Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive513

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

Noticeboard archives



CCFSDCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is creating a lot of pages about holidays around the world. Only source given is a book, "Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World".

Claims on user page to be Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, and probably is. So there is only one source - the articles' author.

Google search for "The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World" reveals only hits from Wikipedia.

There are WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:POV WP:Notability and lots of other issues here, and I'm out of my depth. pablohablo. 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The user has a thing or three to learn about editing on wikipedia - like not signing articles - and it is evident that he's pimping his book. But the one substantive article I've checked so far checks out - there is such a holiday. I suspect he needs a good talking to, which I see you've started; I'll pitch in. All of the articles he's created need to be checked and very probably de-sigged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A note - it is considered extremely rude to not notify a user when you mention them here. The user is now notified, but please remember this for any future noticeboard postings. neuro(talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As Pablomismo pointed out, the very existence of the book being cited/flogged appears to be impossible to establish. It therefore can't be used as a reference in these articles. Deor (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Then remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The book can't be found because it's, by the editor's own admission, not only unpublished, but unsold. The editor clearly has some fundamental misunderstandings of a host of policies (ranging from obvious conflicts of interest to the complete unreliability of sources), so perhaps someone who has the time should have a word in his ear.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Old Account[edit]

Resolved: shy bairns get nothing

I previously used the account "thomsonboy93" in a very juvenille way that eventually got me banned. I now have taken the wiki process much more seriously, and am even the senior editor to a page that I helped create and improve The404. With my old account, I posted to pictures on my friends user talk page, but they were deleted. After I lost the contents of my hard drive, the pictures were also lost. Wikipedia deleted them, because they had no value to any articles, but I thought that since at one time they were posted on the wiki servers, wikipedia may have a copy of them. Could you please do me this favor? The files are:Image:Kacani.jpg, and Image:Katranny 2.JPG My email is, if you wish to get in touch with me Frebel93 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • So you're an indef blocked user, evading their block and you're asking for a favour. Is that correct? RMHED. 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That's probably a fair assessment of the situation. However, I don't see a problem with giving reformed editors a second chance, if they can demonstrate that they're here to edit constructively. I've sent the images requested to the email address the user provided. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Chalk one up for common sense. RMHED. 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Inviting scrutiny like that is about as "good faith" an attitude as we'll find here. In contrast to a certain other user. What's his name. Alpha Commando, or something like that. I'm a baaad boy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Tsk. Uncalled-for. //roux   06:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I know, but could Bugs have not listed about 3,000 others while he was at it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason I listed that specific one is because of the latest sockpuppet that turned up on this page in the last day or two. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusation and possible stalking[edit]

The past months I have interacted with several editors over whether or not Marty Lederman, Scott Horton (lawyer), John Dean, Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, The Washington Post several university pieces, et cetera fail RS. Trying to be civil I asked for input at the RS noticeboard. To my surprise I am now being accused of inserting my personal dissertation into articles.[1] No, this is not the case, for the record this is not my article as I happen to be a physician in daily life.Could somebody look into this and ask those involved to stop 1) making wild accusations, 2) searching articles I work on to continue their edit war,[2][3][4] 3) stop using misleading edit summaries, 4) to abide by WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, WP:STALK,WP:VANDAL. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now the fourth noticeboard Nescio has complained to after every single editor to evaluate it on the first three rejected his claims, and four separate editors (including a member of the arbitration committee) found policy violations by Nescio's edits. The issue is that Nescio wishes to insert a pet theory of Lyndon Larouche into three articles based on the synthesis of an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by Ahmad Chehab and blog posts by Scott Horton and a half-dozen unrelated articles that don't mention the underlying subject. Since Ahmad Chaheb has absolutely no google footprint or notability, I've repeatedly asked Nescio why he is so insistent on including this material in multiple articles, and this is the first he's denied a COI. Fine, but there's still the problem of RS, SYN, WEIGHT, SPS, and BLP. Content dispute: nothing to see here except Nescio's violation of WP:DEADHORSE and WP:EW, but if you want to avoid WP:MULTI, there is a discussion at Talk:Unitary executive theory. THF (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody rejected since nobody commented. This misleading statement is a fine example of how this user operates. Second, I am asking for assistance in stopping the abuse which is entirely different from my previous request meant to establish why this user is removing RS. I reitterate: no help on article but to stop the accusations and stalking.!'' Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First, both of you are at the line with regard to WP:3RR on this article -- take a break from this, or risk having it frozen at the wrong version. Second, accusing each other of "WP:VANDAL", "WP:SYN", "WP:WEIGHT", and "WP:RS" doesn't make either of you to look good. Lastly, after reading this article a couple of times, I still have no idea why this section entitled "Neoconservatism" belongs in this article. It's a non sequitor, with no clear reason what a third-rate Fascist philosopher has to do with Neoconservatism. If I were to weigh into this content battle, Nescio, your edits would lose. Either find some published sources showing how Schmitt influenced Neoconservatism -- or any modern -ism -- or find another article to work on. (We have almost three million of them, so it shouldn't be hard to do that.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cp fan[edit]

The user Cp fan (talk · contribs) started editing recently, and has created a userpage with an {{administrator}} template, has declined an unblock request[5] and and has been tagging user pages, usually of blocked accounts, to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hamish Ross and other sockpuppet categories related to the same user. This includes at least two accounts, The JPCU (talk · contribs) and Computer whizz-kid (talk · contribs), that have not been blocked, and Cp fan looks like another sock. The user's other edits have usually been reverts of IP edits, but I'm not sure if all of the edits being reverted are vandalism. —Snigbrook 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned by this. Looking at some of the usernames he has been tagging (e.g. to do with swirly faces or a certain notorious glam-rocker) , and one possible interpretation of cp leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
... and I took away his self-awarded barnstar (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That seems a bit mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to give barnstars to ourselves (see WP:Barnstars). They are 'awards' we give to each other, so removing a self-awarded barnstar isn't mean. -kotra (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Adoniscik vandalizing and blanking the article Fethullah Gulen[edit]

User:Adoniscik is consistently vandalizing and blanking the biography of Fethullah Gulen, and starting edit wars. Majority of the editors cannot find the chance to develop the article. He claims ownership of the article and push his/her POV and his version. He is deleting about 80 of 100 references and huge part (about 8/10) of the article. He systematically call editors against his POV as stockpots of others to keep others away from the article. He does not give any specifics of his objection and use the edit summaries for nonsense comments. It hurts the quality of the article a great deal and violates many WP policies. He does not add any useful information to the article, just delete useful and recent information. Your attention is greatly appreciated. Here is just a few recent edits of him.[1][2][3][4] Thanks. Eranist (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, can you provide a diff or two of this editor calling others "stockpots"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the claims of referring to other editors as kitchenware, I'd point out the the above user was created 3 days ago and has edited nothing else, and this appears to be a content dispute. Dispute resolution is that way, third door on the left. The discussion here also appears relevant. Black Kite 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The submitter of this complaint, User:Eranist, has been blocked as a sock per checkuser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/philscirel/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection log[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue. neuro(talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Could any of the Administrators place a protection log on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Page is being vandalize by IP who insist on inserting false information claiming it is sourced. Please refer to both talk pages here [[6]] and here [[7]] He also made 4 reverts already today. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, requests like this should go to WP:RFPP, not here. If it's just him I don't see why protection is warranted, you can discuss it with him, and if he becomes disruptive he can be blocked.--Pattont/c 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh O.K. sorry, I was not aware of WP:RFPP. As far as discussions with him...there were already plenty (links above). I think he is just trolling everybody. Thanks anyway and sorry again for placing this request on a wrong page.--Jacurek (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiWeb151 block review[edit]

I blocked WikiWeb151 (talk · contribs) as a duck/likely sock of Audi151 (talk · contribs), who was in turn blocked due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoMamma6188. As I am not at all familiar with the details of the puppeteer, and for checks and balances, I'd like other users to review this block (and my deletions of their nearly identical subpages User:Audi151/Audi's and User:WikiWeb151/Audis). Thanks for any input.-Andrew c [talk] 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Jaguar151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and WikiFan151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing[edit]

Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has been pushing for the inclusion of the European Union in the various "List of Countries by ____" articles for some time now. A wide discussion over a year ago (a discussion he participated in) resulted in a consensus that has held steady to the present. Recently, he has edit-warred on List of countries by population and List of countries and outlying territories by total area in contravention of seemingly apparent consensus against his position. He has also canvassed inappropriately (example) to gain support for his position on the latter article. Most recently, he has announced his intention to edit-war on a daily basis to ensure his position is upheld. He has also claimed that I and other editors are a cabal of chauvinist ideologues that is a threat to an encyclopedia...dedicated to inform{ing} humanity. This all smacks of someone on a crusade to "educate" the rest of us, and demonstrates a clear intention to disregard any consensus that disagrees with his own view. This type of disruption is damaging to the encyclopedia and a waste of all of our time. Is it perhaps time for a topic ban? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we did have an RfC on the issue a couple of weeks ago, but there wasn't much of a concrete result (mainly due to lack of participation from uninvolved editors). Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.
I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Strongly against blocking - Come on guys, discussions can get quite emotional and hot. For the vast majority of his statements in the long discussion of the EU's entry Lear21 always came up with very valid points. The whole discussion became quite fruitless because of a lack of new arguments and not because of uninvolved editors as stated above. So don't try to find some single incidents that may be caused by some frustration about the fruitless all-over-again discussions to cut him out here, as this would be censorship. - Additionally, I feel obliged to add that it was Pfainuk who opened up this Pandora's box by deleting the EU's entry and violating the standing comprise in the first place. This started the whole mess/discussion and therefore his view in this incident notice can hardly be seen as impartial. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll not get into the details of the content dispute here because it's beside the point - though I'll point out that the original edit did not delete the EU from the article (I moved it from one part of the article to another), and that the EU did not have an entry on the list before this discussion started. I will note that I did declare my interest in this at the very beginning of my message - and I note with interest that you, also an involved party, did not.
Discussions can become emotional, sure, that does not justify Lear's personal attacks, nor his apparent intent to force through a change by perpetually edit warring, nor his refusal to AGF (here he told another editor that his comments were "a joke and therefore inexistent"). I'm not arguing for a block, I'm arguing for a topic ban. I think that when an editor all but announces that he's going to continue to edit war against consensus for "years", he needs to stop editing on those articles or be stopped from editing those articles. You say the discussion has got quite emotional - maybe (though apparently only one one side). But that's not an excuse to edit war until you get your way. Pfainuk talk 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Any block or topic ban should be based on the real facts. So, he announced he could go to edit war ... so what? Did he actually do it? When did he violate the WP:3RR? ... I think that in both our countries we wouldn't get convicted only on basis of announcing a misdoing - why should we act differently on Wikipedia? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The point is this: Lear has canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS. He has attacked other editors. And he has edited in direct contravention of apparent consensus on the talk page; that is disruptive editing in my book. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, that partially goes for Pfainuk as well, as he has pushed for the removal of the EU's entry from the initial section of the article, in direct violation of the established consensus without creating a new consensus on the talk page first. That's disruptive editing by the same standards. Consensus can change, nobody is saying anything different, but there was no new consensus in the first place. - Having said that, if Lear21 should be topic banned, so should Pfainuk ... and I'm nominating myself as well, as I'm not completely sure that I acted without flaws in all my past edits. - Otherwise, we all could just cool down and forget this whole nonsense. Really. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I boldly moved the EU from above the list to below it. When I was reverted, I took it to talk. That's actually endorsed by guidelines, not condemned. Pfainuk talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No, no one is perfect, but that doesn't give Lear an excuse to be disruptive. I think all of us—save Lear—could quite easily drop the issue and leave it as it is. That is exactly the problem; Lear has indicated that he will accept no outcome other than his own version. That unwillingness to compromise is totally unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 has tried to uphold an article´s version which has been thoroughly discussed over several years including many editors and ended in a stable compromise version which lasted for more than year. User:Parsecboy and others have been involved in these previous discussions and now deny to stick to the compromise version. In this light user Lear 21 has come forward with a new proposal citing several external expert sources. As these credible sources (among them the CIA World Factbook) are constantly denied user Lear 21 took the freedom to insist on the acceptance of these sources. User Lear 21 has given credit to one of the basic principles of Wikipedia while conducting an argumentation based on multiple facts and high-profiled references. Lear 21 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Lear has mischaracterized my position in regards to the article; my only comments have been in support of maintaining the long-standing consensus version and towards attempts to keep the discussion on track and within policies (i.e., no edit-warring, canvassing issues, etc.). As far as I know, Polaron is the only other editor (with Lear and me) who participated in the old discussions, and he too (I believe) favors retaining the old-consensus version.
None of that really has any bearing on this discussion though. We are talking about the disruptive actions Lear has been doing over the past weeks. He has posted biased notices on the talk pages of those he believes will support him in an attempt to votestack (example diff provided above), he has edit-warred with other editors, and has more or less announced his intention to continue to edit-war. He has also attacked other editors who disagree with him. In my opinion, Lear 21 clearly needs to stop editing in an area that he has obviously made a personal issue; if he will not agree to do that of his own volition, then we need to make that decision for him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 insists to either recognize external expert sources and the methodology of more than 20 sister Wiki languages OR to stick to longterm stable version which was backed by more than 10 editors over the last 3 years. User Lear 21 has not announced to start an edit war ! Quote "This will be a very long boring discussion in the next month, I promise." Instead user Parsecboy (initiator of this notice) and user Polaron have not intervened the breaching of a longstanding compromise version although both have been part of it a year ago. User Parsecboy is only willing to give incorrect and biased summaries of the discussions in order to get rid of an unwanted participant but established Wikipedia editor Lear 21. I have no doubt that this behaviour stands in a stark contradiction with guidelines issued for administrators. Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not follow what other Wikis do, we are our own project; what or do is totally irrelevant. Moreover, this discussion here is not over any content; it's about your poor behavior on both the articles and their talk pages.
As for whether or not you literally said you intended to edit war, "I will be a frequent editor at this list from now on to ensure that credible sources are acknowledged. On a daily basis." seems to be pretty clear in its meaning to me. I have made 1 edit each to both of the articles in question; I have no intention of fueling any edit-warring by adding to the reverts. Note this edit summary, where I chastised both edit-warring parties to stop reverting each other. Where exactly have I made incorrect or biased summaries? You have canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS, attacked other editors, and edited in a disruptive manner. That you have not refuted any of these is telling. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Strongly against blocking too
It's sort of intellectual dishonesty to quote people out of context. If interested, people can judge by themselve how does Lear can progressively come to such behavior. I can witness that the communication with two wikipedians on this article, namely BritishWatcher and Pfainuk, appear to be impossible as long as we don't follow their POV. They seem to fail to understand the aim of making medium proposals when there is strong POV dispute, they seem to fail aswell to understand that their POV are not worth more than others, they are infringing the 2nd pillar of WP and yet reminding others about WP rules.
For what I have seen, they are pushing -consciously or not- to avoid reaching a consensus that could not satisfy them at least at 90%. That's not called trying to reach a medium equilibrium between parties, and that's not an encyclopaedian spirit, a WP spirit even less.
So, when facing such behavior, when you keep explaining that 1+1=2 and you keep being answered that 1+1=3 for more than a month, I can understand that people can lose patience. Some here judge that Lear has been disruptive, he's probably not perfect in his behavior, but maybe those who launch such accusations should take a look in the mirror too and get a perspective.
I personally stopped fighting this, as such closed and rigid mind is out of my understanding. I'm trying my best to assume good faith and accept something that please everyone, but I have to admit that in the present case, it's hard. Rules, conservatism and own POV should never overlay common sense, wide view, flexibility, honesty, self-questioning, logic and deductive mind.
I, too, could ask for something that suit me better, but I'm trying not to overweight my requests to allow different POV to be displayed, as I'm constantly trying to follow the spirit of Voltaire ("I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"), but I have limits, like everyone else, including Lear. Orravan (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you're reading the same discussions I am. Barely a week into the current discussion, Lear was already attacking Britishwatcher and Pfainuk: I congratulate BritishWatcher and Pfainuk being a stereotypical, aggressive anti-European deletionists at Wikipedia like many others before, be proud of it. But please spare your hate and ignorance for the tabloid sections in your country without spreading it here in an encyclopedia. Nothing taken out of context; two whole sentences, linked to the post he made. Note that it was the second post he made to the discussion. This does not seem like someone who has tried for weeks to circumvent WP:ICANTHEARYOU type behavior, and finally losing patience. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Barely a week into the discussion, it seems that Lear was also facing anew a behavior he fought several times in the past. There is something else Lear wrote, just above the part you've chosen to paste, which help to put the quote into perspective : "Since my first edits about these issues the only editors who constantly delete, diminish and vandalize EU related content come from one country, the UK. I have met or read about more than 50 of them during the last 3 years. These editors display almost no EU related knowledge and still feel being able to judge the issues."
It's indeed a personnal POV and we agree that it definitely does not allow someone to be rude. Now for my opinion : I don't consider him to have been rude, just being tired of what could be considered as vandalism in others situations, tired of what he saw several times and saw once again when Pfainuk and BW started to argue exactly the way 50 persons did before, with the same flaws and yet the same extreme self-confidence. Early into the discussion, I felt really uncomfortable myself about the way they were eluding some basic rationales and facts, like if they wanted to prove that their POV were better or something, while WP is about neutral knowledge, and not partisan choices. There can't be consensus nor agreement without fair equilibrium. Orravan (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That's missing the whole point of this issue. "Being tired" is not an excuse to attack other editors, nor is it an excuse to votestack, or edit-war. Lear is just as guilty of ignoring basic rationales and facts as anyone else; "being tired" doesn't give him a free pass to behave as he wishes. I've also been involved with these issues for quite some time. I too could say I'm tired of the whole debate; why don't I just delete the article and indef-block all the involved users, and save us the trouble? According to your line of reasoning, I too would be entirely justified to do whatever I want. My point is this: we have limits on behavior for a very good reason. If we choose to ignore them because a user is "tired of the same arguments", then what good are the rules in the first place? Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Lear could have been way softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé.
Now to make it clear, no one said tiredness is an excuse, I'm just telling you : put things into perspective, in-context, to fully understand it before judging. Is the one speaking out loud guilty when pushed repetively by someone more disruptive but silent ? So I can keep insulting someone for days until he punch me, he's gonna be 100% the one pointed out ?
Also, if someone keeps erasing the data of an article, and I keep reintroducing it, would it be edit-war stricto sensu (aka : POV conflict), or protection from vandalism ? Pure POV issue here.
You can be highly disruptive without giving it the stance, I don't even argue that they have been on purpose, I think they are of good faith, just being overconfident about their POV, misunderstanding about the need for neutral point of view and fearing to see their POV overlaid by another one. It has not been the case here, as the aim is to reach an equilibrium between every POV. It can't be done when someone keep seeing your POV not worthy to be displayed along with his and reject POV he disagree with.
So, why is Lear blamed here ? Because he stated an opinion he made over his experience and expressed that BW and Pfainuk were acting the same way dozen of people did before ? To say it again : definitely Lear could have been softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé. That was the substance of my previous post.
Also, you say that he reacted vigorously already in his 2nd post, but I started arguing with them myself one month and a half ago, do you think Lear unable to read what have already been wrote, compare to what he saw repetively in the past, and make a statement over it ? That's why it's important to me to look at the whole issue, to put things into perspective, to avoid being blinded by visible events only.
Once again, what I've seen definitely lacks tact, indeed, but is not at all over limit, especially when you look carefully at the dispute as a whole.
Now to make it clear, I'll be slightly off-topic to make a quick reminder to understand the dispute. Here's what WP says about the EU sui generis specificity : "In political science, the unparalleled development of the European Union as compared to other international organizations has led to its designation as a sui generis geopolitical entity. There has been widespread debate over the legal nature of the EU given its mixture of intergovernmental and supranational elements, with the organisation thus possessing some characteristics common to confederal and federal entities." (from Sui generis article).
Arguing that the status of the EU is not clear and fixed —both de jure and de facto— is not a POV, it's a FACT, and that's why the dispute is and will be endless as long as someone think to hold the Thruth. The dispute is now about whether the EU should be above or under the list, which is childish and a loss of time, and endless aswell.
I came with a proposal already applied elsewhere on WP and almost everywhere out of it : including it unranked in the lists. If you've carefully read me until now, you easily understand how it's a compromise as it reflects a reality, a fact. Should you be a pro or anti EU, nobody cares, as the purpose of WP is to provide knowledge, and as far as I've seen, it seems that Lear had been the one willing to accept compromise and sticking to facts (as I try to do myself). Orravan (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
As for a precision, I care no more about how things will change (or not) on said article, I don't want to fight more for it, I let people do as they want. But I don't like when people are judged in an indiscriminate manner as Lear is in the present case. And by the way, I write a lot and I may do some mistakes, please accept my apologies if there is some misunderstanding, as I'm not a native english speaker. :-) Orravan (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
To be blunt, Lear called other editors (among other things) "chauvinist ideologues"; that surely doesn't pass WP:NPA. I disagree with your assessment that Pfainuk or BritishWatcher have been silently disrupting the article any more than Lear has. In my view, a more correct assessment would probably be Pfainuk/BW and Lear shouting past each other, to no avail. The crucial difference is that Pfainuk and BW have not resorted to name-called or votestacking to "win" the debate. It's a bit disingenuous to frame the dispute (which is 100% a content dispute) as vandalism and reversion of that vandalism. If Pfainuk and BW were editing from an anti-EU POV (whether consciously or unconsciously), as you assert, then wouldn't they be attempting to remove the EU from the article completely? They have both said that they want the entry in the bottom, in the footnotes to the table (regardless of POV, this could be viewed as a logical solution. Footnotes are used all the time to include information, say in a book, that doesn't necessarily belong in the text, but is relevant to modify/clarify information). I agree with you 100% that the current dispute, whether the EU should be above or below the list, is a waste of time (and hence I have not commented on either proposal). Regardless of any of this, Lear has apologized, and pledged to refrain from personal attacks. I think this is enough. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If any user had the impression of being personally attacked by my edits I´m sorry. I apologize for it. I will return to fact based argumentation, citing references and providing logic reasoning in the future only. The initial complain of this notice, the disruptive POV-pushing, has to be rejected by all terms though. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear, thank you. I was hoping that this would be a sort of "shock" to get you to examine the comments you've made a little more closely. If you agree to restrain your behavior in congruence with policy, then I think that's a suitable resolution to this issue. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Handing off[edit]

LirazSiri (talk · contribs) is, by admission, the co-founder of a software project, TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article Liraz wrote on this project was deleted as promotion (WP:CSD#G11). It was reposted, again by Liraz, with the addition of a couple of trivial non-independent sources (the Ubuntu community wiki newsletter). This has now been to WP:DRV, my talk page and WP:VPP. Liraz is convinced the deletion means we are an evil deletionist cabal. Liraz also believes that my statement that continuing to argue the toss over content you write about your own projects can lead to blocking, amounts to "suppression". Rfwoolf (talk · contribs), who has a long-standing grudge against me personally, chose to try to "help", and in the end Liraz appears to be interpreting everything xe doesn't want to hear according to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to interpret everything which is even slightly pleasant as support for the crusade to have the article. Liraz' judgment that the original deleting admin was an abusive bully has now been transferred to me and amplified, and I am now "suppressive" a "bully" and "censoring" stuff. So I am walking away. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It [8] reads like an advertisement, and the belligerence displayed by its author is typical of self-promoters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Guy has been, in my view, reasonable in his dealings with LirazSiri, who apparently feels that there have been personal attacks and harassment occurring, none of which I've been able to spot in their dealings. Rfwoolf has a long and problematic history with Guy, was not involved in the discussion, and then threw an attack in out of nowhere. There is also a lengthy discussion on the Policy pump that is horribly misplaced as it's turned into an argument over the admin activities. While the deletion may have been a borderline decision at the start (I may have AFD'd the article, for example, while others would speedy it), the entire situation is now spiralling into a brawl. Definitely needs more eyes (besides mine, as I'm a cranky bastard with too many deadlines this week and next and the block button is getting bigger and shining red as I go along). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with both of you... but... assuming the best, this seems to me to be an editor who wishes to create an article about a product that (IMHO) is notable enough to deserve an article (the article's subject isn't "just another Linux distribution", as I first thought, and seems to have at least one quite innovative feature). The editor, as a newbie, failed to establish notability and ran up against WP:COI. Their close relationship with the article's subject made them defensive, and that in turn led to problems working with other edtors and admins. Despite my previous belief (struck-thru', below) that we could possibly mark this as resolve, I believe the editor is still railing against other editors (a situation that is, to some degree, being encouraged). In particular the editor is reluctant to create the article in userspace. Would it be possible for an admin to (a) offer some degree of protection to the editor's userspace, and (b) possibly offer mentoring (the mentoring wouldn't necessarily need to come from an admin; I'd be prepared to mentor, for example). I think some degree of strong message to the editor is necessary, but not one that closes all doors. As I said back-a-ways I do believe that this subject is notable, and that a decent article could emerge. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Per this edit it sounds like the editor is stepping back too. Various editors have left advice should LirazSiri (talk · contribs) choose to re-create the article. Mark this as resolved?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Striking; I'm not convinced that the editor has stepped back. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean by railing against other editors, but I feel your original assessment on stepping back from the article is true. Perhaps if I truly had something to gain personally by continuing to pursue this I would be more motivated to continue fighting for the article's inclusions and the basis for its notability but I've discovered an ugly side of Wikipedia that has discouraged me from further engaging myself in this dispute. I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Wikipedia. In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally. Naturally I got defensive. I didn't sign up for all this drama and though I find Wikipedia's community and culture fascinating I really do have better things to do with my time than fend off these attacks. Now that I know how quickly things can turn into a battlefield just as soon as you attract the wrong kind of attention, I'll come back only after I believe my position is strong enough to convince even the likes of Guy, other die-hard deletionists and the blue wall of allies that would otherwise gang up on me and accuse me of having bad faith, abusing Wikipedia by advertising "yet another non-notable Ubuntu fork" on Wikipedia (in order to promote myself of course), while acting in conflict of interest. I don't know why they singled TurnKey Linux out as it is more notable than any of the other unofficial Ubuntu derivatives that have articles. I have my suspicions. It's a free software project that is giving away software appliances that other proprietary vendors are charging a hefty ransom for. I can't prove anything though, and there's the old adage that you should never attribute to malice what can attributed to simple incompetence. It doesn't matter though. An article on Wikipedia matters little in the grand scheme of things. LirazSiri (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(Small aside: by "railing against other editors" I meant, in part, the section on your talk page titled "Attempted censorship of critical speech on this talk page". Note that I am not taking sides here; I'm not saying you're right/wrong and Guy's wrong/right or whatever. I'm just noting that this suggests that the matter at hand can't simply be marked as "resolved". Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
Wouldn't it be helpful if an outside person had a sit down with Rfwoolf about his/her "help"? AnyPerson (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Help" indeed. This minor skirmish reminds me of the battle royale that occurred last summer over someone else's pet computer language, something called MKR. [9] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Not being an admin I don't have access to the delete logs (or I do and I'm too stupid to know it), but what was the reason given for deleting the userspace article? And what does this say about using userspace to clean-up articles? If we can't collect our thoughts and improve an article we're just supposed to get it perfect the first shot out of the box? That doesn't seem right. Padillah (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Hammerfist[edit]

Resolved: indef block Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Referred from WP:WQA, beyond the scope of minor incivility, personal attacks on another user [10] and [11] Gerardw (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for that since the second one was on the heels of a final warning. Watch for the promised socks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Two weeks may be turn out to be too brief. The user's talk page contributions subsequent to the block do not demonstrate willingness to become a model community member. See the last three edits in page history. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Reverted upage vandalism and changed length to indef and protected user talk for 2 weeks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

David Dein[edit]

Can someone double check David Dein - User:David Dein has removed a substantial amount of information; some referenced & verifiable some not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User blocked, under policy pertaining to usernames matching those of well-known individuals. Appears to have a COI at any rate, whether he is Dein or not. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to comply with WP:SIG[edit]

I'm not sure how to deal with this, because blocking seems to be rather extreme, but it's frustrating dealing with an editor who refuses to comply with a behavioral guideline. User talk:Ottre (userpage is a redlink) has customized his signature to eliminate any links (to his userpage, his user talk page, or even his special:contributions page). I first contacted him on January 21st on his userpage (diff) asking him to change his signature to conform to WP:SIG. He never responded to me, but when it was raised on another talk page, he dismissed it, stating that he "didn't abide by policy on linking signatures". (diff) Meanwhile, when he left another comment on a talkpage that is on my watchlist, and I followed up on my original message, he responded on my talk page "I saw your first message. I am not fixing my signature, as it encourages contact with editors who follow WP:V—contact I would rather avoid." (which was left with only a timestamp, no user name whatsover).(diff) Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve this situation? Horologium (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it for goodness' sake. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC).
↑What Bish said. Is there really nothing worse going on to worry about? – iridescent 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll ignore behavioral guidelines. Should I ignore all of them, or only certain ones? Horologium (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just the ones that, when ignored, don't actually harm the project. EVula // talk // // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Only certain ones. Knowing which ones to ignore is part of the IAR final exam. --barneca (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I *did* say that I tended to be more EGOUR than rouge. I've invoked IAR only twice since confirmation, although I have been tempted on a few more occasions. However, it's a bit frustrating to have to pull up the talk page history to leave a message with a user who doesn't have his sig linked, which is what originally prompted me to address the issue. The page in question (the one on my watchlist) is under article probation, so it's a little more than just rule-wankery or nannyism. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that it was going to be something stupid like a excessively bolded names, but I would say a sig with no identification is bordering on disruption, and pointy disruption at that, considering he apparently wants to "avoid" those who follow policy. There's no reason to invoke IAR for this; it's not improving the wiki; I say we give him the chance to fix it or block. Simple as that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly inconsiderate. If he didn't sign his name at all, I'd be more inclined to make a big deal of it. But if the signature includes his unlinked username (I believe User:Doku does something similar), you don't need to go into the history, it's just the extra effort of cutting and pasting. That's not really a sig with no identification. I suggest just muttering under your breath about his lack of consideration for other people, and leave it at that. Now, if he's being disruptive in other ways, this would be one more log on the bonfire. But I wouldn't act on that issue alone, if there was nothing else. also, I don't understand why he's worried about editors who follow WP:Verifiability? :) --barneca (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's User:Docu who used to do that (and still does: [12]); and similarly drew complaints. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Echoing EVula, while having a non-WP:SIG compliant signature is annoying, annoying ≠ disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've made thousands of edits without any major problems so far. Is it a wank that I think WP:V is a trademark, which should be replaced by freely-created American, Australian, British, Canadian and South African versions of WP:RS? I know thousands of editors share this view, and do things like deliberately red-linking to their (deleted) userpages, so it can't be that disruptive. 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talkcontribs)

(as an addon to my previous post) That said (for whatever reason my browser didn't want more text, sorry to split this) do you have examples of no-name signatures in article talk? That's where it's disruptive, and while it's still acting like a jackass to not link your username if he's at least making it clear it's him there's not as much of an issue. (ec twice) ...And the above is exactly what I'm talking about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs. Ottre is aware of this is causing discomfort for others. If he is unwilling to be a collegial member of our community by following simple norms about signatures, he should choose an alternate hobby. If he doesn't fix the signature promptly, a short initial block would be in order. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore me then! I have never made a completely anonymous post to a talk page, and indeed have signed ~100 IP contribs—particularly at AFD. Not linking to my history on WP is a core part of my editing philosophy; do you refuse to consider the idea that if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition? I do, and am actively in sourcing information by adding page refs, and checking the print edition of newspaper refs used in WP:ACOF articles. 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talkcontribs)
So, I genuinely prefer WP:RS to WP:V. Could you tell me why not having a linked sig is a protest against WP:V? I'm really confused. Skinwalker (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I too am really confused. Some of the posts above have no signature at all. I do not know how I can follow this thread when I don't know who is posting the message. It becomes impossible.SteelSkin (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll watchlist both your talk pages now. I'd also like to submit this case be closed, as I always sign with my unlinked name (except in this case, to prove the conversation can easily be followed with just a timestamp and identifier) and this practice per se can hardly be considered disruption. Likely just an intolerant administrator, rejects the concept of generationalism (my name for the above, editing philosophy). Ottre 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but what does this have to do with verifiability vs. reliable sources? Does not having a linked signature somehow abrogate WP:V? I'm not an admin, and therefore can't block you, but I'm genuinely curious about your stance. Skinwalker (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is not the place to discuss how (incredibly) well it works. Ottre 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Warn & block. There are good reasons for linked sigs, and I'm unconvinced by reasons to the contrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Warn and then nuke. The attitude to ignore is ridulous and a reason for alot of drama. Should we ignore until there is a certain threshold of disruption and drama? Is or is this not against policy/guidelines? If it isn't then I apologize but I would be more than annoyed if I was interacting with this user with his present signature. --Tom 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a final warning, followed by a block if there is no improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? And what , Tom, does "policy/guidelines" stand for—why do you call it that? Do you think WP:SIG is "almost policy", or "policy on a bad day"? It's in fact an editorial guideline Do we really need to display our ZOMG Great Adminz Powerz at every opportunity, like the peacock displays its tail? I'm sure very few people *want* to sign like Ottre does, and out of those that do want to, peer pressure will stop most of them putting it into practice. That leaves a miniscule minority who will actually do it. It's a bagatelle. But contrariness might turn it into a Movement, if somebody here insists on making a big deal of it. Please mellow out. Contrariness ≠ disruption. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC).
I think the only one who needs to mellow out here is you, Bish. We agree on a low-drama solution to possible and past POINTy disruption, that's done with. Ottre and you want to turn this into something more. Bringing this back in hand, Ottre, I think you should consider yourself warned. Please sign with at least your username, linked or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen, I was trying to say that if this user is not breaking any policy or guideline, then I apologize and that user can carry on, but I would find it annoying, thats all. Also what does ZOMG stand for since i see it alot. I know after its explained I'll have know that. Anyways, no biggie, cheers, --Tom 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As explained here [13] and also with somewhat less clarity in wiktionary, OMG is "Oh My God" and the "z" or "Z" in front of it has no particular meaning except emphasis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting to note that "All Gods Forfend" is the most common equivalent amongst pagans. Anyway... Ottre 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You entered the discussion without even clicking on WP:SIG first? Wow. I mean, I see. ZOMG means Oh My God, with a Z in front of it for extra internetspeakiness. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC).
I did read it, but missed the part about it being "behavioual" vs a "guideline" which is different from a "policy"?? My freaking head is going to explode :) Even with the user name, without it being link does make it more effort to contact a user. For the 3rd time, if this user is within policy or guidelines or whatever, then its my problem not his.OMG :) --Tom 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't been following, please don't use words like "effort". My talk page can be accessed via PageUp > History > Ottre:Talk. This is a matter (I hope) of whether or not it is acceptable for an experienced editor to flaunt established but minor editing practices. Ottre 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to waste your time. That past POINT was made for a very constructive reason, unlike the "policy-wise" admins who are calling for a block if there is "no improvement" (Come on! Of course I am going to agree with consensus), and I only had to sign three times without any username at all. Ottre 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For the love of [offensive object removed ], you're not required to have an account, you're not required to sign your edits, you're not required to link to anything in your sign - it's a polite suggestion, and shrugging it offer carries the penalty of getting nasty looks and naught more.
    • You're not required to respect other Wikipedians. You're not required to assume good faith. You're not required to use common sense. You're not required to say anything useful. You're not required to talk about Fight Club. Er.. wait. Ignore the last one. I hope you get what I mean, tho. :) --Conti| 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • WOW! what an utterly ridiculous complaint this is. Some admins really have too much time on their hands. RMHED. 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheap. On a collaborative project the ability to communicate clearly is rather importance. Making authorship of talk page comments easy to identify is kinda an important part of this.Geni 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Or, they could just edit as an IP, or register a new account for every edit. Then they'd be perfectly in line with policy and even less traceable. WilyD 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I might add that my words above, where I said this whole discussion is about a "minor editing practice", aren't meant to suggest it is unimportant. It's minor/trivial because by this stage in the project, there are probably millions of edits where people have logged out to contribute something to an article. Ottre 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Then log out and edit as an IP so no one will bother with you, or else continue with your unlinked sig; however, WP:SIG as guideline or essay or no, leaving only a timestamp is disruptive; if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. That's all that needs to be said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or a social experiment by one member to see how much annoying behavior can be withstood by other project members? The only convincing argument s/he has made so far is that s/he does it so other project members will have a more difficult time verifiying if s/he is making constructive edits. The ability to do this is what protects the integrity of the project. I'm all for personal privacy rights, but their rights end where the rest of societies rights begin. Deliberately annoying behavior for it's own sake is disruptive.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? Ignore this guy. There is no reason to ban/block/lose someone over something so amazingly trivial as a signature. there is a name and a timestamp. IF we are honestly considering blocking this person for that and only that, i'm...well I'm not even sure that I recognize this place. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Come on, it says right at the very top that there can be exceptions. This. Is. Not. Blockable. SarekOfVulcan, 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No name signatures are little different than IP signatures; there's no return address likely to connect with the sender so the conversation must be of little import. Although I shouldn't be by now, I am surprised how much angst such a minor thing that doesn't affect anyone gets some people - go on, edit something by now... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:SIG clearly states that a signature must link to the user page. This is to provide easy communication amongst users. Some think that communication is a minor thing, but I think it is vitally important. My suggestion to Ottre is to put the link back into your signature and sign your posts properly to avoid angst among other users, and to end the fuss. Do it now, then we can all go home.SteelSkin (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, what's with all the sigs that include names but no links all of a sudden? Is this in response to this? rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Always listen to Bish. This could have been over at post number two. I really dont see why people want so much unneeded drama. -Mask? 10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably because the first thing we tell anyone who's in a dispute is to discuss it with the other editor. How's that possible if there's no link in the sig?
I know, we can all figure out where to leave messages, but we've been here a while. New editors wouldn't have any idea from looking at a talk page how to contact him, and aren't those the editors we're supposed to be welcoming?
It might or might not be strictly against policy, but it's certainly an arrogant statement, one that says "if you don't already know how to contact me, you shouldn't be doing so anyway." Dayewalker (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a bit WP:ABFish, but on the other hand it does look as if the user is being a bit pointy. This is not the first time it's happened (e.g. Docu) and there is a reasonable degree of consensus that linking in the sig is something one should do, but no consensus to make failure to do so a hanging offence. If it's a protest, then that probably violates WP:POINT. It does confuse n00bs, and annoys some people. The obvious answer is for the user to simply fix the problem. I have a redlinked user page, and that is deliberate, it is actually quite useful to see how people react to a redlinked user page, but my sig still takes you somewhere you can talk to me. It's that absence of a quick way of getting to the user directly, which causes friction. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Lemme see if I can get this right...based on: "if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition", it seems the primary motive here is deliberate obfuscation. They don't want to "have contact with" anybody who tries to enforce WP:V, because they don't personally think they should be required to follow WP:V as it pertains to uncited statements in articles. By refusing to provide a link to their contribs, they are hoping that the (albeit small) amount of extra effort required to check their editing history will: A)lower the chances that an editor will notice their history of adding uncited statements to articles, and thus B)increase the chances that people won't challenge and delete their current unsourced contribs to an article based on that history...phew. Convoluted, eh? If the guy had just said "I don't feel like it", I probably would have just said leave him alone. But now I'm really uncomfortable with invoking WP:IAR so this guy can run his strange, pointy Breakfast Machine-esque obfuscation scheme and confuse people wherever he goes. Bullzeye contribs 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's see... in the case of User:Docu it is relatively easy to type in the username and get to the appropriate page. On the other hand, SHEFFIELDSTEEL isn't terribly helpful for anyone trying to get to my pages. That's because I use caps in my sig that aren't in my username, of course - but what about an editor who has extended / non-Roman / Unicode characters in their user name? It seems that the only way people could get to their user page would be to cut and paste their sig. Not exactly convenient.
Now, in the real world I would be right there on the barricades if anyone suggested we all had to get our addresses tattoed on our foreheads, but this is a wiki. It's based on hypertext. It is supposed to be easy (convenient, even) to click on links to get to other pages. Those users who have refused to follow this communal norm, of providing a link in their signature, have yet to provide any convincing justification for this. Whether you call that refusal "making a point" or "being pointy", it is counter-productive to the ideal of building a community whose purpose is writing an encyclopaedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Or people could click the history. We should also be pretty wary of community norms that develop in the late stage of community formation. They may have more to do with defining a community (outwardly or inwardly) than they do with making an encyclopedia. We should be doubly wary of our temptation to equate those community norms with what is or is not "counter-productive". Protonk (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no problem getting to User talk:Ottre as such, it just requires extra typing. It's basically rudeness on the part of Docu and Ottre to compel people to do that extra work. But there are a lot ruder things that go on here that don't get blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Either it's okay for the everyone else to force individuals to put a link to one of their pages (user, talk, or contribs) or it's okay for individuals to force everyone else to have to go to the history to scrutinise their edits. Personally, I think that avoiding scrutiny is bad, and that having a link in one's sig is good, but I'm willing to accept it if consensus is (after e/c) that a certain amount of rudeness is okay, as long as it's within the letter of the law. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No one has been able to force Docu to change his ways, so consensus must be that it's not important enough to make a thing out of. Consensus can change, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This whole issue sounded familiar, so I checked the VPP archives and found Method to protect your user and talk page from "quicky" vandals. However that editor was eventually convinced to added a link to his sig. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
In the early stage few people thought it was worth faffing around with their signatures. That kind of MySpacery is a late-stage artifact, to be sure, but not necessarily a welcome one. I for one would not care if the ability to customise signatures was simply removed. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oy. When I brought this up, I noted that I thought a block was extreme; in other words, I wasn't suggesting blocking. If I thought a block was appropriate, I would have done it; I'm not afraid of using the tools when appropriate. In this case, I was looking for any community input on how to resolve this situation without going the block route. Some of you flamed me, some of you went off on wild tangents, some of you provided relevant input, and a few of you got to the heart of the issue. I remembered the dustup over signatures a few months ago, but I couldn't remember the relevant players (User:Docu and User:Pigsonthewing) and I couldn't recall if the situation was resolved. (It appears that Docu started linking his name for a while, and then went back to his old form.) Obviously, this isn't going to be resolved (either here on AN/I, or on WT:SIG), so I'm not going to press the matter. My main concern was that on the talk page of an article which is under article probation, an editor who had never posted before challenged the reliability of one of the sources; that editor's signature had no links in it. My first request to modify the signature was totally unacknowledged (it wasn't even deleted/archived, which is a form of acknowledgement). Perhaps I overreacted, but those of you who are berating me for bringing this up on AN/I are out of line, in my opinion. Horologium (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Just disable his customized signature ability :) ANyway, if he wants to prostest WP:V, I'd recommend he change his name to User:I protest WPV or something like that. But if he's not abiding by WP:V (the reason for disabling his links so he hopefully won't get reverted), then that is a serious offense, and should be taken up somewhere. For the record, I'll revert any edits he makes on the mainspace that I run across, with the stated reason that "I am protesting non-lined sigatures made in prosted of WPV, as the edits probably violate WPV anway" :) BillCJ (And can someone fix the heading so it's easier to post on this thread? Or is that a protest of WP:EL?)

Next we ban people whose signature displays a name that isn't their username. That'll show 'em. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support that...err, ahh, never mind....--Tom 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Urgent TFD[edit]

Please could someone decide on this TFD here: [14] ASAP - the deletion template is very disruptive. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed as keep. EdokterTalk 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote fraud by Grassfed[edit]

Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish was nominated for deletion on the 2nd of February, see AFD. On the 6th user:Grassfed created a new account and their sole edits were to vote Keep in the discussion. --DFS454 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably sufficient to make that information available on the AfD so that closing admin(s) can review it accordingly. AnyPerson (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState, or, Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!1[edit]

Without looking at the users contributions I see two problems:

  1. Username is probably not inline with Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames (may fall under eiter promotional or disruptive usernames)
  2. Userpage is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:User page

Please take a look at the users userpage before replying.

-- Cat chi? 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

i.e. "Wikipedia is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." I wouldn't be against a block here (even if what he's saying is true in my case :) )  GARDEN  15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a poser: If someone calls you a name, and it's verifiably true through reliable sources, does it still count as a "personal attack" under wikipedia guidelines? Or if it's not verifiably true, but could be true, is it really a "personal attack", or is it just a POV-push? Some IP address awhile back called me an "ugly ignorant fool". My answer was, "How dare you call me ugly?" Because he might be able to prove the "ignorant fool" part, but the "ugly" part is strictly POV. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the name. You can ask the user to change the offensive portions of their userpage. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the Username concerns, that is a little bit of a reach to my mind. As for his userpage....hrm. It is iffy. Is it a breach of NPA or just a lack of civility? Does it demonstrate a systematic failure to AGF? Can't say I'd want to make the call. Garden does help by highlighting the exact concern phrases. Perhaps if Whitecat could highlight the specific things he thinks are wrong, SmashTheState could take care of it without the need for admin. --Narson ~ Talk 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)
It's threads like this that got me to unwatchlist AN and ANI a little while ago, and (after backsliding) have just caused me to unwatchlist it again. Everyone needs to grow some thicker skin, and stop actively looking for things to be outraged about. This casual talk of blocking for, I suppose, not showing proper deference in the phrase quoted by Garden (or maybe it was having the audacity to use the word "factotem"?) is.... I don't know what to call it. "Proving SmashTheState's point" comes to mind. --barneca (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap. You had AN and AN/I watchlisted at some point? Wow. Dedication. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Heck, I'm even thinking of unwatching my own editor review - two editors who disagree with my comments (or who cannot read) have taken the opportunity to majorly skew context and trash me. Good thing I'm used to WP:DRAMA from around here :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time I had WP:AfD watchlisted. I found that was about as useful as alphabetizing the entries in a dictionary. -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like satire. Don't fret none about the user page. Watch the contributions. That's what's important. If he's engaged in POV-pushing and original research, then he'll be brought to a screeching halt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Satire? Read the rest of that section and see if you still think he is being satirical rather than nursing a grudge. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I read it. It's a rant. But it raises the question, If he really hates wikipedia so much, then what's he doing here? Hence the need to watch the contribs. If he starts pushing a point of view, then he can be stopped faster than you can say, "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering the exact same thing: if he hates us then why is he here? (And I have to seriously question the judgment of anyone who considers the average Wikipedian to be a "Randroid".) -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the presumed superiority of the old Soviet system vs. the American system reminds me of this one, from Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Honestly he's probably just another white, male, middle class person from an English speaking OECD country bitching about wikipedia being comprised only of white, male, middle class people from English speaking OECD countries. Pretty standard, and easy enough to ignore. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to write something about the whole rant being sadly amusing, but you kind of nailed it down there. His editing style *is* rather confrontational, looking at some of the discussions he's had in the past, so it's probably something to keep an eye on. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the user is an anarcho-syndicalist, just like Dennis from the greatest movie ever made. Surely the user sees "the violence inherent in the [Wikipedia] system". MuZemike 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not so much the grudge-bearing evident on the user page as edits to content with summaries like "Rand was a psychopath" which raise major red flags for me. I have blocked the user pending a credible explanation of his behaviour. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe they have good reason to bear a grudge, who can say. The edit summary was appropriate given the content and ref they added. So all in all an extremely piss poor block without any merit at all. RMHED. 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Why has this only just been brought up now when the user account was created two and a half years ago? I would have preferred the user to have had the chance to explain himself before a block considering he isn't a very active editor. Plus, his rant has been on his userpage since July 2008 - I'm a tad surprised at the block given the fact its only just been raised now. D.M.N. (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good god there are some thin skins on Wikipedia. That was the most entertaining userpage I've read in months. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This was his eighth edit: [15]. Nothing has changed since then. He has never been anything other than a political activist bringing his battles to Wikipedia, and I'm astounded he lasted this long. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Funny I feel the same way about you Guy. RMHED. 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
What, that I'm a political activist bringing external battles to Wikipedia? You might have a hard time proving that, since I have been accused of bias by both left- and right-wing POV-pushers. Do tell, though - what external battles am I bringing here? I'd love to know. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it was the "astounded he lasted this long" bit he was referring to. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. When I was at school I was absolutely convinced I would be dead by the age of thirty, to find myself still here aged 45 is a constant source of amazement. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now, instead of just ignoring someone we have fulfilled their prophesies about wikipedia banning people for their views. The easiest way to avoid granting credence to these folks is to avoid making them martyrs. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually he's just going to get unblocked and be all kinds of obnoxious about this. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The very act of pursuing a case against him proves what he stated in his rant. Sweet, sweet irony. --Nik (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • To repeat what I said on my talk page just now, it's not that he's outspoken and surly (I am both), the problem is that his content edits are polemical, and his interactions with others appear to be those of the picket line. His eighth edit was to add Category:Wikipedia culture to Kangaroo court, [16], and that seems to be representative of his behaviour consistently from there on; and his content edits are of similarly confrontational nature, for example, Rand was a psychopath, scarcely calculated to ease tensions on a particularly contentious article. Do we really need rock-hurling activists? Hence no expiry: I don't think a short period will fix the issue. I consider adding polemic to articles to be a serious problem, much more so than polemic directed against users. I think I explained this in the block message. But, Nik, iof you can have a word with him and get him to make some sort of comment indicating that he recognises that Wikipedia is not Usenet, then I am sure it will be no problem. We can't, however, follow a policy of not blocking people who have a martyr complex on the grounds that we will prove them right. Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a name problem, it sounds like any number of 'down with the dysfunctional US .gov' names we hear from young idealistic zealots. Big deal. It might, otoh, be an album he really likes. The Rand was a psychopath, although clearly provocative, did have citation, and looks to me like one of those 'out to change the world by higher consciousness type edits that the same youthful idealistic zealots make. I don't agree with this block. We can instead watch him. If I'm proved wrong, I'll take a public trouting, and apologize for an over abundance of (rare) pateince and goodwill. ThuranX (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather uncertain about the block myself, but until the editor provides more of a comment than this, I'm personally not going to press for unblocking. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat baffled by a system that allows "rather uncertain" blocks, and then demands the person being blocked explain themselves. Meanwhile, the person who did the blocking casually mentions "Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now." Doesn't anyone else feel like they're watching a strange farce take place? --Nik (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not particularly. I'm one admin, and I feel that StS has in fact left a bad taste with many of his edits; I'd like to have the editor provide some information on his intentions going forward, and whether he's going to edit productively or continue to act as a local champion; I have no intention of undoing the block myself, but am looking for further information so that other admins can act how they see fit. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I support unblocking Smash the State. The commment on Ayn Rand is actually based on the writing of Albert Ellis, a well-known critic of Rand's philosophies: [17]. The editor has no previous block history and the admin's opinion of "odd behaviour" is no reason to support blocking an editor. As it stands, it is difficult to support the indefinite blocking of this editor and the subsequent efforts to have his User Page and his two-year-old article on Solidarity unionism deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought Guy's behaviour had improved after the RfC and Arbcom case, but this block and deletion nomination shew that the old Guy is still with us. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not quite a block and run, with 2 hours from block being noticed here to his departure, we do have real lives after all. Guy will likely check on this thread before bed or in the AM, depending on his location, and will follow up. I'm not concerned by that part. That said, I'd like the community to hear from STS, as to whether he really is more interested in editing cooperatively or in staging some grand revolution. I'm not thrilled with the block, but he's not lily-white in this either. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Guy immediately after he blocked SmashTheState, sent one of his articles to AfD. This just smells of incredibly bad faith especially when the AFD is heading towards a snow-y keep. D.M.N. (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried, you know, talking with him before you hit the block button? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Absolutely no bad faith whatsoever. The article is for a term with very few ghits, and those mainly in reference to the Starbucks union dispute; the creation fo the article coincided with several polemical edits to content by the user. There is no bad faith whatsoever in reviewing the content edits of an obviously biased user. Incidentally, if anything I share his political leanings, though I am more soft left than hard left. By US standards I am practically a Communist. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Guy, it's not about your politics or people's perceptions of them, it's about they way you deliberately set about hitting a man when he's down, and goading him with invitations to participate in an AfD when you yourself have prevented him from doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If so many agree that the block stinks, why is the block still in place? --Nik (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No clue, let's get it off, and let him at least present his side of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. I'll leave a note on his talk page, and on Guy's as well. I'm open for disagreements and any admin who thinks this was a horrendously lousy decision may reblock with no hard feelings from me whatsoever. GJC 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Username is misleading, user wants a sprawling, central planning meta-state, which is what most countries (along with the US and UK) already have. Either way though, the username is harmless, though the soapboxing is a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You have any evidence for your assertion about what he wants? Or did you just make that up? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
He says he belongs to an org which advocates putting more or less anyone who works for a living into a single labour union, with no wages. That's a form of world collectivism, which to pull off, would in itself need to become a meta state (world government). However, I was only hinting at the irony carried in his username, if you don't agree with my take on it, no worries, I think the username is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that that's an accurate take on the Wobblie's aims - or rather, it is a gross oversimplification which tends to mislead. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
We disagree, have fun, I'm bored, all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The remaining question that concerns WP rather than society in general, is whether JzG's actions were unduly provocative and unbecoming an administrator--using his position for what seems to be a concerted attack on a user and his work here. DGG (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that is the most irredeemable nonsense. I may well be wrong about this, I am the very last person to claim to be infallible, but the assertion that this is in some way malicious or vindictive simply does not bear any kind of inspection. I had never seen this user ever before this thread, and the only reason I bocked him was that a review of his contributions showed WP:SOAPboxing from day one, consistently through his editing career, in both content and interaction with others. He comes across as manning a picket-line, bringing his battles to Wikipedia. This is not usually fixed by a 24 hour block, it requires dialogue with the editor, so no expiry time. Or do you think edits with summaries like "rand was a psychopath" are indicative of WP:NPOV? I don't. Wat is it that I am supposed to have against this user, other than that which I identified here and elsewhere - that is, polemical edits to the content of the encyclopaedia? Guy (Help!) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "never seen this user ever before this thread" eh? Guy, if you are going to lie have a problem with your memory, try not to do it when the evidence is right at the top of the editor's talk page. [18]. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And here [19] is a deletion review in which you both participated. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Here [20] is the second deletion review a couple of weeks later, in which you say you have never heard of the subject of the article (i.e. User:SmashTheState), even though you had participated in the previous review. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup, I had completely forgotten all that, and that's not really a big surprise since it was over two years ago. Hard though this may be for you to believe, some of us do not actually harbour grudges for years on end. Nor can we be expected to remember every single inappropriate edit which we revert and comment on, or every single participant in every debate in which we take part. This is, after all, just a hobby. Any time you want to stop shit-stirring is good. Oh, and that second DRV? SmashTheState wasn't there. I had to check the first DRV to even work out what the connection was; that's almost an outing there, please be a bit more careful :-) Guy (Help!) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I had thought that you might actually have looked at his talkpage when you were deciding to block him indefinately. outing? If you had read his userpage at any point in your decision making process, you would know that he himself says he was the subject of the deleted article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought I had made it clear that my problem was with his polemical edits to content. I never did give a toss who he is, and I cannot remember the title of every article whose deletion I have advocated, opposed or enacted. Life is too short for that kind of crap. I wish I was perfect like you, but not everybody is. Bye. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never claimed to be perfect - but I can spot my own signature at the very top of a talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

End of[edit]

Thanks, Gladys, for unblocking (I was about to). Seems the editor's actions are not as far over the line as I perceive them to be. Fair enough, that's the consensus, I still think that they are provocative and the edit summaries doubly so, and it affects content, which is a big deal for me.

A couple of notes:

  • Someone accused me of being "vindictive" in nominating the article on Solidarity unionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Naturally before blocking I reviewed SmashTheState's edit history, this one leapt out at me. I did check it out, especting to find some connection to the Polish trade union Solidarity, but found instead a one-para article founded on the teapot tempest of the Starbucks dispute. Google showed few sources, mostly polemical and self-published. If I did not think SmashTheState was writing biased content, I would not have blocked him; it is not really terribly surprising that I thought this article he created was biased.
  • DuncanHill accused me of being "dishonest" in posting a message to the talk page of a blocked user about a deletion debate. This claim is risible. Twinkle does it automatically, I heve never even looked for a way to turn it off. The irony of accusing me of acting bad faith, based on ana assumpotion of bad faith based on past grudges, is not lost on me.
  • According to those wonderful people at Wikipedia Review, whose grumblings are brought here with such alacrity by some of their number, this is politically motivated. I'll take that offline on my talk page, since actually I don't know enough about Ayn Rand to even understand how my personal political opinions might intersect with the views of the subject. Rand is not typically studied in the history courses I took at school thirty years ago, I have never read any of Rand's books, had to look up the subject's gender having got it wrong once, and a cursory inspection would indicate that Rand is if anything a right-wing figure - you might want to ask the fans of Free Republic whether I am sympathetic to their cause. I am a lapsed member of the Liberal Democrats, if anyone would like to tell me how the views might overlap.

And now I will go and work on my model railway for a bit. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Using Twinkle to issue templates which you know to be incorrect or inappropriate is misuse of the tool and not permitted - and it is dishonest. You made no effort to correct the misleading template that you issued. That is why I believe that you were acting in bad faith. Good faith admins check their edits and correct their mistakes. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Since I didn't do that, your comment above is as pointless as the original insult. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that you didn;t know what Twinkle would do? DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I am saying that the assertion that i was issuing templates which I "know to be incorrect" is not only false but a deliberate and calculated assumption of bad faith in furtherance of your long-standing grudge against me for something which was of mind-numbing triviality at the time. Incidentally, dince you apparently have nothing better to do than trolling at the moment, how about fixing up an article dear to your new best friend's heart? Ottawa Panhandlers' Union has serious problems. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is there so much wikidrama? Listen, it's kinda obvious that Guy made a mistake. He nominated it for deletion and instinctively warned the user about it. Although he didn't check it, I really don't think he put the template there to laugh at the user, because he was blocked. My 2 pennies. SimonKSK 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So you didn't know what the template would say when you issued it. If you had known, then you would have realized that it was incorrect. I will happily assume incompetence on your part, as it explains so much of your destructive behaviour. "new best friend"? No, just an editor who I have seen being treated badly. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Duncan, I would like to know why you are assuming so much bad faith for a silly mistake? Wikibreak time? SimonKSK 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I assure you, now Guy has explained himself I am convinced that he is acting in good faith, he just doesn't have a clue what he is doing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a bit unfair, because you can't think a user doesn't know what he is doing just because of one silly mistake. SimonKSK 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Which one silly mistake are you are referring to? DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh* I'm not going to go after this, anymore. It seems like it's going nowhere. SimonKSK 23:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at South Korea and some related articles[edit]

Manmohit2002 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring at South Korea for a couple days; in the beginning he was removing mention of religions other than Christianity from the Religion section of that article, and after getting a 3RR warning he remained quiet for a few days. Since then, however, he has started again with reverting large numbers of edits (with the summary "revert unexplained removals," even though there are long discussions explaining why the articles were edited, and even though what he is actually reverting are additions of prose and reliable sources) (diff, diff), as well as removing navigational tags/dablinks (diff), and vandalizing some related articles (at List of countries by military expenditure he removed hundreds of entries while giving a misleading edit summary diff). He has received several warnings from me, but has blanked them from his talk page. I reported him to AIV yesterday but the case was too complicated, so I'm bringing it here instead.

From what I can tell, he has made some constructive edits to other areas of the encyclopedia, so I don't know if a total block is warranted; I think the best thing would be a temporary topic ban from South Korea and other articles where he as engaged in disruptive editing.

(FYI: I will not be at my computer much for the next couple days, so if you need me to comment here again or respond to any questions, the best/fastest way to get in touch with me might be to shoot me an e-mail letting me know there's more discussion at this thread. Thanks.) rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, just so you know, User:Sennen goroshi has said that Manmohit2002 might be a sock puppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ziggymaster for more information. Personally I think action needs to be taken even if he is not a sock puppet; if he is, of course, then the action to be taken would be a bit different. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, he was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II[edit]


Just had it confirmed that this is it for the current socks in this case. rootology (C)(T) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I'm reporting this at the right place — a lot of edit warring is going on at Pope John Paul II article and probably IP, Pastor Leo, Truth Crusader 666 and Hanswold are all the same person (as all are using same edit summaries "Wikipedia is not censored!!!" to push some non-neutral material from Texe Marrs's website and the accounts are all new). Sorry if this is the wrong place to report such behaviour but I felt the need to report this somewhere and this is the noticeboard I could find quickly. Endothermic (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a vandal, this is what he's inserting, suggest immediate block, he's already recieved his last warning.--Pattont/c 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
JohnofEngland (talk · contribs) also needs blocking.--Pattont/c 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I tossed in a semi protection; something fishy is going on there with multiple IPs/new users all getting into it across each other. Sockiness? rootology (C)(T) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:Pastor Leo to act professionally. If he is a real pastor, even if he had a burst of anger, he will become a good user. If he doesn't, then I am not interested in giving him further advice. Chergles (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've indeffed both four new usernames for obvious sockpuppetry, and IP for 1 week for the same.

Subject to review, of course. rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also block User:Hanswold, he admitted to be User:Pastor Leo based on the article history. Also, I request a checkuser on User: since he/she started this whole thing (damn Firefox, crashing while I make a WP:SPI report about this, oh well...). E Wing (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked Hansfold as well, as that edit summary admitted he was Pastor Leo. Can we get a CU to look this over for any sleeper socks? rootology (C)(T) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Indiana University South Bend[edit]

COI and NPOV and CENSOR and OUTING!! Oh my!!

I would appreciate another set of eyes to have a look at what's going on over at Indiana University South Bend. This came to my attention via a report at WP:RFPP, but I felt it went beyond simply protecting a page. Here's a quick timeline of the article's weirdness:

  • On 14-15 August, an SPA IUFaculty (talk · contribs) added a section "Free speech concerns" to the article about a student reporter who was charged with and later cleared of stalking an actress. This user has made no edits since then.
  • On 6 October 2008 and again on 21-22 November 2008, another SPA LASProf (talk · contribs) added a section about a grading controversy. This account has been inactive since November.
  • On 2 February 2009, anon (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the grading section and trimmed the stalking/free speech section, claiming COI. A new SPA IUSBProf (talk · contribs) replaces the information, causing much of the stalking/free speech stuff to appear twice.
  • On 5 February, another anon (talk · contribs · WHOIS) makes an attempt to trim the sections and restore some semblance of NPOV.
  • Today, IUSBProf returns some of this information to the article. He is reverted by a third anon (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These two edit war, with the anon claiming vandalism and COI and IUSBProf claiming censorship. This ends with the anon trying to out IUSBProf.

Response from IUSBProf: I am indeed a professor at IUSB, but had no involvement whatsoever with the grading controversy or the free speech concerns that were raised. A now removed posting claimed that IUSBProf is a student. That is incorrect. I came across the earlier removal and edits to a posting by LASProf and was concerned that the removal of those comments constituted censorship. The free speech concerns and grading controversy edits were originally well-documented with reference to public information (newspaper articles and information from the FIRE website). I believe that these issues are (or should be) of concern to those who study at or work at IUSB. Individuals involved were named as their names are already in the public domain. Also, it is commonplace elsewhere in wikipedia to name individuals involved with particular controversies. The earlier materials posted about the free speech and grading controversies appear to have been edited to such an extent (or removed at times) in an effort to downplay the significance of these events, to protect the identities of those involved in these events (even though their names are already in the public domain), and to provide less substantive detail in the explanation of the events in question. The grading dispute was not "inconsequential" as it had implications regarding the possible violation of student privacy. The issues regarding free speech indicate that the Judicial Affairs office at IUSB attempted to censor a student newspaper and that university officials would not listen to complaints from the student reporter regarding Judicial Affairs handling of his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IUSBProf (talkcontribs) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My actions[edit]

I immediately blocked for a week for the attempted outing. I have cautioned IUSBProf on the COI problem and deleted the whole "Controversies" section because, in the grand scheme of things, grading disputes are pretty inconsequential.

I wanted an uninvolved admin or three to give the whole thing a sanity check and to check if oversight is needed. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

oversight of the whole string of edits is needed, in my opinion, and also a block of IUSBProf, quite regardless of his true academic status. [21] and similar edits are not acceptable; they are edit warring to insert & maintain BLP violations. DGG (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: It seems that it takes so long to put these reports together that it was taken care of before I even saved my first message

This user has made several disruptive edits in the past few days. [22],[23],[24],[25],[26], and others. Although this user has only been warned twice, an oversite if you ask me, the user continued disruptive editing by making this edit on his/her talk page [27]. A personnal attack perhaps??.

I should be so insulted as to be called an unwilling sex symbol. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but it seems that an involved admin has already taken care of the problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:BLOCK makes it clear that the full range of warnings is not required when an editor is on a rampage; he'd had a final one, and there were obvious WP:BLP concerns. The overriding concern is protecting the encyclopedia, which is what I do. --Rodhullandemu 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


User:Godvia was blocked indefinitely for a variety of tenditious behavior. The user has returned tonight to post a series of personal attacks upon established editors on her/his talk page here, here, here and here. I am asking for protection on this talk page as the user apparently has no intention of asking for the block removal and is now using that page to attack editors. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take the page off your watchlist; the editor is indef blocked and is likely to remain so while they post such rantings, but it does not help move the situation forward by reverting them. Once the situation calms and the editor drifts away or apologises or becomes World President and Gets Various Asses Seriously Pwned then the page can be restored to the appropriate version - in the meantime, let them air their grievances and do something more fun somewhere else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? That's the best an administrator can offer when presented with vile attacks posted by a banned editor when I've reported personal attacks aimed at me?? With all due respect, that's the poorest answer I've actually read on this noticeboard. Meanwhile, the editor is being encouraged by someone whose best response is to mollycoddle the person who is posting viciously against more than one person. Does it have to be an adminstrator that is called racist and "wildhog" for you to act upon this? Bluntly, this answer sucks and certainly is in no way supportive of any editor in good standing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
We get indef-blocked users ranting all the time; LHvU has a view that many take - ignore them until they actually request an unblock, or until they go away. I've left a note for the editor that if an unblock is in the works, to request it without the personal attacks or else their page may be locked. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I had two options here - the one I was suggesting to you; ignore it and get on with more fun stuff, or two raise the ante by responding. I shall follow the course that most appeals to you; I have in the past two days received 3 sets of postings to my talkpage regarding blocks I have enacted. One called me an "ass-wipe" and was ignored, one laboured some point about my blocking creating a biased (ie not their pov) article which I attempted to address before withdrawing, and the last one who called me an "Asswhole" (presumably being a complete mule is a vile insult in some parts of the world, although I would be more affronted by being referred to as only 73% of a mule personally) and who I responded on their talkpage - they being blocked on account of the attacks on my page - in a fairly humorous manner. So, really, I actually do know what I am talking about and my advice to you (and I shall write it more slowly and in shorter words this time) is "do not let it get to you - or you will end up getting angry to no effect." Now, does this help or do you now think it would have been best if I had let this pass following the good advice already given to you here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
As the subject of the "vile attacks" – who was the administrator that was called racist in said attack – I think my poor sensitive self can cope with the trauma of leaving his talkpage unblocked. I get worse abuse than this all the time and so does everyone else. – iridescent 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Tony. Iridescent, you weren't the only person called racist in the series of rants posted, so was Pinkadelica at one point, and my name and another were left. However, it isn't true that everyone else gets that sort of abuse all the time. I certainly don't get abuse like that all the time or I wouldn't waste my time here. It may be something that adminstrators get inured to, but then, that's why I never wanted to be an adminstrator. We tried being decent to this person, that didn't work either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, he's only being rude to you on his own talk page and if I protect his talkpage he'll have no place to contest the block; and when I blocked him indefinitely, I did it with the firm intention of "indefinite meaning undefined", not "indefinite meaning infinite" (I deliberately removed the autoblock the next day as well, in case he wants to make a quiet fresh start under a new name). If it bothers you that much, unwatch his talkpage. – iridescent 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Godvia is also accusing me of racism, most likely based on the erroneous assumption that I am white. I think the page should be protected so that other users aren't be defamed on Wikipedia's own server, but whatever is done, I think it should be done quickly. We can probably all agree that no matter what action is taken, lengthy discussions about the situation likely serve only to satisfy the blocked user's desire for attention. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming revert war on several articles[edit]

User:Tool2Die4 deletes information in all lead section about the award achievements of film industry artists. He states, that it would be against NPOV or violates any term of MoS. Infact there is no single entry on this matter in these WP policy articles and awards are simply facts, which are clearly NPOV. I warned him at the userpage already, but he quickly re-reverted all articles. He is also using offensive language diff --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I notified this editor and left an actual message about the edits. Please don't simply substitute template messages for communication. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I always get a kick out of these ill-advised ANI's. I'd like an apology on my talkpage after this is cleared up. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I also request that the "Ultramegasuperstar" re-revert his erroneous edits, and he be forced to read up on the MoS sections in question. Having to deal with abrasive editors who don't understand policy only hampers the project. I also got a good LOL at the notion that the diff he listed was "offensive". Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think, you are not able to keep a respectful tune. Kindly advise you to leave wikipedia, if you don't have intentions to change your attitude. --