Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Unsourced OR at Kali Yuga[edit]

Resolved: Even though no one responded here, other editors jumped in and helped. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can some admin take a look at the edits by RANA DEVENDRA SINGH (talk · contribs), 121.245.126.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 121.245.86.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (definitely the same user) at Kali Yuga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? The information being added is unsourced and fringe OR. The user has been warned about adding unsourced information and the 3RR rule, but instead of discussing the edits on the talk page, he simply logged off and started editing anonymously. I don't wish to keep reverting and violate 3RR myself; so more eyes and hands will be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with a Senator's press office[edit]

An edit was made to remove sourced information from the Tammy Duckworth article which could be considered unflattering to U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Since the deleting editor's username was User:Burr press office, I reverted the deletion and blocked the username as a role account (it was their first and only edit, so s.p.a. also applies, as well as COI, but that's not a reason to block as a rule). I later got an e-mail from an e-mail address that seems to be the senator's actual press office, demanding that I reverse the block and remove the unflattering information, because it was inaccurate. I forwarded my response to Mike Godwin, but did not unblock, explaining our rules about role accounts and welcoming the individual human being behind the role account to become an editor here on his own behalf (but warning about COI). I did follow-up on the accuracy issue raised, and updated the article with newer information which might be considered less unflattering to the senator. I thought folks should know what is going on; but is there anything else I should be doing? Is there anybody besides Godwin who deals with political entanglements of this kind? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As long as you're satisfied that the article is now verifiable, neutral and accurate, then the Senator's office will basically have to get stuffed. You can point them to this thread, and to the relevant policies; I think that Mike Godwin's the right person to take this further if it needs to go on, however. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey T-Tag? Since this is the government we're dealing with, with their penchant to get fired up over infinitesimal details of address and honorifics, though it's true to say that they'll have to accept the article once it's NPOV and verifiable, might we not find a slightly more-gentlemanly manner of saying so than "(they)'ll basically have to get stuffed"? Don't want the senators up our....er, don't want the senators upset about our word choice.GJC 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I kind of think that if they're going to do such ludicrously unwise things such as edit encyclopedia articles about themselves in their favour, then they've probably got a fairly low image the Wiki anyway... but point taken. They'll have to be content with the status quo. How's that for gentlemanly? ;-) ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Like a garden-party in the Queen Mother's backyard. :) GJC 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There is always the OFFICE/OTRS avenue, but again there is likely to be little change as this is an wiki and verifiable content is permitted no matter how disparaging to the subject it is. I am glad you didn't point the Senators office to Free speech, however; that may have come as a bit of a shock... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The contention of the press agent was that the verb used ("blocked") has a technical meaning in these matters, and thus was false; that is a legitimate concern, which in fact has been addressed. The difficulties involved were their violation of s.p.a., COI and role account rules here. In my e-mail back to the press agent, I tried very hard not to bite the newbie. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The more things change the more they stay insane. Send the good press office a link to this article: USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. And oh the heck with it, I'll out myself: two years ago I wrote this article about the right way to manage this sort of thing. Must've been useful--it got 784 Diggs. So much for pseudonymity. DurovaCharge! 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure...[edit]

Resolved

Anyone familiar with the history of User:Simulation12--her "mother" logged in today and apologized on my talk page for her darling daughter's transgressions. Shall I block? (Of special note: the Sim13 account, back from "back then" when "she didn't quite understand the policy", was created three days ago and blocked shortly thereafter.) GJC 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Block.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Aye. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have enacted the block, as a third party after review, under WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, point 3. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, mon peeps. GJC 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic contamination, Gladys? I see three different languages in three words, an impressive feat. (big grin) Horologium (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Gracias, mes peeps?" We do strive for accuracy here at Wikipedia... ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I dunno from languages. My parents made me take four years of LATIN. And you know what? There's no such thing as "conversational Latin". You wanna talk about Caesar and the Gauls, I'm your girl. (Which actually, okay, I am totally NOT, because my high-school years were spent in a puberty-induced state of hormone-soaked emotional idiocy, leaving little time for any Caesar (unless he was a particular hottie with eyes for a dumpy, fashion-compromised word-nerd. And the Caesar in question? Was not. Old dead Roman dudes were waaaay outside my purview, then as now.))GJC 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted by User:Lpi-english[edit]

Resolved: Reporting user blocked for edit warring.  Sandstein  05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had correct and unbiased information deleted by someone who is not an administrator.

The aricle I wrote is both accurate and I am personally aware of the integity of the facts and presented both "sides" of this issue.

There are 20 different choises of "dispute reosolution" and as this is my first (and probably last) time to post on Wikipedia, I cannot spend days trying to determine the precise process which of the mryiad of possible choices for a resolution is the correct one for me. Like you, I am astoundingly busy.

If what I wrote has no references, it is because there are none. The only "reference" is a book published by the test (the LPI) that I am writing about. Nobody needs this on Wikipedia, because the booklet does not tell the whole story.

I am intimately inviolved and extremely knowledgeable of what I am writing. The Wikipedia forum is open to those who may disagree. Let them disagree rather than censoring me. Since getting my IP address blocked (but not right now),I have been unable to revert the information about what I am writing back to the form I spent 10-20 hours writing (about 150 edits!). Read it please.

I did not think Wikipedia is what I though it is, and this is my mistake. Some things that are important to the people to whom I am writing to on that page (university students in Canada) were provided correct information available nowhere else, including people who are paid a lot of money to teach students something they really don't know about because the LPI (as noted in my page) is quite secretive about the process. Nevertheless, out of respect for the confidentiality given to me, I have not discussed some aspects of the test that were told to me in confidence, but have written an accurate, unbiased, and frank page that would be of interest to the people who use Wikipedia daily (university students).

I have neither the time or interest to battle Wikipedia. I have seen endless things on Wikipedia which cannot be foot-noted because the subject discussed has not been a part of the academic literature (something of which I know more about than most).

I am angry that the endless hours of work that I have put into this page was made inaccessible to the hundreds or thousands of people who would be grateful for the honest view that it provides.

If there is a short way to resolve this, I would like to do so. If not, I wish to leave Wikipedia alone, have my name deleted from your databank and just realize that I need to find a forum that is open to truthful dialogue about a subject that is of interest to the people I serve.

Yes! I am angry. But there is a reason. Sometimes anger is the best emotion, but if this cannot be resolved in a short perion of time, I wish to withdraw from this small battle.

If you do not allow me to write the truth about the subject I addressed, the just post "Read The LPI Book" on that Wikipedia page, because no one else will write what I did, and that book has not told students what they really need to know.

I am not even sure how we can communicate on this issue...or even if Wikipedia will respond.

If this letter is addressed to the wrong person, please forward it to someone who is willing to talk to me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpi-english (talkcontribs) 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of words just to request a block for edit-warring. "I am edit-warring; please block me" would have been just as effective. I've honored this user's request, as he has multiple warnings about edit-warring on his talk page, and also left a more personal note trying to explain the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk with him/her?[edit]

Resolved: None of the commenting administrators sees anything actionable here.  Sandstein  05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As is often the case with long-disputed issues, a certain article talk page has started to get a little heated.
I won't get into specifics about the nature of the dispute, as that's immaterial for the matter at hand, but sufficed to say, it concerns whether or not a certain 'urban legend' belongs in the Richard Gere article. Anyways, as with most issues, it's possible to make arguments either way, but I'm becoming increasingly troubled with the tone that's being taken with me.
The most significant examples can be found here.

  • To bring out the WP:CIVIL gun for something so trite in an effort to reduce an opponent's argument is gaming the system. A bit of an AGF issue, but not terrible in and of itself (particularly since good people can disagree on what is or isn't civil).
  • I'm not in a position to know whether you inhabit the real world or not so I can't tell if you are being obtuse, pedantic or naively innocent, as such I will assume good faith and presume the latter. I'd made the mistake of using the dictionary definition of a word, thinking that would be logical. Apparently, big mistake. How many insults are crammed into that one sentence? 4? 5? If you think that dictionaries are overly constricted in their definitions, say so. But that doesn't mean I don't inhabit the real word, or that I'm obtuse, etc. etc.
  • Oh I forgot, it seems I can't use the term "reasonably" as that presumes that I'm talking to someone who knows reason. My great 'crime' here was to suggest that someone claiming that it's "reasonably accepted" that people primarily know the article's subject for an urban legend rather than his decades-long acting career was incorrect. I deigned to request proof of such a claim, and suggested that until it was proven, it obviously can't be "reasonably accepted" (after all, if nobody accepts it, it isn't accepted, right?). I don't see the need to question whether or not I know reason.
  • It then goes into a muddle of accusations about 'wiki-lawyers', 'blinkered editors', etc.

I'm not suggesting that something direct be done to him, but I'd request that someone politely remind him that insults don't really contribute to the articles, and should be avoided. It's hard to get anything done when others involved are so grossly disrespectful.
I'm not asking anyone to take my side in the overall dispute (indeed, quite the contrary. it would look quite bad if I suddenly got a lot of support after making an ANI report). I don't even expect anyone to be particularly offended by his(/her) comments. I just don't want to waste all my time arguing about who said what to whom, ignoring the issue at hand. And, besides, that talk page is already getting long enough over such a trivial issue; the last thing it needs is completely pointless bickering.
I thank you for your time. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Block - 209.90.133.75 for baiting and wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's highly unlikely that you'll get lots of support as a result of making this report. Quite the contrary in fact. If you're seriously concerned about the language or behaviour of another editor the best thing to do is to discuss it with them before opting for the nuclear option. What is it that you expect an administrator to do exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm... seriously?
Rklawton, when was I baiting? I've tried my darndest to be logical and to the point, and yet have been hit by some very unwarranted nonsense.
Malleus, I'd tried pointing out the lack of civility earlier (because of issues in both discussions and edit summaries). This was hardly my first choice. What's more, I'm not the first person on that page to criticize his lack of civility. It's been mentioned on that article's talk page, and you can even see another discussion he had about it here. Can you really read his replies there, as well as on the article's talk page, and think this is something that's so easily resolved? As for what I'd like to be done, I've already said it: could someone have a word with him. He's been threatened with a block, which didn't go so good (and not really surprisingly so. I mean, lots of people don't like threats, myself included), but that isn't where I'd like to see it go. I'd like to see someone simply telling him that calling people "obtuse", "naive", unreasonable, or any number of other insults isn't constructive. I don't see why I should be blocked for wanting to simply get this stupid issue (that's been dragging on for about a week now) finally resolved, without having to deal with this crap as well. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this report here is a waste of everyone's time. Webhamster was actually correct in suggesting that you grow some "thicker skin", no one was attacking or insulting you, and you seemed to be making a big deal out of nothing...WackoJackO 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
209.90.133.75: To be totaly honest, your tone could have been construed as slightly mocking, such comments as "The third reference suffers from precisely the same problem (seriously, did you even read what I asked for before posting? It's disheartening to say the least. Read and reply, or ignore me, but don't insult me by removing all doubt that you replied without knowing what you were replying to)." and "Please be serious." WackoJackO 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing wikipedia is about negotiating with other editors, not about getting huffy when they don't agree with you. I don't recommend that you should be blocked, that's a sanction all too often handed out without proper justification, I simply recommend that you learn to collaborate. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(bit of an edit conflict, so bear with me)
I don't argue that I don't have a 'thin-skin' (I've never seen it that way, but I've been told it often enough that I'm willing to acknowledge my own personal bias in that regard), but I think it's a little silly to say that no one was attacking or insulting. Everything I quoted above was insulting. The article talk pages are for discussing the articles or, when necessary, disputes over said articles. When about half of a large block of text consists of insults, general complaints about other editors, or really anything other than the actual topic at hand, I'd say that's a problem. I just want to get this bloody dispute resolved. And I don't see how people can really contribute to the discussion when they have to wade through that sort of thing. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Malleus: I'd love to collaborate. I put up with a lot of silly arguments without getting insulting about them. I mean, frig, by now I think you know what it is they're trying to put into the article, and yet I'm taking care to make it about the policies and the logic, not based on what they want to put in. (I even avoided the obvious, and common, joke about one editor's username and its relation to the subject) I only had a problem when the insults and such were starting to really derail the discussion.
Wacko (uh, this is in reference to your additional comment), I realize that I sometimes come across as sarcastic (something else I don't see myself, but have been told frequently enough to not dismiss), but, to be fair, look at the context of that comment. If I were to ask you for proof that Aldrin was the second person on the moon, and you repeatedly showed me proof solely that Armstrong was the first, wouldn't you expect me to eventually start wondering if you were paying attention? I was very clear in my request, in terms of what I was asking for sources on. And, as it turns out, even though he posted them as a reply to my request, he later confirmed that they were, indeed, for the very opposite of what I was requesting (ie. it was a reply that directly ignored what it was replying to). So, if my tone really is bothering someone, then I'll take it to heart, but are you saying how you took that, considering the context, or just how it could be taken? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, that is definitely how I took that. However, I didn't come here and file a report about it, because it's no big deal. I only mentioned here now in light of your "report" about WebHamster.WackoJackO 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Now, I'll bow out, so I don't waste anymore time here with such a trivial issue.WackoJackO 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh... you equate my suggesting that someone wasn't paying attention is on the same level as multiple insults within the same comment? That's a bit of a stretch.
Incidentally, I said to 'please be serious' because you suggested that a single comment (made in this interview), wherein a person said, "I've also heard that 'Notting Hill' is fun, but I'm not sure I can ever look at Hugh Grant quite the same way again. I'm still having trouble with Richard Gere's alleged affection for gerbils.", was actually proof that someone (notably) believed that urban legend.
That was your reply to my request for proof that someone really believed it. So... which was it? were you really saying that was proof that it was notably believed (in which case, I'd again question if you were being serious), or was your source entirely ignoring the request to which you were replying? Bah. Either way, it's beside the point. It isn't particularly insulting to suggest that you aren't being serious with something like that. It isn't related to whether or not people should resort to outright insults when others are trying to get something done. I guess I'll try to be more careful with my tone, but our (two-way, incidentally) small disputes are entirely unrelated to this. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk about this somewhere else please. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd very seriously suggest that you leave this now. There is nothing in your complaint that requires the attention of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

67.194.198.99 strange behavior[edit]

Resolved: Warned and blocked.  Sandstein  05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:67.194.198.99 is repeatedly reverting his own edits. His edits revert the edits of User:Mbinebri and then reverts his own edits. These happen on the article Marios Lekkas. I don't think this is exactly edit warring. Please stop this IP from making this unconstructive edits and from wasting bandwidth.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fixed IP address at the University of Michigan. I've left a note on the talk page pointing out that this leaves the editor in a bit of an exposed position. Looie496 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that the address is fixed, does not listen to warnings and appears to have no productive contributions, I've also blocked it for a month.  Sandstein  05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:82.4.220.242[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for three months. Timmeh! 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been repeatedly making edits against consensus on United States presidential election articles over a span of several months. Most notably, he has been bolding the popular vote totals of winning candidates, contrary to established consensus, and he has repeatedly been changing the candidate images at United States presidential election, 2008, here, here, and here. After repeatedly being warned (and blocked) for his disruptive editing, he has refused to discuss any of the issues on the article talk pages, only making few short responses on his own talk page saying he would stop. However, he did not stop; he went back to doing what he said he wouldn't a week later and has been doing mass editing to multiple election related articles since then, bolding popular votes. A very long or indefinite block is suggested. Timmeh! 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The Talk page shows this as an NTL proxy IP, but the contribs, which are massive, all appear to come from the same editor over the past few months -- an editor who has repeatedly been warned and has never once deigned to use an edit summary. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP has cause continued vandalism, and appears to have no intention of stopping despite numerous warning and notices from multiple users. Over the course of User talk:82.4.220.242 editing history every single one of his edits have had to be reverted because of his none compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. In spite of this the user continues to demonstrate the same behavior over and over again. I am of the opinion that this user should be banned for an extensive period of time if not permanently. With out banishment the user has demonstrated they will continue to disregard the work of other users. It is clear they just do not care. Highground79 (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a report an WP:AIV. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Looie! Timmeh! 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked: three months (talk · contribs). — Kralizec! (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock engaging in edit war[edit]

Spanish Empire is being repeatedly reverted by User:Resvoluci, a suspected sockpuppet of confirmed serial sockpuppeteer User:Cosialscastells. The article was semi-protected as Cosialscastells has been returning to it on an almost daily basis for well over a month. He has resurrected this old account to get past this block, and has already made 4 reverts. Is it possible to get the account blocked? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you noted - that's an older account than the other accounts (created in 2007, with the rest from late 2008 and early 2009). However, the behavior is all similar. Resvoluci could be the parent account for the activity.
I have indefinitely blocked. However, I support a checkuser review of this block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding spree[edit]

This was brought to my attention again [1] after the user added a notability tag to Graeae Theatre Company [2] (and re-added [3] after DreamGuy (talk · contribs) reverted it), also shortly after its AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeae Theatre Company, closed as a speedy keep. Take a look at his contribs, though, as he has prodded over 50 articles within roughly a 25-minute timeframe. I smell POINT or similar. Can anyone make sense of this? MuZemike 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that all the prods pertain to Theme Time Radio Hour - something I didn't readily notice. I still sense something fishy, however. MuZemike 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show. Previous deletion attempts have been dubious or just plain wrong, and he's also created articles which have been PRODded straight away for being non-notable, and uploaded non-free images into articles where they don't belong. I, too, sense something very fishy. (Edit: look at his user page). Black Kite 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I informed Azviz about this discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we ec'd when I was going to notify him. I went ahead and notified User:DreamGuy. MuZemike 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This account seems pretty fishy to me, but it seems to be part of a larger problem. It was created recently and jumped immediately to participating almost exclusively in edits related to deleting articles. It's nomination of Graeae Theatre Company for deletion was odd, as that's a little known article, and one of a few targeted for deletion by another recent editor that shot straight to AFD matters after creating a new account, User:Wordssuch, an account now abandoned. The Wordssuch account also targeted a bunch of articles for deletion -- Gloom (card game), Sploofus and a number of others -- whose sole commonality was that I had created them. User:Unionsoap, another relatively recent account focused primarily on AFD-type matters, recently tried getting Gloom (card game) deleted. User:Untick, also a recently created account, tried getting Sploofus deleted and has a user page similar to Azviz's. All of these account have taken actions that appear to be trying to harass me in some way, though usually not as blatantly as Wordssuch did. These all were created in the last month and a half or so and jumped immediately to making strange edits, including nominating very obscure articles of mine for deletion under very shoddy reasons. I'd list User:Esasus as someone who also seems to make very similar edits (mainly AFD-and related edits, harassment of other editors), but that account wasn't created as recently as these others... his user page is reminiscent of some of these others, though...

Also, for those who didn't poke around Azviz's history, he recently deleted warnings on his talk page, so theolder version shows some recent activity there.DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Detailed response by Azviz[edit]

I have been reading wikipolicy, and it seems to me that I am the target of WP:UNCIVIL. If the reason for the report against me is proding, then the issue should have already been closed. As stated by [[User:Black Kite] "The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show."

I suggest that there is a background concerning the two reporting editors that needs to be examined in detail.

The following is my evidence that both User:DreamGuy and User:MuZemike have violated WP:UNCIVIL. Several days prior to nominating the "Theme Time" episodes, (and in addition to other helpful edits made) I nominated three articles for deletion:

Upon my good faith prod of the article Graeae Theatre Company, two editors made me the subject of their unwarranted personal attacks and harassment. All of edits have been made in good faith, and I strongly object to the two editors assuming bad faith, and are making personal attacks against me. I have been reading wiki policy, and it seems to me that I am the target of WP:UNCIVIL.

Contrary to the policy listed at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and for reasons that I do not know, both editors User:DreamGuy and User:MuZemike have targeted me for harassment. Both of these editors have accused me of acting in of bad faith. Wiki policy states at WP:AOBF "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."

The timeline of their attacks against me are as follows:

  • 3rd, at April 2 2009, 23:03 User:MuZemike then made a false report against me of as a "Suspected sockpuppets", which was quickly closed as unsubstantiated. Link
  • 4th, at 17:16, 10 April 2009 (today), within a few hours of me performing a minor tagging edit on Graeae Theatre Company (the same article that prompted the false sockpuppet report report against me), User:DreamGuy posts a message to User:MuZemike's talk page Link.
  • 5th, at 18:08, 10 April 2009, assuming "bad faith", User:MuZemike replies on his talk page Link
  • 6th, at 18:19, 10 April 2009, Without giving me any king of warning or notification, User:MuZemike files this report against me about a "Prodding spree" for the reason that he senses "something fishy" This report is a clear violation of WP:AOBF. Link
  • 7th, at 22:13, 10 April 2009, User:DreamGuy posts comments on the notice board also using the similar words as User:MuZemike stating that it "seems pretty fishy", and posting further examples of his accusations of bad faith against me. Link
  • Neither of the complaining editors User:MuZemike or User:DreamGuy brought their concerns to me first, which is another violation of wiki policy. I was not even aware that the community was discussing my edits until User:Jauerback properly made me aware of these discussions Link.
  • User:DreamGuy's Block Log is extensive, demonstrating that he has been a long time problem in the wiki community, which make me wonder why his complaint to User:MuZemike was given any credibility.

I hope that my above lengthy response to the bad faith accusations made against me will enlighten some editors to the fact that certain editors harass and make unwarranted personal attacks on new editors, making it very difficult for a new editor to have a good first impression and therefore to become involved in the wiki community. Azviz (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor? I seriously doubt that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
My question is that how do "new" users learn how to prod and add maintenance tags on articles so quickly? The only reason the first sockpuppetry case could not be proven was because I was unaware that the other account was stale. I should also point to a sockpuppetry accusation made against me here in retaliation for that. MuZemike 23:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have never claimed to be a new user. Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT for wiki policy on Legitimate uses of alternative accounts which states "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Azviz (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I did not know that, nor was I expected to; I apologize for that. However, there are more collegial ways of informing other users of that, such as a civil reminder on a talk page or even via email if privacy is necessary, instead of retaliating with accusations and baseless threats. MuZemike 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to apologize. "I have never claimed to be a new user" is a false statement. At least twice in this post [4] he claims to be a new user. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to note that contradiction. I don't understand exclaiming BITE when it is clear to many users here that none of these accounts are from new users. MuZemike 01:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And when called on it, he suddenly invoked the "legitimate" sockpuppet defense, perhaps to try to pre-empt a sockpuppet investigation. All the more reason to conduct such an investigation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I repeat - I never claimed to be a new user. Nowhere in my response do I make that claim. Please point to a quote if you wish to prove otherwise. Azviz (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My mistake - I forgot to predict in my last post that you would argue exactly what you just did above. Your user ID is new, and you talk about not biting the newbies, and talk about how new editors suffer personal attacks. So you leave the impression you're new without actually saying those exact words. So here's another word: "Weasel". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The wiki community will internalize the information they get from this report, and my response, as it sees fit. But as you read this please note that this matter was brought to this forum based on no violation of any policy. I suggest that the report was made to this page for the purpose of harassment. Such uncivil behaviour happens all too often in the Wikipedia community. Hopefully the wise editors and admins will realize the negative effect such actions create, and will work towards sanctioning those who make such frivolous and harassing reports. Azviz (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't push your luck. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Prodding OK. Socking not OK. One account to a customer, please. (The legitimate exceptions to this are very limited.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock[edit]

Resolved: Blocked.  Sandstein  05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

FunMan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obviously a return of indefinitely blocked Bun39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Creating pages in Wikipedia namespace to make announcements, and other various disruptive edits ongoing. Would appreciate someone looking into this more. --OnoremDil 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment He put a {{helpme}} template on my userpage [5], either not understanding what that tag is used for, or to make it look like I was asking the question instead of him. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked. He threw up an unblock request within 2 minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That had to hurt! Reminds me of the radio announcer who reported that a relief pitcher was "throwing up in the bullpen". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
...and declined due to quacking noises. Looking at the topics this account is editing, it is indeed an obvious sock of Bun39. —Travistalk 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I deleted Wikipedia:Bun39 is now Defunct per G3 as well. —Travistalk 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: I have reblocked him with talk-page editing turned off. He was just screwing around, and was not using his ability to edit his own talk page to legitimately contest his block. Given that, I thought we didn't need it anymore... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting anon user 89.130.28.68 behaviour[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 1 week by FyssalFZ. --GedUK  11:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Today when I woke up, I found a whole lot of personal attacks from anon user 89.130.28.68 against me.

Messages such as:

I ask the admins to urgently stop this kind of behaviour with a ban from a user who has been attacking me since April 2, 2007 and who I'm pretty sure is a sockpuppet from User:Martorell due to him removing this text [6] from my user page. Thanks. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There was another personal attack posted here by 81.154.183.54 - they also posted an uncivil unblock request review. I have reverted their edits and blocked them for 1 week as well. Camw (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that; there were 6 sleeper vandal accounts there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru[edit]

Something needs to be done. -download | sign! 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
He's been warned numerous times. [7] -download | sign! 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Difs, anyone? "something needs to be done" is rather vague. (grumpy puppy) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. Tilting at windmills again I see. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The concern here is QuackGuru editing Jimbo's userpage to state that he was co-founder, not founder of Wikipedia. See the history for more details. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the worry is also Jimmy Wales. By the way Download, Quack can blank warnings from his talk page as he pleases, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the longest running edit war in history?!? He's been doing this semi-regularly for YEARS now. Can we just establish a consensus for a community ban on editing related to this issue? He's just doing it to make a WP:POINT, and its getting quite old now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We as a community should think really fucking hard about two things:
  1. Jimbo is making quite provably false statements about his role in Wikipedia. Is this acceptable? Non-admins are not allowed to claim they are admins. Why should Jimbo be allowed to claim he is the sole founder when in his own words he was not?
  2. More prosaically, is topic- or community-banning Sanger an intelligent response to this situation, whatever your feelings about his veracity, given the potential for truly awful PR?
Point #1, feel free to dismiss if you like. Clearly there are some people on both sides who are immovable. Point #2, however, is something the entire community needs to consider very, very carefully. //roux   02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, this isn't a discussion for banning Sanger. The discussion is about QG. Now in that regard, Jimbo can say whatever he wants on his userpage clearly. Editing the page in that way is more or less vandalism. The next issue is whether he should be banned from Jimbo Wales. I'm inclined to say no given that QG has a plausibly valid point. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
People are generally allowed wide leeway with regards to their userpages. It is important (relatively) that Jimmy Wales comply with NPOV and OR, that User:Jimbo do so is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue, as with ALL edit wars, is not the veracity of the information being warred over. It's over the behavior. If it is verifiable and relevent, let someone else add it. Follow dispute resolution and establish consensus. The issue is not the inclusion or not of some nugget of information, its the constant refusal to use proper means to resolve disputes, and the insistance on simple edit warring as the means by which to force through ones edits, whether or not the substance of those edits is "true". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support an indefinite topic ban on the Jimbo-related articles. UPDATE: My original reasoning for this was based on a glance through his actions at the userspace in conjunction with Jayron32's comment that a slow edit-war had been going on for years, which I took as credible given the actions at the userspace. I don't think there was much of an excuse for adding the co-founder bit into Jimbo's userpage; a comment below said it shouldn't be done, and Jimbo can keep his page the way he wants. QG further readded Larry Sanger's letter after it has been deleted by Jimbo [8]. There's no excuse for this type of harassment. Deletion of messages by the talk page owner should be respected. There are a lot of people on Wikipedia, and losing one who seems driven to push the limits far past where they should be pushed, and does not seem to be an impartial voice on the subject, is not the end of the world. Jimbo may have his faults, but he was generous enough to donate this project to "the community", and there's no reason to harass him. He considers QG's actions to be harassment [9]. Incidentally, I just got an email from QG for my support saying that my "personal attack has been noted". II | (t - c) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support banning him from touching User:Jimbo Wales (users can say whatever they want, true or not, subject to normal rules that apply equally to all of us, including Jimmy), Oppose banning him from touching Jimmy Wales. The funny thing is, it turns out QG was right and has been defending NPOV as seen here. If we're going to ban him from the Article itself, then it's preposterous to not do so for the other chief edit warrior on the other side, User:SqueakBox. They've both been going at it in spades, and it's not just QG. The entire co-founder issue is moot now anyway, with the sourcing from the Wikimedia Foundation itself having been added as the definitive source, so there's nothing else to edit war over there. Add in that a ban on QG would not give any protection to the encyclopedia--whats the point? See also here, currently on AN, where SqueakBox is also edit warring with my sole edit removal of an NPOV tag. This is not just a QG issue by any means. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a ban from User:Jimbo Wales, but nothing else. He's only causing disruption there. Timmeh! 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose QG will very likely stop if he sees a consensus his edits are being taken as disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely a topic-ban would have the same effect (he'd stop such edits) without any unwanted side-effects? ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's needed. Yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't ban people that are innocent. If we do, we need to string up those that did the banning. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a ban from Jimbo-related pages, and history-of-Wikipedia-related pages. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    I am unaware of any specific instances, but I am doubtful of his ability to edit neutrally and in line with policy in relation to Jimbo Wales. (not sure if this next bit makes any sense :-P but it does to me!) He either thinks that he's the co-founder, or he doesn't; he thinks what the sources say to be incorrect, and his belief won't change between namespaces. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    Er... that's why I'm board with you in the bit of keeping QG off of the Jimmy userpage, but not the article. QG's article work there is fine and 100% backed up by the sources, such as here. Jimmy can say he's the founder or co-founder of Wikipedia on his user page, or he can see he's the living reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. I can also say I'm the founder or co-founder of Wikipedia, or the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln on my user page. If it's not a policy violation, I can WP:OR to my heart's content with any wild nonsense, or my interpretation of the truth. Jimmy's page has other advertising type issues that are a separate problem (his booking agent or whatever that is?) but he can say whatever he wants for his role. That's the only QG issue here. rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying, but edits such as this indicate not only a complete disregard for basic civility (editing another's words in a basically false way) but also suggest that he is unable to edit appropriately with regard to this issue. I accept that others' views may differ, but personally, I don't believe that one person can make such edits on one page and not on another covering the same topic. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    First: how is it false? Yes, Jimmy believes one thing, Larry another, the sources overwhelmingly from before 2004 say co-founder, and from about 2004-onwards say sole founder. That's not false, that's dug-up evidence of revisionist history which I demonstrated on the sourcing I added to the Jimmy Wales article. And, that edit is not uncivil in any way. The subject says, "He did write that he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. See Talk:Jimmy Wales#August 2002. (Jimmy Wales identified himself in August 2002 as "co-founder" of Wikipedia." and QG added the "co-" prefix to founder as the actual edit. Where is that lacking in civility? The problem is that QG is trying to treat Jimmy's user page as if it was Article space, holding it to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and the rest. He doesn't seem to be grasping it's not, so that's why we're supporting a ban on USER:Jimbo Wales, but not "Jimmy Wales". His article work is usually from what I've seen mercilessly accurate and even-handed. rootology (C)(T) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    As you wish.
    I do understand what you're saying, and I stand by my opinions, and by what I wrote, but I see I'm fighting a losing battle in an issue that actually doesn't bother me that much! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban from article pages. No strong opinion on the user page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He was doing the right thing for the article. Keep him from messing with the user page, fine. But don't try to keep him out of articles without some evidence he's been damaging articles. Friday (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose any ban from the article pages. His edits on Wales's user page are already against policy, so I see no need to take action on the matter here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "co-founder" issue, IMO, has now been factually and concretely settled by reliable sources, as seen in the lead of the article. This also supports the addition of the "co-" prefix where appropriate, e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Removal of verified, sourced material can be considered vandalism, and what this user is doing is fighting that. No topic ban is warranted. As for the Jimbo Wales page, if Wales says "stay away", then QuackGuru has to respect that. As far as I know, we don't allow users to misrepresent their Wikipedia role (i.e. "I'm an admin" when they really aren't), but I don't think we police real-life misrepresentations. If someone wants to proclaim "I'm the President of Mars" on their page, hey, its all good. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I invite anyone to review your history of tendentious editing, almost entirely single-purpose most of the time, that single purpose being to push a particular agenda against me, including harassment on my user page and user talk page. To be clear, I ask you - as one user to another, not in any official role - to please leave me alone and not edit my user page. And I ask you, as a human being, to reconsider your behavior and perhaps find something more useful to do with your life than attacking me. I leave the disposition of your case to others, but to my mind, you're exactly the kind of person who should have been banned from the project a long time ago as a persistent BLP troublemaker. If it were anybody but me (because I am tolerant and kind), I imagine the victim would have complained to OTRS a long time ago. I have a clear and obvious conflict of interest in this case, but I think anyone reviewing your history will be inclined to agree that your behavior has been unacceptable, and that you are clearly here for motives that are not consistent with our values of neutrality and goodwill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    The above was originally written on User talk:Jimbo Wales, copied here by David Shankbone.
  • Oppose ban on article space. I've been involved fairly heavily at times on Jimmy Wales and I think he does well to work within our community standards there. He utilizes the talk page and works for consensus without edit-warring. Use regular warn/block methods for edits in user space, I think. Although, I don't believe it is appropriate for Jimbo's user page to contradict the rest of the project which is accurate and verified. لennavecia 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
One agenda-driven Anti-Wales editor shows up to support another. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support article- and user-space topic ban, per Wales and Jayron32. User, who was previously indefinitely banned, does not appear to be here for WP:ENC, but here for an anti-Wales agenda, per his contributions, block log and behavior. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not denying that this user has pushed relentlessly to get the "co-founder" atttribute added to Jimmy's articles on here, but to see he's an SPA is simply an out and out falsehood. See here. He's one of the main editors that built up the Larry Sanger article, Chiropractic, and several others. He seems to split his time evenly between articles on science and articles about Wikipedia itself. This is the essence of one of those "classic" BLP situations, where the BLP subject doesn't care for what is written about them, but it remains 100% BLP-compliant, sourced, and due to the way both individuals on both sides in various ways created a Barbara Streisand Effect, it's now a notable thing to discuss in the article at length. QuackGuru is anything but a perfect editor, but his biggest fault in this was not leaving Jimmy's user page alone. If we can see evidence of his misbehavior on the Jimmy Wales article, I'll happily endorse a topic ban there too.
Do we have such evidence? So far all I've seen him is his relentlessly trying to get the co-founder in, and it turned out based on actual historical documents from WP and WMF's early days that QuackGuru was right on the sourcing, leaving it all BLP-compliant. Give evidence of article space wrongdoing, and he'll get a topic ban. But this must be treated like any other BLP, with not a centimeter more or less deference because of who it is. Shitty, but that's the price to be paid to keep policy fair for all parties, no matter who they are. rootology (C)(T) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban on article space. It's almost Orwellian to let Wales rewrite history regarding his own credentials. ("He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future".) Embarrassing for Wikipedia, too. See Essjay controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ban on topic "Wales" for this user User talk:QuackGuru he is not going to / never going to stop this aggressive single purpose POV pushing behavior, which is destructive to Wikipedia...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
  • It's already been demonstrated here that calling QG a SPA is an outright falsehood. How is getting the "co-founder" added to Jimmy Wales destructive or harmful in any way to Wikipedia? The co-founder description is also totally BLP-compliant, as well as it's been demonstrated effectively with historical sources now. Keep in mind, the sources uncovered now demonstrate that his efforts were accurate. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
well your idea and my idea of absolute falsehood must be different ..I just had a look at his edits and it's shouting at me ..j wales and sanger ..and I disagree with you when you say he is not harmful to wikipedia ..he is very harmful ..I personally couldn't care less who is correct here between wales and sanger ..what I disagree with is the aggresive way that QuackGuru is going about his business.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Recuse Given QG's treatment of me at Larry Sanger when I was a new user, I wouldn't be able to provide an objective opinion. I'll have to abstain in this particular case. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't about who is right or wrong (Sanger or Wales; co-founder or founder). This is about editor behavior. It seems some people here are "voting" based on their stance on the Sanger/Wales content issue, rather than QuackGuru's reprehensible behavior. I think that "WP:SPA" is a good characterization of QuackGuru. As an editor who has experienced QuackGuru in the non-Wales related articles (Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et cetera), I can safely say that QuackGuru contributes very little other than rudeness, edit warring and total disruption. I may seem biased because QuackGuru and I are at odds all of the time in terms of content, but with that said, I have heard from other editors on QuackGuru's "side" of content disputes that they would prefer that he doesn't contribute to the discussion because his incivility and childish antics only weakens their arguments. IMHO, QuackGuru needs to be shown that his brand of petulant POV pushing is not welcome at Wikipedia. I think a topic ban is just what the doctor ordered (even though I fear that a topic ban from Wales will mean that he will then have much more time to devote to disrupting the articles which I enjoying working on). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Ban from user page and article space concerning said user. Even if he is -right-, he is still an SPA, and from the looks of things, a disruptive one at that. He needs to learn to cease this behavior, and this just might be the way to do it.— dαlus Contribs 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
SPA? QG mainly edits altmed related articles, not BLPs (with one notable exception). Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban from article or main space and should be blocked if continues editing Jimbo's user page. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose any ban whatsoever, he has absolutely correct identifing Wales as the co-founder, and the sources he provides back him up. Jumping to a ban from editing a userpage without going through blocks is ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. What I see in the edits here is that the information added is correctly referenced with excellent sources. I don't understand why this is even posted and a discussion of banning is being talked about other than some editors don't seem to like QG. This is not a reason to take a ban on the editor. He is not a WP:SPA as people are consistently saying. He might be guilty of WP:POV issues but if he is giving WP:RS then I don't see a problem. Since he has been asked to stay away from User:Jimbo Wales page, then that should be honored as long as he doesn't need to post to the user page about something serious. QG does work a lot of different articles which his contributions show. He is WP:TE at times which can be quite frustrating for some so I would recommend to QG to calm down in this respect. But I find that some of the comments above are editors own POV's vs QG's which isn't good either. The editor who started this thread Edit warred on QG's talk page which went way over the 3 RR rules. QG reverted that editor, and some other editors, but kept reverting QG's removal at his talk page. Really this is starting to look really silly to outsiders, which I consider myself. No banning period, but a notice to leave Jimbo alone at his talk page should be enough. Thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • strong oppose as he shouldn't be banned or topic banned for adding reality and WP:NPOV to articles, banned for not backing up a lie. Especially as his edits are backed up by WP:RS. Sticky Parkin 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose banning from article space. Ridiculous idea, and I note that a number of editors above are supporting on the basis of their own issues with QuackGuru that are nothing to do with the issue in hand. I don't have a strong view on the Wales' userpage issue though. Black Kite 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support ban on editing Jimbo's userpage, meh on articlespace. Userpages frequently contain information – 'true' or not – not supported by reliable sources. We don't demand footnotes or NPOV in userspace pages. If this were any other user's page, would we need to even have this discussion? There's no need to poke at another user over and over and over and over again by making 'corrections' to perceived errors on their user page, and this has risen to the level of pointless (or perhaps POINTy) disruption. Enough. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose main space ban. Above reads like something out of the cultural revolution or Macarthyism where people try and settle their own scores by implicating their enemies. Sorry but i don't buy that he has been disruptive. Persistent possibly, and good for him, in general apathy drives off good users who have to battle advocates. David D. (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Falcon Scott[edit]

Resolved: No admin action needed.  Sandstein  05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please step in here and refactor the discussion threads? I tried to do so earlier and it apparently didn't help. I would suggest you split along the lines of:

  • Initial outline of problems
  • Proposals
  • Sourcing
  • Weight
  • Further proposals
  • Final draft
  • Editor conduct

Ottre 00:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a job that needs an admin. If you have a problem that requires admin intervention, please explain it more clearly. Looie496 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In the end, it didn't have to go to 3RR, but editing could get out of hand again. We could def use more eyes on the page to make sure things stay civil. Ottre 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ottre, are you aware that your signature must contain at least one wikilink to your userspace? Please add one, as it's otherwise difficult to reply directly to comments you make. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
He is aware of it and he is also aware that it's not required. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Refusal to comply with WP:SIG and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#User:Docu's signature. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Itisnotme[edit]

Resolved: blocked for 3 days by Slrubenstein --KP Botany (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin just block this user long enough to discuss the issue of his adding spam links to his soapbox (an on wiki soapbox that has been reverted) and irrelevant discussions to article talk pages? He's active now, his edits have been reverted, he's added some of them back, then changed his tone. I have other things to do than continue to revert him, and he is not listening. This is a block for discussion request as opposed to a block for vandalism request, where he's heading, because, heck, he might listen if he stopped long enough to hear another voice.[10][11] Although he's going to make it an easy block for vandalism request. --KP Botany (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning, if he does this again in the next half hour I'll block him, if not someone else will have to. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754[edit]

Resolved: There is no consensus for administrator action against Rschen7754. I-15 (talk · contribs), you should heed the advice of many and perform edits in compliance with policy, guidelines and general common sense. Continued disruptive editing can lead to a block. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone deal with this issue here? This has become extremely frustrating for me to let this administrator to try to cause me more problems than good. --I-210 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Try making good edits rather than bad ones like [12] and [13] and you might have better luck. --NE2 20:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
How is that an issue? It's a legitimate warning. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It seem obvious to me. --I-210 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not obvious to the rest of us, and you're trying to convince us, not the other way around. —kurykh 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My viewpoint on the matter is that we've given this editor way too many chances. We need to consider banning / blocking this user in order to protect the encyclopedia and not have to repeatedly clean up after this user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This question you answered here Rschen7754, is irrelevant and hearsay. How do you know about this We need to consider banning / blocking this user in order to protect the encyclopedia and not have to repeatedly clean up after this user. Mgillfr and i are not going to buy that question anyway. --I-210 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia, Mgillfr, i have real life consequences here, Wikipedia is not a video game and we don't intend to play policy games to make a point. --I-210 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Also i didn't even use the twinkle at that time and i was a good vandalism reverter and deleter by using twinkle. --I-210 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If Friendly was a twinkle then i would have not commented, even it is not a twinkle then i would have commented to try to stay active for me from this outrageous block as long as possible. --I-210 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't even know what the above statement means, but if you are blocked and you come back and edit as another user or as anon/IP while your main account is blocked, that's block-evasion and is a serious problem that as you have seen leads to rapidly-escalating consequences. If you have a problem with a block, you need to resolve it, not dig a deep hole for yourself. Secondly, once you come for mediation/dispute-resolution, you need to accept that everyone will look at all facets of the dispute, including your own behavior and actions, not just the narrow problem you mention at first. I've seen you have a long history of tenacious editing and repeated and long blocks for IP-based block-evasion. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
DMacks, no one will ever respond to this question by answering it like that. --I-210 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not a valid one. —kurykh 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, i'm not going this question here again since this situation is starting to get much worse than better since Wikipedia is failing. --I-210 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming here because I-210 (talk · contribs) left this message [14] on my talk page. I don't really want to deal with the drama, since I really don't care about it anyway. But I do want to say that most of I-210's edits are basically "fixing" stuff, including fixing redirects. I'm not defending I-210's position here, but it seems to me that I-210 makes changes to articles similar to what I would do if I had the time or patience. However, there are times when I-210 edits by putting tags up other people's userspace, including mine. That can be very annoying. Basically, the moral is that I-210 makes legitimate edits, with a blend of bad faith. Again, I only posted this up because I-210 has been trying to get me involved in his situations, which I really don't want to. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its best we end this now, because its getting its getting way out of hand. Rschen did nothing wrong in this case, and as much I have been mad at him the last few days, I can say I am still willing to back him up. I-210 is not a great editor, causing more problems than we need for a project. Can we put a (discussion header Top & Bottom) on this. There really isn't going to be a solveable ending.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"I feel like I'm babysitting children on Wikipedia. This is awful." [15]

Just in case you didn't know yet Rschen7754, it's your own choice whether you want to revert after people on Wikipedia or not. If you don't like babysitting, you can just stop reverting our edits. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you tell the people who revert vandalism that. That would be great. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note, User:I-210 has been renamed to User:I-15. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Rouge admin required[edit]

Hi, apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place - this is nearly a breach of etiquette issue, but I believe it goes a little deeper. User:Fasach Nua appears to be following a pattern of behaviour that may be problematic.

  • Fasach objects to fair use images on Wikipedia as a matter of policy. I infer this from his reference to User:Angr#A_parable on his user page. Many of us are not delighted about the need for non-free images on Wikipedia (owing to the world unreasonably failing to recognise our monopoly on Truth and Beauty), but the argument regarding whether they should be allowed or not should not be conducted via FAC reviews.
  • I offer Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2 as an example. Fasach writes "oppose the article has three non-free image none of which are allowed under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)". This continues Fasach's long history of similar opposes - as is blatantly clear from the 16 messages on his talk page requesting review of his oppose votes to articles containing free-use images (which he typically declines to do). No specific comment regarding how or why images violate fair use is given: complaints are pure, meaningless boilerplate.
  • Whether this constitutes something to panic about I don't know. It 'merely' puts many articles in arts and history at a one vote disadvantage. I suspect that it may become a problem if others choose to join his crusade. On the other hand, maybe a rouge admin would like to eviscerate him for disruptive, unethical wikilawyering. I don't know. Dhatfield (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe the assistance of a beige admin would be more effective in this situation, as rouge admins lack the necessary l33t skills to get around this particular crusader's immunities. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't that really be Admin Rouge to get that proper Franco-Marxist flavor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just say that I doubt the arts articles are at a "one vote disadvantage", as FAC is no more a vote than any other process. I very much doubt either Raul or SandyGeorgia are terribly swayed by Fasach's frivolous opposes at FAC. As a note, however, he has been the subject of at least two RFC's regarding his image-related zealotry. Resolute 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The word "frivolous" here makes it very clear how clueless most editors are in terms of non-free images. Many articles have been promoted to featured status despite clearly violating WP:NFCC. Those of us that acutally understand that concept of fair-use images have realised very quickly that pointing out NF violations on articles that certain people want to promote is pointless, so largely we have given up. I can only assume that that those that promote articles don't really care about the "Free" part of "The Free Encyclopedia". Such is life. Meanwhile, Fasach Nua is usually correct in his edits, not that this matters to those that want to plaster copyright violations all over Wikipedia. Black Kite 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What gets me about that is that he makes the allegations that free use photos are available without any evidence, and then doesn't listen to reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
His objections in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2 were far from frivolous, though. The images he objected to don't really belong in that article ... it's pretty hard to make the claim that they significantly enhance the reader's understanding.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Aha! Now we can have a real conversation regarding what is appropriate with regards to the use of non-free images in articles. I believe this gets at the heart of the non-debate Fasach has been having with himself for some time. Dhatfield (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Game Swap[edit]

Resolved: article gone, requester pointed to appropriate venue for future reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi I tagged this page for deletion, and the author keeps removing it. Help?? Leaf shaped ant (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is deleted. In future, authors removing CSD tags can be reported to WP:AIV for generally quicker responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data[edit]

Anyone suddenly getting this a lot and finding yourself logged out? rootology (C)(T) 05:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I get this if I have had an edit window open too long. Copy the information you added to the page, refresh your browser, and then try again. - NeutralHomerTalk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:35
Its happening more frequently, as are warnings of time delays. --Snowded (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it is associated with my problem above. - NeutralHomerTalk • April 12, 2009 @ 06:25

Lucas081094 and Brazilian IPs pushing incorrect info[edit]

Over the last few years (first try here), there has been a consistent pattern of Brazilian editors (usually from unregistered IPs, but lately with usernames) continually inserting false and/or unsourced information into some articles (Timeline of CGI in film and television & Computer-generated imagery both now semi-protected because of this) about Cassiopéia, a 1996 Brazilian film - usually claiming it to be the first CGI film, when the true first CGI film was 1995's Toy Story. I'm frankly at a loss as to how to deal with this - the fact that Toy Story was the first CGI film is well documented, and unassailable, as far as I'm concerned - but these editors refuse to discuss. They rarely provide edit summaries, refuse to discuss their reasons, and consistently fail to provide reliable sources. The latest attempt has been by Lucas081094, who was recently blocked for 72 hours for this - Lucas081094 first edit after the block was lifted was to immediately resume pushing his change, with no discussion. I could certainly use some eyeballs on this, and hopefully another block on Lucas081094. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please[edit]

Resolved

Giano II (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is under 24 hour sanction for violation of WP:NPA. I have opined at Giano's talkpage that he has not violated the policy, and have some support, while the blocking admin remains content in their interpretation, and also has some support. As Giano + sanctions related issues have some history in growing into major drama, can I ask some of our more even tempered and less politicized contributors glance over and give a calm consideration of the case. My hope is that when we do block Giano it has to be seen that the community is largely content that violations have indeed taken place, and a dignified discussion there may achieve that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made on his talk page that there was an off-wiki aspect to this, but it's not evident to me on first review. Can someone clarify that please? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The off-wiki context was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be more than a little snarky as well. – iridescent 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation on his talk page, and I'd rather see a wider discussion on this situation. I believe its getting heated, and conversation needs be moved here if we're going to poll for his unblock. Synergy 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Preemptive oppose unblock. Giano knows precisely what he is saying and when, and he is under zero misapprehension about what the rules call for here. He knew what he was doing, the block is entirely justified. We have to stop coddling him because he lashes out--he needs to stop lashing out on a depressingly regular basis. If it were once a year? Fine! It's not. //roux   00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(reply to Synergy)I feel the discussion there is more civil than has previously been the case when on the 'Boards - which allow passing comments to be made that doesn't help with considered debate. Hi, Roux! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the argument on the talk page seems to be about whether terms effective through February are still effective. Avruch says they are not. If there are no specific statements to the effect that the term was prolonged, and it doesn't seem that there were, I have every reason to believe the block is probably perfectly acceptable. I can't see any immediate need to lift the block, particularly when it is as short as it is. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
@LessHeard vanU: Civil is subjective, which is why I chose to say plainly, that it was getting heated. Regardless. A poll should be done here, not on a blocked users talk page. My primary reason for posting here. Synergy 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
@John Carter: the summary for the block was NPA violation - my and others comments can be found below. Synergy: Well, it has been done. I felt the less visited area of Giano's talkpage was easier to moderate, but transparency is also a creed to me so I am content for it to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page. Seddσn talk 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • (sigh)Is there a link to the Giano ArbCom where blocks, particularly under civility/attack criteria, are only to be made after consultation... Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history (and if said admin isn't aware, on what basis are they blocking without warning or discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the substance of the block... You are referring to the enforcement motion from the SlimVirgin case, which applied specifically to Giano's civility parole. That parole expired in February, presumably rendering the enforcement restriction moot. Avruch T 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Do you refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on further enforcement? I was vaguely aware that there was something like that, so I looked it up before issuing this block. The motion prohibits "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole". I did not block this user to enforce any civility parole, just to prevent ongoing ordinary policy violations that I came across when viewing an ongoing RfA. Moreover, the parole that must not be enforced according to this motion appears to have expired anyway. But if you feel that the motion must be construed so as to prohibit any block of this user for civility reasons ever (which would surprise me very much, since it would in effect exempt him from the policy), we can make a request for clarification to that effect.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein did provide diffs, so perhaps perusing them before passing judgement might be a good way to go. I think it's fair to say Giano did not take the "high road", and a 24 hour block seems like a pretty appropriate action in this instance. Giano's opinions have certainly been noted, but I think it's reasonable to expect conduct that is slighlty less confrontational. Sorry Giano! I can certainly understand where he's coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Although upon reflection there is a question about whether a warning was given? Rules is rules... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)*That is the one; fair enough it has expired, so there is no need for it to be examined. As for the purported violations of NPA, I would quote Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, bullet point (4) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki...". Giano has made it quite clear, since it has lead further editors to oppose or strike their supports, that this is in regard to off-Wiki comments made by the candidate in respect of Giano and the Hattersley claims debacle. Unless you are arguing that Giano's perception of events are wrong (which would make your block problematic under COI) I suggest that Giano has provided reason for his claims of the candidate being capable of pronouncing falsehoods; I am uninterested in the veracity of Giano's claims, other than he has provided sufficient evidence to make it fair comment rather than an attack on the individual. Lastly, I have seen worse in the bearpit that is WP:RfA - it isn't right but I have not seen editors blocked without warning before. I feel you should reconsider your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
To CoM, of course I reviewed the diffs - which is why I am making the point that Giano is referring specifically to events/comments made by the candidate (in an off-Wiki but public page) which he considers varies considerably from the truth to which the comments cited by Sandstein refer. I do not don my mask and cape without making sure that the stitching is still in place... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets take as granted that any one of Giano's comments were correct and not personal attacks. In fact, lets take them all as true and not uncivil, not personal attacks. Does the collective effect of Giano repeating himself stridently and in multiple forums create a significant problem? Perhaps a more useful and functional test: "Did Giano's comment disrupt the normalized editing environment?" I have no answer yet. Also stopping in to confirm that Giano's probation has expired, and thus the related ruling has no effect as well. Its a wash: Giano is, procedurally, like any other long term contributor.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)My apologies LessH. I misread your "Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history" comment. Clearly you were referring to the Arbcom issue and not the history of today's edits. And I see you had in fact noted that a warning wasn't granted, and that would most certainly have been best protocol. My apologies to you and to Giano for cluttering up his page. I suggest an unblock would be appropriate, as only now with the block has warning been clearly served. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
My exasperated comment did, in fact, refer to the deprecated civility parole - so my bad there, and therefore nothing for you to apologise for. However, when I reviewed the basis of the block as logged I found another problematic area. My luck not to appear a complete bozo (the mask and cape helps a lot, too). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with CholdofMidnight; unblock is indicated. Also, I have to wonder, did Neuro lie? Its not a personal attack if its a just charge, as there is no nicer way to phrase it. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
As I just said on my talk page, in view of the block log of Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), I believe he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. A warning would accordingly have been superfluous. I'll be offline for about 24h soon, and assume that any administrator considering an unblock will be so collegial as to seek consensus for it in an open forum such as WP:ANI. I'd like to note that, if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is, and accordingly would not support an unblock absent a convincing apology.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On the merits, even if one were to consider "liar" not (as I do) to be a personal attack, "deluded" and "half baked candidact" (sic) certainly are personal attacks.  Sandstein  21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have invited (dignified) discussion to take place here, where it might not descend into the two usual warring camps, over at ANI. I have made my position clear, so I shall act further only as a moderator to hopefully stop excessive and off-topic postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::You could have asked him to stop first, before blocking. If what he claims neuro did is the truth I would be upset too, especially if he never apologized until his request for adminship. Giano's comments were certainly uncivil, but blocking was getting pretty carried away IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E/cIn an attempt to head any possible drama off at the pass (and in the spirit of the season for certain folks), would you consider an unblock as clemency? That is, Giano requests an unblock, neither denigrating you, nor Neurolysis, nor apologizing either, and that it be granted time served. The implicit understanding of course, is that Giano leave the issue alone, which is biw moot now I believe as Neurolysis has withdrawn.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Doubly moot as Giano has surely gone to bed. Talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
  • He is not enjoying an evening that may end with a Midnight Mass? I am disappointed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick word on the matter: there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable. Accuracy of statements can be disputed, certainly, but "liar" means someone who makes intentionally false statements or willfully deceives. Given that it posits malice (which is the opposite of assuming good faith), it cannot be anything but a personal attack.

I make no comment on whether a block was an appropriate response, or whether its duration is adequate, but arguing that it was not a violation of NPA is ridiculous on its face. I'll grant that no warning was given, but I am under no delusion that Giano is not aware of the meaning of the terms he uses, or that he has somehow forgotten our policies. — Coren (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly untrue. If an editor has admitted to being a liar, or has been demonstrated to be a liar, then the statement is simply one of fact. Is it your intention to suppress all statements of fact, or just those that you find inconvenient? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I, of course, disagree. A statement made without regard to the facts, and not corrected in the face of such evidence, which impunes the integrity and contributions of another person, may be termed a lie - and the utterer of such statements is thus a liar. I am using the term "mistruths" because it sounds less offensive, but the fact remains that the candidate was caught in a lie, Giano provides the evidence of it, and therefore NPA is satisfied. NPA defends editors against unfounded claims, not protects practitioners of poor behaviour, conduct, morals whatever from being castigated for their actions. Finally, Giano's obvious contempt for abiding by certain policies does not constrict our absolute adherence to the word as well as the spirit in sanctioning violations of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
But how do we know that Thingy deliberately lied? He might have been mistaken, or just giving his opinion. To WP:AGF or be collegial, we should say he was mistaken, rather than lied. Sticky Parkin 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The same AGF that Giano is justified in terming it a lie. I may have given the impression that I am sold on Giano's interpretation - I am answering for him in reply to Corens points (I am sure I am going to be royally thanked and praise by G for doing so...) without taking a view upon it. Neurolysis may have been in error for all sorts of reasons, but in only admitting the error when deeming it expedient for the purposes of applying for adminship but being content to allow the mistaken comments to remain unaltered for that until that time is extremely insulting, I suggest. You might not wish to take such liberties with the many calm editors of this project; doing so with Giano invites responses that we are very familiar with. Again, we appear to be punishing the bear for responding to the poking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was incivility here. Giano went too far and should have received a warning to cease and desist. He's now been blocked. We've had the ensuing drama. I don't think asking Giano to apologize is a good idea in this instance. I suggest he be unblocked in good faith and asked to refrain from engaging further with Neuro. He is of course reminded that no matter the provocation, editors are expected to abide by the civility guidelines.

  • Support Unblocking. No need for further drama. Message has been communicated. Giano knows what is expected of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Coren, whilst your statements are correct, we also know that Giano flies off the handle the odd time or two. In statistical terms, we ignore the outlier data and we also correct for systemic bias (read here, poke Giano - Giano snarls - whack Giano - Giano roars - block Giano - hilarity ensues) The present case is an obvious injustice done off-wiki, which should be considered as a provoking factor. It's pretty well-established that if you hit Giano with a stick, he doesn't react well. Neuro hit Giano with an off-wiki stick. Support unblocking. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What was done offsite in this? Please provide context... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry GWH for not providing a link, for some reason I thought everyone else clicked the same things I do. :) Anyway, what LHvU says just below. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This 09:48 post]. He misrepresented Giano (I suggest - you may disagree) in making points which, later, transpired to be not altogether accurate either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is NOT a battleground, remember? Don't hit people with sticks, and if someone hits you with an "off wiki stick", don't bring your anger and aggression on wiki. Flame away, but go elsewhere. Further, Wikipedia isn't therapy. If you've got a bad temper and fly off the handle, don't expect us to make allowances for you. Keep you temper off the wiki. But really? This is the same old script, with just a few actors changing. Can't we get a new script? These repeats are boring me. And, for me, boring is worse than incivility. (Oh, and I don't care whether you unblock or not. Frankly it will not make any difference to the boring script.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • DocG, you're right - but whoah, statements on the website of a national newspaper? Where is the "go elsewhere"? You really can't get any more uncivil or NPA or whatever you want to term it - calling out another editor in front of the world and basically saying "he's not one of us". Hell no, Giano bloody well is one of us, dysfunctional family that we are. I'd support your imprecation to keep our temper off of the wiki (in fact I do, wholeheartedly) - but what about the sarcasm; talking-down, references to inferior knowledge, experience and/or scholarship; use of wikinyms (TLAs) to cow new editors; or any of the myriad ways that editors are mean to other editors? It certainly is easy to pick out a well-definable instance from a known editor and say "this one thing is wrong". I'm not sure exactly how that solves the overall problem. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I support Giano's underlying point - Neurolysis' behavior on the blog post wasn't remotely good form. I can understand why Giano would still be angry about it a couple of months later.
But I think two months is long enough that the initial poke should have faded, and Giano should have expressed himself in a civil way regarding this. Especially to the RFA supporters he went after [16] [17].
Even if we absolve him of guilt in the direct attacks on Neurolysis, the attacks on others were temper getting the better of him... fahadsadah and FlyingToaster are certainly innocent victims in this.
I propose that for the purposes of this unblock discussion, administrators ignore the attacks on Neurolysis and consider whether the behavior against the other two was sufficient to justify retaining the 24 hr block, or not. Whatever the anger at Neurolysis justifies or doesn't, it clearly should not extend as far as allowing anyone to go off attacking random third parties. If those two attacks are sufficient for a block then he should remain blocked. If not, then not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: does the allowance for the statements apply to only those on the RfA? .. or do they also extend to the attacks made on Neuro's talk page? Note: Giano did request that Neuro not post to his talk page, and Neuro did offer an apology. I would think it could be expected that the claims could stop after the apology. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there's some disagreement in the discussion over whether the Giano / Neuro back and forth justifies the block. I think it's less ambiguous, considering the unblock now, to consider the other two victims separately from the Neuro stuff.
I have an opinion on the Neuro stuff but I also have a history of controversy with Giano blocks, so I think it's easier to not push my opinion on that out into the debate here and possibly go sideways over that history. The issue with the two innocent bystanders is easier to define and review without having to delve into the things we're likely to not get consensus on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock - Reading over that blog, Neuro's behavior was slightly troubling, but I honestly couldn't agree more with Roux. With how UNBELIEVABLY MONUMENTALLY GINORMOUS Giano's block log is, I think that Giano's lucky that his block isn't a good 5 or 10 times longer than it is. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Coren: "there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable.". I'm sorry, but if I have diff evidence that an editor has been lying about an issue, I'll call them a liar. To do otherwise would be lying myself. Withdraw that one, please. Black Kite 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    You could have evidence that a statement is false; not that the one who made the statement knew it was false when he made it— for all you know, they might have been mistaken, deluded or just confused. Arguably, even an admission of lying is no proof given that the admission itself might be mistaken and such.

    That's entirely besides the point anyways, even if the accusation is absolutely true, it would still be an attack and not acceptable as such. There are many ways of calling attention to a statement that is false that are not attacks; calling someone a liar isn't one of them. — Coren (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I agree with your exceptions, but you're skirting round the issue there really; accusing someone of being a liar when they have clearly and deliberately lied about an issue is not a personal attack. it's merely a factual statement. Black Kite 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    Nice of people to tell me about this thread. Is the suggestion that I have blatantly lied, and if so, where? — neuro(talk)(review) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    I wasn't actually making a comment about yourself; I was merely replying to Coren's comment. Apologies for going off-topic. Black Kite 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Yes, heh, don't worry too much Neuro. This discussion has gone far beyond what you may or may not have intended to say at the newsblog and is soaring to the meta-sphere of the wiki. :) Do you think Giano should be unblocked? Franamax (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
He may have made the wrong decision in making such comments as he did, but I also made the wrong decision posting those comments on the blog. I see no reason to keep him blocked, no, it takes two to tango. — neuro(talk)(review) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not condoning anyone's actions, and I can even understand Giano being upset, even if I do question the timing of it all. But, I really think that this is over the top. Neuro apologized, and the badgering continues. I understand emotions, but refusing to not only accept an apology, but continually berating another editor simply isn't right either. — Ched :  ?  01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano has a point about both the location and timing of the apology in my opinion. Assuming that neuro never made an apology before the RFA (I never saw a link to an apology aside from the one he made on the RFA, if one exists sorry for not seeing it), and assuming that he never apologized on the forum where the post was originally made, his apology is indeed both rather belated and in the wrong forum. The damage the post made was done there, and if no apology is made there than the damage will continue to be done every time someone reads it. Furthermore, (and I know this isn't even remotely assuming good faith) the fact that he only apologized for something like that when called on it during an RFA would give the appearance that the point of the apology was to mitigate damage to his RFA. If Giano honestly believes those things to be true, his reaction is rather understandable. Even given that though, I'm not sure I would support an unblock because of his treatment of the other participants in the RFA, which I do not believe was justified under any circumstances.--Dycedarg ж 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (Note that the preceding statements were trying to see this from Giano's points of view. I'm not really sure of what comments Neuro made where aside from the initial posts on the blog and the ones he made on the RFA and I don't know enough about Neuro to be able to judge whether or not he was lying/mistaken/what have you.)--Dycedarg ж 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If I apologised, it looked like I was simply trying to sway voters. If I didn't apologise, it would be the incorrect thing to do. What would you have suggested? — neuro(talk)(review) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What I would have suggested? Apologize. It was the only thing you could have done under the circumstances. It just would have been a good idea to have apologized sooner, preferably within a week or so of the incident. Belated apologies coming months after the initial incident just don't have the same impact.--Dycedarg ж 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You are right Neuro - a very tricky (read no-win) situation - would have been prudent to apologise at some stage before RfA. However, the nature of the comments was such that you should have made a considerably more concerted effort to really put them in the past and make up for it. The airing of dirty laundry like that is hard to get over. I do feel for you man, but it makes pretty poor reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
As I have said, I had believed I did, until Giano told me otherwise. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unblock of Giano. As someone who's recently went through Wikipedia drama related to off-wiki communication, and after reading what Neuro posted at telegraph.co.uk, I'd say Giano's human reaction is appropriate. Would we even be having this discussion if Giano had called Neuro out at telegraph.co.uk instead of here on-wiki? I doubt it. Nevertheless, it has been done. - ALLST☆R echo 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unblock of Giano. I feel his reaction was understandable given what was written in the blog of a national newspaper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock A 24 hour block on someone with a history of incivility for bringing off-wiki anger on-wiki and lashing out in an RfA seems lenient and just. Serve the block and learn from it. --John (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Giano can't have it both ways, he can either consider neuro "unworthy of my time and attention" and leave it at that, or he can turn up at the time of the comments and call him a "disgrace to the project" and a monumental liar and everything else he wants to, at a time when it was actually relevant. I don't think for one minute he would have accepted any earlier apologies had they come, but turning up 60 days later to grandstand over the guy's RfA that he didn't even put himself up for, crowing that it's too late/the wrong venue for sincere or even insincere apologies, is just a bit lame really, and should not detract in any way from the fact the language used by Giano in the prolonged exchanges constitutes a nailed on npa block, from someone who should know better. MickMacNee (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, The reasons for blocking are consistent with the evidence and the relevant policies. Come on community, how many times are we going to do this? Chillum 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unblock of Giano per Casliber. - Josette (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Casliber's rationale might be true, except, I don't think that it can be considered so mitigating when commentary that can legitimately be perceived as personal attacks, extended to users other than just Neuro - see here. The meaning of 'deluded' can vary in harshness depending on how it was perceived, but I know my own interpretation would not be on the softer side. I don't see how I could've support an unblock in light of this; FlyingToaster's concern should have been handled with more care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • in the meantime I have a block log (thoughtfully linked to from a newspaper website by Neurolysis) claiming I have personally attacked and harassed someone, with no mention as to exactly what happened or who that "someone" was or what terrible form this personal attack or harassment took, for all the readers of that newspaper know, I may be in the habit of mugging and attacking old ladies for their pension, but of course that would not be a wiki-crime. Not one Admin has the bolox, gumption or integrity to sort that misunderstanding on the block log out, and yes, I have emailed some Arbs about it, and to date nothing! So much for Wikipedia and its sense of honour and justice - quite frankly , it stinks. Those who supported such a state of affairs are, in my view, a bunch if shits, or in Wikipedia language, if you prefer "a collection of editors who seem intentionally unable to see the reality of a situation, brought about my me being hostilely referred to on the website of national newspaper by a Wikipedia editor who was confused as to the truth and failed to do his research." Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
PS:I don't mug old ladies, as much as some of you would like to beleive I do! Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This matter is now resolved to my complete satisfaction, the block log is suitably ammended to reflect the situation. Those who supported this wrongful block remain "persona non grata" on my talk page, that situation will not be changing. Giano (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical Problem?[edit]

Probably the wrong board for this, but I am currently experiencing a technical issue with Wikipedia that others might be experiencing as well. When clicking on the history tab for any page, the history will load partially, then freeze my browser up. All other aspects of Wikipedia do not do this. Not sure if this is an ongoing issue, but needed to be addressed. - NeutralHomerTalk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:22

I've had this as well (though I am not overly concerned). I suggest you join in the discussion at WP:VPT.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Planecrash111[edit]

Resolved: Continuing to edit war, and attempting to hide the fact by use of misleading edit summary? Blocked indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin mind stepping in to have a few words with Planecrash111 (talk · contribs)? The user's had a brief career here punctuated by a block [18] for copyright violations and confirmed socking through it. Since his return, PC111 has gone back to updating baseball articles and adding game-by-game summaries and stats, sometimes while the game is still ongoing [19].

I've tried to explain to him politely on his talk page that Wikipedia isn't for running play-by-play or posting in-game stats. He responded by telling me to [20] "just fix it," and continuing to update career totals for players[21] while the game was still ongoing. On at least one occasion, his totals were wrong [22].

I explained the best way to update stats was to wait until after the game, then use reliable sources to update the totals. There's no need to do the math in-game, especially when you've been shown to be wrong before. However, he blanks the discussions [23] and continues to post stats from games he's watching. As I write this, he's also inserting large game summaries again [24] even after a discussion about that very topic