Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605

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

Noticeboard archives


Brahma Kumaris[edit]

There still seems to be a problem with the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University topic, one of the new religion movement's adherents or IT people BK Simon b have been attempting to control it for some time. It would appear to have been going on for years.

It is hard to see how they can be trusted to be NPOV whether they are working directly or directing others. --The Golden Circle (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This account is most likely a another sockpuppet of User:Lucyintheskywithdada and a report has been filed [1].
Lucy keeps re-incarnating with about 2 or 3 socks in immediate succession every week or every few weeks to disrupt the article. This is obviously loading the WP:SPI process. I would appreciate any suggestions on how we can reduce the disruption he is able to cause while the SPI process in in progress and the overhead in filling in reports etc. The time window between him appearing and being blocked provides him with an opportunity to troll. Is there any way we can close that time window? He is very, very predictable and obvious. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96[edit]

Hello. I've been contributing anonymously for a few years now, infrequently enough to never bother registering an account. I'm also a Reddit user, where recently two articles have been popular, Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software and the follow-up to it.

They struck a chord with me, and while I can't readily check my past contributions, it saddens me to learn that many lesser-known articles I've contributed to may have been deleted.

As per the two pages I linked to, I'm here about the dwm proceedings.

I think it's very unfortunate that the first AfD was closed and reopened at all, to me it seems like an attempt to quieten outside voices and go back to business as normal.

The semi-protection of the second AfD also makes me uneasy, as though the Wikipedia deletion process does not respect or want outside input. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, so please forgive me if I make errors.

In specific, I came here about the blockings surrounding the dwm proceedings, and the conduct of the administrator responsible for them, User:Blueboy96. The following users were blocked by him on February 28:

Special:Contributions/0xd34df00d Registered in December 2007, voted in dwm AfD.

Special:Contributions/DoctorSinus Registered in October 2009, voted in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Gleb-ax Registered in October 2008, did not vote formally.

Special:Contributions/Grasagrautur Registered in February 2010, attempted good-faith source addition to dwm article, voted keep.

Special:Contributions/Ingwar-k Registered in January 2010, voted keep in wmii AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Iorlas Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs. Unblock requested and denied.

Special:Contributions/Jasonwryan Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Jeuta Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Necrosporus Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD. Unblock request repeatedly denied after the AfD ended.

Special:Contributions/Thayerw Registered in September 2008, did not vote keep in dwm AfD, had made several good-faith edits prior.*

  • Users that I marked with an asterisk only commented once.

The administrator also made several comments that I would deem objectionable in the second dwm AfD, such as "Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event." and "Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue." as if people being interested in something means they should be completely ignored.

User:Anselmgarbe and User:ArneBab were also both blocked. The former is the developer of dwm, and was unblocked on March 3 after substantial discussion. Despite being a contributor dating back to 2004. Following false accusations, he was indefinitely blocked on March 4 following a discussion full of bad faith assumptions, and the block was not repealed nor justified despite opposition by User:Kim_Bruning. User:Henrik unblocked ArneBab today, 17 days after the block was added.

I don't think making one comment (or several) in an AfD discussion merits losing your account permanently (and having unblock requests denied very quickly), and I question the judgement of an administrator who bans so many users without investigating them individually. What happened to assuming good faith and all contributors being valuable?

I question the "meatpuppet" policy in general, it seems to severely punish people who were asked to come to Wikipedia despite not knowing all the policies, and I don't think they should be punished at all for attempting to preserve an article they happen to be passionate about. None of these users were vindictive or made personal attacks. Is it really necessary to ban a dozen users for a small policy violation like this?

At this point I don't think many (or perhaps any) of them will come back. They came to try to save software they enjoy and were met with extreme hostility, with attempts to keep them out of the discussion ending in bans for all of them. If I were in their position, I would not return.

Why is it that the only two who were unblocked had their blocks removed because of further scrutiny? I wonder how many unnecessary permanent blocks are given out every day. (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This was exceptionally poorly handled by us, and a massive WP:BITE failure. Our notability policy is unpopular and hard to explain. The reasons why WP:N is a good idea are rather subtle, and imposing it with a heavy handed approach is guaranteed to alienate a lot of potential editors. This débâcle has generated a lot of bad will and strengthened the reputation of wikipedia as a bureaucracy. We're not growing any more, we can't afford to piss off potential editors. We have to be more calm and patient with new users. I don't want to point fingers to User:Blueboy96 or any other user in particular, but surely we can and must to better than this. henriktalk 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Not just by us, since the user persisted in recruiting meatpuppets long after it had been explained why that was not a good idea. I would, though, only have blocked any accounts until such time as the debate was finished, since the locus of disruption was the AfD. I also think the AfD was closed wrongly as the loud assertions of "it's teh notable!" were not, as far as I recall, matched by, you know, reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that is a valid point. And yeah, the AfD should probably (objectively) have been closed as delete - but we can't go around pissing off everybody who isn't already an editor and knows the details of the system all the time. That is far more important than whether we have an article about an obscure X window manager or not. You and me and all other admins are already getting a poor reputation as needlessly bureaucratic jerks who delete stuff for just the hell of it. WP:RFA used to have a dozen candidates at the same time, now it's frequently empty. Our user base has plateaued. We need to do more to help people get involved and lower the initial hurdle. Sure, they'll make mistakes. Sure, they'll try to promote their own stuff initially. But we need them. And we need to figure out how to explain our policies in a way that make sense. henriktalk 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
To close that AfD as a delete after the discussion would mean a complete redefinition of "consensus", or even WP:CONSENSUS. It would reduce commentators to the status of "suggested argument providers" and leave the final decision fully in the hand of whoever manages to sneak in a close first. Of course, that person then applies a magical process that gives hir perfect knowledge of all policies and guidelines, the ability to evaluate all sources with perfect understanding and unanimity, and to come to a fully justified decision. If we have those wondercreatures among our admins, why not let them come up with the input, too, and bypass all that nasty discussion in favour of admin fiat? We can assign AfDs round robin, or have a lottery on who gets to close what. By the same logic we could have bureaucrats appoint admins without those pesky and divisive community discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it would be an entirely valid interpretation of consensus, which is explicitly not a vote. There have been plenty of deletion debates closed against the majority vote where the minority correctly cites policy and the minority only blows smoke. That's why we have the whole "not a vote" thing, because votes can't override policies and AfD debates can't override the much stronger consensus that underpins guidelines like WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Closing against majority is something I've always been critical about. Closing against an overwhelming majority would be abuse of process. Consensus is the source of our rules, and the ultimate arbiter, not the other way around. If the rules were unambiguous, we could just write a small program to apply them. Since they are not, we rely on people to interpret them. And in this case, even discounting meatpuppets and even counting aggressive whiners, there is certainly no consensus to delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Except the majority doesn't exist only on the AfD, it exists in the policy pages and guideline pages that have been discussed. Just because everyone who helped form those pages doesn't show up at the AfD discussion doesn't mean their opinion on what kind of articles should exist here should be ignored. Yes, you and many others would be quite happy if they could meatpuppet any article they wanted into a keep on wikipedia, but that isn't the way it works. That isn't what consensus says, and you have had a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT during this entire process. Consensus is not majority no matter how you'd like to try and make it out and the entire proceedings that have gone on around this article have been a joke put on by those involved with DWM and their meatpuppets.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
My silent majority is bigger than your silent majority. And thanks for the personal attacks and the good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
How so? There was absolutely nothing in policy nor guideline supporting this article and it was allowed to be muddled into a false no consensus by a bunch of meat puppets. You've had consensus explained to you several times now, but more than one user. I find it rather disconcerting that an administrator apparently has so little grasp on what it is. Local majority has absolutely zero bearing on consensus unless you had hundreds or more users showing up at that discussion. The silent majority behind policies like V, NPOV, Consensus, and guidelines like RS and Notability far outweighed the few people who showed up at the AfD and promised on their mother's grave that it really was super duper important. As would they outweigh just about any AfD going. That is why WP:CONSENSUS specifically spells out that the arguments are supposed to be compared to existing policies and guidelines because those carry far more weight than any individual or group of individual's assurances on an AfD. Supporting the opposite would mean supporting including anything that could get a handful of people to show up and carry on about for a few days, which is something we specifically don't do. This article was kept on nothing more than mob fervor than it was on policies and guidelines. You want people to stop calling you out on things then pony up the evidence. Something you've been pretty shy of doing this entire process. You were asked a few time to provide the sources you claimed were so reliable and instead backed out of the discussion. So what silent majority do you think you have that is so much bigger than the existing policies and guidelines? What silent majority is it that you think you have that means you can ignore WP:CONSENSUS and make up your own rules of interpretation?--Crossmr (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, I've made my points at the AfD, and I refuse to repeat them over and over again because I have learned that it's pointless to debate with someone who ignores arguments because he already knows the WP:TRUTH. Do you ever take a breath while you write? Or maybe a think? Note that the No consensus close was endorsed unanimously at DRV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that removing the blocks would be a good minimal first step, perhaps accompanied by an apology. Going past that, the "meatpuppet" policy should be closely examined. Wanting to save something you care about is not a heinous act. The canvassing policy reads like its main purpose is to prevent people who care about something from being notified about its impending deletion. Having completely disinterested people debating is biased towards deletion because few of them will spend much time looking for sources if they don't care about the topic at hand. Deleting an article doesn't need to be a bad experience. If the passionate community is simply told that if they can find good sources, the article's exclusion will be reevaluated, they will do their best to find sources. If you attempt to reduce the debate to an echo chamber by protecting it, and ban users that did their best to present arguments for keeping it, that community starts to loathe you. I don't even think User:Mclaudt should be banned. His actions are barred by current policies, but the policies are broken. He was just a passionate user trying to prevent a deletion, who had no recourse on Wikipedia, so he had to go outside it. I think that most contentious deletion debates should end in a keep if there are any verifiable sources at all. By blocking users and preventing them from participating in a debate, yet another community is alienated and the potential base of editors becomes smaller. (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with largely everything you said. I propose to unblock all these accounts. The likelihood of any further disruption is low. Being passionate about an article is certainly not an offense worthy of an indefinite block, and treating infrequent contributors like some sort of second class citizens leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
The way you describe how deletions doesn't have to be a bad experience is already how the deletion process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about working together to find sources and improve the article, or collectively deciding that it can't be done. We need to do a better job of explaining that. henriktalk 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I admit, the mass blocks in this situation were rather heavy-handed. But considering the situation, there really was no other choice. Many of these users hadn't contributed in one or two years, then suddenly reappeared to contribute in the AfD. That, to my mind, is even worse than newbie accounts popping up simply to vote in AfDs. Add to it the fact that he continued to canvass even after being warned--and there was really no other option but to drop the hammer in my mind. Blueboy96 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
What's occurred here goes beyond heavy-handed. 11 indefinite blocks laid out in 34 minutes, 6 of them within 1-2 minutes of the previous. Five of the users are established Russian Wikipedia editors in good standing: ru:Участник:DoctorSinus, ru:Участник:Gleb-ax, ru:Участник:0xd34df00d, ru:Участник:Necrosporus, ru:Участник:Ingwar. Three others (User:Jasonwryan, User:Thayerw, User:Anselmgarbe) are free software developers with domains similar to their Wikipedia usernames. Note that the latter is the developer of dwm. The outlier, User:ArneBab was blocked several days later despite a lack of consensus and no actual proof of his biased canvassing. These aren't vandals, they did not register random strings as names and vandalize the AfD repeatedly; they merely made their best arguments for the article's inclusion. Several of these users have been around for some time, and to throw good faith out the window so readily despite their transparency is alarming. Really, they were worse off than vandals - At least most vandals tend to get a warning first. You then voted delete 8 minutes after finishing the mass-blocking of the "meatpuppets", using their existence as a justification for the delete. Adding insult to injury, User_talk:Necrosporus was denied an unblock four times by other administrators who likely assumed the block was there for a good reason... and unlike most of the others, he's still blocked. Eleven ill-conceived blocks in half an hour constitutes far more than a momentary lapse in judgement. Fedbn (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said earlier, my blocks in this case were a knee-jerk reaction to what I saw as blatant votestacking by sleepers. If I had known that there were users in good standing from another project contributing to that AfD and not just mere sleeper accounts, I wouldn't have blocked. I just wish someone had informed me of this earlier. Had I known this, their statements would have looked more like people trying their hardest to contribute in a language they didn't know well, not just disjointed attempts to clog up the debate. Blueboy96 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to prevent deletion discussions from becoming Reichstag-climbing-while-dressed-as-Spider-Man contests and to properly reflect the community's (that is, a cross-section thereof) view of the whether something should be kept/deleted/etc., sometimes measures need to be taken to prevent those who do nothing but protest all over the place (like what is being done here). The fact of the matter is that those blocked accounts didn't have any other purpose here but to defend the Dwm article. With that said, blocking may not have been absolutely necessary unless clear disruption was taking place. –MuZemike 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with that “fact”. I was blocked, too, and the purpose of my account was and is to be able to contribute where I see errors I can fix quickly. I am no mayor editor, because I also work on other projects, a lot of them in free software, and want to spend time with my wife, too. But most times when I see an error and am sure that I can fix it properly (and have enough understanding of the topic to bring a real improvement) I set aside some time to fix it. Contributing to the AfD discussion might have taken much more time than a simple fix, but that was unintended and the result of seeing a glaring error in an area I am knowledgeable about. So please take back that remark. It’s unwarranted — and not only towards my account. Draketo (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Details of Blueboy96's handling of Anselmgarbe[edit]

It's incredible that we still have experienced editors here who are defending what happened. Let's take the example of Anselm Garbe, the developer of dwm. He:

  • used a real name account and said openly who he was; [2]
  • came to the AfD to provide information, nothing else;
  • said openly that he was canvased; [3]
  • introduced some borderline reliable sources into the discussion;
  • did not insist that the sources he introduced were reliable sources;
  • did not make any disruptive contribution whatsoever; [4]
  • probably had a calming influence on the angry users who tried to save the article;
  • did not make any attempt to !vote (unless you count "neutral"); [5]
  • reacted positively to a proposal to merge the article into Tiling window manager and made an open-ended comment that might have resulted in a merge to a different article instead; [6]
  • was polite, considerate, reasonable and intelligent throughout; [7]
  • stopped commenting on 25 February. [8]

Then, half a week later on 28 February, Blueboy96:

  • blocked User:Anselmgarbe;
  • blocked him indefinitely;
  • used the totally bizarre and counterfactual block summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Self-admitted meatpuppet of Mclaudt";
  • left no block message at all on the talk page.

When this was noticed and two editors asked for an unblock (Pcap and Psychonaut), instead of immediately unblocking Anselm Garbe and apologising, Blueboy96:

  • wrote: "If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked." – note that this was completely delusional as Anselm Garbe never did anything wrong in the first place;
  • wrote: "Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing." – Note: 21 hours later, Anselm Garbe replied to my email and was confused because he had never received Blueboy96's email and did not even know that he was blocked;
I can confirm this, I wasn't aware that my account was blocked and I learned about it from a mail of Hans Adler on 3rd March 2010. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • did not apologise, or at least not publicly, after Anselm Garbe was unblocked [9] (this clearly doesn't count.

I thought this was an isolated mistake, but now, with the knowledge that Blueboy96 handed out indefinite blocks en masse for the egregious "crime" of being canvased, I think this is firmly in desysop territory. Hans Adler 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This as punishment for this and this after two years of inactivity is also totally outside policy.

How hard is it to read a short guideline such as WP:CANVAS and to note that it never even once mentions blocking the targets of the canvassing (or calls them "meat puppets", for that matter)? Hans Adler 11:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, as already mentioned above, is that WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest and most misguided Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Why this is so can be seen by the history of its development. It was spun of off WP:SPAM, initially called "internal spamming" the policy on canvassing originally referred only to unwanted notifications (i.e. spam). Then someone who had just lost some AfD or something, with an axe to grind [10] realized that it provided a convenient stick (or a heavy bunch of sour grapes) to beat their opponents on the head with and thus WP:CANVASS was born [11] (note how obvious the sour grapes are there). Basically a bad selfish guideline conceived and written for less than noble reasons from some long forgotten deletionist vs. inclusionist debate. And then it got ossified as status quo.
In the real world, informing people who are potential stakeholders in a particular issue is seen as a *good thing*. If I remind somebody that a city council election is taking place and they should go vote (even if I know that person's political affiliation) that's usually considered "good citizenship". But here on Wikipedia, where apparently it's considered a good thing that many proposals are "flown under the radar" to get a particular result, it's all topsy turvy.radek (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's really the problem here, since Blueboy96's actions were in no way justifiable even by WP:CANVAS. Hans Adler 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but I also think that it's the misguided nature of the guideline itself which is partly responsible for these kinds of "misunderstandings".radek (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully apologize for my handling of Anselm Garbe. Having always been militantly anti-spam in any online community (not just Wikipedia), my block of him was purely reflexive. However, it wasn't within the spirit of WP:MEAT since he did make a good-faith effort to suggest improvements to the article. Blueboy96 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Apology accepted. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case my remarks got lost in the ether ...[edit]

When I was alerted to what was going on in the first Dwm Afd, I thought I saw egregious votestacking, a good bit of it perpetrated by sleeper accounts. However, if I had known that those five .ru users were contributors in good standing on another wiki, I definitely wouldn't have blocked. Seen in light of that fact, they were merely trying to make a case for keeping the article in a language they didn't know well.

The Anselm Garbe case--it was a reflexive reaction on my part to block, as I have always had zero tolerance for spamming and votestacking. HOwever, I freely admit that he made a good-faith effort to suggest improvements. For that reason, my block of him wasn't in the spirit of WP:MEAT, and I apologize for my reflexive block of him.

Hopefully this clears this matter up. Blueboy96 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a good sign when an admin admits to blocking due to a "kneejerk reaction". Surely a certain amount of reasoned thought should precede any blocking? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There was no way anyone could have known at the time that we were dealing with users in good standing from another project. As far as Anselm goes, as I said earlier, while it was grounded in policy, it wasn't within the spirit of the rules. Blueboy96 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn’t say how you will react should something similar happen again. And you only offer excuses to the ones who ‘were in good standing in another project’ as well as Anselm. What about the other blocks? And why is the treatment people got suddenly only wrong when they turn out to be ‘in good standing’? If it was wrong when done to people in good standing, how could it be right when done to newcomers? Draketo (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Blueboy96 needs to avoid repeating such scattershot blocks of alleged 'meatpuppets', or I'll happily pick up a torch and pitchfork and call for his desysopping. Remember: you are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The fact that some of the users blocked happened to be users in good standing on another project is beside the point. Draketo here has been a user since 2004 and was still summarily blocked. If you've been fighting vandals and spammers for a long time it's easy to become jaded and hard to remember that all new and infrequent users deserve the same respect and assumption that they're here to help. However, that is no excuse. We should always be careful not to create special rules for some in-clique and other rules for those not already in the group. who I don't think it's productive to call for someone's head, but some sort of acknowledgment that you'll treat similar situations differently in the future would help. henriktalk 10:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocks are intended to be a last resort, when a user's disruptive activity continues after warnings. Indefinite blocks doubly so. The assumption of good faith should be granted, with the status of most of the users herein merely reinforcing it. It did not, however, appear to be present in your actions. In this case you played judge, jury and executioner. Given that you played all three roles, it was your duty to inform yourself as to the status and outside connections of these users, but you did not. To not evaluate each of these indefinite bans carefully before placing them is a massive breach of the trust instrinsic in the community selecting you as an administrator. Apologies are insufficient - If this issue hadn't been illuminated recently these innocent contributors would have remained permanently blocked. Lastly, you have yet to address the misinformational block summary left for User:Anselmgarbe, nor the serious accusation that you claim to have communicated with him, which Anselm apparently denies. I've asked him to come here and clarify. Fedbn (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I took Anselm's statement on the AfD that he'd been alerted to the discussion as an admission he'd been canvassed. That being said, in the future unless an account that appears to have been canvassed to take part in an AfD is being clearly disruptive or it's unmistakably obvious that they're SPAs, I'll simply warn them on their talk page. Blueboy96 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That Anselm said he was canvassed is completely irrelevant. The fact that you are repeating this now in this way makes me wonder if you have understood this. There was obviously a problem at the last ANI discussions with several editors who thought being canvassed can be held against someone. It cannot, as it is simply not their fault. The idea that someone with a block button might remain under this misconception even after the fact has been pointed out to him makes me very uneasy, so please clarify. Hans Adler 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I realize now that accounts that come here in this way have to be looked at on an individual basis, and can't automatically all be assumed to be disruptive. Blueboy96 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist SPA[edit]


Whether or not they are a sockpuppet of Serafin, they should be blocked permanently for

  • nationalist comments on their user page [12]:
    • I beleave you Germans are suprised that evrybody dislike you.
    • German character which of course is known best in Poland. This is the main reason I opose the bargan/manipulation. The bourder is on Oder and Nyse do not allow one foot step over it - it will be the same like many times before. They will keep the foot arogantly and atempt to put second at nearest occasion.
    • chauvinistic German attempts it cannot be allowed. And you help them pretending that you a Polish. 4) As you perfectly know Silesians were originally a Slavic tribe and were part as well as creators of Polish nation. I think you and Germans should be ashamed after what II WW cost Polish nation to attempt steel what historically belong to Polish heritage
    • This is propaganda of German separatists who call themself often Silesians.
    • Krasicki was a Germanized Pole – in my perception a snake.
    • Germans!!!!! Stop insolting Dzierzon as he dislike you.
  • similar comments on their talk page [13]
  • and contribs focussing exclusively on WP:THE TRUTH about the nationality/ethnicity of a bee keeper.

User is notified of this thread. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Content removed per WP:USER#NOT and WP:SOAP. Only question remaining is, "Is man descended from angels or apirists?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - yes, this user seems pretty intent on pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views, though I don't see that the actions of his German counterpart (who does much the same thing in the other direction, but has learned to be a little more subtle with his conversational style) are any better. I would like to see all those who have been using this innocent biographical article as a nationalist battleground to be compelled to stay away from it, and from similar topics.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
From Heaqwe's userpage, I thought his opponent was you, but from the article's edit history, I guess "German counterpart" refers to Matthead? If you are certain about Matthead likewise "pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views", then please provide evidence, as this is a pretty strong claim to make without supporting diffs. That aside, I agree with you that prejudist POV pushers who are sophisticated enough to game the wiki-bureaucracy are a WP:PLAGUE, but that won't be solved on this board.

─────────────────────────What can be solved here is to at least block the openly nationalist accounts. And maybe have a Serafin expert comment, since Serafin abused the article ever since, and has used similar account names earlier? Regarding the underlying ethnicity dispute, I agree that the article is in bad need for outside input, this seems to be going on ever since too, involving Serafin, the EEML and several other sanctioned users. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things, firstly, we don't block accounts for having nationalist views - we block them should their nationalist viewpoints become disruptive to the general project (but not because they offend the sensibilities of other nationalistic viewpoints), and, secondly, the issue of disputes regarding East European articles is covered by WP:DIGWUREN and other ArbCom related decisions, so these should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Finally, there appears to be an ongoing SPI case, so perhaps that should be concluded before other concerns are investigated. As far as I am concerned, I removed the soapboxing on the accounts userpage per policy; there are other avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not aware of any ongoing SPI case, just of the "suspected Serafin sock"-tag on Heaqwe's user page (and from the article's edit history, and the account's name and behaviour that makes sense, but I am not a CU). If you could link the respective SPI that would be great and render this thread moot.
I agree that in theory, nationalism alone does not make an account disruptive. In practice, the nationalists who register accounts here do so not because they want to edit funghi taxonomy. Heaqwe is an openly Polish and anti-German nationalist solely editing a German-Polish ethnicity dispute and judging the editors by nationality and not by strength of argument. That is disruptive, reasonable discussions are not possible on that basis. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there seems to be no SPI going on, I filed one here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The "soapboxing" was just a discussion between me and him (we just happened to have it on his user page rather than the talk page). A similarly unproductive attempt took place between Matthead and me at my talk page (User talk:Kotniski#no real doubt). Other than that, it's been Heaqwe and Matthead alternately making edits to push their respective lines (only Poles can be natives of Silesia vs. there were no Poles when there was no Polish state), and me and one or two others trying to curb their excesses. Last time I looked the article seemed OK (there isn't any underlying reason why it should be controversial), so maybe the problem would be solved, as Skap suggests, by having a few sensible editors with their eyes on the page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
From the edit history, it seems that the dispute goes back at least to 2007 (I did not look it up any further). You said "last time I looked the article seemed OK" - does that mean that there actually is a revision that has the consent of all involved editors (excluding Heaqwe)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, possibly excluding Matthead as well, I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with the current version of that page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Serafin apparently has worn out all admins, as noone seems to be willing to look after the Dzierzon article anymore. On the other hand, Polish editors often find an admin willing to block me. As for the article, it's current state and title is a shame. It is WP:UNDUE to start the intro with "was a Pole from Silesia." It's like opening a bio on Abraham Lincoln with "was an Illinoisian from Kentucky. He became a Republican politician and a distinguished president." How childish is that? Apparently, Serafin/Heaqwe, veteran edit warrior Space Cadet and Kotniski like it - no wonder, as it starts with "Pole", which is their highest priority. BTW, I've just expanded the German article with some Polish sources (mis-)quoting him in German, and with a link to a pic of the tombstone of "Johann Dzierzon", with the Polish plate added in 1966(!) pronouncing "Jan Dzierżon" an "ardent patriot and defender of Polish Silesia". P.S. did you know that in 2003, Jan Dzierzon had been a vice-voivode in Opole Voivodeship[14], until a media campaign had forced him to resign? [15] [16] The problem for the Poles was that Dzierzon represents the German minority there. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can add sourced information to improve our article, that would be great. (But not irrelevant stuff about someone 100 years later who happens to have the same name - why do you waste our time referring us to such links?) "Pole" is not the same as "Illinoisan" - it's perfectly normal, and not at all undue, to mention someone's nationality (not the same as citizenship, or the language he later came to speak and publish in) in the lead of the article. Also the lead of the article should reflect the content - and at present, the sourced content of the article make his Polishness quite clear. If you have other sources that cast doubt on that, or consider that the present sources are unreliable or misused, then let's hear. I certainly wouldn't want the lead to describe him as a Pole if he wasn't one; but we should all want it to describe him as one if he was. The problem you seem to have is that you are on the same kind of crusade as the Polish editors you continually criticize - you want everyone to be German at the slightest excuse (I note your recent attempts to expand the scope of List of Germans), to use German names and delete non-German ones, etc. Often your changes are right, since there are plenty of anti-German editors around, but that doesn't mean you can do the same in the other direction.--Kotniski (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Heaqwe has been blocked, and constructive discussion is now underway at the article talk page, so I'm marking this thread as resolved.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/Licensing Issues[edit]

User:Ramnareshyadav1982 consistently uploads images lacking appropriate licensing information or questionable claims of fair use as well as the addition (and re-addition after warnings) of copyrighted text to webpages. Most recently re-uploaded a file that was just deleted this morning for lack of license. They appear to not understand that we simply cannot accept copyrighted material. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he claims to be the owner of the material. Should be direct him to WP:OTRS so he can release said material from copyright and placed under a free license? –MuZemike 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Links to what he needs to do have been repeatedly included on his talk page with all of the copyright violation and fair use rationale templates. I can put a new hand-typed one on if you think it would help. I just haven't already because I doubt it would be any different than the notices he's already gotten. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. Consider reporting the user to WP:AIV if the disruption continues. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Done and blocked for yet another issue since your warning, I'll just take similar concerns to WP:AIV in the first place next time. Somehow I forgot that repeated copyright issues counted as vandalism. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted comments on my user talk page[edit]

Unresolved: Generally if one asks you not to post to their user talk page any other longer, you should respect their wish. As for the article in question, there is an ongoing discussion at the appropriate venue, Talk:John J. Pershing#Disputed nickname. –xenotalk 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384 is posting negative, uncivil, and unwanted comments on my user talk page [17], [18], [19]. This after I asked to user (twice) to desist [20], [21]. A similar situation developed on the talk page of User:Off2riorob [22]. I asked the user to desist this activity on the user's own talk page as well [23], the notice was promptly removed. -OberRanks (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor warned -- ball's in their court now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The ball's in my court? OK! OberRanks posted a response to my post; then threatened to delete anything else that I put there. So, he gets the last word, and I am not permitted a rebuttal? Furthermore, isn't he in violation of policy by posting a comment about me here, and not notifying me? This user has a habit of running to administrators when he dosen't get his way to the letter, which can be seen in the John Pershing discussion. He is having a temper tantrum because he was refused the right to be the final authority on that article. If you look at my history on Wikipedia, you will see that I have a track record of civility and compromise. That, however, does not mean that I will be anyone's doormat! Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Any administrator may review my contributions on the John Pershing discussion, I have nothing to hide. The discussion at the JP article is unrelated to uncivil talk page notes on my own user page. -OberRanks (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, here he is. He just has to get the last word. He claims he wants to be left alone, and then comes here to stir the pot. Please take note, as an administrator, that OberRanks has now granted you permission to review the Pershing article.Mk5384 (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this edit will be of particular interest, given M5384's statements that I am having a temper tantrum regarding material in the John Pershing article. As far as the track record of "civility and compromise", the user's talk page has two warnings of edit wars as well as the recent thread regarding inappropriate posting to other's talk pages. There was also a recent 3rr warning as well [24] which the user removed without comment [25]. I think the pattern is clear. -OberRanks (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, you don't really have a leg to stand on. I'd advise backing down. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 began in January and his 7th edit was to try to slip "N*gger Jack" into Pershing's list of nicknames. Lately he's made it a crusade, for reasons unknown. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons unknown? OK; I'll assume good faith. It was his name.Mk5384 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. In any case, your latest reversion in this edit war is here,[26] and provides no justification for adding it back. Posting that justification here doesn't count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
OK; this has just gotten silly. No it wasn't? Despite 62 sources listed there, you're actually going to defend yourself with the comment, "No, it wasn't"?Mk5384 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It was not a common nickname. "Black Jack" was. Hence the footnotes explaining its origin... and the article text explaining its origin. To push the N-word into the infobox is unjustifiable and incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be resolved on the talk page. Admins have no special competence here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally agree. As to the original issue brought here - typically if one asks you to stop posting to their talk page, you should respect their wish. Any outstanding issues can be taken up in article talk, ANI, or other relevant venues. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. –xenotalk 13:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Except for the crusading user's potential for escalating the edit war. That's the admin attention that may be needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, if there is ongoing edit warring, note it here or WP:AN3. –xenotalk 13:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, whether he's crusading or you're censoring is not a dispute that AN/I should be handling. Please work it out with him. There may be a middle ground if the nickname exists per RS but is not common, like a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no censorship in the article. That's a false claim by the crusader. We'll see if Mk5384 backs off or accelerates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Since it appears there's another edit war brewing, Fully protected, please continue discussion on talk page. –xenotalk 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Also, although Mk5384 has not (yet) violated 3RR technically, he reverted 5 times in 39 hours. And if he reverts again right away, that will be 6 in about 41 hours, which would probably put him in violation, so I'm guessing he'll wait until a total of 48 or more hours has passed from his first revert. (Moot) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I would remind everyone involved that WP:3RR#Is not an entitlement. –xenotalk 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blatant advertising[edit]


User informed of policy and appears to be discussing. SGGH ping! 12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to look into a case of what appears to be blatant advertising of a website. The spammer in question, User:Keithwatt, continually adds a link and promotional text to the article Wireless Set No. 19, as seen here. While I consider this beyond obvious, I would appreciate another opinion/set of eyes since I'm now involved and thus consider it inappropriate to take action wrt this editor. Huntster (t @ c) 10:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Final warning added, obvious promotion with no attempt to communicate or acknowledge the problem. If you are not comfortable dealing with it (which is fine) either flag up here or WP:AIV if he/she does it again and one of us misses it. SGGH ping! 10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact someone has blocked him. SGGH ping! 10:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's spaming - edit waring - and ignoring all attempts to warn or discuss. No brainer. The account has no other uses, so blocked indef. He can be unblocked if he starts to talk to us.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, once I've entered into opposition against another editor, I will not in any situation (save for particularly vicious stuff) use the mop and bucket. Thanks SGGH for your second opinion, and to Scott MacDonald's third. Huntster (t @ c) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now unblocked since he's started talking. Someone might like to go and help him understand things a bit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to have engaged him. I know it is confusing but you have to take some responsibility for understanding things I believe. But if he is pointed in the right direction policy wise, things should be fine. I'm marking as resolved. SGGH ping! 12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat[edit]

Resolved: account blocked and local police given relevant information - Alison 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A suicide threat has been posted by Bclrocks10 (talk · contribs) here, but I'm having a hard time believing it. He self identifies as a child from Tampa, Florida. I know that all suicide threats should be handled as serious threats. Can somebody local to Florida please contact the appropriate authorities?

The editor has other editorial issues that may have resulted in him being discussed at WP:ANI, but for now, let's just deal with the threat. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It reads like routine drama, but policy (WP:SUICIDE) is to take it seriously. Block user, use template {{Suicide response}}, lock user and talk pages, checkuser, notify authorities, contact Wikimedia foundation staff, mark this as done here. --John Nagle (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked, tagged, CU alerted to narrow location. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser data is available if needs be. Ask them to contact me. I'm also suppressing the contents of their userpage and the suicide message itself as it contains clear personal information on a minor . Once again, anyone who needs this information can contact either myself or any other oversighter. If nobody's contact the authorities yet, just let me know and I'll do it - Alison 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok - contacted. We're done here. Just remember that 99.99% of these are not serious but we can't really make a call on something like this. All we can do is report it and move on - Alison 08:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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


Resolved: Blocked for a week. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to write up a report on the spreading disruption and insulting behavior of User:FkpCascais. Regardless of the fact that he thinks himself the very image of neutrality (as indeed, most Balkans nationalist accounts do), this user is undoubtedly in the middle of a campaign to promote Serbian nationalist POV. I say "POV" because his position and his edits are obviously contrary to truly numerous university sources, while he of course, has yet to present a single source for his disruptive editing. In addition, his behavior towards me has just reached a stage at which I feel it needs to be reported to you guys. Not that I am holding this against him in some way, but his English skills, and thus the quality of his edits, are also noticeably sub par.

  • On Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, User:FkpCascais has repeatedly removed half a dozen university sources along with the information they supported in spite of warnings and discussion. [27][28][29] When inquired as to the reason for this vandalism, the only answer was that he personally disapproved of one of the authors (a professor of history at Stanford) on the grounds that the person is of Croatian ancestry [30] (also conveniently forgetting that this is only one of the sources). I am Croatian as well, and taking into account his hostile behavior towards me, I can't help but feel this user has a problem with Croats. Balkans ethnic hatred.
  • On the Draža Mihailović article, the user repeatedly entered numerous badly written alterations, and then proceeded to edit-war in order to keep them in. He was successful. I won't go into the details, suffices to say that he edited contrary to a great many references in the article. He wrote-up the ethnic ancestry of any scholar who's origins he did not approve of, implying their bias along national lines for no other perceivable reason. He inserted the word "communist" at every conceivable opportunity, and most interestingly, he actually altered the text of quoted documents because he felt it needed "clarifying". All in plainly bad English. [31]
  • On the Chetniks article, he engaged in an edit war to rearrange the alphabetically sorted "See also" section the way he felt was more appropriate, and kept removing a template linking to the article.[32] The number of articles affected by the disruption is bound to rise.

As for his behavior: 1) He stated that I am "shitting out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [33] This was because I was doing my best to explain WP:V to him and he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal". 2) He continuously insinuates that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" [34][35] (he is probably unaware of the irony in that my medical training has an emphasis on psychiatry :). 3) Most recently, he insulted my origins by calling me an imbecile and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [36] This of course, is the brief account. I am leaving out all the less obvious insults ("ridiculous", "stupid", etc.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In future, please notify the user involved that you have opened this thread. I have done it for you this time. SGGH ping! 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, the user instructed me not to address him. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for a week, this is fairly obvious even in the minefield that is EE politics. [37] and [38] are exceedingly obvious, without even going into the attacks on other editors. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm, in the words of Eye Serene, the User "edit-warred, removed sourced material because he did not like what it says, and made personal attacks against another editor". This is not the first time that FkpCascais engaged in disruptive editing on Eastern European articles: he was reported and warned by LessHeard vanU [39]. His primary interest on Wikipedia, by his own words, is football, which is also where he is productive. I am involved in this dispute, I know, but I'll still go ahead and recommend that the user be simply topic-banned on Balkans-related articles. The week-long block, while likely deterring the user from further personal attacks, is very, very unlikely to solve the issue of disruptive editing in the long term, as the user still does not try to hide his contemptuous attitude towards discussion and compromise. [40] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite abuses of policy and talkpage guidelines[edit]

Too many editors with too many over-reactions. The underlying issue for this thread has been resolved, so it's time to close down the sideshow.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ryan is a ARBCOM member. He has shown a trend of moving or reformating other's comments. I find it extremely ironic that he assuming powers not granted to him, as a matter of fact it is quite against policy to refactor or format others comments unless obvious vandalism. [[41]] like this is a great example of a post that is definitely not vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an ArbCom member, I'm an ArbCom clerk. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Lol. Tan | 39 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be clear: he is an arbitration committee clerk. And WP:TPG has other guidelines over-and-over obvious vandalism, though I make no comment as to whether the removal linked in the diff above is appropriate. –xenotalk 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The post you've linked to was an editor trying to call another editor homophobic without a single bit of evidence to back it up. It was an egregious personal attack - easily removable. Your shenanigans with templated warnings to regualar editors[42][43] is an issue. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
To Quote wp:dttr...

"Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. " Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly not saving time here. Quit templating the regulars. Seriously, cut that shit out. Tan | 39 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, there is a provision for those who disagree. Ryan is free to try and get hat changed but as is I do have the authority wiythin policy to do this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, you're cruising right towards a block at this stage. If I see you template another editor inappropriately, you'll be having an enforced break. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you show me a policy that specifically disallows this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you were templating people for correct reasons, it would be rude, but not disallowed per se. Templating people for inappropriate reasons moves it from being rude into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe it to be a correct action. You reverted a discussion that was not your own and was not obvious vandalism. You then make threats outside policy. As I have explicit allowance under policy, which you concede, why not trying to ask someone to not template you? I would also point you to the other essay WP:DTR the only thing that is specifically disallowed is refactoring talkpage comments that are not obvious vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Stop templating the regulars. Period. This isn't the first time this has been a problem. Ryan P and I are far from friends, but he's right. Do it again, and further disruption will be prevented via a block. Tan | 39 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, without commenting on the present case, TPG allows for more than removal of mere vandalism. –xenotalk 15:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:


Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

@taN AND rYAN. So we're making up policies now? I have specific allowance under that policy to do this. You can't show me specifically where it says I can't. Stop making threats outside of policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (the guideline for talk page comments); "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:.... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." When I was removing the post on Jimbo's talk, it was because a user called another editor homophobic, an egregious personal attack. When I was refactoring your comments on the ArbCom motions page, I was doing so because they were filled with personal attacks. Both of these are permitted reasons to remove posts, yet you have insisted on templating me 4 times, which is disruptive editing, hence why if you do something similar again, you'll be getting a block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And I still maintain it was innapropriate, that motion was and is nonsense. It's political posturing nothing more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well we'll leave it at that then. I'm slightly embarrassed to say this, but this is one of those cases where I'm right and you're completely wrong. Now, either take the advice given to you above, or end up blocked very shortly. That is the last I have to say on the matter. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not embarrassed at all to say you're wrong and I'm right. Stop the posturing. I have confidence that while not all of my arguments are calm and analytical they are correct. When they are not I will apoligize but it's hard to assume good faith to a admin that likes to threaten first and engage later. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Templating someone warning him that he will be blocked as a vandal for removing a personal attack is obviously going to piss him off, isn't it? As a result, the time you were trying to save through it is now being spent in brewing a category 5 hurricane in a teacup. Now would be a good time for everyone to cool down. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, issuing barely-applicable templates and threatening to block for the same thing are both wrong for much the same reason. Templates and blocks both have their place, but are almost never the correct initial course of action when dealing with other good faith users. HiaB, please take the extra 2 minutes to type something out; it is less likely to escalate the problem, is more likely to be heeded, and won't make you look so unreasonable (the wording of the templates wasn't really applicable). RP and Tan, please don't jump straight to threats of blocking for (really) minor issues of "disruption"; an occasional inappropriate template can be insulting, but it isn't block-worthy. I'm still naive enough to think we could, occasionally, treat each other as grownups instead of communicating primarily with templates and blocks. <!-- Template:uw-rodneyking1 --> --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, this wasn't the first time it happened. Thus, I didn't "jump straight to threats"; I threatened the block when the problem became persistent. If you want to coddle disruptive editors, that's your prerogative; I think I've made it clear in the past that I don't. Tan | 39 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, "jump way too quickly to threats". I see we disagree, but IMHO blocking generally good faith editors for minor annoyances almost always makes things worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Floquen unfortunately this is a situation that I may have caused myself. I am not the calmest of editors. I do try to do things in good faith but I do blow my stack and this is related to a long term dispute with some of the ARB practices. By doing this I gained the appellation of being undesirable. I've seen you around and would hate for you to get drug down to that crowd too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As the party who theoretically should care most about that particular comment, I had a nice chat (no, really - WP:AGF works]] with the poster. They apologized, the misunderstanding was cleared up, Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo was mentioned ... why is there anything else to do here? Can we please close this thread under WP:DRAMA? I do not see how the present focus of this discussion really gets us a better encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, 2/0. Since it's pretty clear that the whole incident was a wildly-overzealous escalation of dispute resolution based on a complete misunderstanding, apparently identifiable to everyone except the topic poster at Jimbo's talkpage, Ryan's actions were (AGF) trying to help the situation by removing some of the hyperbole. I'd close this thread myself, but I'd rather not have a follow-up thread on that potential perceived abuse of policy and/or talkpage guidelines. Hell in a Bucket, perhaps you wouldn't mind closing the thread to cool all of this down? — Scientizzle 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from CobaltBlueTony[edit]

H in a B may hold differing views, but his delivery method can cross the WP:CIVIL line, which results in his being blocked. If he has a point, he needs to mend fences and kiss boo-boos before anyone will accept the validity of his arguments. For instance, the example he started with above is a snapshot into a long and arduous process of people continually bringing up the same issues to Jimbo Wales over and over again, never satisfied with his response. H in a B and the Brews crew are also never satisfied with legitimate responses to their legitimate arguments, and so they persist in griefing the community in a bizarre hope that we'll get sick of them and let them have their way, even though it violates what the community wants. CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that worked. I think I may still have the forwarded email from Jimbo saying he was concerned over the handling of that case. He specifically asked for a review, anything we did was hugely successful Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, blanking of comments of the sort I described is common practice, to prevent needless disruption. (How Mr. Wales receives it is on him.) The point is that, if you intend to fix ArbCom, such as it is, you've really got to clean up your act. This nonsense here doesn't really help. CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually other then this Arb action I enjoy friendly relations with Administrators. My main issue on Wiki other then occasionally blowing my stack is that I didn't ignore the wrongs in the arbitration format. It has indeed taken away from me, but I do believe in right action not only on my part but the admin and arbcom too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
When it's your word against theirs, choose yours carefully. If you keep your cool, they have nothing actionable against you. That's what I've been saying all along. CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I did keep my words cool, hence using a template with the diffs. This resulted in a threat of a block. If it means using templates so I don't berate them it's much better then geting blocked for personal attacks.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your use of these templates, bordering on inappropriate (and often falling into the wrong side of it) is both disruptive (because -- and you knew this already -- it's considered rude) and serves only to irritate (intentionally?) a person with whom you disagree (another example of griefing). It's like telling a cop he's double-parked. It ain't gonna end well. CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory Debating Union, User:JJJ999, &[edit]

I would like an administrator to review the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union.

It appears to me that User:JJJ999 (plus the IP's he uses & are acting as if he/she are owners of the article.

I have a number of issues with the article :

1. I question the notability of the ACTDU (it has been questioned before see Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#Article issues). Every time I have tried to tag it it gets reverted here or here.

2. It contains many 'refs' that are not in any way relevant to the article, that he insists on having in, for example in the lead :

At the end of the article, without any indication of why they are there or what they help with :

3. I believe that User:JJJ999 may have a WP:COI, as evidenced by the fact he has hard copies of the AGM minutes here also given the copyright statement in the two photos on the page here and here indicating he created (took) them along with a comment here where he says he can get the copy write permission sent in.

4. I think the article may be Over detailed and contain "excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience".

I have posted a RfC on the talk page about the first point but as of yet have had no response (Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#RFC : Notability tag)

I have also posted on the 3RR board as User:JJJ999 and the IP's made 4 reverts on Sunday (here) to which User:JJJ999 responded here but this was archived without attention - I dispute what he has written but have decided not to engage with him at this time. I have made attempts to point out my issues on the Talk page here and here.

So I am wondering the best way to move this article forward as I am sure that as soon as I start trying to fix the above issues User:JJJ999 will start reverting again. Codf1977 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find RfC a fairly uncertain step in dispute resolution, since you never who (if anyone) will show up. You may wish to withdraw the RfC and try one of the other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:COIN or WP:CNB. If you are certain that there are only two of you involved, WP:3O can be a good forum to get assistance. I have generally found the volunteers who work there willing to discuss issues thoroughly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I cant be certain, but am 99% sure the three are one. This edit confirms two are one in the same and the other one looks like a WP:DUCK. Codf1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Then WP:3O may be your best bet. Typically, I'd list a problem like that and wait. If you don't get a response within a couple of days, then it may be necessary to seek help elsewhere. If you do, make it clear where else you've asked and why you're asking again, so it's obvious that you're not "forum shopping" but just looking for input. Having already interacted with the article as an admin, I don't think I should myself weigh in on content issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I do not want any appearance of forum shopping so will wait a few days to see if anyone else here has any advice, and if not will go to WP:3O and make sure I cross link to here and the RfC. Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I had a reply earlier, and it seems to have been removed. Basically, this is forum shopping, because you haven't been able to build consensus. Go to the talk page, and complain there. Anyway, this is not copyvio, this was covered. Next time wait for consensus and don't accuse others of bad faith and editing warring that you were only recently warned about yourself.JJJ999 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This is NOT "forum shopping" which is defined as "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like" as there was no response to either the RfC or the 3RR posts it can't be and secondly I made sure I disclosed and linked to those.
Also please refrain from making totally false claims about me being warned recently for editing warring as a way of deflecting attention away from your five bans for your edit warring (see here). - I have only been warned once in October last year here when my account was less than 2 weeks old and I had only 1 revert in 24 hours in any case - if you disagree produce the dif. Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right, this doesn't look like forum shopping to me. It might be worth leaving a note at the Australian noticeboard WP:AWNB to get more eyes on the article. The article looks clearly problematic and I agree the notability is far from clear. It should probably either go through AFD or by merged into a parent article. I don't know what the factiva link is meant to link to but searching factiva for "Australian Capital Territory Debating Union" for all dates/all regions/etc brings up zero results. Sarah 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions, the more eyes that look at the atrial the better IMO. But to avoid even the smell of forum shopping and so as not to give JJJ999 yet another place to have a go at my motives I am not going to post there, but please don't let that stop anyone else. Codf1977 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm tiring of having to respond in so many different places/forums to your concerns. I've noted on the talkpage a number of sources, including some which were just temporarily removed during a BLP claim, and which can easily be brought back (even minus the subjects names being brought back, it's obviously easy to bring back the sources themselves). You haven't responded or built consensus on my talk page merge replies, so I suggest you go do that, and stop complaining in every place/forum you can find.JJJ999 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be careful to jump to any conclusions that this User is involved in sockpuppetry. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rick Schmidlin[edit]

Despite the efforts of three other editors, anon IP User:, who is apparently the subject of the article Rick Schmidlin, continues to make disruptive edits that violate multiple Wikipedia policies, despite multiple warnings on this section of the IP talk page. He will not enter discussion at Talk:Rick Schmidlin, and appears to be obstinately attempting to use Wikipedia to post a resume article, even after multiple warnings that disruptive behavior could lead to a ban. Thank you for any help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I considered it vandalism as the user removed tags after 4th warning. I reported the user, and the IP has been blocked. Regards, PDCook (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I do believe the IP is really trying to make the article better but is just completely lost about how to do it Wikipedia style. A few other editors have taken notice and I've set up a sandbox to work through it. We have all tried to communicate with the IP via the edit summaries, the article talk page, and the IP talk page but obviously to no avail. Still, I do not think his (assuming it is Rick Schmidlin as claimed in one of his edits) efforts are in bad faith. That said, we do need a break from his constant reverting as this will give us some time to rewrite the article. Even though it'll probably be pretty stubtastic it will be well-sourced for the information it does have (see sandbox). In other words I don't think the IP needs a year-long block as I'd like to think that once the new version is finished he'll be able to contribute in a useful manner. SQGibbon (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it not just be best to userfy this "article" until it's fixed, because at the moment it's just an unsourced BLP. Black Kite 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Userfy where? Not to an IP's area. Woogee (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What about moving it to the incubator? -- Atama 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a new version up now. It's a stub but a well-sourced one. SQGibbon (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird, possibly programmatic set of socks editing Roderic Noble[edit]

This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Since the beginning of this month, five separate accounts have been editing the page on Roderic Noble, a relatively obscure British actor that I'm watching only because I tagged it for reference issues when it was first created. All five of the accounts have no edits aside from those performed on this page. Three of them have very similar names. They don't interleave edits; eventually one account stops, and another picks up later, so it's not an effort to make undoing their edits more difficult. I initially suspected they are all socks, though possibly unintentional socks (the edits are mostly benign, if unsourced), and warned them on their talk pages. On looking at the page history closer though, the edits appear to be of unusually uniform timing. Today's edits by one of the accounts were done every half hour from 8 AM to 10 AM, on the half hour plus 9 to 11 seconds (clock discrepancy?). Previous edits aren't quite so regular, but they're usually 9 to 12 seconds after a minute evenly divisible by five, as if they were updating the page on a schedule. While some of the edits seem like the sort of thing a basic natural language processor could do (switching around synonyms, reordering sentences, etc.) they also add paragraphs of information, so they must be pulling data from somewhere. I have no idea what is going on, and while mostly harmless, it seems *very* suspicious. Can someone with more experience at this please investigate? I removed the unsourced content on the page (which basically meant restubbifying it), but this is too weird to just drop. Not sure if notification on their talk pages is needed since I'm not mentioning them directly, and this is a quasi-sockpuppet scenario. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty suspicious sounding. I'll start a SPI just so we can be sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No edit summaries is a good giveaway. Before we potentially scare him away, can we get him to cite his "work?" I'm also hesitant to start as he could have forgotten all the passwords. If anything, the creator of the article would be the sockmaster as there are similarities to between it and the newer users. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
He posted a note on my talk page: "I have recently interviewed Roderic. I'm just putting up some of the details on Wikipedia for the benefit of the readers of your online Encyclopedia. Could you let me finish? I would be very grateful." So best case scenario this is just WP:OR plus possibly unintentional violations of the WP:SOCK rules. The edit patterns are *really* suspicious though. I didn't include the article originator as a suspect if only because that account has edited quite a few pages (though I suppose it could be the sockmaster, creating single-purpose socks for use on specific pages). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked him if he was related to the accounts. I also saw what he said, and that backs up the style of how he wrote it. I'm sure he will freak when he sees that mass revision though, so I'll revert his edits and assume that he will cite it. If not, we just remove it. The second thing is a bit creepy though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Second thing? Clarify? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole editing on a second that ends with a 0 or 5. For some reason, autism or superstition crosses my mind when I think of why an editor would edit then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Even with a nasty case of OCD, I'm having a hard time seeing how someone would manage to edit so exactly that the discrepancy (a matter of three seconds for all but the very first edits by the very first sock on March 1st) would be expected from the vicissitudes of internet and Wikipedia DB latency. There's OCD, and then there is *perfect* timing, down to the second, when clicking submit. Although I do note that even his responses on my talk page are on minutes divisible by five, though only one of them was in the "9-12 after the minute" range. Clearly the OCD relaxes on my talk page, but not enough to stop the "divisible by five" requirement? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a policy or guideline violated by the timing of edits so severe that it justifies speculation about various psychoses or neuroses the editor might have? Nothing really suggests a "productive editing bot." The only real issue seems to be possible socks doing harmless or beneficial edits. I suppose this could have the questionable effect of making an article look more popular among editors than it really is, but that is not even a basis for keeping an article in a hypothetical AFD. If a productive editor creates and improves articles, he/she should be discouraged from socking and encouraged to edit under one identity, but encouraged in the contributions to the encyclopedia. I will not speculate here at this time about who I think the root editing account is, but if I'm correct the overall pattern of contributions across various articles and encyclopedias looks ok. Edison (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I believe there is a policy against running unregistered bots on Wikipedia. That said, I'm not asking for the editor to be blocked; I mostly wanted to check if anything like this has come up before, if it is perhaps indicative of some form of abuse. That's why I said investigate, not block. The editor(s) in question should adhere to the policy on alternate accounts, but like I said, I suspect this is a violation born of ignorance with no malicious intent. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here are two hypotheses:

  1. Somebody is trying out a new tool that allows Wikipedia editing on one's own copy of an article, and regular synchronisation with the server. The person started with update intervals of 5 minutes, but changed this to 30 minutes later for some reason. The times in between without edits are because in the 5 minutes (or 30 minutes) preceding them the person's personal copy didn't change. The software has been programmed so intelligently that if the edit only changes a single section, it puts the section in the edit summary. But that's the only kind of edit summary it can produce so far.
  2. We are being trolled. Somebody thinks it's extremely funny to pretend they are a computer and then just watch how we react. See also: Turing Test.

In both cases it would be best not to overreact in any way. Hans Adler 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any feelings about the sanity or motivations of the editors with the clockwork timing of edits, WP:BLP says "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research." A claimed interview cannot justify keeping the biographical details added to the article, and I question IMDB as a "reliable source"for biographical information about persons who have had no published biographical information elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#IMDB, again. In a breaching experiment, from malice, from general hoaxing or simple carelessness with facts, false information can be posted there and then used as a "reference" to post the same false information in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is innocuous, puffery, or defamatory. This could be yet another "breaching experiment" and the article must be kept stubbed until reliable sources are provided for the information. Repeated adding of the information without references should lead to blocking. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Per my comments above, and per WP:BLP and WP:NOR, I have again stubbed the article,back to the stub earlier today by ShadowRangerRIT since the expansion was based on a "personal interview" of the subject by one of the suspected sockpuppets with the odd editing pattern. Edison (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible self-outing, trolling, Idk[edit]

Resolved: Reverted, revisions deleted. –MuZemike 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[44] Can't tell if its trolling or what, but I felt it should be brought here. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Altough I feel that it is vital that the human rights act is followed 100% at all times, wikipeida is not myspace. Revert edit. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know it was possible to out yourself... Clearly they've posted their information willingly... Whether or not they know this isn't the right place to post it is questionable. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It must be. However, it is simply a edit that needs to be reverted. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

could another admin double check the logic of my edits to User talk:Secisek[edit]

I think I'm right in thinking that changing your username is not the same thing as retiring, since you are still here and the edits are now attributed to a new username, and it's deceptive to pretend otherwise. Also, they are somehow still logging under the old username. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree with everything you did. If they wanted a clean break then they should retire the old name and start a new account. If they just wanted a name change then they should move the user/talk pages (which is what they did). They can't have it both ways. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You've got it correct, Beeblebrox. Accounts don't retire, editors do. If the person behind the account is still editing then they aren't retired, and tags indicating such are misleading. With a rename, the old account should redirect to the new one. Anything else is terribly confusing. Let's say that someone sees an old comment made by Secisek on an article talk page and wants to ask a question about it, if they click their user talk page link and see "retired" then they've hit an unnecessary dead end. If they are instead redirected to the new account, then they know who to ask. Another problem is the user page, which continues to declare the editor retired. It seems like the editor wants to cut ties between the old name and new name, which is wrong for any number of reasons, for one the policy for alternate accounts. -- Atama 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:CLEANSTART specifically allows for cutting ties, but that's just not what they did and it's a little too late for it now (at least without retiring both old accounts and making yet another one). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that my old user name has lead to off-site harassment and Wikipedia editor(s) were sending text messages to my business cell phone about edit disputes. I am not trying to "run" from my past account, just the user name. I even moved my talk archives to my new page. If it is not possible to retain my history, while removing my association from my old account, I'll just walk away from both the old account and the new one and set up a sock puppet. When I first brought this up over a year ago, my talk page was deleted without question. Why I cannot have the link broken between the two accounts now is unclear, esp. since I had the history moved by request. Let me know if this can be done, because if it can't I am either going to set up a sock puppet, or just edit from an IP going forward. It should not be this hard to avoid off-site stalking. Once more, if this cannot be done, I am just going to have to set up a new account, start from scratch, and exercise my WP:VANISH. --Secisek (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This type of issue should be taken into account in username-change and new-start situations. Unless there has been significant violation of the alternate-accounts policy, or there is some attempt to mislead the community, I don't think linking editors to prior accounts or usernames is necessary where this type of problem has been alleged. Of course if there has been significantly abusive sockpuppetry or the like then the best means of addressing the situation may be very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Before today Secisek had not actually made any of this clear. Also, since their edits will be attributed to the new username, anyone previously familiar would probably figure out that it was the same user anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Persistent BLP vandalism on Lil' Mo[edit]

Over the past few days, there has been a concerted effort to insert BLP vandalism into Lil' Mo. On 24 March there were a large number of IP addresses inserting nonsense; the users were reverted and I sprotected the article for a day, but unfortunately it seems that as soon as the sprotect expired the vandalism started up again. This time, I have blocked the main account (User:Realiytking (talk · contribs)) who was doing a fair chunk of the vandalism. Based on the fact that there a variety of different ISPs evident in the IP addresses used, I'd say that there are multiple vandals at work here, (probably kids from an internet forum or IRC room with nothing better to do, I'd say, based on the content of the edits) For this reason, I'm not all that confident that an autoblock will do much, but at the same time that the article seems relatively stable for now, so I'm hesitant to actually block.

If people could add the article their watchlists or otherwise keep an eye on it that'd be great. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

If I didn't know better, I would say that was a coordinated attack by 4chan, but I don't see anything really to indicate that it's them. Is this a popular subject recently or something? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • They definitely went to town on this BLP. You missed some: [45]. I've Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xenotalk 05:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, bummer. Not knowing the topic, it was difficult to tell in places where the article stopped and the vandalism begun. Thanks for the eagle eyes! Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC).

Userpage issue[edit]

Nothing more to see here. –xenotalk 03:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Threats against the personal safety of an editor?
Ash (talk · contribs) has placed the following on their userpage (emphasis mine):

After a particularly nasty personal attack against me I have put a halt to any other significant work on Wikipedia as my security must take a priority. The objective of those minority of Wikipedia Review members involved is to censor Wikipedia, in this case by ensuring that editors will fear sustained personal attacks if they contribute to LGBT sexuality topics. Their approach works.

Interested parties that wish to discuss or can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email. Related background can be found on this draft RFC/U. It would be an unlikely co-incidence that the serious personal attack against me started shortly after this document was created.

I am the editor named in the linked draft RFC/U and I believe that most readers would therefore assume that I am connected both to the unspecified "particularly nasty personal attack" and the unspecified threat to Ash's "security". The fact that this section is enclosed in hidden comments reading "<!--Delicious carbuncle-->" and "<!--/Delicious carbuncle-->" should remove any doubt that I am being deliberately and specifically targeted by these remarks.

This comes after a series of increasingly inflammatory personal attacks from Ash on their user page and elsewhere. My direct requests to admins to deal with these comments have either resulted in strangely inappropriate comments or no response at all. I have encouraged Ash and associated parties to file the oft-threatened RFC/U so that their concerns can be addressed and their accusations can be put to rest. I am tired of trying to deal with these baseless accusations and I do not believe that it should be acceptable for any Wikipedia editor to allege that another editor has put their physical safety in jeopardy. Can someone please deal with this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal safety is, and always will be, a priority that Wikipedia takes for all editors. I cannot really see where Ash has gotten the impression that his personal safety is at risk. He stated, 'The objective of those minority of Wikipedia Review members involved is to censor Wikipedia, in this case by ensuring that editors will fear sustained personal attacks if they contribute to LGBT sexuality topics. Their approach works.' Which is contradicting where he stated that his personal safety is at risk. I feel that, as he is making allegations, unsolicited allegations at that against an editor, he should be blocked. He's requesting information via email (Interested parties that wish to discuss or can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email.) which could possibly mean that he's going to pursue legal action. It seems that he's either under a cloud of delusion or he's legitimately concerned and we should put those concerns to rest. DustiSPEAK!! 16:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) My comments do not relate to legal action, this is a notice to explain why I have halted my contributions. There are outstanding requests for Oversight so I am unable to comment on these matters in this forum. I note I am being mis-quoted. There is a difference between my security and my personal safety. Ash (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but it seems to revolve around some dispute in Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films over the identification of the real names of porno actors. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
People who really think they're in danger call the police. People seeking to gain the upper hand in disputes with claims they're in danger write all about it on wikipedia. It's a time-honored technique that would be funny if it didn't actually work from time to time (note the appeal for "concerned admins" to contact and coordinate with him off line so he can get back to the important business of porn marketing).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't know that Ash hasn't involved the authorities, correct? (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, i think i've figured out the source of Ash's hysteria (his latest paranoid update about needing to communicate by email because "i have reason to believe this page is being monitored by members of the wikipedia review" tipped me off). It appears someone at Wikipedia Review figured out Ash's identity (or thinks he figured out Ash's identity). Ash imagines someone at Wikipedia can do something about this. Sadly for Ash, no one here can. Sadly for Wikipedia, that means the never-ending stream of "grabby award" sourced porn blps will soon resume. Sigh. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If there's an RFC/U already halfway constructed, I suggest it be finished up and filed and this conversation can be taken up there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
For months now I have been encouraging Ash (and Benjiboi before that) to file an RFC/U rather than make unsubstantiated accusations against me. Ash has started one but has delayed filing it for spurious reasons - first, because of an open ANI thread about Ash's misuse of citations and WQA thread raised by a trolling IP (both of which are now closed), and now because Ash's "basic safety comes first. The RFC/U will be delayed until these issues of safety are sorted out". In the meantime, Ash seems to believe that they are at liberty to make whatever unsubstantiated accusations they care to. Can someone please deal with these very serious personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think I'm trolling you, follow the proper DR process, instead of continuing to harass my fair edits. You have not participated in the truce that was offered to you, nor to the WQA that remains open. You've been asked by several third-parties to refrain from calling me a troll, yet you continue. You've indicated you're not interested in participating in any RFC/U's about your behavior, and any ANI's you've participated in have been closed against your favor...yet you continue to harass Ash to set a timelimit on filing an RFC/U which has been in preparation in barely under 2 weeks. Sounds quite a bit like Ash is not "paranoid", as Bali ultimate states, nor that the accusations are unsubstantiated. If you want these issues to pass, I'll remind you for the fifth time in 10 days that there is a Dispute Resolution process here on Wikipedia, and you should probably participate in that process. (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Has this alleged serious personal attack been oversighted, or is there a link to it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're referring to the attacks on me, see above. I do not know what personal attack Ash refers to in their note. I presume that the requests for oversight Ash referred to earlier in this thread involve their own contributions in which they identify themselves and/or link to their previous accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Suggest that either the parties fish or cut bait, or that the thread be closed. We can't do anything with allegations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It just goes to show the dangers inherent in coming betwixt a queen and his wanking material! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
^not appropriate. (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to get the basic facts down here, as the dramafest spins out of control:

  • Ash used his real name, on-project, some time ago, and later associated his real name with his user ID (probably without realizing what he had done).
  • A Wikipedia Review editor recently described some COI editing Ash had done, unrelated to the current dramafest, and identified WP editor "Ash" by his real name.
  • Several Wikipedia Review editors, commenting on the ongoing combat between Ash and DC or on the COI edits, made further comments relating to Ash's real-world activities, included the (purported) identification of his real-world spouse. One WPR editor noticed that Ash had even uploaded a photo of himself to Wikipedia (since deleted).
  • Ash has been ridiculed repeatedly in WPR comments.

Ash's greatly overblown reaction to this situation, and his pattern of innuendo associating his contraries in editing disputed with unsavory behavior, make it hard to take his complaints in good faith. He was treated roughly at WPR, but that in no way justifies his general uncivil treatment of Wikipedia editors who also post at WPR, without regard to their involvement (mostly noninvolvement) in WPR discussions of his editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are some serious allegations and hardly a NPOV summary. Diffs for all of those "facts", please? A place where those facts have been presented for DR, please? (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am certainly not going to post diffs showing how Ash "outed" himself on Wikipedia; presumably those are among the items for which he has requested oversight, nor am I going to post WPR links evidencing or alleging his real-world identity. The rest, as I'm sure you're aware, is covered in this recently archived thread [46], to which you posted several times. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have been reverted twice now, I am formally requesting that an admin or another editor endorse my request and Wehwalt's request that this be taken elsewhere, either RFC/U or ArbComm as this is not the appropriate place. DustiSPEAK!! 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't ANI the place to report violations of WP:NPA? How is this not a personal attack? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, by two different editors who disagree with you. Let the conversation run its course, such as it is. That strikes me as particularly worthwhile since the RFC that is allegedly imminent appears to rely rather heavily on old AN/I reports. The reason why this matter was brought here is because carbuncle alleges it is a rather insidious and serious sort of personal attack. Ash denies this but, nevertheless, it's the sort of complex situation that WQA and other of those venues are useless for. In as much as carbuncle might get a positive response to his good faith concern, this is the best venue.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect to your opinion, Delicious carbuncle would indeed and absolutely get the most positive response if s/he would participate willingly in the dispute resolution processes already presented, rather than continuing questionable editing behavior while ignoring most basic WikiPrinciples, including ALL of the 5P's. Dc's lack of willingness to participate thus far does not exactly endear any other editors to believe s/he might participate in the future. (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
IMO Ash needs to (rhetorically) either shit or get off the pot; you can't just leave vague accusation against other editors littered across the project. Finish the RfC/U or delete it. Make your case at an ArbCom, or drop the matter. Innuendo gets tiring after awhile. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement on User:Ash permanent link is totally unacceptable and should be highly refactored or deleted. The first sentence claims a "particularly disturbing personal attack" and the second refers to the "past conduct" of DC. Whether intended or not, the two sentences imply that DC has participated in an extreme attack. It is not acceptable for such a claim to be made on any page other than one where a formal complaint is actually lodged, with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already put the draft RFC/U up for speedy deletion, it has only been left as blank at the request of Delicious carbuncle. The original notice that Delicious carbuncle raised this ANI about was re-written several times since this ANI was raised in order to address any complaint and now makes absolutely no mention of him/her or Wikipedia Review. I have also deleted all content and history from my User page so that none of it could be interpreted as a personal attack. If I could withdraw my 23,000 contributions from the last three and a half years from Wikipedia then I would have done so today.

I believe that the outing information in this thread breaches the policy on these matters and it constitutes a personal attack of a homophobic nature whether that is the intent of those posting this information or not. I strongly object to it being left in this discussion. The fact that the reposting of outing information from Wikipedia Review on this ANI is apparently acceptable to administrators here has convinced me that it is foolish to pursue any complaint about any member of Wikipedia Review or the behaviour of Delicious carbuncle as attempted further speculative personal information could cause harm to me and those linked to me on Wikipedia Review whether the information is correct or not.

If the intention here was to gag me from mentioning these matters then the abuse is more than enough to convince me it is not worth pursuing. As stated since Thursday on my user page and user talk page I have halted any contributions to any LGBT related articles for these reasons. Ash (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, if you're really done editing here, you can always invoke the right to vannish. AniMate 02:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ash, thank you for removing the references to me from your user and talk page header. That was my objective here, not causing you to leave or prevent you from editing Wikipedia. I have no objection to this thread being closed and archived if it will get your personal details out of public view faster. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories[edit]

Resolved: Both deleted by User:Jac16888. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the categories Category:10 year olds on Wikipedia and Category:Minors on Wikipedia, as they are in violation of WP:CHILD. There doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion category that they fall under. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but there was no way in hell I was letting those stay--Jac16888Talk 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Grant.Alpaugh[edit]

Resolved: user unblocked Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's block was upheld by consensus here last year. They are asking now to be unblocked. They have admitted to disruptively editing before the block, and to block evasion afterword, it doesn't look like they've caused any issues since early October of last year. Since they were essentially banned by a discussion here I am bringing their request here. I'll also be notifying previously involved admins. Below is the the full text of their unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Roughly a year ago a number of disputes began on articles relating to the 2009 Major League Soccer season. Before, during, and after those arguments I behaved in a way that I deeply, completely, and utterly regret. Looking back at my attitude going into those discussions, I clearly took an ownership attitude over most of the MLS and American soccer articles. In the cold light of day, I can see that now. While I regret that attitude, it honestly stemmed from my deeep passion for the sport in the United States, which had been an asset to the encyclopedia in years previous, when I had been a productive member of this community. That being said, I do recognize that it was inappropriate, and I really am sorry. If given the opportunity, I promise to be more humble and to work in a more constructive way with others. During those discussions, I took on an unnecessarily aggressive, demeaning, and most importantly unwelcoming attitude toward both newers members to the community and established members who had recently taken an interest in MLS and American soccer. Again, I deeply regret those actions. I wish more than anything that I could go back and unsay some of the things that I said, or at the very least the way that I said those things. If given the opportunity, the first thing I wish to do is apologize to each of the members who I offended and made feel unwelcome in this project. Finally, after being banned from editing the encyclopedia, I engaged in utterly indefensible behavior to attempt to evade my ban. This behavior was disruptive to the encyclopedia, and I can only apologize and ask forgiveness with the promise that it would never happen again if this community sees it fit to reinvite me into the fold. While I can honestly say that the initial suspicion of sock puppetry was really my brother and I both engaging in the discussion from our home in Dayton, we were at the very least guilty of meatpuppetry, since we did not make it clear who we were from the beginning. Again, I can only apologize for this behavior, ask for forgiveness, and attempt to prove that I can be a valuable member of this community once more. I am so very sorry and ashamed of the things that I did over the last year, and I ask to be given another chance to rejoin the encyclopedia.

I would support his unblock request as he seems sincere that he has learned his lesson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if we unblock him and he continues his old ways? Kingjeff (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We reblock him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Would that reblock be an indefinite block as it is now? The only way I could say unblock him is if we put in stipulations stating that his current indefinite block would come into effect after lets say 2 or 3 blockable incidents or maybe reinstate that indefinite block immediately after the first blockable incident happens. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've had a quick look at the user's contribs and unblock request, and I'd cautiously support an unblock, provided that the user abides by a double-strength good behaviour commitment; on the first sign of trouble, they're indef blocked again, permanently this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC).
  • While his last sock incident (that I know of) was actually only 6 months ago, I would support giving Grant another chance. If there is concern that not enough time has passed or that he may revert back to his bad behavior, I'd suggest unblocking him with a 0RR probationary period or something along those lines. I'm willing to forgive the disruption and frustration he caused myself and other editors and I encourage the administrators to do the same. I agree that if his contributions become unproductive or problematic as they were before, he should be swiftly banned again. --SkotyWATC 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with SkotyWA. Unblock and limit him to 0RR or 1RR, and if disruption/edit warring/sock puppetry become an issue again, re-ban. ← George talk 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

copied from his talk page Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)*Thank you for even considering my request. I realize that you all have no reason to believe me, but I ask you to trust that in the six months to a year since my last serious activity on this project (other than reading it of course) has really changed my attitudes toward it. I used to be, for lack of a better word addicted, to Wikipedia. That is no longer the case. While I still use the encyclopedia multiple times a day, I no longer feel the compulsive need to fix everything that I percieve to be improper. Unless something is factually incorrect, I now realize that the correct way to deal with something is to discuss it with other editors. Anyway, thank you again for even considering my request. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I say given him another chance, with the provision that nobody is going to completely forget the past, and I'd expect tolerance to be thin in the future if he starts the improper behavior again. -- Atama 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've unblocked him and made sure he was aware that any return to the previous behavior will lead to the block being re-instated without further warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:Never give in [edit]

Never give in (talk · contribs) is making a large number of edits today, after not having edited since January, which result in the articles he's editing looking just like they did prior to his beginning his edits. I've asked for an explanation. Woogee (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed commas being removed on some of the edits, which to my eyes, made the text slightly less grammatical. (It removed a pause where a pause makes the text more readable). Example I suggest backing out all of this user's edits and blocking further editing, until an explanation is provided. Wildbear (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well its been a few hours since they last edited so I think a better idea than blocking would be to see if they restart the same behaviour or respond to the comments left on their talk page. something lame from CBW 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They have restarted doing the exact same thing despite being told by several editors to be more careful, and they have not responded on the talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't suppose the user ID might provide a clue, do you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This editor seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that "and" should never be preceded by a comma. All of his edits that I checked were instances of his removing such a comma. In a few cases the removed commas did seem to me to be redundant, but there are several examples, like the one cited by Wildbear, where the removed commas preceded instances of the conjuction "and" that were connecting two independent sentences. According to my copy (admittedly dated to the nearly antediluvian epoch of 1968) of Fowler's Modern English Usage, the comma is required in such cases. In at least at least one other case he also erroneously deleted the second of a pair of commas enclosing a parenthetical comment, where both commas (or a pair of some other stops, such as dashes or parenthesis) are likewise required. I don't believe a block is at all warranted, since it is very likely that this editor sincerely believes his edits are genuine improvements. He does, however, need to be imformed that some of his ideas on the use of the comma don't agree with recommendations given in reputable style manuals.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems I have fallen a little behind developments in this saga. I should have checked the editor's talk page before posting.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the most recent development is that I've blocked this account along with two more for abusing multiple accounts (the other two were doing exactly the same unhelpful editing.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Remove