Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive499

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Closing this, as no one seems to have any useful input on this editor. --Smashvilletalk 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was advised by a user that he had removed a discussion from his talkpage, so I started checking diffs when I came across these: [1] [2][3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8]. After looking at the talk page and reading the edit summaries, I realized two things: a) the IP and Oren.tal are clearly the same person and b) this was a blatant WP:POINT edit. It is important to note that I have never made an edit on the page and actually had never heard of the subject until yesterday. Therefore, I left a note on Oren.tal's talk page. He then leaves me this message on my talk page about how other users are "breaking Wikipedia law". I inform him again that adding 19 sources to an infobox is disruptive - and that it messes up the formatting of the infobox. He then accuses me of lying and saying he didn't add 19 sources to one line in the infobox. Therefore, I provide him the diff and add a template to his talk page to let him know that falsely accusing editors of lying is a personal attack (I went to level 3 - he clearly wasn't new and it was clearly a bad faith accusation - he knew I was not lying). He responds by again saying I was "falsely accusing" him. He then tells me again on my talkpage that I have "falsely accused" him and then decides to claim that he only added 9 (which would still be disruptive, but it's also not true) and again accuses me of lying. So, I give him a final warning (I realize I actually 4im'd him, but the template means the same thing at that point). I also ask him if it is possible that someone took over his account, as I was really not sure what he was going for. Again, he calls me a liar and says we need to have "other administrators decide the number". Again, the number isn't important. I let him know we are going to ANI because he's being disruptive (and I don't want to be the one to block him at this point). At the same time, he tells me again on his talkpage that he did not add sources and again accuses me of lying and then demands an apology. Gwen steps in on my talk page and lets him know that she actually counted 20. Again he makes the claim that he only added 9.

So I recognize that's kind of long and a little confusing since it's taking place in two separate forums. But there you are - plenty of Wikidrama for everyone. --Smashvilletalk 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... this is Thursday: drama is for Fridays. BMW 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a bit of a content issue as well as a small clique rejecting mainstream input backed up by reliable sources (I've yet to understand why). Oren.tal noted his erroneous counting so I believe this post is pure drama and counter-productive (see also: WP:NAM). JaakobouChalk Talk 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the conduct of the user. His edit history and interaction with everyone shows consistent bad faith accusations and incivility. Also, as I have mentioned, I have never edited on that article. --Smashvilletalk 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but the only mastodon is Oren. Read Talk:Haaretz#Political allegiance. He's the WP:POINTy editor who's added 16 references to Gush Shalom and won't abide by the Talk page consensus that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Having bad faith in this instance, where reliable references are being rejected on the discussion for non-contentious material, is not a far fetched response. There seems to be a bit of a battleground issue with several of the involved editors and I've yet to understand where these "per policy" statements are coming from. I would suggest bringing everyone involved under notice for the Wikipedia:ARBPIA and it's declared principals. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) fix JaakobouChalk Talk 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Gwen Gale seems to have acted already blocking Oren.tal (talk · contribs) for 48hrs. Despite some point to this block, I'm not sure if it were the correct choice of handling this incident. Clearly, fellow editors were edit-warring on more than one article as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is evidence of a history of further personal attacks, incivility and bad faith accusations since he came on Wikipedia:

The edit history of this user shows that previous blocks have not served as any deterrent to the behavior he continues to engage in. And again to Jaakabou, this is a user conduct issue, not a content issue. --Smashvilletalk 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you removed your "snarky" comment ... you have a right to be snarky after that brutal non-call on the Burrows hit intent to injure/charge BMW 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If only he had referred to JP as sloppy seconds...he would be so gone... --Smashvilletalk 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: adding his comments from June 2007 (i.e. Calls a user an idiot) to support an 48hr block in December 2008 is down right ridiculous.... but I'm open community input if you think I'm wrong here. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you ignore the "evidence...since he came on Wikipedia" part? What we have here is a user with a history of personal attacks, and incivility who has continued despite multiple blocks. The fact that he continued to attack me today should have been enough for a block. This is a user who has continued to POV push and edit war since he came onto Wikipedia...I'm wondering if we need to do a little more than a 48 hour. --Smashvilletalk 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
We don't mean to hang the scarlet letter over people for year and a half old comments. If there's a recent pattern -- and I'm not talking about borderline replies to incivil comments towards him -- please present this. Your calling him the t-word when he was adding more than proper content to Haaretz (which was on the page with a consensus for many months) makes me wonder if we need to re-assess your "uninvolved" status in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian articles.
p.s. I'm aware that he re-added 19 references, but that was after a smaller number of references was deemed "unreliable". JaakobouChalk Talk 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I said I had a hard time believing he is not a troll. I said it in response to you saying it was a bad idea to open this ANI. I opened the ANI in response to his comments. He was already blocked when I said that. He can hardly be excused for making repeated personal attacks on me because of a comment I made after he attacked me repeatedly. Contrary to your descriptor, the response was to you. The reason I opened this ANI is because his actions seem trollish. And for the last time, this has nothing to do with content on an article I have never edited or a subject on which I know nothing about. The fact of the matter is - again - he added 19 sources to a one-word descriptor on an Infobox. I asked him not to do it. He called me a liar, said he didn't do it, demanded an apology, etc. I don't know how I can be more clear with this - personal attacks are not acceptable. And a user who has a long history of them is a problem. Accusing me of having an agenda is a) absurd, considering I have never edited any article related to any of these subjects as I have no knowledge of them, b) bad faith and c) completely irrelevant because for the last time, the content of the article is not an issue as I have never edited the article. A disruptive edit is a disruptive edit regardless of the subject of the article. --Smashvilletalk 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Asking him to stop (he seemed to agree) or getting peeved that he said you were wrong for counting 19 when he counted 9 is hardly a concern of mine. I am concerned that a small clique just "messed up an article" (I'm exaggerating a bit) with some unclear concerns (as well as a false claim to a past consensus), and an editor who's trying to fix the issue is being aggressively singled out and "handled" for some "pattern" of minor incivility which was mostly towards people who were mocking both his earlier civil approach as well as reliable sources and the relevant policy. I noted you already on your first approach to the issue that Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has an ongoing problem and yet it seems the focus is on a very minor incivility and personalization approach by everyone involved. I can't figure out why you'd be posting a complaint even after he realized his miscount (18:53, 11 December 2008 -> complaint posted at 19:22) and when coupled with the t-word and links that go back to 2007, it just feels like a "campaign" to justify "climbing up that mountain" in the first place (mind my "personalized" phrasing). Last sanction on Oren.tal seems to go back to 10 months ago, so the alleged pattern doesn't seem like a real issue for the project, certainly not when coupled with other editors who play games with him on the Israeli-Palestinian articles.
Closing note: I think there's some point in the block but this action is counterproductive if not coupled with bringing everyone involved (in edit warring and personalization of the dispute) under notice for the Wikipedia:ARBPIA. A couple articles I've noticed as mentioned and relevant are:
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reviewed and it seems to be a very closely related issue. 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I left a message on Jaakobou's talk page [9]. Instead of replying, he has made more accusations here. What I did was remove the description of Ha'aretz as

political = liberal left-wing [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

My general view is that info boxes should contain only information that are outside issues of balance. Since there is certainly more than one view of the character of Ha'aretz political leanings that should be discussed in a balanced way in the article (not in the info box). If the newspaper had been, for instance, L'Unita which was owned by the Italian Communist Party, including "Political allegiance" in the info box would be justified because there is no doubt about their location on the political spectrum.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your general view is supported by any policy and/or reliable sources and while it is not necessary to support the "Liberal left-leaning" with 19 sources, there's no clear reason to remove the (wholly mainstream) content itselfremoval and simply cut down on the number of references (see also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It would also seem, based on the lack of response to my note of this removal,[10] that edit-warring and making claims of "other perspectives exist" (when they do not exist) has become the norm and I would again reiterate the involved parties need to be advised to the arbcom ruling. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC) +diff 14:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be venting over something, but I do not understand what. The content you say was removed is in the article: Haaretz#Editorial policy and viewpoints. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to reply to your statement: It would also seem, based on the lack of response to my note of this removal,[11]... I did not reply because (if I understand correctly) that discusses an edit I did not make, and was a question not even addressed to me. I do want to compliment you on your wiki-lawyering. Very impressive sounding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. Oren's edits at Gush Shalom have been pointy and contrary to the Talk page consensus. Other editors feel that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede. Oren refused to abide by that consensus; he kept putting the phrase back in the first sentence and piling on sources — until he got to 16. Please note that nobody disputed the fact that Gush Shalom is leftist.
I'm not going trying to minimize my role in the edit war at Gush Shalom, but there is a difference between reverting to a consensus version of an article and disrupting the process to prove a point. Oren doesn't seem able to recognize consensus, nor does he understand WP:POINT. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A couple editors suggested Gush Shalom might not really be left-wing so now the intro looks something like "X, Y, Z, T, K and J [all mainstream sources] describe it as left-wing" instead of just "is a left-wing group". The might not really be left-wing has no sources or policy backing it up (see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT).
I've also noticed a few improper comments, similar to the one above us (Sagi Nahor "compliment"), by more than a single editor.
I've repeated my perspective enough times for this post but Wikipedia:ARBPIA had a clear ruling and editors who engage in activity that is in contrast with the purpose of the encyclopedia should be noted to comply.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) clarify some 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death threat[edit]

This needs taken care of. Thanks, Grsz11 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also each of the IPs contributions are the same. Grsz11 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Account blocked. Will leave to others to request oversight if deemed warranted. — Satori Son 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Reported at Please don't oversight as the edits may be evidence in a criminal investigation. Fred Talk 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Pretty scary - the number seems genuine, though unsubscribed. This reminds us of just how many net-folk are very unhappy clowns. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the phone number make it obvious that this is just badgering and not a serious death threat? Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
In what way? It appears to be a Verizon number based out of Mount Pleasant, Michigan.[12] What am I missing? — Satori Son 17:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Geolocate suggests the IP may be from Michigin too which makes one wonder. Be that as it may, I remind editors not to presume the number is really the person posting, it could easily be someone hoping the person who's number it is is harassed, which is why if not oversighted I suggest the comment is at least deleted. (I once came across a case when someone posted a long rambling racist commentary with name and phone number which I strongly suspect what not his/hers) Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Edit: Actually I suspect what Looie is saying is that no one would be stupid enough to post their phone number on a public website for others to call them to discuss killing someone. This is probably true but of course we should always tread such matters with care Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering RedPen's interaction on that talk page, I'm gonna bet this is a signed out user. Grsz11 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) another IP. Grsz11 18:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by Yamamoto Ichiro. — Satori Son 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a range block from to affects up to 1,024 addresses,[13] so not a good option at this point. — Satori Son 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
While I don't know if it's the same person, I see redpenofdoom has been harassed for a while [14] [15] [16] [17] (this IP looks up to Canada). If this continues I suggest a re-protection of the talk page Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The ones listed by Nil Einne don't look the same as the other 68.79.xx.xx edits as none of them include the phone number or the other silly bits that they seem to think necessary to include. Other than a one day spree in Novmeber it's not happening very often. I've been deleting the necessary revisions but I see that they are now being oversighted. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use violation[edit]

Two editors are pushing to have fair use logos pushed onto the The Game (Harvard-Yale) article where for four years no such fair use existed before. This is the version prior to the effort, and this is the version they are trying to push. The article was perfectly illustrated with free license content before, and nothing is added by adding the logos. This is a violation of WP:NFCC #1 and #8.

Supporters of including the fair use are insisting that since there is no consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem they can force this use onto articles. The status quo had been no fair use images on the article. I pointed out that they are violating WP:BRD, but to no effect.

Some help please, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Seraphimblade has stepped in and removed them. I don't believe there's any reason for the logos to be in the article. I believe you're quite correct in your observation that the use of the logos violates WP:NFCC. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
And they're getting re-added without discussion outside of edit comments during reverts. 11 reverts altogether over this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And it's bleeding over into other articles now. See history of [Big Game (football)]. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Block of Ashley someone or other[edit]


IP softblocked. -- lucasbfr talk 13:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|1=|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".|3=Elonka|4=1248271}}

I am requesting unblock, which has affected me, when imposed on another editor. (PMJ) but I'll sign as the IP I am using ( (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Because of this person it seems like I have also been blocked despite not even editing from an IP range while writing this.

And this is the message I get:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person.

The other user was blocked by Elonka for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".

This block has been set to expire: 20:52, December 13, 2008.

Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.

Not that I am not the user, or its sock. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 08:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is PMJ, and I am posting this as an IP because I can only edit my talkpage, and I thought it would be resolved quicker here. (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the same as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Autoblock affecting logged in Wikipedians who have BT as their ISP. --NE2 09:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It is the same. Users can log in via the secure server and edit, but may get a pop-up message asking to confirm each new page they view (highly annoying). This block needs to be reversed ASAP as it is causing problems for people who are entirely innocent of the offence the block was imposed for. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine is OK now thanks to Luna Satin. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 09:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC) The autoblock that caused this has been removed.

However it seems that all BT customers are coming from the same IP again. ViridaeTalk 12:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been softblocked by User:Aervanath, once again, in order to disable autoblock there. -- lucasbfr talk 13:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor Elonka is getting some harsh words at User_talk:Elonka#Autoblock for doing something any administrator could have caused. Can some other admins monitor there as well to make sure it doesn't get too out of line? either way (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would someone at least look at what happened and why? I for one was blocked twice which sort of implies a failure to check second time round. Information would improve understanding --Snowded TALK 15:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have posted some information about this at User talk:Elonka#Autoblock school. For more information, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Autoblock. --Elonka 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting removal of 'speedy-delete tag'[edit]

Please remove the deletion tag from poster which I intend to use after creating the 'Double Cross' page.At the moment ,it is used for the Negar Khan article, but that does'nt mean it should be a candidate for speedy deletion. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that images of posters, just like screencaps, should not be used to illustrate actor/actress bios. They are acceptable on articles about the movie or (in the case of screencaps) characters. I also changed the ibox on Negar Khan to the actor ibox, rather than the wrestler ibox. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


TheRingess has deleted a large chunk of text from Mantra article on 19th October without discussion or consensus. It would be a lot of work to reinstate the material and nobody should have to do this. This is not the first time this user has done this kind of thing. Would someone please give him a rap over the knuckles and tell him to stop being so arrogant? Discussion is always fruitless.

Sardaka (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There are discussions ongoing at User talk:TheRingess, and I don't see any need for admin intervention in this content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk: - open proxy for IPv6[edit]

Can we have a review and discussion of this? This IP is blocked one month but given that it's functionally an open proxy at present, it should likely be an indefinite block. It's a translation address for any people that choose to use internal IPv6 addressing, and allows them to connect out to the Internet. However, there could be any number of people coming from behind that IP. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nanotechnology Fail-Safes[edit]

NanoIQP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • and a diff of my recent article edit

This article seems to be the product of a class project at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, produced by what may be a role account (hard to tell). Unfortunately, while the actual topic is encyclopedic in nature, the article itself has issues (many of which, but not all of which, I corrected in the above edit); the user above also created a massive number of mostly inappropriate redirects, many still linked from their userpage.

Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that this article is likely to have continuing problems of the "but my professor told me to do it his way, not your way" variety, so I'd appreciate if people could keep an eye on it. Meanwhile, if anyone is willing to help this project meet Wikipedia policies, that would be very much appreciated; while there are POV and crystal-balling issues with the article as it stands, the actual topic is suitable for an article. Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reads like OR and an essay. I'm not sure if the topic is at this point needing an article; merging sourced content to Nanotechnology, Implications of nanotechnology and/or Regulation of nanotechnology might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone should check on any role concerns, but the article is "decent", but needs cleaning. It could actually probably be made significantly better and longer, given all the scientific and general press and writing on the subject. It shouldn't be redirected, but just fixed. It could actually be a great article, for the topic. rootology (C)(T) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree; one of the reasons I've posted this is to avoid having the work they put into the article wasted - the core of a useful article is there, just not written by someone familiar with our policies. By the way, is there any sort of class project welcome template out there that I'm missing? I used a template plus a custom message, but this happens often enough that we ought to have a welcome for it. Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial[edit]

Inclusionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please take a look at this edit from Inclusionist and his extensive block log and tell me what it takes to get indefblocked around here? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

While Steven was posting this ANI, creating unnecessary wikidrama, I took the time to answer my own question about the uniqueness of the holocaust, which dozens of scholars have written and argued about.
I invite Steven to civilly discuss controversial issues that he may not necessarily agree with.
And unlike Steven, I am not suggesting that anyone be banned simply because I disagree with a sincere question.
Because of the intolerant reaction, and since I already found my answer, I am deleting the question. Inclusionist (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Several of those blocks seem to have been self-requests, for whatever reason, performed by user:Xaosflux, who may know more about this user. This edit by Inclusionist about hypocrisy in Holocaust denialism seemed to me to be off-topic to the page, but I wouldn't ban anyone for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I planned on deleting the question, but Steven already deleted it,[18]
Several admins have blocked me too at my request. Inclusionist (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Extreme personal attacks[edit]

How in the world is (talk · contribs) still editing here after this and this? I realize he got a warning, but my God. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were over 12 hours ago and his edits since then were less incivil. Unless he continues again there really is no grounds for blocking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a block nonetheless. The user's comments since the warning (at 1338 UTC on 11 Dec) have been rather incivil in my view, such as: "Your understanding of art is fundamentally scewed", and calling editors "nihilistic partisans who see no problem in blatant child abuse". The first comment also suggests the IP doesn't understand WP:BATTLEGROUND. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Except a block may be worse than pointless, since there is no evidence that this is a static IP, meaning that the person who committed the attacks would be free to edit via some new IP, and innocent users may be blocked instead. The reason we don't block stale IP vandalism is precisely for those 2 reasons. Blocking a stale IP address is not considered merely for the content of their vandalism, only on the effectiveness of stopping that vandalism... 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily call this stale; the IP's last edit occurred less than 10 minutes before this thread was created- less than 4 hours ago. Also, I didn't mean to suggest an indef block; I think a 12 or 24h block would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Although the issue is likely stale now, I do not believe it was so when submitted, and a short block would have been appropriate. Further uncivil behavior should result in an immediate block: we simply cannot tolerate this level of discourse. — Satori Son 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've notified the IP of this discussion in any case. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The account master of this IP (User:DenisHume) has been blocked indefinately. Please see the talk page of that account and respond to this blatant abuse of power with some conviction. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP is editing here, and back on the page that got them in trouble, in evasion of the block[19] - shouldn't those comments be removed and the IP blocked, at least temporarily? 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talkcontribs)
DenisHume is blocked from editing his own talk page. Keeping it blocked while simultaneously blocking IP addresses he can use has the effect of silencing him completely, except for email. Given that the IP block will expire in two days nothing needs to be done about it now but I recommend lifting the talk-page-block within a reasonable amount of time. The original block of DenisHume was 1 week, it seems reasonable to lift the talk-page-block on a trial basis at that time. COI disclaimer: I am actively involved in this discussion and I probably have some personal feelings invested in the matter, so you should assume my recommendation is not without bias. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC) He is now allowed to edit his own talk page. He is also showing signs of wanting to become a responsible editor in 2009. His block remains indef, which, as someone recently said elsewhere, is no the same as infinite. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to mark this "resolved?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayley Williams[edit]


This article is currently protected under the guise of "consensus" (interesting when consensus means something has to be protected). I contacted the protecting admin: he is not willing to do anything.

This is silly: the woman is notable hands down: her own article on Rolling Stone [20] [21] (two of many), MTV [22] [23] (two more of many): and 421 notes on google news archive: [24].

I don't understand why we can't go through the proper channels for this (AFD): it certainly doesn't qualify for A7 non-notable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the articles you've provided here as far as I can tell don't really establish the subject's notability independent of the band Paramore. This is per the caveat at the end of WP:MUSICBIO; unless we can establish the subject's notability independent of the band, via either membership in another band, solo releases, or some other notability outside of music (e.g., major roles in films I would think might work), the current status quo is to redirect. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It establishes it per WP:BIO. She has become notable independent of that - "multiple non-trivial references by the media". Are you really going to say that half a dozen articles in Rolling Stone and she's not notable and that this satisfies a7? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this being discussed here and not the article's talk page? As I stated on my talk page, establish consensus at the article talk to establish the article, and then it can be unprotected. Right now, the consensus (originally established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramore and never overturned as far as I can see) leans towards keeping it as a redirect for the same reasons Mendaliv outlined above, either way (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see that Articles for Deletion. Must have typoed; will take to DRV or elsewise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

abusive edit summaries and comments[edit]

also, see the edit summaries for the Heidegger (disambiguation) article.

I don't have a clue who this user is, but whoever it is, they are being very rude.

I have a hunch that it's mtevfrog, but I can't be sure. Perhaps a checkuser is in order to confirm the IP?

Just to be fair, I should probably comment that a related article, Martin Heidegger, is currently under edit protection following an edit war between mtevfrog and some other user who's username starts with a J (can't remember). If indeed it is mtevfrog behind the IP in question, then this would indicate a pattern which needs to be addressed.

Disclaimer: I am unfamiliar with procedure. If I've made a mistake, please move this complaint to its proper place.

Shentino (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are unfamiliar with procedure and ought to have read WP:DAB before creating that page. It is also poor form to throw around accusations of vandalism against valued contributors and not to inform them when you start threads about them at ANI. Warn the IP for personal attacks; if they persist, step up the warnings and report to WP:AIV if they continue making personal attacks following a final warning. Skomorokh 04:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers.

Shentino (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused... The IP user last edited on December 1... and yet Shentino warned him about his incivility about 4 hours ago, and within 3 hours he became active again... I am not sure we need a block yet, but I will warn 24.42 about being incivil. If this continues, a short block may help, but as yet I don't think the user is aware of the disruptive nature of his incivility... 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Time is running out....[edit]

I blocked Cheers dude (talk · contribs) for repeated changes of "is" "will be" to "is expected to be" in the lede of 2009, 2010, and 2011. I request review of that block, as I also reverted him on one of those years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how that can be a reason to block. Seems like a sound edit. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:YEARS, and the discussion at WT:YEARS on the removal of the {{future}} template from future year articles, all state that anything in the future is subject to change, and that fact need not be included in articles. (I thought there was a WP:FUTURE project and a general comment that all future events are subject to change, and that need not be stated in Wikipedia articles, but I can't find those disucssions.)
And it's not just once, but 3 or 4 times in each article. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For a discussion of Cheers dude's bizarre behaviour, see Talk:2009#removal_of_will_be. Also feel free to take a look at his contribs list, as well as mine for edit-summary discourse. The point is, he's making these types of edits multiple times across three articles. Not to mention that he reverted a talk-page entry of mine (I responded with a warning that if he did that again, I'd take it to ANI, but since we're already here, then what the heck.) If requiring a citation-needed tag for the fact that 2009 will start in a few weeks isn't WP:POINTy, then I don't know what is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) @Arthur: No more than three times, actually. Since you are involved and hereby confirm that you have an opinion on the matter, you should not have blocked. It is discussed on talk, no reason not to let that run its course. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW – and I'm not involved and have never had anything to with WP:YEARS – he's now removed my original warning as a "personal attack". – iridescent 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is, and he is allowed to. That's what you get if you don't respect an editor you don't agree with. Errr... you are clearly involved. You reverted him on two of the three pages. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you're quite wrong. I never said he violated WP:3RR, only WP:EW. Edit warring can be one edit if against clear consensus (and the editor is aware of the consensus). He made at least 10 of essentially the same edit on the 3 articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I never said you said, thanks. So far, I don't see a consensus, at least one user agrees with him. Anyway, since he initiated the discussion, a block is counter-productive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"Will be" is a statement of fact, and hence as the editor in question points out, if that is the case, there should be a cite for it. To use the argument "Do you seriously think that the world might come to an end in the next two and a half weeks?" is not on as per WP:V. The question could have been asked on 10/9/2001 "Do you seriously think that the World Trade Centre will be a pile of rubble tomorrow?" Unless someone has that WP:CRYSTAL ball who can prove that 2009 will actually come to fruition, then "expected to be" is quite warranted I feel, for no-one knows what the future may bring, even within the space of 24 hours. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec, and note that Guido edited some of his comments to have, IMHO, a significantly different meaning)
The dude made a statement on talk, but continued reverting before anyone had a chance to reply. The previous discussion is so old it's fallen off the relevant talk pages (probably including Talk:2008). Cosmic Latte opened discussion in an appropriate WikiProject, as the issue deals with more than one article. CL probably should have pointed the dude to that WikiProject, but apparently he found and blanked it. That would be grounds for a 'final warning and subsequent block even from an involved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The editor who "agreed" actually made a different related edit. The change from "will be" to "is a future" is a related edit. I'd have to look at the history to see if the discussion relating to the removal of {{future}} covers that or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(Points to the editor right above Arthur's post.) No, that would not be a valid reason either. Cosmic Latte's contribution was significantly below the belt. And if you still have to check the history, then declaring consensus for your point of view was premature, and pointing to the current version of WT:YEARS was unhelpful. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers dude was getting carried away with the "crystal ball" rule. Unless some unknown entity alters the way we calculate the calendar, or unless the world comes to an end (in which case there won't be any wikipedia), changing "will be" to "is expected to be" is silly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, did you just agree with me about something? Maybe the world is coming to an end.AdiumEmoticonset.png – iridescent 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I won't let it happen again. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the discussion about the removal of the {{future}} template from these articles anywhere, except an April 2007 reference in Template talk:future. Perhaps the matter really does need to be discussed. (I doubt it, but perhaps the dude should be requested to bring up the matter in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years when his block expires.) I doubt the result will be any different, but that is probably the best venue for discussion, rather than the individual article talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the block for the user has long since expired, although Cheers Dude claims that he's still blocked. I'm not seeing an autoblock, either. seicer | talk | contribs 04:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs said it perfectly above. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. This is not Conservapedia; there is no need to play to apocolyptic fears by giving serious thought to the idea that the earth isn't in for another revolution around the sun. On the other hand, this project isn't so liberal as to take seriously the possibility (unless verified) that the Gregorian calendar will be done away with any time soon. In other words, WP:UCS. Also, this is the English Wikipedia. The English language has a future tense. It is therefore peculiar to over-interpret WP:FUTURE (aka WP:CRYSTALBALL) by inferring that the word "will" should never be used, or that every single instance of it must be cited, or that there is somehow a greater need to cite a future-tense ("2009 will be a year") than a present-tense ("2009 is a future year") rendition of exactly the same idea. In other words, once again, WP:UCS. As for Russavia's World Trade Centre analogy, we are not talking about man-made structures here; we are talking about the Earth and the sun. As Bugs pointed out, if they disappear, then Wikipedia will disappear too. So, if my assertion that "2009 will be a year" is ultimately proven incorrect, at least there won't be anyone telling me, "I told you so!" Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks[edit]

After failing in his months-long campaign to have the word "conservative" removed from the first paragraph of the Drudge Report page, anonymous editor is repeatedly making personal attacks on the Talk:Drudge Report page. He has started a new section purely to attack an editor (me), and despite having the attack removed as per WP rules by me and another editor, he simply keeps re-posting it.

Warnings placed on his Talk page are simply ignored and removed: [29]

He also ignored the consensus decision of a RFC on the Drudge Report page recently and tried to edit out the consensus text. Perhaps a long ban is n order? ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 24 hours. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I imagine this anon will be likely be back here soon enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and related POV-pushing from User:Romano-Dacis[edit]

Said user has edited the Ion Antonescu article, erasing text backed by sources and pushing in a version that minimizes Antonescu's murderous contribution to the Holocaust. There is only one source cited in one part of his version, and that source is problematic to say the least this was pointed out to him on the talk page, where he has earlier stated his rejection of mainstream sources in an inflammatory post (the reply I refer to is here. I was concerned by this, and I do recall wikipedia has a zero tolerance attitude toward this kind of attitudes. Yes, both versions have problems, but erasing an article section and replacing it with such an extremist opinion should not be any kind of option. Please also note his whitewash edit on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Dahn (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, my edits are perfectly in line with modern historiography. I have not stated anything you would not find in the Wiesel Commission. Furthermore, saying Romania is "directly responsible" for all the deaths when the Wiesel Comission says the area was not even entirely under Romanian control and many deaths were caused by the SS and Ukranian Einstazgruppen.Romano-Dacis (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no Holocaust denial as such here, just the sadly usual Eastern European nationalist bickering over who was responsible for which massacre. That is a content dispute and does not belong on this messageboard. Please pursue dispute resolution and use the article talkpage instead of this space.  Sandstein  18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(From my talk:) We have two other noticeboards dedicated to such issues: WP:POVN and WP:CCN.  Sandstein  11:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The solution for such issues is not to send our good contributors from one noticeboard to the next or expect them to waste their time "discussing" with such elements. The solution is to block, block, block. Nationalist tendentious editing is not a content dispute, it is ipso facto blockable disruption. Short warning block of 24hrs for now. Fut.Perf. 11:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF IP proxy[edit]

Is this IP still being used as a filter on Wikipedia? I thought IWF lifted its ban? (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's happened - I had my "old" BT IP address back the other day, but this morning it's all through the same IP address as everyone else (as it was in the Virgin Killer days, which is at least visible to BT customers once again). (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears the all BT customers are once again coming through the same IP - I have just removed an autoblock on that IP twice. ViridaeTalk 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone using BT please try and view the Virgin Killer article (obvious warning - controversial album cover containing nude underage female) and report back to see if they can see it or has something else been blocked? ViridaeTalk 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
[30]. The page/image aren't blocked but the proxies are still active. -- Mentisock 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mentisock. ViridaeTalk 13:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have complained at the IWF homepage, once I found the means to do so, that their action of a few days ago is still having repercussions regarding the ability of WP to allow ip editing while attempting to combat vandalism. I have no great expectations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Has someone tried contacting BT? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The proxy is still active for Be customers too, even though VK is no longer filtered. Of course it's possible that other wikipedia pages are still on the IWF blocklist. Did the IWF ever say they weren't listing any pages on wikipedia, or just that they weren't listing the VK one? --fvw* 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they ever listed anything else before otherwise there would have been this rerouting problem already. Now they said that both the VK page and the image were blocked so they needed to unblock both for IPs to return to normality but it seems they did, since they're both visible again, so it must be another connected problem (cache retained by the ISPs maybe?) -- Mentisock 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Article[edit]

Resolved: Template vandalism reverted- please clear your browser cache if still a problem. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I appears that somebody hacked into your system and valdalized the Holocaust article--Woogie10w (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Someone vandalised one of the templates on the page; it has already been fixed. You may need to clear your browser cache if it does not appear fixed for you. CIreland (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides, you don't need to "hack into" anything to edit an article :-) BMWΔ 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Blatant sock[edit]

Resolved: contributions indef blocked along with its socks (contributions, contributions, contributions) by Chris G. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this users userpage User:YoMamma6188. He has a list of user's on there that's name's are close to the others, there obviously all his. This user has also been uncivil. Could an admin please look at this, and is a WP:CHECKUSER needed here? SteelersFan-94 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he admits to all of his alternate accounts on his main page, and there is no evidence that any of those have been used abusively, I don't see a HUGE problem over the multiple accounts; there are other indications this user may not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, but the sock issue seems like a non-starter so far... 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted something on his userpage that called "every wikipedia users bitches!". So I know were your coming from. Couldn't we just block those and then go from there? It won't take an admin 10 seconds to block them. What do you think we should start out doing? SteelersFan-94 05:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Open a dialogue with the user. // roux   05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? SteelersFan-94 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Start a conversation with the user, politely asking why he has so many alternate accounts. Read WP:SOCK first. // roux   05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
O.K, Thanks. Should I report what happened here for you or Jayron or another admin to comment on? SteelersFan-94 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. I tried to assume good faith, and be civil. If it looks wrong please don't hesitate to say something. SteelersFan-94 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening following user[edit]

Resolved: No threat, no problem. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass (A administrator) appears to be "threatening" a fellow user who is up for ARBCOM elections because they disagree on a D.Y.K. proposal. (See diff here). Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for a start, that wasn't a 'threat'; Gatoclass immediately went had already gone to the candidate's page and cast his vote. Apparently something about the candidate's statement caused Gatoclass to believe s/he was ill-suited for Arbcom. "If you don't do X I'm opposing you" is a threat. "I'm opposing you because of Y" is an explanation. -- Vary Talk 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud ... that's not a threat, that's a spat. As noted almost immediately afterward, people are allowed to cast their votes for ArbCom for whatever reasons they want, even personal grudges. I'm sure at least of the few of the record-breaking opposes here were payback. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
But in the middle of a discussion that could influence consensus? Thats rather uncalled for and taints the consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Vary and Daniel Case; no one "threatened" that user, Gatoclass just expressed his opinion about that user's remarks. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens[edit]

Resolved: Page semi-protected until 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC); future issues should be reported to WP:RFPP. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recommend protecting the page, having a rash of similar vandalism from multiple IPs. Ndenison talk 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please file future reports at WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun latest unblock request[edit]

This user has requested an unblock on their talkpage. For an unblock discussion on AN/I from November, see here. As the previous issue was discussed and consensus reached, perhaps it would be best if this request was similarly discussed rather than handled by a single administrator. Skomorokh 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I might kick off the discussion in a minute, also notifying of AN/I thread. neuro(talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
At minimum, given that his block was mainly about abusive sockpuppetry, we ought to involve a checkuser in this discussion (ping Alison! ping Thatcher! ping Luna Santin! etc.) to check out his claims that he has behaved for the past month. Before we get into a discussion over whether to let him back, it would be helpful to know this information... 04:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I would also like a check-user to be run to see if he is being honest about not editing during the last 30 days. As the blocking admin, I shall say that while BBHS now appears to be genuinely sorry for his sock puppetry and the other editorial behaviours for which he was blocked, I'm not sure if we can trust him not to commit the same offenses again (Links to evidence of which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175#User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks.... and from User talk:Be Black Hole Sun#Blocked onward.
It is my personal feeling that he has had enough chances to behave and enough chances to explain himself, and should continue to stay blocked. I said when I blocked him that he can be a good editor, which is evidenced by his GA and FL contributions, but that is not enough to just overlook the rest of his behaviour.
That said, if the CU comes back clean and community consensus is to allow him back then I will not oppose the request (I may not be able to unblock personally as my available time here is limited at the moment).
If he is unblocked I think this really does have to be his final chance (He's had 2 already). Also, as I said at the last AN thread, some restrictions would have to be imposed such as:
  • Be given mentors, adopted, and/or placed on editor review
  • A 3 month soft topic-ban on music related articles and templates, and must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved.
  • Must only edit using the User:Be Black Hole Sun username. No IP edits, no sock edits.
  • Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following the unblock, followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
  • Any violations of the above or WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK (the original blocking reasons) to result in a permanent WP ban, with ABSOLUTELY NO MORE CHANCES.
Of course, these are just suggestions. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 09:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No - He screwed me around many times. He's socked before and then apologised for that (with the Wellwater Conspiracy or something) and then he continued socking with BBHS. He's had last chances before. If one takes a look at those archive links up there you'll see that he was socking just hours (between 2-3) before writing up his first unblock request. We're going to be repeating the past if we unblock now. And to repeat again: He's had socks before, he was found out, blocked, and then apologised and then was unblocked. Isn't this just way too much now? ScarianCall me Pat! 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For more info on previous second chances see User:Wellwater Conspiracy. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Though I haven't been involved with this case personally, I do think there's such a thing as too many second chances. Would giving him another one here really be likely to benefit wikipedia as whole? --fvw* 17:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Request declined. Tan | 39 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review on my own action[edit]


PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) has been without mentorship since his last mentor nominated him for community ban. Since then, there's been several instances where I felt he should replace his last mentor (Ryan Postlethwaite) or possibly even be placed under sanctioning for several offenses (such as calling fellow wikipedians "racists" and suggesting an editor is a war criminal).
My action for review:
I've noticed some pretty strong soapboxing (per: "highly partisan supporters of an illegal policy condemned by the bulk (I think) of Israeli opinion and virtually every significant opinion in the world.") and noted him to try again without it.[31] I'd appreciate some review on this since I feel like I may have over-stepped the boundary as I am not his mentor (though, I understand he currently does not have one anymore).
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can remind another editor to comply with WP:Civil and WP:AGF civilly. Mentors are just another editor that has hopefully established a relationship with an editor who sometimes violates those policies and can be more successful in persuading them to comply - however it is the editor with the problem that needs to make the effort. If PalestineRemembered is estranged from their mentor then that is their problem, as is any continuing incivility. Continue reminding them, and if they persist warn them and afterward bring it back here to see if any action needs taking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Your action was to delete PR's talk page comment. I've taken the liberty of reverting it, per WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments; I think it's best not to edit others' comments except in extreme circumcstances. In general, a preferable alternative is to simply ask the other editor to modify their comments, without deleting or editing them yourself; it's best if an editor strikes out their own comments if inappropriate.
In this case, while I'm not familiar with the whole debate, PR's comments which you deleted do not appear to me to be soapboxing, but to be discussing the reliability of sources for the article, which is exactly what article talk pages are for.
I would like to repeat my earlier suggestion that you and PR avoid each other as much as possible. I see no need to keep bringing up a 15-month-old discussion about mentoring. Where you need to interact on articles, I suggest focussing on article content, and not criticizing each others' behaviour but leaving it to others to do that. I think things will go more smoothly that way. Coppertwig(talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered's post was sharply worded,[32] but I'm not seeing any policy violations there. Seems like an appropriate thing to leave on the page. --Elonka 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[edit]

User: is a vandal-only account. Help? SimonKSK 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the appropriate venue for this if he persists beyond that final warning. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


User:Pixelface legitimately is concerned with issues with fiction on WP, however, the user's behavior is known to be a problem in terms of his/hers attitude and tendentious editing. The user often challenges the core pages for fiction (WP:NOT, WP:FICT) by directly changing them and challenges the assertions that long-standing text has/had consensus. Generally this resolves to talk page discussion. However, just recently, Pixelface has boldly altered both WP:WAF (a "stable" guideline considered under WP:UPDATE) and WP:NOT and WP:N, stripping mentions of sites housed on Wikia under the pretense that we should not be even mentioning Wikia due to a "conflict of interest" (which I will note there are other discussions around that refute this claim) among other aspects. Those changes have been reverted, but instead of following WP:BRD, the user continues to revert back to their version. This is more than just a one time 3RR - Pixelface has approached this point many times in the past, and generally after some fiction-related incident comes up that raises high concerns for the user. (In this case, it appears to rise from his/hers strong opposition to User:Sgeureka's admin candidacy as you can see by the rant posted here).

I have in the past put a WQA for Pixel's tendentious editing which was resolved, but this recent rash of behavior (including the consistent claims of COI for Wikia without any evidence) is becoming disruptive to the currently active and positive discussion at WP:FICT among other places, and more than just etiquette but appropriate editing behavior. Yes, the user may not like how policies and guidelines result in the change of how we cover fiction, but there's a point where attacking the policies at the nitty-gritty details (eg, the current complaint on WAF is that it was only proposed for 18 days, and then made a guideline, despite not being challenged for 2+ years, and that the editor that created it is no longer present); Pixelface uses a similar approach to try to strip WP:NOT#PLOT despite strong consensus every time it comes up to keep it.

Despite the fact that Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation in the present situations for WP:NOT and WP:WAF, I think there needs to be some type of admin action here, because this is a repeatable pattern, and the continual challenges to things shown to have consensus are disruptive. --MASEM 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's summary. For months now, Pixelface has continued to be disruptive and pointy in his/her continued campaign to removal limits on fictional content and against the mention of Wikia within Wikipedia. From his own talk page, he seems to feel Wikipedia is in some kind of competition with Wikia and that almost implies that there is a grand conspiracy to drive traffic to Wikia to up people's bottom lines. He even notes that "Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Wikipedia policies and guidelines." As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR, but usually only by waiting days or even weeks, then reverting again there by "avoiding" 3RR. Such as his recent edits at WP:N: bold change on November 9 which was reverted, November 24th] Pixelface reverts despite having no consensus at all in the talk page discussion, again on November 26th despite still having absolutely no consensus at all, and finally on December 12th after discussion had already stopped. At WP:NOT, he continously removed the WP:PLOT section, which eventually resulted in an AN/I. He first removed on October 21st, was reverted, reverted on same day. Change was reverted again, and Pixelface re-reverted for two, then stopped until November 3rd where he returned and again removed the section despite no consensus for this removal. His nearly systematic attacks on anything he feels is limiting fictional content on Wikipedia is disruptive (not to mention downright aggravating). There is a difference between legitimately questioning existing guidelines and just continuing to attack them and edit them despite the continued lack of consensus for his many changes.
He's also displayed various bouts of incivility during his discussions, in his edit summaries, and while defending/promoting his views. In a recent AfD, he responded keep then questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site[33] His remarks during the recent Jack Merridew discussion really speak for themselves[34]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've had trouble with Pixelface's obsessive behaviour before now, too. The Wikia thing is really a Wikipedia Review meme - Wikia is a legitimate way of removing cruft form Wikipedia without being excessively WP:BITEy. Fanboys are not going to go away, so best to divert the excesses of fandom to somewhere more appropriate. I don't see this as a problem, as the Wikipedia community (which writes the guidelines) has no financial relationship with Wikia. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Has there been a user conduct RfC on this before? I'm not sure that immediate adminstrative action is required, though it's certainly worth having a discussion about potential solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
He is not exactly alone in the shall-we-say-colourful-exchange department WRT the whole notability/fan/tv/etc. issue...oh heck, I am doing a million other things at the moment and now I have to go and read more...(sigh)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, but not from lack of certification. He's always seemed to be a bit obtrusive and annoying to me. Sceptre (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I check in on the Fiction wars every once in a while, and it seems to me that Pixelface is engaged in long-term edit warring and is unwilling to accept any consensus that is contrary to his own opinions. He (and many others) have been cautioned by Arbcom before (though not by name) to stop edit-warring and incivility, and it seems to have had little long-term impact on his behavior. An RfC would at least allow the community to better determine the extent of the disruption, and if the poor behavior does not stop the evidence may be used later to determine appropriate remedies. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pixelface is allowed to propose or oppose anything he likes, regardless of consensus. I feel that Masem is trying to make a point by initiating this and the last the last complaint he has made against Pixelface. Their vague and generalised nature means that they can neither be proven nor repudiated. The complaint that "the user's behavior is known to be a problem" seems to me to be an example of weasel words, and is not substantiated in any way. This discussion is little more than a thinly disguised personal attack and this matter should be closed without further delay. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse Gavin's statement that this is an improper attack upon Pixelface's legitimate lobbying on matters of policy. More generally, our policy/guideline pages seem to be too open to the addition of prescriptive rules contrary to our policies WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and we should not seek to stifle the natural opposition to the ever-growing thicket of supposed rules and regulations here. Open debate and challenge is required to provide a proper check and balance. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pixel's allowed to argue against any policy/guideline he wants (though his tone and nature are bordering the edges of being civil, but that's not actionable on ANI), and making a single bold change to a policy/guideline to see if it sticks is completely fine per WP:BRD. But this is not the first time that Pixel's reverted a reversion to one of his bold changes that occurred within minutes of the change, and reverting to the point where a 3RR warning can technically be given should not be done - as an experienced editor he should be aware of this. This is the specific concern that may have required administrative action that I brought here. --MASEM 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Masem (07:16) "Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation"
Ok, was aware of 3RR, and didn't. Take it to RfC, not ANI.
Collectonian (08:05): "...questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site...[35]"
Looks ok to me. Read WP:NPA. Behavior is commentable, and questioning unusual behavior is not incivil.
Collectonian (08:05): "As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR..."
Hm, looks like you did a 3RR tango on Nov 27 [36]. So, your complaint is inclusively that you have stepped over the 3RR line, but Pixelface didn't quite do so. Pot-Kettle.
JzG/Guy (09:50): "Pixelface's obsessive behaviour"
JzG/Guy (09:50): "is really a Wikipedia Review meme"
Pixelface is an awesome investigative researcher. Trust me that you do not want to drive him/her to WR – or much worse, into the arms of the mainstream press that has already raised global eyebrows on Wikipedia's hand-waving of higher-ups' COI issues.

←Perhaps I can be most helpful toward dispute resolution by explaining why Pixelface is being made an example for a larger-but-suppressed fiction-content dispute at Wikipedia.
• A known WP anti-contemporary-fiction clique (cabals are secret) includes higher-ups who cling to a faded vision of Wikipedia as a trustworthy academic competitor of Britannica. (As things have turned out, competitor yes, trustworthy academic no, for several reasons.)
So, they reason, WP must do as Britannica does and doesn't. Britannica doesn't do contemporary fiction, so this particular clique is on a mission to marginalize contemporary fiction at WP. The problem is that as-Britannica vision is not what a large percentage of WP readers want to read. The reason is simple. Britannica readers statistically skew older, and Wikipedia readers skew younger.
The limited evidence suggests to me that up to 40% of Wikipedia editors strongly to moderately disagree with the fiction guidelines and policies, perhaps another 40% don't care, and maybe 20% are strong supporters of the fiction-limiting guidelines and policies. Among this anti-contemporary-fiction 20% are clique hard-liners connected all the way to the top. All such connected cliques in every organization get a lot of mid-level plus rank-and-file support. The younger pro-fiction 40% don't have connections, and I've watched at least one pro-fiction editor go silent as soon as he got connected. (Maybe it's the classic right-left political mix.) If such a 40-40-20 percentage mix is fairly representative of WP's contemporary fiction situation, under other circumstances a large opposed minority would be considered a WP "no consensus", and a compromise might be brokered. None has been, and suppression of contemporary fiction interests continues - the latest being ill-considered transportation of swaths of contemporary fiction editing effort to Wikia.
• Not to criticize Masem who may not have known the suppressed backstory, but this ANI-excess case against Pixelface is another hierarchy-bias railroading of interests of maybe 40% of editors: pro-fiction, younger, less connected, for whom Pixelface indirectly speaks.

The larger consequences of scapegoating or ignoring Pixelface:

A. Sooner or later Wikipedia is going to be hurting for donations. Maybe not this year or next, but inevitably. Why should WP simply hand those donations over to Wikia in the form of ad revenue - in the name of some snooty pretense that Wikipedia has not outlived the original Britannica vision? (Insert pseudo-academic argument about how anti-contemporary-fiction principles trump money. 9>9)
Rather than evicting thousands of editor-hours of in-universe marketable hard work to Wikia alone, recognize the suppressed reality that there's no fiction consensus on Wikipedia. Compromise by forming a WikiFictpedia. If editors and readers there want to write and read individual articles on every notable character ever written, so what? (WP:NOTPAPER) Think! Let them do it and help collect Wikimedia Foundation donations for the servers here.
B. Pay more serious attention to Pixelface's and others' conflict-of-interest warnings. The press has already seriously trashed Wikipedia for COI - root it out before the bashing gets worse and donation good will takes a more serious PR hit.
• At the wikilawyer detail level, how often is Pixelface allowed to challenge the policy/guideline status quo grip of the anti-fiction clique? Once a month? Two? Three? How about an annual fiction policy/guideline consensus day by global IP fiction fans every May 15th?
• How about the higher-ups wise up and initiate consensus structural reforms before Wikipedia has to install figurative castle battlements, moat, and a drawbridge? In case anyone hadn't noticed, WP has accumulated many serious offsite opponents, both vandals and intellectuals with plausible grievances. This is a bad combination: the vandals justify their actions as retribution for the plausible grievances. WP reforms are needed to cool off the intellectuals. Officially sponsored consensus surveys of contentious issues (say, modeled on WP:ATT's) of editors, admins, and IPs would be an excellent start. Milo 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • TL;DR. Except in as much as you make the laughable claim that agitation by detractors amounts to anything worth a hill of beans. Sure, Kohs and Bagley and a few others are shit-stirring with some known long-term anti-Wikipedia journalists. Big fat hairy deal. Pixelface's problem is edit warring and relentless argumentation against consensus, end of. Ah, but wait: I remember you now from the spoiler wars, when you and Pixelface were on the same side and your view failed to gain consensus. Perhaps that provides context for your pitching in here when you are otherwise not a very active Wikipedian at all. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There is the $64 question as to who speaks for the wikipopulace at large - certainly Pixelface is outnumbered in many debates, my impression is that there are often 2-3x as many deletion-minded as inclusion-minded at these dustups, and to me this in part explains a higher number of reversions. What I don't know is moving beyond the cluster what sort of proportions we have...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've always found this to be one of the more interesting statements issued when people are discussing the Grand Deletionist Cabal. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, if there's four times as much support for one side of any given debate (all other things things being equal, and with no clear appeal to policy or precedent to separate them) it's generally understood that this means it's where a majority of our contributors want the project to be going. In this case, however, this is taken as evidence that anyone who argues to delete articles on a regular basis is part of a massive meatpuppetry engine designed to skew deletion rates far beyond that of which the silent majority would approve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Casliber, we are all inclusionists, otherwise we would not be here at all. We just have different inclusion thresholds. Some have a threshold so low as to undermine the project's fundamental principles, believing that anything they have heard somewhere, read on some website, or observed when watching the programme, including their own interpretation thereof, is valid. Almost all our plot summaries for items of current fiction are written direct from the primary source by people with no obvious qualification for deciding the appropriate level of summarisation or what constitutes a significant plot element in context rather than just one they think is k3wl. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: Shall we archive this now? It is quite large and covers alot of material with the inevitable tangents...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No, because the problem has not been addressed. I suggest the initiator start an RfC, and then we can archive. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

←Very well, I agree the problem has not been addressed.
Instead of acknowledging that Pixelface may have uncovered an issue that an ongoing commercial transwiki abandonment of valuable content is costing Wikimedia Foundation financial support – instead of working for a compromise that could work to everyone's benefit and reduce conflict – find a way to increase conflict by scapegoating and suppressing Pixelface?? Tsk, tsk.
Since this is now about potentially big money lost, keep at this long term and Pixelface has the potential to become another divisive symbol like Giano II.
Casliber (12:46): "What I don't know is moving beyond the cluster what sort of proportions we have"
The proportions I mentioned came from five editor polls done circa May of 2007 which are archived at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. There was also an external poll of Wikipedia readers taken ("Wikipedia dumps spoiler warnings" 2007Jun13-16) which confirmed a reader unpopularity of the spoiler notice removals by a combined 61% margin. Interpretations of these polls are found in the archives of Talk:Spoiler. It's one of the largest ever Wikipedia debates, on the order of two million bytes. A shortcut is to search for "Milo", and read my analyses, which are still not short. But if you really want to know how Wikipedia ownership works and doesn't – no cabal, it's mostly laid out there in signed posts. (Even Jimbo contributed to the early archived debate – long prior to the 45,000 spoiler notice mass-deletion event circa May 15, 2007.)
I tried to determine the logical reasons motivating every debate position in the Spoiler Conflict – which later turned out to be part of the larger Fiction Conflict.
What it mostly resolved to was a generational conflict of older Wikipedians who had an established hierarchy of group power over encyclopedia inclusion and format, versus younger Wikipedians' inclusion tastes and format preferences for mass fiction entertainment. In addition to the power challenge, the older group also took personal umbrage toward habits of younger Wikipedians who tended to expressed themselves both disrespectfully and unconventionally such as by using fragments of l33t-speak in text spoiler notices. ("SP01L3RZ!!!" - seems nostalgia cute now)
In the alternative, it may be easy to fix this conflict win-win with something like WikiFictpedia. It would give the older Wikipedia generation someplace to transwiki content they insist on excluding here, gives the younger generation a place to edit and include details of contemporary fiction with less deletionist conflict, and it's a valuable content for younger readers that's retained under Wikimedia Foundation donation banners. Milo 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested block for Martha Runs The Store[edit]

Disruptive edits, possible vandalism. He creates nonsense pages, adds speculation and fan fiction to episode pages (mostly List of Martha Speaks episodes), and destroying wiki-tables. A list of contributions can be found here. Elbutler (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you're looking for WP:AIV. neuro(talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this may be time to deal with this here ... there is a long history of such actions by the editor, and all the niceness in the world has not helped. BMWΔ 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The "long history" goes back three days, and involves less than 20 edits (most other edits are to the user page). This editor is clearly being disruptive, but has not yet received a really serious talk-page warning, just the "friendly advice" sorts of things. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(I guess in some ways I needed to clarify my sock beliefs, but thankfully y'all caught on. I'll try and be less cryptic) BMWΔ 12:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Any connection between this user and highly disruptive blocked user and Martha Speaks fan User:Simulation12. Elbutler might have a better idea if there are similarities. --Leivick (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have blocked indefinitely, following from an AIV report, pending some sort of satisfactory response on the talkpage. I also took the step of removing article material from the user page, and replace it with a template, after notifying the editor of the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • LHvU, thanks. I would also like to suggest a checkuser between this user and blocked user User:Simulation12. There are definite similarities. In fact, if it's not Sim12, I'm wondering if it's (also blocked) User:The Chubby Brother. If it's not one of those two, I'll be fairly surprised.GJC 04:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Just a note: I opened a checkuser request for MRTS, Sim12, and Chubby. I don't know if they're all the same person, but I'll bet two of three match.GJC 04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The check user came up positive, "the chubby brother" is "martha runs the store", but Simulation12 is unrelated. I guess Riley is accepting her block without trying something sneaky. Elbutler (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
--does the cabbage-patch-- Go Gladys, go Gladys, uh-huh, oh-yeah...--pats self on back, dislocating shoulder in process-- (/unseemly display)GJC 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise (Misuse of Admin Privileges[edit]

Resolved: I sense an upwelling of anti-user:Bosniak sentiment here, so let's close this generic "rouge admin abuse" complaint and leave things to WP:DRV, which is the right venue. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin user Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the whole article Anti-Bosniak sentiment and I lost all my hard work! Only 1 section was preserved. He didn't warn me before deletion. He alleges I am trying to put same article as deleted one. WRONG! All I am trying to do is to rebuild the new fresh article with credible source. This is wrong guys, this is wrong. And of course, you will do anything, because he is administrator, right? This is sad. Bosniak (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct way to appeal an AfD is to go to WP:DRV, not to just recreate the article. It's a speedy deletion candidate if you do that, so you shouldn't be surprised that it speedily gets deleted. --fvw* 08:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For admins who want to check: the page recreated today by Bosniak can be seen here: [37]; its previous incarnations (through various deletions, moves and cut-and-paste forks) are here and here. See also my comment to Bosniak on my user talk. Fut.Perf. 08:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak, that is literally the same page (including the same headers). Other than a difference in reference markup, some minor grammatical changes and other things, it's the same. You've been trying to get that exact same article through in some way or another for almost 18 months. You lost at AFD. Go to WP:DRV and follow instructions. It is your job to convince others to keep the article. Keep on this track and you'll likely get in trouble yourself. Also, does anyone see a need for Talk:Anti-Bosniak sentiment? It's not exactly useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
We can delete that once it's clear that the article deletion has stuck. Fut.Perf. 09:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"You lost at AFD" is probably a poor choice of words. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[edit]

The past few days, myself, Rodhullandemu, and several others have been having an issue with (talk · contribs) on the IWF incident's subpage, who insists that the VK image should be removed because the IWF found it "potentially illegal" and had police guidance in doing so. Since then, despite warnings from other users to stop posting the same arguments everyone there has debunked at least thrice each, he has persisted.

Since this isn't clear-cut vandalism or an edit-war (as there's been no reversion taking place), I'm bringing it here and asking for a short block for disruption. Everyone there is tired of countering his weak arguments or even seeing them, and Rod's twice told him to pipe down ([38], [39]). I'm not blocking because he would cry foul. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I believe the image should be removed given it has been ruled by the Metropolitan Police to be indecent and the IWF has said it is potentially illegal. I welcome other editors expressing their opinion, and indeed some other users have been civil and discussed several points. Indeed one user is usefully exploring information requests from the police on what exactly they said. I am only responding to comments in anycase in a civil and friendly manner, and hope others can do the same. (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Your manner isn't the issue; it's the fact you keep bringing up the same debunked arguments again and again, as I told you on your talk page, and it's starting to get disruptive. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any disruption. This is an important issue (of which I am in the minority), and is essential that users are allowed to state the facts of the case without being attacked. There is a real risk of prosecution for UK users viewing this image, and many users have said they would not have it on their machines (including Jimbo Wales). Let's have a proper discussion rather than attack the minority. (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not attacking the minority. I'm making a complaint that your repeated posting of points that we've all debunked several times already is getting disruptive. To say it any other way is dishonest. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it best I don't respond further to your comments as I have no wish to upset you. I am happy to continue discussion with others willing to consider other people's opinins. (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been a sort-of participant in the said discussion. Despite reading over your comments, Jéské's comments, and the notes of many others, I cannot understand what your point is. It seems to be that you're standing up for what the IWF originally said (they've reversed their opinion, which is what we're all fussing about now). You have been proved wrong on many of your stances, and it’s not just us pretending to know a lot. You’re saying things like ‘‘potentially’’ and ‘‘believed’’ to be, etc. etc. I respected your opinion and statements at first, but it’s become apparent that you’re just trying to make our lives a little harder now. Icy // 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest anyone willing to discuss this with should do so on his talk page, and any further posts from him to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action be moved to that talk page, where interested parties may gather. This, I think, would quickly indicate the value, if any, of repeated discussions, and there would be no need for any blocking. --Rodhullandemu 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)