Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive591

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Spiritualism socking for blocked IP editor?[edit]

Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International got semi-protected because an IP hopper continued to make claims of terrorist activities by the person and the organization and continually slapped an NPOV tag on the article (which is still there since I, as an IP editor, can't revert). Spiritualism (talk · contribs) has repeated those edits, repeating the BLP attacks on the person and the organization and re-added the NPOV tag without explaining on the articles' Talk pages what makes the articles POV. Is Spiritualism socking for the blocked IP editor, or is he/she the IP editor who has finally created an account? In addition Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi should be protected, and Spiritualism needs to be blocked and the NPOV tags removed from the articles. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Advised Spiritualism (talk · contribs) about unexplained {{NPOV}} tags. Editor has been around for quite a while, not a new account.Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so, but Spiritualism's edit summary is worded exactly like those of the IPs. Woogee (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Have you requested a Check User investigate at WP:RFCU? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate alternate account?[edit]

Resolved: Reasonable editor was using an account for chess. No real need to do anything, though we don't allow accounts for the purposes he is using. However, no harm done and editor has said that they have stopped playing, so no admin intervention required. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MC10 Chess (talk · contribs) is an account used by MC10 (talk · contribs) for the purposes of playing online chess in userspace. This is clearly not a legitimate use of alternate accounts; should it be blocked? (I've nominated the several chess-pages themselves for deletion anyway.) ╟─TreasuryTagvoice vote─╢ 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to block, since blocking it would not prevent any damage whatsoever to the encyclopedia. I've seen a few chessboards on various userpages. I would say: if that's pretty much all they're using Wikipedia for, delete. If they're Wikipedia editors taking a short break, then leave alone. MC10 chess has 69 edits; MC10 has 9700. I'm really pretty sure there are bigger problems to solve out there somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, no harm in it, no need to stir up a hornets nest--Jac16888Talk 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Though I do have to wonder why they needed an alternate account for it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably so that playing the game doesn't clog up their contributions I would guess, misguided but far from harmful--Jac16888Talk 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MC10 has been notified of this thread... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've stopped playing the game. The account won't be of any use anymore. MC10 (TCGBL) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User won't discuss[edit]

(It was suggested at the HelpDesk that I ask here.) User:Ashrf1979 keeps making edits stating that Nebuchadnezzar II was Bahrani at Bahrani people (and previously at the Nebuchadnezzar article itself), and simply will not take part in any discussion or provide any response to requests for a source. I have requested that the user provide a source at User_talk:Ashrf1979#Nebuchadnezzar_II, Talk:Bahrani_people#Nebuchadnezzar, and in edit summaries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like both of you are in danger of violating WP:3RR, so, rather than continuing to revert, you may want to make a report at WP:AN3. Until someone violates a policy, there's not much that an admin can do. —DoRD (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Since you didn't notify the other user of this discussion (see the top of this page), I took the liberty of doing so.—DoRD (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the article again, before seeing the advice above. I'll try WP:AN3.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessarily Graphic Photo?[edit]

This has been resolved. For image related policy matters, please take to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved: per WP:CENSORED; it may be ugly, but that's life. HalfShadow 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize that an article about a massacre is going to have disturbing photos, but does anyone else find the image illustrating Nanking Massacre#Rape to be a bit over the top? Or am I just being a prude? (I considered bringing this up on the article talk page, but the article seems to be prone to POV issues, so I thought I'd get more neutral opinions here). 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 'tis a little of column A and a little from column B. It does, at first blush, appear to be rather disconcerting, and may not at first seem to aid or abet the section its in, but at the same time it actually describes the horrors inflicted better than the text can.
Then again, I get yelled at every now and again for my watching Smegma, so take that as you will. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I do say I agree. That is extreme. I'm actually kinda offended by it. If possible can we remove? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED. It may be disconcerting, but if it's an actual photo from the event, it's appropriate, disturbing or not. Like said above, in a way it describes the event in a way the text cannot. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was waiting for someone to bring up WP:NOTCENSORED. 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Its hard to tell. On one hand we have an image that on the surface is very disturbing to look at, but on the other hand, wikipedia is not censored, so we may have images like this from time to time. If it was an image of some college kid in his bathroom, I would say go ahead and remove it, but this article in itself is controversial, and any removal of this historical image, may be construed as POV. This era of Japanese history is very disturbing, but I don't think we should hide from it, we should lay it all out on the table and let the readers decide.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that the photo isn't just showing an abused corpse, the photo is depicting how they killed women after raping them (according to the article). 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you now arguing against yourself? You just gave a pretty good reason for keeping it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I found the image more offensive upon learning that it was depicting the method of woman's death (initially, I though it they had just abused her body after she had died). 67.48.115.204 (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue of historical images which are potentially "too graphic" belongs on their respective talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a harrowing image (but that's no reason to remove it) and is very relevant to the article (which is a very good reason to keep it). I think it comes down to 'if you don't like, don't look'. raseaCtalk to me 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It's one thing to talk about or even describe the horrors of an event. Words just lay there. Photos smack you in the face with the reality. Revolting as it is, it should stay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider File:TrangBang.jpg, the iconic photo of Vietnamese children fleeing a napalm attack; certainly disturbing, but also certainly encyclopedic. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't belong here, there is no admin action required here. Woogee (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So the next time someone rapes somone we should ask them to photograph it so we can list it here? Get real people, that image is a disgrace to wikipedia and invades and violates the woman pictured there again. I am truely sickened by this rationale.
Which woman would that be? The woman in that picture is completely unidentifiable. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
And because we don't know her name it makes this exposure ok? Without pointing fingers at anyone in paticular I find this to be perverse and the logic behind keeping it fundementally flawed. I don't know who is getting a perverse thrill by posting it here, but it really needs to go, this is a public forum however there are children that can see that photo. Under US law I believe that pictures of that type have to have a over 18 disclaimer with age verification, otherwise it makes pornographic material available to minors. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was merely responding to your comment that the image is a disgrace to Wikipedia and violates the woman, which was proceeded by a sarcastic comment that we should ask a rape victim to provide a photo to Wikipedia so we can "list it here". If I misunderstood the nature of your argument, I apologise. However, while the act that was perpertrated against the woman is definitely a disgrace, the fact that we have an image of the act on Wikipedia showing what was done to the victim to illustrate the historical context of what went on is not. Wikipedia does not censor images such as this one, the only requirement is that graphic and disturbing images are appropriate and relevant to the article itself. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What's your take on the Pulitzer-prize winning photo of the Vietnamese girl running from the flames? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Bugs, there is a difference in a little girl running naked from a bomb and a brutally raped and murdered woman with sticks in her genitals. One has a distinctly sexual flavor the other depicting someone running away. I have no issues with the vietnamese pictures. I have no problems with a human body, even porn (Thank you YOUPORN). I do draw the line at reproducing a rape, no matter how significant we re-victimize the poor woman. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Do minors have to submit age verification to see a statue with boobs on it? Because that is far more sexual than the picture being discussed. --Golbez (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Take your head out of the sand, what statue has sticks coming out of it's cunt? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
AS said above, if you dont like it, DONT LOOK. As for being porn, I seriously doubt kids will flock to wikipedia to look at that pic, plenty of racier things elsewhere. Pack it in, discussion over.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The horrors of war are not pornographic except to the few who fantasize about being serial killers. And this is not a new complaint. When Mathew Brady showed his photos of the dead of Antietam, there were similar complaints. But the real agenda was that it presented the war stark and unsanitized. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm absolutely fucking amazed with the callousness of the views here. What the fuck is wrong with people that images like this are ok? Seriously what fucked up shit have you seen or twisted thought processes even make this image even halfway justified? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm riled but in this picture I se my family and your family. I would hate for either to be remembered this way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for toning it down a bit. The image is meant to illustrate the brutality of the event, and it does that very well. Take a gander at Holocaust for more examples. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED--we include whatever will make for the most informative article. Our aim is not to ensure that the victims are remembered and honoured, our aim is to provide an informative article to the reader. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The picture is disturbing, true. But as we don't know who they are and there is no way of ever knowing there is no way they will be remembered in a terrible way. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sanitizing the past, or an encyclopedia entry, wont make it go away. If we don't remember the atrocities of the past, we'll be doomed to let them be repeated. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sanitizing the past? So we should take a photo of a rape to display it's ugliness? By your own reasoning this is the case...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No, what's wrong here is you're displaying a one-size-fits-all attitude. This is useless for most subjects, as many are going to be obviously less notable than others. The Rape of Nanking is far more notable than any rape taken in isolation. Likewise, Bounty Bowl is far more notable than any Philadelphia/Dallas game before or since. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No, by my reasoning, an encyclopedia entry about a war atrocity shouldn't be censored because of your delicate sensibilities..Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No you are justifying why one image is ok and not another. Answer the fucking question, how is this picture of one woman's raoe aftermath different from adding another on the article Rape? You aren't showing multiple women you are showing one. Get real. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can't calm down, maybe you should take a break from this discussion. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX somewhere else, this is an encyclopedia. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Good idea Golbez. Taking a quick breather. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It is kinda funny though that I can't get a straight answer to the flawed logic here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It tells the truth about the event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So would inserting Child pornography. Sometimes it isn't censorship to remove victimizing material, no matter if we know who it is or isn't. I am in no way a prude, I love porn, but showing a raped and murdered woman no matter how you slice it is wrong. That isn't trying to write a encyclopedia it's making it a slaughter house. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Child porn is illegal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So is posting sexually explicit material without age verification. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Online Age Verification and Child Safety Act, I believe this is the most recent. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that photo is somehow in violation of the law, I recommend that you take it to the wikipedia legal eagles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

< because bucket and I have just had a mini-chat on my talk page, I wonder if those interested in this thread might also be interested in the related, though fundamentally different concerns raised by a short video presentation I've just thrown together outlining my concerns with sexually explicit images on wmf projects - if you're over the age of majority you can view it here (explicit content - seriously - it's likely illegal to view if a minor - please don't). Privatemusings (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you two were cooking up something. Who appointed you the wikipedia nannies? If you've got legal concerns, take it to the legal department. Otherwise, drop it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I know that it is agonizing to see photos of this sort, whether in a documentary or an encyclopedia. However, as someone who lost family in the Holocaust, I never want those images of Nazi evil to ever disappear. While I do not want them to be trotted out so often that they inure viewers to the horrors wrought by man, I want the power that they have of driving home the point that is the evil of genocide.

Similarly, my Chinese spousal unit, while finding it difficult to view such pictures of the Rape of Nanjing, understands fully the weight of such photographic evidence. They may be harrowing to view, but without these photos, the narrative of the Rape of Nanjing lacks the full effective of the massacre.

My only suggestion stylistically is to show the photo at thumbnail size so that the detail is less discernible. Perhaps the alt caption could be used to provide a content warning like they do on the nightly news. — SpikeToronto 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not too interested in legal threats.....Nice bait, however I would like to point out that I put my money where my mouth is and now everyone can't find a way to dispute it. I understand not everyone feels the way I do, but do we really need children to access this? I am a big believer that those who forget history are doomed to repeat, but this is some hardcore snuff here. Can we at least make it to where we have to have someone click a link? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You've already made a legal threat of sorts, stating that it's in violation of the law. Unless you're a lawyer yourself and an expert on this particular subject, you're out of line and are merely trying to intimidate people here. If you want to talk about something that's in-line, talk about wikipedia policy matters, such as notability, added value, consensus, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like WP:NOTCENSORED, get concensus to have it changed, otherwise drop it. There were quit a few arguments above for why this image is appropriate for the article, enough WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't hear that. It's pretty obvious. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was refering you to that section. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That's why a admin rushed to block me. Spit it out, you can't argue with this, I've made good points and now all you are able to do is attempt to bait me into something stupid. Not hapopening. There is a issue and it neds resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to bait you, you've already tried to make an intimidating legal threat. If admins want to block you for it, that's their business. But there is no issue here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
please point out where I made a legal threat and to who. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You said this image is in violation of the law, and unless you're a lawyer and an expert in the field, you are in no position to make such a claim, and any attempt to do so is an attempt at intimidation. Which, by the way, ain't working. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you consider that to be trying to intimidate anyone you are sadly mistaken. Pointing out it is a possible violation of US law is the same thing as copyright. The key difference is I never threatened you or anyone else on this project. I would likewise tell you ayour attempts at intimidation haven't worked either. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
(RI) The issue being, chummer, that you want a double-standard. Ohh, so it's not okay to show an image of a victim of the Rape of Nanking, alright, then, then how about we remove all images of Xenu, all images of sexual acts, all images of football teams someone *may* dislike, and, while we're at it, sanitate the whole damn thing so that it won't offend a mother who doesn't understand the damned concept of watching her own children even if it mugged her at gunpoint?! —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An admin already marked this issue over and done with. Maybe someone could box it up for us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes run away, your threats aren't working. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, shut up. You're starting to cross into trolling now, and it's torquing me off. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of administrative action by Malik Shabazz requested[edit]

Resolved: No administrative action required. The user in question has removed the previously struck comment. Oren0 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At an AfD, a topic banned user and a friend of the article's subject both commented. I left a short comment regarding the COI, providing a link for proof, and struck out the comment of the topic banned user, leaving a short note including the link to the topic ban [1].

  • User:Malik Shabazz reverted with the edit summary "don't add comments" [2]
  • I asked MS to provide a rationale for his rv at his talk page and asked him to self-rv or take respective administrative actions under his own name [3]
  • MS answered on my talk that only the blocking admin should strike out the topic banned editor's vote, that my edit was creating a "hostile environment" and that I'd treat the AfD as a battleground [4].

I strongly disagree with Malik Shabazz' handling of this:

  • I have not in any way contributed to a hostile environment or battleground by pointing out the COI and striking out the topic banned user's vote, providing the respective links.
  • Malik Shabazz is now aware of the COI vote and the vote in violation of a topic ban, but not only refuses to take action himself, which he should do as an admin, but actively surpressed these informations.
  • Malik Shabazz may have a COI of his own at this AfD, since he had commented and voted there already.

I request that impartial admins review the situation, clear me of the battleground allegations made, restore my edit or take likewise action at the AfD, and advise Malik Shabazz to not act that way in the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At the same AfD, Shabazz also made this inapproriate comment. The only way to interpret it is that he is accusing me of lying. He is denying this, but refuses to modify his comments although I have asked him to do so.[5]. Note that other than this inapproarite comment, I don't have anything personal against Shabazz and do not wish to have a conflict with him. I just wished to provide this diff to review, as it may be relevant to what Skäpperöd is saying above. Offliner (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Offliner and Skäpperöd doth protest too much. Offliner started things on the wrong foot by announcing "there is strong suspicion" that canvassing had tainted the past AfDs for Richard Tylman, but this time would result in the much-desired Delete. Now Skäpperöd is trying to poison the atmosphere further by adding editorial comments to other editors' !votes.
If Offliner has evidence that canvassing took place, I'm sure she/he would have presented it to ArbCom at the time. Since no such evidence exists, Offliner's "strong suspicion" is a groundless accusation.
If Skäpperöd wants to offer an opinion about another editor's !votes, she/he can do so the same way everybody else at AfD does: by posting an opinion underneath. Skäpperöd is not in charge of deciding who has and who hasn't a COI in the matter. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, what is the administrative action of mine that is under discussion here? Last time I checked, any editor could revert any other editor—what makes my reversion an administrative action? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 09:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
While I don't particularly like the style and tone of Skäpperöd's note with respect to Biophys, it's formally a normal part of threaded comment, and your intervention of removing it (in your role of an editor involved in the content dispute just as much as he is) is at least as much against normal protocol as his striking out of the other user's comment. I would recommend leaving such decisions to uninvolved administrators. (Not saying that I am one here, as I voted myself). As for striking the vote by Pawel, I would recommend leaving it to the admin who imposed the topic ban to determine whether it should be stricken (Moreschi), noting that in a parallel case (Tymek/Sandstein) an admin did in fact judge such edits to be in breach of a similar ban. Note that I blocked Pawel, but not for this particular edit, so I'm not taking a stance here. Fut.Perf. 09:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I left Moreschi a note, though I still consider it to be in every users right to strike out or even remove edits violating topic bans, there is no primacy of imposing admins in this regard. Regarding the style of my comment to Biophys, I wrote
COI: Biophys is a friend of Tylman/Poeticbents, see WP:EEML for details.
I think that is as concise as can be, where do you see problems with style and tone? I pointed out the problem and provided the link in as few words as possible, and neither attacked Biophys nor Tylman/Poeticbent. Just a pointer to the connection inappropriate for mutual support in an AfD. What kind of wording would you have chosen instead? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The WP:EEML canvassed several AfDs, as was confirmed by ArbCom. Therefore there is strong suspicion that they would canvass this one too—especially as the article is about one of the EEML members. I'm not saying that canvassing took place. All I'm saying that there is suspicion; as has been presented by several editors. How is this a lie? Your comments and hostile attitude are inapproriate from an admin. Offliner (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, describing the issue of canvassing as a "strong suspicion" is certainly legitimate and by no means "groundless", given the multiple findings in the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. 10:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would hope that past agreement among certain editors is not going to become an endless litany of implications of meatpuppetry accompanied by express denials of such implication. If someone is not saying something, the implication is then also better left unsaid and the topic, whatever it is, be dealt with on the merits of editorial positions.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin? Is every user entitled to strike out comments of topic banned users in an AfD, or is this only to be done by the imposing admin? Has Malik Shabazz handled the case as expected from an admin? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Polish lobby (Skapperod, Future Perfect, Offliner etc.) at work again. The reason of this complaint is clear, to punish every admin who dares to oppose their continued attacks on Polish editors.  Dr. Loosmark  17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And right on cue, out come the usual tired complaints about racism. Varsovian (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And right on cue the usual misrepresentation of my words. For the record: I have not accused anybody of racism.  Dr. Loosmark 
If accusing editors if being "The anti-Polish lobby" and making "continued attacks on Polish editors" isn't accusing people of being racist, I have no idea what could be accusing people of being racist. What would you describe it as an accusation of being? Varsovian (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This thread neither is about Poles, nor is there an anti-Polish lobby. Your comment is inappropriate and displaced. I hope someone remove this and uninvolved admins comment on the actual issue at hand. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah right, because the article which was AfD-ed for the third time is about a person from Antarctica...  Dr. Loosmark  19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits suggests that anyone can remove comments made in an AfD, or anywhere else, if those comments are clearly in violation of a ban. Striking the comment out is showing more restraint than what our policy allows. -- Atama 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that point of the policy. I've removed the !vote. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have warned Loosmark not to continue making such comments.  Sandstein  06:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange peerage edits[edit]

125.166.172.253, 222.124.122.32, 125.163.21.201, 125.163.23.125, 110.136.151.69, 110.136.137.241 and User:Towsuw have been making very strange edits to peerage articles, linking redlinked articles and using strange html coding within the article. This is similar to the actions of now-banned User:Max Mux, as seen here and here. The behavioural links seem clear; I thought I'd bring this to the attention of AN/I and the wider community. All the IPs resolve to a set of core locations in Indonesia, so it seems to be the same chap. I did get the impression (I may be wrong) that Max Mux was German, however, but the behavioural links are odd. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is something odd about this, and the linking does seem rather indiscriminate. However all pre-1999 UK peers were entitled to sit in the House of Lords, and as members of national Parliaments they have a presumption of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. (That's not the case for baronets, the majority of whom are non-notable). So what's the problem with redlinking the peers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing, except that it's an odd way to spend your time. The problem is that the account and IPs are obviously the same (cue WP:SOCK and WP:DUCK), and they seem to be incredibly similar to Max Mux - who is currently under a community ban. The question is whether there's enough DUCKish evidence to indicate these chaps are socking (sorry for not setting it out clearly the first time around). Ironholds (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw this section-title come up on my watchlist; heart sank. Of course it's Max Mux, who has socked around using IPs before, anyway. Block 'em. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Editors are encouraged to write articles first and not create long lists with only red links. I also think think that English peers should be viewed as an exception regarding WP:Politician. Yes, they were entitled to a seat in the British legislature but many never attended the House of Lords or were involved politically in any way. If every peer was considered automatically notable we would end up with hundreds on articles with only basic biographical information, who they married and what children they had. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If a new article on a peer is created, a wikilink can then be created in the peerage article.
As for the mass edits made by the IP-adresses above. This person, who is obviously familiar with the peerage articles on Wikipedia, came here with a very special agenda. He/she made no effort to discuss this with other involved users and there was nothing constructive about the edits. There are obvious similarities between the edits made by the IP-addresses and User-Towsuw and those made by the now blocked User:Max Mux. I therefore hope Towsuw and the anonymous IP-adresses are blocked from editing Wikipedia as well. Tryde (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with userpage[edit]

Resolved: Not an administrator issue, see WP:Help desk for questions like this in future. –xenotalk 14:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good day. I've been directed to this page to set up a new use page. Can someone tell me how to do this? Leicester17 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Rather, I should say user page. Leicester17 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Leicester17 ... I see the problem — you've redirected your user page to an article (which should not be done, as you have been informed on your talk page). All you need to do is edit your user page, and replace that redirect with the text you want there. Do you need more instruction on how to do that? Proofreader77 (interact) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Tutorial. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Webley455 sockpuppetry[edit]

{{resolved|User indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving as Webley455 (talk · contribs · block log) remains unblocked. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Following this request, I performed a CheckUser on Webley455, and stumbled upon an odd case of sockpuppetry. It involves at least one ongoing AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Keller (televangelist) (second nomination)) and one of the accounts was also blocked for threatening behavior earlier today. These are the accounts that are very likely to be the same person as Webley455:

Administrator attention here would be appreciated. :-) Dominic·t 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC'd the AfD as speedy keep. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No other ongoing AfDs that I can find. Also, User talk:RucasHost#Vandalism of Live Prayer is...concerning. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Was anyone able to connect this sockpuppet to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some. The accounts have the same pattern of voting at AFDs as Torkmann. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball unblock proposal[edit]

A proposal for unblocking User:Wiki Greek Basketball is available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball, where previous discussion has taken place.  Frank  |  talk  22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please no! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Echoing Tbsdy... let him stay blocked for some 6-odd months... I've voiced my opposition on the page. The Thing Vandalize me 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nomoteticus[edit]

This appears to be a sleeper sockpuppet of a banned or topic banned Romanian user, who is inserting unreferenced BLP material, and recreating articles that fail WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Started editing in 2005, no edits for 5 years, and now returned. See Special:Contributions/Nomoteticus. Pcap ping 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that he uses a static IP address in Romania: 89.36.62.72 (ASSIGNED PA). Pcap ping 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Silverlife's userboxes[edit]

Silverlife's has userboxes that attack two groups of people. The two userboxes say "This user hates Librans so much. Because they are the worst, the most terrible, the most horrible and the most disgusting kind of people on Earth (almost, and including Zac Efron)." and "This user hates Geminians. Because they are the weirdest, the stupidest, the "suckest", the most "priceless" kind of people on Earth (almost)." Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Probably the best course of action is to CSD them. ConCompS talk review 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, very informative dialogs. And I can't believe: Who can nominate this thing? Only loser does, It can be the only one, Mr. Joey. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not attack 2 groups of people. I attacked nearly 2/12 (1/6) people living in this world. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You, ConCompS can't help anything, Just delete. It makes me sick and bored - please don't say any word else. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I only know how to get the images deleted, not the userboxes themselves. The images can't be speedy speedy deleted, so either admins will have to take care of this or there will have to be a deletion debate for the images. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • These images actually were just made for fun, I wasn't serious yet - because I didn't have time. My original idea was: Libra and Gemini signs upper the water closet. That will be really fun! and also humorous Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • A zodiac racist? Aren't we getting a little bit over the top in getting offended? Obviously, these userboxes aren't meant to be taken seriously. Come on, folks!--Ramdrake (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do. I'm "zodiac racist" like you said. It was my experiences about people born under these zodiac signs. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not taken seriously? Silverlife gave me this comment a few days ago, "What a most clueless, nut speech I've ever heard in my life. You can't find, doesn't mean It will be deleted. Sucks!". I don't assume good faith towards Silverlife. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's because you nominated the OptiPNG article for deletion very stupidly, I didn't want to repeat twice: "...I can't find significant coverage...". And then I hate, sorry! Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That Silverlife was rude to the point of personal attack is a valid point and he should be warned about it. However, I still fail to see the connection with userboxes which I take as being mostly humorous (although they could use some toning down and shouldn't name names, ever).--Ramdrake (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I used userboxes for attacking, use them as weapons. Nothing homourous here.
  • They are all personal attacks. You don't know that they are meant as humorous. If they are meant to be humorous, I guess I just don't get a joke about how calling people names are meant to be funny. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Personal attack... and then what? You can't change my mind, my thoughts about anything. And I keep writing and uploading until somebody blocks me. And the film ends. You're the person who likes to join pointless things and waste of time Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • They're attacks on zodiac signs. While the incivility should not stand, the userboxes themselves are harmless. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not an attack on Libra and Gemini, so it isn't an attack on zodiac signs hence the ns. Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, there is an attack on Zac Efron. Woogee (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The userboxes are clearly not attacking zodiac signs. They are clearly attacking people who fall under particular signs. Further, there is no way they could be taken as humorous for several reasons: 1. The user has a history of personally attacking others. What evidence can you provide they meant the userboxes to be humorous and not an attack? 2. They could possibly be taken as humorous, if the user was making fun of themselves. However, given that a person cannot be born in two separate months, I fail to see how such would be possible. Speedy delete them.— dαlus Contribs 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "...The user has a history of personally attacking others...": You don't know. Only Joe, was the first one, I ever "personalled" attack! :). Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Joe had a history of receiving personal attack. He deserved it, he gets it - until now. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Zac Efron actually added for fun. Only because he was born in Libra Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I personally find it hilarious that this editor hates people born in certain months and Zac Efron. He's clearly a discerning individual! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that cracked me up too. GJC 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • He's also moved usernames from User:RegularBreaker without WP:UNC or attribution - I haven't had the chance to check out the previous edits ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What a kind of dirty person, who spied on other people's past. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for showing us that we might need to dig a little more into your contributions, Silverlife. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
H3ere's a interesting diff....[[6]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The user replaced the userboxes; I removed them again. If they replace them again, I will issue a short block. As far as I see it, there is absolutely no reason for these boxes to be there - and they are obviously offensive, non-collaborative, and could have a chilling effect on the collegiate nature of the project. Tan | 39 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed this? Please note that both accounts are still live, though he hasn't USED User:RegularBreaker since July. Should we let that stand? # 02:09, 19 July 2009 (hist | diff) N User:Silverlife ‎ (←Created page with 'Silverlife is a new name for RegularBreaker, introduced for newer, fresher experience.') GJC 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What did I use, What will I choose ARE NOT YOUR JOB. Whatever someone notices or not. Silverlife (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken: such issues are very much my job, particularly if you have two live accounts and haven't articulated a good reason for having them. Additionally, your tone could do with a bit of moderation; it's not wise to appear combative on a noticeboard full of admins. Please consider refactoring your comment above, which skates perilously close to rudeness. GJC 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree force removing the userboxes. If he continually re-add them block him. This is a racist userbox and according to the WP:NPA personal attacks is disallowed. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Racist? What? That's a strong accusation to make against another editor. I thought we were talking about zodiac signs. And I thought they were funny (as a Gemini myself), though names should not be mentioned of course. Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Making fun of someone's zodiac sign is not racism in any way, but it can be a personal attack, which is sufficient to get some action... especially as, see below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Part Two, The disruption continues.[edit]

The user has again reinserted the userboxes.[[7]] I opened az sockpuppet case (Duck Test) And I was greeted with presumably called a ogre and "shit" [[8]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [[9]]

Silverlife has already admitted that they used to be RegularBreaker (and still implies this on their current user page). However, the previous account doesn't have any blocks associated with it, or other serious problems.
Currently, I think we're being trolled. Just look at this person's responses throughout this whole noticeboard discussion, every reply seems intended to escalate the problem, there's no defense presented at all. I say, WP:RBI and forget this whole thing. -- Atama 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping that "B" means "Block"? Because there's trolling, which usually has at least a component of being slightly entertaining (at least, to the oppositionally-inclined like myself)--and then there's just being rude, immature, dismissive, and profane, all while acting in contravention of at least two accepted Wikipedia guidelines (namely WP: UBX and WP:SOCK.) And while I'm being humorless--this article seems to need a friend. I'll stop by the Sociology Wikiproject, or some other suitable place.... GJC 10:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
B most definitely means Block, and I fully support llywrch's indef block. -- Atama 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, because of the response on HiaB's Talk page, & the general tone of his other responses, I indef'ed Silverlife -- that account alone -- but left him an opening to appeal my decision. (You guys seem to expect the cranky old Admins to do all of the blocking. No one here will ever believe I'm an easy-going softie ever again.) Since I'm intermittently on Wikipedia, I have no problem with another Admin overturning my block for good reason. Or blocking the other accounts associated with this user, if abused. -- llywrch (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP concerns at ongoing AFD[edit]

Three editors have expressed concerns about a suspicious contribution by an IP (Special:Contributions/81.156.64.209) in the first few comments of the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hari_Dhillon. Is there anything to be worried about here, and can something be done about it before the AFD closes? Holly25 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP only made a single comment a week ago. There'd be no benefit to taking action on the IP, even if it's comment had been problematic. As to within the AFD itself, any admin closing it will certainly judge the comment on it's merit. As it's thin in any policy, no doubt the admin will focus on the more substantial debate in the discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
But if the IP's connected to the first-commenting user (which seems to be the concern), wouldn't that be a problem? The IP only made one comment, but the other user has quite a few. If it's a dynamic IP there might be other problematic comments, so would it not justify checking on the IP to see if it's connected to a user account? Holly25 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually that sort of thing is moderately common for AFDs. Unfortunately for them, IP votes are generally given lesser value because of this. HalfShadow 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeblur0[edit]

Threeblur0 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sleepydre, but was unblocked in March 2009 by Versageek with a promise to not use multiple accounts and to discuss things on talk pages and work with other editors. Here is the diff of their agreement.

Threeblur0 has, as far as I know, not used multiple accounts. However, Threeblur0's behavior in editing has been fairly disruptive. S/he edits mostly the Akron, Ohio article and related articles - see here. Threeblur0 does not seem to have learned much from nearly a year of editing here. S/he keeps adding material which is trivial / crufty, keeps adding material from sources which are of doubtful reliability, and engages in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Recently Threeblur0 has made edit summaries which approach personal attacks - diff. Please see the Talk:Akron, Ohio page for more details.

Several users, including JonRidinger and Beirne have repeatedly tried to point out where Threeblur0's edits are wrong or could be improved. Threeblur0's behavior was cited by Stepshep as the reason he left Wikipedia - diff.

Threeblur0 is not a vandal, but his or her editing seems to be getting more and more disruptive. What should be done? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Threeblur0 to take a break from editing the Akron page and he's agreed to do so. --Versageek 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
But it should be noted that Threeblur agreed to only take "the rest of the week off" according to his talk page. Not much of a break for someone who's made over 800 edits (just with that specific username) in less than a year to one article nor does it indicate that there will be any difference once he returns. I'd say suggest a longer break and hold him to the original agreement. Along with that, despite numerous and lengthy explanations from myself and other editors citing Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and examples about a number of topics to help him improve the article and just be a better editor, he has continued to add or restore unsourced, poorly sourced, and/or trivial information. Being a new editor is one thing, but he isn't a new editor anymore. This is in addition to the personal nature of many of his comments and edit summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's see how they go after a week. They sound like they had resolved not to edit the page so much. The comment of a personal nature was a bit uncivil, but really not that bad I think. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have restored this discussion from the archive. Threeblur is back from his four day break and has reverted a lot of trivial and dubious content that I had deleted. In doing so, he said that he was restoring material that was deleted without discussion. As I deleted the cruft I created new sections on the discussion page explaining my deletions, so the only reason there was no discussion is because no one replied to me. This is his typical behavior, reverting and misrepresenting. And I'll add a reply to User:Tbsdy lives, "The comment" should be plural. We have been putting up with his insults and assumptions of bad faith for a long time and it really makes editing difficult. --Beirne (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Already back from a four-day break and has restored significant amounts of trivial info and poorly-worded edits. He basically demands that we have to explain every removal of info, but is unable to justify its inclusion (see WP:BOP), nor does he try beyond comments like "just like NYC's" (which most times it isn't at all like the NYC article). And no, the personal comment was one example; it was hardly simply one uncivil moment. Editors that have not had to work on articles with Threeblur for more than a few edits have no concept of how difficult he has made the process of improving the article. Not only do we have to constantly have to make revisions, but then we have to explain our every action and get in a drawn out discussion about it. This is not a case of simple disagreements here and there; this is a case of blatant disregard for policies and guidelines by one editor despite an enormous amount of help. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Might be worthwhile blocking then. Clearly is not showing consensus-based editing, Wikibreaks should be used to destress and reconsider ways of editing that don't step all over other editors. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but after being back i have put data with references and used talk pages on both articles i edited. The little amount that i restored was encyclopedic information with references that was taken out and is reformed to fit properly in the article. I havent come to a consensus on edits yet cause the only edit i made i felt needed as soons as possible cause the tag at the top of the page which is still there. Im willing to keep discussing edits in a more civilized way regaurdless of other editors actions.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll comment on the parts that I had removed that Threeblur0 reverted (See diff here: [10]). One was most of the film and section. A large portion of it was a list of characters that were born in Akron. I removed these following WP:IPC guidelines as these say nothing about Akron itself. I also removed the movies filmed in Akron that only had IMDB, a tertiary source, as a reference. Threeblur0's revert did not add any significant references, if any at all. Another effect of the reversion was to change "Simon Perkins Mansion" back to "Simon Perkin's Mansion". Perkins was the man's last name, and I had corrected the typo. The fact that the apostrophe reappeared showed the wholesale nature of the reversion. Another reversion was to bring back the claim that the Menches brothers invented the waffle cone, caramel corn, and possibly the hamburger. While popular in Akron, these are unsubstantiated claims. It's fine if they come back in as long as they are documented. No references were added in the reversion, though. Threeblur0 also restored a statement saying that northern migration has introduced Southern and African-American English to Akron, using the original source that talks about migration but not language. Threeblur0 added a reference for the obscure term Akroness, but the source is a 27-page non-searchable article, so I can't tell if the word is in there or not. Also, he did these reverts without replying to the topics I created on the Discussion page. --Beirne (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, i did put a reference for the Menches brothers claim, it's still there if you didnt remove it. The source given supports the arival of dialects. I thought it would be proof enough since from all signs the page existed at one point and contained Akroness, plus the statment is known to be true and can be typed into google and get over a thousand hits. The edits on the revision page were one right after another and edit summaries didnt include the words "see talk" or similar, plus after figurng out you did, alot of the edits you made didnt have a discussion and some discussions you didnt really give enough time for replies. Beside all that, im really tryng to focus on the rest of the vast knowledge Wikipedia has this year and not have debates leading to nowhere with you two.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see the Menches reference. Unfortunately it is to Jay Fox's No-More-Mr.-Nice-Guy Dining Guide, which appears to be an some sort of blog, not a reliable source. Making inferences about language from an article about migration is original research. The page existed for the reference to Akroness, but I wasn't going to read through 27 pages to see if the word showed up there. The reference should include a page number. Google hits don't mean much. I had discussion areas for Menches and the film & TV edits and they still don't have replies as I write this. --Beirne (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was pointed here...never understood why the sock was unblocked. §hepTalk 07:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As the comments above demonstrate, despite countless explanations of what constitutes a reliable source and countless referrals to the policy, Threeblur continues to add information with unreliable, synthesized, or just plain incorrect information. The term Akroness is a great example. The only "sources" if you Google it, come from blogs, personal websites, promotional websites, and other unreliable things like the Urban Dictionary. The source cited in the article links to a study from Ohio University on dialects in Southern Ohio. The only mentions of Akron I could find are maps in the appendix (pp. 198-200 of the study, p. 24-26 of the PDF file) that show Akron as being in the North Midland dialect or possibly Northern dialect and a brief mention where Akron is "excluded" from the southern Ohio dialect reach (p. 193 in study, p. 18 in PDF), yet somehow this source appears to support the use of the term Akroness in the article when, in fact, it doesn't. Then, as usual, it becomes our responsibility to explain why it needs to be removed in a long, drawn-out process rather than how it should be as explained in WP:BOP. And yes, Threeblur tends to do a wholescale revert first, so restores not only the info in question but also any grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors that may have been corrected. Sometimes he catches them, but usually he does not. Taking a "break" from an article, particularly one like this where the user has made an enormous amount of edits to, needs to be longer than 4 days. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

<-Shep, as I explained last year, Threeblur0 means well - Allowing him to edit and hoping with some guidance he'd learn how to edit in a collaborative environment was better than range blocking the entire public library system in his area to prevent him from editing. He has added worthwhile content to the article, and some decent photos - once we helped him understand the whole 'image copyright' issue. I suppose at this point it does come down to competence is required. Threeblur0, an encyclopedia isn't intended to be a collection of every single thing that may be related to a subject. It's suppose to be something that one can read for a quick overview of important facts about a subject, a starting point for research.. at this point the Akron article is almost TL;DR. --Versageek 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0 may mean well in terms of wanting to add content, but he does not Assume Good Faith with us other editors and makes personal attacks. I could deal with the Wikipedia process for handling incorrect information, bad sources, and trivia with a reasonable editor, but Threeblur0 often makes things personal and pretty much just wears us down with attacks and doesn't stop with the bad content in spite of our repeated advice on what is expected in Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The odd thing is that Threeblur0 has learned about photos and copyrighted images, but shows little sign of progress in article writing. His edits to the Akron article tend to be inclusion of whatever odds and ends related to or mentioning Akron that can be found on the internet, with little use of books or print resources, and almost no attempt to put things into context or see the big picture. There is also a tendency to boosterism. The mention of Menches Brothers Restaurant, which claims to have made the first hamburger and ice cream cone, has only a tentative Akron connection. The original Menches brothers were from Canton, Ohio, their first hamburger was made in New York state, their ice cream cone was made in St. Louis, then they made waffle cones in Akron. Their business died out, great-grandchildren revived the hamburger restaurant in Uniontown, Ohio in 1994 and eventually opened two more burger joints, one in Akron. The refs for this are the burger chain's own website and a news article from 1995 about the Uniontown restaurant that mentions Akron one time.[11] For another example of Threeblur0's work, try Crime history of Akron, Ohio - moved by Threeblur0 to a name which has no parallels in other articles (despite the objections of others), full of unrelated bits, some of which run afoul of WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT and lacking any sort of crime statistics. There is also a user who has edited it only 3 times with a compund name followed by a number, Vegasbaby33 (talk · contribs), who might be a sock. Almost any attempt to clean things up is reverted and editors get bogged down in lengthy talk page discussions that never seem to go anywhere. Not vandalism, buit certainly not productive. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point with the photos, though I think there it was a case of being pretty cut-and-dry (only upload pictures you took yourself) and having quite a few photos deleted here and on the Commons (and getting his Commons account blocked indefinitely...all his recent photo additions were uploaded to Wikipedia). On top of that it takes a lot more effort to "undo" a file deletion than it does a text edit. For me, working with Threeblur has been very difficult because in addition to making edits, I end up having to explain everything in great detail like I'm asking for permission, not to mention repeatedly. If we have a major disagreement, he will occasionally go over to the Kent, Ohio article (one I edit fairly regularly, have put a lot of effort in, and have a close connection to) and will make some kind of disruptive edit like: [12],[13], [14], [15] (which contains info in the edit summary that isn't true about the section being "one sentence"). None of them are vandalism by definition, but none served a direct purpose other than to divert attention from the Akron article. These are along with some interesting justifications for actions such as the move of Crime in Akron, Ohio to Crime history of Akron, Ohio without any discussion as seen at Talk:Crime history of Akron, Ohio, which came during a drawn-out debate about the former and related "Meth Capital of Ohio" section in the Akron article Crime section. In reading WP:CIR from Versageek, it sums a lot of this up really well. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What would restarting in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct do? --Beirne (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I had the same basic question. I've never done this or even an AN/I before, so what are the benefits for all involved by going this route? --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time im replyng to this only because the accusations are serious, but regardless of what is said after this - im moving on.

Administrative Wiki Probo Versageek, you are clear.

Editor Bernie, As thought by Adiminstrator Tbsdy lives, my comments of personal nature are not that bad, also i can point out some of yours but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Editor Ruhrfisch, what you're experiencing actually is, me re-forming data and being retarted from the sand boxes progress, which are indeed encyclopedic. The mention of the menches brothers came from thembeing a well known resident of Akron, the mention of the food on the page's cusine sections comes from identifying what the person/thing is most noted/notable for. The explanation for crime can be found on it's talkpage. I am not Editor Veagsbaby33 neither, and any one with the power may check.

Editor JohnRidinger, i was only blocked there because the same administrator who blocked me from here had something to do with it. I feel the same, as i repeatidly state, when im in disscussions with you. I do to Kent exactly what i do to Akron, base it upon other articles that have been corrected and also state why in the summary.(i confused and really meant to say one topic, which is Kent University. I also really dont have Akron in my mind as much you think when im editng the Kent page. I show competence, with my revision page and explained and forgiven "sockpuppets" as proof, most pictures and sections on the page came from me such as, roughly two thirds of the history, roughly half the topography, environment, almost all the cityscape, notable residents, culture, economy, part of the demographics, half the government and politics, crime, alot of education, sgnificant amount of transportation, and some of sister cities. The benifits of my route is a direction to peace and increased productivity.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0, are you moving on in the sense of not working on the Akron article anymore, or will you just be ignoring the rest of this discussion? --Beirne (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but under this account I do not have any admin rights. My old account does, and I'm currently in the process of trying to retrieve it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked on the Commons because of "abusing multiple accounts". You could've easily started over as you did here. Do not blame others for the consequences you brought on yourself by repeatedly uploading unfree images despite warnings and explanations. As far as the edits on the Kent article go, say what you want, but they only came up while you and I were having an edit dispute on the Akron article, and no you did not simply do to the Kent article what you do to Akron, especially considering most of your edits to Kent involved removing info while you rarely removed info from the Akron article. Yes, you did add a lot to the Akron article, but as this discussion has shown, a lot of what you added shouldn't be in the article at all. Despite our best efforts to work with and help you understand what should and shouldn't be in the article and why, you continued to add more and more info that had no place and hampered the efforts of other editors to improve the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In case there was any confusion, edits at the Akron article indicate Threeblur "moving on" wasn't in reference to that article as he in once again restoring questionable info and sources along with poorly-written or awkwardly-worded prose ([16] and [17]). Statements such as "major meth problem" and "mainly due to Akron" are not supported by any of the sources and many of the sources are actually referencing statistics from Summit County, Ohio. All of this has been discussed in detail on the Akron talk page beginning here and most recently here. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give him some credit; he is working somewhat with me on the section, but only if he makes the edits himself and I explain the problems with his wordings and what the sources actually say (which I have done multiple times already) in each successive edit on the talk page. If he finally learns, great, but if not it simply causes me to spend time explaining (and less editing), get in an edit war over it, or just walk away and let the article remain with improperly sourced information. I mainly see problems with WP:OWN and WP:OR. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that overnight Threeblur0 reverted back his version of the meth paragraph.[18] The problem is that when he did it he put "Copy edited" for the description, something I would use for punctuation and spelling. There has been plenty of discussion on the meth paragraph but he did not add anything to it, he just reverted. --Beirne (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, it does seem like he's trying somewhat to follow *some* the suggestions I have put on the talk page, but not completely and only one at a time. Even then he the only things he's removed have been some of the blatant POV words, but the section still has a lot of material more relevant to Summit County and makes assumptions that aren't supported by sources. Just since last night he's already made 12 edits to the same section and has not contributed to the discussion on the talk page about it. And while I give Versageek lots of credit for patience, Threeblur has been referred to the WP:SYN and WP:OR pages multiple times and had the concepts explained to him on the Akron talk page. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cartoonbook[edit]

Resolved: blocked MW talk contribs 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cartoonbook (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), has uploaded a lot of copyvio images, like:

These are just a few. --MW talk contribs 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Cartoonbook (talk · contribs) was blocked last year for repeated copyvios. Since then, he or she has done -- surprise! -- nothing but upload more copyvios, such as File:Tiny_Toons_Christmas_Kiss.jpg, which he is claiming his his own work under GFDL, but a.) it's a screenshot of a copyrighted show, and b.) he ripped it off here. Literally every one of his edits since unblock has been to upload improperly licensed material. He clearly should be indeffed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeffed, suggest no unblocking without a total ban on uploading images being imposed. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Mjroots. --MW talk contribs 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The only one I'm able to see is the Mr. Toad thing, which is a random snapshot of the exterior of a ride or something. How is that a copyright violation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Because it appears to be from here. He didn't 'create' that picture, he took it. HalfShadow 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"Took" as in "ripped off". Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the user should be unblocked, but with editing restrictions, like to do not upload images ANYMORE. --MW talk contribs 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mattmartinelli8[edit]

The above user created a promotional page about the company for which they work for on their user page. When I noticed this, I left a message at their talk page, explaining CoI etc, and asking them to remove the content.

When they continued editing it, I nominated it for Speedy Deletion.

They proceeded to remove the SD tag three times, and got warnings for that from me after I restored the tag. The user page was deleted last night. (They also created a subpage of the same kind of material, which was also deleted).

They have now started to re-create the page. Could an admin look at this, and consider blocking them? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The user has been notified of this thread on their talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The editor was given a final warning about creating inappropriate pages, and hasn't done so yet. If they were to do so after the final warning I would consider a block. -- Atama 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Diane Leek[edit]

I don't know anything about the subject of this article or the history of it, but it appears that Atama deleted an article about a politician named Diane Leek back in November (!) and someone just can't let it go. Earlier this morning I encountered 195.166.131.85 making some point-y and incorrectly formatted deletion nominations on other British politicians. At first I thought an IP was attempting to nominate the article in good faith (again, I don't know anything about the subject), but after looking at the recent history of both Jackie Drayton and Roger Davison, I figured someone was screwing around. After several warnings, I received this lovely legal threat on my talk page which has yet to be retracted. I responded (albeit in not the most civil way) that I'm not an admin, I didn't delete the damn article, and to just stop incorrectly nominating articles. I don't know if they missed my terse message or just have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I got this as a response. I went to bed shortly after leaving my last message to the IP and woke up to find this from a "new" user, User:Cornilicious, on my talk page. They've stopped for now, but Cornilicious started right back up with the point-y nominations and informed the user that created Diane Leeks that people are vandalizing "their" articles. Ordinarily I'd ignore the legal threat and disruptive behavior as a one-off kind of thing, but considering the legal threat is still out there and another (now blocked) IP started this stuff up yesterday, I'm going to guess this won't let up anytime soon. Pinkadelica 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP/Cornilicious should have just talked to me. It was deleted via PROD, which means it was an uncontested and uncontroversial deletion that can be restored by request from anyone who wants it restored, no discussion needed. So much drama over nothing. I'd have no problems restoring it if I was sure this was a good faith request. By the way, although the deletion happened a while ago, I vaguely recall doing a quick search for coverage of Diane Leek and didn't find enough to convince me that the proposed deletion was valid and the subject didn't meet our notability standards. So nothing untoward happened. -- Atama 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to add, the person who proposed the article for deletion had left this message on the talk page of the Diane Leek article, explaining the proposed deletion:

I examined this article which has remained "unpatrolled" for a month; it seems to me to be a very borderline case of notability and I find the lack of reliable sources quite remarkable. Her tenure as mayor is hardly mentioned at all (which to me is about the only reason she would meet WP:POLITICIAN), either in the article or in the press sources, and my brief search revealed nothing that added any notability. If someone wants to work on this article to improve it, taking out the more self-promotional aspects and adding some solid references, I would welcome that.

My own search confirmed this, which was why I deleted it. -- Atama 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Jgharston (talk · contribs) and Cornilicious (talk · contribs) might be the same person; it's also possible they're friends or otherwise know each other outside Wikipedia. I've left involved users/IPs notes advising them of WP:WMD. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I advised the IP to contact Atama or WP:Deletion review after they claimed it was my responsibility to own up to something or other, but they continued the same behavior today anyway. If they didn't understand the process, they could have politely asked for assistance which I would've gladly helped with. Threatening to sue someone usually doesn't make someone go out of their way to help. Did I mention that legal threat has yet to be retracted? Pinkadelica 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm hoping for a calm resolution, but if they keep barking up that tree I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That'll work. Odds are they might get it if more people explain it to them. Thanks for dealing with it. Pinkadelica 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Really dull personal attacks[edit]

Resolved: User cautioned. –xenotalk 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Over here I've been accused of being a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" – and I think I've remained civil throughout. Would someone mind issuing a reprimand, please? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTagassemblyman─╢ 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to open an AN/I thread for the occasional random insult from the occasional editor. WP:WQA is probably a better avenue. --Cyclopiatalk 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think he should receive a warning for making personal attacks, not be reported somewhere ineffectual where nothing will happen. ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, just seen the warning. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagballotbox─╢ 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like fair comment. Treasury Tag may not like it but boo hoo, such is life. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If you think that calling another editor a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" qualifies as fair comment, you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ╟─TreasuryTagsundries─╢ 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've fundamentally chosen to ignore them both as utter shite. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make comments of a personal nature. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think he's commenting on the policies. Which does not bode well for his future here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
RMHED, can you confirm that this is true? If so, I would strongly advise you under the strongest possible terms to follow policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey now, in all fairness, just because someone says they ignore a policy, that doesn't mean they don't or won't 'follow' it by not breaking it. The two concepts are exclusive from one another. Ignoring the policy that humans cannot fly doesn't mean anyone is going to fly. Sure, some mighty ruler can lay down the law that human flying is not allowed, but when he looks down around upon his subjects and views them as not flying simply because of his mighty rule against it, he's fooling himself big time. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That's the oddest analogy I've ever heard. Ignoring the policy that man cannot fly is irrelevant because it is physically impossible for man to fly unaided. If the editor ignores our policies, for instance NPOV, then they should not be contributing to Wikipedia because it is quite possible to follow the policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What can I say; I like to point out the weirdness of things. However, I really do think it's a good analogy for the point I was trying to make which concerns some confusion over an editor's perceived intent based merely on a simple statement made which itself expresses no distinct ill will toward the purpose of the rules. I personally believe Garibaldi Baconfat was expressing exasperation at being 'forced to follow' a rule which could quite possibly be something that would be foreign to his nature to violate. Assuming somebody is a bad guy just because they said something like that is something I consider kind of vicous, but maybe that's just me. I think the sad (& shitey) thing here is that there is need for such rules as WP:CIV and WP:NPA, because that means ... --Neptunerover (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "boo hoo, such is life" is a very deep and neutral statement about life and the fact of our existence and how it is what we make of it. (for the good sake of clarity) --Neptunerover (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User Nicholas-Ball-Wiki making violent theats towards me and vandalizing my talk page[edit]

Resolved: WP is not Therapy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can wikipeida please try to prevent which I feel is a urgent matter involveing User Nicholas-Ball-Wiki as he(I know of him) is making violent theats towards me and vandalizing my talk page[19] can. Can the wikipeida community please try to stop this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen-Lord-Wiki (talkcontribs) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Stephen-Lord-Wiki (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he sitting beside you, or two rows back and to the right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an open and shut case; just give him the money. You only have a couple of days left so it may be best to stop trolling and go earn some cash! raseaCtalk to me 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It's your debt, you sort it out. Or you could ask the government for a bailout, that seems to work a lot these days. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would think that two famous actors wouldn't need Wikipedia to resolve their money problems! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am proud that I missed that! raseaCtalk to me 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Truly bizarre behaviour. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
SPI case filed. Marked resolved. DNFTT. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
They gawn. –MuZemike 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
User Stephen-Lord-Wiki has be confirmed[20] to be a sock of User Mcjakeqcool. However User Stephen-Lord-Wiki is in denial about the allegation. 86.144.59.219 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77 Established record of continuous unrelenting Disruptive Editing[edit]

Resolved: Editor might be annoying according to some, but nothing is immediately actionable by admins. Try WP:RFC/U for full community input, and the WP:HORSE is put away for the night —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talkcontribs) 10:13, 14 January 2010
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Standing on the fifth pillar WP:FIVE I remove the premature archiving of this ANI. Given the time I put in, and others and the prior ANIs before it, and the threats and notices being flaunted of future Admin actions, and the true problem being raised I strongly feel a full disposition need to be generated for this ANI. If ANI is going to fail, let it fail, that is at least a result. But archiving it away does nothing, moreover the residual effect is more harmful than allowing the ANI to run its course, and run its course for longer than 24 hours if necessary. My removing of this abortive archiving is proper, the 5th pillar supports --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

discussion top|Seriously. There is no hope of a satisfactory resolution to this. This has devolved into pointless sniping. I recommend everyone just chill for a few days and let this blow over. Closing it as nothing useful is going to come from this. --Jayron32 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)}}


Proofreader77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Proofreader77 has a long track record of disruptive editing, some of which have been actionable others which have simply frustrated other editors. Proofreader77 fancies himself as a rhetorical master, which most often translates to confusing communications, and wiki-lawyering on every matter. Proofreader77 tends to tag team with others in reverting and lobbying to administrators. Proofreader77 tends to not contribute to articles but instead acts as some sort of vigilante who reverts, removes, and debates content changes made by others.

Proofreader had administrative restriction placed on him as a result of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman_Polanski_interpreter_or_referee_needed
Hans Adler summarized Proofreader77 with a strong warning "I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

I raise this ANI because the evidence is clear his is unwilling to change his communications style.

Proofreader77 was told clearly about his problematic editing style by Gwen Gale after he asked, however instead of accepting the feedback he fought to show he was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive16#Loan_me_a_besom_:.29
When issues were raised about concerns about Proofreader here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=331489616#Roman_Polanski_article_again._Editor_refuses_to_stop_inserting_information_to_whitewash_case he proceeded to write Sonnets and argue his editing was appropriate.
Another last warning to Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#last_warning
Gwen Gales gives up on restrictions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=334252314&oldid=334170535
After his restrictions were lifted because the problems remained, but the restrictions were not curtailing his manners of interaction. Proofreader77 went about promoting himself on Jimbo Wales talk page SEE Oops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#.22Disturbing.22_comments_:-.29
Next he begins to riddles Jimbo Wales TALK, see his flurry in response to Arbcon 2010 appointments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Arbcom_2010_appointments including a Sonnet.
Proofreader77 then takes WP:OWN of Jimbo Wales Talk page and says that other comments are "Out of Order" and a abuse of public space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#A_Two_Tier_Administration_System_and_division_of_responsibility_is_what_is_required
Proofreader again takes over Jimbo Wales page, to conduct some sort of policy polling, which is carried away in some sort of juvenile graffiti which Hans Alder already raises concerns about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Congrats Further making this abuse is Proofreader77 saying that after he donated to Wikipedia he is now afforded more rights than others.
Proofreader77 is blocked, but immediately defends his actions, showing total unwillingness to change his style of interaction as he has been repeatedly asked to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07#Postmortem_.28open_unsent_email_to_all_concerned.29
Proofreader77 is warned by an Administrator, to which he ignore the substance, and immediately "warns" the administrator for making false aspersions, he is then blocked by another Admin, to which Proofreader77 immediately appeals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
Proofreader77 uses the Administrative noticeboards as a playground, given his disruptions on the ANI boards such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=333062600#Proposed_admin_commandment:_Thou_shalt_not_block_..._for_being_mocked is it reasonable to expect that his actions on project pages is not being disrupted. If he does it on the ANI boards, and Jimbo Wales pages, you can imagine the difficulty of standard editors to his style. See how aggressively he attacks Ryulong
Following interactions on ANI, Proofreader wiki-lawyers the admins on their own pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_4#Your_closure_of_an_ANI_thread Proofreader77 is even shown as taunting other editors.

I raised my concerns with Gwen Gale when she removed all the restrictions from Proofreader77. Here is some of her comments from this:

"When he asked me the other day that they be lifted, I did so more or less "knowing" he'd either settle down (which was my hope) or stir things up even more. As it happened, I'd say he ran amuck on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. I'd say PR knows what he's doing and could stop whenever he pleases, but I can't say I know why he's been so disruptive. I always found his way of putting things slightly unsettling, a bit time wasting, but harmlessly so, hence I more often than not didn't bother to read what he had to say too deeply. It was only in the last few months that I saw his talk page meanderings and sonnets grow out of hand. When I saw warnings from 2 other admins on his talk page last night, followed by a wanton taunt at Jimbo (which PR has already wikilawyered as having been a friendly go at a chat about fund raising), I blocked him. His unblock request was swiftly declined." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive16#Proofreader77....Again

Proofreader77 readily states he is edit warring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self-notice_.28acknowledgement.29_of_2RR_on_Roman_Polanski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Roman_Polanski_3RR_acknowledgement_.28documentary_edits.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_Roman_Polanski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self-acknowledgment_of_.5B3.5DRR_on_Roman_Polanski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_WP:AN_reverting_improper_actions
When a RFC was opened for the Polanski article, on the topics which Proofreader has been edit warring on, he placed his views on, then Archived the Topic. Preventing outside eyes to review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#RFC

These continuous and ongoing problems of Proofreader77's interactions persist. Administrative restrictions are bypassed. The problems of Proofreader77 continue, and are problematic for editors he interacts with. His style of communications is grounded in rhetoric, which is anything but productive for collaboration.

Prior administrative actions are incomplete, and the problem is only growing. I am requesting the restoral of the previous restrictions placed upon Proofreader77, because they were so willfully circumvented by Proofreader. I do not believe it is good policy to place restriction on, and remove them solely for their lack of ability to curtail the problems of this editor.

Otherwise, I am requesting a continuation of Admins to solve this problem, as their previous actions have failed. Proofreader77 remains a willful and constant disruption to content and other editors on Wikipedia. Prior actions of Administrators need to be followed up upon.

There needs to be a new admin response to Proofreader77's conduct. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed them of this discussion. Please make sure that this happens in future, Tom. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Tombaker321 already did so one minute before you. Did you even look? Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
His post is right above yours/ User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Mathsci, I did. Just a case of unfortunate timing. He must have posted it just after I looked at the talk page. Then when I clicked on new section it was there, but I didn't realise. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Many of Proofreader77's contributions just seem to be trolling. He's also using his talk page to collect the reactions of others to his trolling with his own commentary here and here. Quite a lot of what he writes on WP seems quite hard to decipher. Mathsci (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • We all know a person or two like this in real life; someone who thinks they are far smarter/wittier/cooler then they actually are, and after awhile it becomes a sort of running gag or bad punchline. Sooner or later you just stop calling, stop inviting to the parties, etc... Think it's time to do the same here, as this is way to much disruption and intolerable behavior to allow to remain on the Wikipedia. my lone interaction with this person came at the above-mentioned ChildofMidnight RfC, where he tried to post some not-so-witty prose in support of CoM. Birds of a feather.... So if it is coming to it, block for a significant period of time. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No. See the section below about the original poster. We should not condone this sort of head hunting by a disruptive account. Jehochman Brrr 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Proofreader77[edit]

No response warranted. (Wrong forum: improper use of ANI).

Note: Issues mentioned will be addressed in Arbcom case I am preparing for submission for consideration.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What Proofreader77 writes is incorrect. His actions can be discussed here. On the other hand, if he were to table a frivolous RfAr, that would obviously be regarded as disruption on a larger scale than previously seen. If the "documentation" in the links I gave to his talk page is for that purpose, for example, then he could probably expect further blocks. If he thinks there is some kind of dispute, he should probably mention what it is here and explain how he has tried to resolve it so far. Needless escalation to RfAr is usually not a good idea. Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Did I read this right, or does this editor write sonnets on talk pages? Just when I thought I'd seen it all on Wikipedia... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
He might, but that's not the point. The RfAr is probably about his recent blocks [21]. He did write a sonnet instead of a statement in the RfC/CoM. It was removed by various users. Mathsci (