Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Link to an illegal copy of Window Clippings in an image[edit]

Resolved: image of an illegal copy deleted, new image uploaded and linked to affected articles.

Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wordpad screenshot comes from a hacking site and the non-free media use rationale includes a link to a page where an illegal copy of Window Clippings can be downloaded (Window Clippings 2.1.28 inc. keygen.zip); the image should be changed and the Window Clippings link should point to its official site (http://www.windowclippings.com/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maangago (talkcontribs) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial uploader/contributor informed. It may be best to replace that image with one sourced from a legal avenue. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No doubt we should not link to illegal material. I have replaced the link with one to the official website. I will try to check better the links/images/uploads. Thanks SF007 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If nessercery i run windows 7 on my laptop i can screenie and upload in order to provide a legit picture Kira Chinmoku (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes please, could you do that. very much appreciated. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, image can be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Win7_build7100_Wordpad.jpg KiraChinmoku (Talk, My Contribs) 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

consultant needed[edit]

will someone please give an advice to Jeff_G. on how and when to issue warnings on other editor's talk pages. i think he is misusing these warnings, and applying them where they have no merit. thanks. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff G has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide WP:DIFFs to show which warning(s) you feel are inappropriately placed.  Frank  |  talk  20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd suspect the diffs that this IP thinks are inappropriate are [1] and [2]. Audiosmurf / 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
All I can see is that you have made no attempt to actually discuss this with Jeff and instead have told him to "Get a life". --Smashvilletalk 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
actually there was an attempt[3] to discuss after the first warning he gave me, but he didn't find it necessary to respond to me. after the next absurd warning of disruptive editing i realized that he only sees me as an anonymous IP address that he can place all kind of labels on without any justification. therefore, i posted a note here. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The first warning I gave this editor was for this edit, in which this editor called another editor "allknowing" and accused that editor of "lying that i left no edit summary" when that editor did no such thing (in posting this warning). As for the reason I did not respond to this editor's "attempt to discuss", it was because this editor neglected to do all that I ask, and to comply with WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. I am responding here to defend myself.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a case of "jump through my hoops or I'll ignore you." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Jeff G.'s use of Huggle. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First, user did lie with his warning in which he claimed ...When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary.. because I did write an edit summary (you obviously didn't bother to check). Secondly, it seems I should "only" have studied half a page of your personalized customized request on how other editors should communicate with you, as if you are some special kind of editor here on wiki and cannot communicate as the rest of us does. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, you just called me a troll with those two links -- thanks on a personal attack. I won't be communicating with you any longer as you are disrespectful. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
for other editors here, he also accused me of disruptive editing for adding ..unrelated link.. to see also section, and you can see here how disruptive my contribution was. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you beating a dead horse? You have accused Jeff G. of inappropriate reverting in a previous discussion (in which Jeff G. was advised to be more careful with his reverting). There is no need to keep talking about that edit on 22 September now, which was brought up at the previous discussion. For the more recent edit; from a brief look at the discussion you linked to, I don't see that others agreed to adding this link. In that case, your addition of the link - while done in good faith and not intentionally disruptive - may not be appropriate. If you thought the warning you received was inappropriate you should have tried to contact Jeff G. and ask why he did that. Telling him to get a life and stop bothering you is hardly an attempt to discuss. Also, nobody has called you a troll here; a bit of AGF is always nice, particularly in a situation where you're expecting it from others. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
horse seems to be well and alive as is giving unfounded warnings again.
isn't it obvious why he did it? i think there is a trend here on wikipedia, and jeff_g unfortunately isn't the only one, in which editors find a strange satisfaction in placing i will block you type of warnings on other's talkpages. there is a lot of passive aggression going on. people say things like you are being disruptive and vandal and troll and doing personal attacks etc. while in fact they are the ones being disruptive and calling you names. unfortunately, instead of innocent until proven guilty mentality, there is a guilty until proven innocent reigning here, and people like me have to waste time defending ourselves from people like jeff_g in order not to get blocked from editing -- because after all, there are all these warnings on these pages, and me being silent and not saying anything would mean that i actually did some wrong. (and yes, he did call me a troll. look at the reason above why he states he didn't respond to me -- he provides links to "don't feed trolls")
even You Chamal wrote above ...while ... not intentionally disruptive.. implying that in fact my edit was disruptive, which is i think really arrogant thing to say, because you actually looked at the discussion about the link i added, and even though users agreed it didn't belong into see also section, they also seem to agree that information is relevant for placing into the text of the article somewhere. how can you call my contribution unintentionally disruptive. what the hell does that mean? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you done now? --Smashvilletalk 14:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
as long as others accuse me, i will be defending myself. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
IP has a reasonable point if jeff_g has not been taking more care with use of automated tools and slapping templates down - rapid templating is bitey and harmful to the project. But jeff_g appears to have been more careful since last thread. So, hopefully IP can go back to gnoming away on whatever? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer TreadingWater is back[edit]

He was indefinitely blocked after abusive sockpuppeting. He both edit-warred, and attempted to sway consensus using these sockpuppets. After an investigation concluded that he had done so, he was indefinitely blocked. Fred Bauder chose to reset the block to 3 months, after TW "groveled" on some kind of mailing list thing. Apparently he promised to never, ever, ever, do it again. He returned from his 3-month block yesterday, and is already edit-warring, across multiple articles relating to generations. He's made it clear that he will continue edit-warring against consensus (the articles have been very stable for the three months of his block), and it's my view that the indefinite block needs restored. The only alternative, in my view, is a complete topic ban from anything remotely generation-related. UnitAnode 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If he's not using sockpuppets anymore, I think an indef block for edit warring is unwarranted. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 00:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
He has picked up exactly where he left off. The indef should have never been modified to begin with. It wasn't just that he was sockpuppeting, it was that he was EDIT-WARRING using those sockpuppets. UnitAnode 01:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked TreadingWater indef since he resumed wide-scale POV-pushing of Generation Jones across 32 articles less than a day after his three-month block expired. This cannot possibly represent abiding by the promises of good behavior that he gave back on June 30 to get his indef block shortened. His desire to promote this topic is so strong that he actually voted with socks in the AfD to prevent the article on Generation Jones from being deleted. My action is open to review by other admins; I was not aware of this thread when I closed the AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaunkars of Goa[edit]

User:Gaunkars of Goa has made absolutely no useful contributions so far. Rather he is using Wikipedia to promote his own weird ideas about territorial sovereignity[4], [5]. He is peeved at India's annexation of Goa in 1961[6] which he feels is illegal and wants Wikipedia to recognize Goa as a disputed territory[7]!

None of the other editors have found any substance in his arguments but that has not deterred him from using talk pages to champion his cause[8], [9], [10]. My efforts to get him to be a productive Wikipedian were fruitless and he has instead produced a coat rack version of an existing article to promote his ideas[11].

Repeated warnings and ignoring have had no effect. He laid low for a while having found no supporters; until he found an unwitting supporter. Now emboldened, he has taken up his cause again with great vigor. Today he has crossed the limits of sanity. Not only has he threatened to "screw my happiness"[12] but also decided to appeal to Jimbo himself[13]. About time someone put an end to his nonsense. --Deepak D'Souza 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been aware of Gaunkars of Goa (talk · contribs) since the account was created and can attest that it is used exclusively for soapboxing (as in this latest edit). The only "positive" aspect is that he now restricts his comments to userspace, article talk space and wikipedia project pages (he hasn't edited an article in about 4 months). Don't know if he should continue to be ignored, or if he has exhausted the community patience and should be blocked or banned. Would request an uninvolved admin to take a look. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
PS The recent threat to Deepak D'Souza is troubling escalation. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Block for disturbing Jimbo. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked indef. Other admins feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the block. Gaunkars of Goa only interest is in using wikipedia as a soapbox and does nothing for the encyclopedia.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Unblock declined as not addressing the reason for his block. "LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL" is not an adequate request for unblock.  Sandstein  05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse/ Hazing[edit]

Resolved: Nothing problematic in the way it was handled by the administrator. Further discussion should be at Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to call to the attention for Administrative review the willful Hazing and instigations of one BorgQueen (talk · contribs) administrator who has been unnecessarily pestering and provoking me and abusing his/her power to the most corrupt extent.

The incident occured at the page "Cuisine of Hawaii" where the Administrative BorgQueen (talk · contribs) deleted several in-depth and informative paragraphs chock full of a variety of highly useful and applicable information, and replaced the entire article with one tiny ignorant paragraph which states Hawaiian people eat only junk food, which is racist, slanderous, assinine, blatent bigotry, and racial predjudice.

After I restored the article to its original state, which was radically changed from informative to bigotted without any explanation posted on the discussion page whatsoever, I posted a message on the talk page of BorgQueen (talk · contribs) asking the abusive individual to stop Vandalising the "Cuisine of Hawaii" page, because such behavior is unnacceptable at wikipedia.

"BorgQueeen" responded by locking my user account, again, without so much as an explanation.

so I left a second message on his/her talk page, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then deleted my comments from his/her talk page so others couldn't read it. Fearful of reprimand, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) has, in the 24 hours since my blocking, changed his/her talk page completely and deleted the history of my comments forever, which were in no way abusive or rude, or unapplicable to his/her blatent provocative hazing. That is unmistakeably the actions of a corrupt and guilty individual

I then posted the comments on my own page, hoping for some kind of explanation to 1.) why the page was changed so blatently racist, and 2.) why my account was locked.

BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then deleted my posts from my own talk page, which were, again, not abusive but were simply asking for clarification and explanation.

BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then posted the following comment "You have been temporarily blocked for your long history of disruptive edits."

Please, I invite any to look back through my history, particularly Guangzhou, and you will find all of my edits were justified and clearly explained and made clear through peer review and discussion, though they might have been argued by my struggling peers, that does not make them "Disruptive".

On a more delinquent and willfully destructive note: I didnt edit the "Cuisine of Hawaii" for several weeks, then I went there 2 days ago to add some important information on Fusion Soups in Hawai'i's Cusine, at 18:26 1 October 2009, i updated the wikipedia. and at 18:26, 1 October 2009, less than 1 minute after my edit, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) edited in what can only be described as the most willfully distruptive, provocative, and hazing manner i have witnessed on the Wikipedia, but is rampant behavior amongst many other moderators on many websites throughout the World Wide Web

BorgQueen has a personal vendetta with me, and is running around the Wikipedia hazing and Provoking me by vandalizing all of the pages I contribute to.

If this is a common sentiment amonst administrators at Wikipedia, then i wish for you to remove my account and delete all of my information, and i will cease visiting this cesspool.

otherwise I demand for user BorgQueen (talk · contribs) to be severely reprimanded and removed from the Wikipedia's degenerating list of Administrator's--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L31 G0NG L41 (talkcontribs)

It would help if you would sign your comments. Thanks, Abce2|This isnot a test 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
User:BorgQueen has been notified of this discussion. Evil saltine (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Those "messages" where attacks. Also, don't try to impersonate people.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Diff of impersonation. Tried to impersonate sig. [[14]]Abce2|This isnot a test 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
um, I don't really understand what you are attempting to communicate, i forgot my signature, I am not "impersonating" a 'nobody', that's an unfounded accusation which we can all only assume was for furthering hazing. --L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Try disscussing things next time insted of attacking. [[15]]Abce2|This isnot a test 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There were no attacks, you can read it on my page. you cannot read it on BorgQueens page, not even in the history, as its all been deleted. only someone with the ability to restore deleted HISTORY items will be able to review that. Here's a quick question for you though, WHY WOULD ANYONE DELETE THE HISTORY???, it doesn't take Thomas Jefferson to figure that out.--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The content you added should be integrated into the article as it exists, not dropped into the lead of the article. Also, much of the added content violated the neutral point of view policy, for example: "Hawaii is home to the freshest ingredients from land and sea." BorgQueen did not write the content that you object to; she just reverted your edits. Evil saltine (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
no, I added to what was there, why don't you go ahead and look at the page prior to my first edit before you try and justify the unjustifiable. "The Freshest Ingredients from land and Sea" is the NPOV. you can go ahead an measure pollutiuon levels in Hawaii and surround waters with say, the Mediterranean, or wherever you think has better quality ingredients. It is 7 small islands, they get their food from the islands, its not shipped across the continental united states.. do u need a map of how food gets shipped around the globe? or what is it that might satisfy your accusations?--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note I reported this user to WQA just last week [16] for their over-the-top talk page comments. --NeilN talkcontribs 02:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

with half of you editors I would need a megaphone and a Superbowl-like event to get anything through your predjudices an Bias. let's discuss the "over the top" comments, And wy wasn't I notified of the report, u going deep undercover?--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You were. [17]. Don't see how it gets more obvious than that. --NeilN talkcontribs 03:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence and IMO BorgQueen has simply enforced policy and community standards with both civility and fairness. There is no substance to this complaint. I move to close. Manning (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I move for a petition for further review by a more neutral party who has looked into 1.) why the history was delted on the talk page, and 2.) why was the informative artice NOT reverted but changed into some sort of racist propaganda?
I move for a Hawaiian Admin Review, from the Hawaiian Wikipedia--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how Manning is not neutral. Secondly we the english wikipedia, we can only deal with situation that happen on this wiki. Not others.— dαlus Contribs 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In this diff you refactored my earlier comment to appear as if I had included a link. I am willing to believe it was unintentional, however I would caution you against such carelessness in future.
This matter is now closed as all reviewing admins feel there is no case for BorgQueen to answer. I have never interacted with BorgQueen before, or ever edited the article in question, therefore my neutrality is beyond question. While I appreciate that you did not get the outcome you wanted, it is over and further protests will not benefit you. The content issues can be resolved at the talk page for the relevant article. Manning (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Csjoholm[edit]

CSjoholm (talk · contribs) have for some unbeliavable reason got the idea that Sweden is tolerant on drugs. This idea, he can't verify by giving sources, he persistantly tries to push into the article Legality of cannabis, see here, here, here, here, here and here. The issue have been discussed at Talk:Legality of cannabis#Sweden - Is there tolerance or not? where I have informed Csjoholm about WP:V and WP:NOR and urged him to produce sources to back up his claims. I have also warned him to stop with his disruptive editing. But to no evail, see here and here. He have also counter-threated me and accused me of pushing for "untruthfull substance", here. Previously he have said more or less straight out that he is going to war about this, to wait until my interest wain and try again to push his view (here). ... I am not totally familiar with the routine here, so what to do? Steinberger (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added userlinks, and corrected the {{user}} template to point to the correct user.— dαlus Contribs 03:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have also warned the user against adding original research to the article. If they persist, up the warning. Since I have given them a level one, up it to a level two. If they persist after that, a level three. If they reach a level four, and persist, report them to WP:AIV.— dαlus Contribs 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked, however, please do not resolve this thread, I would like to see if the user continues to delete the material after the block is over.— dαlus Contribs 05:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JL 09[edit]

Resolved: User:23prootie blocked for 1 month (see other section)

This user, User:JL 09, has been doing edit wars, disruptive editing, and article owning at Francisco Carreón, Could you please block her until October 6. Thanks.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tkguy violating editing restrictions[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Mastcell for edit warring

Tkguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) As noted at User_talk:Tkguy#You_seem_to_have_forgotten_your_editing_restriction he is under a 1RR on all asian fetish artilces. From today:

He's editing against a clear consensus of several editors to redirect that article. he was previously blocked for edit warring over this topic which causes his restrictions. This individual incident needs to be dealt with, but I'd also recommend a topic ban as he cannot help but disrupt in regards to this topic. I'm out for the weekend, so hopefully an admin can read up on this and handle it appropriately--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tkguy has been notified of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Already was notified. My bad. Sorry. Basket of Puppies 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish and Asiaphile[edit]

Here's the situation. We are dealing with long contentious problem with any and all topics related to articles attempting to label a racist behavior towards asians. The Asian fetish article is famous as it has been through 5 deletion attempts all done by different people. It has now gotten to a point where a deletion attempt are quickly closed out as with "snowball keep". Template:Multidel I believe people have given up their attempt at deleting the page for now but instead are pursuing other ways to undermine this page and any related topics. They are trying to fill the article up with misrepresentation of the sources. Probably an attempt to fill the article with questionable entries so it will not survive another deletion attempt. In fact Crossmr has been reverting my contribution to the Asian fetish page as seen here [23]. As you can read Crossmr version implies that Phoebe Eng finds Asian fetish liberating. This is a gross misrepresentation of her work. Her book "Warrior Lessons : An Asian American Woman's Journey into Power" spend many pages putting down Asian fetish and in an attempt to provide a counterpoint, as most fair authors do, she wrote one sentence that acknowledges that some asians find that it's liberating. I don't believe Crossmr ever read this book yet he's trying force his interpretation of the quote on the page. This is the nature of not only Crossmr's many many many contributions to the article but for most of the contributions made to this article. If you understand what is happening here it's apparent that Crossmr is a part of a group of editors pushing their agenda. It's fine to make contributions that contradict other contributions but to misrepresent sources. This kind of thing has to stop.

Now for the topic of redirecting Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Asiaphile has a number of valid contributions. This page has been the way it was for a very long time. Yet now people want it to redirect to the Asian fetish page and claim it's due to redundancy of the article? Nobody made any attempt to explain where the redundancy is. I keep asking where the redundancy is but there's absolutely no response [24] [25]. Redirecting the page effectively wipes out the valid contributions on the page. This is WP:VAN as valid contributions are being deleted and goes against the purpose of wikipedia.

I must admit it's been a while since I've edited here and I've forgotten about the 3rr rule. I am not well versed with all the rules of wikipedia but I do not tag team with others to push my agenda. I believe that is what is happening with the redirection of Asiaphile to Asian fetish with absolutely no attempt at preserving any of the contributions on the page. If these people were promoting good faith editing then they would be pointing out exactly where the redundancy is and attempting to merge the two articles. Instead you have people just redirecting to the Asian fetish page. The asian fetish page once again I must reiterate survived 5 deletion attempts but is obviously being mitigated by those who are would like nothing more than to have this article deleted. But they can't delete the article! So they are doing the next best thing which is to redirect all pages they do not like to this article. I would have approached an admin regarding this issue but I find that regarding this topic, there are many who wants to delete these articles or they just don't want to fight the many many many people who wants these articles deleted or mitigated. Tkguy (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the situation. You're under a 1RR on the articles in question. You don't get to violate that because you think you're really really right. What you've written is a great bit of content for something in the dispute resolution chain, but unfortunately has zero bearing on your editing restrictions and you violating them by continuing to edit war over these topics. The notification is on your talk page about yoru editing restrictions. You're not even permitted 3RR on the topics in question, you're permitted one. Since you've begun editing you've had talk on your page which you've no doubt looked at. I know you have because you carried on a conversation with mangojuice which involved your talk page. I can't possibly imagine you read this part of the talk on your talk page [26] and couldn't see the section 2 above labeled You seem to have forgotten your editing restriction. You don't get to conveniently forget about your restrictions every time you want to try and edit war. You were given a good faith pass on your edit warring last time when you were reminded in may about this. In fact as further evidence of your edit warring you were specifically asked to bring up the issue on the article talk page [27] if you had something to add to the discussion and you didn't do so. You just continued to revert.--Crossmr (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

Rarely does a single post inspire a new essay. See Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense. Durova320 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Love it. Articulates something we've all seen and been annoyed by countless times before. Equazcion (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
regardless of the actual merits, I do not find the post by Tkguy the least inappropriate or overlong or annoying. It's a reasoned defense of his edits, and his apology for breaking the rules about them. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish this had existed about a month ago... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
He already got to apologize back in may for "forgetting" his editing restrictions. how many times are we going to let him do that before we realize his only purpose is to come here and edit war over those articles. That is the reason he is under an editing restriction. His reasoning is completely immaterial to his reversions. As I said, its a great start for dispute resolution if he wanted to do that, but even when he was invited to take the issue to the article talk page his response was to break his editing restrictions instead of doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square[edit]

Resolved: Blocked.

Our homeless obsessed long-term banned editor is back, would someone do the honours? (I can't remember his original name he's had so many accounts so can't check for an open sock-case). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Zzuuzz. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a very strange obsession - maybe a homeless person shot his dog or something. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the case history: [28]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Now we've got a flurry of aged socks coming in to make the same edits. I've full-protected for a week, and will reboot the SPI to see if we can't root out the rest of the hosiery department. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
And CU has delivered. All socks blocked, but range is too large, so have your mallets ready when the mole pops back up. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Aye-aye, sir. All mallets are locked and loaded. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bugs, don't you mean that you have finish polishing the cannonballs? --Dave1185 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Omigosh... you don't read much, do you? If you must, go read up on "Tom Clancy's Submarine (book)", 1993, ISBN 0425138739; the answers are all in there. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Something was said about cannons and such. Let me go on record as saying I don't believe in committing violence against others. Unless they deserve it. OK, mixed metaphor, mallets locked and loaded. And also excessively violent. Instead, how about the next time it turns up, I'll hit it in the side of the head with one of Mrs. Smith's finest. That would be a pie-on-ear. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie edits[edit]

Resolved: User:23prootie blocked for 1 month by User:SarekOfVulcan

Hello. I think there is something happening bad here. 23prootie charges me of owning the article Francisco Carreon, even though his obsessive behavior pointed that he really wanted to own the article: like not accepting good faith edits done by other editors, and deleting every single notification tags and reliable edits done by others in Francisco Carreon. He even accused me of vandalism one time, but the term vandalism applies if a user did edit not to improve the article but to worsen it, I wanted to improve Carreon article to comply with Wikipedia policies as well as historical facts, but 23prootie still mind of violating rules. He inserted Vice President infobox on the article even if Carreon is not an official vice president of the Philippines (vice president of the Tagalog Republic may qualify, but Philippines? No). The precedence that the post was abolished also signified that he really was the Philippine's Vice president. I cleaned up the article so much that it is accurate with Wikipedia policies, re-linked the Balangay sorts (see below), he also insisted to add Carreon in the Vice President of the Philippines template even though User:TheCoffee removed recently unofficial vice presidents. He changed the article's assessment many times claiming that it is a B-class and High-importance because Carreon is an important icon in history (but changed his reason later).

I changed the internal link Katagalugan to Tagalog Republic to globalize the article. For example, not all people in Wikipedia is familiar in Tagalog language, so I just renamed the phrases Republika ng Katagalugan into more English Tagalog Republic then inserted parenthesis with the Tagalog equivalent inside it. I also changed Sacay to Sakay because that was the real name of Macario Sakay, not Macario Sacay. I also inserted English name of the guardia civil, the civil guard. All of those were removed.

I advised him to contact somebody if he wanted to re-assess his article, but he still pushed to change the assessment. As for the assessment issue, a member of WikiProject Biography said that its a Start article and a low, but not C.

As for the Philippine Commonwealth, a long debate occurred when he moved the article to Philippine Commonwealth from Commonwealth of the Philippines. Debators stand that the article should be named as Commonwealth of X, w/c was based on historical notes. But one time, when 23prootie found an archived news at the NY Times using the shorthand Philippine Commonwealth, he moved the article in that name. We explained to him that the official name of the Commonwealth was really Commonwealth of X, and it was written that way to save ink: i.e., many documents/news mentions the name Commonwealth of the Philippines before saying Philippine Commonwealth in successive paragraphs. Two other users, BilCat and RightCowLeftCoast as well as I decided that the article should reach a consensus before moving, then I applied for page-move protection for the Commonwealth, which was protected indef.

Earlier this day, 23prootie copied the whole article and pasted it on the redirect Philippine Commonwealth (and its talk page) just to "evade" (I can't remember what's the proper term) the page-move protection of Commonwealth of the Philippines. Then he created another section listing down his points which was based on WP:NAME. I think this issue is the same when I proposed a move of Benigno Aquino, Jr. to Ninoy Aquino, when users agreed that as long as a redirect, such as Philippine Commonwealth points to the main article, say Commonwealth of the Philippines, there is no reason to move such article.

On the Philippine Commonwealth talk, he listed down all rules in WP:NAME plus his own understanding how it applies to the article. I don't see why or he justifies that the name "X Commonwealth" is more unique than the common "Commonwealth of X", to quote is really unique per se. Finally, the admin who protected the page Commonwealth of the Philippines said that if and when a clear consensus for moving/renaming develops, just drop him by note that a consensus for renaming was developed and it's time for page-move. Consequently, even before the community decided what would be the best article name for the historical government, and even before this section was written, the article was moved, renamed by means of copy-pasting, 23prootie moved the article based on his justification. If my calculations are correct, this is the 6th time the article was moved by the same person with no consensus (just he saw it in the Internet) of the community. I believe this probably the same reason why User:Boxedor boiled his blood and undergone edit warring over the article Philippines.

23prootie has been blocked multiple times, and same reason goes: edit warring and disruptive editing.

I need an advice, I can't stand it any longer. Thanks, JL 09 q?c 08:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunatly must concur with the statements made by User:JL_09. The user in question, has continued to make changes to the article, that are not within the consensus of all active users. Furthermore he has bypassed the move block, by blanking the information, cutting it and pasting it to a new article with the name that the page was moved to in his/her attempt before. Now, I assume good faith that the user in question only means to do the best by the article. However, given that there is a consensus that the article name should remain at Commonwealth of the Philippines, which is also supported by references, he/she has continued to thwart said consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In the case of JL 09, her opinion has no bearing. She has clearly been following my edits for the past few days (See Did you know? for balangay, Tambayan Philippines, List of capitals of East Asia, and my own talk page) and has been trolling me. In the case of the Philippine Commonwealth, I have presented reliable sources of it's use (New York Times), and has presented my side on the talk page), it's not really my problem if they don't agree with me. Facts are facts.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. As for Boxedor, she was a Sockpuppeteer and a Vandal so please don't associate me with her.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Katipunan referencing[edit]

According to history, the balangay in Katipunan doesn't mean the boat itself, (also called prehistorically as balangay, in the Philippines), and Silanganan and Dapitan are not Far East and the city itself, but codenames for places in Manila area where Katipunan is active. For example, they listed Binondo as one of Katipunan core activity areas. If they do not want to expose Binondo as a place where Katipuneros meet and nested, they will write in their documents the place codenamed as Tikbalang or even Madrid, for example. As for the balangay, it is not the boat, but another codename for municipal level branch of the Katipunan. If, the Katipunan is considered the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian or Supreme Council, provincial level is called Sangguniang Panlalawigan or provincial council and in municipal level, it is called Sangguniang Balangay or balangay council. Balangay is used here as another codename for municipality. As such, Katipunan is full of codenames sometimes very hard to distinguish from facts–so I do not see any reason why it must be linked to Far East and Dapitan City, and balangay for the boat article--JL 09 q?c 08:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

While those names are themselves codenames, they are meant to reference objects or locations related to Filipino culture. A link is necessary to clarify what they are. --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 10:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Charles Dawson[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite several warnings about his unacceptable inputs, this user has refused to comply with WP:MOS and has now, by his latest edits backed up by the comment on his talk page, shown that he is nothing more than a vandal who is deliberately adding inappropriate and useless material anywhere he feels like it. There is no point in trying to communicate with him and I strongly recommend that he is blocked indefinitely. ----Jack | talk page 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BlackJack, if the user Charles Dawson has a problem converting the copyrighted material into a piece of writing that is 'in his own words' and not a copy & paste of the original, then he should ask for assistance not re-post it ad nauseum. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Here are five recent edits – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – all of which completely ignore previous entreaties to him to abide by WP:MOS and to stop copying and pasting copyrighted material. Mr Dawson will not listen, he will not learn and he repeatedly ruins articles by what is in my view a deliberate campaign of vandalism that is disguised as a "helpless newbie" or whatever. Please block him indefinitely. ----Jack | talk page 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And it has happened again this morning since this notice was placed and the editor was advised of it. Would someone please block this person because he is doing this deliberately. ----Jack | talk page 08:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I feel a bit like I'm kicking a puppy in doing so, but I've blocked the editor. If he clearly commits to following the MOS and not repeating this behaviour then I fully endorse unblocking him. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

I've been beaten to the block button by Lankiveil. This was only because I took the time to track down the source of the second piece of plagiarized content that this person was passing off as xyr own work whilst I was composing the talk page message. ☺ I don't feel like I'm kicking a puppy. Having read the original works, I cannot think of any way that this person could be under the false impression that xe wasn't copying and pasting wholesale from books written by other people, and doing this any way other than entirely knowingly and deliberately. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I've augmented the block by blocking talk page editing. The blatantly disingenuous "appeals" were simply more of the same text copied and pasted again. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User 81.97.54.237[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On 19 September User:Opensource4ever and sockpuppet User:Themuffinmaniscool were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and abusive edits, principally restoring copyright violations to Men of Harlech. This user also acted as a wikihound, following me around and reverting my otherwise unconnected edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opensource4ever/Archive. At 01:33 on 2 October a user at 81.97.54.237 restored the copyvio edits of Opensource4Ever to Men of Harlech. At 02:35 on 2 October I received this email from Wikimedia:

Someone from the IP address 81.97.54.237 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.
The new password for the user account "Cyclopaedic" is "XXXXXXX". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password....

This was fraudulent request. I naturally suspect that 81.97.54.237 is a further appearance of the banned user and that the wikihounding is continuing, including a fraudulent attempt to hijack my user account. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the email. The old password will still work; using it will nullify the new password. Vandals try this stunt a lot and usually end up hitting a dead end.
As for the IP, I suggest you file an SPI on the off-chance he's making more socks; I'll block 81. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried going to SPI before I came here, but the page and instructions were too hard to follow. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Laocoont and The Road to El Dorado[edit]

User:Laocoont has been attempting to add to this movie article a rather largish section about themes of the movie being about drug trafficking and terrorism [29]. Now, I'll give anything a fair shake but if these were even considered possible themes of the movie I would expect to readily find sources to support this given this was a family/children's movie. Laocoont's version is completely unsourced, and has been removed several times (But too slow to be a 3RR). When the user is told about sources, he provides them - in the form of around 100 non-free image captures from what appears to be an illegal version of the movie up on YouTube (see Special:Contributions/Laocoont). He was told this wasn't appropriate at all, so he has then tried adding these points as "trivia" to the article though clearly trying to support the same facets of drug trafficking and terrorism without any outside sources [30]. He seems intent on adding this material despite being told they need sources. [31].

Again, he's behaving too slow to be a 3RR violation save in spirit, but I think this may be a case of a user that Just Doesn't Get It, and may think more drastic action is needed. --MASEM (t) 11:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread - why wasn't this done? Exxolon (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I should have done that. Point still remains about general editing patterns. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 at world domination[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Involved users are discussing Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. One such theory is call at WP "Jewish world conspiracy" and is explicitly listed in List of conspiracy theories.
  2. I've worked on this difficult article to trim it of its WP:Original research as much as possible.
  3. I've discussed issues on the page's Talk before deleting any content, and only then edited out the inappropriate material.
  4. The article also disregarded it's DAB page and I've made amendments in response to other editor's contributions.
  5. I also attempted to prevent the article from introducing a WP:Neologism, as well as non-English transliterations (perhaps from Russian).
  6. After all this hard, and slow work, User:Toddy1 appeared, made postings on the Talk page, and simply Reverted twice the work that has been done by consensus.
  7. He also appears to be promoting his own WP:Original research.
  8. But besides appropriate action against his Disruption of Wikipedia work by Consensus,
I think it would be useful to Flag particularly controversial topics better; and there should also be a better way of identifying "Original research." I believe this is one article that needs such Flaging. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any administrator planning to take action on this should please read User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If anything, this post on ANI makes it clear that Ludvikus is living up to his promises. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • ADM BHG has advised me to do this. I would not have made this posting without her recommendation. I hope to return here to post a Diff to her advice. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Here it is, her ----- "BrownHairedGirl (talk)" ----- explicit advice to me personally: [32]. --Ludvikus (talk) --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • She didn't have the time for me - so I'm doing exactly what she told me to do. I intend to follow the directions of WP Administrators - to the letter - even if I don't like it. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's my personal WP policy now that every WP Administrator is a General, and every WP Editor is a Corporal. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As an admin, I find that concept darkly appealing, but it is not the case. We aren't generals, we're just users the community has seen fit to trust with a few extra tools. Following any advice an admin gives you could make your head spin, as we don't exactly present a united front. Anyway, if there is an ongoing dispute on the page I would suggest you file a report at WP:RPP and discuss the matter on the talk page. I commend you for trying to solicit outside input, but I'm not sure an admin is needed just yet. Consider requests for comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • So I'm following the advice of Adm. BHG. First look at what Toddy! just did here: [33]
  • He posted the signature of an anonymous editor - and it makes my query look ridiculous.
  • It appears to me like an attempt to mislead editors into misunderstanding my query - regarding the identity of an unsigned posting.
  • You probably are unaware. I have a terrible past record - and it's extremely difficult for me to perform effectively without the input of administrators - at this stage. I therefore ask you to permit me to follow the advice of well-respected editor BHG.
  • You are obviously giving insufficient weight to the authority of WP Administrators to Ban or Restrict editors.
  • My conduct must be impeccable. And I think it is. I ask you to defer to the recommendation of ADM BHG - WP Policy requires.
  • I wish to do exactly what she recommended - especially because she recently ruled on a restriction involving myself. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you're contradicting her "orders" now, I'm compelled to follow her's until she advises me otherwise. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you were ever "ordered" to follow her advice. Admins can ban users, but they have no more authority than you or I over the project (Though they generally have more experience in the way things work around here). WP:RFC could very well help you out, and if things continue or escalate, just come back here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but admins can't actually WP:BAN a user. We can WP:BLOCK users and use blocks to enforce a ban, but either the broader community or WP:ARBCOM actually initiate bans. As to the diff Ludvikus provided, I think you should be a bit more selective in picking your battles, there's nothing to get worked up about there. Since you were able to use the page history to see that he added a signature to that remark, I'm wondering why you were not able to answer your own question about who left that remark through the same process, but in any event that is not something to make a big deal over. I've just checked in at Brown Haired Girl's talk page, and she is not going to be around on Wikipedia for most of the rest of this month, so don't hold your breath waiting for new marching orders from her. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus how does bringing a ANI square with your statement, "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor.", made when you successfully requested that youraccount be unblocked?[34] There is little point in sticking to a 1RR if your reaction to someone reverting your revert is to bring an ANI, as that drags in more people to what is a content dispute and not a behavioural issue. If his actions are as you say, and the consensus is against him, then someone else who holds the same opinion as you (in the consensus) will revert his revert. Another strategy you could adopt is to salami slice the issues and added request for citations to the sections that do not have citations, and after a suitable period deleted one section at a time, as is is much easier to focus on specific parts of an article than the whole article. There was also recently an AfD in which the majority were for deletion or a redirect to another article, that could be discussed further on the article's talk page. All these other options are more appropriate than bringing an ANI. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • It "squares" like this: I don't know how to handle an editor who tells me (1) that The Protocols are true, but lack citations, and (2) where in Ukraine I can find prostitutes. I do not think this is a "confrontation." It's simply me seeking Help from administrators - precisely because I do not wish any confrontations. Look here: [35]. Ludvikus 13:07, 3 October 2009

This guy misrepresents. Regarding his two points:

  • I did not say that the Protocols are true but lack citations. I said that the article contained statements that were probably true but lacked citations:
"I strongly suspect that in the case of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, the uncited facts are most likely true - they just lack citations. It would be a really great thing if someone who was actually interested in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion went through the article and put in the missing citations."
  • The guy expressed an interest in Ukraine on my talk page. I recommended he visited Eastern and Central Ukraine, should avoid Kiev. I gave examples of problems western tourists are likely to find in Kiev.

--Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't "misrepresent" you. It maybe possible that I "misunderstand" you. I have re-read your posting on my page - and I now realize that it's possible that I confused you with the other editor who posted the comment on my page stating the thesis of the International Jew and Mein Kompf. If that's so, my apology. But please be more clear about what you say to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. In accordance with Wikiepdia policy I assume "Good Faith" on your part. Nevertheless, I don't know how to say this without offending you: you effectively profess ignorance of the subject. You say you never heard of the "book"; you apparently dismiss my cited source - also out of ignorance (I know that by your characterization of it). Yet you persist to revert the article "world domination" to your version, and you attack the quality of The Protocols article. What I want from you is that you follow the consensus (as I have). And if you wish to discuss the subject - do so on the Article's Talk page, not mine. If you oppose the Merge, Talk about it - don't just Revert to your preferred version while others are discussing the matter. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Look. Why don't you just come to an agreement with me that you will follow the consensus. Discuss your points on the Talk page. - The article now is just a list of empires. That makes no sense. So: (1) either agree to the previous trim version, or (2) discuss the current version you produce. If you and I can agree on that - I can ask that this Section be closed - because we've resolved our disagreement. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Close section. I'm pleased to state that User:Toddy1 is engage in discussions on the Talk page of world domination. Therefore I ask that this section be closed, and editors be afforded time to deal on other unresolved issues. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please review indefblock[edit]

After seeing that L31 G0NG L41 (talk · contribs) tried to continue what I saw as an ugly personal attack on BorgQueen, I decided to block him indef. Granted, it was a big step up from his previous 31-hour block. But one look at his edits and his talk page and just, wow. I didn't see this ending any other way. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 04:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - User didn't show any signs that he got why his behavior was wrong.— dαlus Contribs 04:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I suggest locking the editor's talk page, they are continuing to abuse it, attacking Borg and calling people Grommet(which I personally don't get).— dαlus Contribs 04:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. And looking at that page he linked up ... good grief, it's a wonder he lasted three months. Blueboy96 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Change - 72 hours with a warning that if he continues to use all caps, shout at people, and attack others for requiring editing standards to be upheld then greater blocks will follow. If he continues to attack people on his talk page after then move to indef until the attacks stop then repropose. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support No evidence of prognosis for improvement. --John (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Even after the indef block, he continued the attacks on his own talk page. [36] --BorgQueen (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. He indicated in his most recent edit to his talk page that he was leaving the project. Unless and until he learns to collaborate, rather than confront and assume the absolute worst of any action, comment, or edit, that's probably for the best. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, of course; some editors need to be shown the door sooner rather than later.  Sandstein  04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I was considering doing that myself after I checked his contributions after this. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note In case y'all didn't catch it, it's a registered user for 119.131.7.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) which was created on July 4th. So it's possible he might resume editing from that unblocked IP address. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, some nonconstructive users can be coached and brought around to being constructive. I strongly suspect that User:L31 G0NG L41 is not one of those users. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
  • For what it's worth, xe might have had a point about the introduction of cuisine of Hawaii not necessarily providing a rounded view. But I'm-a-chef-and-you're-a-dumb-Trekkie is most definitely not the way to go about making that argument, especially when the correct approach is you're-a-pseudonym-and-I'm-a-pseudonym-too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Uncle G's reasons, shorten block with conditions Per above comment by Uncle G, suggest shortening block to 1-6 months and suggest that he pair up with another senior editor afterwards. This would be an incentive to edit well. Otherwise, he will just become an angry vandal. Oppose immediate unblock.President of Chicago (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef block, until and unless some remorse and apologies are forthcoming. There's no reason to put an upper time limit on such blocks, really: if he can't play nice with others, he shouldn't be allowed to play. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

IP edit warring at the Iga Wyrwał page[edit]

Could some admin please check the page of the model Iga Wyrwał? Some anonymous IP is constantly trying to add sentece that she is of "partly Kalmyk ascentry" with a grotesque claim that all Kalisz have Kalmyk "ascentry" (sic). Loosmark (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved: user blocked indefinitely. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Xxspirit4musicxx put a legal threat here. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also reported him to WP:AIV for the same thing. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
When you encounter a situation like this, you should leave a talk page message for the editor, not just rely on edit summaries. And when you start an ANI thread, you should notify the subject about it. I've just done these things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I usually do, but I forgot this time. Joe Chill (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I told him that I reported him. And I also reported him to WP:AIV as well. Should I not have done that? --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, user already blocked, but an administrator might want to change the block settings so he can't edit his page per [this]. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice sword. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Dude, can you read/understand the various policies before you say that please :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have indef blocked the account as regards the legal threat. Should they withdraw the threat then they might be unblocked by any admin who thinks that their subsequent personal attack was "heat of the moment" DICKedness. I would comment that indef is standard for legal threats, since it can be lifted as soon as the threat is withdrawn, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The editor posted another personal attack at 17:20. Joe Chill (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Hoop!, something not ripe!, per this link Blocked user, that editor (User:Xxspirit4musicxx ) is blocked. any new link to show that he made another edit? Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • A personal attack was posted after the user was notified and after the editor was blocked on their talk page. In situations like this, the talk page should be protected from the user editing. Joe Chill talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
could you provide the link please? Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I got it messed up. They were both after the block. The editor was blocked at 16:27. The first personal attack was at 16:30 and the second one was at 17:20. Freshymail, you could have easily found it out yourself. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the most recent "contributions" and that should suffice: [37] If I were a bettin' man, I wouldn't put money on him retracting his threat anytime soon. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No restriction imposed on him editing his talk page, for appealing purpose. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Optimizer Putter[edit]

 Blocked by Ioeth

This user has attempted to include blatant advertising/promotional materials in the article Putter (diff: [38]). I have reverted several instances of attempts to add identical material to the article Golf stroke mechanics (diff: [39]) by an IP user, and I note XLinkBot also reverted substantially similar material. I suspect the IP user decided to register in order to avoid having that IP banned and to give him/herself additional opportunity to advertise. I also note that this same user is now asking for assistance in adding the material to the referenced articles at Wikipedia talk:How to edit a page. Alan (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for username violation and spamming. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat[edit]

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a legal threat or not: "Retaining entries for Dobrian's opponents while deleting his probably violates campaign finance law and risks Wikipedia's 501c status". The comment was made by an SPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Dobrian. Can someone take a look and act accordingly? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • How I read it, it's more like "you may be breaking the law" than "I am going to take legal action". I'm on the fence here, pending more context and the motives behind this account. MuZemike 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking at that and the edit histories of that article and some related articles (There's a little nest of partisan political POV-pushers here, on several sides it seems.), it seems that a sockpuppet check is in order at the very least. And yes, that is a threat of legal retribution, made in order to sway an editorial decision process.

    On behavioural evidence alone, I have indefinitely blocked Hopenope (talk · contribs) straightaway as an obvious sockpuppet of one or both of Superiorsuperstar (talk · contribs) and 98.194.213.19 (talk · contribs), as well as for the clearly politically-motivated BLP violation in this edit. I am now off to file the SPI case. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Ah, well, in the meantime I have posted an explanation on the accounts talkpage that WP is an encyclopedia rather than a news outlet and have different criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of content, and there is no requirement of equal treatment of candidates to public office, and invited them to clarify their meaning in their oppose accordingly. I also did not think of the comment as a legal threat, but rather ignorance in how WP operates. It may, of course, be moot if the SPI comes back with bad news. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • SPI cases:
  • Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at WQA[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 2 weeks for making legal threats. MuZemike 23:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Over at Wikiquette Alerts, an IP claiming to either be, or be acting on behalf of Cody Judy has posted a clear legal threat. (Now to be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cody Judy. Link adjusted. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)) I have advised the IP of the appropriate course of action if there is an issue of libel in the relevant article. Do admins wish to take any further action? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Uncle G, there did not appear (at a first read) to be any unsourced material on Cody Judy, but it's one helluva story and I can see how the guy might be pissed to see it written down! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the edit history, in particular the edits by 208.81.184.4 and 74.41.224.142. That's undoubtedly part of the cause of the complaint, here. Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the anon's email address that he posted should be removed, along with revisions containing it. Since he's blocked he won't be able to edit it out himself, if that were producing some unwanted results. Equazcion (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy[edit]

DreamGuy is a strange case: He's incredibly against plot summaries in any form, and is quite happy to edit war and scream about even the most uncontroversial-seeming edits, painting them as an attempt to undermine policy.

A few I've noticed in recent days:

  • Template talk:Plot Huge amount of disruption by him, when it came to a poll, only he supported the version he had been causing so much disruption over.

etc, etc.

Polls have been done on these things. WP:NOTPLOT was nearly deleted earlier this year (a majority voted that it shouldn't be in WP:NOT, but it was closed as no consensus), but he's been acting... well! He's incredibly disruptive, screams and shouts over even the slightest clarification, claiming that everyone who dares to hint that plot summaries are an important part of articles on fiction is trying to destroy policy.

Not sure what can be done, but I'd appreciate a review, because he's making all plot-related policy pages very hostile environments. It's come to a situation where you can't even edit an essay page without him screaming in all caps at you, claiming you're out to destroy policy.[41]

I have four FAs (I think the count's really 6 or 7 if you count my old account) on works of fiction where I was one of the primary contributors, and have helped on many others. As far as I can tell, DreamGuy has never even worked on one article related to fiction, except to try and get plot summaries removed or gutted. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So exactly what admin action are you asking for? Maybe a Wikiquette alert or an editor RfC would help? (ps. I've notified DreamGuy of this thread) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday is well known for trying to slip changes into policies and guideline pages without getting any consensus to do so, and, in fact, knowing full well consensus has already been demonstrated to be against him. I was not the only person to revert his most recent string of edits, but his problems with plot-related issues go back well into early 2009 if not longer, and he has always been reverted whenever he pulls one of these stunts. At one point there was serious discussion to try to get him topic banned from plot-related policy pages and guidelines. His attempt to paint this as me being rogue against other editors is yet another attempt to game the system. And the idea that I've never worked on an article related to fiction is both false and irrelevant. Thanks to Tim for having the decency to alert me that SM posted this. I should not have posted in all caps, but it's extremely frustrating to see SM make such changes when he knows full well that he tried and failed to make these changes in the past. It's bizarre for him to pull stunts like that and claim that the people supporting WP:STATUSQUO are somehow "disruptive." DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Okay, DreamGuy has now stepped over a line.

I pointed out that most featured articles have more than the 300-500 words of plot he wants.

His response was to tag all these FAs, some of them quite recent, with {{Plot}}.

DreamGuy needs to be topicbanned from all fiction related articles. He cannot tell what quality is, thinks his opinions can stand instead of policy, and is actively harming the subject.

This topic ban will do nothing to harm useful contributions, as he has none in fiction. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide precise diffs of the disruption? The first diff is a good start, but not enough yet. Dreamguy you clearly have several editors agreeing on the wording. I can see 6 people agreeing with it and no one dissenting. You haven't even engaged in the conversation on that talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Which talk page are you talking about? The only person I've seen on any talk page promoting SM's wording is SM, but maybe I missed one. SM made a lot of changes in the last 24 hours, so perhaps one part of it is supported somewhere, but we've had extensive conversations on all of this in the past six months, and "6 people agreeing" would be nothing compared to the 100+ people who weighed in earlier. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously, there was a massive thread/poll not too long ago, which ended with the status quo being kept. (And I mean the status quo on the WP:NOT page and in the rest of Wikipedia.) I didn't notice this new poll on my watchlist, but to revisit this issue so soon would be inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The one linked at the beginning of this conversation. You made this edit [42], and there is this conversation on the talk page [43]. There isn't a single dissenting opinion in that discussion so to go in and revert the changes claiming no consensus is disruption in my books. If you can provide a link to the discussion where 100+ people agreed on the previous wording please do so.--Crossmr (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
And here he goes again. I didn't tag all the FAs you mentioned, just the most blatant violations of WP:NOTPLOT, which was only two of them. And it's very hypocritical of you to complain that I (oh no!) added a single tag to indicate that the section on those couple of articles disagreed with what Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and WP:NOTPLOT say when you, by contrast, went into Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and added a whole slew of tags claiming it's all dubious and wrong all over the thing so it looks like a tornado hit it. You have a bizarre idea of disruption if my minor edits qualify but your graffiti spree doesn't. And the idea that I should be topic banned from "all fiction related articles" is just absurd. I can't believe you'd think that proposing that would do anything but demonstrate to other people how incredibly unreasonable you are being. DreamGuy (talk)
He tagged an essay, you've tagged featured articles. Has the policy or content changed significantly since they were promoted? if not, then the tagging seems rather pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI: That essay used to be a guideline until DreamGuy tag-warred with me over it. Hiding T 09:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be something of a running sore for DreamGuy, and while I sympathise—even agree with—his stance on many inclusion-related subjects, the way in which he communicates this can come across as unnecessarily pointy: changing guidelines or essays without consensus, or tagging a newly-featured article with a template that says the plot section is "Too long compared to the rest of the article ... Discuss the work not the plot." I'm positive that would be justified in some cases, but this was an article in which 631 words out of 9,744 discussed the plot—just over 6% of the entire article. Hardly unduly weighted in the direction of plot summary (and for context, that edit came in the middle of a good-faith discussion about the issue in the abstract, where I'd simply used that article as an example). DreamGuy would be more justified in his actions if he targeted articles that genuinely merited such a tag—ones that contain plot and very little else. His current approach is counter-productive and alienates potential allies if nothing else. However, all that said, no administrator intervention is required here; for now, a reminder to those involved that the edit warring should stop is all that's required. Please, work it out on the relevant talk pages, and respect the consensus when it's over, even if it doesn't go your way. Steve T • C 08:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is something we can do: As far as I can tell, he has no positive contributions to fiction-related articles, but has caused extreme disruption. Why not just topic-ban him? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not quite justified yet. DreamGuy's tactics give me pause, and I agree something needs to be done to get him to back off a bit, but I won't go so far as a topic ban yet. I suspect that you and I would disagree pretty strongly as to what constitutes a "positive contribution", too. I've got no problem with a tagging ban, though. He should either fix things or leave them alone, not scrawl graffiti on them. If his version of fixing things results in disruption, we can look at a topic ban then.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A revert limit may also be an idea. Hiding T 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Violations from what I can see, DreamGuy has violated Edit Warring by reverting and removing sections from multiple pages, violated consensus by making a claim about a policy that is not true and removing sections from FAs which had consensus as meeting all MoS and policy standards on content issues without seeking to get new consensus, has made many accusations of bad faith, impropriety, etc, without evidence, and is removing content from multiple pages in violation of point simply because he wants to make a point that plot summaries shouldn't exist on Wikipedia as a whole. The user has made it clear that they wont stop, so a block would be preventative in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks like you've covered the issues in both fiction and the Smiley face murders article quite nicely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm w/ KWW on this. I find DG to be especially resilient to criticism, even well meaning and good faith criticism. But I'm not sure that edit summaries with caps in them and a pointy tagging spree necessitate an immediate topic ban and/or a block. I will note that DG seems to be unaware of the iron law of wikipedia-politics: you can engage in whatever wikiphilosophy dispute you want, distaste for politics in outside observers will avail you. But if you fuck with featured articles you are bound to get in trouble. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I too do not advocate a block at this point. It will be time enough to act if it resumes; perhaps the realization of how close xe has come will have an effect. Another such outbreak either at a policy page or at FA, or unconstructive tagging, will settle the matter, I think for all of us. Perhaps we can urge xim to start improving some of the nonencyclopedic plot sections, both the inadequate ones that are just teasers and the over-detailed childish ones--I would regard doing both as a very favorable sign. And perhaps to start with the worst ones first, something that seems obvious to the rest of us but which xe has not quite realized. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Banninated. — Jake Wartenberg 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on more or less of a not-really-contributing wikibreak kind of a thing do to work. Nevertheless, I checked my watchlist when I got home from work and saw this. Obvious sock is obvious (contribs), no idea who it's a sock of, but if someone would wield the banhammer and CU that would be just dandy. → ROUX  04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:HistoricWarrior007 and User:Xeeron[edit]

I am looking for an uninvolved experienced editor/admin who is willing to spend a (potentially longer) amount of time to review the behavior of User:HistoricWarrior007 and myself at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war and related talk pages. Summarized quickly, I want to know whether his behavior is appropriate, whether my behavior is appropriate, and in case either is not, an outside source to point out what has to be changed. Especially, I want to know whether I can do anything about his wrong accusations (e.g. [44], this is the latest, but by far not the only example).

Please note that this stretches back a good while in the talk page archives, involves an article with heavy POV disputes and frequent use of reverts and also note that this has been partially brought up (though we are both not part of the case) at [45]. --Xeeron (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What Xeeron has done in that edit, is deleted a whole section, of analysts, after he wrote his version in the summary. I want the reader to have access to the actual version, not Xeeron's summary. As per the Arbitration group, I did not want to bring Xeeron into it, but he came and accused me, leaving me no choice but to defend. I have extended an olive branch multiple times, and each time it has been rebuffed. I believe Xeeron's hatred of me stands as a result of my actions during the "Title Change" debate, where I used the talkpage to make my arguments, prior to doing any edits. The 2008 South Ossetia War, like the Iraq War and the Gaza War is a controversial article. As such, I require editors to discuss their edits, prior to making them. In his edits, Xeeron deleted a bunch of analysts, that he no long deemed necessary; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=317582338&oldid=317582123 this was done irrespective of the wishes of any other editors and irrespective of any discussion. I have been in arguments with FeelSunny and Offliner, over the same thing, as well as with Kober, Reneem, and numerous other editors. This isn't a policy that I only apply towards Xeeron, although, since he doesn't usually discuss his edits, it affects him the most. I have roughly twice as many posts on the talkpage, as I have edits. I expect my fellow editors to be able to explain the edits, prior to placing them in a controversial article and having these edits result in an edit war. I don't believe that asking an editor to explain his edits is too much.
In addition, I believe that Xeeron hates me. This has been clear in at least one edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results "The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins. As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" I have attached the link so that one can get the whole context of the discussion. All I did was notified five editors, all of whom previously edited the article, as recently as a few weeks ago, and posted the voting link thingy on Russia's Talkpage, instead of WikiProject:Russia Talkpage, which was a newbie mistake that I have admitted.
One must keep in mind that the article is a heated one, and sometimes emotions come to the forefront. I try my best to suppress mine, and I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone, is too much of a sin. However, since Xeeron feels this is necessary, I do not object, I only ask that the editor takes into account the heated nature of the article, the threats I faced, and what I have to put up with, mainly Xeeron's editing tactics, where I cannot question the edit, because it is an "expert quote", and therefore in no need of being justified to be included in the article. For instance, one of the discussions was about New York Times, where the NYT claimed that ethnic cleansing was a form of Genocide. For the act of pointing out that such an article, (written in an NYT Blog) cannot possibly be valid, I was pointed to WP:Source.
Despite all that had happened, I am willing to give ADR a shot. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought this is what RfC or mediation is for. In my understanding admins are not the right people to ask for such comments, as they are just editors with tools to punish people and may lack the ability to actually mediate in a specific case. Several times I met reasonable mediators who were not admins. (Igny (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
@Igny: Possibly I am not as well versed in wiki politics as you are. If this belongs somewhere else, I'll be happy to go there.
However, I have had to put up with Historicwarrior lying about me for a long time now. He just did it again in the post above: "I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone", is very untrue, because I did exactly that: [46]. Making matters worse, he repeated that lie here, after I already pointed out it is wrong on the article's talk page: [47]. To top it off, this very topic (shortening of the responsibility section after the EU report) has been discussed not only in the section pointed out by me above, but several times before on the talk page, as far back as April and several times since then: [48], [49], [50] (very end of section), [51], [52]. It is common knowledge to all active editors of the article, which includes HistoricWarrior. I can only conclude that he maliciously repeats his lie as part of his smear campaign against me.
The same goes for his "Xeeron hates me" story. I suspect that it is rather his hatred of me that drives his attacks, but who knows. He all bases it on one edit where I stated that I would not forget that he breaks wiki policy to push his POV (btw, his "newbie mistake" was to canvass enough people to change a vote on the article title that followed after months of talk page discussions spanning hundreds of post on this very topic) and on the fact that I defend myself against his frequent wrong accusations against me.
He claimed to "extend an olive branch" just a little bit ago [53], only to follow it up with a longish direct attack on me [54] which included the wrong accusations repeated above.
Unfortunately, this is not a singular incident, but only one in a very long list (remember his taking to calling me "Agent Xeeron" for a while? There are many more such cases). This has to stop. I want someone with the authority to stop it to look into it and to decide whether this kind of behavior is ok or not. Of course, I am willing to prevent a very long list of edit summaries, with various infractions, but I feel it is more fair to ask someone to read the entire talk page history before doing that (and it is likely to save time for the person looking into this as well, since most is concentrated on one article's talk page in any case). --Xeeron (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Xeeron, you are very good at provoking me, and then playing the victim. I have not been lying about you one bit. You blanked a whole analytical section, despite being specifically warned against it. I have offered ADR to you several times, and received no response.
Section 513: I have already responded to this on the talkpage. You ignored my response, and posting the accusations here anyways. Section 514: In that one, I am responding to shortening the Battle of Tskhinvali, not the analytical section. Section 515: this section merely placed the edit on hold. I didn't feel I needed to comment, as both you and FeelSunny decided to do it later. Setion 516: I am glad you cited it. This is where Igny states: "Apparently Wikipedia lacks patience. (Igny (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC))" I concur. This is RfC material, not instant gratification, nor should it be approving of you blanking an entire page by force. Section 517: Another edit from the 24th of March. So I am being punished, because I skipped a day of Wikipedia, with removal of a section that I worked my ass off to create, because I was unable to defend that removal. Section 519: It appears to me that you have mentioned it indirectly.
I do not have a policy of going after Xeeron. I do have a policy of going after silly sources. Xeeron has been promoting certain sources in our article, beyond their credibility. Whereas I have tried to stay away from corporate media sources, as well pro-Russian POV sources, focusing instead of neutral sources, such as the Moscow Defense Brief, which has been declared independent by CAST. Xeeron initially introduced Svante Cornell into the article, an "Oil Politics" major. Then he introduced Pavel Felgenhauer, who just happens to publish a book under Svante Cornell. When Felgenhauer was discredited by his own words, Xeeron placed Roy Allison into the article, who again, "miraculously" happened to publish a book with Svante Cornell.
Xeeron boldly critiques me for canvassing, whereas in reality I made a newbie mistake. Besides, the mistake shouldn't matter, as articles are to be renamed, or have their names kept via arguments, not votes. However Xeeron also made this statement, about the Eastern European Mailing List: While following this case, I initially did not want to participate here, since, in my opinion, 2008 South Ossetia war was only a minor "battlefield" between the parties currently investigated in this arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list Only a minor battlefield? In the same votes, 7/16 votes was "minor", whereas the motion was defeated 24 votes to 16. Without the lists "minor" intervention, it would have been a blowout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#2008_South_Ossetia_war In a second voting attempt, 5 votes from the mailing list showed up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move This is "minor" to Xeeron. My newbie mistake in posting this on Russia's talkpage, instead of WikiProject Russia's talkpage, is "canvassing". And I'm the victimizer according to Xeeron.
And Xeeron, you provoke me, I respond. The irony here is that this is similar to the 2008 South Ossetia War, where Georgia attacked Russia, and Russia over-reacted. However the initial attack led to the overreaction. You claim of not being responsible for the edits you make, just because they are mere quotes is silly. You using the word "fucking" on my talkpage is inappropriate. This wasn't just one incident where you made the thread. However, I see my mistake; I should have taken this to RfC right after your threat.
I extended the Olive Branch, and then I saw the edits you made and responded according. You seem to be ok with posting stuff like this: Even replying here, you can't stop framing all your replies as personal attacks on me. "why all the pretense, why can't you just say that you want to change the article's title to make Russia look guilty" Why can't you stop pretending to know what I think? I am defending the name that I feel is more descriptive and fits the article better, yet you consistently allege that I do it for POV reasons only. And you did not point anything out about math. You did however for the umphtens time is LIE ABOUT WHAT I DID AND I AM GETTING FUCKING SICK OF IT!!!! The "claim" of Russians outnumbering Georgians 2:1 was not made by me, not based on any math, BUT COPIED FROM A SOURCE WHOSE EDITOR I AM NOT. No math involved at all, just copying a statement from a source into the article. You know that very well and you attempts to protray me as being unable to distinguish 1 and 2 are nothing but an underhand attack to discredit me. And, FYI, I strife to make my edits NPOV (by only including facts that are backed up by sources and giving room to both sides) and not pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. --Xeeron (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) on my talkpage. Here you are in essence claiming that since your edit was copied from Svante Cornell, the article must put up with the redicilous lie that Georgians were outnumbered 2 to 1 by Russians. (In reality it was 1 to 1.) I did basic math to prove that. I do not think no, or ever, that saying 2+2 = 4 is Original Research. Almost every source you placed into the article, carried Svante Cornell, and the oil lobby's argument, one way or another. You even tried to make this war about oil. And pointing this out, is somehow an attack on you? Granted, I should have been nicer, but in my defense, it is a heated article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Personalized_edits
And now, instead of taking this to mediation, something that you never tried to do, you want instant punishment, instant gratification. I am telling you that Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We must first attempt RfC, as suggested by the more experienced Igny. The section you cited, was discussed for under 24 hours, and then you took action, when I didn't have enough time to respond. Considering that you knew I have worked painstakingly on the analytical section that you blanked, without even giving me a mere 48 hours to respond, was provocative. When I pointed out and inquired, granted, I should have been more polite, that blanking the whole section, that we spent pages and pages of discussion on, where there was at the very least half a page of discussion on each source, that blanking it, just because you and another editor agreed to do so?! I felt it was inappropriate. And I'm not the only user that you blindly revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Removing_Reuters_facts.
So let's follow Igny the Wise, and take this to RfC. And no, you aren't going to be able to blank a whole section, that was validly inserted into the article, just because you were able to make arguments about it that I didn't notice, or had the proper time to respond to. I'm up for RfC, are you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A very quick TDLR: Xeeron provoked me, I shouldn't have typed certain words, and for that I apologize. However, despite my countless suggestions, neither RfC nor ADR was tried with us. I ask that you try that first, before punishing out accounts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York[edit]

I dont know if I'm at the right place or not, but if any admins can help I would greatly appreciate it. I have a problem at the above named article with user:hippo43 regarding that user removing sourced information and factual information that has had no problem in being there, and the information is part of an ongoing discussion about what should and should not be a part of this article. Hippo has not attempted to join the discussion going on in the talk page about the direction of this article and this is not the first time that the said user has edit warred and attempted to start an edit war on articles I have been involved in, including Siena College, Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York. I am at my wits-end in dealing with this individual who has on multiple occasions suddenly showed up at articles and noticeboards I work on and edited disruptively. I need help!Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky is implying this is personal - it really isn't, at least on my part. Camelbinky has contributed to a large number of articles - I have edited only a handful of those. In this case, I tidied up a section which was badly sourced. I removed two statements which had been tagged ("citation needed") for six months and tidied up another couple of sentences to reflect what the sources actually said. As far as I can tell, the discussion ongoing is on a slightly different issue. I don't really want to get into a discussion with Camelbinky as my experience suggests it won't go anywhere constructive. Our long-winded and extremely lame discussion at Talk:Siena College took a similar form - I tried to stick to what the sources actually said, while Camelbinky wanted to add his own opinions. --hippo43 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, as far as I can tell, Camelbinky hadn't edited this article for six months, before I made these changes today, so the implication that I'm wiki-hounding him is strange. --hippo43 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to address every single one of the spurious charges and get into a discussion with Hippo here, but I have indeed been working at the talk page of the page in question for the last week, so while nothing has been done on the page itself those of us who believe in consensus and agreement before editing have been busy behind the scenes. It is not helpful when someone not interested in the topic itself or knowledgeable of the topic decides to remove information without discussing first. As far as me working on a "large number of articles" I work only on a small narrow focus of articles relating to one topic only, New York's Capital District, and that is it except to help out at various noticeboards. This isnt the place for Hippo and I to just have another argument so I will not comment here again until an admin has a question to specifically ask me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea what the point of this "Incident" is - am I being accused of something? Not asking for Camelbinky's approval before editing one of his articles, perhaps? --hippo43 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am little puzzled.argument seems to ultimately be over which of these two communities the college is located in. It seems to be a not uncommon situation where a institution in one physical place uses the PO address of the neighboring one. As they are adjacent unincorporated hamlets, this is another typical example of how a really trivial issue gets magnified into a personal quarrel. All this was back in May. The current dispute seems to be over a probably correct but uncited paragraph [55] that seems to have been used to support or explain one of the versions of the college's location. The appropriate solution for that is to look for a source--though it does seem the sort of obvious clarification we often have in articles, and whose actual validity nobody disputes. There's nothing for an admin to do here. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, what exactly was the source information