Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rgoodermote (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 7 January 2009 (→Myspace guys..again: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    DreamGuy. Again. (redux)

    (This looks like it was inadvertently archived by the bot while unresolved. It should probably be addressed, as failing to do so will only encourage the bad behavior to continue or - heaven forbid - allow it to blossom into yet another AE complaint.)


    Sorry, I did try to resolve this with the user without success. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is again reverting edits without discussion, and using edit summaries as platforms for personal attacks. As per this edit:

    "sick of my personal stalker following me around to undo noncontroversial edits... funny thing is then he removes one of the most notable cultural refs (successful novel series) and keeps utter dreck"

    This is despite the fact that DG has made a total of four edits to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the earliest of which was on October 6th, 2008, and three of the four are reverts. I would point out that the accusation of wiki-stalking seems unfounded, as I had begun that article over six months earlier, and have made 6x more edits to it.
    Were this the first instance of this behavior, I'd simply shrug it off as someone having a bad day. Unfortunately, this is something that happens (and keeps happening) in most of the articles that DG edits, as his user talk page (including those bits he likely finds a bit more embarrassing and removes) would seem to indicate. The user is currently under AE civility parole, which has been extended again and again, as the user is considered a net asset to the project. I submit that these benefits to the project are diminished by shutting down those other editors who grow weary of being exposed to DreamGuy's thick layer of hostility and rudeness. In the past, his incivility and personal attacks have chased away new editors. The current resurgence of uncivil and unfriendly behavior is of precisely the same sort that led to the user being placed under ArbCom behavioral restriction in the first place.
    I did attempt to address this behavior in a civil fashion on multiple occasions recently during the Annie Chapman image discussion (1, 2) before he deleted the section as "serving no point". As well, Jack the Ripper, and his usertalk page (3), where he deleted it again with yet another PA edit summary, an action which prompted my posting here. I am certainly not the first to have had unhappy interactions with DG, but I think I've done everything civilly possible to defuse the behavior he seems to reserve for anyone who doesn't share his exceptionally narrow worldview. He reverts and edit-wars without discussion, and it just keeps happening over and over again in any article he touches.
    I would remind the noticeboard (for the three or four people unaware of his status) that DreamGuy is currently under behavioral restriction by ArbCom, reinforced by AE on a few occasions (to be more civil in his dealings with others). Looking at the edit summaries of DG's contributions over the past month, I am not sure this civility parole is being followed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reviewed the contrib history of Scarlet Pimpernel, and confirm Arcayne has previously edited the article since April of last year and DreamGuy only since August. I have therefore warned DreamGuy regarding both his edit warring and inappropriate comments regarding Arcayne and suggested withdrawing from editing the article. I have not reviewed Arcayne's other concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...aaaaaand this was the response. I have left a further comment, but I suppose that it will be reverted similarly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcayne has a long history of wikistalking, so to tell me he is not is simply wrong and showing a recklessness in taking action. Furthermore it's completely inappropriate for you to just tell me not to edit the page in question. Admins don't just say that editors are not allowed to edit. Before you give lectures you need to make sure you know what's what. Inisting on putting a warning on my talk page despite knowing that I said you were misinformed isn't particularly helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcayne has a well-demonstrated history of personal conflict with me and also for wikilawyering to try to get his way, including misleading reports here and to ArbCom. Quite often he shows up here and gets some well-meaning but inexperienced admin to jump in and do whatever he wants because they do not take the time to examine the full facts. He knows he is banned from my talk page, per my instructions and warnings from several admins, so claiming he is trying "to resolve this with the user without success" by posting there is complete nonsense. He is not trying to resolve anything, he just blind reverts my edits on any article he happens to be on with misleading edit comments, often with statements to "see talk" when he didn't put anything on the talk page... in fact he quite regularly on Jack the Ripper says to "see talk" or "per talk" or claim no evidence was ever given for an action when he has deleted the discussion of the article talk page (calling it an archive, but doing so so often that current discussions go away). I would caution anyone seeing this to not fall for Arcayne's little tricks as others have in the past. Shows editors agreeing that Arcayne has been harassing me, that people complaining are trying to game the system, etc. and there is more evidence as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to withdraw after this comment - but someone who has edited an article since April 2008 cannot be "wikistalking" (isn't the term de joure "wikihounding", anyway?) an editor who started editing an article in August of the same year. Also, as far as counting back the months go, as I have been a sysop since May 2007 I am a little too long in the tooth to be termed "inexperienced". Nevermind, it doesn't seem as if you are interested in statistics where it does not suit your agenda. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be part of my "little tricks" to point out that the section DG linked to is almost year old, and he has been blocked three different times since then for the same sort of behavior which prompts this complaint? I would also point out that of the three editors thus posting to this section, only DG has been blocked - less than a year ago - for "gaming the system". Anyone who blocks him is "inexperienced"; anyone who disagrees with him is "blind-reverting". No one is saying DG is stupid - a block log as long as his suggests that he does bring something to the table here. I am pointing out that I have been accused of wikihounding in an article that - by all accounts - it could be more convincingly argued that DG began visiting the Pimpernel article less than 15 minutes after reverting an edit of mine in the Jack the Ripper article (1, 2). Do I like the user? Clearly, I don't, for reasons that are a part of the record. However, I am not being hypersensitive to the accusations of wiki-hounding, as they tend to (pardon the pun) tend to follow a user around. The disproven accusations by DreamGuy, coupled with his recurring uncivil behavior seem to communicate a need to curb the user's behavior somewhat further; the behavioral restrictions don't seem to be working as well as they would with most other folk. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some insight would be dandy here, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Allegations by DreamGuy are just that. Admins are likely to ask for proof, in the form of diffs, before imposing sanctions, or believing allegations. The first diff from Arcayne does look like a textbook assumption of bad faith, but I'm not seeing enough here, from either party, to justify sanctions. I'd really like to see both parties attempt to get along better, but that may just be my inexperience showing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DG and Arcayne are long-time antagonists, and I doubt that any resolution of their feud(s) is possible. It might be a good idea, though, to focus on article content rather than personal disputes; try getting the relevant articles into mediation or some other form of dispute resolution. If everyone participates in DR and the article improves, everyone wins (yay!). If one editor refuses to participate in dispute resolution, the subsequent course of the article usually shows who's editing constructively and who's editing disruptively. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not only Arcayne, DG remains an 'equal opportunity' incivil editor - as this edit comment shows - made while this thread is still active. DG has a significant contribution to make to wikipedia, but he really needs to rein in his impulsive urge to put down everyone he encounters (including myself). I wouldn't accuse either party of wiki-hounding - they're both very active editors; and sadly will bump into each other.
    I surmise that DG will continue to reject any attempts at mediation and dispute resolution - as he did here (where he makes a statement that "[I] as a matter of policy refuse all such filings" (it should be noted that when a suitable authority was finally brought in to determine the matter, he was in fact proved right).
    What I find infuriating is that if he did take other editors seriously then these matters would not drag on for so long and the project would be enhanced, rather than damaged. DG will continue to push the boundaries of his editing restrictions. How that's dealt with is beyond me. If he continues to ignore editing restrictions on civility, then there is only the 'big stick' left. For Arcayne, I'd advise patience - as exercised when dealing with any 'savante'; for DG, I'd counsel tolerance of other's fallibility. Kbthompson (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Stereotypes of Jews

    I need a sanity check here, and I'm clearly involved and biased. This article was recently nominated for deletion, though the nomination was just withdrawn. A list of mostly unfavorable and completely unsourced stereotypes was the main body of the article prior to some major trimming as seen here. The list was then moved to the article talk page, with the rationale that it might be useful. Do we keep random, unsourced, largely derogatory lists generated by one user on article talk pages just because they might have the potential to be useful? If I'm being reasonable by removing the list from the talk page, I'd really appreciate another administrator coming in to help. AniMatetalk 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a terrible list. And I am not sexually frustrated. LOL. Seriously, it's not sourced, it's like a random list generated from the mind of DCvoice. It's not like it's very useful. Hell, I could create a much better list, without thinking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. [1] [2] [3] [4]. He's also aware of this thread. AniMatetalk 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Toxic"? That's funny, travb. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wow, big surprise, your block log is even longer than my rich block history.
    Again, can I reopen the AfD, or create a new one? travb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Utterly irrelevant -- and ancient history. Again, this is about the project. Try to focus, Inclusionist. deeceevoice (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [unindent] Wow, reality check on aisle four, you guys. I read this, and the whole time was thinking, "seriously?" It's not just the insane amount of drama it has stirred up- which is usually wherein the problem lays (lies? I dunno no grammar, I'm just a JAP). Here, it's the "content". A list of [negative] Jewish stereotypes is utterly unencyclopedic. Ignoring for a second all the discussion on the talk page and looking solely at that list- what possible use could that be to anyone? I'm not saying this shouldn't be discussed- but it's covered fairly well... and properly cited! over at Antisemitism. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Deecee has anything but the best of intentions and sincerely wants to help the project, good faith is not a qualification for the inclusion of material. The list is bad, consensus appears to be that the list is bad, content guidelines even say the list is bad... and Deecee needs to let it go. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    zomg but ur jewish ur not neutral. But seriously; the list is pretty bad. Hence why my justification for voting deletion was "duh". Sceptre (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a young white southern Protestant American male, I find the list pretty bad. --Smashvilletalk 04:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it interesting that people are talking about "original research" and "bad" lists. I've just glanced at the list, and I saw entries such as Jewish-American princess, Shylock, Nice Jewish boy, and Jewish mother. Perhaps the people who are talking about unsourced stereotypes should expend their efforts not on edit warring over a list on a talk page but on addressing the entire articles in article space that we have on these things, and their sources. Some perspective is obviously needed. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Textbook case of WP:OTHERCRAP. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a deletion discussion and the above is not an argument about deletion. It is, however, an suggestion to gain some perspective and focus on the articles, rather than on edit warring over a talk page. Have you not paid attention to why this section was started? This is the administrators noticeboard, and editors have come here to complain about an edit war on a talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would somebody like to convince me not to just speedy delete this crap G4? I have reviewed the deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/Stereotypes_of_Jews that were deleted with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews and I am not at all convinced that this page "address[es] the reasons for which the material was deleted". --B (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    by only including links to actual articles about notable stereotypes it avoids the admitted "free association" that were the fault of the original article. As I !voted keep at the afd just now, I obviously think G4 inappropriate. DGG (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (paraphrasing my AfD comments): I can envision an academic essay easily, and an encyclopedic article without too much trouble (Shylock, South Park's Kyle, Woody Allen, Max Davidson... that's just the pop-culture crap off the top of my head) - but this article is not academic, encyclopedic, or even a useful stub. Seems to be Ms. DCV's reaction to an article on African American stereotypes - check the first edit summary, which pretty much solidifies this speculation. It wouldn't be the first time DCV has been a bit... headstrong, to put it mildly. The whole sequence of events has shades of American politics in 1984. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's not already in the article, don't forget about the horns and stripes stuff. Also, are there pages for other ethnic stereotypes? For example, the joke about Italy anytime a war breaks out: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered!" And then there's the one about the Arab tank and the Israeli tank colliding. Tell me if you've heard that one before. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So it was the 1967 war, and these two tanks collided, and the Arab jumped out and said, "I surrender!" and the Israeli stayed in his tank and cried, "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...the minister ducked. --Smashvilletalk 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jesus saves. Moses invests." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And these are all funny how? So, we can make Jewish jokes, because of what reason? Please explain. Replace the Jewish reference with "black" or "African American", everyone would have been blocked. This is insulting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to live in Alabama...my roommate introduced me to his girlfriend, his aunt and his sister...I only met one person...badumbum...I'm here all week...tip your waitresses, try the veal...--Smashvilletalk 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that the pork chops might be a better choice for this particular evening... Wink l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In all seriousness...here's the thing about this article...it reeks of the sort of thing that would be on ED. --Smashvilletalk 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So a standup comic starts a story: "Two Jews get off a bus..." A guy in the audience objects, "Hey! Why does it always have to be two Jews? Why couldn't it be two Chinese?" The standup says, "OK, two Chinese get off a bus. One turns to the other and says, 'So, tell me, Chan, how was your son's Bar Mitzvah?'" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I prematurely closed the 2nd AfD for this article. I reopened the 2nd AfD and merged the 3rd one into it, as someone suggested on my talk page, and on the 2nd AfD talk page.
    I will be very happy when this incident is all behind me, and I can return to helping serious editors save articles. travb (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale behind your closure was solid. The rationale behind turning this thread into another Baseball Bugs yukfest.... not so solid. AniMatetalk 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see there are many "Stereotypes of..." articles, and I suspect they all have sourcing problems. Good luck with all of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony of all this was that both me and Animate voted originally to keep this article, and I fought very hard to keep it.travb (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order: is Deeceevoice still on probation? The motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice was never rescinded. Sceptre (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that as well, but decided against bringing it up. These articles are all hogwash in my opinion, and getting them off Wikipedia is more important in my mind than any further sanctions against Dee. Besides, after her behavior on this and other "Stereotypes of..." articles, there will be alot more eyes on her. If issues come up again, we can worry about enforcing the ArbCom case then. AniMatetalk 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this? Ethnic_slur This is like a directory to surf through a number of articles, and a "things to do" list for more, much of which is apparently frustrating DCVoice, and all of which should give anyone pause, regardless of the "too pointy" argument.Steveozone (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban - needs outside attention

    After reading the findings in the case Sceptre linked, this kind of disruption is exactly what the case was designed to prevent. I propose as a solution, in accordance with remedy #7 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, "Deeceevoice is indefinitely banned from creating or editing "Stereotypes of ..." articles, or any similarly themed article which may be created as a successor." Deeceevoice explicitly stated his/her intention to create disruption - see [5] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites. The latter is infuriating and shows in no uncertain terms that the purpose here was to disrupt. This ban is rather light, really. Thoughts? --B (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. So, the only groups I checked were "Jews" and "White people." Interesting -- don't you think -- that at the time those were the two articles conspicuously absent from the list? deeceevoice (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support I don't think someone should be allowed to purposely upset a bunch of editors to make a WP:POINT like this. I think any and all of these types of stereotype articles should be speedily deleted if they haven't been already. Racism and bigotry should have no place here at this project. This editor seems to go out of the way to stir up drama as shown by the difs provided. I would go as far as to say an indefinite should be applied if there is any further disruption. If I remember correctly from the last ANI with this editor, s/he used their talk page for WP:Soap and ranting. I know I am very upset with all of this right now so please excuse me if I am over the top on this issue. I agree in total with the comments made by others about this and esp. with the comments made by User:Orangemarlin. He was very upset too. I was furious at the comments made when he stated he was shaking "in anger". I'm sorry but this project is more important overall then to allow this kind of hatred to be allowed anywhere. Sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support - If this editor has been enjoined from creating disruption and has done so in the guise of this article, then the editor should clearly be at least banned from creating/working on articles regarding stereotypes. I find the current article to reflect strong anti-Semitism and feel the current the article on that topic sufficient. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a total ban, given that Deeceevoice hasn't learnt from her history of disruption, but if that doesn't give, I'll be okay with a topic ban. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support In her quest for parity, dee has forgotten one of our core policies about original research. She wrote two offensive articles based on her perceptions, and edit warred to keep her observations in the encyclopedia. I actually agree with her feelings to a large degree, but the way she's handled herself isn't conducive to collegial editing. As an aside, I'm not sure this discussion is even necessary, as the remedy states that any administrator can ban dee from articles. AniMatetalk 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it is not necessary, but I still think it is a good idea for it not to be a unilateral move. --B (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seeing as I considered enacting the remedy and decided against it due to my involvement, starting this thread was probably a good idea. I'm fairly certain, however, that this is going to be seen as more systemic bias from the evil Wikipedia JewsTM. AniMatetalk 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (topic ban or long-term block / warning against disruption on such pages). The editor is deliberately provocative, and continues this behavior despite a block, ongoing dispute, arbitration case, etc. In other words, they are engaging in ongoing disruption and not being reached by normal warnings or blocks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given she was nearly fully banned a year ago, and her continued disruption here, I support a site ban. If there's not consensus for that, I certainly support a topic ban, which I think has enough consensus here for an uninvolved admin to enact. seresin ( ¡? )  07:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The list returns

    After coming off of a 24 hour block for reinstating her list onto the talk page of Stereotypes of Jews, deeceevoice's first edit was to reinstate the list, albeit with references.[6]. Some sort of action needs to be taken here. I'm quite tempted to enact the topic ban myself, but I think another longer timeout is needed as well. I'm too involved, but something needs to be done. AniMatetalk 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday's block was for 3RR, not for maintaining a list of stereotypes. DCV is trying to use the article's Talk page as a workshop to improve the article, including collecting sources, and I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    When someone repeats the same revert immediately after returning from a 3RR block, there is something wrong with that. But regardless of that, [7] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites demonstrate in no uncertain terms that Deeceevoice's purpose is to troll. --B (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a deliberately provocative move. Not only is the list unnecessary, it's offensive. I can spout a bunch of racist bullshit and then go find sources to back it up, but that's not encyclopedic. It's offensively bad original research and she needs to cut it out. AniMatetalk 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the list, with explanation. It's certainly provocative and only serves to continue any dispute / drama / disruption. I did not have an opinion until now, but at this point I think a loger-term block and/or topic ban is in order. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked for a week owing to disruption. I think a longer block should also be talked about now. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was also uninvolved till a few hours ago. Gwen and I go way back, but, unusually, I disagree with her and don't think that a longer block should be talked about now.
    I have not looked into the charges of edit warring and the like. I realize that edit warring even with "GF" (etc) is a bad thing and can merit a block. For all I know, Deecee may have warred or otherwise been disruptive to the point where the one-week block that Gwen gave her was richly deserved.
    Yet some of the allegations made against her seem wrong. In particular if the list referred to above in "Not only is the list unnecessary, it's offensive. I can spout a bunch of racist bullshit and then go find sources to back it up, but that's not encyclopedic. It's offensively bad original research and she needs to cut it out." is the list of Jewish stereotypes in a diff pointed to at least twice by Gwen on Deecee's talk page, then I strongly disagree.
    I agree that Deecee has deliberately regurgitated what can fairly be described as racist rubbish. (Philosophically, I'll limit bullshit to meaningless use. This stuff, alas, is meaningful.) I read it. It's largely sourced. This of course does not make its substantive content any more convincing. It remains mere rubbish, and the sourcing merely means that we have reason to believe that this rubbish has existed, and perhaps still exists, and may be encyclopedic.
    I think that most people here, perhaps all, will agree that racism, however repellent and/or depressing it might be, merits illumination and is encyclopedic. Well, racism comes with racist stereotypes. It's a very long time since I did (desultory) reading on the sociology of stigma, so I'm not going to pontificate on the relationship between racism and racist stereotypes. Let's just agree that there does seem to be a relationship. If there is indeed a relationship (and conceivably even if there isn't), then racist stereotypes themselves merit illumination and are encyclopedic. Of course this kind of material has to be handled with care, and Deecee may have been careless or even arrogant about it and may deserve censure for that. But the impression given by some comments both above and on Deecee's talk page that she added offensive material because she believed it, in order to offend or disrupt, or just for fun, is utterly unlike the impression that I get.
    Some sort of mediation or similar might be a good idea. (I'm not offering my services. Mediation isn't my thing, as I quickly get impatient.) Or at least some cooling off. And a few truckloads of "AGF", for both sides. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be aware, I had thought a longer block might be fitting before I had talked with her at length. I unblocked her when I began thinking her edits were made in good faith (they may have been original research with sources tacked on later, a flawed way of building content) and am not now supporting a block. I've stricken my comment made yesterday, as to talking about a longer block. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realize that you've changed your mind and that you unblocked her; thank you for this, and I appreciate the very measured word "flawed", which might be more polite than a term I'd have used. Let's keep on in this direction. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block for disruptive editing

    I count about 20 blocks on Deeceevoice that were not overturned. Per the section immediately above, I am blocking would have blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing. Enough is enough. If they want to edit again, they need to show that they are going to change their ways. These revolving door blocks have not worked to control the extensive pattern of disruption. Jehochman Talk 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gwen Gale got there first with a one week block. I'd suggest upping it to indefinite. Jehochman Talk 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support an indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the week long block, but the indef may be overkill. There's an arbitration remedy in effect that states dee can be topic banned by any administrator. Topic ban her, and let her get back to editing productively. If she chooses to break the topic ban, an indefinite block is always an option. AniMatetalk 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That case is three years old. A lot has happened since then. Modern ArbCom rulings have sanctions that last a maximum of one year because the Committee recognizes that circumstances change. Jehochman Talk 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the remedy isn't enforceable, I'm still not sure I support an indefinite block, though I certainly won't oppose either. I just hate to lose a committed editor, and some of her work outside this area seems good. Still, she's clearly on a crusade and has been for some time, and crusaders make terrible editors. Meh - I'll let other editors figure this one out. AniMatetalk 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the indefinite. The editor comes back from a 3rr block for this same list and immediately goes to the talk page and put it back is looking for drama and disruption. An indefinite looks like the only way to make this stop already, enough is enough. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support an indef. Discounting the block log and the previous arbitration case, the hoopla surrounding this article merit a long wikibreak; adding in the block log, a ban is totally appropriate. Horologium (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, and think that Horologium's term "hoopla" is telling. Yes there has been hoopla. Yes Deecee has been strident. I think (I don't claim to know) that she is angry, and I think some of the anger is a reasonable response to mischaracterization of what she has done. While I do not claim to know what's going on inside Deecee's head (or Crohnie's, or maybe even my own), I find it very hard to believe that she "is looking for drama and disruption" (Crohnie, above). So an appreciable amount of the hoopla has been drummed up by those who say they have been offended by her edits. While I don't say all have been OK or even that she shouldn't be censured, I do say that certain edits have been misrepresented. I've expanded on this in the nearby section on arbitration enforcement. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Hoary, not angry. (Why is it that everyone assumes Black women are angry? ;) Impatient/fed up with the ongoing systemic bias of the project? Most certainly. deeceevoice (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration enforcement

    Sanctions levied under an Arbcom case should be discussed here. The relevant remedy is "Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_bans_or_blocks" Those considering an indefinite ban may consider the middle ground of a year long block.--Tznkai (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have closed that thread because I think it is unfair to enforce a three year old decision. We can act as a community on the basis of the evidence before us. This matter does not seem excessively prone to disagreement. I'd support a one year block instead of indefinite, though I'd hope the editor would return sooner by undertaking not to use disruption as an editing tactic. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. One reason I went into such a long thread with her after the block is that I'd like to unblock way before the week is out, if there is any way which might be had to stop the disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked Deeceevoice. I think I made a mistake. In talking with her and reading comments on her talk page from uninvolved editors, I believe she has been editing in good faith and given this, while there has been some disruption, I don't think a block would be called for unless this thread were to resolve with that outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether she is blocked a day, a week, a year, a fortnight, or anything else, the topic ban ought to be implemented. I don't care about a block personally - I care about stopping the disruption. A topic ban at the very least is necessary for that. (A block might be too ... but that's not the problem I'm trying to solve.) --B (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is disruption at a topic from a given editor, I'd rather see a topic ban for that editor than a block. That's a general principle but it applies here too. Do we have consensus that there is disruption at this topic from this editor? Is it likely to continue? If yes and yes, then I suggest we implement a ban. If you (gentle reader) think not, please elaborate why not... ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Lar. It seems a much better idea to remove dee from the areas she disrupts than from the whole project. She's a good editor, but her crusade gets in the way far too often. AniMatetalk 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the penultimate sentence, above, should be " If yes and yes, then I suggest we implement a topic ban."... I neglected to include the word "topic" and I want to be crystal clear that I'm inquiring about that, not an outright ban. Sorry for any confusion. Plus, I got to use penultimate in a sentence! ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I stay neutral for now. I haven't looked at the general charge of disruption yet. However, a significant part of the alleged disruption seems to be the alleged dreadfulness of some of what Deecee has added. I have looked at what appears to be a particularly contentious edit (as Gwen pointed to it twice on Deecee's talk page) and disagree that it's dreadful. So I think that Deecee's behavior has been significantly and unfairly mischaracterized. See my further thoughts in the section above; I shan't repeat them here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been pig-headed revert warring in of poorly sourced (racist) material against consensus after being blocked for the same and asked many times not to do so by many different editors. I can't say that's worth a ban or extra-long term block -- since Gwen Gale unblocked she has not reverted it in yet again; blocks and bans are to prevent disruption, not to punish editors for unpopular positions. Still, we should be firm against creating this kind of drama by adding racist nonsense to the encyclopedia. This could easily be kept in a sandbox or on someone's personal computer until and unless there is sourcing. Many, many editors asked that this not be put on the talk page Wikidemon (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's been a determination to see that the normal editing process be allowed to proceed unhindered. It's already been stated by at least two admins that the removal of the list from the talk page space was improper. I was in the process of writing an explanatory intro to the list and its reappearance and asking that it be allowed to remain until I could take the matter to the AN/I, when the block was enacted. I figured that the substantial documentation I'd added and revisions in the list were sufficient such that the revised list wouldn't be regarded as merely an intolerant screed or edit warring, but, rather, an attempt to accommodate others' expressed concerns about it and providing a useful tool for others to use in the framing of the article. (If I'd thought it was edit warring, would I have shown up at the AfD and announced that I'd just reinserted it? I mean, really.) My bad, I guess, for expecting it to be received for what it was -- a further attempt to improve the list of ideas and sources for article, taking into consideration the concerns/complaints expressed about it.
    But on to a, IMO, far more important/useful matter: Just what about the list in its entirety (yes, there are some entries I haven't yet taken the time to document -- and likely won't for a while; the article isn't a main focus of mine, and I've got a seriously heavy work schedule for the next week or so) Wikidemon, is "poorly sourced"? And since when is it required to provide citations in an article talk space for the a list of suggested inclusions in an article, anyway? It's amazing to me that people are pretending that I pulled the items on that list out my a**, that they're fabrications of my imagination -- instead of part of a pattern of historic negative (or positive, in the case of flattering stereotypes -- also included in the list, I might add, as well as suggested countervailing information/sources) bias against Jews -- or characterizations perpetuated by Jews themselves (as in "the spastic Jew" -- Jerry Lewis and Howie Mandell's early stand-up routines and Michael what's-his-name's character, Kramer, on "Seinfeld." I'm asking the question about the list, Wikidemon, because I really want to know. What's your beef? deeceevoice (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've returned to say that I appreciate the time taken by Gwen Gale to discuss and reconsider her block. That was a pleasant surprise. Perhaps there's hope for the project yet. Perhaps. But I'm not even going to address the matter of sanctions. I've said everything about this I have to say here, at the AfD discussion, and in my exchange with Gale in my talk page space. deeceevoice (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks as well to those who supported the lifting of the block. deeceevoice (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor creates 100,000 or more non-notable articles!

    This editor, user:Carlossuarez46, appears to be methodically creating many tens of thousands of articles that contain minimal or no content. They are simply stubs for place names.

    Take here for example [8] - it is one of the several hundred settlements in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan that he has recently created articles for. Click onto any of the other place names listed for Lachin to see that the vast majority are empty articles containing nothing more than a single sentence. It is the same for tens of thousands of similar articles on settlements in Azerbaijan and Armenia that he has recently created. He appears to be using country gazetteers containing lists of settlements to create articles for every place-name in existence, without any thought about whether a Wikipedia article is really required for those places - the vast majority of them are (and always will be) without any notability.

    The editor mentioned is not alone in doing this, but he may be the most prolific and he appears to be going through every country in alphabetical order (he has already done all the "A"s and most of the "B"s). Is it correct that Wikipedia should become an A-Z gazetteer containing an entry for every single village or hamlet in the World? Meowy 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. spryde | talk 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If we can have entries for places like Holder, Illinois, and Bill, Wyoming, then pretty much anyplace having a structure with a roof on it is fair game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, yes. While there is no accepted notability guideline for settlements, WP:AFDP#Places agrees with Bugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bill, Wyoming: "The new development more than doubled the population to 11 people in two years". I know of single houses with more inhabitants than that, I can't get an article on 256b Acacia Avenue though. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, does this mean my garden shed is noteable!? Jtrainor (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My south terrace can be seen in the satellite view of GoogleMaps. Does that make it notable enough for a stub? Oh. Wait. I get it, there's already an article about the city in which that terrace can be found. Meanwhile, if that terrace was here and six people lived in two dwellings on either side of it, a stub about this wouldn't be so crazy at all. Whichever way the community goes on this is ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Try 2 million more like. Permastubs are the future. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Another useful link is WP:OUTCOMES, which indicates that articles about villages tend to survive AfD. Otherwise, this situation doesn't require any immediate admin intervention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Wikipedia a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Wikipedia articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be outdone, I plan to create articles on all the possible combinations of 3 letters and numbers, or 36 to the 3rd power, figuring that every one of them is likely to be an abbreviation for something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously a conspiracy to bump up the figures for unpatrolled new articles, so that they can launch phase one of the masterplan. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope he discussed it on the country- or region-specific wikiprojects or on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities. If the editors of a country want the criteria to include 100,000 places in that country, that's fine with me, but they should have the say-so, not one editor. There's WP:BOLD but if he did this on his own, he's going overboard. Have you discussed this with him? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know about that, but I don't think he did. Look at his talk page - he seems to be getting plenty of support, and other editors encouraging him to create even more articles. "Wow thats a highly impressive number of articles. Its almost like the bot is running as planned. How you generate them so quickly I have no idea but its faster than even I could do." comments one of them. About the Azerbaijan names, the same editor (User:Blofeld of SPECTRE) posted the disturbing "Well you know exactly how I feel about editors who try to get in your way. .... You can have my word that nobody is going to delete 4500 articles".
    The problem with the Azerbaijan names is that a good few thousand of them are in Nagorno Karabakh or in areas controlled by Nagorno Karabakh and so the place-names and province names in current use are often different from those that Azerbaijan has officially given them. So I'm sure those single sentence articles will be a cause of endless and pointless arguments for months. Meowy 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nagorno Karabakh is not a country - it doesn't sit at the UN - it is only recognized by Armenia - it's Meowy's real reason: anti-Azeri POV push. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The biggest bummer is that this is being done in a manual and more or less haphazard manner, with no community control over the information in the stubs. Had we allowed Fritpoll's bot to do its work, we would have much more useful examples of all of these same stubs. There is a lesson there, perhaps - when we as a community turn down a relatively reasonable request to simply allow good work to move forward, someone will later choose to do it anyway and without the same deference. Avruch T 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You have recalled it wrongly. The bot was approved, on condition of the implementaiton of a whole supporting project framework, which would ensure that rich datasets were prepared to be processed by the bot, to then allow users to create 'rich stubs' full of content. You will have to dig out the deleted versions of the project pages to see why it failed. These one line articles on Azerbaijan I am pretty sure would not have passed the notability requirements of that project, although I do recall at one point that 'two references' was mooted as the bar of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment about permastubs being the future was aces! Anyway, I am thinking that a lot of new users might not really know how to use the tools (and increasing numbers of new users tend to be those folk somewhere on the bristly side of puberty). Working on the article for your hometown might be a pretty good way to get started. Of course, creating articles for those places without a lot of internet access kinda prevents them from developing into full-blown articles, but doesn't this partly address one of the flaws of Wikipedia - that areas non web-savvy get little coverage? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but since when does an editor need the permission of anybody, WikiProject or not, to create an article? Every inhabited place in the world needs an article, as has been clearly stated over and over again, for years now. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet again, Wikipedia's flaws spin up something helpful. Time and again, the consensus has been that human settlements are notable. This is not that same thing as consensus for article creation by bots sucking stuff out of databases. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I would also say that this crapflood of contentless microstubs is in violation of Wikipedia not being a directory. Consensus has ususally been that all places are inherently notable, but consensus can change- and if I were going to WP:POINT out how silly that opinion is I'd be perpetrating this exact same flood of terrible articles. Articles of the form "Blongoville is a village in Shpadoinkleland" are useless- anyone who knows the name of a tiny village likely already knows what country it's in and would learn nothing. They accomplish nothing except diluting our content, making maintenance a nightmare, and making the random article feature a cruel joke. Reyk YO! 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There would be nothing untowards about doing a mass AfD on them, to see what happens. However, I wouldn't think it would be untowards to let them be either, text stubs are cheap and thousands of them are likely to grow sooner or later (by which I mean, many years later). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be nice if we could get rid of these somehow, but it's historically been rather difficult. I wonder, though, why we can't have a solution much as we did for schools or fictional elements which are not individually notable—a "list of places in" by administrative division. In many areas, this would be the county or its appropriate local equivalent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the stubs get minimal data from the World Gazetteer website, and another user linked the site on User_talk:Carlossuarez46 as a suggested place for that user to go. I decided to check a couple cities in China. Our Bengbu article lists a population of 3.5M, but Gazetteer gives about 600K. Our Changde lists 6M, but Gazetteer gives about 580K. Our Dongying article currently lists 1.7M, but Gazetteer gives about 310K. Our Foshan article lists 5.4M/1.1M, but Gazetteer gives about 770M. Why the consistent difference? Should we be using Gazetteer? Gimmetrow 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Off topic of this AN/I post, but in answer of above by Gimmetrow: This is probably like we're writing an article about New York City, but you're reading the population of Manhattan in the gazetteer. Many of the larger Chinese cities have a city center (Manhattan) and a number of counties (Queens). The population of the city (New York City) is huge, but the populatin of the core city (Manhattan, which many people consider to be New York City) is just a part. The populations of all of these cities is in the millions, but the core area has only a small part of that population, and may be called by the same name in English. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not exactly off-topic. It's an example of why people shouldn't be creating these stubs without input from other people and multiple sets of data to draw from to create a page of useful info. Gimmetrow 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting the stubs in a project gets input from the other editors and multiple sets of datas. That's my suggestion for improving these articles and making them accurate. --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont mind Lachin region of Azerbaijan page containing a list of the villages there. But those village names should be all or mostly RED not blue links. Blue promises the user that they will find more notable information and not merely a time wasting stub.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stubs are not a waste of time. Botany stubs provide a species name, its taxonomy, and, often, a common name, and a geographic range. This is useful information. I've worked in a garden, and this has for a long time been one of the most useful areas of Wikipedia: if there is an article, even a stub, it's a good start on the taxonomy of an organism. And there are a lot more stubs than not. --KP Botany (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Botanical terms are completely different from an endless line of place-names. Meowy 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meowy seems to have problems with creating articles. This editor he hasn't discussed anything with me but made wide ranging arguments which are basically straw men and seeking drama here. WP is best served by having articles about notable topics than having none on the topic. If you think any of the articles are on non-notable topics, nominate them for deletion. As the critics have tried this before and failed, another attempt will be viewed as WP:POINT - as the prior attempt was - and likely earn the nominator a permablock. Why doesn't Meowy go ahead and improve the stubs s/he thinks are too stubby - not just those I have created, but the tens of thousands of others. Or is this the latest Meowy effort to push his POV in the various conflicts between Armenia and its neighbors. Does s/he want me delete the hundreds or so articles on Armenian places as well? Nominate those for deletion first if you really care to go down in flames on principle rather than as a POV pusher. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You bet I want him to delete all the thousands of pointless Armenian placename article stubs, and all the hundreds of thousands of other pointless stubs his bot-editing has gleefully created. But he can't. Nor can anyone else. And nobody is going to manually nominate 100,000+ articles for deletion. That is why this editor must be stopped asap - he is doing possibly irreparable damage. Meowy 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is a human edited encyclopedia and large-scale bot editing should always need consensus even if any of the individual edits that the bot does would be perfectly fine for a human to do. Look at all the Betacommand dramas for endless examples. WP:BOLD does NOT apply to bot editing, since bots (because of their scale of editing) are much harder to revert, breaking the concept of "bold-revert-discuss". If this bot has been approved, it should be operating under a bot flag. If not, it should be blocked until consensus emerges to let it continue. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What bot are you talking about? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I'll float my perennial proposal: create a bot that deletes all articles that have only been edited by bots. If no human has ever shown an interest in the article, there's no reason to have it. I'll buy the notability argument for places to the extent that if someone has found enough data about a location to create a full article about it, I would never be inclined to take it to AFD on the grounds that it was too puny or insignificant to warrant an article. That's a long way from believing that a speck in an atlas and a line item in a census warrants creating a stub that nobody ever finds enough data to expand.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Carlossuarez46 needs to be banned from creating any new articles. Though it has been pointed out earlier that geographical places do not need to fit the notability criteria, that leeway was never intended to enable the mindless creation of millions of stubs containing nothing. Carlossuarez46 seems to be some sort of weirdo intent on attaining the record for creating the greatest number of Wikipedia articles, and he is doing it at the expense of the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. It amounts to vandalism. All edit should be done with the aim of improving Wikipedia. He is making a joke out of Wikipedia! Meowy 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There will always be people who contribute to the encyclopedia in a way you disagree with. You will not accomplish anything by calling them crazed weirdo vandals who need to be banned, and you will particularly not win anyone over to your side. rspεεr (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you disregard the incivility, Meowy is right though. These contentless microstubs do drag down the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. Behaviour that hurts the project, whether it's done in good faith or not, needs to be stopped. With a big fat banhammer in the case of persistent deliberate vandalism; with kind words and politeness in cases like these. Reyk YO! 09:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an astonishingly bad idea. You have claimed this editor is causing "possibly irreparable damage", that they "must be stopped", that they're a "mindless" and "gleeful" vandal... and now you're asking they be banned from creating articles. All this is basically over a content dispute? This sort of thing is really not appropriate behaviour and we will not start sanctioning people just because you don't like their legitimate and good-faith contributions. Shimgray | talk | 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Shimgray. If indeed it's "harming the project" to make all these stubs (and I'm highly skeptical of that claim), it's hardly the user in question's fault if the community has never come to a consensus against the articles. Maybe we need to come up with a better guideline about settlements. OK, do that instead of talking about sanctioning Carlossuarez46 for behaving in a way that doesn't conflict with our policy, guidelines and practices as they exist now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT page moves

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

    Resolved
     – The tumbling tumbleweed has now happily snared itself upon a barbed wire fence. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been working on plant articles on Wikipedia for a while. An small group of editors has issues with the plant article naming policy and has been edit-warring, gaming the system, and making pointed edits for a couple of months or so. One of these edit-warriors would like the article tumbleweed, which was a redirect to Salsola, a genus of plants that contain a number of plants commonly called tumbleweeds, made into the dab page, instead of the current Tumbleweed (disambiguation) page.

    The editor made a number of edits today that included wikilinking common names of plants in the first sentence of the article to the article the common name was listed in.[9] I undid these edits, because it is incredibly irritating to click on a link and have it take you nowhere and provide no information. It is also not the purpose of wikilinking.[10] I repeatedly asked her to stop doing this.[11][12][13][14][15][16]

    When she refused to stop doing this, particlularly while she claimed an on-going discussion on the topic that she had initiated, I made an article on tumbleweed, even though it was currently a redirect to Salsola and there was currently a discussion about making the page titled "tumbleweed" the disambiguation page without the word "disambiguation" in its titles.[17] As I state in my post, I was and remain tired of wasting time editing this editor's useless redirects.[18]

    Now, she has moved the article "tumbleweed" to "Tumbleweed (diaspora)"[19] and announced, in seriousness, that since she created this article and all this extra work it was clear that it was necessary to have "tumbleweed (disambigutation)" at "tumbleweed."[20]

    However, it is clear that User:Una Smith is going to game the entire process for whatever article name she wants if she is allowed to do so. She can find the talk pages, and she claims to speak English at a professional level. There was no excuse to not discuss the issue, to keep making changes that were problematic, and to then cough up and say since she's made such a large amount of work for everyone with her game playing that she's proven the need for a neologism in an article issue.

    And, yes, I shouldn't have made the initial move, but she was not discussing the issue, and I got tired of making all of the corrections. She's the one who directed the articles to tumbleweed, refused to stop doing it, and it is a title she was saying she didn't want. I couldn't understand why she would wikilink articles to a title she was disputing, until she posted her smug little comment that now that she has wasted so much of other editors' time, she has proved the need for the article titles the way she wanted in the first place.[21]

    I ask that her tenditiotious WP:POINT making be stopped in its tracks. Interested editors can decide what to call these articles at WP:Plant, or on the article talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KP Botany is harassing me. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Una) Do you want to provide diffs or just throw out a major accusation with nothing to back it up? To me it looks like he is reverting and discussing...which is exactly what he's supposed to do. --Smashvilletalk 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "discussing" is increasingly ad hominem and incivil:
    Looking at KP Botany's contributions for today, I see this editor being hostile toward several other contributors, not just toward me. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These diffs do show that I have been trying to work with you no matter how outrageously you've ignored that. However, at that time I really thought this was about the tumbleweeds article, not about your attempt to change Wikipedia disambiguation of primary topic pages. Taking in that light, it will be useful for other editors here to see what you've been doing to editors who've been simply thinking they were working on articles, creating an encyclopedia, while you've been forum shopping to try to change a guideline you don't like, and now you're going after editors who stand in your way.[33][34][35] A
    Just like the claims of my "harassing" you above, no diffs, except the one of you posting to my talk page in what actually looks like an attempt to harass me after this AN/I started.
    It doesn't matter, Una, none of this will mean that you can change editing guidelines without consulting the community. --KP Botany (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to KP Botany's posts on my talk page; I did not see most of KP's posts on other pages until later. I do not watch every page I edit. --Una Smith (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these the diffs that show supposed harassment, ad hominem attacks and incivility? Because there is none of that in any of them. You seem to have disagreement confused with harassment. --Smashvilletalk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not use the word "attack"; the diffs I provided above show KP Botany's extensive use of ad hominem remarks to me. I omitted the ones about me, but those are incivil too. This ANI too appears intended to harass. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This happened to catch my eye as I was passing... If the name of that page was really supposed to be "Tumbleweed (diaspora)" (and "diaspore" isn't some botany term, since I'm completely unfamiliar with botany) then it seems to me that Una Smith has some explaining to do because that seems pretty clearly an act that would disrupt Wikipedia. Potentially an act backed by good faith, of course, but I do find it suspicious that Una Smith's immediate response was to accuse KP Botany of harassment without explaining what the idea was there.
    Though perhaps it's all a moot point as KP Botany appears to have retired from WP. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Diaspore is a botanical term; a tumbleweed is a diaspore or a disseminule. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    diaspore is a biological term. Although the slip to "diaspora" has some amusing connotations in a discussion about page moves. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, this is not the first time that Una Smith has been involved in movement that was not universally considered helpful. Reference Weymouth, and this discussion Talk:Weymouth,_Dorset#Notability_as_a_guide in which Una argues that London should be a disambiguation page. Suffice it to say, I am not sure I agree. This matter came up because Una had made a move apparently without discussion, changed a large number of articles referencing the moved page to the new name, and then was rather resistant to going back even when there wasn't a clear consensus for the move. I may be confused but it seems somewhat similar to this case. For moves, it seems a bit of discussion first might be an approach that avoids controversy. ++Lar: t/c 06:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous AN/I incidents involving Una Smith:
    And an unfounded WQA, where Una Smith was also advised of her problematic editing:
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for the link to the Weymouth incident above. This is just User:Una Smith's attempt at an end run around the Wikipedia policy for primary topics being the name, and not the dab.[[36] But instead of debating the policy, Una Smith is individually going after articles, projects and editors all over Wikipedia. I believe this is called policy shopping. Unlike Una Smith, I have diffs:
    I request that all of User:Una Smith's changes of a primary topic to a disambiguation change be reverted, and that she be directed to the single proper page to attempt to gain a consensus for changing this policy.
    --KP Botany (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in concurrance that there is a need to get Una Smith to stop doing this. Reviewing recent contribs suggests that there may well be other articles she may be doing this to... policy can be changed by doing things a new way, and then after consensus is clear, editing policy to reflect the new practices. But I'm not seeing consensus here. This may seem like just a content dispute but there is a problematic behaviour pattern here that is of concern. ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I Lay Dying: I moved nothing. The idea to move the page is not my own, I merely facilitated by making the formal request; see Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation).
    • Joshua Tree: I moved a page, someone else moved it right back again. Also not my idea to start with; see Talk:Yucca brevifolia. I got involved later, after disambiguating incoming links; see Talk:Joshua Tree (disambiguation).
    • Tree peony: I moved nothing. It is a former redirect (one name) grown into a disambiguation page (several names) that developed from a requested move of another page by someone else; see Talk:Rock's Peony.
    • Breeching I moved after soliciting discussion and waiting a while.
    • Weymouth I moved first, without asking (my bad, in retrospect), but the move survived a request to move back and I disambiguated all the incoming links too.

    --Una Smith (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    You are proposing and moving to advocate your de facto change to Wikipedia guidelines in lieu of discussion. Thanks for making it clear you are doing both. I had not realized it wasn't.

    • As I Lay Dying: Here you are proposing that As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) be the article on the primary topic page As I Lay Dying.[42]
    • Joshua tree: Here you are, in a discussion about moving Yucca brevifolia (the scientific name) to the common name Joshua Tree, advocating that the Joshua tree (disambiguation) be moved to Joshua tree.[43]
      Here you are, after that discussion above was closed, requesting again that the move be made.[44]
    • Tree and other peonies: Here you are moving nothing.[45]
      Here you are suggesting that the move she be made based upon "the vernacular name you know."[46]
      And offering google hits for the common name of a different plant.[47]
      Then suggesting that the primary title should be a disambiguation page rather than an article and stating you will create it according to your intention for primary topic disambiguation pages on Wikipedia.[48]
      But before you could do this, you had to move the nothing that you did above. So, no, you aren't moving nothing, you're doing exactly what you want: creating de facto guidelines instead of discussing changes in the guidelines.
    • Breeching:Here you are proposing the move that you eventually made.[49] And preparing for it.[50]
      Here you are giving your reasoning for this move. It's easier to change links or something. Something you can argue at the talk page for the guidelines, not here, there and everywhere else.[51]
      And, after a little more than an hour of discussion, with a user who didn't seem to agree with you, you moved the page.[52]
    • Weymouth: see your admission above.

    Okay, so you've now provided links and articles clarifying a few of the many places you are attempting to change the guidelines without introducing a discussion of these changes. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Weymouth move is but one illustration of a systemic problem with WP:RM: the page says that any potentially controversial moves should be discussed first, but the process rewards unilateral moves, as follows:
    • If the move is presented for discussion, it will succeed only if there is consensus for the move.
    • If the move is made unilaterally, and the redirect thus created is then edited, e.g. to turn it into a dab page or a redirect to another target (as with many of Una Smith's page moves), those who oppose the move have no recourse but to propose a move in the opposite direction. This will succeed only if there is consensus for the reverse move, not the original move.
    Thus if there no consensus in either direction, acting unilaterally will effect the move, while discussing will not. This has been discussed at WT:RM#Comments, WT:RM#Unilateral/bold moves and WT:RM#Speedy bold move revert section/proposal. Kanguole (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That policy needs changing. The status quo ante should be the default outcome in case of no consensus, and first mover should not convey an advantage. Further, given the resistance to having the dab page be the primary, in case after case, perhaps some tightening of the appropriate guidelines is needed as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar, I have been tracking all requested moves involving disambiguation pages and the preference is the opposite of what you say. Disambiguation pages at ambiguous titles are preferred. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that assertion is two fold... first, apparently you're sometimes moving things before consensus is achieved (consider Tumbleweed, everyone except you opposed the moves, so why did the move happen) and second your definition of what is "ambiguous" differs from that of most other folk. I again offer London as an example of a page that you would prefer be moved to the dab page. That's just not the common thinking at all. I think you need to let others decide what is "ambiguous" as your judgement appears to be out of step. THAT is why this is at AN/I, because you seem to not be willing to accept consensus. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Tumbleweed was moved first by KP Botany, not by me. I proposed a page move of Tumbleweed (disambiguation) to Tumbleweed using WP:RM, and I will accept the result of the discussion on Talk:Tumbleweed (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    False. I created Tumbleweed.[53] Una moved it.[54] an hour and a half later. The discussion already clearly shows no one agrees with your move or your suggested move.
    Tumbleweed was first moved by Una Smith, as the edit history clearly shows. --KP Botany (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KP Botany seems to be confusing primary topic and "base name"; the two are not the same. Furthermore, this ANI seems, to me, to be nothing more than a trivial content dispute blown into an attempted user conduct issue. I find it highly ironic that KP Botany posted this ANI, because KP Botany is at least equally "guilty" of moving pages. See a list of 24 of KP Botany's most recent page moves, compiled by someone else here. --Una Smith (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, no one, not even Una has requested these page moves be reverted. The were moves to scientific names, which is according to current guidelines, and they're posted on the guidelines talk page as part of a discussion on the guidelines--posted by a user who suggested he post them for discussion, I concurred, he did. Thanks, again, for the link. These are, in fact, the exact opposite of what this thread is about. --KP Botany (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you bothered to read this thread? How about engaging in the discussion of your actions instead of brushing them off and accusing other editors of "harassment"? --Smashvilletalk 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Smashville is right. Una, you need to read, digest, and internalize the good advice you have been given by several editors above. --John (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is silly. User:Una Smith has now just wikilinked the article Tumbleweed (diaspore) to Spore#Diaspores which gives an explanation of the necessity to use a microscope to see the spores, which, apparently Una Smith thinks are the same thing as diaspores.[55] At this point, now that she has established she's not reading this, she's not reading her articles, she's not monitoring what she post (as she says above), she should not continue with her editing.

    This article makes no sense. It's title is a neologism, and is purely based on User:Una Smith's desire to create guidelines without debating them. She's creating pages with names she doesn't understand and linking them to information that isn't related, simply because she doesn't understand or isn't reading or doesn't care in the face of getting her way.

    Tumbleweeds are NOT microscopic spores!

    And, even she admits that no one thinks a tumbleweed is anything other than a tumbleweed, because the tumbleweed page she created is just a silly and pointless redirect to this ridiculous article name. Why can't user just read the tumbleweed article on the tumbleweed page, rather than being redirected to this neologism?

    As User:Una Smith is too busy doing whatever she wants to bother answering the issue here, I ask that she just be blocked until she addresses the issues, and I ask that her silly, totally pointless, without any support from anything, other editors, botany, horticulture, page be deleted from Wikipedia. Not even she has put up any support for it--there is none!

    She doesn't care enough about this issue to address the issue, and she had to make a redirect to her silly name from the primary name, so the article is just a game--the primary topic should not be redirect to some unused name she made up just to play games. --KP Botany (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved it back. There's just no point in this article name. It's silly, not even its originator understands it. Wikipedia's readers don't deserve this. And it's a monumental waste of time. I assume, at this point, it's just a prank to make a WP:POINT. --KP Botany (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also put a speedy on the diaspore whatever it was. Una Smith offered no sources for that and seems to think a diaspore is both the macroscopic propagule and the spore, even though the propagule disperses a seed for angiosperms. It's not the least bit comprehensible. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The spore article is wrong. A diaspore is a dispersal structure of a plant, microscopic or macroscopic (see this), and is already used in foxtail (diaspore). Admittedly it is not a common word, but it serves its need quite nicely. I do agree that the article is best called Tumbleweed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Curtis Clark is correct and I have fixed the problem by creating Diaspore (botany). Tumbleweed (diaspore) is an accurate descriptive title for the article. It can be argued that the page name is unnecessarily precise, except that the base name Tumbleweed accumulates incoming links needing disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The heading for this is wrong, and the description is wrong. KP Botany talks about plant article naming "policy" like the idea that he/she and a couple of other people came up with to name articles based upon obscure scientific names instead of their real-world names, per standard Wikipedia naming conventions is somehow policy. Not only is it not policy, it directly violates the actual article naming policy. As far as I am am concerned anyone who actually enforces the actual policy instead of ignoring it cannot be accused of making WP:POINT violations. The article on tumbleweeds should be at Tumbleweed per common sense and our actual policies. And, having interaction with KP Botany before, he's pretty aggressive in pushing his particular view onto articles, and he gets very grumpy when he doesn't get his way. It's not just a problem of WP:OWN issue with a single article, but a whole string of articles he and a few others have held hostage from standard policy. If he wants to change the policy, he should work on doing that (and good luck), but directly violating it and then coming here to complain about people moving articles to their actual locations is pretty bizarre. IF there are a few articles being moved that end up in the wrong place, fine, someone will fix them, but where KP Botany wants them makes no sense. DreamGuy (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, that is what I put the article at: Tumbleweed per common sense. In fact, I created the article "Tumbleweed" per common snese. Una Smith is the one who made up a name and made Tumbleweed a redirect to the made up name "Tumbleweed (diaspore)" in an attempt to change the policy about disambiguation pages for primary titles.
    Thank you for supporting my creation of the article Tumbleweed, and for supporting the common sense name I chose for it. Feel free to edit any article I create. Not only that, I actively encourage all editors to monitor my articles on Wikipedia, and correct, edit, amend, add to, or question my articles, as you will see on my talk page, and by my contributions, and comments to other editors who are creating articles.
    Again, thanks for the support. Tumbleweed is the only appropriate name for the article. --KP Botany (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dri-i-i-ifting along with the Tumbling Tumbleweeds..." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Una asks for a copy of the deleted article at Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). --Amalthea 17:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I request that the article and talk page be restored, to restore their edit histories. I would also like KP Botany to disambiguate the incoming links to Tumbleweed. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has not been deleted, it has simply been moved. What was deleted was the redirect created by the move. No one is searching for tumbleweeds under a neologism invented and used by a single editor on Wikipedia, so there was no need to maintain the redirect. The dabs were also taken care of, and, that, too, is findable by simply looking at what links here on the tumbleweed page. Neologisms are not part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." You are the only source of information on "Tumbleweed (diaspore)". --KP Botany (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The dabs were not taken care of. At this moment they remain, there are at least 20 of them (fully half of all the incoming links), and they include:
    --Una Smith (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But, in response to your request here is Tumbleweed and Talk:Tumbleweed. --KP Botany (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    At current count,

    Tumbleweed (diaspore) is a descriptive page name; it is not a neologism and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms does not apply here any more than it applies to Foxtail (diaspore). --Una Smith (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing I agree with Una on in this issue is that Tumbleweed (diaspore) is not a neologism. It is, however, a very technical term that might not be best for a Wikipedia article (I was the editor who placed Foxtail (diaspore) at its current name, but only for lack of any better name that was accurate and not ambiguous.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here, I pasted them to another forum where Una is making this request. Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore.[56] Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore talk page.[57] Moves bolded. --KP Botany (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tumbleweed (diaspore) has been moved once and deleted three times (log); Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) has moved once been deleted twice (log). The edit histories of those pages before KP Botany's move were moved with the pages; edit histories of those pages after the move were deleted. They may be insignificant, or not, but those pages are subject of this dispute, so let's restore them. KP Botany's tagging speedy delete of a page in the midst of not only a requested move but also this AN/I strikes me as disruptive editing. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:WhatLinksHere/Tumbleweed links are still waiting for disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which ones? Please let us know. I think most, if not all, have been corrected.... many of the articles refer to Tumbleweed in passing, and the link to a general article is exactly what is needed. Again, if you know of specific ones, please advise (perhaps at the appropriate talk page). ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A storm in a teacup

    • KPBotany moved Tumbleweed to Salsola in accordance with the flora naming convention. Nothing wrong with that.
    • Una noticed that the term tumbleweed is both the common name of the genus Salsola, and the common name of the diaspore of some species. Una decided these distinct topics merited distinct articles. Una created Tumbleweed (diaspore), and turned Tumbleweed into a disambiguation page. Nothing wrong with that.
    • KPBotany decided that Tumbleweed (diaspore) was an obscure title, and the primary topic for the term tumbleweed, so moved it to Tumbleweed. Nothing wrong with that.
    • Things somehow got very messy between the two of them, with accusations of POINTyness and harassment flying around. They both need to be reminded to assume good faith.

    This is a storm in a teacup. How it ended up smeared all over AN/I is beyond me. There is certainly no reason why this should have turned into an opportunity for Una-bashing (or KP-bashing). Can someone uninvolved please mark this resolved so we can all go back to work?

    Hesperian 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view the reason this is at AN/I is that Una has a way of getting other people riled up. This is not the first time Una has been involved in this sort of thing. But if the articles have all come to rest and there's no more sparring, I'd say yes, mark it resolved... I think you undeleted a speedy so it could go to DRV, right? Thus you're probably not uninvolved else I'd say you could. I think I've warned Una about recreating deleted material (and helped edit some of the pages that needed fixing once things moved the right way) so I'm probably not uninvolved either... ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My restore was in response to repeated requests at WT:PLANTS, in the absense of any apparent reason why they ought not be granted; my explanation of it was: "Restored, for the sole purpose of giving access to the history, for the sake of the discussion. I have no comment on the dispute, at this stage."[58] That probably doesn't make me involved, but I am involved regardless, merely because I interact with both editors fairly regularly. Hesperian 11:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It also is not the first time KP Botany has been involved in a content dispute. KP Botany's usual MO is to get personal, an MO I really dislike. Lar definitely is involved in (Hesperian's phrase) Una-bashing; he gives me advice regularly. Other people get mad, get personal, and Lar thinks that is my fault? I don't think so. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I freely admit to the grevious charge of giving you advice from time to time. Unfortunately, in my experience, I haven't been very good at giving you advice though, since you don't seem to take my advice (or anyone else's for that matter, near as I can tell) ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the diffs Una? You are now just using this as an opportunity to personally attack me. This is a loose end, your personal attacks. I said I would put together and RfC user, and I will, even if I'm not creating or editing articles any more.
    You didn't provide diffs above when asked to; and the diffs you provided didn't support what you claimed.
    In fact, even editors who said the disliked me, said the title was awful, see User:DreamGuy's comment's about how ridiculous or lacking in common sense is having an article about tumbleweeds called "tumbleweed (diaspore)," and having the title tumbleweed a redirect to this horrid title.
    Provide diffs, Una, that actually back up what you're saying, or stop using this and every other venue as a place for personal attacks against me. --KP Botany (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are all 43 mainspace links to Tumbleweed. All need to be read and, if necessary, edited so the link goes to the correct article. That's where the disambiguation page comes in really handy. Consider Cuisine of the United States; not all tumbleweeds are edible, but some Salsola are. Would someone like to volunteer to do this, so there aren't edit conflicts? --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

       *Cuisine of the United States
   *Alternative biochemistry
   *Spore
   *Bon Homme County, South Dakota
   *Long Beach, California
   *Tooele, Utah
   *Radio Birdman
   *Amaranthaceae
   *Apache
   *Shooting Stars
   *Santa Monica Mountains
   *Psoralea
   *Columbian Exchange
   *Def FX
   *Diffuse knapweed
   *An American Tail: Fievel Goes West
   *Seed dispersal
   *Trick arrows
   *Geastraceae
   *Tumbling Tumbleweeds
   *Anastatica
   *Digital World
   *Native American cuisine
   *Amaranthus albus
   *TerraMax (vehicle)
   *Salsola kali
   *Strontium-90
   *List of local children's television series (United States)
   *Thorn (Dungeons & Dragons)
   *Selaginella lepidophylla
   *Desert Rat Scrap Book
   *Amaranthus graecizans
   *Anemone virginiana
   *Lori Nelson
   *Influences and interpretations of The Matrix
   *Salsola
   *Tumbleweed (disambiguation)
   *Corispermum
   *Eric Marcus Municipal Airport
   *Conagher
   *Rotation in living systems
   *Sisymbrium altissimum
   *Diaspore (botany)
    This pretty clearly belongs not on AN/I as it's routine content work. If we are now all set with where the articles have ended up, and there aren't going to be any more ill advised move proposals, the work to correct these can continue. I know for a fact that at least Lee Van Cleef and Bon Homme County, South Dakota have been fixed. As an example of ones that should NOT be fixed, I offer Cuisine of the United States (which without a close perusal of the source CAN'T be disambiguated to a specific species) and Tumbling Tumbleweeds... which properly refers to generic tumbleweeds, (the topic of the generic article... et voila, that one's done). Can you move this to the article talk page, please Una, (including this comment) and let this topic end here? ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and of course I am 100% certain that Una, as a teamwork-type contributor to Wikipedia (especially one who has been involved in this disagreement) will be one of the first ones to start to work on fixed any links related, in order to show true leadership and a desire to work together. ♪BMWΔ 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh absolutely... check my contribs and you'll see I've been working on some of them. As for Una, just check her contribs. Ok, that was snarky of me, sorry, because she hasn't done any at least not that I could spot. Some of these were a problem before all this movement, and I agree, they needed fixing then and still do now. But that is NOT an argument that every primary topic page should be the DAB page. But... why are we talking about this here instead of on the Talk:Tumbleweed page? ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...because tumbleweeds and their diaspore are not my forté  ;) It's good to hear that the required content changes are in good hands, Lar. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deletion of relevant argument from talk page

    Resolved
     – Immediate issues resolved, AN/I is not the right venue for this discussion unless something crops up again. — neuro(talk) 14:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted a comment on [Talk:Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis], arguing that the out-of-place mention of the Catholic viewpoint would be akin to adding a section on laws to bacon. This has been censored twice. How am I supposed to discuss the content of this disputed article when there are people butting in by deleting my argument? Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your 'comment' seems a little like an attack to me. — neuro(talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks/incivility. He re-inserted the attack after I had given him a final warning for making personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivility and personal attacks have continued after block, suggest extension. — neuro(talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right, though. The Catholic thing is POV-pushing and is redundant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is AN/I the right venue for that discussion? — neuro(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not, or at least not yet. I'm also not sure what he got blocked for, i.e. his comments seem a bit peevish but don't seem like personal attacks, unless I missed something; but it's only 24 hours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I struck the "resolved" from this, because this block really, really looks questionable to me. I just don't see a "personal attack" worthy of a block (or even a warning) in this editor's contributions. Spotfixer seems to be of the quite reasonable point of view that the Catholic church's position on various topics is generally of no consequence, and is adamant about it, but I don't see anything crossing the NPA threshold.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd agree. He wasn't particularly civil when asked about his edits, but I really don't see much deserving a block here, to be honest. And he's right about the content dispute, as well. Black Kite 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, it seems it's now a bit more than that. Just view his talk page, after the block discussion, to see what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • True. I usually give the receiver of bad blocks a little bit of license to vent, though.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a bad block, so he doesn't have any license to vent. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Funny, it looks like a bad block to me and two other editors that have commented in this thread. Would you care to point out the "personal attack" that you thought was worthy of a block? I've searched his contributions, and can't even see anything particularly questionable before you blocked him.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • See the user's interactions with others on User talk:Spotfixer, Talk:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, User talk:Schrandit, User talk:Gentgeen. For example, Gentgeen (talk · contribs) warned both Spotfixer and Schrandit (talk · contribs) for edit-warring a couple of days ago. Take a look at Schrandit's response.[59] Now take a look at Spotfixer's response.[60][61][62]
              • Your first point of contention when discussing this block, although irrelevant, was to point out Spotfixer's correctness. I'm not questioning his correctness in the content dispute. In fact, he makes good points and his contributions to articlespace have been pretty solid thus far. I just want him/her to discuss these topics with some civility. I hope that he/she learns from the block and makes even more positive contributions to the project. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I doubt has, if you read his talk page, you can see that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. That doesn't exactly sound promising to me.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, he/she at least deserves another chance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Some of that I hadn't spotted, and I will grant that "bad block" is too strong. I'll still put it in the marginal category. I suspect that what's happened here is that a marginally bad editor with a point to prove has been transformed by blocking into an extremely bad editor with a crusade. Let's hope I'm wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • For the record, I agree it was a poor block because ICB did not follow WP:incivility protocol for addressing incivility. He honestly does not seem to understand what exactly WP:incivility means in part because (1) no administrator has explained to him how he violated WP:incivility; and (2) the post he got blocked for really isn't a particularly good example of his uncivil posts. It doesn't seem personal to me at all. I'd urge administrators to use discussion here instead of extending the ban; tell Spotfixer that his block was marginal, and that his subsequent incivility (of which there is a lot) will be overlooked; cite precisely the wording that was offensive and invite him to edit his own posts to remove incendiary language. If you treat him like that, and he then makes uncivil edits, he has no excuse. --Thesoxlost (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are wrong. A very good editor with a point to prove has been transformed by a very bad block into a very good editor with two points to prove.

    I do not consider this matter settled. and will not rest until Ice Cold Beer's administrator rights are stripped. He needs to be made an example of for all other administrators who would harm Wikipedia. Spotfixer (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spotfixer has returned from his block to troll my talk page.[63][64] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has now personally attacked me, as seen here, telling me that I've "lost touch with reality". I do not see any hint that this user has realized why his behavior is disruptive, or that he's going to stop. I would believe a longer block is warranted.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the users own talk page? As someone who has seen first hand how quickly Beer can drop down the hammer on a user [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] and you'll notice two seperate editors restored his edit before he caught the idea that it was being discussed and he should stop removing it. Later, the discussion on his talk page was equally ineffective. [[68]]. And his accusations of trolling always seem to folow the pattern of him doing something against policy and then blaming the victem of his bad choices. I cannot say I've ever been very impressed with him as an editor and when I learned he was an admin I was honestly amazed. RTRimmel (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you shocked that someone made personal attacks on their own talkpage? Would you care to elaborate what is correct in Spotfixers actions which led to his latest block? --Smashvilletalk 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has now posted his award on his own talk page, listing several admins as incompedent, corrupt, abusive.. etc. The admins listed are everyone that disagrees with him. Etc. Here is the diff.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support temporary/long term block for WP:ATTACK. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's going to do it again when he comes off his block...so the question is...do we longterm block now and give him a chance to change his mind in the future...or do we let him come off his unblock and hang himself again, which is what he is almost certain to do...--Smashvilletalk 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    Per what smash just said, well...:

    Lengthen the block
    • Support - The user has not shown any sign that he will stop the personal attacks or incivility. I support an increase of block length, letting him loose again would not be beneficial.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 07:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Let the block expire, and if the behavior continues, then we can talk about a lengthy block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The initial block was a bad block, as stated by 4 editors it seems. And hounding the user afterward didn't do anyone any favors. The second block was at least partially justified, but again my read of the posts made by the user indicates that the fault mainly falls back to the incident that set this ball rolling which was the initial bad block. RTRimmel (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roux Substituting his signature against advice

    Resolved
     – no action, no point trying to follow the developers requests apparently

    See User_talk:Roux#Your_signature_is_not_working_in_some_templates. Per WP:SIG#NT substituting a translcusion for you signature is specifically not permitted. The most recent discussion on the talk page seems to indicate no change in this. Roux is doing this, (see User:Roux/sig) despite my asking him not to [69] [70] [71] citing WP:IAR [72]. Okay so this isn't exactly a disaster but one assumes the reason Brion insisted that sigs were not transcluded [73] are still the same, and I trust the dev's know what they're talking about. Or, we change the guideline at WP:SIG. Either way Roux is refusing to respond to my polite request and I'd appreciate other input. Pedro :  Chat  14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Must be a slow day on Wikipedia... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is so unbelievably trivial. Here's the fun thing.. I signed the last response on my page using tildes. And this one. But hey, whatever floats your boat, Pedro. // roux   14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)While I can see your concern, and am confused as to why Roux would refuse to accede to your reasonable request, this seems like a relatively minor issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd just done what I'd asked and changed it when I asked - per the guideline then neither of us would be wasting our time would we? Pedro :  Chat  14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One would also ask why someone who thinks they can be an effective admin can't follow the guidelines or respond to a polite request. Pedro :  Chat  14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When what I'm doing--when what any user is doing--causes zero harm to the project, then banging on about it is kind of pointless. Especially when you yourself said it's not worth arguing over. Also, guidelines aren't policy. Also this is the biggest mountain from the smallest molehill that I have ever seen. And in response to your question... User:Garden/s. It's solely a guideline, it's not policy, I'm causing no harm. // roux   14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Transcluding a signature template on a page like this one is particularly relevant, because this is one of the pages which is regularly archived by MiszaBot. IAR doesn't apply to this situation, as ignoring behavioral guidelines to have a cool signature doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopedia, which is what IAR is all about. Horologium (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that my sig doesn't break MiszaBot (or ClueBot, for that matter, which archives my talkpage). Tempest. Teacup. // roux   14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused. Where exactly is the harm in substituting your signature? The link to Brion's talk page is about using templates instead of signatures, but not about substituting templates, as far as I can see. And the last point of Wikipedia:SIG#NoTemplates doesn't make too much sense to me, either. --Conti|✉ 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines aren't binding (Fuck, even policies aren't binding). No administrative action is needed. The correct response is probably to fix the guideline, though. WilyD 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you well know Roux I have already asked Garden [74]. The point you seem to be missing is that I have made a perfectly reasonable request, several times, and most editors would be happy to say "oh, wow - thanks for the heads up!". WP:SIG is a guideline but WP:SIG#NT is more policy - one from the developers for goodness sake. It's no wonder you RFA is bombing when you can't even respond positively to a polite request. Pedro :  Chat  14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason we don't subst: sigs is that it serves no benefit whatsoever, makes a vandal target, and that it can be used to circumvent the 255 character limit. But the point is this - it may well be that th reasons are outdated. If so lets fix WP:SIG. Until then Roux needs to learn not to be so beligerent when met with polite requests. Pedro :  Chat  14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a vandal target sounds like a good reason not to subst your signature, that's true. But I suppose that's roux's risk, not ours (and it will definitely reflect badly on him when he one day signs a post with a giant picture of, er, some beans). I don't think we should forbid substitution because the 255 character limit can be circumvented, tho, we should rather forbid the use of substitution to circumvent the 255 character limit. Generally, I agree that people should not substitute their signatures, but if they really, really want to for some reason, let them. There are more important things to do around here. :) --Conti|✉ 14:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Requests aren't polite when you get dragged over the coals for not following them. The only reason not to substitute signatures is to prevent one from getting around the 255 character limit. That's not a big deal, in the scheme of things. WilyD 14:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's likely to be about the limit, I've just posted a suggestion to Roux' talk page that he can, by using slightly different colors than his current sig uses, subtract 6 characters from his sig and scrape in under the limit. Hopefully this can make all parties happy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That something does no harm is absolutely not an excuse to do it. We're not doctors. As a general rule, only things that benefit the encyclopedia should be done. Since signatures are never ever supposed to appear in articles, I can't see how this is something that benefits the encyclopedia. I was originally going to take this example to the extreme by saying "I could have 50 tiny tiny free images on my user talk page if I wanted to, that'd do no harm but it'd be pointless", but then I looked at Roux's talk page and found out he actually does have a sizable amount of free images on his talk page that do nothing other than look pretty. Maybe that furthers my point. Consider the signatures of the members of ArbCom for instance. They're almost all just plain text. Infact I'd go so far as to say that my simple signature is more complicated than most of theirs. There's really no point to having a signature template, so why does Roux? People are moaning at Pedro for this but honestly, if Roux had followed the guideline in the first place (or just changed his signature when asked), this discussion wouldn't have been necessary. Stuff like this makes me think we should disable signature customisation entirely. They're really not worth all this trouble. --Deskana (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A longer-than-255 sig is kind of like going 65mph in a 55mph zone; you shouldn't get a ticket for it, but you also shouldn't ignore a request to slow down. If someone does something slightly wrong and refuses to change, it's often best not to worry about it, but instead file it for future use in your mental list of irrationally stubborn people, and move on.
    I have to ask, though, because I'm really missing something here; how is it easier to write "{{subst:user:example/sig}}" than it is to write "~~~~"? Seems to me like the only conceivable reason to do this is to get around the 255 character limit; is there some other minor benefit I'm missing? --barneca (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC) that was a moronic question, even for me. Thank you, \ /, for not making fun of me. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume you simply set your signature to be {{subst:user:example/sig}}, so when that you use the tildes the subst template comes with it. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha Barneca you noob! (Sorry \/ was just too nice!). Avruch T 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Customisation#More_complicated_options seems to state that signatures may be substituted in to pages. Perhaps we should ensure consistency between pages. Fraud talk to me 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary by Axl

    Pedro noticed a problem with Roux's signature. He asked Roux to fix the problem. Roux refused. Pedro asked again, quoting the policy. Roux refused again, misquoting "ignore all rules". Pedro corrected Roux's apparent misinterpretation. Roux indicated a different interpretation of IAR. Pedro insisted that Roux comply with the policy, stating that failure to fix the problem would lead to AN/I discussion. Roux trivialised Pedro's concern. Pedro brought the matter to AN/I.

    My opinion (as an unbiased outsider): Pedro asked Roux to fix a problem. Roux repeatedly refused, deliberately misquoting policy to advance his position. Roux passively permitted the conflict to escalate unnecessarily. Roux continues with immature responses; he should fix it and stop wasting everyone's time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Customisation#More_complicated_options //roux   12:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because a) there is no need, b) I have no interest in continuing this drama. Cheers. //roux   20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More discussion required

    I'm re-opening this because I, and others were told/forced to use signatures which fell under, or at the 255 character limit as described by policy. Now, I know that this MfD was withdrawn, but the general consensus between established editors that other editors should not circumvent policy.

    As to it allows you to do it, well, wikipedia is built in a way that people can vandalize it, however, that doesn't mean they should, as it's disruptive. For technical reasons, this actually does still cause server drain, as the servers still do have to find your page, and copy information from it.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am striking this through, as I was tired when I created this subsection, and since I thought that it was of a related manner, that it should go here. Seems I was wrong. As such, I posted a new thread at the bottom of ANI describing my concerns in more clarity.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, is um.. my new sig disruptive at all?— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 09:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    well its under the limit - but why do you need such a complicated sig anyway? ViridaeTalk 09:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to watch more talk pages for replies, as not everyone uses the talk page notices to alert someone a reply has been given. I don't know how many pages I have watched, but it may reach an unmanageable number if I watch everyone's talk page that I talk to.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 11:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Well crap, it's breaking lines, and that's going to cost characters.. Doesn't look like it's going to work after all..— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ThuranX: "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk"

    (ported over from where it was initially - and inaccurately - posted at AN)

    While John took the time to open a discussion at WQA in regards to this matter, I am growing concerned that ThuranX might be of the inexact opinion that suggesting a fellow editor "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk" is anywhere near acceptable behavior. This was part of an article discussion wherein the John (talk · contribs) acted with exceptional reserve in the face of behavior that would have sent anyone else packing. ThuranX' behavior there, and elsewhere with increasing frequency seems to be be growing problematic of late. While this advisory is of one situation occurring in one article discussion, ThruanX seems to be unwilling/unable to render his opinions and dictums in a socially acceptable way. JNW has been here almost as long as ThuranX, and yet he has nary a single block, whereas ThuranX has been blocked repeatedly for precisely the same behavior he is displaying yet again. I think some sort of intervention might be called for.
    In the interest of full disclosure, I have pretty much given up interacting with the user, as he has been unremittingly unpleasant for the two-plus years I have been here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Context is everything. After reading the discussion, it seems that ThuranX may have reacted strongly but he was certainly provoked by very dickish behavior from the other user. L0b0t (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, being a dick (and I am not necessarily agreeing with your assessment, btw) is an open door for an experienced editor to act the same? Please. That's a a theory widely disproven by jumping off a cliff just because the neighbor kid did, too. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ..and a link to the WQA ♪BMWΔ 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If the person drops dead, then the issue of keeping away would become moot, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, but I am guessing that John might not wish to accede to ThuranX' wish for the person to shuffle off the mortal coil. Tangential quip aside, is this the sort of behavior we condone from experienced editors? Were this the first time, or some sort of Mastodon issue, I'd say chalk it up to low blood sugar. However, this keeps happening with a largely unrepentant editor. You seriously cannot be advocating this sort of nonsense, can you? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that question was directed toward moi, the answer's no. I think it is possible to both condemn and make light of such episodes. Spare the rod and spoil the child, I say. No need to investigate any circumstances here. It's unacceptable. Block.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless of course they attach themselves to the other person using a set of titanium-alloy handcuffs, and then drop dead. ♪BMWΔ 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Beryllium, for when you truly care. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I haven't heard of beryllium handcuffs since "The Adventures of Phoebe Zeit-Geist". PhGustaf (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's good to have fans, isn't it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also good to note that SirFozzie informed (and suggested a wikibreak) to ThuranX after the WP:AN filing, and I have advised ThuranX of this ANI.
    As a comment, being exessively provoked does not excuse behaviour, but explains it. In a situation involving provocation, it's important to hear the reply after being called on the behaviour. Just last week I was the victim of my very own ANI after excessive provocation - I was -> <- this close to saying something similar to the other editor after all the wikipoodling I had been a victim of. ♪BMWΔ 17:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While notifying the principles in the matter, I I realized that I accidentally identified JNW (talk · contribs) as the recipient of ThuranX' replies, I've altered the initial post to identify the correct user John (talk · contribs). Both have now been notified. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And BMW, I understand that ThuranX might have felt provoked, but this seems to keep happening with him with many more editors than just this one here. Each time, folk suggest a wikibreak, a spot of tea (or an entire pot); unfortunately, this particular kettle seems to remain on the boil, no matter how many breaks are suggested. While I applaud SirFozzie's note to ThuranX, esp. after the latter took a bite out of him, we don't provide for this. As Ferrylodge suggested, a block might be a method by which we can protect other users for a bit (and thereby the encyclopedia). The carrot has proven rather unsuccessful; perhaps a bit of the stick is called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering John told him twice to seek a new hobby...a little aggressive with the response, but I agree...definitely provoked.--Smashvilletalk 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not twice, only once. --John (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, once in article discussion and once in ThuranX' usertalk page, and - it bears repeating - after being provoked by Thuran's barbed responses. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So now your saying that provokation does excuse behaviour? 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Provocation does not excuse behaviour. — neuro(talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2) Clearly, I am not. but I think a suggestion to calm down, be nice or find another pastime is a tad low on the scale of incivility - especially when we consider the response, before, after and with other editors. I think there is an assumption of dickish behavior on the part of John that is both unsubstantiated as well as immaterial to the actual problem. Or, are you of the opinion that, were the same sort of attention showered upon you, that you (anon) would not feel unfairly attacked?
    And no, provocation does not excuse the depth and breadth of the behavior through the wiki. While this complaint addresses one incident, is there is misapprehension that its the only one where ThuranX has - all by his/her lonesome - denigrated an argument to name-calling and insults?- Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was a part of this case? Why have I been excluded?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware that you were connected to the incident, aside from offering a succession of unhelpful remarks at the wrong noticeboard. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I live in a wilder and woollier world than wikipedias civility standards... such as they are. So no, I would not feel unfairly attacked. I sympathize with ThuranX in that I feel he was the victim of a unsolicited collaboration request which turned out to be a my way or the highway volentolding. Which of the two editors was more 'uncivil' is a matter of dispute. Surely ThuranX used language that others felt was unnacceptable, but I can name at least three people on this board that felt that Johns very civil words hid a passive-agressive style dickishness. Isn't that just as bad direct namecalling?198.161.173.180 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, is not as bad. Gerardw (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as you can imagine, WP is not the world. We have standards here that are more or less adhered to so that the community at large doesn't devolve into some webforum of hypersensitive trash-talking, or folk trying to prove that they are smarter/righter/better than everyone else. No one is the smartest person in the room here at Wikipedia, and that means that everyone gets to be treated via the Golden Rule until they abrogate that right. Now, either every single one of the dozen or so people that have been subjected to ThuranX's colorful remarks should be blocked as trolls, or the problem resides with ThuranX' behavior. Yes, (s)he contributes a lot and is seemingly a net addition to the community, but usefulness doesn't - and shouldn't - excuse sort of allowances we are making for him/her. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so they got a little feisty and now probably despise each other. Why can't we let it slide? Why are you people so bent on punishing a few minor transgressions?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly, MS, the point is that this isn't an isolated incident, its just the most recent flare-up by ThuranX. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Feel free to seek another hobby"

    When I pointed out that ThuranX was free to find another hobby here, I was not intentionally being uncivil but alluding to our founder's much-quoted saying, that people who are unable or unwilling to follow our policies are free to go off and do something else, something which applies to everyone here, including me. If I ever find myself getting overheated or over-focussed on something on Wikipedia, I usually just go off for a day or so and do something else. I do not think this qualifies as incivility or dickishness, just simple fact. Whether I could have handled that interaction better (yes, I probably could, though not much better) or not, it was certainly not my intention or expectation to provoke comments like "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk". I think there is something wrong with the level of abuse coming back from this user. What needs to be done to correct their behavior I will leave up to others; however I am pretty clear that I don't want to work on a project where behavior like this is tolerated. --John (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to work on a project where behavior like this is tolerated. Yes you do, you know it's as hard for you to leave Wikipedia as the rest of us Wikiholics :) In the long run, a simple case of incivility is something that disappears, but you are correct, a history of incivility is significantly different ... but you also know, that many on Wikipedia will excuse the occasional outburst if the editor is generally a "net positive" ♪BMWΔ 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Wikiholics - lol) This is generally true, BMW, but when discussion - which has always been considered that which makes the wiki actually Not Suck - is stifled for fear of being pimp-slapped by an experienced user, a lot of folk simply withdraw instead of continuing. The Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who shout down the others disagreeing with him/her. I am not saying we should indef block the guy/gal, but rather that some recalcitrance from ThuranX would be nice to see. As we can be fairly sure that won't be coming, we can extrapolate that he/she doesn't feel such behavior is actually a problem. And that, my friend, is the problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't. I do not want to work on a project where someone can be abusive and it is excused because they did something good in the past. If this is indeed a pattern of behavior from this user then I really do think this is a problem which needs to be addressed. WP:CIVIL is not just for when you feel like it, it is an essential component of an online project like this. Without it, I don't think we have a chance of completing what we are trying to do. If I were to come to believe that, I really don't think I would see the point in continuing my work here. --John (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with John here, I dont know many people who want to work on a project with people who act like that and are excused. As a matter of fact, I know many good users who left because some, "popular," users was a straight asshole and the community just turned their back on the abuse. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, let's punish him then. Should we block him for one week for foul language?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please focus on the actual complaint and ongoing problem; it isn't about being a potty-mouth, its about treating everyone around him like crap (pardon the comparative pun). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked him for 12 hours for the gross incivility. If you look he has a pretty lengthy block log for previous incivil behavior. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not be opposed to lengthening the block due to his long history of gross incivility and other interactions on this project. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And since several people have agreed that John was provoking ThuranX, I assume you will be blocking him too? Or is this block simply to punish one 'side'?198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    John explained his comments above. All I saw was his attempts at being civil and cool in a heated situation. This is a difficult task to handle, and for those who handle it without making grossly incivil outbursts and statements should in no way receive a block. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and this is also not about, "sides." This is about an editor who has repeatedly shown extreme disrepsect and contempt to his fellow editors through the use of abusive, incivil and derrogatory comments on many occasaions (many of which he was blocked for as well). Take a look at his block log. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see two editors acting in an uncivil manner to each other. I see several editors stating such, and I see you blocking ONE of them. For something that isn't about sides, you sure seem to have taken one.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see one of the editors who explained his comments and what he truly meant by them as well as admitting he could have handled it a bit better as well as having no history of gross incivility, and I see one user who has a long history of gross incivility to fellow editors and no explanations to his incredibly offesinve comments. It is not about sides, it is about actions. Should the other editor wish to explain how is comments were meant in the nicest of terms and were only mis-interpreted and agree to never act that way again or be blocked again I would agree that the block is probably unjustified. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disputing blocking ThuranX, by all means punish him. I'm talking about whats good for the goose being good for the gander. You see an editor explainin his comments? I see a textbook example of politeness hiding incivility. Its simple really. First, be a dick... but a polite one. Then when your target calls you on it, claim innocence behind your politeness while pointing out the incivility you have created. For good measure, make sure you sprinkle in a note about how you plan to quit if this isn't dealt with (extra points if you can vaguely point out someone who already has). Then an admin can come by and swing the banhammer at the obvious problem whilst you run off to start it again with a clean block log.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, you need to be able to get a firm message across. The question is, can you do it nicley? That is not being incivil, it is stating the truth in a manner considered appropriate by civilized adults. In this case, John's comment was telling thuran that if he did not like the way things were done around here, he might want to look elsewhere for a hobby instead of endure the stress (he said it in a bit rougher terms) but was appropriate about it. As he cites above, this is based off of a philosophy from Jimmy Wales. Now not condining the behavior, there is a big different between what John, and what Thuran did. You can argue that John was being a tactful dick and maybye that is what it was, but how much different is that from constructive criticism or other forms of appropriate conflict? Not all conflict is innapropriate but when you respond the way Thuran did, there is NO way that can be classified as an appropriate response. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, would you consider this reponse to an editor whose article I deleted being a dick? I did a google search and found little information on there band. I need to get a negative message across (that there band is most likley not notable and will not have an article here until it becomes notable). I got the message across in a nice, but firm way (no cursing or degrading comments. For example I did not call him a bloody fucking idiot or something like that), but still got my negative message across. There is a MASSIVE difference in the way John and Thuran handled things. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the message here is 'I get to point out things you have to change cus I don't feel like it, and you better do it cus im polite'. I get it. That does clear things up for me and I'm glad you feel that way.198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to stop arguing with you about this. It is not about what was said, it is about how it was said. WP:CIVIL is mostly about how you interact with people, not what you say. If Thuran had said, "I disagree with your assertion that I should find another hobby and honestly I am a bit offended by it," I have NO doubt that John would have clarified his intent and this would never have happened. Instead thuran said, "drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." which cannot in any way be excused. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! I noticed this edit from an editor previously blocked for incivility. In addition the above cited diff, such edit summaries as this or swearing in posts do not help much either. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anon, the matter seems done, so maybe we can stop arguing about it. I can see where you are coming from here, but ThuranX' response wasn't commensurate with what he was receiving. I don't see the dickish stuff from John, though you should feel free to post on my talkpage where you think it was. Chris pretty much summed up the idea that disagreeing while remaining polite is a lot better than getting aggressive. Manners separates WP from some web forum. It also renders unto you to post anonymously and still be given the assumption of good faith. This is pretty much my last post on this as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/cx2) Don't worry, I'm done too. I care little and can change less. John's alleged misconduct was already pointed out by me and Thuran already, so if you and Chris see fit to forgive it then that is your right and there is no need for more rehash. I, however, maintain my opposite opinion. I politely put down the stick and back away slowly from the horse. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, I would have based the length of the block on ThuranX's level of ... "apologeticness" once his comment were brought on board. Maybe then it was either 1 day (for real grovelling) or 3 days for disruption if he'd acted unremorseful... but hey, I'm no admin ♪BMWΔ 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sympathetic with John's editing goals but I think his diplomacy could use improvement. It's better in these situations to engage in more discussion of the underlying issues than to just spout Wikipedia policy. See WP:SOUP to understand ThuranX's response to what happened. I'd support an unblock of ThuronX if his block were longer but 12 hours is short enough to just sit it out, if it's not already over. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ThuranX's response

    Well, now that the block is over, I'd like to say goodbye. Chrislk02 has just given Arcayne official license to harrass me as much as he wants. He's already appearing on the talk pages of the articles I edit, replying all over to make sure I know he's there, watching and talking me. He's also given the tacit go-ahead for Manhattan Samurai, an editor I've had NO contact with but who seems to work in amazing synchronicity with Arcayne, despite Arcayne's protest-too-much denials.

    John's behavior perfectly fit WP:SOUP. He deleted, I reverted, he came to me for help, when I showedhim some good faith, help, and started to do some work to help HIM improve the article HE sought to change, his response was to rudely and smarmily reply that it was all now my problem to deal with, not unlike hockign a loogy into my soup, not just spitting, then assuring me that it was flavor enhancer, if I didn't like it, I could fish out what hadn't dissolved, but since it's the only soup I've got, I'd better eat it. That behavior from an admin is even worse. To John's credit, he brought the issue of my reply to WQA, where it could have been discussed. As I said on my talk page, it was a pointless comment on my part, since I'd already done all the work, but his last comment was like spitting in my soup again once I'd ordered a new bowl.

    However, to have Arcayne Forum shop this to multiple AN pages, for him to STILL be watchign my talk page and hawking me, as he's been doing for over a year now, is too much. I've asked him to leave me alone on talk pages, on my talk page, on AN/I, and everywhere I encounter him. He won't do it. He won't, and so far, doesn't have to. Since I've been dealing with this stalking harrassment for a year, and I see that Chrislk02 has now reinforced his behavior, I can see no other recourse. Others have told Arcayne to leave me alone, and Arcayne doesn't listen. And I'm not the only person Arcayne acts this way with. Is DreamGuy around? Since this behavior has now been explicitly endorsed by an admin, I will check back on this, but otherwise, it seems like retirement's the best option for me. I've already left pages Arcayne works on to avoid him, but if he's going to follow me around with approval, then I'll leave, cause what else would there be to do? ThuranX (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is where everyone is supposed to stop what they are doing and say "Oh God, no! Don't do it ThuranX! You have so much to edit for! You're irreplaceable here! We'll tolerate ANYTHING! Would banning some of your enemies make this better? Just don't RETIRE!" Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is where some admin with a lick of sense agrees that there should be a flat out prohibition on Arcayne's following me along like an accountant, marking up every move I make and playing Gotcha!, which is what went on here. I'm asking for ARcayne to be flat out prohibited from this, as he's prohibited from interacting with a number of other Wikieditors who he constantly delights in pissing off for the fun of it. That's what goes on here. I want an intervention against his antics. Short of that, and since he announced quite publicly on my talk page he would continue to come after me, and was, in point of fact, encouraged by ChrisLK02 to do so, there really would be no recourse, now would there? ThuranX (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "no recourse" lawl. You're not locked in a dungeon, you're having problems with another person on the Internet that's generating drama and stress. You have many, many options, the least difficult of which may be to switch editing topics and ignore him completely. Or, create a new username, retire this one, and continue editing without telling anyone. These are drama-free options available to any user not under sanction who wishes to escape editors they don't get along with while still being able to edit. Invoking the nuclear option and delivering a tearful goodbye soliloquy are not. They are an attempt to gain the upper hand in a personal conflict by playing "up the ante", threatening to take your ball and go home and blaming the community for your inability to accept the less-dramatic dispute resolution options presented to you. I've read all your diffs in your conflict with Arcayne. I'm not taking a position on it; the community has already shown that your behavior is concerning. I'm asking you to stop, breathe and think before you make things worse. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weel, you've been heard from. How about some admins, now? People who can actually comment on the fact that he's stalked, he's bee nasked to not stalk me, and has bragged that he hasn't stopped. This is really simple stuff. That I was blocked in now way invalidates the problem I'm asking be addressed. That you see anything I say as drama shows me you're really not worth addressing here anymore, and your attempt to spin this into some bigger drama is your choice. I'm asking for him to be told, flat out to stop.

    And your suggestion that I 'reinvent myself' is moronic. Were I to do that, and a new editor shows up on the pages I'm interested in and have been working on, then who I am is easily revealed. Addressing the problem head on is far more mature, regardless of your opinion that being sneaky and passive-aggressive is better. By the way, I HAVE switched topics. I've already dropped articles from my watchlist to avoid him. Am I expeceted to continue to do so? ALl he has to do, now that ChrisLK02 has enabled his behaviors, is constantly follow me all over the project, which he's shown tonight he's willing to do. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm of the opinion that harassment complaints should be taken seriously. If the allegation is true, there are appropriate responses. If the allegation is false, there are appropriate responses. If the investigation reveals that the parties involved need to make an effort to stay away from each other, then that also seems a reasonable outcome. Recommending that frustrated users simply create new accounts, strikes me as being rash, not to mention insensitive. I just hope if I'm ever harassed or feel that I'm being stalked, someone will take my complaint a little more seriously. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, harassment complaints should be taken seriously. I took a quick glance, and I see Arcayne on User talk:ThuranX, sounding reasonable, and I see ThuranX here, making wild accusations and generally behaving like a petulant child. If ThuranX wants to be taken seriously, he needs to act like a reasonable adult. Friday (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an adminstrator response ThuranX - stop wildly accusing others of bad faith, and accept that you are responsible for your own conduct, and that conduct is expected to fall within certain norms, telling other users to "fuck off" isn't within that. You and only you are the determiner of your conduct and your Wikipedia experience.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MZMcBride's admin bot

    Resolved
     – No one cares. John Reaves 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unresolved
     – People care. 65.4.33.66 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is running an unsupervised admin bot on his account, and has been doing so for awhile now. I generally have no problem with admins running bots on their accounts to do mass deletions and other mundane tasks, but unless MZMcBride has been sitting at his computer nonstop for days on end, he is doing so without reviewing any of the work the bot is doing. Also note he was recently blocked for such behavior.[75]. Cheers, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I do think it's time once and for all to decide whether what he is doing is appropriate. I'm not bothered whether he is using a bot or not, it's whether it's right or wrong to be deleting those pages. Majorly talk 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I don't see any non-stop contributions, or anything to make me think that they are running a bot on their account. Am I looking in the wrong direction? — neuro(talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at his deletion logs. Majorly talk 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletions seem to be fine, per a few discussions at WT:UP (which lead to WP:OLDIP) and Wikipedia talk:CSD#Deletion of old IP talk pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c x2)Ah, right, deletions. I've seen other admins (well, to be honest, I've only seen MZM and east) doing this though, so I can only assume that there is some policy I am missing. — neuro(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst such actions may not be disallowed, what are the reasons for deleting them? — neuro(talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) That's very likely a script but I don't see anything too worrisome about the deletions. One does like to see an IP's talk page history but after a year, any hints it may give have likely gone way stale. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without getting off onto a tangent, whether it is a fully automated script or a bot is mere semantics. MZMcBride has been deleting thousands of pages for several days straight now, without the slightest bit of supervision (I stopped looking at the 48 hours/several thousand mark within his logs). That, IMHO, is the problem. I also don't see any benefit to deleting these pages, and I like (yes, like) being able to see the talk history of the IPs I use. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion about whether deleting them is right or wrong doesn't belong here, and I've already linked (above) two discussions that have resulted in the understanding that there is no real need to retain these pages. As for the "script" versus "bot" and whether or not it is "unsupervised" - we can only speculate at this point. Not seeing an issue here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's the fact that WP:BOT#Bots with administrative rights is rather specific on this issue. Could you point me to the WP:BRFA where this task was approved? Thanks in advance, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, but I can point you to WP:BURO, and more important in your case, WP:SPA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SPA? Honey, if you don't like unregistered users, you best find another project. My IP changes on a daily basis, and sometimes several times in one day. Yesterday I was 65.4.33.178 (talk · contribs) and 68.17.180.54 (talk · contribs). Prior to that, I edited briefly as 68.159.168.71 (talk · contribs). So, with all due respect, I suggest you either contribute to this discussion productively or not at all. And as far as BURO, we have an admin running a bot on his account, who has deleted over 5000 pages within the last day alone, with no real approval or consensus for him to do it. Asking where the task was approved is not bureaucratic bullshit. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I already provided links to two discussions where the task of deleting these pages was deemed acceptable, honey. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With that said, after all the effort we went through to get the admin bot policy up, is there a reason MZ doesn't just create a bot account, get it approved, and stop all the complaints? It seems to me that that would solve most of the issues here. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified MZMcBride about this thread. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, if a "bot" is acting up, we disable and ask the owner, correct? If this is not a "bot", it's harder to disable. The owner has been asked to comment, and we await such. Deletions can be rescinded (or is that "bee" rescinded, after all the honey talk, or did I just bumble my way into that?) ♪BMWΔ 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I didn't know any better, I would think this IP were my sockpuppet... Down to the same way of saying 'admin bot'. Needless to say I agree with the IP, if (and I don't believe this to be the case) MZM is running a bot, and not a script. The difference being that bots are unsupervised, and take action on their own accord, whereas scripts simply go through a list and stop at the end. Prodego talk 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a real wonder that people hate this board when nobody bothers going to my talk page first.... This has been discussed in three (maybe four?) forums (fora, if you prefer) already. I have no idea what more you want me to say here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe that is a sign that things more constructive than padding your delete count should be done... John Reaves 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which then leads me to wonder why we care about anyone's delete count in the first place. If this action has been deemed acceptable in the past, and there are no concerns about the actual deletions, then I see no issue here. Resolute 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the deletions were wrong so I don't see any action that we need to take.--Pattont/c 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there's a general acceptance that admin bots have their uses even if there's not a well developed policy about them. I'm more concerned with this mass deletion of old IP talk pages. It's simply not the case that they contain nothing but warning templates etc. They are used for discussions about article development that are relevant to the encyclopedia, just like talk pages of enrolled user accounts are used for the same thing. Because of dynamic address assignment, non-enrolled users change IP addresses from time to time so they tend to leave a lot of old talk pages if they stay around long enough. The mass deletion is inappropriate. I've used a lot of such pages over the years and would really prefer that they be kept around. I've left a comment at WT:UP about this. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with 208.x.x.x. What's to say there's not useful discussion on one of these pages that might one day be useful to a future editor? ...following a link from an article's talk page, for example? MZM's criteria do not check for such things. Furthermore, what's the point in deleting them anyway? Doesn't save space... (actually takes up more space, yes?) Deletecountitis? –xeno (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:89.242.215.88 is a good enough reason for me. -- lucasbfr talk 15:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So we pander to IP users who lack reading comprehension? From the page: If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Wouldn't simply blanking the page, or having mediawiki time out the orange bar after a period of time also work? –xeno (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can make it blinking red, people still won't read it (and don't see the date). And for one complaining, you got dozens just as angry who feel they are being unfairly accused and leave. Blanking would still pop up the orange bar, and I don't feel removing the orange bar altogether would be better than deleting (on top of being yet an other low priority development that can be avoided with tools at our disposal). I am not thrilled by the deletions, but I think in the end there are more benefits than drawbacks. -- lucasbfr talk 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Blanking would still pop up the orange bar..." - That's quite incorrect. A bot (with the bot flag) will not cause the new message bar to pop up when it edits a talk page. 65.4.33.66 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd still have the orange bar because of the non-bot message/warning that was left there a year ago :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I didn't think about that. I still don't like the deletions, and there has to be a better way. Would it be too much to ask MZMcBride to halt the deletions while this is discussed? 65.4.33.66 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Be Unlimited and 02 proxying again through single IP

    As a FYI it appears Be Unlimited and 02 are proxying again as a result of WP:IWF. See: User talk:89.167.221.131 and here. Not sure whether another one of our pages has been blocked by the IWF.... but Be Unlimited and O2 are going through one IP it appears... D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you think this proxying is IWF related? — neuro(talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't seem to be enough activity coming from that IP for all that traffic to be being proxied through the one IP. I suspect it's possible that the IP is just saying that to try and then claim that "it wasn't me" when they're blocked for vandalism (which they have just been)...GbT/c 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Phoning Be now. — neuro(talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) A lot of edits from the past few hours, some good faith not good not, hence I think that multiple users are being proxied..... D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that I'm coming through this proxy, a different one from the one I was coming through before as well. Brilliantine (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Proxying confirmed (they didn't say yes, they didn't say no, but from what I have heard from them and various people both on and off Wikipedia it is occurring), requested IWF comment on affiliation or lack thereof, apparently they will get back to me in office hours. — neuro(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass the salt, then, my hat's just coming to the boil. GbT/c 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Contacted 5 people I know to be using Be, all on that IP. Definite. — neuro(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk Talk doesn't appear to be proxying at the moment (I've just checked) - don't know if it's a technical error with Be/O2 or whether a specific URL hasn't propagated to other ISPs systems. Nick (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okey. Has anyone from the impacted ISPs checked virgin killer? Assumeing they are sticking with their no blocks widely disributed material locateing the targeted image could be tricky.Geni 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    appears virgin killer is visible. So this could be a problem.Geni 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Virgin Killer is indeed visible, both on Be, O2, and from what I can tell, nothing is wrong with me on BT. — neuro(talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP is still proxied on commons for Be customers. — neuro(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the third comment in a row, but is appears that the proxying is active on most if not all WMF sites, but only WMF sites. — neuro(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Four in a row -_-, secure servers are non-proxied. — neuro(talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chipping in to save Neuro from setting a world record in talking to himself, and also to confirm that BT isn't being proxied. Black Kite 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been no contributions as far as I can see from any of the other proxy IP addresses previously used. Brilliantine (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm on a Virgin Media connection, from within the UK. I just checkusered myself and I am not editing through a proxy; I've had the same IP since 5th December. For the record, the secure server was always a method of circumventing the IWF block, so it doesn't surprise me that it continues to be one now. --Deskana (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you didn't checkuser yourself in public ;) ♪BMWΔ 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much we can do until we get more info. Only one ISP so could be a technical glitch but we shall see.Geni 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two ISPs, unless I'm mistaken. I doubt it is a technical glitch. — neuro(talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I recall those two use the same cleenfeed derived system and servers. Other ISPs use different servers.Geni 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Be is owned by o2 Telefonica. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The blocked IP hasn't edited it's own talk since 18:10, which suggests to be that the proxying was temporary, and may have stopped? Can someone check? D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Negative, still operational. — neuro(talk) 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Telewest not affected, yet anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to encourage the wp developers to get involved with this, adding code to detect this proxying and redirect all requests from IWF'd users through the secure server, including either installing a wildcard certificate on *.wikipedia.org or (if necessary, as I seem to remember there may have been a technical problem with using wildcards the obvious way) rewriting all outgoing wikipedia urls to use secure.wikimedia.org's mangled wikipedia url's. It's not just a censorship issue, it's also a privacy one since a creepy operation like that is likely to also be monitoring people's surfing habits. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TalkTalk is OK for me. This has to be seen as a puzzle at the moment. It may be a technical problem unless evidence can be found that Wikipedia content is being blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm this is still ongoing on the IP mentioned above as of a few minutes ago. I suppose it is possible that it may have been done in error. Brilliantine (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remarkable as it may seem, UK users of Wikipedia may be being proxied again. TalkTalk has revived one of the proxies in the 62. range on 7 January 2009, see [76]. Hopefully our friends at the Internet Watch Foundation are not playing silly b***s again, but things are now looking worrying. I am going to contact Jimbo about this. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, this was how it happened last time - gradually. Maybe the WP:IWF page needs updating? At least only two of the previously used IPs are active so far. Brilliantine (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to WP:OR issues, there is a need for caution here. There is still a possibility of a technical problem, although things are more worrying than yesterday. I have e-mailed the IWF for a comment (although I am not expecting a reply). However, if they are proxying for any reason, they will not be able to keep the lid on it any more than they were over Virgin Killer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Assemblies of Yahweh AFDs

    Could some outsiders look into the Assemblies of Yahweh articles? We have numerous AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalet School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Name Broadcaster, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Narrow Way (Newsletter)) that are getting very heated. Also, can someone else talk to User:In Citer about his comments at Dalet school and edits to the ANI archives (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive503 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504)? He looks like he isn't going to listen to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone revert his edits to this section in the archives? I would like to respond but I don't want edit warring over in the archives. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have not enjoyed my interactions with the aptly named In Citer so far (and expect i'll be here again addressing this issue) I think his editing in the archives was a good-faith error out of inexperience as he sought attention for his concerns. Like Ricky, I welcome and encourage fresh, outside eyes on these related articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the edits from the archives and left a note with the editor in question. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To Bali, I agree that it was probably good-faith inexperience. However, it seems that any reverts by me would be taken negatively, so I wanted someone else to take care of it to minimize drama. Thanks Sheffield. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I'm not sure why but User:Aitias decided to mark this AFD delete after only three days (and it wasn't a snowball situation with User:In Citer's comments). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry about that Ricky, what about the controversy your edits are having on several AOY pages?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive504&oldid=262113289#The_root_of_the_problem Please would the administrators read this reply I wrote since it has been deleted [77]. I have been told to put it on todays page, so here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by In Citer (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your complaint seems to me to be that other articles have sources so no one should note the last of sources at Assemblies of Yahweh. I noted the lack of sources. From items without sources, they should be removed. The fact that I cannot find you that many sources doesn't mean anything. The burden is one those who want to keep information in the article. The point that User:Bali ultimate was making with the Roman Catholic Church is that they have actual references to something. Right now, the AOY article has simple statements like "The group believes the name of the Supreme Being is “Yahweh” and the name of the Messiah is Yahshua" period. Who thinks that? They do? Fine, where do they think that? If you want to keep it, hunt through the pages and cite it. I'm getting tired of playing games with everyone who think it's our job to disprove the statements in the article. As to your complaint about Latin musician Milly Quezada, wipe it out yourself if you want, ok? The fact that other stuff exists is not an argument. Also, seriously, I'm getting tired of the "preying on your work" and the "efforts of countless editors constructing articles can have them ruined by one or two overzealous administrators who go by a bewildering impulsion to include more sources" arguments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat per WP:TOV

    Resolved

    Moved from Jimbo's Talk page for consideration here. I've blocked the IP --Rodhullandemu 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what to make of it but figured I'd tell you just in case it's a real threat and here are these diffs:

    --Iamawesome800 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'm not US, so I can't contact them, but their phone number is 414-875-5900 and their email is [email protected]. Would someone please report it over the telephone? I don't know if the email is checked. — neuro(talk) 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar story: [80] --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about that number? 414 is the area code for the city of Milwaukee in Wisconsin. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The email must be wrong as well, then. Must be another school with the same name. — neuro(talk) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, Milwaukee has a similarly named school. Nate • (chatter) 09:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    319-653-2143 - Washington High School; 319-653-5414 - Washington Junior High School; 319-653-3691 - Lincoln Upper Elementary School. Is it so difficult? If anyone has the number of the local Board, that wouldn't be a bad idea either, since the threat is non-specific. If I, in rural England, can get this information, so can anyone else; the difference is that I can't call anywhere in the USA at present. Does anyone care whether a school gets blown up or not? If not, does anyone care if an evil prankster gets "advice" from the FBI? --Rodhullandemu 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that it is around 8 PM there local time - will anyone be there to answer the phone? I have heard differing opinions from administrators on whether to involve the authorities or not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore Administrators who haven't had to deal with this sort of thing. Consensus is that we leave it up to the appropriate authorities. And the FBI, I believe, are available 24/7, and have at least one telephone. --Rodhullandemu 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to underline that Jimbo has repeatedly said that we do not assess the validity of these threats, but leave up to LEA, and LEA say the same. If someone is going to liaise with LEA, be prepared to talk them through diffs and WHOIS to locate the IP address, which comes up as a dynamic Iowa Telecom Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am calling the Washington, Iowa police department now. I will report back with an update. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's good, thank you. I have just called the night desk at the US Embassy in London and they were kind enough to not only call me back but also offered to pass the information onwards. Hopefully, whatever it is, this can be resolved without faffing around. --Rodhullandemu 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I called the police number that came up from a Google Maps search of the city and they gave me another number to call. I called that number and the woman on the other end gave me an email address for me to send the information, which I did, including links to the diffs. I told them to either email me or to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. I just sent the email, and so unless we hear more about this I think it's out of our hands now. Thanks for bringing this here. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess I'm a little late to comment on this, but in case someone wanted to contact the US FBI or other authorities via e-mail, there's a form letter for these sorts of contacts under construction at User:Mendaliv/TOV letter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, anyone (else) who doesn't know what the apparently British term LEA means, it's Local Education Authority. - Hordaland (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in the US and I read LEA as Law Enforcement Agency, which makes more sense in the context. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of award/warning.

    Resolved
     – No. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    An administrator who recently came under some fire for their bad decisions is now compounding this by engaging in an edit war to remove their Colberry. I would like their page locked so that they can't engage in an edit war to cover up their previous errors. Spotfixer (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spotfixer has returned from his block to troll my talk page.[81][82] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling me is both false and uncivil. I reprimand you for violating WP:UNCIVIL and demand an apology. In addition, you must stop edit warring on your own talk page. Spotfixer (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Users may wholesale remove anything from their talkpages except declined unblock requests during an active block. I suggest you drop the issue and walk away. //roux   03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spotfixer blocked 48 hours for incivility and trolling. Considering he just came off a block...the post was extremely uncalled for...taking it to ANI pushed it over the top...there is no reason whatsoever for those edits to ever be appropriate. --Smashvilletalk 03:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. Reading the original post above, two things are noticable about Spotfixer's conduct. It's based on a mistaken view of User Talk policy (ICB is quite entitled to remove that message from their own talk page). More worrying is Spotfixer's attempt to get the page protected in a version mocking ICB. I agree with Spotfixer "trolling my talk page" wasn't a good choice of phrase. To me, it looks like harassment... and I hope that ICB does not respond to it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Borderline-outing, attempt to intimidate through knowledge of personal information

    I've been involved in a dispute over Threshold (online game) with Cambios for some time. He's made some claims that I'm a banned user from a MUD that he owns and controls. While I've been slightly concerned with the details of respect of privacy going on here, I've let it slide for awhile. However, Cambios' comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game)#Long debate (diff) hint at personal details which come close to violating WP:OUTING without crossing the line- while indicating that there may be more to come. I believe this is a direct attempt to intimidate me into backing down. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh deary. Considering the users previous record of blocks, sockpuppeteering and other issues I'm half inclined to say 'go with an indef ban'. The user may not have been aware of the relative policies, however. I'd give him a final 'your neck is on the block here' warning and hit him with the banhammer if he so much as strays over the line. Ironholds (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Close to outing != outing. Seems a little too broad to be construed as such for me, but I certainly wouldn't think of it as being appropriate. Final warning maybe, but not blockable in my eyes. — neuro(talk) 07:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On multiple occasions, you specifically requested that I verify my claim that you were a former Threshold player, and potentially a disgruntled one. The first few times you asked me to verify the claim, I ignored it specifically for this reason. Since that time, you have repeatedly claimed you have no COI when it comes to Threshold. That is obviously false, and you cannot hide behind a policy like this as a shield to protect your dishonesty. Eventually I had to say something to prove your personal experience with Threshold. The fact that you played the game in violation of its rules (underage) is also relevant when the issue is your COI and your motives. It is additionally disturbing that we now learn you used off-wiki communication to seek out at least one banned, ex-Threshold player to help you in your edit war on the Threshold entry. If something I posted on that discussion page troubles you from a privacy standpoint, tell me precisely what it is and I will gladly remove it. But it will then be incumbent upon you to: 1) no longer deny your COI regarding Threshold, 2) Admit that you played the game in violation of its rules, and 3) Admit that you used off-wiki communication to solicit support both before and after the AfD was submitted. Cambios (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the bans: I was unblocked specifically because some of the accusations that caused the bans were found to be FALSE. Lets not circle the wagons and chase off "newbies" just because someone with 17,000+ edits says I'm intimidating him. I'm not. Cambios (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the accusation of intimidation is ridiculous. He played a game that I own. He certainly knows my real life identity. On that game, he disclosed his name and various other details. He *KNOWS* I know who he is. How can I "intimidate him" with that information when he is well aware I've known these details for over 10 years. Cambios (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the admin who ws originally involved in this dispute I don't believe there is any need for administrative action at this point. I would say, however, that the best course of events here would be for both parties to concentrate on commenting on the article/AfD, and cease attacking each other. The closing admin in the AfD will look at the quality of the comments made, not at character assassination. Black Kite 07:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment wasn't made on the AfD, the comment was made on the AfD talk. — neuro(talk) 07:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you. My comments were all on the Threshold AfD and AfD discussion page. My comments about his connection to Threshold were solely in the context of his COI, and the fact that on multiple occasions he asked me to back up my claim that he was a former Threshold player. I used only vague details (dates played, name of ISP, huge city connected from) to verify I was not making it up. I should note that on Mendaliv's talk page, he actually does out me, when discussing a blog post from Dr. Bartle. Cambios (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. I said that Michael Hartman wrote for that eZine, and I considered this worthy of comment because it's a matter of public record that Michael Hartman is the person who owns and operates Threshold. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the outing there is pretty clear, but I'm not the one running here to try and get anyone banned. I'm simply asking that you keep the discussion to the Threshold AfD and AfD discussion page, and avoid external methods to squelch opinions and input. Please remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Cambios (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to all the comments here. Please excuse me if I acted too quickly in coming directly here, but I felt my privacy was threatened. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you felt your privacy was threatened, why did you REPEATEDLY ask me to verify my claim that you were a former Threshold player? I won't even guess at the possible motive for that. And you message me all the time - if I said something you didn't like, just ask me to change it. Cambios (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It is generally not considered advisable to ask people to verify some off-wiki information in the hopes of proving a negative. Since there are two WP:OUTING complaints here I'm inclined to close them both (the other already being closed) unless some serious evidence of outing of personally identifying information is produced. Without that this is just drama. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    dodgy-looking edit

    Resolved
     – Removed by Deor. — neuro(talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit concerned that this edit may contravene Wikipedia guidelines by linking to inappropriate material. Would a knowledgeable user please review. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed by User:Deor as a link farm. Seems to be the editor's only edit so resolved? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, resolved thank you. Rjwilmsi 12:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User subpages used to subvert Mediawiki limit on signatures

    The developers restricted signature length to 255 characters, isn't that reason enough? It seems as though we have policy on this, although we don't, precisely as to what policy means on WP, ie, a page listing the rules we have here. Currently we have signature guidelines, but no real policy as far as I can see, unless you interpret the fact that the devs limited the sig length to 255, and they probably had a damn good reason for that.

    Continuing on, it seems to me that many interpret this guideline as policy, but there is no real enforcement unless someone randomly spots that this user or that user is circumventing what is noted on the page using a /sig subpage to substitute their signature wherever they sign.

    As far as I have also seen, when issues with this are brought up, either people are forced to change their signature, or others are let go. I know wikipedia may not be about fairness, but that just looks a tad off to me.

    Do we or do we not have a problem with circumventing the 255 character limit? The devs sure did, so why don't we? If we do, then why don't we enforce it? Why do we let some get away and others are forced to change their signatures. I consider this a matter for admin attention as admins will mostly, in the case that people refuse, be the ones that enforce it. In fact, admins are really the only people that enforce anything, all of us established users simply tag the ones who break, or come close to breaking policy, to alert them they are doing such, and if they continue, we run to the admins to take the appropriate action.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that depends - if someone has a signature with 270 characters it doesn't matter at all, but perhaps there's a slight problem if someone has a signature with 750 characters. We really don't need to worry at all about minor infringements on the limit and only even consider enforcement when people are really going overboard. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Well, this brings an idea to mind, how about we allow circumvention, but only to a degree, ie, we set a limit on signature length, as besides the technical length. As you said, people aren't going to enforce minor infringements, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 11:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Ah, just like a cop not enforcing 45 in a 35 zone ... waiting for the "big fish". Unfortunately, it's like one day you steal a pen from the office. Then stapler. Then a package of paper. Oh look, that ink cartridge fits my printer at home. Oh look, I need a new printer at home. Tacit acceptance of violations lead to further violations. An editor with a history of flouting the rules and policies does not a good editor make. ♪BMWΔ 11:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as it's not a big deal at all and makes hardly any difference to how Wikipedia functions then I doubt there will be a single admin willing to block somone for going 20 characters over the limit. It does not get in the way of building an encyclopedia having a slightly long signature. That said, there may be concern if someone signature is 200/300 over the limit because it makes the edit screen cluttered in discussion - in that case enforcement may be needed (although I reckon it would be hard to get a consensus). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a particular signature that you find problematic Daedalus? If so, then we can gladly discuss it. If not, then perhaps this thread isn't that useful. If you feel strongly about it, then perhaps you might consider starting Wikpedia:Requests for comment/Signature size. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it at all possible to draw a line somewhere, that sig length should not exceed? And no, there is not, I had the problem of one of my past signatures being substed, and then the page I was using was called up for deletion. I went to the MfD, seen here, where the general consensus was to delete, but the MfD was withdrawn because the user who filed it did so in regards to a specific user, but then the user shortened their sig.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My signature is substed, I don't think this causes any problem :). However I do believe that if a sig is too long, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis (There are no guidelines as of the allowed colors and sizes either, and I'm pretty sure we don't want to make an other policy banning every green and pink signature there is :P) -- lucasbfr talk 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a limit of 31? --NE2 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the technical reason, if any, for a limit of 255 vs. some larger number? Or smaller? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Geeks love powers of two. :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I want is a limit defined as disruptive, as apparently anything longer than 255 isn't.— Dædαlus ContribsRespond on my talk please 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's not really a technical reason, it's just a nuisance in edit mode. Seems like someone should be able to fit their signature into 255, which seems generous as it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about m:DICK as a canonical policy we can all subscribe to here? In the edit window on my PC, Daedalus' signature runs to three lines, his comment to just under one. So 75% of his comment above is pure overhead. Is that enough to be disruptive? Ask anyone trying to use a mobile device. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a fuddy duddy on this one. I don't think anyone should be allowed to customize their sig in any way. It looks good, but it is annoying as hell when trying to read through comments in the editing frame. Just a lot of white noise. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For those wondering:

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor

    ...that is 255 characters. I would think using the above as a sig would be unacceptable, much less to try and have one larger than that. I think the hard and fast rule is the better way to go. If you can't say it in 255 characters, use a talkpage. Padillah (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some thoughts: a sig is not automatically appropriate because it's below a certain limit, nor is it automatically inappropriate because it's above a certain limit. Instead, a sig under community discussion is appropriate or inappropriate based on consensus reached about the applicability of both common sense and WP:SIG to the situation. A specific case of circumvention is just fine, so long as everyone agrees it is (a 1000-character sig would be A-OK if discussion decreed it so, although I seriously doubt this would ever happen). The developers made the technical limit 255 bytes because that's all that you can fit into a MySQL TINYBLOB, a database field for storing text. The next biggest size is a BLOB, which is 65535 bytes and obviously not appropriate for a sig. So, attempts to circumvent the limit using template substitution for an otherwise appropriate sig might be considered more of a problem with the software than with the individual using the sig. In other words, in and of itself it's not a problem (in my opinion!). GracenotesT § 14:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I was sure a blob was bigger than that (4K) I've learned something today :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And herein lies the problem, and one that I am guilty of as well. My visible sig can be 3 letters, but with 252 characters of coding around it. To the visible eye on a page, it's just there. To the edit page (or diff's view), it's freaking honkin' AND disruptive. On many boards, if you change your sig in one central location, it changes all previous iterations as well. In theory, having your sig in a template would do the same thing, and indeed might be smarter. However, at this point, Wikipedia's sig is in your preferences. It's limited to 255 characters. You want modifications, go to village pump or something. talk→  BMW  ←track 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, unsubsted templates would be an easy vandalism target and would hurt page rendering a lot :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there's many 1000 character sigs that would be viewed as appropriate and necessary. Here's a question, how big is a username allowed to be? That should be reflected in this decision. Also, what about the possibilities of vandalizing a users sig template and affecting hundreds of talkpages? do that to two users and we've got trouble. Padillah (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why there's a bold Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature in the Preferences pages. If the said template is substed though, vandalism would only be visible on the next messages by that user. -- lucasbfr talk 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't help but comment on the "prone to vandalism" comments here - you know you can create a faux CSS and subst it, and it will be automatically fully protected, right? — neuro(talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by ClaudioProductions on Lee Hasdell article

    ClaudioProductions is opposing removal of non-verifiable information on the Lee Hasdell article and blindly reverting to "his" version. Some diffs: [83] [84] [85]. The reason content was removed (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR) has been explained to him multiple times by multiple editors. See his, and the article talk page. He also has a COI with the article subject (his father, see WP:COIN#Lee_Hasdell.2C_User:ClaudioProductions), and has a history off taking ownership of the article opposing all changes as explained at previous ANI report here. Thanks. --aktsu (t / c) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I support arbitration enforcement. He's done the same things to Tupac Shakur several times a few days ago. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont even compare what i did on the Shakur page! That was minor and i accept your reason. Though you came across as wanting to own the page the same way i come across on the Hasdell page. ClaudioProductions (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Claudio was blocked for 24H after I reported him for breaking 3RR. I don't think this is the end of it though, so I would apreciate it if an admin could at least keep an eye on the page if nothing is coming out of reporting this here. --aktsu (t / c) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Eva Peron‎

    Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) (se also 209.244.31.61 (talk · contribs)) keeps removing my comments from Talk:Eva Perón‎ (even after they've been restored by an uninvolved editor) in an apparent attempt to "win" a content dispute. His excuse is {{notforum}}, even though I'm discussing article content. I believe WP:OWN is also an issue (for both the talk page and the article), as may be WP:3RR.

    Note also that the archiving omits text removed at the same time, from the talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I advised the other editor of this ANI talk→  BMW  ←track 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been bold and restored everything. Removal was completely inappropriate. //roux   14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems prudent, although I was waiting for an update from Andrew (talk→  BMW  ←track) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Text was archived because it was felt that the discussion had met its conclusion. The other editor entered into the discussion to express his concern that a reference to the musical Evita (musical) be included in the lead in the article. This inclusion was made, therefore it was felt that the resolution had been reached, and because the talk page had become lengthy it was archived. Further, the exchange between the other editor and myself had reached the point of being a forum (WP:NOTFORUM) and a chat (WP:NOT#CHAT), which is not the point of a talk page. As per the "notforum" template, comments that disgress to the level of a chat or forum may be deleted. For all of these reasons, the talk page was archived. If fellow editors are wont to intervene, please do. I have been trying very hard to end this childish squabble. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "It was felt" by whom? Best rule: don't archive discussions you've been involved with that others might rightfully think are still active. Deleting other editor's good-faith comments is always inflammatory and usually unnecessarily so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Check back over the archives and you will see that this other editor's comments were not in good faith. This editor has been insulting to me from the beginning. This editor disregarded the fact that the matter had already been discussed. When I presented this, this editor then denounced my argument in a very insulting manner [86]. This editor is the one who started this. I would like other editors to keep an eye on this because I simply do not have the time or energy to devote to this matter anymore. I actually have a life outside of Wikipedia. Thank you. --- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [the following has been moved here, having been inserted in the middle of my comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)] [reply]

    I would also like to add that one of the most insulting aspects of dealing with this editor is that he continually hurls labels at me. This editor appears to have memorized every template and rule on Wikipedia, and then takes a great deal of pride in hurling them at me. Further, it is highly inappropriate that this editor seems to be attempting to psychoanalyze me, or at least grasp my motivations and offer a diagnosis ("I believe WP:OWN is also an issue...."). I am well aware that I do not own this article. I'm not a moron. But it is equally true that I almost single handedly took this article from a stub to a Good Article and that if not for me it would have lost its Good Article standing by now. When I pointed this out to this other editor in an attempt to clarify that my attention to the article is "Good Faith" (is it not good faith to want an article to retain its good standing?) I am then met with all of these insulting labels, being treated like a child, being told that I don't "own" the article, etc. That's not the point. I know I do not own the article. I have, however, contributed significantly to it and continue to attempt to make it retain its Good Article status, which would seem to indicate Good Faith on my part. It appears that this editor is angry that his contributions were not included verbatim. He seems to forget that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. His initial suggestion was that a reference to the musical be included in the lead. It is now included, but placed in a larger cultural context -- albeit within a reference to the work of the man who may be North America's most noted biographer of Eva Peron: Tomas Eloy Martinez. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertising under guise of information, again

    Resolved
     – Spam removed, IP warned. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two articles have been edited to include thinly disguised advertising: Tax information reporting [87] and Tax forms in the United States [88]. Links to the company's website have also been included in the References section [89][90]. The company being advertised has previously added images with advertising to the same articles.Rsmcphail (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam removed, IP warned - anyone could have done this, no admin intervention required. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Assemblies of Yahweh

    Concern with two contributors: Ricky and Bali

    This edit is the continuation of the dispute about the edits of Ricky (and now Bali) in the past few days and whether they improve the articles or not. These edits concern the Assemblies of Yahweh article and its relations. Please see Ricky and Bali revision (current) and revision (previous). ( Concern with Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) and Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) edits )


    For the past several days two contributors (Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) and Bali ultimate (talk · contribs)) have taken it upon themselves to edit the Assemblies of Yahweh related articles. They did not discuss what they were going to do, they simply, commencing around the 30 December, began to make some drastic edits to the articles claiming the articles were not verifiable, notable or neutral. Only these two editors have not done any of these things to the articles at all, while also reducing their readability. Thankfully, one editor (Shoessss (talk · contribs)) has also noticed and had a dispute with Bali about his behaviour [91] when she said “However, you cannot let personal views or opinions cloud your judgment.” which these contributors have been doing. Their behaviour is not proper for an administrator.


    Still, it needs to be brought to more contributors’ attention. One person has remarked that these two editors are not improving the articles at all (especially the Assemblies of Yahweh article). WP:IAR : rules can be ignored if the rule is a detriment to the improvement of the article. So when administrators such as Ricky go so far as to disadvantage articles for no rule whatsoever, how bad is that? Administrators should read my extensive reply from yesterday (which was removed because I was replying on an archived article):


    Please read here for the root of the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive504&oldid=262113289#The_root_of_the_problem


    Please, can you read WP:SIGN and start signing your comments. All you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts. It appears like there is on going discussion on Talk:Assemblies of Yahweh, and no one has edited the main article in about 24 hours (and you haven't even edited the article since Dec. 18th!). Doesn't seem like any edit warring is going on. What exactly do you want an administrator to do? Sounds like this may just be a simple content disputes. Administrators have no special power to solve content disputes. We put those before the community. Please see WP:DR for more steps you could take. Perhaps you could explain specifically you are looking for out of an administrator, and instead of making generalized statements, you could be more specific and posts diffs of specific bad conduct you believe other editors have committed. And be concise if possible. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryanbstevens

    Okay, I don't know what to do with this user. He has been warned at least three times, but despite multiple warnings, he still still refuses to add categories and sources to his articles. He is clearly editing in good faith, as he's making articles about notable songs (usually), but his blatant refusal to change his ways has me unsure about what to do with him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will talk to them in a few moments. — Aitias // discussion 15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redirected a number of the songs articles back to the album articles, per WP:NSONGS and left a note already for the user.-Andrew c [talk] 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I undid the redirects. I'll go back and add sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a comment at their talk page. I don't think any admin action is needed. May this be marked as resolved? — Aitias // discussion 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe. I'd still like to know what to do if he keeps refusing to add categories and sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenPoundHammer: Well, I think “Therefore persistently adding content without providing reliable sources is generally considered to be disruptive editing and may accordingly result in a block if continued. To avoid that, I kindly ask you a last time to provide reliable sources in your articles in the future.” ([92]) says quite bluntly what the result of not adding reliable sources will be in the future, doesn't it? — Aitias // discussion 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    {EC}I figured that if the user noticed that his articles were being de facto deleted, he may take note to our basic policies. Some new users don't even know about their user talk pages at first. This user obviously isn't communicative (yet). Maybe my approach is a bit harsh, but songs that don't meet basic requirements are supposed to be redirected anyway. If you'd prefer going through the user's contributions and making sure they cite multiple, reliable sources and are notable enough to have an article, then great, but I thought your desire not to do that was why you brought this to admin attention. Anyway, I'll stop redirecting the article for the time being while you (and others) fix them. Maybe someone else can find a way to make Ryan more communicative. If I remember, in a week or so, I'll go through Ryan's new article list and start redirecting articles that don't meet WP:N. -Andrew c [talk] 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually give benefit of the doubt to Number Ones and at least Top 10 hits in general. All of the country music articles are in lousy shape, really (hint, hint), but I'm trying to do what I can. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted to his user page, maybe he'll see that. dougweller (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I usually let other people assign categories to articles--it seems to be a specialized business. I thought in fact about specializing in it myself when I first came here, but it seemed to be well in hand already. DGG (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good news, seems like the user has started to respond on the talk page and make efforts to add sources. Still needs to learn the ropes though (poorly formatted citations, recreating articles instead of undoing a redirect, etc). Anyone want to try to teach this user some basics? -Andrew c [talk] 02:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do it. Consider this resolved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two using Wikipedia as Myspace

    Resolved
     – Users warned, community notified

    I have warned two users for using Wikipedia as Myspace (not sure if I was right in wording the warning. Been a while since I had to warn some one for Myspace activities) I am asking that some one watch them to see if they continue. They are

    Thought I would bring this to the attention of the Administrators. Happy editing all! Rgoodermote  16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While it looks like they're definitely doing it, it's noteworthy that the warning you left says that all their edits are in userspace, which isn't true (however in looking at those few edits outside of userspace, they're for the most part socializing and not about encyclopedia building). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll watch these two, as well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit, I didn't look completely through their contributions. I skimmed and saw nothing but userspace and just figured if anything was in mainspace..it wasn't going to be worthwhile. Rgoodermote  16:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible they could be sock-puppets, new users don't know that they're only allowed one account and that Wikipedia is differnet then MySPACE. I suspect they think it's a blog site. Also, isn't it good manners to let them know we're talking about them on ANI? Elbutler (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually thinking that myself when I was looking through the talk historys. It seems one of them was blanking the talk pages. As if thinking we wouldn't be able to see their conversation or for fear that we would catch them. It was the blanking that attracted me to them by the way. Notified both users of this topic. Rgoodermote  16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I found a third guy. User:Prince_Of_All_Saiyans. Rgoodermote  16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy or guideline that prohibits a user from having more than one account. It is using multiple accounts inappropriately that is not allowed: see WP:SOCK#LEGIT – ukexpat (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems as if 64.53.58.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is connected. seicer | talk | contribs 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeap, the IP is. I am not thinking this is a case of all the accounts being the sock of one person. But many. Also, this does not run under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. They are violating our policies on what Wikipedia is not and I am getting the feeling this is not the first time they have done this. Starting to remind me of the Wayward Lovers case. Rgoodermote  16:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think it may be a case of a few kids at a school using Wikipedia. The IP is registered to a company in South Carolina. WaltDaMan mentions the school he attends, which is also in SC. 11vegeta11 mentions his band will play at a church in the same town. I'm willing to bet this isn't socking, just a misunderstanding of policy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all we can do is sit back and watch. Guessing is going to get us no where. I noticed that Walt blanked his talk page. So I am assuming he read the messages. So we can assume he will not continue. The other seems to have stopped. Rgoodermote  16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they got caught passing a note in class :-P (of course, with their interests in playing guitar/keyboard, the "note" is extra-ironic! (talk→  BMW  ←track) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    XD That was a pretty bad joke mate. But still funny. Well I don't see much coming from them. You guys agree that these two are done for the day and that we should watch them for the next week or so? Rgoodermote  17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a good idea to me. We can all keep track of them, and warn them if they try something screwy (please ignore the Elmer Fudd moment, i watched too many Bugs Bunny cartoons). Elbutler (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Marked as resolved. Rgoodermote  17:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful ... we gave someone else above heck for closing their own ANI filing ... :-) (talk→  BMW  ←track) 18:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)Serait une première pour moi. Rgoodermote  18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Szlevi

    Szlevi (talk · contribs) This user is making repeated personal attacks against several editors, and making off topic posts, on the AIDS Denialism talk page. After warning he has reinstated the attacks (some of which he admits on his talk page) and now used religion what appears to be an attempt at an insulting epithet on his talk page. Can an administrator please review, warn, and block. Many thanks. Verbal chat 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned by dougweller. IMO, the user continued personal attacks and incivility after multiple warnings, and threatened to have socks/avoid a block. User seems up to no good, and doesn't have any productive contributions. I'm leaning towards an indef block, but we'll see how doug's final warning goes.-Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Relevant links: "you, arrogant blockheaded people" directed at other editors (and re-added), "WHat a clown" directed at another editor, "If you block me, I will re-register"... — Scientizzle 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, this editor's been here, on and off, since mid-2006. They should know better by now, and I'd be inclined to indefblock anyway on general principles after that lot. EyeSerenetalk 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide threat by violence-threatening blocked user

    Resolved

    User talk:Emo Rooster. User was blocked for a month for vandalism; when they came off block, they threatened violence on my talk page ("if i find you i will hang you"), attacked User:Die4Dixie on his ("just die"); so I blocked again for NPA. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. Can I mark this resolved? I guess I will :) Cheers! --Tom 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see there is a suicide threat. I could make a snarky comment but I will resist. I wouldn't feed the trolls any more but if others think differently, go for it. --Tom 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wunner what his gripe is with us? We haven't edited the same page other than my talkpage in over a year. Bizarre thing is , his attitude towards Mike seems more disturbing than his towards me. Mebbe he just doesn't like orange nor Southerners.Meh.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't people just block vandalism-only accounts indefinitely? In my experience, only bad things come from letting them come back like this. Grandmasterka 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A suicide threat should be taken with more seriousness. I'd actually recommend determining who the proper authorities in this case would be and contacting them. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going by his deleted contribs, it was vandalism (a hoax article), but the hoax was a bit of creative writing, which, if done by a teen, showed talent and a spark of hope, hence my take on this is, the blocking admin didn't want to slam the door altogether on the first go. It's unlikely the editor would have been blocked at all if he hadn't kept recreating the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal/sock/meatpuppets gaming the system to bypass semi-protection

    Build Water (talk · contribs) find a random user page, adds a single letter, removes it, adds another, and so on down the keyboard, from z to b here. This apparently grants the account sufficient editing privileges to the edit Virgin Killer, which is on semi-protection at the moment, replacing the infamous album art with File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png. This has been going on for a few weeks now, with 7 Tinne (talk · contribs) hitting another user's page with an add-remove of qwert, down the keyboard again. Before that, Rer TT (talk · contribs) and this edit history. (Apparently 5 edits is the threshold to meet). Is there anything to be done here? Tarc (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has a case been submitted yet to WP:SSP? It's easier to get sockpuppets/meatpuppets blocked quickly when a sockpuppet case exists to document the issue. More options can be found at WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a temporary fix, I've upped the protection level back to full. It's still worth going through WP:SSP just to get the case into the system, and maybe something can be done about blocking the IPs used (WP:RFCU?). In the meantime hopefully they'll lose interest. EyeSerenetalk 18:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Tile join. Sleepers and IPs blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    U and non-U English

    Resolved

    User:SK 1993 is changing a referenced article to accord with his mistaken opinions. Please would an online admin add it to a watchlist. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs. Thanks, caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Ironhold. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely sock of indef blocked user

    I bring to you an update on my original report, seen in archive 504, item 16.[93]

    Pep10 (talk · contribs), aka Pararubbas (talk · contribs) (accounts of same person both blocked for unexplained removal of content) has new account, now as Pasd08 (talk · contribs) (example here). EXTERNAL LINKS and REFERENCES keep being removed, just because...

    Case duly reported, have a good week yourselves. VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Last time, one of the major doubts about my intentions was that i provided no DIFFS, well i hope the ones i now provided are satisfactory.

    Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Help for a fellow Editor

    Resolved

    I'm posting on behalf of Yankees76, as this user fears they are being wikistalked by sockpuppets of Messenger2010 (talk · contribs). Here's the text he's asked me to post for help.

    "I've asked another user who I trust to post this for Wikipedia administrators to read. Today after more than a year of protection, I asked for my user page to be unblocked, and within a few hours of having a user page, old personal information from 2006 was posted by a newly created user ‎Wanceez67. Since I had asked for my user page to be deleted, the only place that any information like this is still visible on Wikipedia is in the history of the user page of the the impersonator accout Yankaas76 (talk · contribs) who was blocked as a sockpuppet of Messenger2010 in 2006. Aside from myself, no one else would have access to this info and the only person who would know of the impersonator account would be the actual vandal themself. Is there anyway I can find out what active users have my user page on their watchlist? Or what other accounts use the same IP address the Wanceez67 account uses? What else can I do to avoid further harassment from this individual? This invasion of my privacy has me considering leaving this project completely. Please post any help you can give here -I'll read it and use another editor to reply." --Quartet 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New impersonator blocked indef, new edit deleted, and old info also deleted. A checkuser might be of use, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should he be looking to see if ‎Wanceez67 is the same as Messenger2010 and User:Yankaas76? Will this also reveal other sockpuppets? Though I'm sure Yankees76 has gone through the checkuser process before, I've not been here as long and haven't needed to do one. I'm not sure if there's any evidence to support an RFCU as all the personal information and diffs have been deleted. --Quartet 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I gave it my best shot. It's located here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wanceez67--Quartet 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser's done, one more sock found and they're still looking. I think this is resolved for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated OUTings from KoshVorlon against Cambios

    Resolved
     – bad faith complaint (see my reasoning below) --barneca (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - even if you can make a trail to establishing an identity, it is still outing. Not looked into this though, too actively involved, so I'm recusing. — neuro(talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the contributions of User:Cambios to an earlier thread on this page, I'm happy to believe he is who he's said he is - the owner/operator of the Threshold MUD. If there's been any outing going on, it looks to be self-inflicted. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an unbiased admin please look at this? If anyone else posted what KoshVorlon did, they'd be banned. For the love of god, apply your rules fairly and equally. This is absurd. Cambios (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So..., you went to the University of Georgia Law School and you have lived most of your life in Georgia. You even had User:Cambios/novel, which clearly stated that you were the owner of a MUD company and had experience making online games. If you don't want your public information available on Wikipedia, please don't submit it in the first place. seicer | talk | contribs 02:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an "unbiased admin", I've looked thru this, and I'll echo SheffieldSteel; haven't you stated on-wiki, on this very page, that you operate Threshold? If I'm missing something, then clarify it, because right now I just don't get what the problem is. Please point out (via email if you don't want it publicized) where KoshVorlon provided information you haven't already provided yourself. --barneca (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking more closely at the ANI thread above (which I should have done earlier), this is truly an example of an eggshell armed with a hammer; your behavior discussed there was orders of magnitude worse than KoshVorlon's discussed here, enough that I think it's obvious that this is not only a groundless complaint, but one made in bad faith. Marking this {{resolved}}. --barneca (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! That's funny as hell. Cambios, WP:OUTING refers to the act of putting your real name on here, which I didn't. I called you by a different handle. Next time, file a real complaint!

    — Kosh Jumpgate 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    possible sockpuppetry on Talk:William Timmons; copyvios by User:Rtally3

    I think this should be looked into. A user Hazeldell97202 (talk · contribs) has appeared and his first edit was to an obscure talk page Talk:William Timmons to argue on the side of Rtally3 (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked for sockpuppeteering on that very page. It could be just a bizarre coincidence but it seems strange that this user would appear just now when Rtally3's block expired and when he began forum shopping to continue deleting the sourced material on the page that he was previously using sockpuppets to delete. (for evidence of forum shopping see his posts here, here, and here, which are all about this same exact piece of information that he wants to delete).

    On another note, the user Rtally3 has created two pages, The Merrimack Manufacturing Company and The 1819 Strikes, which contain verbatim text copied from the book What Every Amercian Should Know about American History: 200 Events, as a simple google search shows. These pages should be deleted and the user warned about the Wikipedia policy on copyright. csloat (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, the user has corrected the copyvio issue by changing the page and paraphrasing the one source he used; there are still major questions about notability, but the copyvio problem has been dealt with, I think. csloat (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for caring so much about me, csloat, but I'm afraid I'm not a sockpuppet. Just a bored academic at work, waiting out a snow storm. And I'm curious about why you two are so enthusiastic about this particular issue. Cheers, Hazeldell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeldell97202 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well anyone who agrees with rtally3 is obviously a sockpuppet. What is referred to as "forum shopping" I think was really just using the noticeboards for what they were designed to to -- gather second opinions about an editing dispute and possible policy violations. I think the responses to those posts justify the concern, and use of the RfC's. Rtally3 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When supposedly "new" users know too much about how wikipedia works, and go to specific topics and dive into specific debates, it raises reasonable suspicions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    142.1.146.178

    SPA [94] weighing in on some already contentious fare [95]. If it were to get blocked for say 48 hours as a sock, and the parent account gets blocked too, that might be appropriate karmic collateral damage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User 77.111.185.112

    Insults other users by vandalizating their of userpage with racist slogans. (see here). Please also verify weather this ip and this comes from the same person. I suppose they do, because they all are located in the same country and the same city and they all vandalized the page of User:Romano-Dacis. From the ip 84.3.248.186 , also the page of User:ITSENJOYABLE was vandalized (this time with sexual content). --Olahus (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV and not on the administrators' noticeboard. In any event, the latest contributions from the IPs in question were all more than four days ago, so it is exceedingly unlikely that any block will result. The two 84.3.xxx IPS are almost certainly the same person, though. GbT/c 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Juzhong

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British and Irish footballers who have played abroad before I change my mind. Juzhong (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear, plaxico-ing are we? Looking at that discussion your behavior is atrocious; swearing, personal attacks, and then complaining that people are failing to respond to your concerns. I know some of those users and they would be willing to entertain your reasoning if it wasn't for the fact your reasoning is divided between non-policy based comments and those under the heading 'bad arguments to use in a deletion discussion'. Recommend an immediate block of Juzhong for rampant incivility. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your openness in making this report yourself, but I see no alternative to an enforced wikibreak. Given your history of aggressive interactions with other editors and previous civility block, I've blocked you for one month, and strongly suggest that if you decide to return you don't edit anything you have strong feelings about. If you can't maintain a degree of detachment from your editing, I'm afraid Wikipedia may not be the place for you. EyeSerenetalk 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Large backlog currently at WP:UAA

    62 reports, plus whatever the bot has flagged up. Anyone fancy lending a hand? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd edit summaries by 4.240.165.56

    I don't know what to make of this user's edits. The edits appear to not be legitimate so I would normally revert, but it's the oddness of the edit summary that bothers me. Any advice?--A bit iffy (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's removing unsourced comments about cancer and heart disease. At least one of the comments is an immediate followup to a posting by an IP that the above IP claims is a sockpuppet. The comments are largely unsourced but the above IP is making unsourced claims in the edit summary. So which one is right? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me (per WP:DUCK) as though the IPs that 4.240.165.56 is reverting are, in fact, indef blocked User:HarveyCarter, who seems to have a fixation about smoking. But, unless I'm missing something, HarveyCarter wasn't banned; and I thought that "revert edits on sight" applied only to banned, not blocked, users. (That said, the reversions all appear to be of unsourced information, so I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to stand.) Deor (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually get HC on filmstar-related articles, and he usually edits from a 92. range, which is AOL. Since I know of no admin who will unblock him, it seems he is de facto banned rather than de jure; accordingly, his edits are revertible on sight, since he usually cites offline material and has a history of citing trashy sources for those articles anyway. --Rodhullandemu 14:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Web forums using Wikipedia as a webhost

    It seems that some web forum (or other social group on the web) is using Wikipedia as a webhost. There is a large group of users whose only contributions consist of creating and maintaining "Next Top Model" type games on various user pages. Per WP:USER and WP:NOTWEBHOST, these pages should probably be deleted and the users warned to find somewhere else to have their games hosted. In some cases, these games are being posted right into the middle of encyclopedia articles (a couple of examples here and here). Below is a partial list of the user pages involved. I started just blanking them, but when I realized how many there are, I decided to bring the situation to wider attention. I'm sure there are more users and user pages than what I list here, but these are just some that I found using the search box:

    I will leave it up to you admins to decide what the best course of action is. Thanks for your assistance. Peacock (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blimey - someone needs to nuke the lot. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's a huge amount of this in numerous articles. A search for "call-out order", with all namespaces enabled, seems to find a lot of it. Should we warn then block, or just block, prior to deleting all the cruft? -- The Anome (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuke the material *first* otherwise, they can copy it offsite and then repost it. Nuking first will discourage a repeat performance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuke em all. Blanking will simply allow the material to be kept. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's all the userpages listed above nuked. I haven'r gone through the user contribs, so that won't cover any edits they've made to other pages. How much more of this is there?
    Update: several more have been added since I started typing the above... -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking care of it. (I added a couple more to the list if anyone want to get them, too) Peacock (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking a look at a few of the IPs that have participated in this, 3 of them appear to be from the User talk:75.156.0.0/16 range that resolves to TELUS. Presumably at least some of this relates to Canada somehow? -- The Anome (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ‎[reply]

    Two of the three school articles that had the bogus "call-out charts" added are for schools in School District 43 Coquitlam, British Columbia, so I'd say yes. Deor (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are a few more: User:Ctamproductions, User:Jentaps, User:Winditup102990, User:FloralScents, User:RBG Host, User:Sundae Morning. Peacock (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see the deleted stuff, but I was able to get a quick look into a couple of them before they were deleted, but I would hazard a guess that this is a classroom exercise. I've seen at least one such "incident" before. If so, someone might want to see if they can contact the institution in question. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RBG Host seems to be a central point for this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiped the latest batch. I am tending to think RBG Host is the nuclei of all this as well. Let us know if there are more. seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to take a look at User:Ngaraadhe, from whom there's a message on RBG Host's talk page. Deor (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are some (many?) of the current reality TV show articles fictitious?

    The words "call-out order" also occurred in a number of Wikipedia's reality TV show articles. However, I ignored them, because they had real celebrity hosts and judges. However, the virtual "competitions" that are part of this ARG also use the names of real celebrities: how do we tell the difference? All of this makes me wonder how many of the reality TV articles here are completely fictitious...

    http://www.rtvgames.com/ may have something to do with this, as well. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ProjectRunway_RTVG&oldid=261987482 .

    See User:CoutureChameleon for another suggestion that at least some of this may be RTVG-related, eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3ACoutureChameleon&timestamp=20081211193257

    Question: given the scale of this, which appears to be a concerted effort, should we now block all the users whose userpages are listed above? -- The Anome (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have to go back and search but I remember pointing out a user that was doing something of this scale with various reality TV shows, first vandalizing the actual show pages, then doing it in their user space. That user was since blocked. Since this sounds like a coordinated effort, they should all be warned that they will be blocked if they do this again, which likely will filter to whatever external site they're communicating on. --MASEM 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you take a look, please? It would be good to know the scale of this, since this has clearly been going on for months. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was User:Bandsofblue (here was the second ANI with the link to the first). --MASEM 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My question also. These users have been on here for like 2 months. If there's a problem with what they're doing, why do they remain unblocked? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone realised what was going on, in terms of scale and apparent coordination, until about an hour ago. -- The Anome (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably not a good idea to block all these users without taking a closer look at each. A minority of them have been making at least a few contributions to reality TV related articles. Peacock (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be good to check that those edits were actually helpful, and that the reality TV shows and constituent episodes actually exist in the real world. -- The Anome (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Leon Jackson

    @ Hi, we seem to have a problem with numerous IPs that keep adding data (not siurce given or unreliable quoting) on the Leon JAckson pages. As an Example 78.148.62.164 repeatedly modifies sales on L.Jackson's page, modifies tabs on X Factor UK page without giving base and repeatedly (this IP and others) inflate the numbers. I allready warned this IP a few times and shows a history of repeatedly changing data. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leon_Jackson&action=history Look how this IP is modifying just Leon Jackson numbers (similar cases on first link). It seems to be going on from Novermber-December 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_Now_(Leon_Jackson_album)&diff=prev&oldid=262334074 same IP modified the X Factor chart of Album sellers: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_X_Factor_(UK)&diff=prev&oldid=262333284 And on and on it goes. There are more inflating the numbers (to make seem Leon Jackson fared better re:album sales) but no proof for sales is given or the proof is not sourced or recognisable.I only edited the bits I knew from Buzzjack charts but I am sure there is more info that has been misreprsented.Sadly, the Leon Jackson fans interfere with other X Factor finalists pages, changing nubers and positions etc. Try cross-referrence to see it happening. I would suggest re-checking the whole Leon Jackson Wiki page and leaving only sourced info (check Buzzjack for sales and chart positions, please), without the bombastic and fan -derived prose. It's OTT and unnecessary. Thank you for your patience and cooperation 'DianneMiller (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

    This may be a form of self-promotion. User Lesloid0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing with the apparent intention to add external links to toy articles. ←Spidern→ 15:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick WHOIS suggests that the linked websites are related. I've indefblocked the user in question. -- The Anome (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock Puppet

    I have a suspicion that User:MiltonP Ottawa and User:Wayne Poirier are the same person. The latter account was created shortly after Milton vandalized another user's page and was blocked soon after. Both accounts share a similar User Page and both are involved with edits on old TV shows where both have been deleting "Trivia" (it was an argument over this that got Milton banned). The new account (Wayne) also jumped into accusations on my talk page in what seems to me a telling manner. Anyway, I don't know if this is enough to prove anything, just thought I'd bring it up. TastyCakes (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Gerardw (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An obvious sock of somebody, as he jumped right into a talk page debate out of the blue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ACOA Edits

    User:Richhoncho has taken a series of extremely questionable actions on the ACOA article, including repeatedly marking major changes as minor, and making misleading changes to an article prior to a review. The original issue was the list of ACOAs. The entire list was been removed because it was unsourced. I provided citations for several of the entries and restored the list. Richhoncho removed the entire list again, including the properly sourced entries, and tagged it as a minor edit (see here).

    I restored the cited entries only. Richhoncho then requested a third opinion and made a major change to the article, tagged as minor, and without discussion, that made it seem like it was about a particular organization, which it is not (see here). In fact, I had informed Richhoncho the previous day that the article was not about an organization (see here). This user is thus ignoring relevant discussion or feigning ignorance to justify inappropriate edits.

    I would appreciate if an admin could review the edits I have linked to and take an appropriate action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elplatt (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Myspace guys..again

    They popped up on Twinkle earlier. So I pointed them to WP:NOTMYSPACE. Then made it clear to the one that went to my talk page that they will be blocked if they continue.

    Users are

    and

    I also warned the IP that is in Walt's Userpage history. You guys can decide what to do. This is their second..or third warning from me (see em on Twinkle). Rgoodermote  16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both users have been notified of this topic. Also, this is a continuation of an incident above. Rgoodermote  16:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry didn't know my edits were agaist the rules. I never read your messages until the last one that Rgoodermote sent. Won't happen again. 11vegeta11 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I left you at least...3. Check your history. Plus, between you and Walt it seems you were both upset about the last warnings I sent you two line 1 (Not sure what they are talking about..seems to be the last warning I sent..not sure. Couldn't find Walt's reply). Enough is enough. get to editing and stop talking. Get a blog, go to a social website or make your own Wiki. Anywhere but on Wikipedia and it's sister projects. We are here to build an Encyclopedia. Not to fool around. You are allowed to make friends. Allowed to have conversations. But you have to be productive. Rgoodermote  16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=262553196"