Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive590

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Are the images at the bottom of User talk:MisterWiki appropriate?

Resolved: Licensing issue has been taken care of. The rickrolling joke is way past its prime anyway.

Durova394 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to User talk:MisterWiki, you see two images at the bottom of the page, whether you scroll or not. I have no idea who the one on the right is, but the one on the left is Rick Astley. If you point to the images, they go to other pages, not to the File pages associated with the images. I have no idea what File pages these images are associated with, but I really don't think the Rick Astley image is appropriate on a user's Talk page, it's probably almost assuredly fair use. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as I know, this user is blocked. The Rick Ashely picture is probably not acceptable. But the old man pic is (given that it really IS his granddad. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked yesterday. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Astley picture is derived from File:Rick Astley-cropped.jpg, which is CC 2.0. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the other image is of the user's grandfather. You could also try asking MisterWiki on his talk page about them. --OnoremDil 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
slightly embarrassing to have a three way edit conflict on something this silly The file is File:MisterWiki_1.png, on Commons, and is CC-licensed, not fair use. It's in the transcluded User:MisterWiki/Chile. I find this significantly less annoying than the fake "You have new messages" bar that we evidently tolerate, so I see no reason to make an issue of this. If you click on an image of Rick Astley anywhere on the internet, you pretty much know what's going to happen... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that since the image is not public-domain - it requires attribution - the link must go to the image page and not (presumably) a Youtube clip of Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up. –xenotalk 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, that's probably true... ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You have been rickrolled :D. Although I did expect it to go to the image page... --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we seriously have nothing better to do than argue over rickrolling? At any rate, the image is gone. I, for one, am slightly disappointed. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No-one's arguing; Xeno just pointed out a serious copyright/legal issue. ╟─TreasuryTagCANUKUS─╢ 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I restored the image, but deleted the link to the rickroll. Now it links to the image page. --MW talk contribs 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? Nothing wrong with the rickroll, I think it's the image copyright that people had trouble with. If you can find a public license version, I see no problem with your userpage remaining as it was. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I will never give you up, or let you down. Tan | 39 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you ever tell a lie, to hurt me? [1]xenotalk 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, that's so funny, 'cos inside we both know what's been going on. --MW talk contribs 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the rest of us a starting to get an idea of what's been going inside you... Throwaway85 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Theplanetsaturn and ownership issues

I've noticed Theplanetsaturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) trying to assume ownership on several articles - recently El Sobrante, California and Landry Walker - this user constantly reverts to his preferred version, undoing any changes, even when his reversions break links. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User warned (3RR). His/Her response. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, you need to notify all parties of this thread. Done that for you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted contentious information twice on the article, thereby keeping it in line with previous consensus. Both reverts have included a call for civil discussion on the talk page, and on teh talk page I plainly state that I will abide by a new consensus. That does not warrant a 3RR warning. Furthermore MikeWazowski has been following me from article to article, reverting whatever I add. His wiki-stalking is the issue here. Not my supposed "ownership" issues.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice attempt to deflect attention - too bad it's not true, as my record of contributions and edits to the Landry Walker article will show. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's absolutely true. You and I had a difficult exchange at the Tron page, and suddenly you are reverting the majority of my edits. Our exchange of edits shows one thing quite clear. Me telling you that I will not continue to revert your edits if you please cease reverting the aspects that are not a part of what you describe as a "minor incident". You are ignoring my polite requests to work together. requests that include a concession, and you're following me around on multiple Wikipedia pages. That's not deflection. that's fact.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

oh-oh. both of you are talking yourselves into the same hole right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my problem. Look at this compared to this. There's a conversation occurring in edit summaries during an edit war, and absolutely nothing on the talk page. That's backwards. If you are going to argue about the content of the article, that's fine (that's how things are done) but do so in the appropriate location. I don't even see a request from either of you to take the matter to the talk page. It looks like you two finally talked it out but just remember next time that the talk page is an important tool, in this case failing to use it brought both of you close to a 24 hour block. -- Atama 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Users Collectonian, and SchmuckyTheCat...

I'm here to report these two users for uncivility, violating Wikipedia guidelines, and personal attacks. BTW, I'm User:OBrasilo, I just forgot to log in.

1. User SchmuckyTheCat keeps redirecting the Windows Neptune and Windows Odyssey articles against consensus. We have tried providing him reliable sources, but he rejects all of them, for no reason. Another member, and I, have tried talking to him already, but he refuses to listen.

2. User AnmaFinotera is being utterly un-civil here: Talk:Tokyo_Mew_Mew . I tried to re-start the discussion on the non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew there, and she first deleted the section, even though that's against Wikipedia guidelines, and when I reverted her edit, she resorted to blatant personal attacks.

The personal attacks consisted in:

1. Accusation of letter fakery. I posted a letter from one of the authors of Tokyo Mew Mew, on her talk page a while ago. She claims the letter is fake, based on no evidence, whatsoever. This is therefore a blatant personal attack.

2. Accusation of harassment. I did not harass her. I did not post on her talk page ever after she told me I shouldn't. And the only reason why I mentioned her in the talk page post, was to warn her (but others as well, really) not to delete messages, because it would be against Wikipedia guidelines, since I knew she would delete the section. This is not harassment, this is an attempt to demand respect for the Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, I was being completely civil in my discussion this time, so her actions are NOT in the least understandable.

3. Accusation of sock-puppetry. This accusation is completely fault, as I made it clear, who I were (I mean, I even clearly wrote, that *I* posted the letter from one of the Tokyo Mew Mew authors, LOL), so how is this sock-puppetry, I do not know.

I'd like action to be taken against her, and possibly, against SchmuckyTheCat as well. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They both need warnings. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually look at the situation before responding? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
First, this IP is User:OBrasilo, who also filed another ANI against anyone and everyone he had a complaint with, archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Eik Corell, Rehevkor, Collectonian, and judgement based on no knowledge on the subject..., and threw in some more complaints in defense of his friend OutofTimer during the same time period. During those discussions, it was shown he was engaging in off-site canvassing[2] Eventually he "apologized" for his behavior ], even promising "I also formally apologize to user Collectonian for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap, and to stay back from the Tokyo Mew Mew articles. Rather, I'll create my personal website about Tokyo Mew Mew, and copy onto it the now-deleted informations from those articles about the various non-English adaptations." but he has now gone back on that and is one again trying to push in appropriate content into articles, and edit warring with people he disagrees with. Further, it is not uncivil to point out that his claimed letter from a famous manga-ka was never shown to be valid. Anyone can write anything and claim it was from someone famous. No proof - its not real. Also, note he didn't bother giving me notice of this ANI, and repeatedly made threats against both myself and SchmuckyTheCat. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
An additional note, per his last message on Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew[3] , his defense fo the claimed letter is "Also, I can easily prove that it's real. It was sent to my close friend, Nakamura Hiroshi, from Tokyo (but used to live in Kyoto before), Japan (who has been proven to exist by a mention on a reputable Kyoto academic site), who then kindly forwarded it to me. As for the other half of the proof (proof that it really came from who he claims it came from), ask him. His e-mail address is email redacted The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) , feel free to e-mail him about it." The rest of the seems to speak the complete lack of sincerity is in early apology and seem to indicate it was made only to deflect admin attention from his actions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a sec ... this "letter" from an author, that sounds awfully fishy, and is obviously not verifable as a reliable source. Also, if it's direct to you, does that not make it original research? Being accused of faking a letter is not necessarily a personal attack. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly Mr Rutherford didn't bother looking carefully. In the first case, OBrasilo's claim that the articles are being redirected against consensus is untrue; the only one objecting to it is him (see here) along with a few IPs on the other talkpage which are geographically similar. I haven't followed the second case but it appears to be that Collectonian is reverting persistent attempts to add large amounts of trivia into a featured article. Probably not the best idea to remove the talkpage section but frankly the IP which is OBrasilio (who strangely appears to forget to log in a lot - how difficult can it be?) is just reposting arguments which have been discussed and rejected. 86.148.109.82 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
the articles ARE being redirected against consensus, obrasilo posted the consensus on the talk page of windows odysses article, please read it.
And I myself was now warned by Collectonian about disruption of these two articles even though i was just keeping consensus (which was clearly posted on the windows odyssey talk page).
As for what happened in the other article mentioned here, i read that too and i dont think obrasilo is bullshitting about the letter, i dont knwo why but he sounds convincing to me.
and no im not a sock puppet of obrasilo, i dont even know who that guy is and i welcome any admin of this site to IP check me to prove that.
Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
And yet...you, a "new" editor pop in to defend him despite your having no knowledge of this discussion through visible Wikipedia communnications, and somehow he came to your defense on articles in which you have a clear COI with as an employee of MS (or former employee, depending on the day it seems).[4]. Both you, Obraislo, and his IPs have all been the only reverters of those articles as well. He also stated that "we" have provided sources - which would seem to indicate some possible meatpuppetry or socking. I think an SPI wouldn't be unwarranted in this issue. As for the issues with the Windows articles between OBrasilo, Lin, and Schmucky, it should be noted that most of this occurred in November and December. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Collectonian, I didn't notice you, because you explicitly told me not to post on your talk page, which I respect, so that's why I didn't notify you there. And I did notify you on the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, though, so please.
And you warned Lin Godzilla for disruption? Read the consensus of those articles he edited, LOL. He was the one keeping the consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat went against consensus. Six out of eight people are for keeping those two articles as is, this means 75% consensus. This is a huge consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat keeps going against it, rejecting the articles as "speculation", just because he refuses to acknowledge that information.
Also, please notice, that the guy isn't un-related, he admitted to have worked on both Neptune, and Odyssey projects, which means, he COULD be trying to push a MS Marketing POV by redirecting those two articles.
As for the stuff with Collectonian, I admit my apology there. However, she should have simply reminded me of that, and ended it there, instead of throwing accusations at me, that's all I wanted to say. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT me, Collectonian, they go to Dallas, USA, whereas I'm in Slovenia, Central Europe. And they aren't proxy IP's, so you just slipped up big time here. How nice of you to accuse everyone who dares agree with me of being a sock-puppet of mine. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
those ips arent me either. my ip starts with 70, not 76, and im from florida, not dallas which is in texas.
and collectonian here seems to be bending facts to prove that obrasilo is a bad user, so i have a question for here - dear collectonian, have you maybe thought that the guy simply forgot the content of his apology and then did his action in forgetfulness? because thats the first thing someone assuming good faith would assume, but i think youre clearly assuming bad faith here.
Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The contiual concerted efforts of these two to deliberately try to escape 3RR on the Windows articles in question seems to speak for itself, as does Lin's assertion that he is "from Florida" while also claiming he is from Seattle Washington[5] Will wait for admin responses. IPs are not the only info used to determine socks, nor as their being in different ranges really relevant. They can be spoofed or proxied. Behavioral evidence can also indicate either sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and as OBrasilo has already shown he will engage in off-site meatpuppet recruiting, assuming that much good faith would be beyond naive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
So because they agree with Lin, and me, they must be sock-puppets? Come on, get real. And you just violated 3RR yourself in the Windows Odyssey article.
Please, do some research. I'm the founder of three Beta forums, and sorry, but a lot of members there agree with me about those articles, and yes, I can give you access there, so you can see for yourself, that I haven't been involved in any meat-puppet recruiting there.
Yes, I tried to recruit meat-puppets on the Magic-ball forum for the LBA versions stuff, but only there, and I also acknowledged it's wrong, and stopped with it. Now you're trying to use what I did just one time in all my period of Wikipedia membership, to prove that that's how I am.
You're just trying to bend the facts to support your view, that is, that anyone agreeing with me, is a sock-puppet, or meat-puppet. This is lame, at the least. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
collectonian, i was born in seattle, WA and now live in tampa bay, FL
also you violated 3RR in the odyssey article, why are you even editing it? you dont WP:OWN it. and the consensus youre defending is non existant - the only three people agree with with the redirect are schmuckythecat and two others, but the only one actively pushing the redirects is schmucky. had he never started his redirect war in the first place, we wouldnt be here right now.
Lin Godzilla (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The December AfD clearly shows that consensus was to merge or delete. You "two" are the only ones who feel otherwise and are the ones acting against consensus. You don't WP:OWN it either, though through the obvious back and forth, the "pair" of you continue to try to act as if you do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Collectonian, about the message you left me in the talk page - I have provided reliable sources, namely, the site by Paul Thurrott, and the Microsoft Anti-Trust law-suit. It's just, that SchmuckyTheCat keeps rejecting these two sources as un-reliable, based on personal dislike about Paul Thurrott, and on no reason as for the law-suit.
Also, again, I'm a founder of three Beta forums, it's obvious that people recognize me, and that my friends, and other members of my forums, will support my views. No meat-puppetry involved here, since my friends supprot my views without me having to tel them anything. It's their decision. It's obvious they're going to be against redirecting those articles, I don't need to resort to sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, sorry.
So, please, you're rejecting our consensus based on no reason here. As Lin Godzilla said above, were it not for SchmuckyTheCat, no-one would be redirecting those articles, as of now. He started it, and refused to discuss it, even resorting to snippy comments. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Collectonian, what? The AfD ended in no consensus, as for deletion. And the merge vs. stay as is dispute, was to be resolved on the article's talk page, which I attempted to do, by starting a new section there, and the only person to express the support for the merge was SchmuckyTheCat.
There are four people against the merge. One is me. The second is Lin Godzilla. The third is 142.47.132.6, which is user Marcello from my OSBetaGroup forum. And another is 76.x.x.x which is another member of my OSBetaGroup forum. And I can easily give you access there, to prove, that no meat-puppetry is involved there.
So, if anything, it's 4 out of 7 people against the merge. And this is majority. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting the Meatpuppetry.[6] You recruited friends from your forum, again, to try to help you in an edit dispute. I politely request that an administrator take over at this point. This is not the first time this has occurred, and per WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK, blocking would seem to be appropriate. Please advise if a formal SPI is needed since he has now admitted it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not admit any meat-puppetry about the Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey articles, so please stop bending my words to fit your own POV. I simply stated most of the editors come from my forum, but I also stated I did NOT ask them to come here, and edit the articles. They did so of their own accord, which means there's no meat-puppetry involved, whatsoever. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (
So, several editors from your forum just "happened" to all decide to come those articles that you were involved in an edit dispute on, despite having not edited here before or since? Hmmm....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Several? Only one, 142.47.132.6, which is Marcello. Only him, and I, among the editors, are from my own forum, and I didn't even know he was editing these articles, until he stated so himself in my forum's chat box. Lin Godzilla I met for the first time here in Wikipedia, and I don't have direct contact with him even here on Wikipedia, let alone off-site contact, which I don't have with him at all.
And the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, whom I only met on IRC, once, and he even insulted me then. So he even hates me, and he's not a member of any forum. Hardly someone I could ask to help me. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Collectonian removing someone's post on the talk page[7] is totally inappropriate. She states in the edit summary "nothing more to discuss - its been discussed and its not going to chan)". She decides something shouldn't be done, and then dismisses the opinions of others, trying to shut out any discussion about it. So the complaint about her being uncivil, I believe is quite valid. Recently, in the article for Characters and wildlife in Avatar she insisted the article had no reason to exist, kept trying to replace it with a redirect despite protest, even during active conversation on the talk page about this(please read the responses of others to her actions [8]), others agreeing with those complaining here.) And yet, during the AFD that followed, the overwhelming majority of people said Keep, and the AFD was closed as Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_and_wildlife_in_Avatar Just mentioning that as another example of her mentality. Wikipedia is decided on consensus, not the opinions of someone who decides something shouldn't be there, and tries to eliminate it. Dream Focus 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As you are about as far from neutral as possible in anything related to me - I'd request you stay out of it. You are not an admin and randomly throwing out AfDs that have nothing to do with this topic is irrelevant. The complain about any incivility with be dealt with people who do not have an ax to grind with me and love to accuse me of stalking while doing s0 himself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with me commenting on your removal of someone's talk page message, nor me mentioning a previous case where I find similar, to demonstrate your are, as the accusser claims, uncivil towards other editors. In both cases you reinsert a contested redirect into an article, and argue on the talk page in what I would say is clearly an uncivil manner. Dream Focus 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
A redirect contested by a single person (which meatpuppets are considered) against the AfD consensus is neither uncivil nor inapproriate. And as long as your maintain your lengthy attack piece, I'd suggest you not attempt to lecture anyone on incivility. It only makes you look hypocritical. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you may not remove or re-factor another users talk page comment without good reason. It is against policy and it is disruptive. It sounds to me like you are trying to silence those who disagree with you. Jeni (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see the entire history before making such a claim. It is not against "policy" nor is it disruptive to respond to a disruptive editor. Whether it was an appropriate response does not make it an incivility issue nor an administrative issue. The sock/meat puppetry, claims to be speaking for a famous, living person (WP:BLP), and OBrasilo's continued ANI filings against anyone who disagrees with him are far bigger issues. He has now basically asked for action to be taken against, what, five/six other editors? Who is the one being disruptive and acting against policy here? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The key words being "without good reason". WP:TALK and WP:UP entirely allow refactoring of disruption. Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no good reason, just disruption by the person doing the removal. Jeni (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, I felt there was. When he restored it, I then left it there to allow someone else to review it instead. What is disruptive about it? Editors are not perfect, and I presume you have never had any minor misjudgement (which is all the removal was). It would be useful if the real disruption issues could be focused on instead of a single thing, which had already been addressed between us and was obviously not an admin nor disruption issue. Disruption would have been to continue to remove it rather than attempting to address the issue despite the past history. Further, the other claims made are false. No personal attacks were made, they were a summary of the previous ANI filed by the same user that resulted in no one believing his "letter", his never doing anything to actually validate said letter, his "forgetting" his apology where he himself stated "I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap", and the obvious shadiness of the coordination of edits by himself and others, which he has already admitted were done by "friends" from his message board. Stating facts is not incivil. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Collectonian, I don't claim to speak for the author of Tokyo Mew Mew, I copy+pasted her own words here. Accusing me of fakery is a deliberate personal attack, targetd at circumventing and nulling any, and all, opinions, that disagree with you.
And stop with you meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry accusations, un-less you can provide hard evidence for it. Because subjective obviousness is NOT evidence for anything, which you do not understand. So please, cut it off with you accusations.
Me never doing something to validate said letter? Of course, maybe because the letter wasn't sent to me directly? I don't even know, what e-mail address my friend (mr. Nakamura Hiroshi) received it from, I told you to ask him, and even gave you his e-mail address, he'd be glad to help you validate the e-mail address. But of course, you never did that. You keep asking me for validation, whereas rejecting the one means to validate it, which I provided you.
And yes, I admitted were done by members of my own OSBetaGroup forum, but not because I recruited them to do so. And first of all, only two of us who edit the article are from my forum - mr. 142.x.x.x who is user Marcello, and me obviously. Andrew Lin is NOT from any forum of mine, I have no off-site contact with him, and the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, who even hates me (but just so happens to agree with me on Neptune, and Odyssey), so hardly a viable meat-puppet. Mr. Marcello edited just a single talk page of Windows Neptune, to add an innocent comment, and didn't even tell me about that. I didn't even know the IP was him, until I asked him on IRC, and he told me it was him.
After Lin Godzilla, and Lad Hattiur (76.x.x.x), I don't have any contacts with them out-side of Wikipedia, with the exception of Lad Hattiur, whom I met on IRC, once, and only once, and got even insulted by him then.
So, apart from me, the only one from my forum editing those two articles, was mr. Marcello (142.x.x.x), who did it of his own accord, so where do you see meat-puppetry here?
And Collectonian, the stuff you attempted to remove from the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, and the last thing you removed from your own talk page, was not disruptive stuff. It was, in the first case, me attempting a civil discussion, and in the second case, my apology, complete with the author's letter. Nothing disrupting in either case. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you did claim to be posting a letter for the author, which is claiming to speak for them. You have never proven that the email was from them (obviously because you can't). It isn't my job to validate your claim, it must actually be validated BY the author. Claiming it came from this person who got it from this person isn't proof at all. Further, if she has something to say, I'm sure she is more than capable of actually doing it herself without having to daisy chain some email between multiple people (and funny how you originally claimed she sent it directly to you, and now it supposedly came from other folks). You continue to admit the people reverting for you were from YOUR forums and NONE have edited at Wikipedia before or since except to revert for you. That is meat puppetry. And, FYI, I can remove anything I want from my talk page and yes it was disruptive. You agreed to stop harrassing (your own words) over the issue and that you were wrong, yet you started right back at it again. That is disruptive and just provides further proof that you seem to be less than honest and straight foward in your dealings here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Just what the heck are you on about? Obviously I never claimed the letter was sent to me directly. I always clearly stated it was sent to me through my contact, also because the author of Tokyo Mew Mew doesn't speak English well, so it would be use-less for her to send me the letter directly. She sent it to my contact, who is the one who knows her, and who translated the letter to English before sending it to me.
As for validating BY the author - again, she does NOT speak English well, or she would have registered here herself. Use some damn logic. Also, I told you to e-mail my contact, so he can validate the letter, but you refused that. I can't prove squat myself, I'm not the one who got the letter from her directly, I don't know from what e-mail address it came, nor anything else. My contact knows, and he's not a member of the Wikipedia. Sorry, but if you want to validate it, you MUST contact him, since he's the only one who can help you here. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the letter is WP:OR, and is not likely usable as a reference. Do not try to use it until it's been approved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla

There is something shady going on here. I suspect that the WP:SPA User:Lin Godzilla probably isn't who he claims he is on his user page because of this edit. More likely he is related to the Slovenia IPs mentioned above than a real former MS employee by the name Andrew Lin as his user page claims. The concerted use of multiple accounts, be they sock- or meat-puppets, used to circumvent WP:V at the two AfD'd articles by edit warring in a team to evade 3RR is very troubling. Pcap ping 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The question is what to do about it? Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've trimmed the Windows Odyssey article down to the verifiable part. I hope some admin has the gall to block the POV pushers that insert unverified info in that article. These are far more detrimental to Wikipedia than the silly drama in Cremepuff thread above, but somehow almost nobody pays attention to stuff like this. Pcap ping 12:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also wondering what, if anything is going to be done about the pretty obvious meat puppetry, at best, going on here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Lin Godzilla also relies on the (dubious) assertion of his employment to push his POV: where do you see speculation? im a ms employee and agree, enough?, Do we need another Essjay-level drama here before some admin intervenes? Pcap ping 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Lin Godzilla is not my sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Please stop with your base-less accusations. Prove I have off-site contact with Lin Godzilla, and/or that my IP's match his, or stop. I'm tired of your continuous denigration of me, and anyone who dares agree with me. See, this is exactly the problem of Wikipedia. A few select editors decide to keep some articles one way, and whoever doesn't agree, is automatically grouped together under the meat-puppet pretense. Please provide hard evidence for your claims, before pushing them further. Subjective obviousness is not hard evidence.
As for the user editing the CHWDP article - maybe he has Polish relatives, or maybe he travels to Eastern Europe often, and so knows about the subject? Again, you're trying to judge based on circumstantial evidence. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me guess: a Chinese American (by name) working at Microsoft cares enough about an utterly obscure Eastern European topic that's not even remotely IT related to tag spam the article in his first few edits on Wikipedia? An knows how to link to some Polish organization in it? An that's his only edit beyond revert warring on the Odyssey/Neptune articles? WP:DUCK. Pcap ping 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of evidence has already been given and I am not the only one who strongly suspects your going on. A few "select" editors who do no edits except to support the two of you, and which you have admitted multiple times are people you know and magically just happened to only have an interest in supporting your view of those articles? That is meat puppetry whether you want to admit to it or not. Nor are the accusations "base-less", as noted by others above, and by your own past history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For any admin reading all this, another 76.x IP has popped up and is reverting those who are actually attempting to salvage Windows Odyssey to see if should be merged for deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption from IP socks has begun again: [9] [10]. They restore an unsourced version of the article full of speculation, and mark their reverts as "reverting vandalism". Pcap ping 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What evidence has been given? You're only given subjective interpretation. There is NO meat-puppetry involved, and you do NOT have hard proof for it. You only have subjective interpretation of events, and facts, which is NOT hard proof in the least. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
And again, the 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT MINE, so stop saying they're my sock-puppets. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said the latest edit warring IP was your sock. Why are you so defensive? It is obviously a reincarnation of someone previously involved in that article though. I don't expect some random IP to begin editing Wikipedia by reverting some article to many versions ago. The IP hopping guy is obviously disruptive and may need admin intervention if he doesn't stop of its own accord. Not every ANI post is directed at you. In fact, I haven't directed any insofar, but I find it strange that you jumped to the defese of Lin Godzilla inventing various excuses for him, even though you claim you've got nothing to do with him. Pcap ping 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's end it here

OK, I'm going to stop here, since it's obviously use-less to argue. Feel free to believe, whatever you want, you won't see a single contribution from me on Wikipedia, except on the CHWDP article. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know you edited that article too. Pcap ping 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


comment
SchmuckyTheCat has copied the new message bar, which according to the policy, is NOT allowed... Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a variation of it on my talkpage too, but for a very different purpose than as what was once a common joke - do you have a concern about that? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is generally advised to avoid doing this. See Wikipedia:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"generally advised" != "forbidden". Looking for additional reasons to give an editor "shit" is nto a good plan. In other words "so what?" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Obrasilo

As seen on multiple articles now, and repeated other occurrences on ANI (where I am not involved), O-brillo is a disruptive advocate of using original research to write articles. He is argumentative, disruptive and has shown repeatedly that he will bring in people (meatpuppets) from his forums and fansites to argue here. As an advocate for including original research in articles, his contributions to the project are unhelpful. Over the last year he has repeatedly failed to "get it". Combine a lack of clue, a lack of compromise, a lack of attempting to conform to our requirements, with the disruption and puppetteering that follows everywhere he goes, it would be better for this project if he were banned. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another IP sock of the 76 range has popped in at Windows Odyssey to revert the cleaned up version to the OR ridden one from Obrasilo.[11]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
SPA has officially been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OBrasilo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Merfishpreservationsociety

Resolved: Blizocked by User:PMDrive1061. Problem solved. Carry on. --Jayron32 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Merfishpreservationsociety (talk · contribs) breakes many Wikipedia rules and policy. This includes but not limited to:

  1. . Group user names
  2. . Improper username
  3. . Username used for creating Hoax articles
  4. . Username is used for uploading Hoax images.

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA is thataway --> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
And we've sent it elsewhere... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism denied because no recent activity. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
UAA suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted there as well. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No recent activity unless he has a sockpuppet voting on the AfD. There's a recent SPA there who has only edited the article and the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whew ... all that work for an account that made 20 edits over a period of a week? (As far as content, the merfish (effectively the reverse of a mermaid - a fish with human legs) is a well-known myth, and clearly not a hoax) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy WP:FORUMSHOP Batman. My goodness, someone is taking this Merfishpreservationsociety thing rather personally. As noted, its a relatively inactive account, isn't likely a real-life organization, and isn't promotional. Blocking is a relatively severe thing, and is only done when absolutely necessary. UAA and AIV have already determined that it doesn't meet that criteria. How far are we going to take this? --Jayron32 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No further I hope since the RfC is concluding that it's not worth their time either. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of this site's premier "rouge administrators," I've deleted the article and blocked both accounts. Seriously, that nonsense took up way too much volunteer time on the debate of its "merits." And yes, he did create an AfD sockpuppet. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hezbollatte

User:Hezbollatte is a single purpose account who keeps removing factual information from the entry on one fringe candidate at Toronto municipal election, 2010 without providing justification. Getting annoying. Fred the happy man (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. Please report the user at WP:AIV if the disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Smuconlaw

This user was reported at WP:UAA, and while the name may technically violate policy as it represents a group, it looks to me like a well-meaning project that will improve Wikipedia and I don't see any harm in letting it go, but I thought I'd just ask here in case I'm in the minority in seeing it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they're not going to cause a problem, I see no harm in letting them be--Jac16888Talk 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess WP:IAR applies. I notice on that user page that participants are told to create new accounts, and if that's the case then there shouldn't be any harm. If we had a bunch of people sharing the Smuconlaw account I'd be more concerned. -- Atama 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the others who've commented: this appears to be a perfect example of how universities should be using WIkipedia to teach. I see absolutely no problem at all with this one. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I assure you that there is no intention to do anything wrong. The username doesn't represent the institution I work for. It will only be used by me for the purpose of the project. Smuconlaw (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of William M. Connolley

Resolved

Block, block, semi-protect. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At least two anon IP's are currently harassing User:William M. Connolley on File talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png. Could an administrator take a look at this and put a stop to it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  • 2over0 has done this. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to user contributions format?

Resolved: Revisions were deleted, but the user asking the question wasn't at fault. ~ mazca talk 08:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed two entries in my contributions that looked something like this:

Was there a change to the MediaWiki interface today to do that? If so, what does it mean, and where would I find it announced/documented? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RVDL. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand now. I made a comment in a section where the section title contained a person's name. When it was deemed necessary to suppress the person's name, the name had to get suppressed from the automatic edit summary in my edit history as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. So is there any other issue, or can we close this? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:64.184.121.97

Resolved: blocked ~ mazca talk 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the past seven weeks, User:64.184.121.97, who has been blocked three times for disruptive editing and vandalism, has been adding uncited, speculative content to List of characters in Madagascar. On no less than nine occasions he/she has added "It's possible that she and Skipper like each other, and that an episode will appear on Valentine's Day".[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] This edit is usually in concert with other, similar and related speculation such as this.[21] Each addition has been reverted with an appropriate edit summary indicating that it was original research, with a link to WP:OR. After the ninth occasion I left a more detailed warning on the user's talk page.[22] The editor now appears to have received the message that the specific claim I listed can not be added, but continues to add other uncited speculation. Since the final warning that I left, he/she has continued to add the other speculation to List of characters in Madagascar,[23][24] and has moved on to add the speculation to The Penguins of Madagascar.[25] This editor clearly isn't getting the message and, after three blocks already, more punitive action seems necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for another month - this seems to be a very persistent bumhat on a static IP. Re-report for another speedy block if he comes back again once this one expires. ~ mazca talk 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX

Resolved: Blocked indef.  Sandstein  10:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think both of you need to spend another year or so studying English before editing en.wiki anymore. Tan | 39 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hardly a helpful comment Tan, and WP:CIVIL states not to belittle other users. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Spitfire, it doesn't matter. PS (Tan): I edit here rarely. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a very helpful comment from Tan. The user above does not have sufficient grasp of English to contribute to an English-language encyclopedia. That's a fact. Civility does not call for ignoring the blindingly obvious truth, or for setting aside the need for basic competence. To the IP -- try to edit here less often until your English improves dramatically.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Bali, i have not to try to improve my english for an encyclopedia because I don't edit here. My rare edits are too little to be considered as a work on en.wp. My actual knowledge of english language is not for an encyclopedia. I know it perfectly, it is not necessary to repeat it. I've asked for an incident about personal attacks. I'm not interested to do a training course for encyclopedical english. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Its not an appropriate or civil thing to say to a user who has just come to AN/I complaining of a threat from another user. Not really interested in debating the point, just to make my opinion clear. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have to disagree with Bali on two accounts. First, many non-native English speakers contribute much valuable information to the English Wikipedia. If their contributions are in less-than-perfect English, we can address that through simple copy-editing. To tell anyone that their contributions of useful information are unwelcome violates the spirit of the project. Second, the point of this board is to address problems that require administrator intervention. The IP came here because of a perceived threat made against him. Tan's response was not at all helpful toward resolving that issue, and was uncivil to boot. We users expect better of our admins. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You've drunk the koolaid to such an extent that you no longer understand what the word "civil" means.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It may not have meant to be rude, but that's the way it came across. I have personally helped copyedit articles written by one of our Polish editors whose first language was not English - that article went on to be featured. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: I wrote here only to notify a [personal attack who sounds like a threat. A threat showing my host and some of mine personal datas. It could be simple trolling but, anyway, it is againist the policies of Wikipedia. I don't thing that this i know who you are is "funny". --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not here to be offended by anybody, ok ? My English is not for academy but my politeness in what i wrote is out of disputation. I'm here only to notify personal attacks. I don't want to read some of my personal datas used as a threat by AvengerX. This is the only reason. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The folks thinking I was somehow being insulting are the same knee-jerk civility police editors that are currently plaguing this project. Would you please try to analyze the situation before you start leaving self-important, tsk-tsk messages here and on my talk page? These editors' grasp of English is very poor. This is the crux of the problem. I didn't belittle anyone, or make light of any actual problem, or even remotely insult anyone. I stated a fact that was extremely germane to the problem at hand. I notice that neither of the police here commented on the actual problem or bothered to look into this issue; that shows their priorities here. The patently obvious solution is for either or both editors to improve their English skills - that will a) improve communication and b) improve comprehension to a point where the numerous communication and comprehension errors that make up this issue will be solved. Tan | 39 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If this "jerk" is refered to me, i send to you back. What part of "i don't edit here" or "i've received threats" haven't you understood ? I think both of you (you and Bali) need to spend another year or so studying the basis of politeness and civility before talking to me anymore. Ok !? Go to joke with another jerk ! --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, a little pragmatism, such as that from Tan, would be rather useful at times. Anyways, on the original topic, it's kind of hard to tell what exactly to make of that comment, but it's obviously nothing good. Something has to be done, but this isn't my specialty here. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Tan actually means well by that statement. It's just that for non-native English speakers it can be extremely hard to give a definition for the very very specific window we call things to be versus other disruptions or incident-starting events. Actually, most native English speakers here have no idea we use it a tad differently than the norm. It can just be extremely hard to try to piece together some very specific details of these disputes as the quality of the English changes frequently. For the record, however, the jp.Wikipedia icon for a sock as being a shadowed stuffed bunny is incredibly cute. We can try to find versions from before the string of contented edits started, but without further disruptions, it would be punitive and not preventative to act at much length. Oh, and of note, it's possible for many IP users to have their general location pinpointed via the Geolocate link on the tools menu given at the bottom of contribution pages for IP users. This is not intended to be used as an invasion of privacy in any way since it's information that can be found many places online anyway, but more for basic research toward WP:SPI cases. daTheisen(talk) 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

← Yeah. You both need to back away from each other. His "threat" was in response to your "threat" about knowing who he is. You are both in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX (2)

AvengerX (talk · contribs) I've still notified this user yesterday for threats. He continues today leaving me an absurd message of threat involving my government. Tell me what have I to think about an user who send me threats reguarding "i know who are you" and "i will inform italian government about you if you don't reflect". --79.27.142.88 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope for the restriction to this IP user. (It is guessed that this IP user is Mr.Pil56). I expect wise measures of all of you. --AvengerX (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Good luck and good hope in another place mr, bye bye. No, it is guessed that i'm not Pil56 of it.wp, if it was your axis to threat me. Greetings from my national goverment --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have left a notification of this discussion on the user's talk page. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Shirik and Closedmouth. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Is him blocked or not ? The user continues vandalizing his talk page adding offences and total false accuses of racial prejudice --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally, their talkpage is NOT blocked, as they may request unblock. It's often normal to allow some degree of "venting" as long as it's not disruptive. Do not poke the bear, however (in other words, stay away from them). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
His edits are distruptive: False accuses of racism, offences to italian people (read edit summary), lots of threats and offences to Pil56 (inscribed here), and admin of it:wp who provided to block him over there. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, he has his right to defence. But he can't continues offending and threating Pil56 (believing that me and him are the same person), that's a regular en.wp user. He can't use edit summary to start offences to him and so offences to italian people. He has done to my people, i'ven't done to japanese people. I admire japaneses, but i don't like trolls, of any nation or culture. I wish you'll delete from the edit summary the offensive references to the user Pil56 --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Stay away from their talkpage - poking is disruptive. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not in and of themself disruptive. He will be suggested to file his proper SPI request once he decides calm down and get himself unblocked. You've done your part, now back away slowly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I request for a check user within myself and Pil56. I want to prove that me and Pil56 are two different people. So, i could stay away when he will stop to use the edit summary to offend him. He is only using the e.s. for this. I don't know who is Pil56, but i know that's a regular member of en.wp, out of this history. I've notified to his it.wp talk page of this usage. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You can drop by WP:SPI yourself - they are rarely allowed to be used to "prove innocence" because they never can prove innocence. Leave the current situation alone. A report was made to ANI and the things that can be handled here are being handled. Let the admins deal with AvengerX, and the further away you get, the better. WP:DRAMA is not needed as we already have enough. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Crikey Mr IP .. was this really necessary? "Mr lamer"?!? You were advised to stop poking the bear, and to let admins deal with it. You have spent much of the day escalating this situation beyond necessary, and then wonder about why he retaliates? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After being advised to stop with racist vio's of NPA, and to refrain from accusing of sockpuppetry unless they are willing to file an SPI once unblocked, the user added this to their talkpage. I have removed it, and left a message explaining why. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note The removed attacks have been re-added and he has now turned his sights to me. It's probably a good thing that I cannot see the youtube video right now. Maybe he needs to have talkpage access removed, and I'm disengaging (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well since it didn't look like it was going anywhere, I revoked his talkpage access and reverted his latest edit. Syrthiss (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
And now the user has decided to send me poorly written diatribes on my racist leanings, so they have had their email access revoked as well. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

low-grade edit warring and extensive personal attacks by Pyrrhon8

sorry to send this here, but I no longer know what to do with this person. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) has just gone off the deep end.

background: the article Dignity was at one point in time a personal essay here before I began working on it. ultimately the article went through and AfD discussion which resulted in a merge (with Human Dignity) and rewrite result. I carried that out. Pyrrhon periodically tried to revive certain portions of the old essay-like construction, which I mostly reverted as against the AfD consensus; he was combative, but not excessive about it. recently, however, I did some cleanup on one section of the article, with the following result:

In short, he's editing against consensus, engaging in extreme personal attacks, and refusing to engage in discussion about any of it. If it were up to me, I would ask for a short block and a six month article ban from editing dignity, but that might just be because he's starting to irritate me. I would appreciate any action that gets him somewhere back in the vicinity on normal, civil editing practices. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my goal to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the solar system. It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia. The conflicting goals make it difficult for constructive editors to work with Ludwigs2. I have presented a list of examples here to help anyone who wants to understand why constructive editors find Ludwigs2 disruptive. I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks. I suspect he is going for some sort of record in being blocked. (He has been blocked 5 times.) As far as I am concerned, he has exhausted all the wikilove he deserves. PYRRHON  talk   23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig isn't in the wrong. You were going against consensus. The blocks of Ludwig don't have anything to do with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig2's edits have improved the article. The original essay read like a Grade 10 school project; it's biased, poorly organized, and awkwardly worded with many weasel words ("some have noted" - who?). Pyrrhon's edits have not improved the article, and his actions give the appearance of article ownership - he's ignoring consensus to preserve a version which is both unsupported by consensus and unencyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Off the deep end indeed. There was no malicious intent in the edit, it was a simple, regular cleanup. Pyrrhon8 reverted it without any sort of explanation: when Ludwigs2 politely and respectfully asked for one, he replied, "I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia!" (emboldening mine.) Pyrrhon8's behavior strikes me as just unacceptable and to an extend ridiculous: In his response above, he says, "It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia... ...I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks."
If you want it in policy terms, Pyrrhon8 has demonstrated complete disregard for WP:AGF ([26]), WP:NPA ([27]), and honestly, an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors. The talk page discussion pretty much sums it up.
Pyrrhon, you need to be open to the idea that Ludwigs is not an evil adversary whose sole purpose is to destroy Wikipedia. Try and cooperate with them on this. You can start by talking about what content is objectionable to you, and then try and work towards a mutual solution. Does that help? ALI nom nom 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Both editors are engaged in an edit war (and should be duly warned for it, both of them). That is not constructive. Regardless of content disputes, Pyrrhon8 needs to stop the personal attacks occurring in edit summaries or will be risking a block. That's not acceptable. -- Atama 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't think I was engaged in an edit war - I made 4 reverts over a period of 3 days, and that was in an effort to retain the consensus version and get some discussion going. I may have my flaws, but this dispute isn't an example of that. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Side question: can I go ahead and revert Dignity back to the 3O version of the article? I can wait if people prefer, but any subsequent discussion about article changes ought to start from that version. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a better question asked on Talk:Dignity. We are not in a position to judge content here. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Response by Pyrrhon
About red herrings and consensus

Re Dignity, I am not editing to recreate the article that existed in November 2008. No one is editing to recreate the article that existed in November 2008. The idea is a Red herring (idiom), a rhetorical device that is very popular with disruptive editors.

On 1 March 2009, Belasted nominated Dignity for deletion. He suggested that Wikipedia make do with a deplorable article called "Human dignity." The article on Human dignity had two sections. One section was Christian dogma. The other section was about the laws of Germany.

I proposed that Human dignity's section about the laws of Germany be moved to Dignity, and that the article "Human dignity" be deleted. The issue of consensus arose. There was no consensus to delete Dignity so the nomination failed. There was general agreement that the articles should be merged. On 5 March 2009, Ludwigs2 mashed the contents of Human dignity into Dignity. He deleted Human dignity.

Ludwigs2 moved the section about the laws of Germany to the end of the article. He inserted the dogma as a sentence here, a phrase there. I had no objection to the section on Germany. I did not like the poorly-written mishmash that the remainder of the article had become. (Back in September or October 2008, I had to undo a similar mishmash when Ludwigs2 inserted a different example of dogma into the article.) Despite the disruptive efforts of Ludwigs2, I eliminated all the bad writing. In May or June, Ludwigs2 insisted on having a badly written introduction. I appealed to the Administrators to stop his disruptive editing, but no one was helpful. I gave up on the article. I had other articles that I wanted to write and to improve.

Now, Ludwigs2 says I am "editing against consensus." A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus I suppose Ludwigs2's idea of a group is himself and NativeForeigner. They have agreed, it seems, that Ludwigs2's changes to Dignity would make it better.

Let us consider just one of Ludwigs2's changes. Ludwigs2 wants this line about Mirandola in the article: This oration is commonly seen as one of the central texts of the Renaissance, intimately tied with the growth of humanist philosphies. I do not understand how this assertion is pertinent to what dignity is. I am not told what percent of the population is caught up in "commonly." I am not told who sees the oration as a "central text." I am not told what a "central text" is. I am not told what the central texts have to do with dignity. I am not told what the "humanist philosphies" are. I am not told how it is that they grow. I am not told what it means that texts are "intimately tied" with philosphies. There is no explanation for the assertion. The assertion has no references. Who said this? Is the assertion original research?

I picked this line from Ludwigs2's writing because it is typical of his style. His style is full of complicated phrases, undefined terms, and weasel-words. He has never added a reference to Dignity. I do not know if he has any use for references. Because he is not familiar with the references, he makes statements that misrepresent what an author said or what an author meant. He deletes sentences that are critical to understanding the concept being discussed.

It is a tedious and thankless job to turn Ludwigs2's writing into something meaningful and encyclopedic. As I mentioned above, I have had to sort out his messes twice. I do not want him spoiling Dignity again.

And yet NativeForeigner says that Ludwigs2's writing makes Dignity easier to understand—not impossible to understand, but easier. NellieBly says, "Ludwig2's edits have improved the article." Ali says Ludwigs2 performed a "cleanup." How is nonsense a cleanup? How do weasel-words improve an article? Ludwigs2 says he has consensus to use his style. In effect, he is saying he is improving Dignity by complicated phrases, undefined terms, weasel-words, and original and unreferenced research.

How do we reconcile the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 with articles like these: WP:WEASEL, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and on and on? If Ludwigs2, with his way of doing things, is the constructive editor, and I am the disruptive editor, then it must be that many articles about how to edit on Wikipedia are just plain wrong. Clearly, those articles have their ideas about good editing and bad editing upside down. If bad writing makes an article better-flowing and easier to understand, then we should all take it as our duty to write badly. We should believe, it seems, bad writing is really good writing. Nevertheless, until Wikipedia changes its articles, I will not take the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 seriously. I will continue to pay attention to WP:DUTY!

About personal attacks

I understand that many people interpret any statement of fact or any display of logic as an affront or as a "personal attack." I am reminded of the case of the Scottish lad, Thomas Aikenhead. He remarked one day that religion was nonsense. The priests had him killed for his "attack" upon religion.

I do not regard a statement of fact or a display of logic as an "attack." I am pleased to say I have nothing in common mentally with anyone who does. PYRRHON  talk   05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

for reference, here are the first and second deletion nomination discussions, and their results: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity_(2nd_nomination). I've gone ahead and restored the article to the most recent consensus version, since there was no commentary on my request above. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
P.s. Pyrrhon, if you're really trying to improve the article and not just reinvent the [august 2008] version, then this would go a lot more smoothly if you discussed the matter with me on the talk page. I have taken a profound dislike to you, but I will deal with it if you get over this and start behaving civilly. --Ludwigs2 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us get back to the issue here. Is it time to ban Ludwigs2? I say YES. Does anybody else say YES? It takes only two to make a consensus (so I am told). PYRRHON  talk   17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

well, he reverted the consensus version again, with another uncivil edit summary here and continues on protracted rants against me. Is someone going to deal with this inveterate troll, or are you all going to wait until it escalates into a full-scale conflict? I will eventually lose my temper. The endless reverts at dignity will not go away until (a) he settles down and talks the issue out or (b) he gets blocked, and the possibility of (a) given his current behavior is so remote that I find it inconceivable. really, I don't fucking mind if he wants to edit the article, BUT GET THIS LITLE PIECE OF @#$% OFF MY BACK! --Ludwigs2 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Pyrrhon, no, there's no reason to ban Ludwigs2 because you are in a content disagreement with him, that's uncalled for. The only person whose conduct suggests some sort of sanction, in my eyes, is yourself for refusing to participate in dispute resolution efforts at the article and for your repeated personal attacks.
Ludwigs2, while personal attacks have been made I fail to see how the edit summary in your most recent diff even comes close. I wonder if I'm missing something there. -- Atama 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I gave the wrong diff, sorry. correct one is here. very mild by comparison with his other attacks, but he was really pissing me off there for a bit and I got flustered. I'm better now. Face-smile.svg. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not a nice thing to say, and definitely editing against consensus. However, apart from posting to ANI, what dispute resolution steps have you gone through so far to try to resolve this issue? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked for clarification and discussion on that talk page a couple of times, with no positive results (Pyrrhon ignored the requests for the most part, and posted anti-me rants when he did post something). I opened a 3O on the conflict and got a response, but Pyrrhon ignored the process and the result. I opened a wikiquette - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dignity - which as you see only got a string of abuse and not much else. after that, I brought it here. I might have tried mediation if I could get him to respond to me with anything other than abuse, but his responses to me have been so over the top I doubted that would have made one whit of difference.
I really don't know why he is quite this POed at me - I've just come off a multi-month wikibreak, so I haven't interacted with him in ages. I made what I thought was an innocuous cleanup edit and he came out swinging. it's possible it wasn't innocuous (please tell me if you think I overstepped), but heavens!, he went from 0 to arrggh in 5 seconds flat.
maybe the best thing here (since he refuses to communicate with me) is for someone else to speak with him and figure out what's going on. if it's something personal I can redress I'm happy to oblige, but I'm just at a complete loss. --Ludwigs2 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, it sounds like instituting a 1RR on this editor might be a good idea. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Response2 by Pyrrhon

Ludwigs2's remarks above at 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC) constitute an example of the argumentum ad baculum. The "argument" is nothing more than a threat. Bullies, thugs, and assorted belligerents favor this "argument". It shifts a dispute away from logic into the realm of madness, where the bully, thug, or what-have-you has an advantage. No reputable philosopher has ever found the argument persuasive, but many philosophers and scientists have had to retract their theses and agree to madness because of it. Galileo is one example of a scientist who had to repudiate reason when confronted by madness. Kant is a philosopher who had to put a bridle on his atheistic tendencies when King Frederick observed that Kant would have difficulty teaching without a head. I mention Galileo and Kant because their circumstances illustrate that the "argument" usually governs the interaction between the bully, thug, or what-have-you and the intended victim. This interaction is the conventional application of the "argument".

Here, Ludwigs2 has played a variation on the conventional application of the argumentum ad baculum. He has cut the intended victim (me) out of the picture. He has issued his ultimatum not to me but to the editors of Wikipedia. He has commanded the persons around here to do something, or HE WILL LOSE HIS TEMPER. The persons around here have to consider whether it is worth the risk to Wikipedia to have Ludwigs2 lose his temper.

It might be expedient to sacrifice one constructive editor and one article for the sake of all the other editors on Wikipedia. The persons around here have to consider what Ludwigs2 might do if he is not obeyed. How will they feel if he holds his breath and his head explodes and there are no super-slo-mo cameras to catch the action?

Ludwigs2 may have stumbled upon a winning strategy to get his way. It seems that some editors cannot understand what a disruptive editor is. It seems that some editors have faith that "Ludwig isn't in the wrong." It seems that some editors devoutly believe that inserting inane gibberish into articles is what editors should do. If Ludwigs2 can gather enough birds of a feather around him, he may prevail.

Because Ludwigs2 has shrewdly played a variation of the argumentum ad baculum, some editors may contemplate the issue as a choice between compliance and mutiny. They may be asking themselves: should they obey the commands of Wikipedia's self-appointed captain, or should they make him walk the plank?

I hope the editors of Wikipedia will not frame the issue in that way. I would rather that they consider Ludwigs2 a cancer that needs to be cut out of the body if the body is to survive. There is no point in hanging on to a cancer. I say cut it out, and let us get back to work. PYRRHON  talk   17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 "threatened" to lose his temper (if you want to put it in those terms), that "threat" was ignored, he later calmed down, and no harm was done. The only person making a big deal out of this is yourself. My question to you is why you've bothered to write this diatribe. Are you trying to stir up drama? And a further question, will you commit to no longer putting ad hominem attacks in edit summaries? Will you agree to using dispute resolution to come to a peaceful and collaborative solution at dignity rather than demanding that your version be the version that is in place? Those are what I am concerned about, I really don't care of Ludwigs2 gets mad and has to go punch a pillow now and again off-wiki. -- Atama 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay this is getting out of hand, the two of you are not doing any sensible discussion with each other, just sniping back and forth. I've protected the article now for two weeks. Please discuss the article on the talk page. Do no discuss each other, do not complain about frivolous edits and no reverting of each others comments. Discuss the article and how you can improve it. If you can't get along on the article then we may need to revisit this, but I protected it before people start getting topic banned or blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC problems at Talk:List of alleged alien beings

Resolved: As I am entirely uninvolved in this article (and never likely to be involved in it!) I have closed this RFC as no consensus. Involved editors really shouldn't close contentious RFCs though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I opened an RfC about the inclusion of certain images on the List of alleged alien beings last month.[28] This received a decent amount of input, and was automatically removed from the open RfC list after a month by a bot (so far, so good).

An involved editor then closed the RfC and decided what the consensus was.[29] I (also involved, obviously) undid this change[30], but was reverted again[31]. After some discussion, he still refused to let someone else close the discussion, but changed the supposed consensus[32]. Meanwhile, the same editor acted upon the perceived consensus to edit the article immediately after his closure of the RfC[33]. My revert of this was undone by another editor (also participant in the RfC).

Questions:

  • Can someone previously uninvolved please reopen the RfC and close it with whatever conclusion they find?
  • Can someone please look at the conduct all around (especially by me and by User:Camilo Sanchez) to indicate where we went wrong?
  • Anyone who would like to join this rather WP:LAME dispute is welcome to join the discussion, as I don't believe a clear outcome has been reached yet.

Thanks, Fram (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is lame. If you think about it it really addresses a very important point on how graphic contributions should be handled under the current policies. Nothing lame about that.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have reopened the RfC. It is not appropriate for the person who created the images to close the RfC (especially, as originally, in favour of inclusion of his own images). I have also commented on the RfC. I would urge other long-standing editors to do the same as the discussion has not had a great deal of input from outside the small group of editors already involved. Fram, you can relist it on the RfC page if you like. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, totally wrong move to close a discussion that you're involved in, especially when you close it in your favor (which it clearly was not). I commented there as well. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I welcome the involvement of more editors in this discussion. Be certain that whatever decision will not be contested from me in any way so long it is reached on the sake of the improving of the article and the Wikipedia. Thanks!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The consensus was for support - as I read it. The RFC closed in the beginning of January and had started in the beginning of December, so it wasn't by any means a fast close, the only problem I saw (and I've been called on this myself) is who closed it.

I'd lean to WP:IAR on that close, since it was supported. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't, since the support did not seem to be founded on credible interpretations of policy. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we include the British royal family in this list? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are, sir, a bounder! Pistols at dawn? – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest light sabers in a crop circle by the light of Venus. seems more fitting... --Ludwigs2 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I had in mind this fellow's hypothesis. In any event I do not fear light sabres as I've been washed in the blood of a tree. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input (here, even the last few jokers, and over there). Discussion is progressing, although I am not certain in what direction yet :-) Fram (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been open for quite a while. I've closed as no consensus. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia content dispute; block evasion by IP

70.57.228.12 was blocked for 3RR against Fibromyalgia, now User:97.115.198.139 is performing identical content removal. Perhaps a one day of semi-protection on Fibromyalgia will quieten things down? Josh Parris 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And now User:174.30.135.4 is at it [34] [35] Josh Parris 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rais this at WP:RFPP. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article for 3 days. I hope this will slow down the revert battles and encourage some talk page discussion by the IPs. CactusWriter | needles 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are also threats of organized disruption involved. They are in this section:
... and this section:
People who make these types of threats can create significant disruption through sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. We'll need more eyes on the article to stop it if and when it comes. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I refactored the recent personal attack by the IP on the article talk page and gave them a warning. At the moment, there appears to be no disruption other than the single account. I'll keep the article watchlisted for a short while -- but if the disruption increases or returns after the block, you can raise the issue again at WP:RFPP to request another block.
I do note that the issue with the IP appears to be a simple content dispute focused primarily on the words "non-disease" used in the lede paragraph -- and the talk page indicates that there are other editors who questioned that wording as well. It would be best if this was resolved first through independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CactusWriter | needles 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Over 50 warnings and still no block...

193.60.133.203 is a shared IP address in use by Birmingham City University. There are well over 100 contributions, the vast majority are disruptive edits and vandalism. Because of this they have received over 50 warnings on their talk page, but haven't been blocked since 2007, the shortest block being 1 hour, the longest being 1 week. I reported the IP address on WP:AIV only to be told that they haven't been warned properly or correctly and to re-report when they inevitably do it again.
I have seen this happen before with educational institutes using a shared IP and the subsequent vandalism from numerous members of the establishment using it. In past cases, a soft block (schoolblock) has been put in place for 1-2 years to stop the constant vandalism from the school/college, and the option given for good intentioned students to be able to register as an editor so as not to exclude those who adhere to the rules (user talk:194.82.16.252). Can they be soft blocked ("schoolblock"), or at least considered for it due to the very long past of disruptive editing, and failure to adhere to the numerous warnings given to them? Thanks. Willdow (Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, extreme caution should be taken to avoid blocking other users (registered) editing from this IP. This would lead to a snowball affect. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but the schoolblock on the example I added (user talk:194.82.16.252) allows registered editors to still edit from that IP address as long as they log in; so as not to be anonymous. I think completely blocking an educational shared IP address would be wrong for the exact reason you state, but if it can be blocked like the example I linked to, registered users (generally the one's who stick to the rules!!) will still be able to edit from this University, and the anonymous users who vandalise will be stopped. Willdow (Talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If they begin vandalizing again, please report them to AIV. The contributions now are so sporadic that a block wouldn't accomplish too much. TNXMan 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Last time I checked, there was only one warning in one month. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree with the schoolblock concept, there's no immediate requirement to do so as there is not immediate negative activity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a tactic many anonymous vandals use. They vandalize, then they stop for a while. Then they vandalize again. Then they stop for a while, and so on. This is how they avoid blocks.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Or, at Univerisities, they get busy on real homework. The purpose of the many-thousands of dollars spent on education is to become edumacated, not to be a weenie. Mom and Dad don't like to hear "I spent the weekend getting drunk and vandalizing Wikipedia" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, duh. They're only vandalizing Wikipedia when they're not busy copying stuff from it.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
To 66.177.73.86: How would that look different than a public computer terminal in a high trafic area where every few weeks, a different person sits down and comitts one vandalism, then goes away? --Jayron32 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted me. I was only relating it to this.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow you actually know most vandals! Impressive. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting a little side tracked here. I still stand by my suggestion for a schoolblock. This university has 23,000 students [36]. Warnings aren't likely to be read by the actual people who are vandalising. Perhaps sporadic disruptive editing can be contributed and aligned to the university terms/semesters... I notice that there is little/no editing over Christmas, but as soon as they return to University in January it starts up again for example. I think that this will continue, with short breaks from disruptive editing during holiday times making it appear that the editing isn't all that often. If there weren't so many edits and warnings stretching so far back, I probably wouldn't push this point, but the facts are there for all to see. If people there want to make a positive contribution, they can register an account and bypass the schoolblock; that way, no innocent people with good intentions get punished. Willdow (Talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see this IP is now on a final warning. I'll check their contribs from time to time to see if they take heed of it. Willdow (Talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More anontalk spam

Resolved: quite old, but now filtered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The filters need to be adjusted to prevent this from happening. I've been told they can block edit summaries.— dαlus Contribs 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole Cyrllic o-slash thing is what helps circumvent the filter. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Man Kimmo is pathetic. May need to adjust the regex filters a bit. Maybe if we did 6 or 7 characters out of 8, in order. Anybody know where the proper forum is to bring the issue up? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've adjusted one of the filters accordingly. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean Kimmø? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
He has many names, most of which can't be repeated in polite company. Thanks for the speedy action, zzuuzz. BTW, do you have to be an admin to view private filters? I'm interested in the matter and am creating similar programs for school. Is there any way for a normal user to request access? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The ability to view private filters is generally restricted to admins - I don't think the abusefilter-view-private right is assignable, or whether anyone would assign it to someone who hasn't been around a while. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be assigned the abusefilter-modify right, which is the current alternative. You'll find more discussion of this topic at the WT:EF archives - viewing the private filters is generally not particularly enlightening for other websites. It's also worth pointing out there are at least five filters dedicated to anontalk spam, and they are generally rewritten each time he starts another campaign. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ritamaj removing speedy deletion templates

Resolved

User:Ritamaj has removed the speedy deletion template from her new article Kristian Bertel five times, despite four notifications including User:OliverTwisted's final warning here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really worth reporting. If they re-create the article and continue, then action may be taken. -Reconsider! 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Very well, it's just that when someone lays down a perfectly justified "last warning" that "you will be blocked" and the conduct continues anyway, I'd hate for him to come off looking like a faker when it turns out not to happen. (I'm not referring to myself, of course.) That's why I thought it merited notice here, but I appreciate your response--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You'll note the friendly little post I left on their talkpage - they appear new, and they may not fully grasp the "rules", and they may not have even read their talkpage. I'm WP:AGF'ing with them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog

Resolved: blocked by Redvers (talk · contribs) Nev1 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

93.142.183.46 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of the above user (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Orijentolog); they require blocking. Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic AFD spree by User:SuaveArt

Resolved: Not a problem. Thanks for the input from everyone. Carry on. --Jayron32 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt (talk · contribs) has been on a spree of AFD and PROD nominations, and appears to be working very hard at nominating articles about Christian topics. All of his nominations don't appear to actually have the problems he notes, and he does not appear to be following WP:BEFORE in any way before nominating articles for deletion, including checking sources cited in the articles themselves. Normally, there is nothing wrong with nominating lots of PRODs and AFDs, but the fact that all of these AFDs have a WP:POINTy-theme to them is problematic. --Jayron32 05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd endorse closing them all as WP:SK and warning the user. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


So if they had been about Buddhist topics, would this be an issue to you? The fact that you mentioned "Christian" topics before you did the actual alledged "problems" with my AFD's suggests that you're concern is that I'm "biased against religion" moreso than whether my noms are legitimate or not, which I believe they are.

Currently I spend time patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets. Just take a look at International House of Prayer for example. The article on Carman (singer was also just a long promo before I cleaned it up. "Christian spam" is still spam, and doesn't get an exaempt status just because it's "religious" spam instead of "secular spam". I believe so anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talkcontribs) 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of his nominations don't appear to actually have the problems he notes,
and he does not appear to be following WP:BEFORE in any way before
nominating articles for deletion, including checking sources cited in the
articles themselves.

I believe they do (and some of the articles I've nom'd have already been deleted, so apparently I'm not the only one who agrees with that). I have checked the sources (and even mentioned this in my AFD summaries and why the sources don't cut it), and I believe the articles in question do not have sufficient mainstream coverage or assertion of notability. If you disagree, then you're free to put your two-cents in at the AFDs instead of taking up admin time on ANI. That's what the AFD's are for - to determine consensus. If you know the article's meet our criteria, then obviously my AFD's will fail, so problem solved ;) I don't see why you'd be this defensive unless you aren't confident that they meet our criteria for inclusion.

Normally, there is nothing wrong with nominating lots of PRODs and AFDs, but
the fact that all of these AFDs have a WP:POINTy-theme to them is
problematic.

Well you essentially proved my 'point'. Apparently your real issue is the fact that the articles are about a religious subject, not that my AFDs are "illegitimate", and you have nothing to back that up other than unfound claims, which simply aren't true. This isn't an "incident". You said yourself that "normally", multiple AFDs is fine. If these AFDs were on football topics, would you have considered it "problematic"? Put your two cents in at the AFDs. That would be the mature way to handle this. Coming here asking admins to "help" when there is no urgent issue just because I "offend" you isn't very mature on the other hand. God bless.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're long diatribe here, which accuses me of attitudes, intents, and feelings which I have shown no evidence of says a lot more about you than it does about me. --Jayron32 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read it, because I elaborated on the claims you made about my AFD noms and why they were unfounded. But your initial complaint was that the articles were on "Christian topics" (which you reaffirmed at the end of your own diatriabe about me). If that is the case, then you don't have much of a complaint, because my AFDs were in good faith. I was not "nominating multiple articles on Christian subjects without reading the sources". Many of the articles were created by the same user(s), contained blatant spam and promotional content, and in my view, failed to assert any real mainstream notability (some of them have also been deleted). Why don't you comment on the individual AFD's instead of creating a pointless ANI?--SuaveArt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You implied that it was the Christian nature of the nominations that was why I raised an objection. Au contraire. Its merely because you seem to be picking on a single, narrowly defined topic area that seems to be a problem. Had you been mass-prodding and AFD-ing a wide range of topics from any other random area, it would have raised the same red flags. Your response has done little to alay these concerns. --Jayron32 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
While I would caution Suave to be more, well, suave, I'd also like to say that the AfDs being on one subject area is not in and of itself problematic. I'm inclined to AGF when he says he patrols Christian topics. That just leaves whether the AfDs are legitimate or not. If they are, then there's no issue. If, however, a large proportion of them aren't, then perhaps some form of intervention might be required. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, none of this are disruptive, and most of them do have the concerns raised (I could only dispute IHOP). I would still recommend SuaveArt WP:CHILL'd a little bit. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that this isn't the first time this has come up, less than a month ago there was this report. The exact same behavior, except it was with prods rather than AfDs. --