Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive511

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

Noticeboard archives


User:ADM a Single-purpose account?[edit]

Would somebody take a look at this fellow? He seems to have some peculiar obsessions, such as editing the bio of every single person he can find who has ever criticised the Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ, and adding in that fact. He also seems to have a thing about Jews. --TS 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment in particular seems more than a little troubling. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I removed that because it just looked like somebody being silly, but then I examined his other edits (many of them very recent) and decided it was worth raising the problem here. --TS 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch conversation at User talk:Daveneijsen (restored from archive for context)[edit]

Would someone have a quick look at User talk:Daveneijsen (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Daveneijsen|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially the history. Probably a quick block/protect and delete is needed. Thanks --triwbe (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, why does this bother you? What do you care if someone speaks Dutch? Posting a xenophobic warning tag on that editor's talk page was rude but then to follow it up with a complaint at this page is the height of chutzpah. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's simply the fact that they communicate in Dutch, but that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. User:Onsjoe, User:Daveneijsen, User:Leonieeshuis, and their various IPs are using Wikipedia as a chat service. --OnoremDil 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case then I stand corrected. However, that was not made clear by the poster, and the placement of a warning message admonishing the target to speak English was something I found rude. It seemed to me to be a case of Waah...I can't read it even though it it doesn't concern me, wasn't written to me, and is in someone else's user space. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Onorem, you got it exactly. Applying wikipeida policies is not xenophobic, neither is bringing up the case here. Please stop with the personal comments L0b0t. --triwbe (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As they say, it's not that it's Dutch, it's that they are using the talkpage for chatting in Dutch, and those are the only edits that any of those editors are making. Delete the pages, and put a notice each of them explaining why.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a warning (in Dutch) about Wikipedia not being a webhost. I have placed the same warning on User talk:Onsjoe and User talk:Leonieeshuis. The IPs used seem pretty static (User talk:,User talk:, User talk: so if the same behaviour continues on other pages, they should be warned and eventually blocked. Fram (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the above remarks, I would point out that communicating in languages other than English on talk pages is distinctly frowned upon. See Wikipedia:TALK#Good_practice. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
And I would have to add that there is NOTHING xenophobic about asking people to use English on the English Wikipedia. See Xenophobia and explain how it applies to asking users to post in English. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it kind of sad that so much of that sophomoric discussion was actually in English...nice, very good, gefixed, but especially "chill." Brr. Spreek je moerstaal! [That is, 'speak your mother's tongue.'] Yes, WP is not a chatroom. (And I'm going to clean up the Dutch messages I've left on talk pages...) Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Conversely, I find it handy. When I break down and cheat by inserting an English word, a lot of time no one seems to notice at all.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs has responded by vandalising Fram's warning. I would suggest deletion of the page, and short blocks against

It may seem like an overreaction, but take a look at the contribution histories. Not a single useful contribution from the lot.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that most IPs are not static and so on, but I wonder if it is a coincidence that the two last IPs to visit the Daveneijsen talk page both have old Adsense spam warnings on their talk page as well (User talk: and User talk: Anyway, I presume that shourt blocks for further IP infractions are the best way to proceed here. Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't see their deleted contributions, but considering that both IPs are related today, and both IPs were warned for identical AdSense spam on March 12, 2008, I think coincidence can be ruled out.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Caution to anyone that blocks the IP addresses: 85.159.97.* belongs to, which is the Dutch equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service. I think a blocking admin would have to notify the foundation.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain leedvermaak in knowing that. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User Fabartus - Administrator Intervention Possibly Needed[edit]


I am bringing this one over from WP:WQA#Fabartus simply due to the user in question's apparent disdain and disregard for multiple Wikipedia policies and procedures regarding civility and personal attacks. Please see the afore-mentioned link for a complete picture of what has transpired thus far. I did not copy-paste those entries here, for the sake of saving space on this page and the server. Edit Centric (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Blocked. In the future please place specific diffs on this page outlining the incident in question. A short, neutral summary with diffs is not an undue load on the server or on administrators reviewing this thread. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Will do, and thank you for your prompt attention to this issue. Edit Centric (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

further intervention?[edit]

I don't know if it warrants any further intervention or comment from administration, but Fabartus (talk · contribs) has clarified his position in reply to his or her block: "Also, [I] didn't threaten violence, I promised it. See, I'm not liberal, so don't make threats." [1]pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll chalk it up to blowing off steam. If he wants to come back at the end of the block and behave like he's a member of a community, bully for him. If not, I suspect he'll get reblocked in short order. As for the "promise, not threat", that's just some schoolboy bullshit. Chest-pounding, as it were. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds like someone is begging to be tased by screaming out "DON'T TASE ME, BRO!" at the top of their lungs. MuZemike 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Squeezety again[edit]

Backstory here. In brief, Squeezety is slow speed edit-warring and refusing to engage in conversation despite several attempts. In response to my last ANI posting, MBisanz blocked him for 31 hours. Squeezety remains undeterred, and has added incivility to the mix. Given that his contribution record shows nothing but this edit-warring, I would suggest an indefinite block to either make him go away or force him to participate in discussion, but I'm also involved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours, and left a note with some advice. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not optimistic he'll take your advice, but I've been wrong about such things before. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Belmont Abbey College article[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - has twice now blanked a section of the Belmont Abbey College article without explanation. As you can see on his talk page (and on the article talk page) I have made an effort to have him discuss the issue before he just removes it which was subsequently ignored. Is there anything that can be done about this or must I watch the page continually to ensure it isn't just erased? Thanks. Chris M. (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there might be a problem of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. Without more evidence of how this controversy affected the college or set precedent for later decisions, that's way too much info. The IP might not be incorrect to remove it. I agree that the decision stinks to high heaven, but it's not really an administrator problem at this point. For now, either watch it, or trim it down to the basics and see if that's enough to get the IP to leave it alone.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IP creating a page?[edit]


This page Talk:Dommari is a copyvio which I have tagged as such, and is also an isolated talk page: but... how has an IP been able to create a page? JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs can create talk pages to express concerns about articles, but cannot create content pages. MBisanz talk 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll explain to him that if he wants to contribute, as he clearly does, he'll need to get an account. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for / User:Robert Sieger[edit]

Moved from WP:AN to here for greater visibility - Alison 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/ Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81(C) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Wikipedia and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support [rms125a] on general principles, if [he has] not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.
Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz talk 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. DurovaCharge! 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz talk 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz talk 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Wikipedia risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Wikipedia:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. DurovaCharge! 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Wikipedia without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I found this in my plague archives: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Wikipedia? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Keeping him from Wikipedia isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. DurovaCharge! 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Wikipedia, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Wikipedia-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that belief is an issue here; it's actions subsequent to any unbanning that are going to be the issue, and any edits on Troubles-related articles are inevitably going to scrutinized. Of course, anything along the lines of the events that got him banned are going to result in a reban, simple as that. If he makes edits that, if made by any other editor without any baggage, would be considered legitimate and constructive, then they should be treated on their merits as such; however, if there is a pattern of edits where he "plays the player, not the ball", where there is good reason to believe he is editing against another editor or editors rather than on the point, they aren't going to escape notice. There are enough neutral editors involved in the Troubles articles nowadays that someone is going to call him on them; even in six months, a year or two years from now, because of the history of the Trouble-related articles, it's highly unlikely that there won't be more than enough neutral editors who could easily - and quickly - come to a reasonable conclusion. Hey, even bleeding-heart liberals like me sometimes take comfort in knowing there's a Big Stick around the place somewhere :). People might be willing to let his past stay in the past and if things go to plan, the past can be forgotten, but he will still be subject to the rules on neutrality and personal attacks that all the rest of us have to work with. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While I have some of the same reservations and Moreschi, if durova, alison, and eliz all think rms has gotten past the rediculous behavior; I would support a short leased unbann (following eliz's conditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking request User:LincolnSt[edit]

The user is making a large number of changes to articles not in accordance with WP policies and which deplete the usefulness of the encyclopedia to its users.

The account was created about a week ago and, inspite of a break in editing for 3 days, the editor has made over 400 article changes in the namespace. As far as I can see the editor has made all of these changes without reference to the rest of the editing community. See

The speed with which changes are made to various articles indicates that the user is working to an agenda and using a pre-planned list of changes he wishes to make. As a result it is almost impossible to keep up with these changes or understand why they are done.

Edit summaries usually explain what has been done but mostly not why they have been done. Often the reasons are spurious.

Some of the edits show subtle and sometimes extreme bias. For instance the article Health Care Systems, before the editor started making changes was an honest attempt to describe the different health care systems around the world, of which there are many, but most having minor variations in the the way they work. See (I cannot explain the bizzare picture but the rest of the article is fine). The editor User:LincolnSt has now stripped out the international countries list on the spurious grounds that there are too many countries in the world to list. The editor has also created many new articles called "Health care in Xcountry" and put links in the Health Care Systems article. But then he has created "Health in Xcountry" and pasted in some statistics about health care outcomes in those countries and further down information about the health care system in that country. The net effect of these changes is to change the bias from giving information about health care systems and pushing the reader towards ubformation on health statistics and not health care organization. The article [[Health care systems] now mostly discussing financing systems and not health care systems at all! (Postscipt: I have since added the national examples back - User:LincolnSt's argument that examples should not be included is spurious... it does not have to be an exhaustive list.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

A more blatant example of bias occured in the Socialized medicine article. Socialized medicine article describes a pejorative term which in the U.S. is often associated with the health care systems in the UK and in Canada which are often accused of not delivering effective health care, especially timely health care. User:LincolnSt cut an entire section from the article which gave a summarised picture of the UK health service and statistics about choice and waiting. and pasted (without any attempt to integrate the information into another artice The user also made a similar change to the section on Finland's socialized health care system and that of Israel. These and many other examples lead me to believe that this user has a connection to the health care industry and in particular to a certain institute that actively advocates maintaining the status quo in US health care policy. He clearly does not want WP readers to discover the truth about different health care systems in other countries where costs are contained by government action. For example the user has deleted links to certain healthcare reform articles and external links.

The user also deleted links in Universal health care to other WP articles and external links from certain groups, most those in the US advocating a switch to Universal Health care and also to some that do not. These links would have allowed the arguments to be read if the reader wishes to do so. The removal of these links on the grounds that they are US based is frankly ridiculous as the US is the only major western industrial country that does not have universal health care. The arguments are bound to be heard mainly in the US.

Today the user has been busily changing article categories of long standing. The reason for this is not clear and I have yet to look at the possible intent of these actions. Some though are frankly absurd. See

In summary, the user is not following two of the key guidlines for editing. NPOV and editing in a spirit of co-operation with other users. Also the rapid nature of these edits franks smells of a concerted campaign to radically alter WP's articles on healthcare and makes it hard for other editors to keep up.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's attack on me was apparently sparked by "citation needed" templates (which he tried to remove) and my criticism of spreading articles such as Healthcare in the United Kingdom over a dozen articles (oddly, he argued that Healthcare in the United Kingdom does not "suit" for information about the UK health care system[2]). What comes to removing inappropriate links in articles which are not directly related, cleaning up linkfarms to American health care companies / lobby groups was strongly supported by administrators at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#American health care lobby related spam.
Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs) and his other accounts, who appears to be "teamed" with this user, was identified as a possible spammer account. However, I do not believe this user is.LincolnSt (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The motive attributed is untrue. I leave the administrators to check what I am saying and the examples I have given. I have no desire to get into any personal spat with this user about motives. I will say though that the user is ignoring what I have already said to him here I am not "teamed" in any way to Cosmic though we did have a brief discussion about this users edits and possible motives. Cosmic has asked me to patrol LincolnSt's changes but I am short of time and cannot do this. It seems more sensible to demonstrate the size of the problem to the Administrator community and leave it with them to judge whether the user's activities should be curtailed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talkcontribs)
Your links seem to be related to the main article question. It is a highly appropriate to suggest that each country's health care system does not need to be detailed in every health care related article, and instead, articles should focus on the subject suggested by their title. The article can link to the country's article (some 60 articles in the category) For some reason, you have argued that "The English NHS was the first G8 country to fully implement a digital Picture Archiving Communications System (PACS) to store and retrieve x-ray and other scans in all of its hospitals nationally." needs to be copied in all those articles (and for some incomprehensible reason, you tried to delete it from the article Health care in the United Kingdom).
If you can show me a single mistake made in recategorizing, please share it with us.LincolnSt (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly there are a lot of problems here. There might, as you say be more to this, but given that LincolnSt is a new user & this is a contentious topic cld we please remember WP:BITE & WP:AGFMisarxist

09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The widespread use of specialist tools in his editing and quick refrences to WP policies and use of templates seems to indicate that this user is NOT a new user at all but more likely to be a sockpuppet. User:Freedomwarrior for example had a similar style of editing. There are others but I'd prefer if we focus on the evidence I have laid down.-- (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to repeat the same pattern of Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs), accusing other editors of being enemies from "American health care companies" and accusing me, Freedomwarrior (talk · contribs), Doopdoop (talk · contribs) of all kinds of things (and now even the administrator Hu12 (talk · contribs)). You should ask how constructive such behavior is. For constructive behavior, you could help by adding citations instead of always attacking other editors. Leaving citations needed templates does not mean anyone is attacking you.LincolnSt (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please withdraw that last remark. I have made no accusations about the administrator Hu12 (talk · contribs) nor would I wish to.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, could you make a short summary of your points in the article's talk page? I have told you before that you can go ahead with including every country as long as you know that it will be long (what you did, was that you removed Elizabeth Docteur and Howard Oxley (2003). "Health-Care Systems: Lessons from the Reform Experience" (PDF). OECD. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)).

The proposal for huge articles covering every country in details is contrary to articles such as "education", which does not try to cover Education in Nigeria, Education in France, etc. in the same article. However, your argument is valid and you should argue in the talk page of healthcare, healthcare system, etc. As for your accusation that other users are, "NPOV" or "have conflict of interest", you could try be more detailed. Expansions I have done are sourced from World Health Organization, Health Affairs journal, etc.

As notified in the lead, "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues".LincolnSt (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs provided and looked at other User:LincolnSt's contribs. Essentially this is a content dispute, but User:Hauskalainen has apparently not tried to discuss anything with User:LincolnSt, but has run here instead. None of the diffs shows vandalism, some may be controversial (but the material being edited is somewhat inherently so - governmentally funded health care in the US and the tagging of other countries' health care systems as "socialized medicine", which some perceive as a perjorative term). That said, I see no reason to block User:LincolnSt but strongly advise both users to try to talk it through either at the article talk pages or with each other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not per se a content dispute and I have tried to discuss matters with this user but he ignores the issues. Consider this reversion requesting that a major change be discussed first on Talk. The user reverted the change here and did not make any attempt to discuss this with other editors or rationalize his arguments except with a rather spurious argument in the Edit Summary about relevance (which another user had to correct him on when reverting the article back again). And I have had to discuss other changes at length on the Talk page e.g. My record on using talk extensively stands out. Only 3% of User:LincolnSt's edits have been in the Talk namespace (see whereas my track record is quite different having ten times as much edit in the talk namespace (see Problems areise because this user does not respond rationally to argument or use the Talk space and continues to edit at a frantic pace. His edits have been over mostly 4 active days in the last 7 and comprises over 600 edits... that is an average of 150 per day or 20 edits per hour in a 7.5 hour a day. That is a phenominal number of edits to follow up on if one suspects (as I do) that the editor is not always editing with the best of intents. For instance this edit has made an earlier valuable but imperfect edit by other user(s) completely devoid of content. Of course it can be reversed, and will be, but because these changes are going on so fast and apparently in a pre-planned manner it is not being done in the proper WP spirit. Hence I ask again that the user be restrained in the speed and scope of his edits. It is not so much the content (though some of it of course is) but the lack of consultation and the pre-planned nature of these edits that I object to.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Swift or pre-planned editing is not inherently bad, we should all think first and edit second. Much of these edits are of the repetitive type - I see a lot of adding categories which seem to be appropriate from my rough sampling. I also note that the editor often does in multiple edits what could be done in fewer like removing Category:Healthcare from Continuity of Care Record separately from adding Category:Healthcare in the United States to the article, which is specifically about an American topic, but that's no crime either. Please WP:AGF - out of 600 edits, you point to a few which you consider problematic. Most of the edits seem to be adding or removing various categories: if someone would explain to him/her the subtle differences between Category:Healthcare in Foo and Category:Health in Foo, and similarly named articles, that may be a step in the right direction. The editor's talk page is an excellent place to begin those conversations as they seem to cross many articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfair block of someone? Fair block of someone, ok[edit]


I saw this in the block log.

The person is blocked for vandalism but it doesn't look like vandalism. Actually, it is very hard to understand but it doesn't look like vandalism to me. Proof of blocking reason: vandalism Contributions Doesn't look like vandalism to me. It's just very hard to understand.

Request administrator translate the edit into understandable English and also comment if administrators can block anyone they want using the vandalism excuse. This doesn't look like vandalism to me, just some person who is mad. Anger is not vandalism.

Ipromise (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The possibility is that other of the user's contributions have been deleted and so do not show up in the contributions log. You'd be best off talking to User:VirtualSteve, the blocking admin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No deleted contribs. From the comment on Talk:Cold fusion, though, it looks like that editor was already blocked at least once, recently, under another account or IP. Possibly the block summary referred to the original block, and not the content of the edits under the current IP? Agree that talking to the blocking admin is the sensible thing to do. -- Vary Talk 06:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No way am I going to talk with the blocking administrator because I could be blocked as a sock. The excuse would be that only a sock would "defend" a blocked user. It just looked like anger and difficult to understand English, not vandalism. Now we know that there were no deleted contributions. It's just a mad admin blocking a mad user. We should strive for justice and not just let unjustice get away with it. However, it's just 31 hours, not permanent. Ipromise (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I very much doubt that you'd be blocked as a sock for simply asking in good faith why an IP that did not appear to be vandalizing was blocked as a vandal: if you were, it would be a clearly bad block and you'd have no problem getting an {{unblock}} granted. You should always talk directly (and calmly) to the person you have an issue with before going to any dispute resolution venue. Failing to do so only tends to increase drama.
Read the comment again; he specifically admits to using his dynamic IP to evade a block. VirtualSteve's actions were pretty clearly not abusive. Assuming the original block was good (I see no reason to believe it wasn't) there's no injustice to fight here. -- Vary Talk 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You can find the explanation three sections up, at WP:ANI#need IP block for ban-evading editor. Not vandalism, but a valid block anyway. Looie496 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
IP shows up with a rant which mostly foresees breaking the rules and socking. A warning could have been given but this was quite over the top, a threat to disrupt. The short block looks ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And note that the talk page comment referred to initially here was deleted with the edit summary that states the talk page comment was from a banned user - and it's obvious the IP is familiar with the article and has interacted with it in the past. [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, since the post outlined plans for clearly bad faith edits, it's also ok to call it vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The user who brought this up appears to be a new user ID for an old user, as suggested by its user page note - getting a fresh start or something. It would be interesting to find out why the complaining user even brought all this up, especially as he has not edited the one page that the IP edited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See, I am THIS close to being accused of being a sock. I have not edited the page that the IP are right. I can't even understand completely what the person is trying to say because it is so wordy. Let's drop it. Pepole are thinking of all kinds of excuses. The honorable response would be to say "the blocked IP user demonstrates hate so will remain blocked but the excuse of vandalism is not right" Let's drop this. Ipromise (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable question to ask, and your answer on my talk page [4] makes some logical sense, although I'll let other possibly interested parties make their own judgements. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are a sock you are an interesting one, with the topless woman on your userpage. This does seem a little fishy though, of course people are going to wonder why you are out of the blue defending the IP. By the way, are we allowed to put nude pictures on our userpages? Landon1980 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As a third-party editor who mainly sticks to the Wikiquette Alerts side, I'm raising an eyebrow at this one. I too am wondering what exactly are the motivations for Ipromise bringing this up, the apparent freshness of his profile, oh, and that bit about page content.

I'd like to comment on something that Gwen Gale said above, that concerns me a bit; "Also, since the post outlined plans for clearly bad faith edits, it's also ok to call it vandalism." Plans for vandalism do not necessarily constitute vandalism per se. I could sit here and say, "I'm planning to vandalise the article on Anti-disestablishmentarianism!" (and no, I did not use spell-check for that :-), but never actually do that. (Not that I would ever vandalise any article on Wikipedia, it goes against my principles!) To block me for the plan or going to would be a bit preemptive, wouldn't you say?

In short, the IP block was justified. Mis-characterised? Maybe. Mislabeled? Sure. But still justified. Edit Centric (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, blocks are preventative. If you state that you plan to vandalize "Anti-disestablishmentarianism", a block to prevent vandalism wouldn't be out of the question.--Atlan (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And did you type that, or just do a copy-paste? ;-) Edit Centric (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus could sway me otherwise, but if someone says they're going to vandalize/sock, that's nothing but bad faith and since blocks are only meant to be preventative, at least a short vandalism block would be canny called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

When you put it that way, I find myself nodding my head here. (And no, it's not to the beat of what's playing in iTunes...) Good on ya. Edit Centric (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I did indeed copy-paste. ;-) --Atlan (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Work smart, not hard! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Typed by hand, spot on, first try :P Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No one answered my question, is there nothing prohibiting editors from putting nude pictures on their userpage? Such as the topless woman on this user's userpage? Landon1980 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Not that I know of, not so long as its innocuous. See Wikipedia:Userpage#Images on user pages. Don't think that would bring us into disrepute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Presumably it's approved by his mother [5] so perhaps it would be wise not to carp or criticise, for it's very evident these attentions are well meant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cruisin' for a blockin'[edit]

From the account name to the edit history, it seems that User:Page_vanda1iser is not interested in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely about 5 minutes after they started. --OnoremDil 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MODx canvassing[edit]

A week ago I listed MODx for deletion and today it started getting improper comments on the Afd one borderline WP:CIVIL. After the third random comment I checked and it was posted on the software companys forum [6]. There found the second post interesting because the same thing happened before [7] where the article was nominated for deletion and it was posted on their forum. The previous afd was under a different name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MODx (software). There have been some updates to the article from Rthrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who I have also listed at WP:COI. What can/should be done now? 16x9 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD are not votes. A good administrator will try to wisely decide on delete or keep. The decision, if not clear cut, should be explained in the AFD. A kind administrator might go the extra mile and make suggestions for article improvement or what could make the company article more notable, such as a breakthrough product introduced. For now, I would let it go and then have the AFD be decided in a few days. Unlike "murder of ----" articles, deciding on a company article is easier to do. Chergles (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


This user has been previously blocked three times for disruption and WP:POINT on Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth. He seems to have not gotten the point of the blocks, and is still saying odd things on the talk page, among other places. I honestly don't know what to do (ARV would be a bad place) I came here. Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pussy. TCO (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that just won't do, will it? A Traintalk 03:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked for three months. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
A block seems warranted, but my guess (and this is only my opinion) is that this account might be one of those good guy\bad guy sockpuppets. He didn't seem too alarmed that he might be blocked, but who knows.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
nah, I know of them from elsewhere. They go through stages of needing a break from the internet. I imagine they are just looking for an enforced break. Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of dispute/NPOV tags[edit]

There is a dispute on article Dunmanway_Massacre. A user has taken this to ask for 3rd opinions. I first added a NPOV tag which was removed twice by User:BigDunc,[8], I then added a 3O|article tag which has been removed twice by user:Domer [[9]]. I have confirmed with User:Jdorney that he feels this is an NPOV dispute. The article has been substantially re-written by user:Domer and I would like the article tagged until this dispute has been resolved. I would like some admin help here as the article has a 1RR applied to it 12:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is purely disruptive, and I should explain why. Kernel Saunters has only commented five times to the discussion over a number of days. The first is an accusation, on both the talk page and the edit summary. I asked them to show were I omitted information, and he ignored my request. The next was to question a source, suggesting he knew something, but no engagement in the discussion. He then answered a question for another editor and comes back with another unsupported comment. They suggested that by including attributions to sourced and referenced text I one way of adding POV?
Having suggested you need consensus to edit an article they then suggest all my edits be reverted. To this I asked him to explain why which he again ignore. Requests have been made to show examples of POV, [10] and [11]. Their edits to the article have been few and very minor, except for the reverts that is. So having shown not one example to illustrate POV, and ignoring questions they come here. There was a request for a third opinion, in addition to editors being canvassed and an opinion was given. The WP:3 request was addressed and was removed from the notice board, and the tag was still added back. I would not have know about this post only it was brought to my attention on the talk page. I've tried to have a reasonable discussion, been meet with incivility and now this, it's a bit much. --Domer48'fenian' 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Isn't this guy banned/indef blocked as User:FadulJoseA? He just created a new account, and is editing Usog, which is bad enough of an article already. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj. Either an admin or checkuser will pick it up and act accordingly. Grsz11 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bundle of Open Proxies[edit]

Keeping in mind that ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (operated by User:slakr) is already doing a so far-so good smooth job of blocking several IP addresses, there are still several lists out there. For the moment, although there are many others, I will point to this trouble-maker: Mr. "HinkyDink's" proxy list, ie: the "Dinkster" (ridiculous as it sounds, this guy is desperate). He (or she) even has a Blog where there is talk of where the IPs are based or how the compilations have been going - like this blog about proxy lists or this load of junk about sock puppetry.

As for the proxy list's apparently refreshed at a rate of every two hours or so. Having said that, my major concern would be this: while ProcseeBot has blocked a few of them [12], many have been left out for the taking: [13], [14], [15]. Depending on how admins search the lists or how the bot blocks, I'm suggesting that there should be some sort of (automatic) detection while the lists are updated (don't ask me how; I'm not a tech expert) via the scripts-if that can be done or is forthcoming. ~ Troy (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Misusing Twinkle[edit]

I'm just reading what WP:TW actually is and I quote: "several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism." That seems fair when there's a lot of obvious vandalism going on. What I'm not aware of is that Twinkle can be used to revert 6 individual valid edits, which each are open for debate on the Talk page, which some other editors are actually doing. This is not what Twinkle is intended to be used for and it's a misuse of a privilege by editors who have a high Wikipedia status such as user:orangemarlin here at 15:52, 30 January 2009. Why do I get a warning when I reverted a while ago 3 edits and someone else uses Twinkle and get away with reverting 6 edits? Can a neutral administrator look into this. Immortale (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, he reverted 6 edits, but they were consecutive and he gave a valid edit summary reason ("POV" - not "vandalism") for doing so. Thus the fact he used Twinkle to do so is somewhat irrelevant. You received a warning because you were edit-warring - repeatedly reverting on the article (also, since it appears that your account is used to do nothing else but edit this article, this would suggest that you do indeed have a single POV). Black Kite 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
They are not POV, but that's open for debate. I don't see anywhere at WP:TW that POV argument is reason enough to use Twinkle. Someone should edit the Twinkle article for that. And yes, I do prefer working on one article at the time because it takes involvement and concentration to read up on all the references and scientific literature. The article isn't finished and in my opinion is not describing and explaining the controversy well. Where does it say that editors have to work on multiple articles at the same time? So next time I can also revert 6 consecutive edits and claim they're POV? Probably not. But hey, you're the boss. Immortale (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read what Black Kite said. There is no misuse of Twinkle here because he provided a valid edit summary. If you disagree with Orangemarlin's assessment about the edits being POV, talk to him about it on the talk page. » \ / () 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding. Any editor can revert six consecutive edits, from the History page, using no special tools whatsoever, and that would count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. This isn't abuse of Twinkle. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There is belief that using twinkle is an de facto accusation of vandalism. In fact, it has keys to state that, but I rarely use it, unless it's obvious vandalism. One of the keys is even "Good faith reversion" for someone who made an obvious error. Twinkle makes it easier to move the editing back to the last NPOV edit. Immortale's edits were strongly POV, and I decided reverting them all was the best for the article while stating that it is POV. Immortale has been edit warring for a week or so, and this is the result of it. Hopefully he can slow down and build consensus on the discussion page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been sorely tempted to start blocking people who use that "good faith revert" button for gross incivility: the edit summary it leaves is about as good-faith as a slap in the face. --Carnildo (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That's why I rarely use that button, unless it's a really good faith issue like accidentally removing a section while editing, or a grammar error which needs to be reverted and rewritten. Otherwise, I just revert, and explain in the edit summary. Hell, I even use the edit summary for good faith reversions. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, I'm not denying that I've put a lot of work in the article but your statement that I've been edit warring for a week or so is false. Besides the 6 mentioned above, I only made 3 edits in the last week or so, all of them valid and accepted by every other editor. In the past I had to get a third neutral opinion (got 2 actually) that my edits were completely valid. I don't have the time to fight every single edit I make. And there is a debate right now from another editor without me being involved about one of my six edits being valid and your revert being invalid. You don't debate with him or her, you just revert. I appreciate the remark by Carnildo, which shows that there are some common sense people at Wikipedia after all. Immortale (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


I apologize in advance if I am wasting anyone's time here, but I noticed something ... funny, and would appreciate the views of other experienced editors. The above named user is (at least as named) new, appearing here three days ago. Since then, he has made some reasonable edits. However, the vast majority of his edits divide into two types. First, adding weird alternate pronunciations to a cluster of family/sexuality related articles, all of which have been reverted (from 8:54 today to 9:10 today) and a host of votes to delete specific articles (from 16:12 to 18:25 today). Of the few remaining, several are also anomalous, like this one. I am concerned s/he is a disruptive editor ... or maybe playing some very specific gamge ... or maybe just a newbie, except if I were new I wouldn't start off putting templates up and voting on deletions. It's just ... well, funny. I'd value others looking at the users edit history and checking out examples of what I am talking about and weighing in. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that familiarity with WP and editing does not constitute proof of sockpuppetry. Perhaps someone could guide this person as far as good editing or direct them to the sandbox (such as User talk:Chergles/vandal sandbox if they want to type something and have it appear. I am not ready to adopt a person as I am an adoptee myself. Chergles (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did I make an accusation of sockpuppetry. If you think that is what I meant by "(at least as named)" you have made a too-hasty inference. It is possible that this user has been active as an anonymous user, identifiable only by an IP address, long before taking a name, for example. I have no reason to believe this user is a sockpuppet. I did not mean what I did not write. I did however mean what I did write which is that I see a pattern of disruptive editing that is only noticable when you look at the users edits across many articles, rather than the history of one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit pattern looks sort of familiar to me, with a banned user, so I RFCU'ed. If they aren't who I thought then no big deal, if they are then good spot Slrubenstein. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GWH - in general I am loathe to accuse someone of sockpuppetry or to block anyone, and can't just on the basis of this user's edit history. But for me this is one example of AN/I at its best - only consulting with other long-term users can we distinguish between highly suspicious patterns versus the sometimes ideosyncratic behavior of newbies. If Jokafet turns out to be the latter, I will put a welcome template on his/her talk page and offer some gentle advice. Thanks for looking into this, and I will wait to see what you conclude, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility[edit]

Resolved: IslandShader was indef blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

IslandShader (talk · contribs) I am bringing this here from WQA. Please check out the contributions here. Warned multiple times by different users and continuing with the uncivil edit summaries and personal attacks. Up to an admin of course, but I think a block is appropriate. At the least, maybe an admin giving a final warning could change this person's behavior. Diffs here: [16] [17] [18]. [19] [20] The Seeker 4 Talk 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After viewing some of his edit summaries, he definately needs to tone down the vulgarity quite a lot, and take some civility classes. ArcAngel (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
An admin has issued a final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • comment This may be another sock of User:Historian19; he started editing right after the last sock of Historian19 got blocked and he seems attracted to work over some of same articles. All edits of User:IslandShader (first using and then starting up IslandShader probably need to be rolled back. It is a mess already. Thanks Hmains (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Aun mehdi[edit]


Would someone with time, patience and kindness please help Aun mehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who keeps writing unreferenced articles about members of his family "by, Syed Mohammed Aun Mehdi". None of it remains in mainspace, and I don't know whether any of them would pass WP:N if they were referenced, neutrally written and not WP:COI - the guy is a n00b and I think he's a young man from India but I'm afraid I don't have time to pick it apart as I am singing in a concert this evening and leaving shortly for a rehearsal. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a shot, good luck with your performance. --Tom 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I believe that your comment to their talkpage suffices for the time being, but I will watch the page in case they make any requests for help following on from that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I left a message about this thread and about Wiki polocies on this user's talk page and offered my assistance. I will mark this as resolved for now and see what develops. Cheers! --Tom 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks LessHeard, --Tom 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocqué. Long live the entente cordiale...GbT/c 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI : On the wp:an/i of wp:fr, sysops pointed out that this IP had been blocked for 1 year there and as a consequence had started to vandalize wp:en. Here is the link : [21] Ceedjee (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the message is : "Est-ce qu'une bonne âme anglophone pourrait prévenir les admins de WP-en du blocage d'un an infligé à cette IP chez nous afin de les inciter à en faire autant chez eux ? Voir ses contribs. Merci. DocteurCosmos (d) 31 janvier 2009 à 15:38 (CET)" Could a god English speaking guy warn the sysops of wp:en about the 1-year block inflicted to this IP on wp:fr in order to convince them to do the same on wp:en ? See his contribs. Thanks. DocteurCosmos."
Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Lucasbfr already got it [22]. Based on a short overview of the contributions, this looks like a good block. Gavia immer (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endless personal attacks from User:Xenos2008[edit]

Xenos2008 (talk · contribs) seems like he has not make a single edit the past few weeks without personally attacking someone (mostly me). There is a lot of censorship in his comments, too, which is very agressive. This is impressive for a user contributing exclusively to one article's talk page.

First edit that involves (to an extent) both censorship and personal attack:[23]

For a period after, he was civil enough (although still making bold comments about some sources and national institutions, that might seem offensive to some) but then a debate started about renaming the article. This user starting defend one version of it (although 2-3 days before he chose the other, but that is Ok) and that is when thiings started to get worse. From this point and forth, the user started some very offensive accusations of political motivation and POV (even if there had not been enough discussion prior to POV accusations to determine wether it is POV or not):[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40]

Deleting another user's comments:[41]

The peak:[42]

The warning:[43]

And the answer:[44] (malakia is a Greek word...)

Please check this out and act accordingly. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a single-purpose, POV-pushing account who has made it clear that "truth" overrides "pedantic rules" of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What does this say about my recent NPA fiasco but, I gotta be honest Bugs I don't see it. Which user do you think is POV pushing? I see heated exchanges but nothing I would construe as being a personal attack. Sure, calling the WP "wanking" is not the best attitude but I saw it as directed toward the process, not the people. Don't tell me I've become jaded? Oh, crap. Padillah (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The repeated accusations of "political motivation", the overall behaviour and this last "malakia" (after the civility notice) are enormously agressive. The accusations of political motivation are personal attacks, I think.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As is implying s/he is the only one on the article's talk page with a brain. Which can be seen here. Landon1980 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Xenos2008, the edit-warrior prince. "malakia" is Greek for "bad kia". Hope that helps. The main problem is that SPA Xenos is apparently smack in the middle of the situation (literally) and that could tend to bias his approach to the subject. However, this appears to be more of a content dispute than anything - such as whether to call the riots "riots" or "civil unrest". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use "malakia" against a person who's not a friend of yours, the word is very agressive and is obviously disrespectful. This was once a content dispute but now Xenos has stepped out of it, "End of discussion, this guy is a government POV-pusher and we're losing our time with him.". He had had a notice for his agressive behavior yet replied with "malakia". It is no longer a content dispute, it has long ago escalated to a series of very negative personal attacks. This user believes he can judge who can edit and what editors believe, or which sources are reliable or not, without providing any reason for it. You first approach, Bugs, seems very accurate to me (the second one is good too).--Michael X the White (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other people of being POV may constitute a form of unconstructive participation in a discussion, but it doesn't violate any serious guideline, and it is not inherently disruptive by itself. It may be seen as a type of ad hominem argument, but the problem is merely related to a value of logic discussion. I understand that Xenos sometimes has a cynical way in responding to issues that are being discussed, but what do you call this: [45] Maziotis (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I had answered in every concern of yours before and "no" (my disagreement) was all that I felt I needed to reply, and not cynical in any way.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly what Xenos is doing. Just expressing himself the way "he felt he needed to reply". Don't think for a second I come here to get you into the same "trouble" as you are trying to get Xenos. Maziotis (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, you shouldn't rely on false quotes while pointing out someone's error. This can easily be construed has a question of putting someone's words out of context. He didn't directly described you with the adjective "POV-pusher". And it is not wrong for someone to believe that there are people who should be reminded of wikipedia:NPOV. This is what I mean by "calling someone is not inherently disruptive by itself". Maziotis (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've summarised the comment (to which you personally agreed). Are you saying that he never called me, Grk1011 and DerBlaueReiter pro-government POV-pushers?? Are you saying that that comment of his says/implies something else? Is "End of discussion" just cynical? It is not wrong to believe something is POV, yet it is wrong to be extremely agressive to others about it. "Political motivation" accusations (especially in the way Xenos made them) are personal attacks.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe people should be free to say in a discussion page that there is currently an issue of wikipedia:NPOV violation. That is not the same as directly calling someone a "POV-pusher". Just as it is not the same to discuss someone having a mother who works as a prostitute and calling someone a "son of a bitch". Maziotis (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't say that he has made settling the dispute easier. I set up a straw poll to check consensus, but was bombarded with responses about how we can't vote and this isn't a democracy. He, and another user, were unable to simply express their views on the topic and instead felt the need to bash everyone else who commented. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't you mean Michael IX the White, instead?
You just do not seem to get it, do you?? Wikipedia is not about democracy!! It is not about what most people want or care about!!--Michael X the White (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Maziotis (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Straw poll is not democracy or election voting. Grk1011 means that Xenos did not understand what the straw poll was about or pretended he did so because consensus would be against "civil unrest". Yourself Maziotis you start getting agressive now and it's just not worth it.

Well, this proves everything I've said so far, doesn't it??:[46] (check the diff summary: restored version prior to deletion of relevant material by a ND supporter)--Michael X the White (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never disputed the fact that Xenos should have restrained himself in some situations, and I believe calling you a "nd supporter" in the summary edit is one of them. That still doesn't justify you making false quotes. Maziotis (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not.I have answered to that above.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And I have responded to that. So, either you have something to say about that, or you just want to again state that you are right and I am wrong. Maziotis (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I have answered fully to that and feel I have nothing more to say.
Why all these personal attacks and agressive stance towards me? Because I have opened the section and discussion to rename this back to "riots"? Is that what enerved people so much?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I interpret your playing of a victim as a form of passive-aggressive attack. I am perfectly calm. Please don't raise suspicions against me. I honestly believe you haven’t answered to the accusation of making a false quote. I find that extremely offensive. You made a sentence and put it in italic and quotes to portray it as an exact citation, when in fact it was not. You weren’t called a “Pov-pusher” after all. That is just what you believe he thinks you are. And there is nothing wrong with that. He is allowed to consider you to be in violation of [wikipedia:NPOV]]. So, I don’t think that is the same thing. Maziotis (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Where do I state this is a direct citation? [47],[48]--Michael X the White (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not about you, nor should it be. You discuss as much as possible and that's fine. This is about Xenos and his enormously aggressive attitude and censorship. --Michael X the White (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not about me, but I think it should be about you! I stand by what I said. I don't understand why you provided those diffs. I still think that after such a display of contempt, I was well to invite you to read wikipedia:civil. I think you acuse Xenos of things that are a fault of your own as well. Maziotis (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It is his own responsibility if he started replying with personal attacks. The only thing I did was trying to reach consensus. Still, where did I mention this being a direct citation?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You wrote the sentence in "" and in italic. Don't play dumb. You know that most people would see this as a direct quote. If not, then I am sorry, and I hope that you understand that you shouldn't do that from now on. Also, I still think that he has not incurred in personal attacks more than you, and I still don't understand thos diffs with my edits. I stand by what I said. Maziotis (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how most people would see it, nor should it concern me. Admins (to which this is addressed) know to see the diffs and see what he said anyway. "Don't cast suspicions on me"? That's why I gave you the diffs. Did I repeatedly personally attack him? Did I have a warning? Can you provide some diffs?? If you want, you can open up a case for me. :) This here is about Xenos though.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The case about Xenos is a case about you. And I am choosing to envolve myself too, because I was a witness to most of the whole discussion. You raised suspicions about me when you talked about how this must be about you opening up a section in the discussion page. It seems you want to imply we are somewhat insecure about it. Also, your diffs only prove you cynicism towards me, and not any wrongdoing towards you. Maziotis (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this section is full enough with information, concerns facts and evidence for the admins to judge and decide what to do.I am sure I have nothing more to add and I do not wish to repeat myself again.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Although some of my comments were obviously directed at one or two individuals, such as Michael X, the purpose is to challenge the clear POV pushing of those people. I do think that if you put on your personal page how much you admire the current prime minister and support the political party, then your actions will be scrutinised in that light. Therefore, removing references to Karamanlis from the article when it is relevant to the high profile of TV demonstrations, shows an agenda. The real problem is that certain people are trying to define reality, by limiting this article to a few riots in December. Having failed to block the name change, they are now determined to find any way possible to get it back. Why? There is no social science reason to support their claims (that riots do not signfy social unrest!), so I can only assume that there is a political reason. Riots are just random things, they dont show mass anger with a government, so the term is politically less damaging. Sorry not to assume good faith, but some of the users on the page have gone too far to be able to do that. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It is your own responsibility to assume good faith, no matter what the situations you might be in, and it was your choice not to. You've actually once more proven Bugs' first statement.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As an editor who has participated a lot in the 2008 riots in Greece Talk page i have to say that User:Xenos2008 behavior has been quite insulting especially against Michael IX the White it seems that this whole "insult" thing is politically motivated but that doesn't mean that it should pass unnoticed since there have been several offenses of WP:CIVIL, especially WP:No personal attacks, also WP:GOODFAITH and WP:Talk page guidelines seem to be completely ignored by the aforementioned user. So my opinion is that an admin's action is definitely required. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much for your brilliant insights. In fact, my comments have been precisely because I do not have any political affiliations or strong views, and I am very aware of certain people who do and also impose them without discussion. I do not see why I have to assume good faith when the evidence is VERY clear that certain edits and especially attempts to rename the page were not made in good faith. Xenos2008 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good admitting that you do not assume good faith. And yet you're still in the same tone:[49]--Michael X the White (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, putting things out of context. Is this a personal attack too? Because I also can't see how I can assume good faith with someone who doesn't seem to show it to me. Maziotis (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Violet Blue[edit]

Could somebody impartial take a look at the talk page for this article? I think that there are some serious BLP issues going on here. This edit, in particular [50] should probably be removed. I feel like I'm probably overly involved in the article, so I'd appreciate it if somebody else would take a look. Thanks. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is quoted as saying "we must get it right". A cursory look at the article shows that the alleged BLP violations aren't present. The policy does include all pages, including talk pages. It depends on how carefully we want to follow BLP. Should it be permanently removed (oversighted in WP lingo)? Put into the archives right away? Put into the archives at the usual time? Crossed out? Removed with a notation that it has been removed? Removed with no explanation? Or simply a comment that the original comment does not have references and may be a BLP. Also most talk page comments do not have references so is that a problem? Chergles (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page comment was removed. [51] Aside from the issue of BLP violations, the comment is just an editorial, with little chance of leading toward improvement of the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
[ec] (response to Chergles) Let's stick with the issue at hand. The diff Chunky Rice posted is a blatant, serious BLP vio. The personal details (name, birthday) that the person in revealing are out there in seemingly reliable if minor / primary sources elsewhere on the web, and seem to be correct, so that isn't so urgent. But they are private details that the subject of the article has chosen not to publicize significantly, and I see no reason why we should here. The problem goes beyond the usual matter of poor sourcing, it's that there are direct accusations of a crime and of personal issues by a person claiming to be a witness. If untrue it is quite possibly libelous. Even if it is true, Wikipedia is not the place for this. I don't know the process but unless it involves great effort I hope the material can be completely excised from the record, and preferably made unavailable to admins too... if another lawsuit comes out of this, I hate to throw this on the Foundation but it's probably a matter for professionals rather than us volunteers. The only legitimate material on the article page is a fair, informative, biography of her. Anything else is pointless drama, and apparently deliberately so. This is the only edit from the account posting the info, so one can assume it's a WP:SPA created for the purpose. The person claims to be associated with a well-known organization for which she used to work, which introduces even more drama. That account should be indefinitely blocked and we ought to consider banning the editor behind it if there's any more of this... some of those people are technically savvy and probably know enough to troll Wikipedia and get around checkuser, so best to nip this in the bud rather than rewarding whoever it is with the satisfaction of having caused drama.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What? No. they made one edit. Plenty of people make an account to make one edit. My father didn't even know that you could edit without registering an account. There is no way I'm going to support an indefinite block on that basis. Send the edit to oversight if you feel it merits it (I don't). Otherwise, they edit was reverted and the talk page/article should be patrolled to make sure we are following WP:NPF. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not aware of editors around here creating accounts to post in their first edit WP:BLP violation of the first order, against people they claim to know personally. The accusations, which I don't want to repeat because that would mean this page has to be scrubbed too, include the commission of a serious crime and um....issues... in both cases Defamation per se. They look actionable if they're not true. She has only recently filed police reports and restraining order requests [52] against another Wikipedian. Is this an editor here to improve the encyclopedia, or for his/her own reasons? quack quack. I don't think WP:BITE requires us to wait for more just to find out. Look at what we have to gain or lose. An unjustified block can always be appealed, and it's not as if the editor is in any position to complain they don't deserve it after that post. On the other hand, if the person is trolling or deliberately defaming a person known to be litigious, letting this continue could cause a heap of unpleasantness. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If that's a socking attempt to disrupt wikipedia, it is about the crappiest one I have ever seen. Like I said, send the diff on to oversight if you like. But right now you and I have made 4 times as many edits on the subject as that person has. My point about the one off account is that it literally can be someone reading the article, seeing the talk page and making a comment, then never coming back to wikipedia ever again (as an editor). We have an astonishing number of 'one-off' accounts simply because it is so easy to try and people don't stick around. Blocking that editor for that comment is not only unjustified, it is pointless. Odds are they will never edit again. If they do, we can block them pretty easily. And, frankly, if the person is trolling, just ignore them. This is the lulz part of trolling, where their troll post causes us to treat this as "serious business" and we run around talking about defamation lawsuits and what not. The comment was reverted. It can be deleted if need be. If the account persists, they can be immediately blocked. There is no need for a three ring circus for one comment. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
True...wait and see. That's why some cool heads are admins and others like me just make dire predictions from the peanut gallery. It looks like it'll probably go away on its own. Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI...[edit]

So as a teenage idiot, I was asked to come here. You guys sort this out please, I'm sick of being civil where it's not appreciated.

Related discussion, I think I put it in the right place (link). --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. There's a contender for one of the lamest edit wars in recent months...! Anyway, I don't think it merits inclusion - yes, Dick has a disambig to Penis because that's the slang in English, but then again, this is the English wikipedia. Should we have a disambiguation page for Phallus to say that it means penis in German? Any number of english words have different meanings in other languages (as I found out the hard way when trying to simply use the english "mackerel" in french), but that's not to say that they are so significant that they merit mention on a disambiguation page. GbT/c 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
...which gives the user involved in such edit war to call me a "teenage idiot"? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I could add that, as I mentioned at the other board where I made my opinion shown on the word, other good-faith users have added this definition as a worth-mentioning claim, dating years ago, and they're all being reverted. This is however the first case, from what I know, that anyone took steps to start a discussion on this, and the result was the obvious incivility and attack, and unfair labeling of an user that didn't even bother to give an opinion or reasons on the Geopolitical board. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't give anyone a right to be uncivil, nor did I say it did...GbT/c 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding xD, are we now supposed to mention every single meaning of every single slang in every single language?! This is the English Wikipedia for pete's sake, and its and encyclopedia not a multi-language dictionary. I personally find AA's behavior here somewhat arrogant. Especially if we remember that certain Romanian users even tried to rename the Pula article to "Pola" because they felt the current name was too "obscene", and even got quite angry when this was refused, stating that "it is a disgrace for an encyclopedia to house such profanity" :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm affraid you seem a little more arogant than me. But I guess it's all about personal opinions here. And I'm affraid that by your English definition principle, the "Botswana pula, the currency of Botswana", shouldn't belong there either. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, please refrain from comparing me with cases I have no relation, nor any accord or knowledge of. You probably know better than me that partaining to a population of 22 milion people does not concern a reason for comparison. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ignorance is no excuse for violations of the law. Further, the Botswanan Pula is a measure of currency, having real, important, tangible effects on how the Botswanan economy and society operate and work. The Botswanan economy is notable. It's far from the slang of a non-english speaking nation, which is rarely notable here on He's not arrogant at all, you don't understand the policy and views of a vast majority on Not our problem. ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't excuse the incivility, but disambiguation pages on en.wikipedia exist for the technical reason that some terms have several meanings that could plausibly serve as titles of an English-language encyclopedia. This is not the case for this specific meaning of "pula". The right place to discuss this meaning would be under penis, but even there this Romanian term is probably no more worth mentioning than similar words in most other languages. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly added it here for the incivility, with the main discussion on the Geopolitical board, where it belonged. Just that the original notice got derailed badly... --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't belong on the page, edit warring to keep it is stupid, calling people obsessed with penis words 'teenage idiots' may be wrong, but only in regards to incivility, not in regard to facts. teenagers like dick jokes, this is just another. Move on. ThuranX (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "obsessed with penis words" is also wrong. Also, I made my views as not being a joke, it just got derailed as that (and most people start at that premise, as the one that started the incivility, the reverts and obviously, you, with reasons yet unknown to me). As I asked on the Geopolitical board, and on the Romanian word talk page, established Romanian users from both sites should give their opinion there, according to Wikipedia policies. There could be, indeed, many reasons for not adding it, but the most widely spread is also the wrongest assumption - that it is just a joke entry, when there are evidence repeated efforts have been made to introduce it a professional way in conformance with even the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
And here, NON-Romanian users, who are aware of editing guidelines and policies and unlikely to work from nationalistic biases, can make it clear for you. Foreign words for dick, tits, twat, and chocolate starfish don't belong on disambig pages, or have articles, unless there's a broad body of sources establishing the notability in english-speaking nations. Alternately, we can ask Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Albanians, and others from that corner of Europe to create articles for every slang derisive word they have for Romanians, since slang related to Romania matters so much.ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


This is going off-topic too much, is anyone going to do anything about that incivility attack? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As many others have said above, the Romanian slang word should not be on the disambiguation page. Removal of it by non-bot editors could have been handled without comments on the age or cognitive status of the editors adding it; but in all honesty, it's quite minor in the grand scheme of things, and my suggestion to AA is to move on from this issue. -- Samir 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"An idiot" is a cognitive status? Wow, when you put it like that, I don't feel insulted anymore at all. I'm pretty sure others won't if I call them idiots either.</sarcasm, btw> As for the disambig page, I myself removed any links with the previous line of discussion by making this sub-discussion excluslivly, so your observation is, I dare to say, bad-mannered at best. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, gosh, I think I'll stop here, I realise now that being called an idiot for no good reason isn't going to get anyone any warn, if I keep this up I might be even baited in a situation when one will probably use the policies to give me a ban. Happy swearing without consequences, ppl. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let me be blunt: AA, repeated addition of penis-slang in another languages to a disambiguation page is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Coming to ANI to complain about being reverted (albeit being reverted with a rude edit summary) is a waste of everyone's time. Continuing the discussion here despite everyone telling you that you are wrong boggles the mind. You screwed up, someone was mean to you, get over it. -- Samir 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Bait level increasing :-) Sorry, not getting banned for ya, mate. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Not baiting you. Don't expect an administrative response or warning when someone is mildly incivil out of frustration. Just ignore, and move on, unless it becomes a disruptive pattern. Read Slrubenstein's post below, which is excellent advice -- Samir 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Dude, a lot of incivility occurs at Wikipedia and while it is not nice, anyone who has been around long enough gets a thicker skin. In most cases someone just loses their temper. My advice is: keep a record of this person's incivility towards you and if there is a persistent pattern of incivility take it to the appropriate board (which is not this one). With several examples, I am sure someone there will post a warning; if it keeps happening and the warnings pile up, then someone will take more severe action. In the meantime, and this is sincere, constructive, good faith advice, do you think there is anything that you can do to diffuse the situation? Since you have not attacked him/her personally, presumably you are more mature. Maybe this means you can also find a way to effectively encourage him/her to lay off the personal attacks and focus on the issues. This does not always work, but sometimes it does and it is worth trying. Also, if you demonstrably try to cool him/her down, difuse conflicts, go out of your way not to be provocative, that will provide you with even more evidence to support your case if you seek mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've dropped a note on his user talk. No, I don't want our friend here to leave here with the impression that he can have a similar go at someone else thinking that he can get away with it. Civility standards on Wikipedia are already low enough these days. - Mailer Diablo 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User TCO[edit]

TCO (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been repeatedly blocked for violations of WP:Civil, most recently for 3 months by Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). After the latest block, I protected the user talk page for the duration of the block for this edit while blocked. Is it time to indef block TCO? Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Naw. Not worth the effort. either protect the page or adjust the block to stop him from posting there and move a long. 3 months is a lifetime on wikipedia. If he comes back and decides to continue to be a jerk, we can indef him. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help reverting page moves[edit]

A vandal (I blocked the account) moved numerous pages:

I don't have any scripts or such to move them back quickly. If anyone can help, that would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are all moved back. --Aude (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
In the case that you do need to revert page move vandalism, you can try adding User:Mr.Z-man's move-revert script to your monobook.js: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js'); ~ Troy (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted them all manually this time. I will certainly look at the script, so I have it for next time. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Supparluca[edit]

I would like an admin to take a close look at Supparluca's overall editing pattern. It amounts to Disruptive editing. Supparluca's history reveals that for weeks, even months he has almost exclusively confined his edits to the Italianization of place names in South Tyrol, the German-speaking area in Italy, despite opposition from several other editors. Hereby, he seems to be guided by the belief that in any given context, the word "South Tyrol" and its derivants, as generally all English place names based on the German and the Ladin language are to be removed from Wikipedia.

(Important background information: Note that WP:placename conflicts (--> Multiple local names) stipulates that, other in the few cases where there is a widely used English name, names in South Tyrol "are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority", which in 111 out of 116 municipalities are German or Ladin.)

His actions include: He persistently changes the names and urls of references, although these reflect the true title of the refence respectively the original place where the source was retrieved (see Oscar Benvenuto (ed.): "South Tyrol in Figures 2008", Provincial Statistics Institute of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Bozen/Bolzano 2007). Notably, he continued his disruptive actions in the face of repeated requests to refrain from this:

He systematically replaced the name "South Tyrol" (since 1919) with the anochronistic "Province of Bolzano-Bozen (only since 1948), although the General guidelines makes it clear that in historical contexts the historical names are to be preferred:

Moreover, he moves pages (see here) against the clear outcome of discussions and votes on the talk page (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco) (in April 2007). Note that he had already moved the page for the first time in (August 2007), that time directly against the actions of an admin.

It also does not raise faith in his good faith that he currently nominates categories for change without notifying other users, even though the same topic has just been discussed a few days ago.

I feel that his destructive reverts now put into danger the work on the articles related to "South Tyrol", since it increasingly disrupts the efforts of other users to improve these articles, and forces them into petty quarrels about names. Since his history of Supparluca shows him to do little else than "fixing wikilinks", that is Italianizing names, or moving pages to Italian names, since he joined Wikipedia, his overall behaviour is congruent with long-time Tendentious editing as per sentences 2-4). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

John254 and Kristen Eriksen[edit]

This case goes back a few months, and has left some of us scratching our heads, but I think I've come to a conclusion. There is extremely strong evidence that John254 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs •