest or he/she disregards the administrator guidance in the WP:EW. My request was just plainly to be explained by that admin, the rule I did break to avoid breaching it again in the future with my edits. I suppose if Slakr cannot still provide any explanation of his action, then is the turn of the other admins to reconsider the status of this user as an admin or to give him a admin warning.--Lsorin (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you've been told several times above 1) Slakr has no conflict of interest here. 2) You have been blocked for edit warring and disruption before; if you haven't learned from your past transgressions maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. 3) Even if you hadn't understood what you have done before, several editors above have told you exactly what you have done wrong.  Slakr is no longer under any need to explain anything given that a) you should have known and b) even if you didn't, given the above explanations, you should now.  Refusal to listen when people tell you something is disruptive too.  Let it drop. -- Jayron  32  21:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Jayron32 and specifically WP:INVOLVED, second paragraph, having previously acted in regard to your Tendentious editing does not preclude Slakr from doing so again - and if he had already acted for policy violations then he need not note as much when sanctioning you for further violation. Rather than simply repeat your allegations of conflict of interest, I suggest you click the links and try to discern where you have been in error. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LessHeard vanU this is exactly what I have done for the last week, I read over and over again the WP:EW pointed to me and I could not find a single line to explain the action of that admin against me, but just he opposite. The closest to an acceptable explanation from my side, was FisherQueen's: here and I thank her as well for the explanation that my actions are not listed in that list of that page. That was never pointed to me before by anyone. Still I have doubts what is the definition of 'disruption' in this case, as my edits addressed points supported by mainstream. Is expressing the mainstream point in a bold way, trying to build up consensus and other WP endorsed forms of solving issues, considered a disruption in Wikipedia?--Lsorin (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You were blocked because you said what you wanted, and explained your reasons, and after many people explained to you why what you wanted was not going to happen, in a way that a reasonable person ought to be able to understand, you continued arguing that you wanted what you wanted anyway. Today, you are here at ANI.  You said what you wanted, and many people have explained to you why what you want is not going to happen, in ways that a reasonable person ought to understand- but you are continuing to argue that you want it anyway.  Is this also how you deal with being wrong in the real world?  We can help you understand the rules, but if what's happening here is simply part of your personality, there probably isn't anything we can do to help you with it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:PM163 and 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
On or about December 3, User:PM163 created the article 2011 Summer Junior Olympics. He has since been creating attendant articles about various nations who are scheduled to participate at said games. There's just one problem; they appear not to exist. I've done multiple searches online and can find no evidence that they will be contested. I have tagged each of his articles as a hoax; he has proceeded to follow behind me and undo my tagging. I placed a notice on his talkpage about proper speedy deletion procedures, but he appears to have chosen to ignore it. I'm at 3RR on his articles now, and while I think I'm OK, as they appear to be vandalism, I'd appreciate some other pairs of eyes having a look. The vandalism appears to be quite extensive, and I'm not sure I've caught it all.

See also:
 * Qatar at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
 * Macau at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
 * Palestine at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
 * Andorra at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
 * DR Congo at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics

-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried "Junior Olympics," and it looks, if I'm interpreting it correctly, as though there are several different events calling themselves the 'Junior Olympics.' In the absence of any sources, I'm not sure which evens this set of articles is referring to, or whether or not they'd meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried "Junior Olympics" in tandem with Istanbul - if it were truly an international event that would return at least a handful of responses, which it did not. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just duplicated the same search- no sign of a Junior Olympics in Istanbul. I left a note about sourcing on the user's talk page, just in case I'm missing something, but it doesn't look promising for this set of articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The author of an article should not remove a CSD tag placed on it - you should revert such removals and issue escalating uw-speedy1 warnings. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a single source — reliable or otherwise — that lends even an ounce of credibility to the existence of these supposed games. The "logo" uploaded here includes the text "1st Summer Junior Olympic Games" and a poorly-drawn imitation of the Olympic rings. I'm afraid there's really no doubt in my mind this is a mildly-elaborate hoax. jæs (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And, erm, the spelling of "Istambul" in the logo is a bit of a giveaway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That, too. It looks like this might not be an isolated case: User:PM163/Christmas Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He's got heaps of stuff in his user space! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged a number of his user pages as hoaxes, as they're clearly nothing of any benefit to Wikipedia - but I haven't looked at them all by a long way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedied them all, plus a couple of other things in his userspace that looked like nascent hoaxes. There's more there that could probably go, but figured it was better not to get rid of everything at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of Template:Digimon, it looks like he was also trying to insert a "Digimon Thunderbird" hoax into that template. Granted, I know nothing about this particular topic, but someone who apparently did caught that vandalism. I can't find any sources indicating "Digimon Thunderbird" exists, so I'm tagging that redirect he created for deletion. Looking over their contributions, I think this account needs to be blocked as purely disruptive.
 * Based on this, it looks like this is a(nother?) sock of User:Diogomauricio3. Should a checkuser be requested to ensure there are no further socks?  He has been able, using at least these two accounts, to create hoax articles and insert subtle hoax material into any number of articles.  It's probably best to ensure there aren't any undiscovered accounts out there, and potentially prevent future instances of this if we can.  I'm going through his contributions to see if anything has made it through into the mainspace.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems to be a match to me. I was looking out for socks of Diogomauricio3 since he was blocked in September, but none have come under my radar until now. PM163 seems to be a clear WP:DUCK case with similar interests to Diogomauricio3 (e.g. Eurovision) and very similar editing habits with hoax creations both in the main space and user space. Diogomauricio3 was familiar with Portuguese and was blocked there for similar behaviour to what he was later blocked here for. This new account has also edited there and someone familiar with the Portuguese Wikipedia should probably alert them to this discovery. Given the strong evidence, I'm blocking this account for block evasion. Past experience suggests that if he is not blocked he will just carry on with hoax creation regardless of what anyone puts on his user talk page. I don't know of any other sock accounts for Diogomauricio3, though they could exist, so I have no objections to requesting a checkuser as well. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The only one left now is User:PM163/Speed Cars, which looks like yet another hoax - it gives specific dates for 2011 release and a rather unlikely looking list of cars, but there's no sign of it on a Google search - I've tagged it G3. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it. It almost certainly was another hoax, though even it wasn't this user's creations would fall under WP:CSD. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And no, this is not the first sock, either. These are also his:



–MuZemike 23:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism IP
The I.P number 76.111.244.219 is something of a vandalism account, in that the owner(s) of that I.P have already tried to blank one page already. Could an administrator keep 1/2 of an eye on that number, please? Thank you for your time.--Graythos1 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

IP editor accusing admin of abusing rights and pushing POV edits.
has just popped up and reverted a whole series of link changes that were made back in 2006 when Menomonee Valley was renamed to Menomonee River Valley, Milwaukee by admin. His/her edit summaries accuse MisfitToys of POV pushing, vandalism and abusing admin rights. Personally, this article rename having been in place for four years, I am bemused as to why he/she would pop up now and start reverting things. From the edit summaries it is clear to me that this editor is intent on mischief making so would appreciate other admins keeping a watch or taking whatever action you think is appropriate. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've notified MisfitToys of this thread on their userpage, although they appear to have last been editing WP on Dec 1st, so not sure if they will see the notice. --- Barek (talk) - 22:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User Biker Biker refuses to discuss his/her actions by characterizing any disagreeable conversation on their talk page as "vandalism" and then scrubbing the page. I have been called "silly," a vandal, and my attempt at communication as "ramblings." This individual makes me sad. 184.58.245.87 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just discovered this discussion/dispute; the changes I made in 2006, as I recall, were for the sake of uniformity in the naming of articles for Milwaukee neighborhoods (one of which is called Menomonee River Valley). I'll agree that bringing this up after over four years kind of takes the edge off any claim of impropriety, especially given the large number of edits to each article in the intervening time; it's not as if no one noticed the changes. Besides, the article name has been left as what I changed it to; if my move was vandalism, why has no one thought to revert it? 184.58.245.87 had only two edits to their account before complaining of my moves, so I'll chalk this accusation up to a new user with little familiarity with Wikipedia practices, and a penchant for oddball edit summaries. MisfitToys (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps anyone that would have liked to correct the move back lacked your God-like powers here on Wikipedia, MisfitToys. btw.. sorry to have taken you away from deleting image contributions w/o discussion or even the slightest thought or investigation. Continue on, Mr. Bully sir. 184.58.245.87 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * God-like powers? Wow; there are literally hundreds - maybe thousands - of Wikipedians who have far more authority on this site than I do. Anyway, what images have I deleted? This strikes me as throwing random mud and hoping something sticks without anyone bothering to look into the accusations. When it comes down to it, you're complaining about an relatively uncontroversial move (only one anon user disputed the move on the article's talk page) which was made four years before you ever contributed to the site, which everyone else seems to think reflects far more poorly on you than on me. Whether you think the move was warranted or not, it's hard not to see that this was a sincere change and not vandalism. If the article were to be moved back, I can't imagine I'd put up much of an argument, simply because the topic is really of so little interest to me. MisfitToys (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

a compromised account?
has only shown up once since 2009 prior to today, when they began vandalizing and creating non-constructive articles. Possibly compromised account? Corvus cornix talk  22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm seeing a person who's interested in math and not overfamiliar with Wikipedia.   I think the recent edits are an attempt to create an article or ask a question about a math topic.  I am not saying these edits are entirely helpful, but I think it's the same guy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The same guy who twice blanked Aticles for creation and didn't respond to questions as to why?  Corvus cornix  talk  22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Skylar Christine and Sugoi Neko Girls!
If you take a cursory glance at the history of the hoax page, CSD, Sugoi Neko Girls!, you'll see User:Skylar Christine repeatedly removing the deletion tags and attempting to rewrite the article. This is an article she is creating for her own personal anime, and she has been warned repeatedly about hoaxes and removing deletion tags. Suggest block. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I left her a message about why her manga is just not going to have a manga, but someone had already dropped a level 4 warning there (I got several edit conflicts). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I had no idea an edit war with an 11 year-old girl would be so damned painful! OMG! Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * She has also vandalized Shugo Chara! by claiming the work as her own. Perhaps that particular edit should be RevDeleted. Give her(?) history, I don't think she is interested in anything other than promoting herself. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tërrnavicë
The note concerning the status of Kosovo in Tërrnavicë seems to be POV pushing, and I can't even find it in the article. Is this an appropriate note, and where is it coming from? Corvus cornix talk  21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The note doesn't seem appropriate for the article, but it doesn't feel like POV either. It's a straightforward statement of verifiable facts that doesn't give undue weight to a single point of view. The first step I'd recommend is moving this discussion to the article's talk page, since this seems like a routine content issue. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish control of the media
Uninvolved eyes are needed on the discussion at Talk:Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard). It is getting pretty heated. I made a page move that seemed like a no-brainer, but one editor seems to be objecting strongly. I have submitted the page title to WP:RM for a full discussion. I'd like some help to keep that discussion on track. Jehochman Talk 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a number of editors have been objecting. Plus, there are policies about how pages are to be moved. You don't just take it upon yourself. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have filed a request at WP:RM to have this premature move reverted. Way out of line.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio edits, among other things, by Neptunekh2.
I was hoping this user would go away, so I didn't report it earlier. There are a number of problems with this user (such as constant edits like this, this, this, unsourced edits, wrong categories, the use of underscores rather than spaces, etc...), but the main problem right now is the copyvio edits. I tried to talk to the user here back in November, but it was just blanked with no comment. The copyvio edits I have found from just looking through the edits of this user quickly are these, edit/source, edit/source, edit/source, edit/source, copyvio notice by bot on a now deleted article. There are no doubt more, as this user have been editing Wikipedia for almost 2 years. Nymf hideliho! 00:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are blatant copyvios (including from BBC News) and should be deleted as such. I have notified Neptunekh2 of this thread. Doc   talk  01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I already notified Neptunekh2 of the thread. Nymf hideliho! 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you did: I missed it between the TB template and the SD template. Removed my redundant notification... Doc   talk  01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I ran across this editor for the first time this week canvassing to use a non-RS to call a marginally notable actress a Scientologist. May just be a WP:COMPETENCE issue if he/she's been editing for two years. THF (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Contribution survey for this user:


 * N Martyn Godfrey: (4 edits, 4 major, +1099) 
 * Alexandra Powers: (5 edits, 5 major, +894) 
 * N Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre: (1 edits, 1 major, +670) 
 * 2043: (1 edits, 1 major, +623) 
 * Mummy Juanita: (1 edits, 1 major, +604) 
 * The Seventh Coin: (3 edits, 3 major, +536) 
 * The Mummy (franchise): (1 edits, 1 major, +379) 
 * Katharyn Powers: (2 edits, 2 major, +337) 
 * Eve (Xena): (1 edits, 1 major, +333) 
 * N Toby Proctor: (1 edits, 1 major, +309) 
 * Iqbal Theba: (1 edits, 1 major, +297) 
 * 26th century: (1 edits, 1 major, +261) 
 * List of fictional female robots and cyborgs: (1 edits, 1 major, +242) 

(I removed edits to 13 articles, these were mostly non-constructive edits. You can see the diffs in the contribution survey link above.) This does not pick up non-mainspace edits. MER-C 02:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The content I removed from the "Television in Botswana" category was cut-and-pasted from two different sources (one that he happily provided in the "Read more" section). Hopefully he will respond here to these issues soon. Doc   talk  03:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just commenting to keep the thread from getting archived as the issue hasn't been resolved yet. Seems Neptunekh2 is nowhere to be found. Nymf hideliho! 01:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, they're around. Not sure why they came to me rather than here, but I'll attempt to find out...  Doc   talk  08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that after canvassing at RSN, BLPN, and multiple editor talk pages, yet being told repeatedly by multiple editors that "truthaboutscientology" was not a reliable source and should not be added to BLPs, the editor (apparently) added it anyway. (I say the IP is the editor because of this talk page request shortly thereafter, which only makes sense if the IP and Neptunekh2, who made identical edits, are the same editor.) So add WP:IDHT to this editor's list of problems. The editor has also created two pages that were speedy deleted, Yllapa and More than weird. I'll WP:AGF and suggest a mentor may be helpful, but I'm skeptical. THF (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am positive that the IP is the same editor (look at the use of underscores). We could try using a mentor, but I am doubtful anyone would successfully be able to get through to the editor. As you say yourself, any advice left by the people she canvassed were all ignored, as is this thread. I think it may be complicated when it comes to this editor (see the 4th top infobox on her user page). Nymf hideliho! 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have previously (at least a month ago)warned this editor (who previously edited as User:Neptunekh) about copyright violation - so its not as if he doesn't know. As he appears to take no notice, I have blocked him until he responds in some way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is even worse than I previously thought. Seeing 5 year old edits on that other account. Nymf hideliho! 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If her user page is to be believed... can I be her mentor? Please? It'll be strictly WP stuff we discuss: I promise. Doc   talk  12:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoah! Easy thar boy, I say e-e-e-a-s-y!" Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor Science&HiTechReviewer

 * (also editing as


 * Science&HiTechReviewer is a new SPA who says he's edited previously . He claims to be using this account as part of an experiment for a talk he's giving at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting next month . I've had discussions with him on my talk page here, here, and briefly here; on the talk page of Naveen Jain here; and on his talk page here.
 * My discussions with him have gotten to the point where I'm removing most of his comments on my talk because of AGF and TALK problems. I've tried to continue discussions with him, but I'd like some help in de-escalating his behavior, as well as opinions on if editors should be creating new accounts for use in experiments in editing controversial BLP articles. From my perspective, he has a minor WP:COI given his relationship with WEF, he's using Wikipedia as a battleground, and he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.
 * He's written a EAR request basically attacking me for how I've handled past disputes with Naveen Jain and how I've not changed the article in response to his comments. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching through the contributions, there's nothing too egregious from him, just a tendency to focus on the editor as much as the content. I've left a brief note about it, and hopefully there should be no problem; of course, you can follow it up with me, or here, if there is. Trebor (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He's tried my patience between the attacks and the inability to recognize a press release.
 * Let's see if there's any fallout from his email to his personal friend, Jimbo. --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It continues: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I'm going to avoid interacting with him for a day and see where that gets us. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And still more . --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty uncomfortable with this situation and since the editor in question claims to know Jimbo, I have asked Jimbo to comment. If Jimbo knows what's going on and is ok with it, I'll keep my further opinions to myself. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've not reviewed his edits, I can't approve or disapprove of anything in particular that he's doing. I do know who this is, and as he has offered to state his real identity, I'd have to say that I think that's a very good idea.  Knowing me personally confers no special rights in Wikipedia, but neither should it confer any special difficulties, so I regret that my name has been brought into this at all.
 * I'm uncomfortable with "experiments" of all kinds, but at the same time, I think that the right thing to do, in all cases, before all else, is to forget about that sort of thing and focus with passion on the one thing that ultimately matters here: are there BLP issues involving editors who are following all the rules from a hypertechnical point of view in order to grind an axe against someone and write a negative biography that is full of errors and innuendo. Is the biography good?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimbo, thanks for responding. I was asking mostly what you thought about the "experiment" (which I see as a breaching experiment) and if you felt the editor's identity and affiliations (with their possible attendant COI's) are relevant to it.  I haven't looked much into the Jain article disagreement, but if there is a BLP problem with that article, then it can probably be quickly sorted by a visit to WP:BLPN.  Science&HiTechReviewer's issues are likely caused by making the sorts of errors that inexperienced editors make (whether he really is an inexperienced editor or is just preteding to be one), e.g. not knowing the right ways to express ones' self on talk pages and noticeboards, etc.  I agree with you that it would be good if Science&HiTechReviewer were to drop the airs of mystery and say who he is, though obviously we cannot require this.  My opinion is that the "experiment" shouldn't continue in its present form. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any COI issues here, at least not to my knowledge. And as there is a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, assuming good faith is the right thing to do.  While I agree that the experiment shouldn't continue in the present form, I think the right thing to do is to educate him on how Wikipedia works, with kindness.  Although he has edited in the past, he is not an experienced editor.  I agree that the airs of mystery and experimentation are not optimal, but I am confident that he means well.  Again, knowing me confers no special privilege, and I have not approved any of this ahead of time and wish my name had not been brought into it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I think the right thing to do is to educate him on how Wikipedia works" Exactly what I was going to suggest. Science&HiTechReviewer wants to see how Wikipedia works in a controverial BLP article. Instead of trying to work with him as an editor, which is frustrating both of us, I think it would be better just to treat him as someone that is primarily interested in learning and observing, rather than learning to edit himself.
 * I will have little time to do this. Can someone help? The recent attempt to delete the article (discussion and AfD) is a good and rather simple example of following policy and the sources rather than swaying to strong opinions. Not much else has happened with the article recently. The discussions and editing on the pre-InfoSpace information went fairly well until it got sidetracked with notability concerns. Science&HiTechReviewer has pointed out a lot of different things to change - some are simple and similar to these pre-InfoSpace discussions.
 * I've no opinion on his revealing his identity. Would it help him relax and focus? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Troll?
Just noticed this user: In just two days he has done the following:


 * Repeated abuse of helpme on talk page with LOLcat-esque grammar
 * Nonsensical comments on others' talk pages.
 * Addition of administrator to own talk page
 * Creation of vanity article Lamar burton
 * No other article edits.

I say indef block for unconstructive edits/trolling. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious socking, in addition to the above complaints. I would have taken him straight to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sock of whom? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We can ponder that at our leisure. I've blocked the editor indefinitely.  Favonian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note he added the admin templates to his page and the trolling on my talk page -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "sock" because his very first edit was to complain about someone having deleted his article. Unless his first edit was that article, and since deleted, which means he might not be a sock. But either way, he gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * His first edit was to the deleted article. He recreated the article a few minutes later, so two of his edits are deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You thought right about socking. ✅ as a sock of, which is currently blocked as a suspected sock of. In the meantime,. –MuZemike 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. I was patiently trying to help what I thought was a newbie (see his talk page), though I had about decided that he was either a troll or had insurmountable WP:COMPETENCE issues. If he's Quantum or not he is actually able to write English, which I was beginning to doubt. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance this is our friends User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back or User:Access Denied, who have docmented a habit of doing this sort of trolling? -- Jayron  32  21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MuZemike would have indicated such findings, We cannot simply blame every troll on them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but the specific behaviors in this case are a very close match. -- Jayron  32  21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayron, first of all, Access Denied's IP is blocked, so it's hard for him to return with another sock; secondly, like ResidentAnthropologist wrote above, if CU had found any (strong or possible) connection with TFM or AD, I think the CU would've mentioned that. Finally, could you explain why you believe this could be another TFM or AD sock? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the use of silly lolcat and TXT style talking, per User:Bad edits r dumb and User:Wpeditmanbob2. The specific manner of conversing with others matches those well.  Of course, it could just be a coincidence.  And, has been noted before, there are ways to edit from new IP addresses.  I am fully willing to accept that this isn't either of them, just noting that there are behavioral connections which are rather close.  I am not demanding that I am right.  I am merely offering up a possibility.  There's no crime in offering ideas here, are there?  I am perfectly OK with being wrong.  -- Jayron  32  22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two itms are hallmark of 4chan trolls, its difficult to discern them from each other. I only spoke up because I had seen those names dropped in serveral ANI discussions recently. No worries The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either that or a Pickbothmanlol sock. His MO is to impersonate others. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the Star Trek theme between Quantum or not and Lamar Burton (LeVar Burton) S.G.(GH) ping! 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Erasing notices and warnings
Per WP:DRC and User_page I have the ability to blank my userpage. This editor User talk:Daipenmon keeps reverting my blanking of my page. Communication with the editor has been ignored. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked him not to. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: shortly after your post, he blanked his own talk page and then re-restored the IPs talk page. I've left a much more pointed warning to Daipenmon, as the continued restoration of the talk page content despite requests to stop and without engaging in any discussion on that action is, at this point, simply harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, IP, your edits are not acceptable by any stretch. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as, , and where you see how big and how many different ways you can write the N word, and this edit summary .  He  iro  01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the No Personal Attacks policy also extends to edit summaries, so this summary referring to "f&#ktards" (my 'censoring'!) is also not wanted. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops, Same summary. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just gave 94.* a 4im on improper humor, and pointed them to WP:BOOMERANG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, bringing a user to ANI over a policy violation while breaching policy in a rather more disruptive way = WP:BOOMERANG. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Except there's no boomerang, as the OP remains unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This IP is a cafe open WiFi network in Central Edinburgh. Warnings are being issued to the wrong users. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP address got the warnings, if the address is the source of significant vandalism, it may still be warned and blocked. If you don't want the warnings, create an account of your own, here is a simple link.  He  iro 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was getting to be boring, so l stopped already--Daipenmon (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

IMEKO vandal advertising SPA
We have just blocked a vandal on nl.wikipedia, using 2 registered accounts (nl:User:Imeko, nl:User:IMEKO-IO) and an IP-address (nl:User talk:192.53.103.200). The registered accounts have been blocked indefenitely, the ip for one day (reason: advertising on nl:IMEKO) I checked the crosswiki contributions, and saw that the same accounts and IP address are also editing here at IMEKO. User:Imeko redirects to IMEKO - TBloemink 10:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both accounts blocked by Edgar181 and page CSD G11 by me. This organisation may be notable in the scientific field, but that article wasn't. Better to start again. Incidentally, I've changed the title. I don't think he comes under the category 'vandal' in the en.wiki definition. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics
Anyone know how to fix this? Looks like it was nominated incorrectly.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, there's no point in creating an article for an event thats over 2 decades away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy was declined because the new articleis "subtantially different" from the deleted article. People are already adding sources so the article doesn't get deleted. Not sure if this is good or not :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pointless, but also harmless. I just wonder where to stop. Maybe I should create an Oscar page for the year 3001. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It says the result was "delete", but obviously it's not deleted. In any case, the spelling and usage were not so good, and I've fixed a few things. Now to go work on the article about the 3001 Oscars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Create it in your user space. In a few hundred years, have someone move it to the article space.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a start at it: "The 1,073rd Academy Awards ceremony will honor the best in visual media for the year 3000. It will take place on February 31, 3001, on www.littleoscar.mars. Thanks to the expert work of her plastic surgeon, actress Dori N. Grey will host the show for the 500th consecutive year." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that's also where the 3006 Summer Olympics bid will be declared. Or do we have an article on that already? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on it: "The 3006 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the MMMMXXXI Olympiad, are a major intergalactic multi-sport event to be celebrated in the tradition of the Olympic Games, as governed by the Interstellar Olympic Committee (ISOC). The host city of the Games will be Zeus City on the satellite I/O. This will be the first Olympics held since the great computer plague of 2031 that rubbed out the 2032 Olympics, the 2032 Oscars, and other events for over 970 years until an English-speaking Help Desk person could finally be located." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order: in 3000 it will be ssww.foo.mars, since it will be the solarsystem-wide web, or maybe even the gww if that hyperdrive ever gets invented.  Acroterion  (talk)  16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping someone from taking the new article to a properly formatted AfD. After all, WP:CRYSTAL only says that the 2036 Olympics are too soon.... OTOH, there are slim pickings for RS.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:89.76.176.180 and UVB-76
This user has been involved for sometime in adding poorly sourced content to UVB-76. I have been working to try to improve the article by removing unsourced or poorly sourced content in accordance with the requirements of Verifiability but 89.76.176.180 seems now to be insisting on keeping poorly sourced content in the article. More recently he has attempted to add this content whilst resorting to referring to WP:IAR.

The content he has added is all sourced to a personal website, which as per Verifiability, like other self-published sources, are "largely not acceptable as sources". Even more concerning here is that website belongs to 89.76.176.180. I have raised this issue and he has confirmed that the website is his.

Due to my involvement here I don't wish to act any further at this point but I would appreciate some help with resolving this issue. Considering 89.76.176.180's comment that "If something is on other Wikipedia, it's reliable. Very simple" and the apparent failure of myself and others to get him to understand the verifiability problems here I would suggest this isn't going to be easy. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:IbnAmioun and anon COI and civility issue re Taleb-related articles.
(Previous discussion: ) The conflict of interest problem at Nassim Nicholas Taleb has resurfaced. To recap, claims to represent Taleb on Wikipedia. See User:IbnAmioun. All his edits are to Taleb-related articles, and generally in the direction of inflating Taleb's reputation. There's something of a WP:OWN problem there; it's come up here a few times.

The current issue is at Empirica Capital, where, in this edit , IbnAmoun removed a data table of fund returns from Business Insider, which reproduced an image of a statement from the fund. The actual numbers aren't as flattering to Taleb as his own public statements, which focus on the "good years" for his fund. There's a legitimate content dispute over how to calculate the annual returns from the figures available, but that's not justification for deleting the whole table.

There's also something of a civility problem. I generally ignore personal attacks, but I'm getting rather tired of this series. The latest round of insults come from
 * "... Some guys are very vehemently trying to watch his back and sing his praises while others specially John Nagle are hell bent on crucifying him. I don't how much damage the well-wisher-fanboys can suffer and I don't know how much law you guys know but there are causes for lawsuits based on obvious slander. ... Thanks ~JD"
 * "Its obvious that this failed nerd Nagle is the biggest Talib fan or is jealous of Talibs fame and wealth. Stop obsessing with his fund returns ..."
 * "It is obvious that this nerd Nagle is a celebrity stalker and a nobody who is happy that by doing this nonsense he will show up in a google search with talib"
 * "It is obvious that this nerd Nagle is a celebrity stalker and a nobody who is happy that by doing this nonsense he will show up in a google search with talib"

There's the possibility that, who seems to edit in concert with IbnAmoun, is a sock. But, regardless, I'd like to ask for a civility block on that anon IP, which edits only Taleb articles. What to do about the IbnAmoun COI situation, I don't know. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear sirs, this civility business is very regrettable but I have nothing to do with it. There is no COI since I do not edit and do not disguise my source of conflict by posting edits on other pages on the occasion. As a representative of Prof Taleb my intervention here is limited to insuring all sources about subject are properly sourced from valid newspapers, nothing else, presenting them on talk page, and removing false information about mischaracterization of Taleb's activities and funds. This is compliance with wikipedia's BLP. User:Nagle|John Nagle has been posting matters about "Taleb inflating his returns" more than a dozen instances, along with a steady pattern of posting degrading the character of the subject Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in addition to posting matters that are plainly erroneous like "Taleb claims about his returns" when it is clearly not Taleb but wsj. Add to that pure original research trying to do analyses on Taleb's funds. All what has been done is revert. Taleb has been under pressure from detractors (owing to his criticism of the finance industry) and we cannot do anything about criticism and sourced matters.
 * Let me recap: I only remove false information that make its way into the bio. In the case of the returns in the most recent a finance tabloid gossip blog has data that has conflicted with WSJ not without a reason and not a good source --and I am certain that the source is totally unacceptable with wiki standards (the data is not fact checked, clearly otherwise it would conflict with WSJ and BusinessWeek/Bloomberg). The other accounts are clearly not related to me and there is no "in concert" business. I wonder if these discussions should not be in concert with the wikipedia foundation whom we are contacting.
 * As you are well aware, the subject of a biography is entitled (though himself or a representative) to correct erroneous factual information and potentially libelous postings.
 * Finally, we believe that user Nagle should be barred from Taleb's page as all his edits show a pattern of Bad Faith (obsessive dislike of a living subject) and clearly have a very strong libel nature to them. Clearly my role here would be close to nonexistent in his absence. IbnAmioun (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS- note that it is not about the returns in the data. The data we turned down as a valid source does not conflict that much with WSJ and others. It is innocently incomplete and someone has filled gaps by "guessing" (it was compiled by some "watcher" not by an investor and stopped with partial 2003). So it is a matter of principle of what constitutes a source for wiki. It is also the commentary on the gossip page that is not professional (40% return in 3 years is stellar by any standard). IbnAmioun (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm now the fifth person IbnAmoun has attacked in this way. Looking at IbnAmioun's edit history, he was similarly annoyed with, , , and . This seems to be his standard behavior whenever anyone objects to his ownership of Taleb-related articles. He's threatened legal action before, and he's contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before, with no effect. His last block for this was 36 hours, on December 16, 2010. Perhaps a longer block would be in order. Thanks.   --John Nagle (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting reaction to request a block about the rep of the subject of a bio so you can post matters that clash with wiki standards. Last time the block came as I reverted the "Taleb claims", and the comment "Taleb cannot be a source on Taleb" when it was WSJ, not Taleb making these claims, triggering a shady reaction.
 * Now I agree of the sin of some aggressivity in the past these took place without my full knowledge of the rules but took place when Taleb was being savaged by bankers whom he attacked in his book (Paranoia turned out to be justified when death threats were issued against Taleb, see source WSJ). Here this doesn't prevent the truth that Nagle seems bent on posting libelous statements style he is just a trader who writes books,  his returns are not good or he is well known for inflating his returns, or similar matters that are just libel. This would disqualify any editor --not counting original research. So I would like Nagle to be completely blocked from the Taleb page.  IbnAmioun (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally there is an important point about subject: he patently does not discuss his finance activities and is not interested in promoting them. Look at his web site and official bio. His finance background comes page 3, in a rapid mention. So there is evidence of no possible way of trying to use wikipedia for promotion of his financial businesses or record on his part. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * RETURNS. Dear administrators, leaving the problem of original research by user Nagle aside, and the fact that Wiki cannot accept blog sources from non-fact checked news services (most certainly they become cited by some circularity). Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented. It is the problem of survivorship bias that is at the center of Prof T's earlier book. Well, there is data to do so from official sources and (even using the flimsy sources) would give a minimum of around 150% cumulative returns by assuming 0% in years in which the WSJ wrote "single digits" (the data absent was 2005-7 when the strategy was in complete hiatus). Compare that to -23% for the market over the decade. That is the minimum, and the true numbers unpublished lie higher. Prof. Taleb made a statement to that effect in The Black Swan. Now ignoring that might be misunderstanding, not bad faith. But repeatedly ignoring that is a severe problem, which is why we would like Mr Nagle to be prevented from further involvement.IbnAmioun (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for making legal threats (remarks about how many lawyers Taleb has and how likely he is to sue). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I think that in my opinion the article Nassim Nicholas Taleb has improved over the years, and one reason for this is that there are many interested people who know much about the books, articles etc Taleb has written and also about the other activitives. Both IbnAmioun and Nagle are experts concerning this subject in my opinion. For this reason I think a much better solution than blocking of anyone would be if there is some way to reach a consensus in some way. First I would hope that there is more room on the talk page for discussion, both positive and negative, without being accussed of libel or slander. If some statement is incorrect or biased, just say so: "Your statement is incorrect and biased. It is incorrect because ABC. It is biased because ABC.". Second, I concur with IbnAmioun that Business Insider is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as reference. For this reason I think it should not be used as a reference in the main article. However, I think it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk page - where a more detailed investigation and discussion of the claims of this article may proceed. Third, as IbnAmioun writes he has the right to delete material which is libel/slander, and this is also an important way to have a high quality of these biographies and follow the BLP rules. Ulner (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One more comment about the summary of IbnAmioun above: "Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented." What is important here is if know information about the "missing years" are found, we should publish nothing about these years on Wikipedia. It will not be acceptable to publish original research with some analysis about these years. However, if a credible source is found which have some criticism or ideas concerning this, it may be acceptable to be included (depending on cirumstances). Ulner (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent intervention. The main matter hanging would then be resolved. The only evidence required is to show that Prof. Taleb's "Black Swan Protection" strategy was not in action in 2005-2007. All other years can constitute evidence for lower bound. We do not need to publish on bio so long as there is backup on talk. And there is a statement to that effect by Prof T that can be provided. And please let us avoid unprofessional statements of the style "meh" and "not so good" in any discussion. (Note that Prof Taleb only cares about substantive matters, and accusations of concealing returns is a substantive matter. )  IbnAmioun (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Empirica Capital returns issue, I've sent that to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, which is probably the right forum. On the attacks from the anon issue, thanks for the block. That was getting annoying. Still not sure about the issue. It's rare for someone to have their very own personal editor, openly identified as such and editing in no other area, promoting their public image. This remains a WP:OWN problem.  On the other hand, since more editors have been looking at this article, the hype level has been dialed down from 11 to maybe 9 or so.  Progress of sorts. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why has this incivil self-confessed COI single-purpose account, with a consistent history of WP:NPOV violations on behalf of his principle, not been permanently blocked? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not mix the incivility with me (some other poster with whom I have nothing to do) and if there has been temper problems any in the past, I agree that it is not permissible. But as explained above, the subject has the right to be protected against libelous statements and remove/point out to false information. That's what makes wikipedia work. And I am not concealing identity of representation. The subject has the right to be protected against errors and libel. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can always communicate concerns about the article to WP:OTRS instead of editing on-wiki. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy in Anti-Semitism articles


I have discovered that an editor heavily involved in editing some articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism has imported a real life battle into Wikipedia. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see:


 * Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)...
 * Discussion from July 2010
 * Carol Moore should be banned from entries involving Jews, Judaism, or Israel. Period. - I agree.
 * Current page naming dispute at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media

My request is for a community topic ban restricting CarolMooreDC from any pages related to anti-Semitism, Israel/Palestine and Judaism. We do not need real life activists using Wikipedia as a platform for their work. We do not need somebody who states that the media is controlled by Jews (an outrageous anti-semitic lie) to be heavily involved in a discussion about how to name the article Jewish control of the media.

All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. (This is admirable transparency, in my opinion.) Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics. When an editor fails to do so, it is the community's job to help them keep out of topics where they are likely to disrupt Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, may I ask if the user guilty of something tangible? Is he guilty of vandalism, harassment, or something along these lines? Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Persistent violations of WP:CPUSH and WP:NPOV. Please review the linked discussions. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * here is a past ANI about her advocacy that was buried: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=383934323#user:carolmooredc_writing_a_book_and_using_wp_to_make_her_pov Darkstar1st (talk)
 * Hmm, sadly I can't help feeling a little boomerang may end up happening here... I'm far far from Carols biggest fan ;) but from here it looks a lot like Jehochman jumped into this latest move dispute by going on a pretty pointy diatribe against the article (ok, we get that it is a canard of some profile and annoyance and should be properly treated as such, but, really, there is a way to address such an issue) some of which was quite strongly directed at Carol. Reading the talk threads I don't think there is a more clear example of having a "point of view" in relation to an article ;). I'm not sure why past history about Carol has been dragged up here on AN/I, that seems to be a case of casting wildly in the dark to try and paint Carol as an anti-semite.. and to win the argument that way. Rather dubiously if I am honest. However it seems a reasonable opportunity to look into Jehochman's involvement in that discussion and possibly slap some wrists or something? I have to say, Jehochman, I'm a little disappointed I always took you for a laid back editor :( (Reading through; both Jehochman and Carol need to step back and calm down, dragging this to AN/I is going to help neither of you. There is incivility and nastiness abound on that page between you two - both accusing each other of the same things, and then turning round and doing exactly what you complain about in the next breath... it's an exercise in getting a headache :) take it off your watchlists for a few weeks and let some others sort it out) --Errant $(chat!)$ 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's forebidden for editors to push their political views on Wikipedia articles. PS: I've always observed that international media was anti-Israel. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews, imagine if she had wrote Obama delighted in killing african americans??? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance in your making such a comment, and it is definitely uncivil. Stop it. --Errant $(chat!)$ 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * reread the links provided, you will see killing jews was carols words, not mine. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to you bringing it up here, like Jehochman, and adding your own commentary to attack Carol. Stop it. --Errant $(chat!)$ 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Errant, bringing up someones past comments about killing jews in an ani report about anti-semitism is uncivil how? on the contrary, your accusations and demands appear to be the uncivil words. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Jehochman is annoyed cause I was a little late putting up my notice I mentioned him in Wikiquette_alerts. Or that I was quick to make it clear that you just can't change an article's name back to previous one without doing a WP:RM.

Anyway, people keep dredging up that one email where I went on a rant after receiving a number of thinly veiled death threats from the person I address in the email (who was soon kicked off a number of lists), as I describe in a couple of the discussions linked, including link to evidence. (Why do I feel like there's a central database of links on this incident??) Anyway, nobody's perfect.

However, having a generally known libertarian/pro-peace POV obviously makes one very careful and even Wikilawyerly in one's editing. If I had to do it all over I guess 4 years ago I would have picked an anonymous handle like everyone else here and elsewhere complaining does. Then, like theirs, my POV only be determined from my edits and talk page entries. I have a lot of fun thinking about what that anonymous handle would have been. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol, you met me with very intense wikilawyering. Such a response I've only seen in our hottest disputes.  Let me be clear: I just bumbled upon a stupid looking page title and decided to improve it, boldly, without digging into the history!  The change I made was very obviously an improvement.  We don't have articles that start with "Allegations of".  We don't legitimize anti-semitic slanders by calling them "allegations".  If you didn't like my improvement, you could have reverted it, and explained why I was wrong.  I don't buy your excuse that your anti-semitic remarks on the record are excused because of death threats against you by some crazy Zionists.  You are welcome to believe whatever you want -- yeah, I'm sort of libertarian too, rock on, to each her own -- but please don't import your personal beliefs into our articles, not blatantly, not subtly, not at all.  If you will stipulate that you'll be more sensitive to the concerns of other editors and be less combative, then we are done here. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of the article has been changed twice without people bothering to read the talk page or do a WP:RM. I don't know how to revert a title change; I tried and failed. As I pointed out, the place where you found the article first discussed was NPOVN about the old title you changed back to, and the post you replied to in that thread specifically said it was a former title. I asked you to read that carefully when I first complained about the change, and again evidently you did not do so. Nevertheless you insinuated anyone (especially me) who supports title "allegations" must be an antisemite. (Like at this diff and in defending Brewcrewers remarks, I link to above.) If  you read the Talk Page you'd see people with similar POVs to yours supported the title. I think your POV has been amply displayed right here on wikipedia. At least I'm trying to focus on obvious policy violations, including of Wikietiquette. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The main complaint here seem to be the political views of User:Carolmooredc. While those may not be nice there is no policy against that I'm aware of. You need to show us some diffs where he actually disrupted the wiki. It looks like some people are frustrated he has done nothing blockable yet. The pointy page move of User:Jehochman (from one extreme to the other) didn't help with that. There might still be some merit in this request but I think you would need to make a stronger case. 217.235.31.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of hot air over differences of opinion, nothing actionable on an administrative level at this time. Point the filing party at the proper steps of the dispute resolution process and wrap this up. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any editing differences that justify any action against Carolmooredc. TFD (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TDF, i think you should remove yourself given your past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried.  there have been greedy Jews but having an article called that would imply that Jews were greedy.  ...greedy Jews, drunken Irishmen, dumb Poles and ignorant Americans  Darkstar1st (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You will kindly remove that personal attack or I will set up a discussion thread requesting that you be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * this happens in each ani report. one is accused, the others come out in support, nothing is done and the editor continues.  wp ani are not decided by how fast "nothing to see here" is typed, but an actual defense of the offensive words, or a wp:policy rendering the words immaterial here.  so far neither have been accomplished.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Complex situation at Mdvanii
The situation is becoming pretty complex on this page. We have a User:Alec jiri who is battling a User:Orumsonu. They are both insulting each other over a potential conflict of interest. Alec Jiri is the name of the adopted son of the creator of the Mdvanii doll and the user Alec jiri wrote much of the current article. Now the user is claiming that he is not actually Alec Jiri, merely an acquaintance. I think this may be a user name violation and I definitely think this needs more eyes as it spiraled out of control just as I was sleeping. Any help would be appreciated. --Leivick (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment on the behavior, but I would tend to say that the username (when taken by itself) is not a username violation. Alec Jiri does not appear famous enough for this to warrant a block as a celebrity username, and the username doesn't give me the impression that the account represents more than one person (although the edit you mention where he says he is just an acquaintance might be suspect in that direction). --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm? If he's editing as "Alec jiri" and he's not Alec Jiri my first instinct would definitely be to block. It's OK when someone has the same name as someone else just by chance, but he obviously chose this deliberately.  —  Soap  —  19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know...I guess if he is trying to come off as actually being Alec Jiri, then I would see it as a violation, but since he has disclosed that he is not, I see it as not that serious. I would say, though, that a more public disclosure (on his userpage and user talk), perhaps, would be for the best. --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass upload and tagging of magazine covers
has recently uploaded a great deal of non-free magazine covers of the KoreAm magazine, with a Creative Commons license tag, with no OTRS permission. I have tagged most of them for deletion under WP:F11; after 1 week, if no permission is given these files will be deleted. I am notifying the community, in case they have any ideas for dealing with this—the user has already been blocked for having a promotional/misleading username. Thanks, Mono (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a sysop aware of this who is taking care of the uploads. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Signing posts
Is there a rule requiring an established user to sign its posts on talk pages? Or is it just a politeness convention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this more like a help desk question? :) Signatures: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." It's a guideline, but lacking some common sense reason why consensus should not be followed should not be ignored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)WP:SIG is a guideline that the community has shown interest in enforcing by block if there is dickery about over sigs. So for all intents and purposes it can be treated as policy if there is great need, as you may recall from participation in Requests for comment/Docu. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly talking hypothetically. I've run across a user who won't sign, and if he persists in not signing, I'm wondering what the recourse is, if any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have notified the user of this discussion and of the requirement. I'm marking it "resolved", though the user could still come here and make a counter-argument if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added what you might term an explanatory warning . Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if it weren't a guideline or policy, if failure to sign created disruption, then it would be uncollaborative to refuse to sign, IOW a punishable offense. Pretty much any behavior, even if normally allowed, is unfortunate if it causes problems. The situation needs to be considered, not just existing policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The user in question, called "Pantergraph", has since given a number of bogus reasons why he "doesn't need to sign", and an admin has warned him. I have a hunch this is not going to turn out well, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It all depends on what you mean by "well".... ;-) It won't be a great loss, so that might be considered "well". Uncollaborative editors are never a plus. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "well" for the user, although being banished from a website has at least the potential for educational value for that user. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily, people are signing their posts on Pantergraph's talk page, so he can see that multiple users oppose his actions. ClovisPt (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it is a coincidence that a user who is so resistant to signing has a username that sounds like "pantograph," a device used to do things like sign many things at once. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive copyvio from other Wiki
Today, I discovered an edit on my watchlist where someone replaced an article's source wholesale with the source of the same article on a completely different wiki. The license of Bulbapedia is not compatible with Wikipedia, so it was reverted. However, I discovered that he was using a template made by a new user to the project, which was also a copyright violation from Bulbapedia's formatting. copied a series of templates from Bulbapedia to Wikipedia, but I managed to get Prodego to deal with all of the copyright violations. Should anything else be done?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've explained the issue to User talk:Bd6259. As long as they know what's going on now and as long as the problem stops, I should think it would be okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delebreaub's actions are still an issue, even if all of the pages he made are deleted.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you had already explained to User:Delebreaub. It's now to see if they need further explanation or if they understand the issue and stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat
According to the relevant policy, legal threats should be reported here. This case is borderline, so I think others ought to take a look. The relevant diff:. The page: Articles for deletion/Endeology. --Danger (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a legal threat. I suspect that what he's trying to say (though without providing verification) is that the FTC regulations allow wikipedia to set its own rules, and hence wikipedia is not subject to claims of "freedom of speech" and the like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see it as a legal threat either, but I've closed the AfD as a SNOW delete, so given that the editor is a SPA who only edited in that area, the issue is probably moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one IS a legal threat. As you say, the editor is an SPA who will probably disappear. But if he doesn't, you may need to bring the gavel down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no inclusion, whether implied or explicit, of any “legal threat” in my posts whatsoever. The difference between a “threat” and a simple “reference to statutory writ” for the sake of reinforcing an argument is substantial and should be thoroughly understood before making such erroneous accusations. --Endeology (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's really not. WP:NLT is meant to encompass the implications of legal proceedings, so that people don't use that as a method of intimidating other users. Constantly citing your lawyer is not conducive to cooperative editing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit..." is an attempt to intimidate, and is also bogus. You don't have any legal "right" to edit anything in particular on wikipedia. And your comments are the kind of stuff editors get indef'd for. You're lucky the admins are feeling generous today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Baseball Bugs. Quoting laws and your lawyer isn't going to gain you ant friends here. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You call down the thunder, even so much as a bad case of static cling, and you'll reap the whirlwind. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 06:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer
On December 27 I asked User:TenPoundHammer to tone down his edit summaries and to stop removing Expand from articles while the template is at DRV (per WP:TFD/H ). Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of User:Boing! said Zebedee,  TenPoundHammer has continued both behaviours.

In these diffs   TenPoundHammer yet again "screams" at other editors, just as he was doing before. In this diff TenPoundHammer states "Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator."" in reply to User:Newyorkbrad.

In this diff he again calls someone a "moron" and in this diff  he states "fanwank" which is the same sort of behaviour he exhibited before in calling other editors a "dumbass". Other edit summaries such as "tell me what lapse in judgement made you think some freaking BLOG would make a reliable source... are you out of your mind?!" and "fail"  are also troubling.

Despite asking TenPoundHammer not to remove Expand while it is at DRV, he has continued to do so while continuing the use of misleading edit summaries such as "fix" and "driveby". In checking each of these articles, the maintenance template placement seemed to have been done both in good faith and justifiable based on the article length. (Note that even if this template is "deleted" it won't simply be "removed" in bulk from articles.)

I also noticed TenPoundHammer has continued other past behaviours including making very questionable AfD nominations, such as Mashable and has also continued to repeatedly replaced speedy deletion tags after they have been removed by administrators. I happened to see this very issue of TenPoundHammer's speedy deletion tagging of Freshman Members of Congresses brought up on User:DGG's talk page just a few days ago. 

While I don't have the time or patience to go through TenPoundHammer's full contribution history of the last week or so, especially as he often makes many edits per minute, I think the above diffs should be more than sufficient to demonstrate some of the continued problems. I don't know what needs to be done here, but given repeated past AN/I discussions regarding TenPoundHammer's behaviour, he clearly still fails to understand that this stuff is simply not acceptable behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite lots of undoubtedly good work, he does seem to be in a particularly bad mood at the moment and is being rude and lashing out at people for no good reason - after my comment here, his response to me is here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And only yesterday, he was being abusive to JohnCD, here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * The problem is that TPH makes lots of edits that benefit Wikipedia with less than optimum edit summaries (i.e. the fanwank one - it was, indeed, an edit removing an unsourced sentence which consisted entirely of unsourced fanwank, but, hey, this is a collegial environment). If you can find a major issue with one of TPH's edits that is seriously out of order, then warn him, but I'm not entirely sure why we're at ANI yet.  What admin action is required? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need some way of convincing him to stop being so nasty to people - he does lots of great work, but going round calling people "dumbass" and "moron" is surely not what we want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point I'm making - if his edits are out of line, warn him. As far as I can see, there are no warning/incivility/whatever comments on his talkpage except the one pointing him to this ANI. One would've thought if his editing had been so uncollegial that there would've been some sort of attempt at negotiation before the inevitable ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense, Black Kite, but if you don't see any incivility warnings in his talk page history, you must not be looking that hard. I've got no desire to get TPH "in trouble", but it would be nice if he'd knock off stuff like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be great, but WP:WQA is the place for this, not ANI - again, what administrator action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, people asking for help often don't know what the answers are - does it not seem reasonable to come here and ask "Can any admins suggest or do anything to help?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He often does very good work here --he is extraordinarily effective at finding articles that certainly ought to be deleted. But he would be so much more effective if he did not also nominate for deletion articles that there is no reason to delete--I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. I see this as the same sort of hasty judgement that leads to unreasonable edit summaries. We're here because these matters have been mentioned to him repeatedly over a very long time, and at AN/I. . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't. We're here in the hope that sombody can find a suitable way to communicate with him. Nobody is at this point asking for sanctions.   DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We just want him to acknowledge these issues and work toward them not happening, correct? Yeah, i've had some run-ins with TPH, generally at AfD. I will admit that he does get rather hostile whenever I end up voting keep and give references to show why. Silver  seren C 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing so much idiocy around here anymore. Things like !voting "keep but source it better" and then failing to show that any sort of sources exist. Then the article gets kept, nominated again two years later, and everyone says "keep but source it better" again failing to provide sources. Other things too — like an experienced user taking a merge request to AFD, n00bs adding "Character X's socks don't match in this scene"—style trivia to movie and TV articles, people insisting that episode articles should be automatically kept just because the show is notable. Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it. "Speedy" deletion that takes longer than a full day before someone nukes it. Niceness has gotten me nowhere with these and countless other issues, so maybe some of us just need a slap with something more serious than a trout. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TPH, your perception is spot on.But you need to realize something, and to be fair it took me years to come to terms with this myself: Wikipedia is essentially a social community with the encyclopedic content being an incidental by-product. Don't emphasize content over the social aspects. That way madness lies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And sometimes it's that that gets to me too. I think you'd really have to be thin skinned to take offense to an edit summary of "Fail", for instance. And the thing about not wanting to invoke IAR would sort of fall under the social part too — it seems I have to beg and plead to get any administrative action done, no matter how trivial (mostly G6 deletions, which I've seen sit for upwards of a full day). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try being a little less impatient and a little less shitty - if being nice doesn't work, being shitty is even less effective. And there's really no urgency for most of the deletions you request - who cares if it takes a day to delete something harmless? You work at a very fast pace and spend many hours here, but you can't expect everyone else to do the same and work at the same pace as you. Wikipedia and everyone associated with it are not here to jump at your every command, and other people have different takes on things. In every recent fight you've had that I've seen, the other parties have been civil and have explained their thoughts to you - it's simply not the case that you're always right and have to be obeyed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I agree that "Fail" isn't an offensive summary (not useful or informative, which is what they're supposed to be, but not offensive) - but what about "dumbass", "moron", and all the other shitty abuse you dish out? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS: Re "Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it.": I saw that one, and it was nothing to do with the admin being afraid of anything - the admin simply thought it would be wrong to invoke IAR for CSD purposes because CSD is deliberately tightly defined, and they explained that quite clearly to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To echo Black Kite's (at least) two questions above, what admin action is being requested here? —DoRD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know precisely - I can only speak for myself, and all I'm here asking is "Can any admins here suggest anything that might help with this situation?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that in general, TenPoundHammer has made a lot of positive edits. My own past interactions with him have largely been positive, but a diff such as this which User:28bytes partially linked to above is not an example of appropriate behaviour. If a new or otherwise non-established editor were to make such an edit, he would more often than not be blocked outright for disruption. This AN/I discussion  from November 2010 (which seems to be a continuation of this  AN/I discussion) includes quite a bit of discussion regarding problematic behaviour from TenPoundHammer. As far as warnings go, in keeping with don't template the regulars, many concerns have been raised by others on TenPoundHammer's talk page without using templated warnings. If he is unwilling to listen to others, including both administrators and non-administrators alike, then WQA would not really be helpful either. Somehow other editors need a way to communicate to TenPoundHammer that the general incivility, hostility, and combativeness, as well as the language of his edit summaries needs to change. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add to that, this behavior has been going on for years, and I think it's obvious to anyone with any familiarity that WQA would be a waste of time. Now, I might be misjudging it, but I actually think it's getting worse. When I first encountered TPH several years ago, he was often curt and brusque and made many bad AfD reports, but I don't remember the degree of incivility and abuse that we're seeing now. Over the past month or so, he seems to have been getting into an increasingly bad mood. And that really can't be good for him either - are we seeing signs of burnout? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely see signs of WikiBurnout here. (I suspect every long-time contributor goes thru the Slough of Despond over Wikipedia. Some emerge at the other end with a far less positive attitude towards this online encyclopedia idea & what it has accomplished; some never emerge.) However, the best place to discuss TenPoundHammer's behavior would be in a RfC/U, not a WP:AN/I thread. -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Never had a problem myself with Hammer and I have encountered him more than once, especially early on. Maybe he is getting burned out: I don't know. He's got a "spitshine" clean block log (except for the "joke block") for a long time here. I agree with those above who think this needs another venue. Doc   talk  10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think you're probably right, and I guess RFC/U is the proper place. The only trouble is I'd feel bad about doing it - I know it's still "informal", but it does feel like cranking it up a notch, and TPH is someone I genuinely respect for his long-term contributions. I think I'd rather just leave it be for now, myself - I've had my say here, and we've been able to tell TPH what we think is wrong. Hopefully he might think about it, and accept that these are the words of well-meaning Wikipedia colleagues, and we can see how things go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WHY IN THE WORLD was a bunch TPH's edit summaries deleted? What a gross misuse of admin tools / oversighting rights. There's absolutely NO REASON WHATSOVER to rev delete them. Oversighting is annoying enough when it's within policy, and we certainly don't need admins/oversighters to shoot from the hip and revdelete stuff where a rollback would have done the job. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which ones were oversighted? Can you give examples? As far as I can tell, none of the links given above have been oversighted. (And tone it down a little, no need to yell.) Silver  seren C 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I revdeled a bunch of CHECKYOURLINKS x 20 as being purely disruptive, as they were flooding the contributions list. I stopped when I was questioned on them, so you can see essentially the same text in the general area. Doing it once wouldn't have been disruptive -- doing it 20 times within a minute was, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And since it was an editsummary issue, rollback would not have done the job. You'll note I only rolled back a couple of edits, where I immediately corrected the link to point to the intended target. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still no justifiable reasoning for suppressing them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. Now that I've undeleted them, go try to read that portion of his contribs log -- or imagine what RecentChanges would have looked like while that spree was running. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, this sort of stuff would get a non-established editor blocked for disruption. TenPoundHammer needs to understand that this behaviour is not ok. I didn't want to initiate a RFC/U because they often can turn very ugly, and I don't think that would have helped here at all. TenPoundHammer, if you are getting too stressed out, take a break. For a specific diff or set of diffs, simply bookmark it and return to it a few days later. If someone else hasn't fixed it, fix it when you are less stressed. I really don't want to see you end up getting yourself blocked from a stress-induced outburst (I'm speaking from experience here). Edit: After writing this (but before posting) I noticed TenPoundHammer has indeed now gotten himself blocked. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I've interacted with TPH many times before. He/she is a good editor and usually had a good trustable judgment. However some of the comments in his/her edit summaries are not WP:CIVIL. Regardless of how good one's edits are it doesn't excuse the brash or sometimes crude use of language. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. However I agree with Silver Seren, some of those edit summaries did require removing as they could have caused offence to other users. Now instead of dragging the issue out how about TPH is issued with a polite and informal warning about calming down his/her tone of voice and choice of language. If there are any future issues then admins can consider other alternatives. But lets not execute one of our better editors just because he/she has burned out a little. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl indeffed me for the "CHECK YOUR LINKS" rampage which I did using the unlink tool — I'm just so sick and tired of people who don't bother to check where their links are pointing to. I think the indef block was overkill to the extreme, but no matter. I've been unblocked now and I'd say this block was just the wakeup call I needed. All of the "stupid" things I'm repeatedly seeing on Wikipedia may still piss me off, but it seems quite clear now that lashing out on-wiki is a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, she indeffed you for removing dozens of perfectly good links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW TPH, there's a dab-solver tool for the dab links. Just copy this into your CSS file and you'll have easy access to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I hadn't spotted that there was an existing thread on this, so i had just opened a new one at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * As noted there and on your talk, you need to try a much better explanation of what you were doing. This was simply mass-unlinking without checking, and I make no apology for the indef-block. I am glad that Sarek unblocked you to allow a cleanup, but unless you a) fix every link you have removed, and b) give a better explanation than this, I think some sort of block should be restored.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And what exactly would such a block achieve? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Unless TenPoundHammer will voluntarily desist from mass removal of links on a multiply-flawed basis, some restraint is needed. The unlinking tool is clearly not safe in TenPoundHammer's hands, and I am not aware of a way of simply disabling him from using it (tho pls correct me if that is actually possible). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * It seems to me that TPH basically said he was lashing out in frustration (and we've seen him getting a bit stressed lately), and that he realizes he needs to stop doing so - he's certainly more than capable of using the tools properly, and I think we should respect what he says and give him a chance now, without any immediate further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If TenPoundHammer said he will clean up whatever messes he made and is changing the way he does things going forward, I don't feel reblocking him would serve much purpose. In my past experience in dealing with TenPoundHammer, if he says he will fix something, he has taken care of it. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check below, under . I have just been checking and find lots of edits which TenPoundHammer says he has already fixed, but hasn't. Whatever your past experience, it sadly doesn't match with what's happening now: a tantrum with powerful tools followed by false assurances that a cleanup has been done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give him some time to find and correct whatever mistakes he made. It is very easy to make a huge mess with automated or semi-automated tools but correcting it manually takes a lot more time. If TenPoundHammer is ultimately unwilling to change his behaviour, he could always be placed under an edit restriction forbidding him from using automated tools. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does take time, but TPH said that he had already done it. Given his false assurance that he had already cleaned up, I saw no point in trying to monitor whether and when he decided to clean up, I rollbacked the changes which he had not already reverted.
 * It seems to me that this spree, and the false assurances of a cleanup, are enough grounds to apply that restriction now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone should start an RFC/U already, I don't see what admins can do here, but if I had to go find diffs of all the times TPH's unproductive editing has had me tearing my hair out, it would take days. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is more activity on the other thread, can we combine these please? <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 17:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SqueakBox
Requesting an unblock regarding the thread further up the page. I don't know the history but seems contentious enough to open it up here IMO. Personally I don't think an unblock is viable so soon. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I suspect that it won't be long before others agree, looking at the old thread... S.G.(GH) ping! 11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have unarchived and re-opened the earlier discussion with a sub heading noting the unblock request - best that it is all kept in one place, where any person who has missed it can review the prevous discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * main discussion and unblock discussion --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue water navy page
Can admins take control of the situation. I cannot handle it anymore.Bcs09 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that actions are only going ahead on consensus of regular article editors and not on a whim, user Bcs09 disagrees with this and I welcome any outside help. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've issued 3RR warnings to both accounts involved in the edit war on Blue-water navy. It seems like you guys are having a content dispute, so consider dispute resolution. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Darkstar1st accused me in an ANI thread of "past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried". I asked him to remove the personal attack, and he replied that I was defending the remarks of the subject of the ANI, who was accused of anti-Semitic remarks. He also made uncivil comments about the subject of that ANI, which incidentally was closed without action.

Darkstar1st had already complained at ANI about my reference to ethnic stereotypes which had been made as a form of example, and the discussion thread was closed without action. Darkstar1st also argued his position on his talk page.  He has repeated the epithets over and over again which shows a lack of sincerity in his finding them offensive and perplexing that he cannot see that there is a difference between mentioning epithets and endorsing them.

Darkstar1st's use of personal attacks is disruptive and he should be warned or blocked to prevent him from continuing them.

TFD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like your "greedy Jews, etc." comment was totally misrepresented by the user Darkstar, either out of not reading it closely enough, or deliberately. You were listing stereotypes. Most of us could make a list a mile long of ethnic stereotypes. Citing that stuff doesn't qualify you as being prejudiced. If that's all he's got, he had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First, in general I think such complaints first should be brought to Wikiettiquette notice board, but I guess since they happened here... Re: this diff mentioned by TFD where Darkstar1st attacks me, it seems a bit odd that Darkstar1st attacked me for criticizing any political leader who sends people to war when that's the kind of thing we libertarians do all the time and Darkstar1st and I usually debate on the Libertarianism article. But I guess he's revving up for when the Libertarianism article is opened up again for editing in February. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is simple harassment, and Darkstar1st needs to stop it immediately. ClovisPt (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I really can't believe that DarkStar1st is still at this. He was harping on this "greedy jews" stereotype analogy months ago, and was repeatedly told to stop misrepresenting TFD's post by just about every single editor who became involved in the conflict. The misrepresentation is clearly deliberate, because there is really no possible way that he could be misunderstanding what the statement actually meant after having it explained to him in so many different ways, by so many different people. DarkStar1st has been continuously disruptive ever since he began obsessing over the libertarianism article. He should cut out the personal attacks, or be blocked for it again, and since he has disrupted the article for months at this point, I recommend that he perhaps should take a break from libertarianism-related articles, because he seems utterly unable to work in a civil manner on the topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rereading Darkstar1st's comments in the thread I closed, they're at least borderline blockworthy for the WP:BATTLEGROUND degree of misrepresentation involved in facilitating personal attacks. If there is any other recent behaviour of this type a block should be hard to avoid, and an WP:RFC/U considered. Rd232 talk 09:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And he's now canvassing users' opinions of the 7-year old offsite remark . At some not-too-distant point, continuation of this behaviour may qualify as harassment. I'm not familiar with the WP:AE terms for the topic - they may have some relevance too. Rd232 talk 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st has not been as active in the last several weeks. However, in response to Jehochman's question to Carolmooredc whether she was an "anti-Israel activist", Darkstar1st replied, "Carol in the past proclaimed herself an "activist" (for a different movement unrelated to Israel) on her home page. when i brought this up in the conflict of interest noticeboard it was buried".  The specific complaint was that Carolmooredc was "writing a bokk and using wp to make her pov".  No one saw a COI and the alleged POV was anarcho-capitalism.  TFD (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The attack account User:EveryoneLookAtMe,I'mCarolMooreDC! popping up there seems to have a fair probability of being Darkstar1st, given the context of its contributions and content of the deleted userpage. If it is, that would certainly be enough of a pattern to justify some action. Perhaps a passing checkuser could confirm. Rd232 talk 18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it is a sock of banned User:Karmaisking, and it is probably too late to perform CU. That account commented in the COIN discussion.  Karmaisking has provided extensive advice at Darkstar1st's talk page beginning here and most recently has invited him to join the Mises Institute wiki.  TFD (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Block review:User talk:Skysong263
This user is arguing that their edits were did not qualify as vandalism, and I have to say I'm inclined to agree. The blockingh admin edit warred with them and finally blocked them, apprently never thinking to explain themselves in plain English, instead slapping down the usual series of escalating vandalism notices. While the blocked users edits were probably wrong, I don't believe they constitute vandalism, therefore both the edit warring and the block are unjustified. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the blocking admin here, and I have to disagree that I didn't explain myself "in plain English". I noted on my talk page (with a talk back on the user's talk page) as well as the article's talk page and an edit summary that disambiguation pages are not used to direct readers to external links.  The user continued to add the external links despite the explanation, so I put in a 12-hour block.  If anyone thinks that the block is unnecessary or too long, then s/he is welcome to unblock, but it's inaccurate to describe this as a content dispute.  ...  disco spinster   talk  00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this as an uninvolved admin, my opinion is: Given those bullets, I think that the block was justified. However, I would suggest that more detailed warnings, rather than templates, are often more effective in educating users when they are (unintentionally) violating our norms. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * External links do not belong on dab pages. So discospinster is correct there.
 * Before the block, discospinster did contact the user, and also left a warning with you will be be blocked in bold. The user who was blocked continued anyway.
 * My two penn'orth is that while User:Skysong263's attempts to add external links were misguided, they were not vandalism. User:discospinster, an experienced admin and editor should have explained this early but instead simply made a chain of reverts which frankly break WP:3RR. Their warning came only at the end of that chain of reverts, not on the first posting of the external links. My own view is that User:Skysong263 should have their block lifted immediately, with a warning about external sites being given. User:discospinster should be warned that their belief that this was vandalism was mistaken, and that further reversions will break 3RR and invite a brief block. Inexperienced users need help and explanation, not arbitrary blocking. At the very least, User:discospinster should have asked an uninvolved admin to make the block. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it was not vandalism, but I think that "you will be blocked" is clear enough to get the point across. The blocked user made the same inappropriate edit after being asked not to and then formally warned not to. That warrants a block; I don't think we should let the "vandalism" thing overshadow the actual edits. discospinster should adjust his or her communication strategy, though. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC)Vandalism is the insertion of obscenities, non-sense or blanking of articles. These edits looking like good faith attempts to improve the article.  Is it just me or does it seem like more and more editors are carelessly throwing around vandalism accusations these days?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after being warned, Skysong made, and chose to . It was a valid block, as far as I can tell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) First, with regards to the comment "should have explained this early but instead simply made a chain of reverts which frankly break WP:3RR" -- I did explain this early. If you'll note the timeline of editing, at :51 User:Pol430 gave the first "test" warning; at :53 I responded to User:Skysong263's comment on my talk page explaining the disambiguation page guidelines; at :55 I noted in the edit summary that ELs do not belong on the page, and User:Skysong263 undid this edit one minute later; at :57 I placed a warning on the user's talk page; at :59 I made a similar note on the article's talk page.  So there were two explanations before any type of warning, then one after.
 * Second, vandalism is not the only rationale for a block; it also includes disruptive editing. This is what I perceived User:Skysong263's behaviour to be, which prompted the limited-time block.
 * Perhaps other administrators would have done things differently, but I don't believe that what I did falls outside of the blocking policy. ...  disco spinster   talk  00:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, discospinster was not WP:INVOLVED, so there was no need for an "uninvolved admin". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See Disambig guideline: "Never include external links...."  It is not a content dispute but a deliberate flouting of guidelines.  The block seems reasonable.  TFD (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See also the attacks .--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @TFD: It may not have been intentional so much as hurried: perhaps the blocked user simply didn't take the time to investigate the link they were given. That doesn't change the validity of the block, but it gives a different possible explanation for the edits. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see User:discospinster is at fault here, the reverts were valid for the reasons already given. I performed at least one for the same reason. Weather or not the warnings given were correct for User:Skysong263's edits is not especially pertinent now. The point is, that User:Skysong263 should have responded to the warnings with discussion rather than continuing to edit disruptively. Blocks are protective not punitive. User:Skysong263 has only been blocked for 12 hours in order to protect Wikipedia from what was un-constructive editing. User:discospinster's actions were made with the good faith notion of protecting Wikipedia from un-constructive editing, pursuing policy minutiae is rarely helpful to that end. If the user is requesting to be unblocked then the reviewing admin should consider whether they believe on reasonable grounds that the user will edit constructively. (IMO) <font color="#00008B">Pol430  talk to me 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm somewhat surprised at the "two wrongs make a right" kind of arguments I am seeing here. Yes he was warned to stop, but the warnings were for vandalism, which, although clearly incorrect, these edits were not. Therefore, edit warring over it was not an appropriate response and contrary to our policy on such. A brief protection to force more discussion could maybe have been justified, but a block? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have certainly blocked, but for WP:DISRUPT rather than vandalism - per the link provided by SarekOfVulcan at 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) the editor was indifferent to the advice they had received and was going to continue. The block stopped the potential for ongoing disruption. It also appears that the account is sufficiently experienced, or has taken the time once they were no longer able to edit to click the links, to be able to Wikilawyer the wording of WP:VANDAL. So, Discospinster may have ticked the wrong box when applying the sanction - but the net result is that disruption to the project was ended (and if that is two wrongs making a right, then sobeit). No need to beat up on a sysop for making an paperwork error in protecting the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If they had been warned for edit warring, which is what was actually going on, I would fully support the block. They were warned for vandalism. Since they weren't in fact vandalizing they were perfectly free to ignore the warning. I don't think it's a case of wiki-lawyering, admins are supposed to be able to recognize the difference between edit warring and blatant vandalism, and to handle each situation appropiately. I'm sure DS is a fine admin, but this particular block was not done appropriately. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone is "perfectly free to ignore" a warning that they are about to be blocked. If you don't think that you are doing what the warning says, it would make the most sense to stop editing articles entirely and immediately clarify what's going on. Continuing to do exactly what you have been doing on the basis that the warning must be misplaced is patently unreasonable. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * May I also point out that the definition of "edit warring" is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"? Again I will assert that I did not simply revert without comment; I explained the reasons for my actions to the user more than once before posting a single warning. Furthermore, the issue was not strictly a content dispute, which implies a disagreement -- the WP:DISAM page clearly states that external links do not belong ("never include external links").  The user's edits might not have been vandalism but the issue was not merely a difference of opinion.  In certain situations the admin must use experience and discretion in making a decision, and that is what I did.  Anyway, I think User:Pol430's suggestions below are a step in the right direction. ...  disco spinster   talk  22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discusion regarding disruptive editing and warning users about such things. I have also proposed a solution. I feel the template talk page was the most appropriate venue. Follow this link: Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz
I want to the attention of the community a website called Mywikibiz.com, which is being run by a person of the name of Gregory Kohs, which I believe was suspended by Jimbo years ago. I was browsing through some of the freelancer websites when I came across a website profile which stated: ''
 * As the founder of MyWikiBiz, the first paid editing service associated with Wikipedia, I know the ins and outs of manipulating Wikipedia. Some of my editor accounts have been "banned" by Wikipedia administrators, but what they don't know and can't stop are the manifold continuing accounts in good standing that I operate on behalf of paying clients.''

I also investigating this site in connection to a WP:COI investigation into another editor (which a separate thread will be started shortly). I find this extremely terrifying that there are people out there who puff up articles for money. Phearson (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are aware of it, there was an WP:AN thread about three weeks ago. General consensus was as long as they obeyed our Policies and guidelines there is no problem. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that it was another similar Business. We have an article on this guy as well MyWikiBiz The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * However if they are socks of a banned user, that's not nice, is it? - BorisG (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're banned, aren't you obligated to block their socks upon discovery, "good standing" or not? Half  Shadow  16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We generally do. However, this is a voluntary project, no one is "obligated" to do anything.--Scott Mac 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know what I mean. Half  Shadow  19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By definition a blocked editor cannot have accounts in good standing. Kohs used to be a reasonably good article creator though as far as I've heard. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's out there writing corporate articles and there's nothing wrong with them, I say ignore it. We routinely ignore banned editors who return with a new account as long as they aren't causing trouble.  If he's creating problems, they will be noticed soon enough, we'll trace the accounts involved, and block them.   I've blocked a number of Kohs socks over the years when he's gone out of his way to make them evident. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree in ignoring banned editors. They are to be banned when their sock is made known. Phearson (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what admin action are you asking for here, Phearson. I think we all agree that Greg Kohs is banned and is likely to remain banned for the foreseeable future. What is it you want done? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mosmirenjohje
User:Mosmirenjohje joined a discussion, which he probably couldn't have known about if he was a new user. He may be a sockpuppet so a CU is needed.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a problem here, or the reporter has failed to say what exactly is wrong with this. Phearson (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What other evidence do you have other than that ZjarriRrethues. I also agree with Phearson. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Baseball Watcher Lets Chat  21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Byzantine names

 * Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. If anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Also, this subpage pointer will not archive before midnight on 31 December 2010 (I've used the process described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil), so hopefully someone will deal with this before then. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * some one want to formally close this? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It cannot be formally closed until it has been decided whether a topic ban needs to be enacted and, if so, what its duration should be. If it turns out that consensus is for a topic ban (I cannot tell at the moment), it would have to be formally logged here WP:Editing restrictions. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deb seems to be the only one opposing it, the other two only oppose it becuase its not enough. So consensus seem pretty clear to me for a Editing restriction The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The thread contains two community sanction proposals, one for a page move restriction and one for a one month block. Since discussion has essentially ceased, I ask an uninvolved admin to review the discussions and determine whether there is consensus to implement either sanction.  Sandstein   16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there was no support at all for a one month block. However, as ResidentAnthropologist correctly says, there does now seem to be almost unanimous consensus for a topic ban from discussions of page moves/article renaming anywhere on wikipedia. I'm not sure about the duration. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of that agreement is the half-dozen POV-pushers I happen to have annoyed lately; but the genuinely uninvolved have commented strongly enough that I intend to use WP:RM routinely whatever may be imposed on me.


 * I would also request that any restriction be applied to  who has taken to closing non-consensus move requests (at, for example, Talk:Queen_Victoria) in accordance with his own opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the best place to request that. I'd like to see the two things kept separate and give him the opportunity to amend his conduct. Deb (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research/linkvios by 174.28.41.201
174.28.41.201 (talk) has been engaging in original research at Jeopardy! theme music, such as at, (reverting a user who explained his removal of the section), ,. He has been adding as "sources" YouTube videos that are clearly copyvios, such as, , , ,. <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin privileges misused during "content dispute"
I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to solve it, but as of right now, a few individuals with the admin bit have used their privileges to remove the discussion notifications for Expand and protect the template. User:Brandon clearly doesn't like the display small notification we transclude with templates such as tfd, being deleted, etc, and I don't like it much myself, so much so that I've been attempting to improve it so that it is less (as Brandon put it) "disruptive". That said, we provide links to such discussions because it is important that the community knows of them and participates. In this particular case, the TfD close is widely disputed and the deletion review notification really should be visible. tfd's inline notification was visible during the TfD for Expand (and during this TfD an editor even linked a non-neutral RFC tag into the discussion). Removing the deletion review notification at this point is going to create even more dispute as to how this issue is being handled. I'm more than happy to work with Brandon to improve the display of being deleted, and User:Bsherr is also trying to come up with a solution. Using admin privileges (be it one individual or several) to remove and prevent the display of a discussion notification for a widely disputed TfD and deletion review is simply not appropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've stated what you believe, but you haven't provided any links to evidence or said what adminstrative action is required. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I included this link. It is clearly visible in the edit history here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no bone to pick in the expand dispute, I honestly and truly don't care about the outcome. I do however object to dragging protracted wiki-nonsense into article space. There are much better ways to inform editors than littering 18,000 articles with two different notices that no reader has a chance in hell at understanding. I'd personally suggest WP:AN and WP:Watchlist notices . Brandon (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could've contributed to a talk page discussion and helped us come up with a better way to display such notifications. We've shown these messages for tfd and being deleted for quite some time and I agree, it all still needs improvement. Removing all message display during a widely disputed TfD isn't the right way to go about improving this though. I've been actively working with others to improve delrev since it originally (as I mentioned on your talk page) used a full mbox template since we had not previously had a need to DRV a widely used template. What we currently have is the solution which came about from prior talk page discussions. If you can come up with a better solution to keep otherwise well meaning editors from removing a "deleted template" which is under deletion review from articles, while also providing a link to the discussions, I'm all ears. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned WP:TFD specifically covers this situation by advising that the template not be transcluded. I can't believe we've ever trancluded the full mbox either, so this is adding something that's never existed, not correcting a current problem. Please don't frame this discussion like I'm overriding any standing consensus to have these messages transcluded. The trancluded text was added by yourself to the DRV template two days ago and I have yet to see any requirement for tfd to be transcluded either. If you strongly believe these notices are worth putting in articles, then gather consensus on a visible page and the matter will be settled. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The trasnclusion count is actually about 16,078, not 18,000. That also includes 500-1000 transclusions within the User:, User talk:, Wikipedia:, etc non-article namespaces, with the actual article transclusion count at around 15,000. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologizes for the inaccuracy, I still find that to be a rather large number of articles. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The link provided does not appear to me to show use of adminstrator's tools, and there does not appear to be any use of the tools required? Unless there are strong objections, I am going to move the discussion to a more appropiate place. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This became a matter for AN/I when User:MZMcBride ( also an administrator correction: former administrator) jumped into things to revert to User:Brandon's preference of not displaying the discussion message/links just before the template was protected by User:PeterSymonds,  (obviously also an administrator). So yes, I would object to "moving" this discussion somewhere else at this point. I am well aware of what was discussed "off-wiki" just before this sequence of events. The way this sequence of events played out skirts 3RR while "protecting" Brandon's preference and "locking out" any attempt by others (including administrators per WP:WHEEL) to restore the transcluded discussion message/links. While Brandon didn't misuse the tools, and MZMcBride technically didn't misuse the tools, this whole sequence of events is tag teaming with the use of administrative tools to protect another admin's preferred version. Maybe PeterSymonds and MZMcBride didn't think this through before doing this, but the net effect is the same: This is a gross misuse of the administrative tools, no matter how those involved want to spin it. My own "preference" (and I don't think I'm being too unreasonable) would be to see Expand placed back the way it had been before Brandon (who I noticed hasn't even been very active lately) discovered and objected to the transcluded discussion notifications, and have him engage in discussion to help us come up with a better way to present this information. No one else objected to it previously, and consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions, especially for discussions such as this which have very wide reaching effects. Brandon didn't complain while tfd was still transcluded, and there is no harm in having these remain transcluded while the DRV and other discussions about this template are still in-progress. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be a bit more gentle with the readers when you bring an issue here in future, and spell everything out for us. I looked at the history, looked at what you'd written here, and there was nothing that looked untowards.  Now that you've actually explained this I'll not move it, of course.  Plus I'm looking closer at the history to see if it's as bad as you say...  Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have a low tolerance for misuse of administrative tools and I feel quite strongly about this. We are having the DRV precisely because of the way the closing administrator decided to close the TfD involved (I won't get into that here). --Tothwolf (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that you want to transclude the message onto mainspace articles so that editors don't remove the template from them. Is that correct? If so, I'm a little puzzled: why would they think to remove the template in the first place unless they had already visited the template page? —Emufarmers(T/C) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The effect is pretty much the opposite, particularly when the notification box is added to a template which can be used multiple times inline within a single article: this trashes the article(s) quite thoroughly, as happened with Template:Font—no article diff as the template is now deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFD explicitly states there is no requirement to tranclude the template on article containing the template, going as far to advise against it. So "consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions" is simply just not true. You haven't actually shown a single policy or consensus forming discussing that transclusing the template is required. Advertising debates regarding major changes to the project fall under the domain of AN and watchlist notices, not article entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Brandon (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The text you continue to try to use as justification for your actions was meant to apply to inline templates (such as Font mentioned above) where the display of a notification would disrupt the article text. This is also covered at Template:Tfd where it shows such an example of an inline template along with the text: "As can be seen, the downside is a greater degree of interference with the article's text, so the decision of which type to use, should be made on a case-by-case basis. In the rare case, where the insertion of any template is deemed too detrimental to a large number of articles, it might be advisable to completely disable the notifications." The template you removed the notification from however, is not an inline template, it is a message box template, where transcluding the notification does not harm the output of the template or article text. If you genuinely feel that this is likely to cause further confusion for others, then perhaps we need to update the text at WP:TFD. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The real point is that while there remains a reasonable chance that the DRV will not confirm the tfd decision, it would be much more difficult and disruptive to remove the template while the deletion review is pending, and then have to restore it-- this would be the case with any very widely used template. If, on the other hand, the final decision is to remove it, then the weeks delay in doing so will not matter. Thus the notice tothwolf wants is altogether reasonable. More generally, the failure to include deletion notices for tfd discussions is a contradiction to the normal openness of Wikipedia content decisions; TfD is already essentially the province of those supporting deletions, and the result of not notifying is to suppress meaningful input from outside. Of course, the TfD regulars support not notifying--it is one of the Wikipedia procedures showing the greatest degree of ownership. My own opinion for how to handle it is to use tfd as a screening device only; any deletion opposed in good faith must come to a more visible part of the project.  DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If people started removing expand, presumably it was because they saw being deleted. If that's a concern, then being deleted should be removed from expand until the deletion review concludes.  delrev seems more accurate, and I don't see what's gained by having it along with being deleted. —Emufarmers(T/C) 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also have a low tolerance for misuse of administrative tools, and feel quite strongly about the issue (as I feel the community should, and as wp:admin suggests should be the case). That said, while admittedly I have more to review, I'm not sure I see the abuse by Brandon here as of yet.  As to the substantive notice issue that is at the center of the dispute, I tend to side with Toth's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Attacks and outing
I would like to ask someone to have a look at this post by User:HeadlessMaster. WP:OUTING and calling me a "pure communist worshipper" in the same post. I guess insults like the "communist" bull go with the territory, but alongside attempted outing its not something I think should be ignored. That is dangerous, serious stuff, and frankly I would like to see something done. There is no way it was not deliberate.

(P.S. I restored the report, I don't think it reveals anything itself and the relevant post has been deleted. I'd like to request the outing to be viewed in light of the rest of the attack.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the outing (maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing?) but it does seem a rather hefty personal attack. --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that an revdel or an oversight ? Is there an log of the remove action ? Anyway Fred Bauder has copied the text back in (thats why the links are dead now) wich means HeadlessMaster's text is now misattributed to Fred... 217.235.33.74 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The outing was indeed there. I am also aware that Fred copied the text back (after removing the outing), which is why I specifically mentioned that the text was posted by User:HeadlessMaster. I also posted a new link. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are aware of that. This doesn't answer my question about the log. And posting a refactored comment under wrong attribution is still a fishy move. Since Fred Bauder hasn't even commented one has to take your word that there was something outing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the original, and I can confirm that was something in it that could well have been outing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The user repeated the outing on his talk in spite of warning about this report . -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So what happens now? The guy's insulting and openly flaunting his ability to try and out me. Do I need to take this to oversight after all, what? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anytime someone is being outed, the very best way to deal with it is to go to Oversight immidiately. Posting about it in a public forum lke this increases the chance that the outing will be seen by more users. Details of what oversight is doing and exactly what is being suprerssed will generally not be discussed on-wiki, as that is contrary to the whole point of suppression. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What Beeblebrox said.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

jlesco
Jlescoe made a very scary noise on my talk page. Not sure what that is all about, but I never had edited anything related to Mormons. Phearson (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a reaction to a message I left at an IP editor's talk page (presumably his) a couple hours ago. New editor who doesn't seem to know how to identify who he's engaging in discussion.  No idea how he found you, but I think you could safely ignore it. alanyst /talk/ 07:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he meant it towards Wikipedia as a whole. I just happen to be the one he picked up from the petri-dish to be yelled at. Phearson (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is likely the same person that was editing Joseph Smith, Jr. as an IP last night. Here is a similar post on Katie's talk. I will watch-list the article and see what happens next. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 2011 ...
Don't suppose any admin could magically turn back the clock a week so I can prep some stuff for the WikiCup? ;) Wow, it's actually a new year. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, Fetchcomms! Yeah, 2010 blew by pretty fast, but on New Year's Eve, don't you always wonder where on Earth the year went? --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded! Happy New Year! Though I've already been saying Happy New Year in my country since an hour back :) Hey  Mid  (contribs) 00:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well here in the Bay State, we've still got five more hours to go. (Wouldn't you be an hour ahead, Heymid?) --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fourtheted! Happy Yew Nears!!!@# ;P -- &oelig; &trade; 03:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What a terrible incident it is! Making the 2010 a 2011 without consensus! I demand a revert! Phearson (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * L.O.L.!!! :-D Yeah, it is interesting that the "Happy New Year!!!" messages are here on the Incident noticeboard, instead of the regular/main Administrators' Noticeboard, which may well be a better place for them. X-D [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To all as well ... my only question being, will this violation of notaforum lead to trouts, or to the ever-more-popular (they don't mean forever) indef blocks?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, outright ban 'em I say! Take 'em out to pasture!  Off with their heads!  Let them eat cake! <insert historic rabble-rousing statement here>...and so on. :)  Happy New Year all. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 09:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would of course favor trouts over indef. blocks :-), but someone could always move this thread (and the other one below) to the main Administrators' Noticeboard. (Funny note: two admins are guilty-as-charged of posting on this page in the other thread below, "Happy New Year, EST", especially the one who opened it, SarekOfVulcan. Also note the admins who have posted in this thread X-D.) [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 09:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabirro
Gabirro has received final warning (for living person violations), but continues to edit war and ignore NPOV and general policy. Greenman (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Political prisoner page – Request for opinions on my level of involvement
It has been suggested that I should not be performing in an administrative capacity on. Slim Virgin's opinion carries a lot of weight with me, but in this case I find myself so strongly in disagreement that I’m asking for input from the crowd. This is a follow-up to a previous ANI thread. My brief summary of events prior to that thread:
 * There was a low-level edit war on Political prisoner, including reversion of sourced edits without appropriate edit summaries.
 * Even brief examination of the other material on the page shows that no clear inclusion criterion had been established.
 * The much-newer accounts were making good-faith attempts to use the talk page and were conforming to the de facto standards.
 * I first requested and then warned several editors that greater emphasis needed to be placed on collaborative discussion and less on reverting, and that they were only to revert once.
 * One editor choose not to engage in discussion with me and reverted twice more without first using the talk page.
 * I blocked that editor and opened an ANI thread here. Some discussion ensued.
 * My prolix-as-always response to the various opinions in that thread is here.
 * The block was lifted and the page fully protected.

Following on from this, I carefully considered the various advices offered. My most recent edit to the talk page of Political prisoner reflects that consideration. Which brings me to the purpose of this posting: Is there general consensus that I'm involved in this in an editorial capacity, and thus should not be acting as an administrator? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just paged through about several pages of the article history, dating back to 2009, and I don't see where you have ever edited the article in question. Where is the contention that you are involved?  How can you be involved in an article you haven't ever edited?  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaron Brenneman is involved via the talk page, you don't need to be involved via the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested and I support it that Aaron Brenneman is a long time (a couple of years nearly) returning admin who has appeared to be struggling with his admin tools and shouldn't be using his admin tools anywhere until he is up to speed as they say..personally I have watched his contributions since his return and I don't support his admin status at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bidgee Ah, yes. I just finished reviewing the talk page. Since Aaron Brenneman has expressed an opinion on which side of the dispute he favors, he should probably not have used his tools. I'll admit that the result would likely have been the same, but in the future its always best to ask for someone else to pull the trigger. As a total aside, and irrespective to this, Aaron Brenneman's interpretation of policy regarding removal of sourced edits seems in error. Per WP:BURDEN, contentious material should be removed if the source is contested. Disucssion MUST occur, don't get me wrong, but insofar as material is contested in good faith, where the quality of the source is under good-faith dispute, it is the burden of those who wish to include disputed material to establish quality sources before it is added, not the other way around. The best solution for any contested material is to leave it out while it is under discussion, rather than to leave it in. Always default to "not in the article" until such time as it is established that it belongs. If consensus develops quickly, or if quality sources are found easily, it can be quickly and easily returned. -- Jayron  32  03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity that Aaron Brenneman isn't giving the whole facts of this case, the article history only tells part of the whole saga but the article's talk page tells a lot more and the fact myself and Stepopen discussed why the sources didn't or were not reliable POV free sources to cite on what it was alleged (that Manning and Assange were political prisoners), so I did discuss but not as much as I should have (I admit that) but Aaron Brenneman's threats on my talk page was completely out of line (since he's view that the content was fine even though another Admin said it wasn't and even has the same view over the new editors [IE: SPAs]) and he should have taken it to ANI then or got a third party Admin to deal with the alleged issues.

Fact is Aaron Brenneman never even warned Cecilex yet threatens myself (twice) and Stepopen?

Aaron Brenneman fails to see what he did wrong and will not settle the fact (Also see the ANI thread over the block) he wrongfully blocked myself more then an hour after I did the undo and the fact that another editor used the rollback tool. Fact is both WP:BLOCK and WP:ADMIN policies were breached. All I have asked from Aaron is to annotate the block stating he did it in error and the it was a wrongful block and a meaningful apology. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't normally reply so quickly, preferring to let consensus build, but... Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Off2riorob - What I'm "struggling" with right now is the fact-free slag-off you've just committed. While people are certainly entitled to the opinion that I should review, can you please provide a diff that shows both A) someone suggesting that I'm not up to speed and B) policy or guideline that shows I'm not actually up to speed?  So far, every time someone says that and I go and reread the page in question (since I pretty much always read them before doing anything, eh?) I'm right.  Then when I link to pages and discussion, all goes quiet...  Just because you say something enought times doesn't make it true.
 * @Jayron32 - Can you please provide a diff where I support one side with respect to the content issue? The editting behaviour I warned and blocked for included removing material that  directly supported the newer user's statements.  This isn't a question of if the sources were good or not (they weren't) but the editting atmosphere, including ownership of articles.
 * Sure, you express opinions about the quality of sources at several points, at 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) and at Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC) for a few examples. By expressing those opinions, you clearly indicate that you think the sources are good or bad; which is taking a side.  In general, you probably shouldn't express opinions over the quality of sources, and then block those people who express different opinions than your own.  As I said, given the behavior issues it would have likely been the same result, so it would have been better to ask another admin to perform any sanctions.  This isn't a "Aaron Brenneman should be desysoped" issue, this is a "Aaron Brenneman made a little mistake, and should likely try to avoid such a mistak in the future" sort of issue.  Just try not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions.  Its better to just ask for another admin to act; if you are right in needing a block against another user, it will be backed up by a neutral admin who can pull the trigger.  -- Jayron  32  05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully, but I'm still not able to grok. I'm really sorry.  I'm looking at my edit of 01:18, 17 December 2010 right now:
 * I have some concerns regarding the removal of sourced statements without clear consensus. I would also consider this edit summary to be highly misleading:
 * The "vandalism" was a single emoticon buried in text, and
 * The "dubious and unreliab[e] sourc[e]" was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 * I am utterly gobsmacked by the suggestion that this edit makes me involved. See Arbitration/Index/Principles and Arbitration/Index/Principles, my comments of 01:18 are totally consistant with those principles.  By the "not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions" standard, how in the world are we meant to perform our duties as adminstrators? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That one edit probably not so much. The sum total of all of the talk page discussion is likely adds up to a small amount of involvement.  You can perform lots of admin actions, for example, you can merely leave a note at WP:AN asking for another admin to administer the block in question.  The issue is not in actual impropriety, it is in the appearance of impropriety.  As soon as you say "these sources are good, and these other ones are bad", as you do at several times in the discussion on the talk page, it's probably not the greatest idea to block the person who has a different opinion.  Note that this does not mean that the person should not have been blocked.  As I said several times, they should have been blocked.  Just not by you.  There's several hundred very active admins, someone else can always pull the trigger if it is obvious.  I issue blocks and protections myself all the time, but if there is ANY chance that ANYONE could say I was involved in a discussion or editing, even if its minimal, I always ask someone else to do the dirty work.  Blocks get issued, just by people who haven't already been involved in multiple, threaded discussions with the blockees over the content of the article.  -- Jayron  32  05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Must... resist. Rational... discourse... taking... effect.
 * I don't like what you're saying. Like, at all.  However it is clearly a tenable position you're putting forth.  My biggest concern with it is that we (as admistrators) are better placed to make decisions when we've been involved in the discussion. ("Involved" in the general since, not the wikipedia term of art.)  I shall stew further on this dichotomy.  Thank you for taking the time to make your meaning more clear to me. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Aaron here. The whole point of admins not using their tools in cases where they are involved is to prevent abuse due to conflicts of interest, where the admin is clearly siding with one of the parties in the dispute. However if, like Aaron, they show a remarkable capacity for staying detached from the topic, and are involved in a totally administrative capacity, I don't see how their long-term involvement in the article is not a plus, rather than a reason for them to step out when administrative decisions need to be made. If anything, an admin who has actually had been keeping track of what is going on throughout the course of the dispute will be in the best position to make blocking decisions (which, if done right, require an insanely large amount of research for lengthy disputes) and other difficult administrative choices. I don't understand the logic by saying that a person that has no idea what is going on (or a very limited idea, based on the selective truths that people present on noticeboards) should be preferred over a person who knows a lot about what is going on.
 * And by the way, I still haven't seen a single person that insinuated that he was biased, or involved in anything other than an administrative capacity, either provide a diff or apologize for making a baseless allegation. One of these two things should happen immediately. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say that the interpretation that stating that someone is a political prisoner is a BLP violation due to the term being derogatory is very creative. I see that the whole section has been removed at this point. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#902">u</b><b style="color:#801">n</b><b style="color:#701">☯</b><b style="color:#601">m</b><b style="color:#501">i</b></i> 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you mean, "creative"? It's contentious material about living persons. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, Especially derogatory ones like "political prisoner".. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#909">u</b><b style="color:#808">n</b><b style="color:#708">☯</b><b style="color:#608">m</b><b style="color:#508">i</b></i> 05:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From Courcelles's comment in User_talk:Courcelles. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aaron - Without commenting on this specific incident, I think you would have to admit that there's been a number of questions and concerns expressed about your admin actions since you returned from your break. Some of these were discussed on your talk page, and never hit AN/I, but you're obviously under increased scrutiny because of it. Don't you think it would be advisable to hold off on performing any admin actions for a while -- say a month or so -- until you're back in the swim of things? After all, Wikipedia got along without your participation while you were away, it'll survive another 4 weeks without your admin input. It would be best to just edit for a while, and monitor AN/I and AN to adjust your understanding of current Wiki-culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It has to be obvious to other editors why an admin has arrived at a page: it's usually because of a complaint on one of the boards or talk pages, or a serious BLP issue. We can't just arrive willy nilly and start telling other editors what to do. Aaron hasn't explained how he came to notice that admin assistance was needed at Political prisoner, and his initial posts on the talk page gave no indication that he wasn't there as an editor. Aaron's block of Bidgee was inappropriate for that reason; his opposition to page protection on RfPP after Bidgee requested it was odd; and his block of Bidgee thereafter odder still. That Bidgee requested admin help on RfPP suggests that he didn't see Aaron as an admin at Talk:Political prisoner, or he wouldn't have needed to go to RfPP; Aaron should have realized that meant the roles had become confused, and he should have waited for admins at RfPP to deal with it. In addition his posts since then on Bidgee's talk page here, following the AN/I discussion, have not been helpful.


 * I have concerns in general about Aaron's return as an admin after a break. He hadn't used the tools much for a couple of years, and not at all for 14 months, until September 2010 when he deleted two talk page histories, User talk:Aaron Brenneman (restored by Moonriddengirl), and User talk:152.91.9.144, though nowadays best practice is not to delete user talk pages unless there are privacy/harassment concerns. Then after a few (uncontentious) user page deletions and an article speedy deletion, his first admin action directed at another user was this sudden block of Bidgee.


 * Aaron, I think it's in your own interests to avoid using the tools until you're familiar with the changes in admin practices since you were active. Most of your adminning was in 2006-2007, when things were very different, and the notion of "involved" was more fluid than it is now. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year, everyone. Also,
 * @Jayron32 - I've had a good think about your Caesar's wife dictum on administrative behaviour. After this consideration I must, with respect, disagree.  We use "rough consensus" instead of "true consensus" in making decisions, why is that?  Because there is a large enough plurality on Wikipedia that some level of disagreement is expected, even desired.  If, as in this case, an administrator has taken the time and effort to engage in a topic (to examine the article's history, look at the contributions of the principles, read (and re-read) supporting policy and practice) then we shouldn't throw that time and effort away based upon a minority dissent.  We don't need to be totally above reproach, we simply need to do the best job that we can.  It's a much better use of time to have a good think about if someone is involved or not  as per Wikipedia:Administrators, and to get consensus that "Yes, some people on the page may not like it, but this admin has the imprimatur to warn, block, etc.  So play nice."  This also avoid the re-work necessary to get a drop-in admin up to speed on the local situation.  If that linked policy needs amending, we should take it to that policy talk page.
 * @Jrtayloriv - thank you.
 * @Beyond My Ken - First, the use of "admit" is unfortunate on your part. It strongly implies that, to date, I had been somehow denying that there was noise.  I'd direct you to my earlier response to Off2riorob.  If you have a specific case where you see that my actions are not supported by policy, please do point it out.  Barring that, the simple presence of disagreement is not sufficient evidence that I'm out of touch.  Please note that there are over 600 pages of archives for this noticeboard, so disagreeing is what we do.  The increased scrutiny that I'm being subjected to has been mostly lazy hand-waving.  Which, I am beginning to recall, was always the "wiki culture" on this board.
 * @Slim - I must begin by stating that I have tremendous respect (and no small amount of affection) for you. The manner in which you've stated your disagreement should be an example to everyone who comments on this board: Clear, with links to relevant diffs, and obviously having done the homework before commenting.  Thank you.  However, with respect to the substance of your comment, I must (for the most part) disagree.
 * My initial comment did not state I was an administrator. This has been mentioned several times as where this episode went off the rails.  In response to this, I'd like to ask a rhetorical question: Looking at my edits and then the immediate response, is that how we'd like editors to be treated?  Is it only administrators who deserve calm deliberative responses to neutral queries?  It should concern us more that this was the response from Bidgee, not less.
 * My opposition to page protection is totally sound as far as policy and practice. I'd ask everyone to actually read the protection policy, to look at the page history, and comment based on that.
 * My comments to Bidgee's page have been, at all times, calm and respectful. I've tried very hard to engage that editor in meaningful dialogue, to encourage them to use dispute resolution, to come down from the Reichstag.  That he has refused to do so reflects poorly on him, not me.
 * My deletion of my talk page and the IP talk page are not "best practice." This is, however, simply a difference of opinion.  It's not totally forbidden, it's just slightly unusual.
 * My block wasn't "sudden." The editor had been warned, both in person and on the articles' talk.  When he removed the warning from his talk, I explicitly said I would block him if he failed to keep to one revert and use the talk page first.
 * In general, I'm disheartened how easily "I don't agree with you" get supplanted by "You don't know what you're talking about." While it's important that (as members of the sysop group) we have some consensus about what constitutes "normal" behaviour, it's also important that we encourage a diversity, to avoid mono-cultural groupthink.  When there are cases raised that are outside the norm, we should be engaging in careful, considered discussions. Opinions (particularly unsupported and regurgitated ones) greatly lower the quality of these discussions.


 * I've came and asked for input, and I've received some. I'll be taking all of that input into account moving forward.  I really appreciate everyone's contribution.


 * But I'm not going to be stepping away from the tools. This is perhaps no longer appropriate a discussion for this noticeboard, but I'm happy to leave that decision to the peanut gallery.   If there are continuing concerns that anyone would like to air,  User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman would be a fine place.


 * Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardly surprising when you airily dismiss legitimate complaints from veteran editors and other admins as "lazy hand-waving". You would be better advised to stop blaming others for your errors, and realize that you are significantly out of step with current admin practices, which is what numerous people have told you, but you refuse to hear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm rather astonished, Aaron, to hear you say, "My deletion of my talk page and the IP talk page are not 'best practice.' This is, however, simply a difference of opinion.  It's not totally forbidden, it's just slightly unusual." I had already quoted the policy at your talk page: WP:CSD: "In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion." You deleted them both under U1. "they are not eligible" cannot be more clear. I was not aware that you had deleted the user talk page. I have restored it in accordance with Deletion policy: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately." As the page did not meet the criterion for speedy deletion, it could not be deleted under it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DC - compromised account?
I've seen around quite a bit, and he seemed like a great editor... until he vandalized the user pages of two editors with the comments "I'm a stupid nigger" and "I'm a twat." He then proceeded to roll back my query about the edits in question. Either DC has officially gone insane, or (more likely) his account has been compromised. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted this below, but it appears to be connected to User:Justice America, which is detailed below. Very weird. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd find it perfectly believable that DC and JA were both compromised by the person behind the VOA ; they're both caught in their autoblock. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Justice America
Similar to above, abusive editor, or compromised account? I got a profane e-mail and don't believe I've ever encountered this editor, and I can't decipher the autoblock situation on his/her talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strange, it seems to be the same message as on User talk:DC's talk page, as mentioned in the thread directly above this one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Justice America was last majorly active in November 2008, when they stood for Arbcom with this statement. Since returning in early December of this year, all of their edits are problematic. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, then I likely opposed JA at Arbcom. The only other possible connection I can see is that the DC account supported a recent RFA that I opposed after he announced that he would be away most of the week. (And there are a few curiously new accounts supporting that RFA.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the connection with User talk:CassidyQ? Justice America and DC have both gone off the bend, then tagged themselves. . Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

←I'm looking into this now. It appears that these accounts may actually be sleeper accounts. Admins, please hold off on taking any administrative action for a few. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 07:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you get it sorted, there's an RFA that will need attention. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK to make this into a sub-thread for the discussion I initiated on DC just above? They're both related somehow, and it would be a pity if these threads went into different archives (hence rendering the usage of the word "above" a paradoxical one). --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Tiptoety  talk 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Looking at 's block log, it appears he has tried to play the "compromised account" angle before. Unfortunately, he was not as smooth in covering his tracks this time. It would appear that and  are ✅ socks of . Also, Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4 appears involved somehow. I'm still thinking that  is the sockmaster. All blocked now, if someone wants to tag go for it.  Tiptoety  talk 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've sent you an e-mail; who deal with the RFA and how? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How can CassidyQ be the sockmaster when the account was created months/years after the other two? Surely either someone has compromised DC's account, or DC has gone troppo with his main account and a sock (CassidyQ)? Of course the second theory is based on DC and JA having been the same person all along. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was simply going off of the fact that CassidyQ was the only one currently blocked, so I made her the sockmaster. But, I guess if you want to get technical it would be DC. The reason I am saying the accounts are not compromised is 1) how often does an account become compromised twice, and 2) there is no technical evidence to show it has been compromised. The IPs that they have been using for a while geolocate to the same location of the IP they edited from today. Tiptoety  talk 07:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically JA would be the sockmaster since he came before DC did (JA: June 2008; DC: August 2009). --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think the "compromised" theory holds up either on what I'm seeing. DC's vandal edits had very particular targets, mainly related to WP:ITN. DC has a regular editor there for some time. Looking back through his talk page archive it seems he's had short fuse problems in the past concerning ITN, so this just seems to have been another blast, and very much a blockworthy blast at that. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note to Self: never tag, even if encouraged, unless looking into yourself first.) I'll switch the tags and remember not to tag before making sure again. JA is the puppeteer then? Doc   talk  08:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry. Tiptoety  talk 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say wait til everything shakes out to figure out who's the master. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it appears that Justice America is the oldest account. It seems DC was the good-hand account...--Bsadowski1 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tiptoey: no need to apologize: I've seen more than one "completed" SPI report that had to be corrected after the fact. I'll defer to SG and either let someone else correct the tags or wait for further developments. Doc   talk  08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't wait for me, I've had a leaky roof for two nights, and need some sleep and some time to work on more of this. I 'spose tags can be changed later if needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The other interesting question is whether DC or JA had some previous run-in or issue with Tony the Tiger or Candlewicke, which would explain the vandal edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could check their FAC/GA/DYK etc intersection, but TTT is kinda hard to avoid, so I suggest looking at Candlewicke :) I'll look into more of this after I get some rest. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

←DC's account has been compromised before, taking part in similar antics. It was put down to the account being based in a university campus dorm room, and someone else had used the account when he forgot to log off or something. I don't know if the real real DC could just be some sort of victim of a mass college revolt(?) whist returning home for New Year etc. — <font style="color:#000080;">Cargoking <font style="color:#f9f9f9;background:#000000;"> talk  12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AGF, if the user has twice managed to leave his logon unsecured in a public place, he ought not be editing here anyway; and if he does online banking, he might want to check his current balance and see if there still is one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't speak if I haven't looked in to the history but while a twice compromised account may be possible, it seems odd that this time? the person who just so happened to compromise it also happened to have a few sleeper? sockpuppets which he/she used to post the same nonsense. Were these sockpuppets used for the same nonsense when the account was compromised before? Personally I'm inclined to believe someone drinking (or smoking or whatever) too much during the new year celebrations is a more likely cause here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But because the account was based at a university campus, these other accounts could possibly be used by other people on the campus who possibly could have used DC's account, and were vandalising at the same time. (I am not trying to stick up for DC btw.) — <font style="color:#000080;">Cargoking <font style="color:#f9f9f9;background:#000000;"> talk  13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Had some sleep, may not get to all the work I have to do on this by today. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the more I think about this I just don't buy that some random passerby or cheeky college roommate made comments about two other editors. It just does not ring true. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is form between DC and TonyTheTiger here, evidence that the attack on TTT was not random. I'm struggling to find the specific connection between DC and Candlewicke, other than that they are both regulars at ITN. Unfortunately ITN's archiving system makes it difficult to find particular examples of conflicts. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DC's TTT edit really ought to be revdel'ed, IMO. That's not the kind of thing an editor should have to see in their user page history. 28bytes (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last time DC went on the rampage, or his alleged compromiser, the pages were presumably in his watchlist as they had been recently modified. This could be the same again. — <font style="color:#000080;">Cargoking <font style="color:#f9f9f9;background:#000000;"> talk  13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's related, but User:Sheodred was temp blocked in November for a very similar userpage vandalism edit, which he/she justified with the "those darn college kids" explanation. I bring this up because the above account supported DC in the recent "Irish Band" controversy at Talk:U2 and has been inactive since. The Interior (Talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cancelling all the edits - Mary Cross
User User talk:Mary Cross is trying to undo all the edits I am making to the pages Mel Odom (artist) and Gene Marshall. He/she have been also suspected doing the same on the Mdvanii page. I dont see any other reason for it other than bad will and vandalism. Please help!

Muotinukke (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Muotinukke, as the big colored box says on the edit screen, you are required to inform any editor when you discuss them here. I have notified Mary Cross for you, but don't skip that again. On the matter at hand: It takes two to edit war, and you two are in an edit war - counting reverts on all the involved pages, you are both far past WP:3RR. Reverts like this are particularly egregious. You can be blocked just for engaging in reverts like that. It seems like you two dispute the extent to which Mel Odom was the creator of a fashion doll - so go to Talk:Mel Odom (artist), talk to one another, work it out, and then make reasonable edits. You will surely both end up blocked otherwise, even assuming no administrator blocks both of you for the 3RR violation today. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have blocked both users for 24 hours for edit warring. The back-and-forth appears to be equal here, and a user should not be rewarded for edit warring merely by being the "first" to report the edit war.  If either user makes a cogent unblock request where the make clear the will stop editing the disputed articles, and use appropriate dispute resolution methods instead of edit warring, then anyone can unblock them.  -- Jayron  32  15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ionuţ Caragea
This article was:
 * Created in May 2009 by single-purpose account Nesterovici, then deleted at AfD
 * Recreated in February 2010 by single-purpose account Caragea Florina, then speedily deleted
 * Brought up for DRV in November 2010 by single-purpose account Danielconstantin, with deletion endorsed
 * Recreated now by single-purpose account Manvaxus, with speedy-deletion tags repeatedly removed by him and by sockpuppets Ledseptronic and Iamfromromania.

Will someone please end this circus by blocking the latest sockpuppets and salting the article, at least until Caragea can somehow demonstrate his notability? - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have deleted and salted and am in the process of collecting usernames for a sockpuppet report. There are several that you missed -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci disrupting the SPI process
has develooped an unconstructive mode of behaviour in connection with banned user, who has been apparently been guily of sockpuppetry on controversial Race-related article. Recently an SPI case was raised against. User:Mathsci judged this case and falsely found BT35 guilty without the formality of an investigation. He has displayed an astonishing zeal in labelling alleged socks of this user such as 124.115.214.202, 166.111.120.63, 128.40.189.186, 86.189.26.144, Frostbite Alan2, Frostbute Alan3, Frostbite Alan, In with the old, TohsTogNeroc, 86.189.18.110, Frank Dickman, 86.177.2.57, Juden Raus, Grinkagronk and Suarneduj. It is very nice of him to act as clerk for these SPI, but this is hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious to disengage from the WP:BATTLEGROUND over Race articles. It looks more like gloating over his defeated enemies to me. However, it is of more concern to see that in his amateur SPI detective role, Mathsci has actually impersonated an admin, leaving a bogus block message with a fake signature here. It seems clear that in spite of his avowed intention to disengage from these topics, he is lurking on controversial race-related pages and tagging anyone who expresses an opinion he dislikes as a racist sock of his adversary. Of course BT35 may be Mikemikev irrespective of what Mathsci chooses to think. After these facts were pointed out on the relevant SPI page by Mathsci declared the IP user a sock puppet and used that as an excuse to delete the embarassing comment. This obsession with dancing on the skull on his fallen adversary is contrary to the spirit of his assurances to Arbcomm that he will stay away from this area and disruptive to the SPI process. 212.183.140.36 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is frivolopus request by an IP which seems to be a proxy account. This is very likely to be banned user, as in the past the account was used in late May for editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. Disruptive postings of this type by Mikemikev are mentioned in the ArbCom findings. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems quite possible. Is Mikemikev banned or just indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After long enough, and enough socking, it makes little difference. -- Jayron  32  22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Site-banned for 12 months. The "impersonating an admin" charge is just barely plausible -- Mathsci signed the block notice as Maunus, but it was several minutes after Maunus had blocked the account, so it wasn't a "bogus block message". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Maunus left the message on the user page by mistake and I copied it in its entirety to the user talk page as "housekeeping". The diffs are at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes perfect sense that way. Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the diffs Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, to translate the OP, "I'm a banned user. Please pay attention to me" ? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to blocking them per WP:BOOMERANG? -- Jayron  32  22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one minds, I've taken the liberty of blocking the ip. He appears to be using several ips, so I suppose the only effect this will have is to send the message that he's still banned, and we can just keep removing his edits and blocking his ips until he gets bored and goes away, or gets old and dies.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Mathsci copied the block template (with Maunus's signature) from the user page to the user talk page. I can see why that was confusing and probably not a good idea in retrospect, but it doesn't come across as impersonation to me.  I'm all in favor of banning Mikemikev if he's not already banned. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the community ban, ArbCom site banned him for 12 months. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like he was indef blocked as a result of an AN/I discussion, then site-banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of the CC R&I arbitration. I think a permanent community ban would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. He was blocked indefinitely on August 18 by SarekOfVulcan for making a string of personal attacks (a week before WP:ARBR&I closed). Here's the ANI report ... and this is the diff on ANI  that precipitated the block. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean WP:ARBR&I not WP:ARBCC, let's not get carried away :) Just as a note, usually when reporting supsected Mikemikev sockpuppets I do so by requesting a checkuser. I have made several, some of which Mikemikev has listed above. All my checkuser requests have been confirmed and are listed on the confirmed sockpuppet page. At the moment, during the Christmas-New Year break, it seems conceivable that Mikemikev is with his family or with friends, i.e. editing elsewhere than normal. That would explain the latest set of edits. The editing style confirms the editor, if not the precise geographic location and the operating system/computer (a Christmas present?). Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, R&I, not CC, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mikemikev's also likely responsible for the disruptive edits to the articles by open proxy IPs like this one: detected here Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other edits via the Vodafone proxy 212.183.140.*** Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1:
 * 52:
 * 59:

Formal Community ban for Mikemikev
Mikemikev for Socking and Evasion of a ARBCOM site ban and is hearby banned from editing the English Wikipedia
 * Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of the user's contribution history and repeated disruption of the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (I was involved in the arbitration page, and I opposed Mikemikev's edits at the time) Racism, insulting other editors, trying to impose his personal opinions in the article, pretending repeatedly to be someone else while block-evading from an IP, inability to simply drop an issue and calm down, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support "Juden Raus"/"suarneduj" as well as other antisemitic confirmed socks, such as, indicate someone whose sole aim is to offend others and cause disruption. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I see no sign that this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support WP's wasted enough time dealing with him already. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorsed; no-one who uses up to 29 socks/IPs to evade an ArbCom ban should be welcome here, period. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Thought he was already under both a community and an arbcom ban, but if a third ban makes it easier to remember, then go for it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support though unneccessary. Could anyone see him being allowed to edit even in absense of a formal vote?  -- Jayron  32  02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord, I forgot that was what kicked the indef block off. Support like anything. He's under an Arbcom 1-year ban and an unilaterally-imposed indef block for threats of violence. Imposing a community ban would mean that he's got to convince the community that he can come back and be a useful editor -- not just a single unblocking admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I don't recall any useful edits from this user, even when they were calm. Any future presence is certain to be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Although he's already banned by ArbCom, so this isn't really adding anything new. Nevermind, I see the Arbcom ban was only for a year. Lets make this one a permaban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I once checked and I think I found one constructive edit - maybe he corrected a typo.  Any such positive edits are most certainly rare, and really droplets of water in an ocean of tendentious SP POV-pushing crap.  Post-ban he actually boasted of his mission to disrupt Wikipedia, so I would se we passed the point of no return quite some time ago. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Post-ban he actually boasted of his mission to disrupt Wikipedia" Utter lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This IP address (81.187 ...) has only ever been used by Michael Coombs; can we just go ahead and block it, or do we have to check first to make sure it is not a public computer? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I make little effort to hide my identity. Someone who spreads as much crap as you would be wise to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? What do I have to worry about? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He might sign you up for membership at a gay dwarf porn site. Unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case "Ew." Half  Shadow  01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP has already made indirect threats, since removed. He was indefinitely blocked for making a similar physical threat, even if in jest. An edit summary of the OP was just removed under RD2. I don't think "jokes" like the above help very much. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bet you're a hoot at parties, too. Someone kill a puppy in front of you or something? Half  Shadow  23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of checkuser data
I am concerned that certain users appear to have privileged access to checkuser information and that information derived from those logs has been discussed here. Please may we know how, and by whom, this information is being shared? Zarboublian (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where in this discussion do you see an indication that CheckUser information – actual content, as opposed to a description of results – was made available to someone who isn't authorized to have it? I ask, because I frankly don't see it.  What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There could be an unexpected issue of wikistalking involved here, of the kind Professor marginalia has already mentioned in a related context on the SPI report page. Occasionally wikistalking is handled off-wiki and checkusers are contacted privately. That happened with A.K.Nole and Quotient group (no longer editing) who came to an off-wiki arrangement with a member of ArbCom to stop following my edits. If that were to recommence it would be easy enough to contact a checkuser in private: in the case of persistent wikistalkers that is often the only possibility left open. An account that was started a few days after another was left aside and which showed a tendency to follow another user to sharply delineated project pages would probably result in such a report. But in the case of Mikemikev, matters are quite different as I am just one of many targets. There are no wikistalking issues involved in Mikemikev's case. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was concerned about disussion of Mikemikev's computer and operating system, which would have derived from the user agent string in the checkuser log. But I guess that Mathsci has explained why he needs special access to checkusers.  Zarboublian (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally not a good idea to talk about details of how checkuser results are derived. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Mikemikev's edits nor the techniques used by checkusers, of which I am quite ignorant, are the problem here. That problem will be dealt with in a different venue. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of that little cluster of ip's from the removed comment there is one (81.187.210.13) which has contributed to Talk:Race and intelligence and who's whois devolves to Bracknell, Berkshire, while the 212.183.140.36 addy locates to Newbury, which happens also to be in Berkshire. I am aware that there are quite a few telecom companies have hubs in the area, but the fact that two out of four (the other two use national hubs) may indicate a higher potential for the same individual to be behind all of them. Not that I am a Checkuser, or even portray one on TV... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it isn't the same person, we live in a cruel world. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
User Yobo violated the Edit War Rule and should be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&oldid=404856495  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&action=history     http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=history  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer

 * The above report is by the single-purpose editor currently disrupting articles on the topics of water fluoridation and WikiLeaks, and Yobol appears to have been properly reverting their unwanted additions. I suggest that we consider a formal community ban for the individual(s) behind this mess, since they have gone from spamming and disruption to, now, attempting retaliatory interference against an editor who reverted them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for ban. This individual (or group enlisted to help them), collectively linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips, have been a real pain and waste of our time. The list of IP hopping socks is getting longer, the DUCK behavior the same, and they exhibit zero ability to learn. We're dealing with real fanatics here. All the IPs need longer blocks. 14 days doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, let's be careful not to publicly describe exactly which of their ducklike behaviors give them away. We don't want them to improve their block evasion techniques. They have several identifying marks, but one is very unique. I've never noticed it before, and they do it often. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we start handing out rangeblocks? We've done it for less than this...  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The WP:EDITFILTER may be a better option. His tells are predictable enough for someone knowledgeable (read: NOT ME) to write an edit filter to catch him just about every time.  One-note trolls like this are easy enough to filter out.  -- Jayron  32  03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support ban. Thanks to SarekOfVulcan for the quit protection of the page; this editor has shown he/she has no intention of following Wikipedia norms. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet, with all the socks he/she's created.  This section may not get much attention with the resolved header, though. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've performed some header surgery to hopefully draw community participation here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm tired of this flouride crap going around. Revert and block on sight.  Them From  Space  00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I notice that the SPI has been closed, probably because of lack of use. Actually there is very much activity by socks. The latest: User:66.36.251.192, User:64.120.47.10, User:66.36.251.228, ad libitum. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support absolutely.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jocular Decline (read: support) - Dental fluoridosis is a major problem where I live, due to the unhealthy fluoride content in the water. And I promised to do some meatpuppeting for perfect strangers. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works, or why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support although noted the above suggestion of adding something-or-other to the editfilter if it's practical. Also, is someone very gently trolling them with today's featured picture, which is apparently formed "from the oxidation of fluorite ore deposits" ? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Spamming is not tolerated on Wkipedia. This editor has lost all of our patience and has caused enough madness to us users. With that said, enough is enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm tired of reverting the edits. As soon as one article is semi'd, they move on to another one.  ~  <font color=#009900>Matthewrbowker  <font color=#0000aa>Say hi! 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose – do you folks realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, folks, children's ice cream?!? –MuZemike 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I pretty much fail at quotes... <font color="#C50">Nakon 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! You hit the spot. This spammer fails to distinguish between science fiction and medical fact. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is pretty funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes! [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - The fluoride spammer. Really? Do we actually need a vote for this? No one is going to seriously oppose this, so end the charade, enact the "ban" and it's over. "Next!" Doc   talk  08:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not under any illusion that there will be real opposition to this. I mostly just want to dot the i's and cross the t's so that nobody has to worry about technically being liable for edit warring when they revert this guy. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - due mainly to fluoride lowering my IQ - but also because the editor in question has clearly shown that they aren't interested in furthering the aims of the Project. Shot info (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Community ban for User:Freedom5000 and his fringe POV pushing socks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Community Ban. T ofutwitch11 ''' <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alert. Now they are canvassing sysops for reinstatement! See contribs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Canvassing arbcom is more like it. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Bye Bye! Phearson (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Wikipedia needs less cranks, not more. If all you've done is promote a fringe theory that would embarass the hell out of a birther, you're not liable to contribute anything of value to Wikipedia. (Sad thing is, thanks to the Net, conspiracy theories are a 50-cent piece a grassy knoll.) — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support community ban. I strongly support this -- I've had to deal with several socks of this user in a few incidents, and it's clear that the user has no intentions of productively editing. I like how AndyTheGrump put it: "Incapable of understanding...why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across". The addition to the edit filter sounds like a good idea to me, though I lack the technical knowledge to actually do it. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * support community ban. Enough is enough when we have to have a formal community ban discussion for someone. It's simple, be a POV pusher and not follow simple rules, you're not going to be allowed to collaborate and help others build a Wikipedia. Thanks for your help though. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unarchiving discussion for purposes of formal closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can call this one. Do I have to slap my hand on the ground three times like they do in professional rasslin'?  Consider him formally banned, for whatever its worth.  -- Jayron  32  03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper
As seen here and below that entry, the user continues to stalk and harass me with rancorous retaliatory actions even though I have asked him several times to stay off my talk page and leave me alone. I reported his personal agenda before here but not one administrator tried to help us stay away from each other. Mr Kuiper needs to stop harassing me and somebody neutral needs to tell him to leave me alone. The latest twist is that he uses frivolous deletion requests as an excuse to show me that he does not respect my wishes to stay off my talk page. He is not doing anything particularly valuable or constructive for WP, just trying his damndest to irriate. Being extremely headstrong and tedious, though not very good at English or knowledgeable about older English literature, he is almost always proven wrong eventually about the issues he brings up regarding English exonyms and such, if the editors he attacks and annoys have the time and energy, and patience with his constant sarcasm and ridicule, to research them and reply. I am losing it. It is typical for him to flaunt his disrespect for others. The basic current problem is that he is blocked on Commons, where I supported his blocks this year along with several other editors, so now he has come here to cause trouble instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606
 * I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem. I find little here to make me change my mind. If the deletion requests were "frivolous", it's doubtful that the AFDs would result in a consensus to delete. That said, User:Pieter Kuiper is indeed banned on Commons for harassment of other editors, which means that we need to look at this more closely than I would normally bother with. SergeWoodzing, can you provide some evidence of actual harassment done on English Wikipedia? Not nominating articles for deletion that you wish had been kept, but actual harassment?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is not harassment to stalk people inter-wiki and then put sarcasm, ridicule, personal insults, belittlement, mud-slinging in almost every edit summary (see them from those and previous dates) and talk page comment (see them), then I am wrong in using that word. I didn't think "a good contributor" ..."usually basically right about the underlying issues" (comment below) was allowed to behave like that. Maybe I am wrong about that too? I have never behaved like that or anywhere near it, but then again I make mistakes sometimes and am perhaps not that valuable. And since I don't want Kuiper on my talk page (because he makes me literally nauseous), that makes me automatically wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Woodzing does not give diffs to support his allegations, but maybe his complaint is about things like this, where I had the audacity to question his claims of expertise? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When someone asks you to stay off his page, you should stay off his page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also for notifications according to policy? I did not know that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He claims you're using those notifications as an excuse to pester him. A compromise could be to have a separate sub-page to list those notifications, and he can decide whether to watch-list that page or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Woodzing is claiming a lot of things, but I have no problem at all with not notifying him. By the way, he likes posting invective on my talk page at Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The block reason on Commons is a gross exaggeration - I will only admit incivility. All I did was to respond to a person calling me names on my talk page with a similar vulgarity translated to Dutch. Per the usual differences in wiki-clout, I was the only one getting blocked for that exchange. So now I am editing on other wikipedias a bit more than if I could have contributed on Commons. There is no reason for these repeated complaints by Woodzing. The last one was just closed a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous ANI from last weekAdministrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658 has some diffs. Here and on Commons, the repeating pattern is that PK gets into a dispute with someone who is editing poorly with good intentions, and then takes them to task for it in a rather abusive way.  PK is smart and a good contributor, and he is usually basically right about the underlying issues, so it's mostly a civility problem and maybe to some extent a hounding problem.  I wonder if some other editors could give SW some gentler guidance than PK has been giving, so that PK can leave SW alone for a while.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please!!!!! Not even gentle is necessary, just civil, without sarcasm, ridicule, mud-slinging, assumpton of bad faith every time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at some of the previous incident reports on this noticeboard, and at Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia, it seems that a long-standing situation, resulting from something on the Swedish Wikipedia, has deteriorated to the extent that Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry "I'm being personally attacked.". SergeWoodzing is not coming across as entirely the victim in this, at this point.  Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I accused someone of "hoaxing" (which is intentional falsification as per definition) and there was no substance to the accusation of any kind, I would certainly feel like I was attacking someone personally. I hope I am not wrong in feeling that way. Falsifying WP intentionally isn't extremely despicable behavior, and wrongly accusing someone of it isn't a personal attack? What could be more detrimental to the reputation of a WP editor?
 * But then again, perhaps I am of a very old (obsolete?) school that doesn't even think the unnecessary word choice "cry", as used above, is particularly polite and constructive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper wrote that the article was a "possible hoax". If there are no written sources where this name form is used (off the Internet), I think "possible hoax" cannot be seen as a personal attack in itself. On the other hand, this situation is rather complicated. An interesting question is what rules should apply if someone asks some other person to stay off his talk page? Ulner (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is "politeness and civility", as admins have told me in the past. If someone asks me not to post on his page, and I continue to do so, that's impolite and uncivil - as is using a notification as a pretext to getting around it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some posts are mandatory on the talk page, i.e. when filing an ANI Incident, or when proposing an article for deletion. These posts should be allowed in any case I guess? The problem is that usually a content dispute is in the background, which makes it necessary to post messages on the user's talk page. Furthermore, Surtsicna and Andejons have also been told to avoid SergeWoodzing's talk page. I'm afraid I don't see any easy solution of this conflict. Ulner (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I see that Woodzing also "warned"(!) User:Sinneed to stay away from his talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors need to be civil enough to work together to be here. If there is a long standing history of harassment, then further action needs to be taken to protect the user(s) involved. If User:SergeWoodzing can provide diffs (collectively and only for here on en.wiki as we deal with issues here, not elsewhere (there are admins for elsewhere)) and can prove gross harassment, then sysop action against Pieter Kuiper needs to take place. Pieter Kuiper please be respectful of users wishes to stay off of their talk pages and not Troll users, as that is harassment. If you are indeed stalking a users contributions and following them to WP:AFD or elsewhere, that violates Wikipedia policy. We work together (please see WP:ATTACK). My hope is the two of you can resolve differences (regardless of what they are) and work together. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 18:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, several of you, very much for this! I admit to having asked a few editors to stay off my talk page before, and/or asked them to stop being belligerent and rude. Since then I have made up with one or two of them, however, and mutual respect and cooperation has been established.
 * None of the problems I have had with anyone – ever in my long life! – have come anywhere near the way Kuiper has behaved toward me. I can only naturally perceive it, after a long time of being the butt of it, as rancorous, unrelenting cruelty. The word unrelenting is key. Perhaps this discussion will inspire him to just stay away from me. Based on past experience (note: in his uncivil behavior, not in article content or work ethics), I sincerely feel that that will be the only way the problem can be solved.
 * Other than that, please also see a reply of mine above which begins “Yes, please!!!!!” Every good wish for the New Year! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New accusations such as (POV) "Woodzing just disregards..." here and (POV) "this is a WP:MADEUP name" here don't do much to inspire hope. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't someone reasonably trying to avoid confrontation just advise some other neutral editors about any possible serious content problems, rather than continuing to attack me and mention my user name detrimentally at every turn? It is my mainly reputation Kuiper wants to get at, not seroius WP contributions. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, maybe you're experienced enough by now to be able to look past Peter Kuiper's rudeness and understand the criticisms he's making of your editing. Could you try the obvious approach of simply not editing like that? That is, accept the notion that a lot of the stuff you're trying to add really is below Wikipedia's threshold of inclusion (WP:IINFO), and you should stick with stuff that has more substantial sourcing. If you're primarily interested in vocabulary translations rather than encyclopedia articles, maybe you'd be happier at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Wiktionary was a pretty slow project for a long time, but it's recently picked up a lot of steam, and is sort of a neglected sister of Wikipedia, that can always use more help. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not done any disruptive editing whatsoever that I am aware of. Adding knowledge (of mine from older English literature) without sourcing every detail is not disruptive. I have been helped (even inadvertantly by Kuiper!) in finding sources for several such items when they have been questioned.
 * Any editor with a personal agenda can go though all of another editor's contributions systematically and add a lot of accusations all over about hoaxing or made-up content to each and every item that isn't sourced, as Kuiper has done and continues to do in my case even today.
 * Such claims of Kuiper's are his own personal POV claims and lack even an ounce of substance. He is not knowledgeable about older English literature, and in addition to that, his English is quite limited.
 * I am glad to respond to any and all constructive criticism as long as it is not blatantly uncivil. You, and any other editors than Kuiper, are quite welcome to object to specific details to any of my content which may be controversial and start constructive discussions on those pages to which I will be glad to respond. Sweeping generalizations about any poor work of mine aren't going to help us forward with it. It's kind of hard to respond to that kind of criticism. I am not angry or even upset about having some of my details removed due to insufficient sourcing. When I find the sources, I will reinstate them.
 * But that is not what this is about on this page. This is about uncivil behavior, regardless of content issues. Please stick to that issue here! And we can deal with any possible mistakes I've made elsewhere, I think (?).
 * The answer to your first basic question, with respect, obviously has to be a resounding no. Why would I have started this complaint if I were willing to ignore being insulted over and over again? I didn't think one could be asked to look past rudeness while trying to find some time now and again to contribute constructively to this project. And I'm rather astonished anout being asked that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer unlinking spree
I indef-blocked when zie went of some sport of wild unlinking spree, in which the hammer removed links en masse with a disruptively long edit summary.

Per my comment on TenPoundHammer's talk, the explanation given does not add up.

unblocked TenPoundHammer specifically to allow a cleanup, and appears to have deleted the edit summaries.

I hope that TenPoundHammer will complete the cleanup as promised, but I think that a better explanation is needed about what was actually going on here. So far as I can see, the edit summaries are least of the problems ... because TenPoundHammer was engaged in some sort of mass-delinking exercise without any sign of scrutiny of what was being done. The edit summaries actually did us a favour, by drawing attention to this spree of disruptive edits. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems every single day I find links pointing to disambiguation pages. The first several that I found were all links for people who didn't have articles, so I falsely assumed they were all like that and unlinked. I've done en masse unlinks like this before and never had problems. As promised, though, I have been going back and cleaning them up. As per the other thread on me, it seems I've let Wikipedia get to my head and I'm lashing out at everyone over tiny things, and I admit my "CHECK YOUR LINKS CHECK YOUR LINKS etc" edit summary was clearly out of line. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors. I've finished all the David Porter links accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I thought, the edit summaries did us a favour ... because if this sort of blind-mass-unlinking has been done before, there will have been un-noticed damage on those occasions.
 * Your comment "never had problems" is alarming, because you appear to mean that nobody objected to you, rather than that no damage was done. What steps are you going to take to check that the links you removed in previous mass-unlinking sprees are restored?  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go back through my edit history then and see if I did do any damage. As far as I can tell, every other instance has been justifiable like the John Reid one — i.e., removal of dab-page links that were in reference to someone who didn't have an article. As I said, I restored all the David Foster links. From now on, if I use the unlink tool like this, I'll check the incoming links first to see if they should be fixed instead of removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is the wrong starting-point. They may have been links to someone who should have had an article, and you appear to have made no effort to enquire whether disambiguation might be the appropriate response, rather than unlinking. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John Reid, the songwriter, doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in the dab page. Does it really make sense to leave the link to a dab page where he isn't even mentioned? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I generally had checked before when using unlink. David Foster was a momentary lapse in judgment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm slightly confused...what exactly is the damage that has been done, if, as TPH has said, the links he de-linked were links to disambiguation pages where the particular intended link didn't have a specific article to point to? To me that would seem to be a case for de-linking, since people who click the link aren't going to be able to find the subject article they're looking for on the disambiguation page and there is no more specific article to link to than the disambiguation page. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue was that I removed some David Foster links that should have been repaired to point to a musician's article or a Naval officer's article — granted, it wasn't that disruptive since at least half the articles had a valid link and the link to the dab page anyway. As I said, this is the only time that I've ever had a misfire like this with the unlink tool. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "cleanup" is inadequate. I just started checking the David Porter links, which you said you restored .. and the first one I checked of those you had not reverted was Liquid Swords. That was an undisambiguated link to David Porter (musician).

I don't intend to examine every one of these links myself, but you have just demonstrated that as well as doing inadequate checks before using the unlink tools, your cleanup is also sloppy. Please can you just restore all the links you removed, and leave it to more careful editors to assess whether they should be removed? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links at your requests. I don't think I need to restore the John Reid links since, as I said, all of them seemed to be appropriate because they referred to a John Reid not mentioned in the dab page. If you want me to restore those anyway, then I will. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just restore them all, please, and leave them to be checked by someone who is willing/able to apply more attention to them than you have been doing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you said here that you "restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links". I hadn't noticed that there was also a David Foster unlinking spree, and assumed it was a typo ... but since you say it wasn't, I have been looking around further. In this post on Sarek's talk, you said that Foster was a one-off slip of concentration, but that's not the case, is it? There was David Porter too.

I don't like what I am seeing here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And more. Checking back further, I find this a link to John Reid, which shoukd have been dabbed to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan, but was instead unlinked. TenPoundHammer says that he has fixed the John Reid links, and that's clearly not true. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still more unfixed stuff:, , . All of them were undabbed links to John Reid should be to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan), which TenPundHammer says he had fixed.
 * As to the songwriter, there were a dozen or more links to that songwriter. What checking did TenPoundHammer do see whether a) the songwriter was one of the musicians of that name who already have an article, or b) someone else who should have an article on them?
 * Yet TenPoundhammer says the John Reid links have already been cleaned-up by him. Not true. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What are the rules about red-link article titles, or are there any? I've found many a red-link, and in effect they were an invitation to create an article. Sometimes the same subject may be red-linked in more than one place, and once you've created the article, it fills several gaps at once. By de-linking the way Hammer is doing, you would have to search more extensively to re-link them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is policy or not, but I've always thought the general consensus was that redlinks were a healthy part of encouraging growth. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * SGGH is quite right. See WP:REDLINK. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a specific policy, but I've always used the criteria that if the redlink is likely to have an article created about them, or should have an article, to leave the redlink as a reminder that an article is needed. If the subject seems unlikely to ever have an article, then de-link them. This calls for some judgment, and enough knowledge to make a crude evaluation of notability.  Automatic de-linking of redlinks is disruptive, as much, or perhaps more so, than overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like WP:REDLINK says pretty much the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
 * My other thought is that I think it's generally more helpful to unlink redlinks within an article, say, when an overzealous editor has Wikilinked all the actors in a film's cast, many of whom are generally not Wiki-notable, then it is to unlink the same Wikilink across different articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that TPH should just not be using this tool! Can anyone make it so? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in whatever is going on here, but from an outside viewer a couple questions do come to mind. First, why was an indef-block appropriate in the first place? Second, why does it appear that bad faith is being assumed here? Tuxide (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) An indef-block is not a permanent block; it is a block until until the issue is resolved. At the time of blocking it was not clear whether the account had been compromised, the editor had lost the plot, or what. As usual, once the editor had promised to claen up, the block was lifted.
 * 2) I'm not sure why it appears to you that bad faith is being assumed; it's up to you to explain why you think it looks that way. For me all I can say, is that after unblocking TPH gave several explicit assurances that he had already cleaned up several parts of the mess, and those assurances were false. I don't know whether that's bad faith on TPH's part or sloppiness, just that it doesn't add up to someone who can be trusted to clean up the mess which can be made very rapidly with automated tools. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of how big of a mess he made (nor do I care personally), but I am referring to bad faith being assumed against TenPoundHammer considering everything you said in 2. only happened in the past four hours. Tuxide (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TPH did not say "oops, this is a big mess, gimme time to sort it out". He chose to say that he had already cleaned it up, which he hadn't. So I don't see how time is relevant here: a false "I've cleaned-up" statement is false whether it;s made after 1 hour or 1 week. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that an irrelevant conclusion was made, but I disagree that the irrelevance is concerning time. Time would be relevant on the condition that it would be improbable for him to do such a thing that he claimed.  In that sense, I don't care if he claimed he did whatever after a minute if it was clearly impossible to do so.  What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence), that what people said his claim was does not necessarily represent what he meant (straw man), and that the people here choose to make a big deal about this apparently impossible claim of his anyways instead of directly addressing whatever the real issue is (red herring).  Tuxide (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have made up your mind, but your explanation makes a hugely convoluted mess out of something simple: that TPH said he cleaned up various things, when he hadn't. For example TPH wrote Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors, but I quickly found three links which had not been fixed and did not refer to a songwriter:, , . Please do some fact-checking before you accuse me of logical incoherence or making straw men. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of doing either of those things and I don't know where the hell you draw that conclusion. Especially not logical incoherence, but either way now you're misrepresenting my position.  I was just reading this discussion and the only thing I care about here is all the ad homenim slinging that's been going on in this ANI convo.  That was my initial reason for questioning the assumption of bad faith.  Content disputes and conduct disputes are two completely different types of disputes.  Tuxide (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote above "What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence)" ... and now you claim you're being misrepresented. Try to make up your mind why are repeatedly alleging ABF, and when you change your mind don't accuse others of misprepresenting you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to TenPoundHammer's claim (or your version of it) being logically incoherent; I just chose not to name individuals directly because I don't really care who said what. Tuxide (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about an editing restriction against the use of unlink? I could live with that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution, if it is technically possible. But I don't see what the restriction should be applied to only one automated tool. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have I abused any other tool? This whole discussion has been entirely over the use of unlink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TenPoundHammer does not seem to have messed up with any automated tool other than the unlinker, so I do not see any need to restrict his access to anything but that one. I've never used Twinkle myself, so I do not know if it possible to technically disable just that part of it, but even if it's not it doesn't matter. An editing restriction does not need to be any more than simply an undertaking by TPH that he won't use the unlinker on pain of serious consequences. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't think there's any need for a technical block (which may well not be possible - I don't know). I'd say a voluntary ban on using it is all that's needed. If TPH agrees not to use it, I'd be happy to take his word for it - and if he did use it again, sanctions could be considered then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I won't use it, simple as that. Consider this resolved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to go out on a limb here and say that this looks like it's a large misunderstanding. TPH does seem to have gone to left field with his unlinking spree.... but there isn't an actual rule against it. Some people just don't like red links. I believe, looking through his insane amount of contribs, he's done unlinking before. BrownHairedGirl I do want to say you were trigger happy and an indef block was inappropriate for this situation. An indef block is without expiry. It's what we use for bans, etc. no? A talk page note or warning would have been more appropriate, and if you got no response then a block should have been instated. TPH was inappropriate of doing bot like actions (mass unlinking) and he has agreed to not use them. Assume good faith, let this issue drop as the compromise seems to have been reached. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to add (albeit not as an admin) that I agree with Dusti, in that your application of an indef block to force TenPoundHammer to reply to you (which is in effect what it was doing) was very "trigger happy" as Dusti put it so well. That clearly looked like its use as a punishment, and as I've been taught as an admin elsewhere, blocks are preventative, not punitive.  A note on his talk page such as "would you mind explaining what you're doing?" rather than hitting TenPoundHammer with a Ten Pound Hammer would have been a lot more conducive towards assuming a little good faith and resolving in a slightly more peaceful manner. <font color="red" face="Arial">Barking <font color="blue" face="Arial">Fish  17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, an indef block is not without expiry, and is not the same as a ban - this indef block was used to stop an activity that was ongoing, not as punishment, and was clearly intended to be reviewed once TPH responded (which, in fact, it was). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indef blocks do not have an expiry (yes, they can be undone via Unblock) however, when left, there is no expiry. This block as used to FORCE a user to respond, when there was nothing to respond to. No attempt was made to discuss the user, nor was he sufficiently warned (not that you have to warn a user before you block them). I just think it's a gross misuse of blocking. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i *poke* 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there were attempts to use Talk pages, as the editor was on a very high volume spree of doing a number of things that people had asked him to stop (see the earlier thread, above). They weren't working and he was ignoring us and continuing. I think it was a necessary block, which was clearly not intended to be permanent. It lasted less than 20 minutes, and it looks to me as if it had the desired effect - it forced a dialog and we got a good outcome. Sorted. Time to move one. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the block as used either. TenPoundHammer was using a script to do rapid mass-unlinking, among other things, and the block as applied seemed to help. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My thoughts: 1) Ten Pound has indicated he could live with an editing restriction against the use of unlink.  Whether that can be enforced in automated fashion or not, that would seem to address a substantial portion of the problem noted.  2) One remaining issue is what is our policy (or should it be) on blue links to disambig pages, where the targeted person does not appear on the disambig page.  I don't see a clear answer from the above, but think a consensus view should be reached and communicated to Ten Pound (and the rest of the community).  And I expect that Ten Pound will be happy to follow the consensus view.  3)  I believe that indef blocks are being used more frequently the past two months, and are counter-productive when used against editors in good standing whom one can address on their talk page with a simple request along the lines of:  "would you mind not delinking any pages while we sort this out -- or would you prefer an indef block in the interim?"  While Ten Pound and I often have philosophical differences, he is a helpful editor in good standing with a keen mind who seeks to better the project--no need to blast him off of wikipedia as we are discussing an issue such as this one. 4) I thank Brown for her good work here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re 2) I'd have thought just regular linking policy - if it's a subject who would be likely to warrant an article, make it an unambiguous redlink, otherwise unlink. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The question I see on that is ... it will not appear red, and therefore will not "alert" the reader, unless the reader clicks through, and it is redlinked on the disambig page. Query whether that changes what should be done.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Craig Vincent
An IP claiming to be the subject is taking part in an edit war at this article (now up for AfD). I could block the IP as they've been warned, but am not sure that that is the best thing to do. Right now the IP is removing citation needed templates saying that as he's the source of the information they are inappropriate. I've protected for 6 hours to try to get this sorted. Although the IP is getting very hot under the collar, and an editor has put "rv v" in edit summaries, this is just a content dispute with some obvious COI. Is the best thing to do to extend the protection until the end of the AfD (which isn't normal) or just go ahead and block if the IP won't agree to stop? Maybe a couple of other voices will convince him to stop. I've tried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think SPAs should be blocked. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some advice at the article talk page but I don't think the IP is going to like it. I don't think a block is called for yet - but I agree if the behaviour continues it would be appropriate. I have said as much in what I wrote there so he has had fair warning. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was a good note. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Chiming in as a non-admin involved in the AfD ... While this is another round of ammo in my staunch belief that we need an official guideline to go along with WP:BITE that newcomers have a positive duty to become familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices, as well as the responsibility to comply with WP:CIVIL, let's not get too bitey. This is a rookie who plainly has no idea how we do things, and needs education more than a smackdown.  Heck, I'm currently participating in a RfC where the subject's incivilities rank in the hundreds, and for some reason he's still allowed to edit.   RGTraynor  11:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We've no proof of the IP's RL identification, so its claim of being Craig Vincent is a non-starter. Also, if it were Craig Vincent, it would be easily breaching COI. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a fair candidate for a WP:SNOW close to minimise drama. 2010123110008179 is informative. Guy (Help!) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer experiments creating disruption

 * (also editing as


 * Science&HiTechReviewer who claims to be using this account to experiment with Wikipedia. Now that he's edited enough to be autoconfirmed, he's become more disruptive: continuing to focus on other editors, and now edit-warring to remove tags  added to identify specific problems in the content he's previously reverted, and reverting a merging of information under dispute that includes dubious information.
 * Past ANI: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661
 * He began labeling my editing as "vandalism" with his 00:13, 30 December 2010 AN attempt. Despite the response from Trebor, he wasn't swayed, and is now throwing the label of "vandalism" to justify his edit-warring:.
 * When he first brought up the "vandalism" accusation on the article talk 14:41, 31 December 2010, he was rebutted by PrimeHunter Habap, yet he's continuing there as well:
 * Maybe we should fully protect the article while we get this settled? --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the ideal of wikipedia is to allow misinformation and disinformation to be corrected when reliable information can be demonstrated. This process is completley undermined when efforts are continuously made to correct such factual errors, and an individual keeps reverting them back into an incorrect status without proper justification or better source material. Some of us are helping on a volunteer basis to help improve the overall quality and excellence of the material presented. Sometimes, it appears that certain individuals are here to tamper with that process (in both directions), removing the impartial nature of what is trying to be accomplished. This is most unfortunate, and especially when it is happening with regards to a living person, where the utmost care needs to be taken. A number of editors on this page have been trying to help improve the quality, but this editor continually is reverting proper edits, questioning primary sources, and reverting back to inaccuracies, character slurs, and inappropriate references. These types of actions are very disruptive and counteractive to the overall process of improving the excellence of the material presented.

Vandalism occurs when someone deliberately tries to tamper with the facts relating an historical event or profiled person. This can be done by inserting improper facts, removing important contextual information, unfair juxtapositions of unrelated events giving the false impression of cause and effect, and also by revising corrected inaccuracies and errors. The term vandalism can also be applied to the unbalanced questioning of primary sources and secondary sources. There is no problem in questioning sources, but this editor is only questioning the sources of others, but not his own, even if they come from the very own source! iWhen a standard for source material is not equally applied across the board, then it becomes biased, and falls into the vandalism category, especially when such edits appear to have the impact of distributing only negative information or removing positive information (or the reverse).Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I write and give talks about misinformation and disinformation in important public forums, and sometimes I find examples of such misuse in these types of interactions, is besides the point. I would like to see the process work properly. It is my trumpet song to bring attention to these sorts of abuses. I have no problem with his making edits as long as they do not interfere with the factual content, do not promote a hidden agenda, are spiteful, and stick to what Wikipedia stands for.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding tags in which an editor has found legitimate verifiability concerns, or inconsistencies regarding verification thereof, is not vandalism. –MuZemike 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In spite of Science&HiTechReviewer's claim that he is here to experiment with Wikipedia, his contributions suggest that he is just the next in the series of pro-Naveen Jain promotional editors. There have been past complaints about this article at the COI noticeboard. A review of Talk:Naveen Jain will give a flavor of the past problems. The talk page shows that one registered user, by fixing a previous mistake, admitted he was editing from an IP belonging to the Intelius company, of which Naveen Jain is a founder. In the past, IP editors have frequently tried to remove well-sourced negative information about Jain's legal troubles. Science&HiTechReviewer's edits fall under the clause of WP:COI which provides: "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."As this section provides, a direct proof of COI is not needed if the account is clearly an SPA here on Wikipedia with the mission of promotion. If Science&HiTechReviewer continues on his campaign to insert pro-Jain material, without waiting to get support from other editors,  I think that a block for edit warring or disruptive editing might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, per WP:DUCK. Without Jimbo's confirmation, I'd assume he was just another sock/meatpuppet. He's been making very similar edits as employees of Intelius: removing the same well-sourced information, removing and dismissing the same sources, placing the same emphasis on information that is poorly sourced, providing the same arguments. I'd like to attribute this to just stubborness combined with a lack of interest in reading past discussions and doing in-depth research. Regardless, given that this is a long-disputed BLP article, some further precautions look necessary. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A new SPA, has emailed me information that suggests personal links between  and . I don't have time at the momement to investigate further, but from the looks of it, it's probably meatpupptery. I doubt if there's a good case to be made. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Science&HiTechReviewer is now up to four reverts at Naveen Jain on 31 December. In each case he claimed to be reverting vandalism. This amounts to a plain WP:3RR violation, irrespective of the promotional editing. Can anyone argue that a block should not be issued? The reverts are, , , . EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no vandalism. I see a content dispute.   Tide  rolls  00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just total crap. I have explained myself fully with regards to all my edits, which are factual only. I am not anyone's puppet. I don't have any connection to Jain or anyone else I am editing, and I don't edit my own wiki entry, which is far longer and has been up for a lot longer than Jain's. This is just the reverse being claimed here. It appears that only negative edits are being done. I think my arguments speak for themselves, and are valid as such. I have over 15 books published under my name, and countless articles, and I do believe that I know something about scholarship, and that applies to the Information Age as I give invited talks about it enough.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have my own theory of who S&HTR is (of course I mustn't post it here per OUTING) and if my guess is right, then yes, in my opinion he has a COI. In any case I think the experiment should stop, or be done much differently, as I feel it is illegitimate from a WP policy standpoint in its current form, and I find some aspects of it ethically questionable.  I actually do think S&HTR's critique of Wikipedia has a lot of validity, but he's pursuing it the wrong way, and it's especially obnoxious of him to pick an area (problematic BLP's) where we know that we suck and we've made it our top priority to improve (with considerable success so far, but a long way to go).  It would be much better for him to visit some of the more successful parts of Wikipedia; for example, by getting involved in an FA campaign.  I have some other things to do right now but I can post more on this later, and (from the viewpoint of a longtime semi-disgruntled editor) I'm willing to get into a 1-to-1 talkpage discussion with S&HTR about Wikipedia in general and how to edit successfully, if S&HTR is interested in that.  Meanwhile, Jimbo says S&HTR offered to say who he was, and I'd like to take S&HTR up on that offer, if it is still on the table.  64.62.206.2 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually turning out to be hilarious. I am happy to privately reveal my identity to anyone that wants to know. So yes, that offer is still on the table. I am not connected to the person that is the focus of this bio. That would be evident from the reveal. I am happy to point to long posted videos of me moderating distinguished panels on this subject, echoing the same arguments alongside Arianna Huffington (no, I am not associated with her either), etc. I am not in the high tech industry though I speak and write about some of its dangers. Listen to my arguments. They are not unreasonable. I am not trying to hide behind Wiki rules. This is standard scholarship stuff. There was a reason I picked a "controversial" profile. I got a couple of others I am working on too, because that is where you find things out. It isn't safe. That's how physicists work, you scratch at those areas that have issues. My training. It wasn't to cause offense, and it certainly wasnt' to be anyone's puppet. I went through a lot of trouble going through all the junk in the system to try to improve things, and see what happens. It is frustrating to see it all unravel, and revert back to the same errors. That's not progress, nor improvement. I don't like my time wasted in these ways. If good edits are made, then great. Everyone is a mixture of good and bad information, just want to make sure it is correct. It is true I haven't gone in detail through all the history on this page, and was pretty unfamiliar with the chap, but this afternoon I did, and I can see that some of this stuff has been discussed before, but why wasn't some of the errors corrected back then? The process is not working well here unfortunately. I am hopeful that this will end with a productive dialogue.Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have an idea. I can set up a free conference line, and anyone who wants to speak to me can get on, and I will happily reveal myself, and then you can google me, as long as my profile is not revealed here. This may dispel any notion that meatpuppery is going on, and the like, and that all this stuff fits squarely into the profile of what I talk and write about. I am happy to take this conversation off line, so I am willing to put up. So, who will go for it?Science&amp;HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, we've established that the edit-warring was over sourced information removed without reading the source or reading discussions about the source closely enough to notice the details. So much for accuracy and scholarship. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * S&HTR, I think your offer to self-identify privately to random WP editors is honorable, but isn't really the way we do things here. To the extent possible, on transparency grounds, we frown on that type of private, off-wiki coordination between most editors, and instead have just a few editors (specifically Checkusers, Arbcom, and Jimbo) authorized to deal with confidential info on the community's behalf.  I was really hoping you'd announce yourself here on-wiki, but the next best thing would be to email the info to arbcom-l@wikimedia.org and then an arbcom member could comment here on your possible issues, without specifically identifying you. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that S&HTR is indeed experimenting in order to produce a report about our editing, I would strongly advise him against basing the presentation around a single case--especially a case where the cover of doing ordinary editing was not able to be maintained. There are many reasons why certain subjects arouse controversy in Wikipedia, and by using any one particular article, especially a living person, one is apt to draw unrepresentative conclusions. In this case it was an article that was the subject of alternately promotional editing, and negative comment upon the validity of the person's work. If the purpose was to find how Wikipedia attains balance in such a situation, it was not necessary to probe: an examination of the existing edits would have told the story--but would tell the story only about the particular article--there will be other stories at other articles. There is perhaps a pattern, but it is the comparisons that will disclose it--an n=1 study where the identity of the editor was semi-disclosed partway through has no validity. Wikipedia is properly very sensitive about anything that might be considered a breaching experiment for such can be the excuse for any sort of disruption; at the least, it immediately raises the question of whether there were other undisclosed "experiments." And in general such probes with public sources of information, while I think often valuable, are always questioned: see Sokal affair. And S&H will have now found something else out-- people at Wikipedia  does not like overt or implicit appeals to authority or connections, or people one knows. Of course, he could have found that out also by examining the archives, either on-wiki or the various mailing lists.  DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the appeal to authority especially annoying. I find being used as an "experiment" annoying as well. The "partial reveal" of the experiment is a Schrödinger's cat to me. --Habap (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Friends, you are being trolled. I blocked Science&HiTechReviewer for tendentious and disruptive editing, and probable sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any proof of sockpuppetry? Or trolling? I'll accept their editing wasn't great, but indef seems bizarrely premature (unless you're privy to something I'm not). Trebor (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good block, I think. S&HTR's statement
 * "In fact, I am doing this all as part of an experiment for a talk I am giving next month at the World Economic Forum, Davos, on how we are rapidly transforming from an Age of Information into an Age of Misinformation and Disinformation based on this kind of shotty reporting. I have personally talked to Jimmy W. about this issue. Now, I am trying to actually play with it myself to see the results. Best to start off with controversial figures. That's where I will find out what's interesting. "
 * in combination with what followed, sounds like he really was on a disruption campaign, i.e. trolling. I'm not sure what to make of the sock theory, but it would fit the picture.  In any case, S&HTR's announced plan of editing here incognito to gather ammunition with which to attack Wikipedia in an external forum seems block-worthy to me.   As the saying goes, "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to know, S&HTR is now getting this matter handled at the "executive level", whatever that is. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, which one of you yahoos leaked the existence of the secret "every user but you" cabal to him? Whoever it was, you're docked a week's pay. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This whole story isn't new. It was kind of endorsed by Jimbo whatever that means. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential outing
User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Wikipedia. That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google. He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to wp:Oversight, don't draw further attention here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per OlEnglish here, I gave a warning about posting personal info (using uw-pinfo). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * where else would you wear your hosiery if not afoot? Maybe I shouldn't ask.  -- Jayron  32  04:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On your head? -- &oelig; &trade; 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * depends on which head...-- Jayron  32  04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - A l is o n  ❤ 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tbanks Ali, good call. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to explain your editing history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's always interesting when brand-new users pop up on AN/I and seem to know considerably more than would normally be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Him being a sock has crossed my mind. He has shown a lack of knowledge regarding process so I doubt it is a long time abuser of socks if that is the case. Not sure though. And I know this is the exact opposite of AGF but I do not believe the user when he says there was not an attempt to use my name. It was one of the only edits to my talk page and the user said he was looking me up on Google. Just seems more likely that it was a veiled jab and not the use of something like "pal" that is hardly ever used and does not show up in their vocabulary in other discussions. But as long as it doesn't happen again I am happy. Does this come across as being a bully? Don;t no and don't care as long as there are no more personal attacks from the editor.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I never said I was looking you up on google. Nor am I sock puppet. I don't see how my editing history indicates that I am one. What I think is going on is there are a small circle of editors who pretty much run things on these pages. Bully editorsDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not refactor other's comments! I provided a diff and you changed it. Completely out of line. Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Disregard. I misread the tabs open. Link is here where you say you have been googling me: Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see... He said he wasn't googling you, and he said he wasn't a sock. The part about not googling you was untrue. Any bets on the other part? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough is probably enough with his recent actions: "Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU." and blanking of the entire article. Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And he has crossed 3/rr in his second blank of the page.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 blanks of the page now. Epic meltdown. I've been in the same boat before. We do not do cool down blocks but there is certainly a level of disruption that needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours for now. Feel free to change the length either way without letting me know. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 48h sounds good. I didn't examine the person's contribs but based on reading the user talk page, I see an extremely frustrated newbie who stumbled into a crappy region of wikipedia and got into standard wiki-conflict without having the skills to engage in it.  I left some advice encouraging the person to come back after the block, but find a new area to work in. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

King09roy
Keeps making distruptive edits to Wikipedia especially on the article "2024 Summer Olympics". User:Intoronto1125 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's got a grand total of 2 visible edits to that article, which are at worst original research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of disruption, why did you redirect the 2032 Summer Olympics when there's still and AFD discussion going on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is stopping him from continuing to do so? Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From doing what? Making articles about future Olympics? Let's see what the consenus is before answering that question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He has repeatdly continued to add fake infomation about Manilla bidding for the Olympics without any source. Intoronto1125 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once on December 7 and once today is "repeatedly"? Just revert it with the edit summary saying "No source" or something like that. If it develops into a true edit war, take it to the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have discussed it with them first or at least explained what the problem was rather than this. Also I can't see where you notified them about this discussion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * but I've done that. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon jerking people around
I wish to file a report on myself for jerk-ish behavior.

Per a discussion on Jimbo's talk page I'm seeing whether people might prefer this new template as an alternative to WP:DICK, and a variant of WP:TROUT. I was going to leave it for someone else here to test it out, but that could be perceived as trolling. If any of y'all want me to call anyone a jerk, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the most nauseating-looking chicken I've ever seen. If KFC started offering it, they would likely go out of business. Which makes it the perfect replacement from the well-worn trout. The fish is cute, but who would want that wretched chicken on their screen? Should be a good deterrent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, but Jerk Chicken is tasty! Sometimes food isn't pretty, but the prettiest food isn't always the tastiest food.  -- Jayron  32  22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Jayron, and oddly enough almost cooked this for dinner tonight, but decided to go out to see Cedric Watson instead, jerk chicken for tomorrow night.  He  iro 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Blatant self promotion
is obviously an account created purely for the self-promotion of the user's Own blackeyed peas blog. To convenient that the owner of the blog calls themselves malTOTA? Said user has added his/her blog link to almost every See aslo or external links section of every Black Eyed Peas article. What concerns me most about the blog is that it hosts illegal copies of the albums and singles of the group. I think a clear block/ban is required? Indef. ? --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't tolerate linking to copyright violations like that. I'd suggest blacklisting the domain as a first step, and blocking the user as a second. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Upset troll resorting to unsourced BLP additions and genitalia edit summaries
Okay, so someone nominated an article she wrote for deletion. She nominated a couple of articles for deletion in retaliation. Now she's calling me a "cunt." And adding unsourced information to BLPs. School's back on Monday. In the meantime, she needs monitored at the very least. But probably a quick block is in order. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the cunt thing. Anyway, I want to nominate "Torc Waterfall" for deletion as I think not a few editors will find the article fails GNG and lacks reliable third party sources.  The article as it is has been unsourced for three years.  Kleopatra, however, keep reverting my AFD tags as if she/he were the sole gatekeeper of the process. Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kleopatra was in the wrong to delete AfD templates, even if placed out of revenge. There is a process for this and if followed it keeps things nice and cool. However User:Kiki Rebeouf has been abusing AfD and this edit summary is probably worth a short block. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'alls been trolled. =  =, who's probably Wiki_brah. Anyways - party on -  A l is o n  ❤ 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, fast work Alison! <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure 'nuff. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits
Would some admin mind looking at these, at this point in time, unchallenged contributions. They are perhaps a little short of outright vandalism, though they are also a little short of being remotely useful. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like constructive maintenance to me.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 0k, they need notifying. A bit of a technical subject, but I see that he created Eleginopidae with the source which says "We parsed the following live from the Web into this page. Such content is managed by its original site and not cached on Discover Life. Please send feedback and corrections directly to the source. See original regarding copyrights and terms of use." Not a good source. What other problems do you see? Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this "constructive maintenance" includes adding the same inappropriate "See also" and Category to over 40 articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Query—why was this considered so urgent that the section couldn't be put in the right place? <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► Regent ─╢ 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That question probably belongs on Epipelagic's talk page unless you want us to take Admin action on it. Meanwhile, another new article, Dentatherinidae, only says "This fish holds the IUCN red list status of: "not evaluated"." from, but a Google books search suggests something might actually have been written about it. I'll turn it into a redirect to Mercer's tusked silverside. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, explain on my talk page, TreasuryTag, your gratuitous attempt to stir shit. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cryptacanthodidae says just "These fish, according to eol.org, are also known as Wrymouths" plus a link to eol.org, but we already have Wrymouth. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 96.245.189.195
This editor has been repeatedly adding a spam link to Dysphoria despite being warned on article talk and repeatedly on user talk. I think we've been pretty patient but now might be the time for a sanction. User has been notified Anthony (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed! A spammer to the bone. Warnings haven't work, so off they go. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They're still here . Is a block really in place? VinculumMan (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * .... oh and back in Self-medication too - see VinculumMan (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They were blocked a few minutes ago. David Biddulph (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks David. VinculumMan (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Three things need to be done:


 * nativeremedies.com needs to be added to the blacklist
 * The two articles Dysphoria and Self-medication need to be semi-protected for a long time. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

POV warrior at International Sikh Youth Federation
There's an apparently strongly biased pro-Sikh editor, User:Amritsarramdas, at International Sikh Youth Federation, removing sourced negative information and rewriting it as strongly biased support for the organization. He looks to be heading for a block, but I don't know if he needs more rope yet, and I don't really have time to hang around until he reaches 4 warnings - so can someone please have a look and decide if anything needs to be done yet? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to be more "anti" than "pro-sikh" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stuck a welcome notice on their talkpage, and left some comments about consensus and neutral point of view. The article historically looks pretty much like an anti subject diatribe, and it may be that it could do with some "pro" content to ensure that it is a balanced piece. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Comments like "The bigger mission of indian government and its RAW or Research and Analysis Wing or I.B (Intelligence Bureau) is to sabotage or hijack the peaceful sikh movement for Khalistan" and "To Defame the sikhs abroad and present them as radicals was the target." seem pretty anti-govt and pro-Sikh to me, but if something balanced could come out of this, that would be great. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the user includes Amritsar in their username does not inspire confidence, but I am familiar enough with the Sikh culture to wish to try and cultivate a beneficial contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, the message you left him is excellent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP editor and improper warnings
I've noticed a problem with a user editing from the IP address 68.6.148.3 - this person seems to have problems with ownership issues, and has been issuing vandalism warnings for minor edits (that are not vandalism) to many articles that he's following. I've tried to explain why this is a problem to him, and he tried to deflect the blame with a story about his IP being shared - however, all the edits coming from his IP share the same editing and commenting patterns. I believe we may need more eyes on this editor, and possibly a block to impress upon this editor the severity of the issue. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest semi-protecting List of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's episodes (season 3) as there appears to be a dispute about some unverified air dates. In short, the air dates haven't been announced yet and the editor(s) adding them are just guessing. Not sure if the other episode lists for that series need any protection. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski/Back to the Future
The user feels there shouldn't be any mention of why Crispin Glover didn't return for the sequels. True, it is mentioned in detail on Part II, i feel there should be mention on Part I, but he continues to revert my edit, even though there is a source. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 16:21 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Content disputes should not be brought up here. However, since you're not entirely blameless, and have falsely accused me of vandalism, feel free to discuss it here, where I've filed a WP:3RR report against you, as you have violated that guideline. Good day. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a content dispute, not vandalism. And yes, both sides are edit warring. Might I suggest both sides strike their noticeboard reports and talk it to the article talk page, which as of now neither has done? Dayewalker (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv 's continued abuse
Jrtayloriv has made repeated personal insults, most notably repeatedly and groundlessly called me a "liar" on Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism. Attempts to ignore this have come to naught.Repeated attempts to get him to retract the comments or apologize have just resulted in him doubling down with the abuse, sarcasm and petulance, effectively derailing any attempt made for other whom he disagrees with to improve the article. This user has a history of bulling and disrespect toward other editors and has escalated this to the point where good faith can no longer be assumed. This editor should be blocked from this article if not Wikipedia. V7-sport (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it a bit amusing that I am being called out for personal attacks by a person who has called me "maniacal" and a "wiki-punk", says that I am making "lame attempts to assert myself" by seeking third-party mediation in our dispute, that I am trying to "censor" the article, that I am "overcompensating" by spell-checking my posts, saying that he was going to "call the waaaaaaambulance" in response to one of my complaints about his refusal to adhere to talk page guidelines, that I "like tossing my own weight around", etc. I think that given his childish and disruptive behavior, I have responded with a remarkable amount of restraint, by not responding in kind. The most he can say is that I've talked in a "condescending" tone to him, and called him a liar.


 * Initially I was very helpful to V7-sport, who came to me stating that he wanted to have the article deleted, even though he knew about the consensus in the past 9 deletion discussions that it should be kept. I told him that this wouldn't happen, and that it would be a waste of his time, and tried to explain to him how to improve the article instead (i.e by adding information from reliable sources, and making concrete suggestions for changes). He began getting disruptive, by including original research from primary documents that don't even cover the topic of the article, and by blanking the entire article. After myself and other editors repeatedly tried to explain policy to him, and received personal attacks and disruptive edits in return, I started using a less friendly tone with him, and even called him a liar after he had lied and misrepresented my statements several times.


 * I don't deny that I stated that he was lying, nor do I apologize for it. I said that he was a liar because he has clearly lied, several times, and has repeatedly misattributed views to me without retraction or apology, even after the falsehood of his statements was clearly pointed out to him (with the exception of one case where he said "I amend that"). For instance in this section, V7-sport said the following about me (1) "you are essentially arguing for this definition to be excluded on the grounds of how it may be used rather then on it's own merits for encyclopedic inclusion", (2) you and yours have not allowed one comma to be changed, (3) from the onset you left little doubt that you thought I was "wasting your time" for having an issue with this article.. These are all lies, as I have demonstrated there. He has also repeatedly misattributed views to me, such as that: (1) any disagreement or call for civility is "whining", (2) that I view other peoples editing attempts as "personal attacks", (3) that I thought that Including the Governments definition of terrorism in an article on government terrorism is "synth", amongst others, nowhere did I claim to hold these views -- he just made them up as straw men. When someone lies repeatedly, with documentation right there on the talk page, it is not a personal attack to state that they are lying. It is a statement of fact, just like saying that they included/removed a passage of text into/from the article. Maybe it sounds harsh, but it's true, and given the nature of his repeated personal attacks listed above, I'm a bit amused that he would come here whining about it. But if people here think that I should refrain from saying that he is lying when he lies, then I will do so (I'll just say things like "that's not true").


 * And also, now that he's brought up our interpersonal conflict (which would probably be more appropriate for a WP:WQA, but that's fine) maybe someone could talk to him about the personal attacks above, and get him back on track, hopefully getting him to start contributing something useful to the discussion like most of the other editors are doing, instead of continually derailing the conversation with personal issues (as well as dealing with his repeated soapboxing, refusal to provide reliable sources, and derailing of an otherwise production talk page discussion).


 * Anyhow, when not dealing with his shenanigans, myself and other editors have actually started making progress via the RFC process in rewriting one of the problematic sections. While we are having disagreements, we have been able to work together remarkably well considering our differing viewpoints. We've gathered quite a few sources, begun writing suggested revisions, and began discussing possible reorganizations of the article. V7-sport has not contributed to this, and is still obsessing over his personal problems with me, which I have repeatedly told him I'm no longer interested in discussing. I'd like him to join in, but he'll need to start focusing on finding sources that support his claims, stop making personal attacks, stop misrepresenting other users, and try to adhere to Wikipedia policy in general. It seems like he won't take that advice from people on the talk page, so hopefully someone else will be able to help him learn how to collaborate with other editors, and properly add content to articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see that this discussion should have been brought here. Writers however should attempt to respond to issues, and assume good faith, even when it seems difficult to do so.  TFD (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Best suited for WP:WQA, methinks. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * V7-sport, when you misrepresent things on a talkpage and then get called on it, it's a bit rich to come here and complain about the people pointing it out. Reading the talkpage actually suggests to me that it would be a far more collegial environment if you weren't involved in it, rather than Jtayloriv.  "Chances are excellent that you wouldn't call me a liar to my face." - hmm, real nice, but some advice - trying to act the tough guy on the Internet generally doesn't work very well here. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Stating that he was helpful from the start is untrue, as is stating that I was aware all the attempts to delete the article previously. Jrtayloriv employed a sarcastic tone which appears to be calculated to communicate exasperation that one would even question what was a fait acompli and responded to questions as if they were idiotic. "Childish and disruptive" is the term he uses above. Regardless, where he states "I don't deny that I stated that he was lying, nor do I apologize for it. I said that he was a liar because he has clearly lied, several times, and has repeatedly misattributed views to me without retraction or apology, even after the falsehood of his statements was clearly pointed out to him" this is simply untrue and I have repeatedly explained myself in the article. Indeed, I have proven that I was telling the truth. Per guidelines to not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion I will refer interested parties to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#NPOV. V7-sport (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Black_Kite, What specifically do you believe I misrepresented?  Not trying to act the tough guy, I believe it is cowardly to saying things to people on the internet that you wouldn't be saying to their faces. V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "the article is being set up to exclude US Law but include fringe polemicists like Nick Turse, who praised the columbine shooters as "revolutionaries"", yet, as Jtayloriv pointed out, the Turse article was only being used to source a quote from a military officer in Vietnam, not any opinion of Turse's. Jtayloriv called you on it and said you were being misleading, which you were. Oh, and in your next reply to him you called him "pathetic" as well. If you're going to throw the insults around yourself, I would suggest developing a slightly thicker skin.  Furthermore, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be closed, there clearly isn't any administrative action that needs taking here. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is content in that article cited to a story written by Nick Turse. That was the point I was making. Secondly the quote is not the entirety of the citation. I reject the notion that I was lying in the -strongest terms-. Thirdly, he has called me a liar repeatedly throughout this. If you are telling me that this is a free-for-all so be it. I have been trying to avoid answering him in kind but if the remedy is to develop a thicker skin then any attempt at restraint is waisted. V7-sport (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any part of the article cited to an opinion of Turse's. I see unsourced material, which probably should be tagged as such.  This is not a free-for-all, and I suggest that treating it as such would be a very poor idea.  However, it looks as though progress is being made by editors on that page now, perhaps it would be a good idea for you (and to an extent Jtayloriv) to ignore each other and concentrate on improving the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've been remarkably polite, and showed a great amount of restraint ... except when you've been telling me how "lame" and "pathetic" and "maniacal" and "wiki-punk"-ish I am. Anyway, your non-argument regarding the Turse source has already been responded to on the talk page, and there is no reason to waste time on ANI with hypocritical accusations of "personal attacks" -- that's what WP:WQA is for. If you really feel that I've got an etiquette problem with you, and that you haven't made any personal attacks, take it to WP:WQA, and have them tell you the same thing you just got told by everyone here. But what I'd recommend is that instead of obsessing over me, you start contributing to the article, by making suggestions for concrete improvements based on reliable sources, like everyone else is doing. As I've told you several times before, I am no longer going to discuss these personal issues with you on the talk page - I'd rather continue spending my time improving the article rather than bickering with you. I'd recommend, as Black Kite did, that you do the same. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re.Black Kite "Commanding officers encouraged the use of massive, indiscriminate firepower to wrack up high body counts. Louis Janowski, an adviser during Speedy Express,observed the operations and called them a form of 'non selective terrorism'".... The next citation is to the Salon article. The point being that I thought content from Turse (be it an opinion or quote) being included and and US law on terrorism excluded was wrong. Not a lie. So that's it? Get on back out there and ignore him? V7-sport (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

General problom at Talk:United States and state terrorism
There are on going problems at Talk:United States and state terrorism mostly between two users (and I am not going to seclet one as the main culperate) and. He atmosphere is getting a bit nasty now down there. I did inform the users on the talk page that if they didm nto calm down I would launch an ANI []. Example ars [] Accusation of trying to exclude content or of blocking edits (not sure what is meant by that) Accusatio of calliing othrs liers [] (which the user has done []). I would like an Admin to have a look at this situation. There are a few other issues as well but this is the main problom.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC) First user informded [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Second user informed []Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "article" is problematic, and is intrinsically an "advocacy article" as shown by the nature of the edits therein. Collect (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever probloms the artciel may have does not justify or condone the lack of respect and general agresion shown on the talk page. Moreover these are not the most seriouos allegations, I would liek an Admiin to pop by and have look.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. An uninvolved admin should identify any talk page misuse and politely remind editors, and maybe collapse off-topic bickering. The more serious issue I see is that there has been heavy advocacy editing of the article, producing a poor quality result. I started an RFC which seems to be helping.  An admin should keep an eye out for any accounts that might try to stonewall against consensus. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jrtayloriv_.27s_continued_abuse. just got brought up here], and V7-sport was told to take "lack of respect" problems to WP:WQA, which is the place for these sorts of complaints. Nothing new has happened since then, except for yet another personal attack by V7-sport (calling me a "morally preening brat"), and a continued refusal by him to contribute usefully to the article, instead of focusing on personal issues. Again, the place for this should be WP:WQA, where everyone can sort out "etiquette" problems with each other. There is no need for admin intervention at this point, because all of the other users are doing fine, and are currently working collaboratively to improve the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jrtayloriv has set himself up as guardian and arbiter of what can and cannot be included in this article. The efforts I have made to change this article have been met with scorn, stonewalling and repeated false charges that I am a liar. Probably to derail any progress. He has a history of being disrespectful with other editors here, I do not. A previous request to address this here was met with advice to "develop a thicker skin". The endless arguments, charges and poisonous atmosphere have made it exceedingly difficult to contribute, indeed, after about week of this I have not been able to make a single change to the article.
 * This article is rife with POV, it is an advocacy article that has existed as a coatrack to collect charges of supposed state terrorism, which as it turns out can be just about anything from acts of war to radio interviews. As it stands this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the process to address that has been made as unpleasant as possible. V7-sport (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual, your post is rife with unsubstantiated falsehoods (such as that I've "set myself up as a guardian and arbiter") and personal attacks (such as claiming that I'm trying to "derail any progress"). If you really wish to continue with it, take it to WP:WQA, where it belongs. But as myself and several other people have told you, it would be better if you either started contributing something to the article (based on reliable sources), or go somewhere else. And you need to stop obsessing over your personal issues with me, because I promise you that nobody is going to take seriously your complaints about me (justifiably) calling you a liar, after your repeated name-calling (saying that I'm a punk, a maniac, pathetic, hypocritical, etc. etc. etc.) and disruption. Start contributing something to the productive discussion we're having there, and stop wasting everyone's time with your childish antics. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "is rife with unsubstantiated falsehoods (such as that I've "set myself up as a guardian and arbiter" I didn't think that this was the place to substantiate them, however, you have taken the lead in defending this article, including during the previous deletion attempt where you admitted "screaming" at another editor for wasting time. And thank you for inviting me to leave wikipedia. Who the hell do you think you are? This is exactly the tone that you have taken throughout. I have no "personal issues" with you other then you have been breathtakingly arrogant, rude and sarcastic throughout this process. You are not "justified" in calling me a liar, I have shown that on the talk page. You doing so is in itself a lie. Amazing to see what you will resort to to preserve this monstrosity of an article. V7-sport (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I didn't file this, another editor did. Presumably because the page has become so toxic that others may not feel comfortable contributing. V7-sport (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone else handle you from here. I've already invested enough time trying to remedy your childish behavior, and don't feel like playing games with you here. I'm busy collaboratively working on the article along with all of the other editors. I hope that someone can convince you to do the same instead of derailing things with your personal issues. If anyone else has anything to say to me, I'll be watching. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Trying to remedy my childish behavior". Nothing arrogant and un-constructive there. And again. your insults and lies are not "personal issues", they are a part of a pattern of you being obnoxious to get your own way on various issues here. Amazing how you can just state "I promise you that nobody is going to take seriously your complaints about me (justifiably) calling you a liar". V7-sport (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Slanging match at WP:Linking
In recent days, there has been a slanging match developing at WP:Linking. Instead of attempting to calm the waters, the involved Admin has been doing his/her fair share of fanning the flames, including the reverting of collapsing off-topic rants and personal insults. Can I ask for an uninvolved admin to come around for a look? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for the revert (which I also supported) is that the rationale for an earlier comment was hidden but not the original comment. Thus the original collapse was not helpful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just informed two users who appear to be involved; you should have done so yourself. Can you provide diffs of comments which you feel are personal attacks? What action are you looking to get from filing this report? <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  09:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment As one of a number of editors who are involved in the fiasco that is the linking guideline, I would strongly endorse any and all outside intervention in this matter. I am well aware that this particular post by Ohconfucius - also one of the central parties to WP:LINKING's endless disagreements - is an utterly transparent attempt to discredit my involvement by misleadingly portraying it as that of an admin. OC is well aware that I'm acting as an editor in this respect, just as he is and just as any Wikipedia contributor is entitled to do. He knows full well that I have never, ever positioned my contributions as that of an admin with respect to the linking affair, nor have I made any suggestions that the admin bit was a factor in my contributions. However, I would hope that any admins responding to this would take it as an opportunity to review the matter in depth and offer an impartial opinion. I'm confident that the talk page will clearly demonstrate the problems at hand here. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is here. In all honesty, I find very little within the collapse template helpful and conducive to a civilised debate – in fact, there is incivility and attacks aplenty – thus I collapsed it. I never alleged that Katz abused his/her admin powers, only that as an Admin, there is a certain responsibility to act in a civil manner and to calm waters that might be over-turbulent. Ckatz abjectly failed in that respect. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a selective collapse, but I guess you'll never admit (or even see) that. Just like your previous archiving of an active talk page thread. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I admit it was selective, but it seemed to me to be the densest block of unproductive slanging on the page at the time – it may have since grown. Had I collapsed everything unproductive, the collapse templates would be dotted all over that page, including several comments from MCP and some of my fellow "jihadists" or "crusaders" [sic] (amongst others), and a large chunk of biting sarcasm from our mutual friend CKatz, so go figure. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was yet another cheap shot bad faith comment to say "I guess you'll never admit (or even see) that" -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Either I'm acting as an admin (which I've already stated I'm not) and uninvolved (which, again, I'm not) or I am involved as an editor and as such should be treated the same as you and everyone else involved. You can't have it both ways, singling one person out on the basis of the 'bit when it suits your purposes. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not acting in your capacity as an admin is no entitlement to bad behaviour. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching, not participating, but this is falling into the date delinking debacle all over again, with half the involved parties the same as the ones here. I definitely strongly recommended everyone backing away from the table and take a breather and remind ourselves how date delinking fell into an Arbcom case because of such attitudes. --M ASEM  (t) 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a perfectly reasonable request, which thanks to the cool head of the OP has now been resolved. However, for a time, there were roadblocks and ambushers along the way. I feel that one of them,, who usually behaves within 'reasonable' parameters, was way out of line on this occasion. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's funny, OC, but you were very quick to report me (and to make it out to be somehow admin-related when it is no such thing at all). Why then, did you stay silent when one of your compatriots was repeatedly (and disruptively) dredging up completely unrelated matters (such as unconnected block records, complaints, and accusations of behind-the-scenes collaboration) to sidetrack the discussions? Would it not have been better to caution him weeks ago, given that you and he are working together with regard to delinking, and thus perhaps prevent tensions from ever reaching the boiling point? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy 
 * Compatriot???? I live in China. I believe my "compatriots" [sic] live on other continents. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How does sarcasm by Ckatz (an admin who should be setting an example) further the debate? <font style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;" size="2"> GFHandel <font  style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;text-decoration:blink;" size="2">.   20:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How does arbitrarily singling out one comment for a cheap shot - while completely ignoring far more serious abuses of civility by a long-term editor - further the debate? Again, your complaints would have more meaning if you, OC, etc. had acted weeks ago to reign in your compatriot. Instead, you chose to let him carry on with disruptive, distracting comments that had no relation to the discussion. For that matter, why do you continue to espouse a condescending, "we know best" attitude and a dismissive approach to anyone who questions your position? Are you really surprised that tempers are frayed? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy   23:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ckatz, your behaviour lately at MOS:Linking (debates here and here) has been ordinary (at best). I posted a proposal to the community to which you immediately attempted to poison-the-well with a reply that did not address any part of the proposal's content. Your reply was classic assume-bad-faith as it attempted to involve the past (as opposed to addressing the issues raised). Comments such as "...you chose to let him carry on with..." indicate a lack of understanding about my role at WP. My "attitude" and "approach" are appropriate based on the realisation (now gaining momentum at MOS:Linking) that the vast majority of editors are in favour of the targeted linking being practised (the editors in article-land who are overwhelmingly happy to accept the many tens-of-thousands of edits). You are a far better Wikipedian than you are currently demonstrating, and I believe you need to back off from MOS for a while and allow people who are willing to debate the substantive issues to have a fair go. Of course I'm happy to get your input (on the topic) at any time because it is essential that the MOS is brought into line with the more mature approach to linking being accepted by the community, and your experience will help to achieve that. <font style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;" size="2"> GFHandel <font  style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;text-decoration:blink;" size="2">.   00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, but if I were to suggest the same of you (or Tony, or OC, etc.) I doubt it would be well received. Note that, despite your spurious claims of "bad-faith" editing on my part, you have completely ignored my query to you about the truly inappropriate behaviour. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it so happened that that particular discussion centred on certain actions I had taken, so naturally I needed to participate. Already there were accusations about my being on a jihad once again. There would have been a darn site more venom against me had I not responded. There were actually precious few positive or constructive comments from you or Price or NHH in that connection, and you (collectively) decided in your infinite wisdom to pile on the vitriol and rather unbecoming sacrasm. Therein lies my problem. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would endorse Masem's good advice here. When you start noticing yourself being sarcastic, usually backing off will be a good thing. --John (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And what about the repeated, dismissive attitude throughout the discussion? Over and over again, people who make the effort to voice their concerns are treated with derision and dishonesty. Responses are ignored, people are accused of being part of "the link-the-crap-out-of-everything crowd" (GregL), of collusion ("It looks very much like tag-teaming here. Are you backchannelling with each other?" (Tony1), and failing to accept the "absolute correctness" of the matter (as evidenced by GFHandel's dismissive "we should all be supporting these attempts (by hard-working and dedicated editors) to improve articles... The death of any sensible opposition to the valuable linking being performed occurred today with: A) the blind criticism of such edits and B) the emotive and irrational call to join the forces that oppose such improvements to WP." Further distractions come from the presentation of completely unrelated events to disrupt discussions, such as Tony1's "I thought you were blocked ...." response to N-HH (dragging in a two-year-old unconnected incident) and his repeated referencing of an old AN/I post against me (from a disgruntled SPA trying to use the site for self-promotion). Why are they not advised to "back off" as well? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know that I tried to counsel him in private, although the outcome is neither here nor there. The comments I collapsed included your sarcastic outburst that did you no credit whatsoever. Instead of thanking me, you now imply I'm a hippocrite – I'm deeply offended ;-)-- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC).


 * It seems to me that Ckatz perceives the pressure of imagining herself (himself?) as the last-line-of-defense minuteman—or the little Dutch boy with all the responsibility of the world on her shoulders as she plugs the leak in the dike against smart-linking. It seems an out-of-proportion, nearly single-minded focus and isn’t healthy nor good for Wikipedia. It seems it might be best if she left the issue to the others, who aren’t quite so impassioned, and gave it a rest for a bit. Greg L (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Korea
Hi, please semi-protect this article for IP editors. Thanks. <font color="green" face="Tahoma">*** in fact ***   ( contact )  12:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A 3 month block of the IP would seem like a better idea. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been more vandalism from a different IP, so I semi-protected it for a month. Its protection log is semi a week, off a week, semi a week, off a week - maybe longer-term semi-protection will make them get a new hobby. My admin actions are, as always, open for review and change with consensus, but I think this is the way to go here.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you two both. <font color="green" face="Tahoma">*** in fact ***   ( contact )  05:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User contributions of Dogs eating computers
For me, words can't easily explain the contributions of this user.
 * Racing to "Autoconfirmed" status for the following:
 * Frivolously nominating two articles for CSD and one for PROD using Twinkle
 * Moving Chevrolet to Willyrolet in addition to some others to less obscene ones
 * Vandalizing the semi-protected page Upload

The user is already blocked, but may need to be on notice. <font color="#0000FF">mechamind <font color="#009900">9 <font color="#FF0000">0 21:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * '''P.S. - Could somebody explain why I had an Edit Conflict even though I clicked "New section"?


 * What notice is needed? This is a vandalism-only account; it's blocked...goodnight. See WP:RBI. Frank  &#124;  talk  21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved? What about the IP address? Not that i want to know which IP address it is, but know what to suspect if you see "Block evasion" as the block reason in any user's log if they have similar edits. <font color="#0000FF">mechamind <font color="#009900">9 <font color="#FF0000">0 21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks, this is a sock puppet of (might as well be banned user) ; get used to his name because you all will be hearing from this person a lot. –MuZemike 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrator GTBacchus
It is quite unacceptable for administrators to abuse other editors in this way: Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just administrators but any editors are prohibited from being uncivil to each other. I wish you would both just knock it off. --John (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. I am not the one being incivil, not by any stretch of the imagination. I didn't call anyone "dishonest" or "emotionally a child". Stop circling the wagons and deal with your out of control fellow admin. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How often does incivility go without repercussions? How often are there consequences?  My sense is that usually, if not always, there no consequences, and WP:CIVIL is mostly empty words, not a prohibition of anything.   Not that I would support action in this case, unless there is a pattern of behavior I don't know about (which would surprise me with respect to GTB - don't know the other person).   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory there are no punishments here, as blocks aren't supposed to be punitive. In theory. In this case GTB has deliberately and repeatedly abused an editor he's taken a dislike to, which unless he agrees to stop is surely grounds for a block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is for requesting admin intervention. MF, are you calling for a block on GTB? I wouldn't support that. I've left a note, as you know, at his talk page. Unless this is a pattern of behavior (which I doubt) I don't think further action is called for at this point. If there is evidence of a pattern of uncivil (incivil is not a word btw) behavior, RFC/U would be the next step, much as he said to you in the comment which seems to have started this friction off. --John (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do John that I've been blocked for less than this indiscretion of GTB's. All I want to see is some consistency, some honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'd been reported here instead of GTB then I'd have been blocked and been forced to either bugger off or plead my case. But because GTB is an admin everything is sweet. Well, think again. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you have, and I'm sorry. Consistency in administering "justice" is not our strong point as a project. I'm being entirely honest when I say that other than express my sorrow that two good people have become annoyed with each other there is little I can do here. --John (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if it's OK to give me punitive five-second blocks then why not GTB? Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * History. An occasional reminder is justified as an example and perhaps "pour encourager les autres". In practical terms, it's meaningless, but where you are concerned, it might perhaps feed into an RFC/U. GTB's history is nowhere near as insidious as yours. Rodhull  andemu  01:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You really do need to think about waking up pretty soon Rod. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fully awake. However, I am also conscious that if you have a case, you aren't advancing it. I think you should examine your own position here, and if it doesn't fit in here, perhaps you should find some other website to which to contribute. Meanwhile, I'm a grapefruit, and you can't crack me, so kindly stop pushing the envelope. It's a waste of your time. Rodhull  andemu  03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You were cracked last time, though I suppose you've learned. Right, little chap? Wahoh (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Little chap? How does that help? And how does a six-month old link have any relevance to this? Come on, either make it relevant, or forget it. And it helps if you would stop patronising me. Stick to the facts, or leave it; that came to nothing, and it's still nothing. Rodhull  andemu  03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about when there is a pattern of such behavior, affecting countless editors and lasting years? There seems to be no action even then.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I recall an unbelievably vulgar, scathing attack from GTB that I got a year or two ago. MF is not exactly the king of civility either. But GTB, as an admin, needs to be above those kinds of comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Diffs are always welcome when making such statements. --John (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * April 25, 2009: I did indeed stop communicating with him, and it looks like he's still got anger issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not stop communicating with me, Bugs. You continued to bait me for at least 2 more months before I finally got you to stop harassing me on my talk page. Very convenient memory of yours; see my talk for details. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you all I remember of it, which was that vile and obscene rant of yours. If I stood up to you further after that, so be it; I'll assume your memory of it is better than mine. In any case, hopefully this is the end of it for at least another year or two or three. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That diff from 18 months ago doesn't seem very uncivil; strongly worded perhaps. We all have times when our passion for the project overwhelms us. --John (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My reaction to his vile, obscene words were a mixture of puzzlement and sadness at his extreme overreaction, the likes of which I had never gotten from a good admin. It was at that point I began to suspect that something might be wrong with him, and I've tried to avoid him since then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you do anything about it at the time, e.g. a report at WP:WQA or WP:ANI? Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere here, I almost never use WQA, especially on my own behalf. I don't recall if it was on ANI. It might have been. In any case, I put the wall up on GTB and also stopped editing political articles, in hopes of never encountering him again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't come off particularly well in that discussion. Just to jog your memory, shortly afterwards or possibly even at the time, there was a death in GTB's family. Mathsci (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then he should have stayed away from here for awhile. And what's his excuse this time, then? It's still a "look what someone else made me do" game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He did and you even comiserated with him on his return, as you can read in the diff. Wikipedia is not about bearing grudges. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All I remember about that episode is that it left a bad taste, and when he banished me from his talk page, I put the wall up. I had never, ever had an admin behave that way towards me, before or since. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just bearing a grudge, settling old scores? I have in the past asked GTBacchus to leave my user talk page, but that is almost entirely erased from my memory :) Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have brought it up except someone made the mistake of claiming today's incident was an aberration. Maybe he's been a model admin except for those two "aberrations", but I wouldn't know, as I've tried to avoid him for the last year and a half. But MF makes the point that there is a double standard here, and I'm beginning to think he's right. Admins should be above this kind of thing. Instead, they are too often allowed to hide behind it. For that reason, I think he should be immediately unblocked, so that his ongoing admin behavior can start to be documented as soon as possible, and that the RFC/U, if there eventually is one, can start sooner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's block of GTBacchus

 * Just today I blocked a non-admin for a personal attack that was arguably less severe than either of GTB's most-recent comments to Malleus so I've blocked for 12 hours, because there is no need or justification for such attacks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unblock Very poor block and the first he has had in his whole editing history. Mathsci (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is preventative rather than punitive in precisely what way? See WP:BLOCK. I don't see GTBacchus continuing, and I see no civility warnings. Ridiculous. Rodhull  andemu  01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither do I see him admitting that he fucked up, and that he won't do the same thing again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not that bad, only twelve hours, admins should be able to deal with Malleus without personally attacking him. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get this clear: Admins are not "super editors" as regards content, and were never intended to be, although arguably in practice, their knowledge of policy and guidelines is what makes them suitable for community support to have a few extra buttons in the first place. But when it comes to behavioural guidelines, they are entitled to the same courtesies as any other editor, whatever ArbCom may say. This may be a regrettable incident, but not a national disaster, and unless MF raises an RFC/U, nothing will come of it. GTBacchus has already indicated an intention not to pursue one himself, and I am reserving my position should one arise from wherever. This is a dead duck, and should be buried unless anyone wishes to make a point of one lapse of four in five years.; personally, I don't recommend doing that. Rodhull  andemu  01:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The grown-ups usually can. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to belittle your fellow editors, MF. In theory, we're all here for the same reason. I'm now in doubt. Rodhull  andemu  01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Here and below you are making the same kind of remarks for which you criticized GTBacchus. Even after 15 minutes of posting this report, you had not had the courtesy to inform GTBacchus. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unblock Respectfully, I don't see any real attack or abuse here. If anything, looks like baiting going on now... <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unblock I think HJ is a top admin, but this block only serves to silence one side over the other. Block them both, or unblock Bacchus.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "look what you made me do" game, also called "baiting", is a lame complaint for any editor to make, especially an admin. No one "makes" anyone respond a particular way - they choose to do so. Even if the block is lifted early, it's good that it occurred, as a reminder for the day, if or when, de-sysop discussions come up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point BB. The sins of the admins are hidden, but the sins of the pagans are there for all to see in their block logs. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even admins have contribution histories, and some, block logs. On a wiki, nothing is hidden unless it is RevDeleted or Oversighted, and the conditions for doing either are stringent. I hesitate to accuse of paranoia, but I'm not sure you understand editorial visibility here. As I sai below, don't push it unless you have the confidence to do so. Rodhull  andemu  02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your time trying to threaten me Rod, it never works. Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been watching this, so I am giving my two cents on this matter. CTBacchis called Malleus "dishonest, and emotionally a child". There are people who would definately be insulted by that, and Malleus may be one of them. In response to Malleus' reply to that, GTBacchis said "Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble." Totally ignorant of the fact that he probably insulted Malleus. On a side note, GTBacchus' comment to Baseball Bugs was indeed profanity-lined, strongly-worded, and may have insulted Baseball Bugs as well. What I say about all of this, is that GTBacchus should definately be quite a bit more careful when communicating with other editors. In my opinion, anything which could insult the ditor you are talking to should be classified as a personal attack. Personally, I believe that a warning to GTBacchus is probably in order, but a block might be a bit much right now. This issue could be settled right now if all three of the involved parties would just say that they are sorry to each other, forgive each other, and move on with life. Unforgiveness equals bitterness toward others. Forgiveness equals peace with others. We are all sinners. God wants us to honestly forgive each other, never do the wrong action in question again, and come to Him for His forgiveness. He wants us to go to the one(s) whom we have wronged, make it right with them, and then come to Him and ask for His ready forgiveness. This is just a classic issue where everyone could get along a lot better if they just forgave each other and moved on in life. Trust me, it works. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * God? Please don't patronise us with your personal mythology. The principles might be correct, but the reality is otherwise, and has nothing to do with the precepts which apply here, which are faith-neutral. You believe in what you want, but that doesn't apply here. Rodhull  andemu  02:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want, just cut that out to the side, and see it as "Honestly forgive each other, do not do the thing that wronged the other(s) ever again, and move on with life". That is basically what needs to be done here. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since I have already said "Personally, I believe that a warning to GTBacchus is probably in order, but a block might be a bit much right now," I guess it is time to say Unblock. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unblock per Berean Hunter. --John (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocks shouldn't be traffic violation tickets. Just because the blocker blocked for something less severe earlier today is not a good reason to block. Just because Malleus has (indeed) experienced a number of silly and unwarranted civility-blocks, doesn't mean that we have to now block GTB for being an admin who insulted Malleus. I support an unblock. The solution is to stop blocking regular contributors as a punishment for making uncivil remarks, not to block more regulars. ---Sluzzelin talk  03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unblock before the 12 hours are up, so documentation for a potential RFC/U can start sooner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kluck, kluck, kluck, kluck, kluck. You seem to have laid an egg with this one.  If you blocked somebody for something less severe, you ought to unblock them aswell.  And you ought to stop giving out blocks for incivility, full stop.  Blocking for incivility causes more ruction than it prevents; don't do it.  Save the blocks for harassment or severe personal attacks.  Gobble, gobble, gobble is childish at worst. Jehochman Talk 03:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unblocked per consensus here. Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Response
It's true that I can be pushed to the point where I freak out and yell at someone. It's happened roughly 4 times in my 5 years as an administrator. If anyone's interested, I can produce a list. Not many Wikipedians - and I've waded into some pretty hot waters - are tenaciously difficult enough and in the right way to get under my skin. I'm generally known for being easy-going and cool, I think. Malleus and Bugs are two editors who are difficult enough, and in the right ways, to upset me. That puts them in a tiny, exclusive, and oh-so-honorable club, as I'm sure they'll explain to you. It's because I have high ideals, about which I feel passionately, and someone has to actively defecate on them for upwards of ten or fifteen minutes to really push me to the line. Apparently, that's a fun sport for some people. I'm vulnerable to that kind of attack because, unlike some, I take my criticisms to heart even more dearly than the compliments that I sometimes receive. I'm not sorry. By "reporting" me for incivility, Malleus has become a fully completed hypocrite, doing precisely what he decries in others. If he did it to make a point, then I'll... reserve judgment. The point is still being played out, and we don't yet know what it will be. I have only done what Malleus advocates, and I did it to make a point: I told him off, for the purpose of "setting his hat straight", just like he stupidly tried to do to me. Was this helpful? If so, then Malleus is right. If not, then I've just made my own point by counterexample. Neat, huh? Malleus: "dishonest" is a claim about your actions and words. If you stop acting and speaking dishonestly, then nobody will call you dishonest. If you need diffs, ask. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Put your money where your mouth is kiddo. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't push it. Whereas I may not decide to block you, others might. "Tread carefully, and carry a big stick". Where's your stick? Rodhull  andemu  01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it if you think you're hard enough, let's see what others think. Unlike you I don't feel the need of a stick. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't react to threats of violence, even online, because they are meaningless. I've worked in Liverpool and Manchester, and I'm not impressed. But you do need to consider your position here, before someone else does. Rodhull  andemu  02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then bring it on Rod, let's see what support you have for your witch hunt, and from whom. It'll be interesting. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, coming from a "kiddo" I know that this is not going to end well. Please disengage, all of you. You're both grown adults; this is not a playground where you two call names all day long before the teacher needs to come along and tell you both to say your sorry. Be the bigger person and just stop baiting each other. This whole situation has gone on way to long and way to far.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">We live in a beautiful world 03:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be worth pointing out that I did not report GTB for incivility at that time, because in general I don't do that. In fact, at that point I began to suspect there was something seriously wrong with him, and have kept my distance ever since. I don't recall any admin ever coming anywhere close to that level of vileness in addressing me. So I don't think the problem is all at my end. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please feel free to pitch in with an RFC/U, which will go nowhere, and that is nothing to do with GTB as an admin. Rodhull  andemu  01:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't usually mess with RFC/U's. If an admin's behavior gets worse over time, eventually the wikipedians as a group will get fed up and banish him. And if an admin learns from his mistakes, he'll stick around. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't matter enough to you to make a point of it now, ages after the incident? If it matters, there are mechanisms here to react pretty quickly. If it doesn't matter, it may be relevant at a later date. If that time has now come to fruition, then RFC/U is a necessary preliminary to an ArbCom. But if you couldn't be arsed complaining at the time, I'd say that weakens your argument somewhat. Carpe diem, as they say. Another way of putting it is "Use it or lose it". Rodhull  andemu  02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I very seldom "run to Mommy" when someone gets obscene with me. I learned long ago that people who act crazy are best ignored. And I wouldn't have commented on this today, either, except for someone putting his foot in his mouth and claiming that today's incident was isolated. GTB probably does not have the right temperament to be an admin. But that will be up to someone else to decide, somewhere down the road. I'm just hoping it's at least another year and a half before I see his name again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a comment in the above section on HJ Mitchell's block that mentions this matter. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, very well stated. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh....this and this don't look so good. There really is no need for Arbitration here guys. Can we all just back away for 10 seconds and calm down?--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">We live in a beautiful world 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh indeed. (!) GTBacchus possibly somewhat jumping on me for a rather neutral comment, when all he has to do is admit his wrong-doing and apologize? Fortunately, I am rather thick-skinned. And Malleus and Bugs are the "very worst and most malicious editors"? I would almost think that he has already flown off the handle with his behavior in that statement. [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that "Tan39 Episode II" is about to begin. Really? Enough with the empty threats guys. GTB needs to be unblocked and both he, Malleus and everyone who posted on any of these threads needs to just simply back away.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">We live in a beautiful world 03:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. --[&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So Malleus should be allowed to continue with his chronic pattern of abuse indefinitely? I just hope that he follows through on his threat to take me to ArbCom, because it think it's high time that his own behavior receive some scrutiny, but I'm not so naïve as to think he'll do what he said he'll do. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you in full possession of your faculties? I was on the point of agreeing with White Shadows and then you come out with this shit. What the Hell are you on? Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite full. Are you going to make good on your threat to me, or was it a lie? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Our general rules regarding incivility do in fact apply to all editors. But those who have suggested above that admins have no greater obligations in this regard than non-admins are mistaken, as wp:admin makes clear. Admins have special obligations to exhibit proper behavior, and continued failures to adhere to wp:admin -- including incivility -- can lead to special sanctions being applied to admins.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's as it should be. I welcome a general scrutiny of my actions, and I hope someone can determine whether I have an anger problem, or whether I might be pointing out a very big problem with another editor. It's worth considering. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging, GT, and of course you were not one of those to whom I was referring when I wrote of the misapprehension that admins' obligations are no greater than those of other editors in this regard. I don't at this point have a view of the entire kerfuffle, having not read the back-story, but will suggest that passions appear heated in the above (whether for good reason or not).  It is possible that phrases such as "kiddo" do little to advance matters agreeably.  And, I note in passing, anyone who has spent time on wikipedia knows that there is a measure of untruth in "If you stop acting and speaking dishonestly, then nobody will call you dishonest."  I agree with White that the combatants should disengage at this point, and drop the baiting.  I disagree with him that we have any reason to know that they are, however, grown adults -- last I checked that was not a criterion for editing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wahoh
I have just blocked indefinitely; no constructive contributions at all, and poking at participants in this matter. Comments are welcome. --John (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good Block adding fuel to the fire is anything but helpful. Wahoh had troll like actions within minutes of joining.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">We live in a beautiful world 03:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just another waste of time, and a breach of WP:CLEANSTART, even if you believe him. Meanwhile this thread should be taken to RFC/U by anyone who cares, or die. We have much better things to be doing here than exchange diatribes, and the above discussion has become irrelevant to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees, there are venues for such, but this is not one of them. In short, to be blunt, those with an axe to grind should put up or shut up. I have better things to be doing, and I prefer not to engage in trivial disputation here. Rodhull  andemu  03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rodhull, what does that have to do with Wahoh's indeff block?--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">We live in a beautiful world 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * and emu: It's more of a comment on how this thread started off being useless, and has ended up being useless. MF should know better by now. The wiser amongst us know better. Rodhull  andemu  03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah...I thought that comment was directed at Wahoh's indeff block. I'll be heading off to sleep now. Hopefully this has blown over by tomorrow....--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">We live in a beautiful world 03:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rodhullandemu, is it "wiser" to keep giving Malleus a free pass for his chronically uncivil behavior? What does saying, "he should know better" accomplish, when he's vaunting above that he's above any kind of corrective action? Is that something we're proud of? When does it become a good idea to do anything about it? When he's driven away... 50 contributors? 100? How many, before we should care? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I've been here for over 3.5 years as an editor, and almost 3 years as an admin. Both can be contentious, but in general, I've found most new editors will listen to advice from experienced editors, if prepared to do so. Most of my interactions with new editors are not as an admin, but as an experienced editor, and if I template them, I will add additional explanation when I think it will help. Some will seek additional assistance, particularly as to sourcing, and the archives of my Talk page will show that I have been helpful in that regard. However, we have the problem of the new editor who will just not get it, and if they will not understand our principles and policies, sorry, I am not a junior school teacher. However, experienced editors, particularly those who have taken the trouble to produce not only Good, but also Featured articles, should not seek to rely upon that to seek immunity from other policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. To my mind, it's both or nothing, and I'm fully aware that occasionally I have, as you may have done, become frustrated with those who will just not get it. I am not pointing any fingers here, but it should be obvious who I mean. I cannot force those people to comply with an editing model that I, and, FWIW, Jimmy Wales, subscribe to. Would that I could, but I am just another janitor here. Meanwhile, MF's macho bluster (see below) is pathetically uninimpressive. Why isn't he taking another article to FA rather than waste his time here? Hmmmm? Rodhull  andemu
 * Let's see you back up your claim GTBacchus. Name even one editor I've driven away. Malleus Fatuorum 04:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You promised me an ArbCom case. Until you put up, you get nothing from me. There's nothing else to talk about. This thread can end, and you can go file the case that you - honestly? - said you would file. Empty threat? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are either of you actually accomplishing something here? I didn't think so. So how about we end this and just get back to work. We have much to do here before our deadline. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Are either of you actually accomplishing something here?" Possibly. I'm doing my best to get Malleus to file the case against me that he said he would, because that would be a much better result of this kerfluffle than for it to get pushed under the carpet. An actual result from this would be very good for the project, because it's being actively damaged by Mr. Fatuorum. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reaction is exactly as I anticipated, which is why I joined the chorus supporting unblock. Thank you for living down to my expectations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why do we not just go and open up a good RfC/U on this matter, and stop beating each other up with claims that need sources? How about someone just close this thread up now if necessary? [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 04:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If MF has a serious problem, he should file an RFC/U or withdraw unconditionally because it's clear his complaint has attracted little traction here, and he is (and perhaps not for the first time) beginning to look foolish. He claims to be the wronged party here and the ball is in his court. However, RFC/U and ArbCom exposes all behaviour to scrutiny, and whereas I am happy to subject to that, perhaps others may not. Meanwhile, closure, although a piss-poor resolution, is perhaps all we have, and leaves MF with a tad of dignity- for now. Rodhull  andemu  04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Malleus does raise a fair point. There are productive editors, usually not admins, who would get blocked (and not subsequently unblocked) for this kind of personalized and nasty comment. Malleus has experienced this himself, for less, which is why he brought it up here. There is nothing admirable about what GTB has been posting and the way he has been celebrating his "tactics". I agree it should be dropped, but it's not just a case of Malleus was wrong. And I say this as someone who supported GTB's unblock, as I find most, if not all, civility blocks of regular productive editors to be misguided. It would be a waste of ArbCom's time too. There are POV and BLP issues compromising this project. This one is a small and petty issue. Just stop blocking serious content-contributors (who happen to not be administrators) over nothing, as you yourself have done in the past, Rodhullandemu. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Put a cork in it
Do that. silly squabble between people who really should know better. If you have an ego this fragile (any of you), you shouldn't get involved in editing Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The lively debate continues off-Broadway for and friends, if anyone cares to watch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)