Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User 'WKTU' and 'Islam' article.[edit]

This is a mixed case of bad faith, npov, and vandalism. There is currently an 'undo-war' happening on the 'Islam' article. This 'war' is mainly between users Iwanttoeditthissh, WKTU, and unfortunately me. User WKTU is falsifying information on the page and has been asked to stop. We (Iwanttoeditthissh and I) have asked him to discuss this on the articles talk page but he will not. He also deletes warnings from his own talk page. We believe he is acting in bad faith as he will not stop to discuss the edits, and claims 'seniority' over us as his profile is slightly older (although with less edits). Please intervene. Alek2407 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%. In the edit sumary he goes on to say that 'Shia and Sunni are the only sects in Islam!' Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Relevant links are WKTU (talk · contribs), Iwanttoeditthissh (talk · contribs), Alek2407 (talk · contribs), and Islam. This is not the place to discuss this. Take this to dispute resolution. MC10 (TCGBL) 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of my article due to AfD.[edit]

Resolved: The article is userfied, original article is deleted, and the AFD is closed. MC10 (TCGBL) 21:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newgrounds_Linux for details. Rohedin TALK 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdvarq[edit]

The User:Rdvarq is editing Alianza Lima and Universitario de Deportes, replacing verifiable content with original research and false content. [1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --MicroX (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the last few edits are of concern, but the first few worry me. Tell the editor that his edits are removing information and references from the article, and ask him/her why he/she is doing so. MC10 (TCGBL) 03:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I know why he/she is doing it. The user is a fanboy of Alianza Lima. When you see someone start doing the things that this user is doing, it's pretty evident that they are just here to troll. Unfortunately, talking to this person won't fix anything. This user is an edit war waiting to happen. Additionally, this IP user 190.41.149.140 (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing; messing with the national titles. The IP has only done 4 edits but all 4 consist of actions similar to Rdvarq (talk · contribs) --MicroX (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have enough evidence that the IP is Rdvarq, you could take this to SPI. I'm not quite certain what the issue is with the IP, so I am unable to help you. MC10 (TCGBL) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I could prove they are the same person. What the IP is doing is changing the titles won by Alianza. Alianza Lima has 22 titles. The IP keeps changing it to 23 and saying that the 1934 title was won by Alianza Lima.[9] However, the title was won by Universitario de Deportes as found on the Peruvian Football Federation website. [10] Here the IP is changing the titles again. Rdvarq (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. --MicroX (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Intentional repetitive phalse acusation of ethnic prejudice[edit]

This needs to be dealt with at the mediation page, it doesn't require administrator action
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I heve been intentionally acused of phalse ethnic prejudice ([11] "...your nationalist ethnic prejudice..."), by DIREKTOR, while in mediation process and while I was trying to demonstrate a posible conflict of interess of a certain author. When confronted to provide proof of those claims [12], this user arrogantly insisted further claiming "my ethnic preconceptions" giving a phalse idea on the mediator using the expression "you remember" towards me [13], afterwords choosing to ignore my request of proof, and further making phalse statemnets on me [14], I gave him a last chance to resolve the issue [15] (see bottom comment), but I was ignored again. It is not the first time that happend, but the case is more serios because it happend in middle of mediation perocess, and it happend after I was asked to explain the reasons that I founded for objecting the use of one authors source (from what I understand, I have the right to try to demonstrate a conflict of interess that a certain author may have about analising certain issues, and I shouldn´t be ever insulted because of making them, specially not when asked for).

I am also very sad and disapointed with the fact that Sunray, the mediator, has been refusing to remove the personal coment (please see bottom of [16]), while he has been sistematically removing me any personal approach, even considering "personal comments" worth removing such as this one, [17] where I am asking another user (direktor) simply to avoid using unpolite expressions... That has not been coherent and has given indirect backing of such racist acusations as the ones that were made against me, in this case.

I would also like to remind that DIREKTOR has showed strong perjudice against Serbs in several ocasions (I already exposed some on previos reports, but I´ll gladly expose them again, now more complete, if asked) but he also feels free to phalsely acuse others of it. All this behavior of this user is outragious and very disruptive, all this, in a number very sensitive articles. Could he please be warned about this racist behavior? Also, could you please ask Sunray to be more coherent and not allow participants to be insulted while responding to asked questions on middle of mediation process? FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is his labelling of what he sees as your bias any different to your labelling of his bias in this thread? "showed strong prejudice against Serbs in several occasions" etc. I think, on the scale of personal attacks (which runs from "you're a prat" to "I'm going to kill your mother") this is a minor one. Why expand a mediation attempt to encompass an ANI thread? If you're at mediation, expect people to be pretty blunt in their own defensive. I advise a thicker skin, myself. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The cases are very different. My education also tells me that racism isn´t definitelly a "minor" issue, and is allways worth reporting and taking action against. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This communication appears to breach the The privileged nature of mediation. I recommend that if FkpCascais is determined to have a review of my actions, it could be reviewed by the Mediation Committee Chair. He can be contacted via his talk page User talk:AGK. If I can be of any assistance in clarifying, please let me know. Sunray (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don´t make neither I should take phalse "ethnic prejudice" acusations. It happend in a user page, not only at mediation. That is racism, please somebody stop it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that this is a brushfire expected from mediation, and that external intervention of another admin would be counter-productive and inhibit what the mediation is trying to do. I suspect DIREKTOR could come up with as many counter-allegations as FkpCascais and that would be a pointless avenue to pursue. I would propose leaving it with the capable Sunray unless he specifically says he needs another hand. Just my own thoughts, however. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that DIREKTOR had his chance, he has been editing here, but ignored it. I know why, because he hasn´t any allegations of mine because there aren´t any. Please don´t equal us when that is not the case. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I've said my piece, I shan't be drawn into debating it with you. Another admin will happily lend their weight in a moment. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What, again?? Oh for crying out loud, Fkp, you stated yourself that you suspect the academic integrity of the respected American scholar from Stanford University because he's supposedly of Croatian ancestry. This is not my opinion, or me making stuff up - you said it yourself. And frankly I'm sick of having to hear how you personally don't like the source because the guy's a Croat. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, those are not my words, and be precise about them. Anyway, that is a mediation issue that doesn´t give you any right to insult me. Please provide proof, then talk. But remember, explaining how a Croatian (not American) author may have a conflict of interes in analising a Serbian movement, as much as you don´t like it, shouldn´t be excluded from the mediation, neither I should suffer pression in form of insults from your side, because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Those weren't your precise words? Well then, what were your precise words when you said Tomasevich should be disregarded on the basis of his ethnicity on Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive 2. I'm sorry you feel "insulted", but simply repeating your stated opinions can hardly be called an "insult" simply because you weren't prudent enough to conceal them.
I try not to be a nuisance on WP:AN/I, even though I do deal with a lot of difficult issues and users. But since we're pestering people here, here's Fkp: [18]

Your constant silly accusations and free insults just show how weak, and complexed (Serbo-Croatian: iskompleksiran) you are. And please, avoid calling me a lier, hidding behind a cp. That´s highly rude and chicken behaviour, not even needing to mention, against WP roles. You are taking this way too personaly, and by the history of your edits, by your showed incapacity of editing neutraly any Serbian-related article (your hateriot towards Serbia is just too evidente), you should really re-consider your role here. (...) Maybe in your home it didn´t... but, you are not Serb, so it does make sence. You obviously know nothing about Serbian history. You just pretend to do, with all your Croatian history perception.

Which, for the record, was in response to this :P. Actionable, or not actionable? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You reported me on that already, and because of it, I was blocked for one week! When was it anyway, a 6 months ago? And yes, that comment followed a sequence of comments of yours that were extremely strange regarding Serbs in general. It´s on my talk page. I even forbite you to post any more comments there... Now, is this an apologise from your side? Do you understand what are you apologising for? FkpCascais (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is going to just become an extension of the mediation case then it needs closing per WP:BATTLE S.G.(GH) ping! 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The mediation is fine and other participants are making progress. But I have disallowed fighting there so... You probably get the picture. Sunray (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not "battling" anyone, I was responding to Fkp's unfounded criticism of sources - a relevant discussion topic. Notice: I did not talk to him all day yet he's running around all over the place trying to get me blocked... again. And I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. We Balkans brutes have feelings too. :)
The guy reports me for some nonsense like every ten minutes, what was I supposed to do? If I don't mention that I'm repeating his statements it looks like I'm attacking him... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Amateur Radio Emergency Service[edit]

Resolved

Hello. I'd previously listed what was initially a content dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion, but this situation has since turned a little bit more problematic. This was essentially just a disagreement on what should be in the article, but now, after a few messages exchanged with the other user (97.92.44.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), I've been labeled a vandal. That's a little uncomfortable. I just would like some guidance here. Dawnseeker2000 00:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I have removed the vandalism warning from your userpage and warned the IP user about issuing such notices in content disputes. If such behaviour continues, please post again here. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Anthonzi[edit]

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All the more reason to believe that anything that can be misinterpreted will be misinterpreted. I'm not sure how a qualified suggestion about the practicality of attempting to edit an English encyclopedic article with less-than-phenomenal English skills constitutes a personal attack.--Anthonzi (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Anthonzi, I really suggest you to read WP:NPA. Stating "You should probably stick to editting [sic] the Japanese wikipedia until your English proficiency increases significantly" is still a personal attack, whether or not you said "probably". (Note to other editors: See this user's talk page for more examples of personal attacks.) MC10 (TCGBL) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It was a suggestion made in good faith, not an attack. No one has yet elucidated how it attacks anyone personally. As of yet, the only specific accusation was a straw man fallacy. Unlike what SarekOfVulcan asserts, the comment does not tell the user to go away. The intent of the message was to give a constructive opinion on the likelihood of productive edits (one's that wouldn't be reverted in my experience on this wiki) being made with the demonstrated level of language proficiency. Additionally, I found it logical that learning the verifiability criteria would be much easier in one's own native language (given that the user was anonymous, I could only assume from the subject of the article which that might be). This does not constitute an ad hominem attack; it is a legitimate critique of language skills.--Anthonzi (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Cable[edit]

Resolved

Is being reported as being dead on his page with no citations, but according to BBC reports [25], the identification is not definite yet. 86.136.31.184 (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help. this is developing into an edit war. The page needs protection. 86.136.31.184 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've watchlisted it, but I'd note that there is now a source for the claim that the article's subject has died. (The source is the NME, which is generally considered reliable for music-related matters). TFOWRidle vapourings 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added a BBC article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat Over Sourced Statement[edit]

I monitor this article "Ed Decker" after going through I forget how this got on my watchlist but it disturbs me greatly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Decker&diff=366407186&oldid=355897728

I was neither divorced or excommunicated for adultery. I divorced my former wife, Phyllis Ray Decker Montanari Danielson. I did so after extensive counseling with the Bishop and our Stake President and their recommendation that I do so. While I do not throw rocks, It was she who was having multiple affairs. I remained an active Mormon for a full 7 years after the divorce and was finally excommunicated in Bellevue, WA in 1976 AFTER I requested that my name be removed from the records of the church… The original documents from my excommunication are on file at Utah State University Special Collections Library : Collection #210, J. Edward Decker Collection, where most of all the research, books, videos, audio records, correspondence, files, etc are on file for researchers to use. That document clearly shows their reluctance to excommunicate me and that it was”my" decision and mine alone. These two facts clearly show that the Wikipedia posting on your website is false and slanderous.

How Ever the Statment Mr. Decker refers to is source by what appears to be a source that looks extremely dubious at best. I intend to remove it but since the legal threat has been made i felt the need to report it publisher page of source

Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant this get even more tangled, i found the diff of the addition, as it appears an Admin inserted the text and the source. In the mean time i have removed the text from the article space and it is now in the talk space Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a legal threat as far as I can see, more a statement that there are WP:BLP issues with the article. I was about to give the user directions to the BLP pages when I saw that, on the article talk page, someone has already done so. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, he uses the word "slander" but does no threaten to take legal action. Put yourself in his shoes, how would you feel if you saw an article that portrayed you in that light? He didn't handle it well, but it's easy to understand why he would be upset. I don't think any admin action is needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that he uses the word "slander" instead of "libel" is pretty much (circumstantial) proof that he hasn't contacted an attorney. --Smashvilletalk 03:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Half of the EL's in that article were dead (and would have failed WP:EL anyway). I removed them. Also removed one that was just some angelfire site that was little more than POV piece. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Resolved

Would someone mind having a look at this request on my talk page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mackensen's sorted it - thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 22)[edit]

Resolved: No problem + anyway not an administrator issue, except perhaps B-Machine (talk · contribs) and his intractable incivility... ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 15:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some stupid motherfucker deleted the "Episodes" section of this article. I can't figure out who did it. B-Machine (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that nobody assists this editor until they apologise for this egregious personal attack, their second in not very long╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. B-Machine (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The episodes section hasn't been deleted... Theleftorium (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the previous seasons. The episodes are listed in a yellow infobox. That's what's missing from this article. B-Machine (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
They never were in there for this article, so no one deleted anything. Presumably the primarily editors decided not to put it in the same format yet because the season hasn't even started airing yet, and only a few episodes are known at this point so there is little confirmable information to work with.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They shouldn't be placed in a yellow table until we have sources that actually match up the titles with the plots. We can't do that ourselves – that would be original research. Theleftorium (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There was (very briefly, and at various stages) a table added to the article until its latest removal here on 31 May by User:Gran2 on the grounds of 'Unsourced, speculation, OR etc.'. You should probably discuss with him on the article talk page whether that's justified or not, before taking further action. Benea (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MuZemike[edit]

Resolved: MuZemike did the right thing. Nothing more to discuss here.

I think this user is misusing his admin tools. Yesterday, he blocked somebody for being a sock of "banned" user GEORGIEGIBBONS yet he is not on the ban list and his user page doesn't say he is banned. MuZemike then deleted anything User:UnknownThing touched including SPIs, Afds and Good faith pages. 92.40.93.104 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely due to checkuser evidence is practically considered "de facto" banned. No abuse of admin tools. _Tommy2010[message] 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone block this IP which is obviously used by Gibbons?--Atlan (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Who's Gibbons? I'm not a monkey! 92.40.93.104 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Rohedin TALK 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Naively assuming good faith, I'll try to explain why MuZemike did the right thing: GEORGIEGIBBONS is indefinitely blocked; using a sock to evade an block is a big no-no. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

92.40.93.104's edit history leaves me in very little doubt that it is the same user as UnknownThing, who is apparently also GEORGIEGIBBONS. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I rangeblocked 92.40.80.0/20 for 1 month. CheckUser  Confirmed (You may verify by asking User:J.delanoy, who can the CU.) that UnknownThing (talk · contribs) is GEORGIEGIBBONS. He then just came back on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan, the same SPI in which UnknownThing was involved in, and continued to proceed with GG's normally-used IP range. –MuZemike 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as the ban is concerned, no admin in their right mind would ever consider unblocking this serial vandal and sockmaster. He has had a long history of blatant disruption, including SPI disruption, IRC disruption, and impersonating other users. –MuZemike 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically- de facto banned. _Tommy2010[message] 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The WP:BOOMERANG came back... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More harassment from Arthur Rubin[edit]

This is another formal written complaint about User:Arthur Rubin. Arthur obviously wikistalks me on a regular basis. He is a long time editor and admin, and therefore is fully skilled at avoiding actual policy violations, while being as disparaging to my contributions whenever he sees an opportunity. Arthur and I began being in conflict over articles in the field of logic. He has now expanded his harrassment opportunities. For the record, this is an on-going issue with Arthur, and I have made formal complaints before.

On this occasion Arthur has given me a non-veiled threat to block me, even though I have violated no policy. He is so arrogant that he believes that I should be contemplating his mindset, and furthermore should be grateful that he had generously decide not to sanction me.

This is a formal written request for all the following actions

  • An admin will give a written instruction to Arthur on his talk page not to wikistalk, or otherwise harrass me.
  • My talk page is to be removed from Arthur's watchlist either by him or some administrative intervention.
  • Arthur is to be banned from any future administrative action against me. If there is something so important as to require action, he is to approach some other admin with the issue.

I find all of my requests to be completely reasonable, and not any violation of Arthur's freedom to participate in contributing to the WP community. Be well, Greg Bard 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to show specific edits that establish a pattern of WP:wikihounding, if in fact that is what occurred. TFD (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have notified Arthur Rubin of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be the result of this editor moving an article without discussion (the edit summary oddly called the move a 'proposal' and me asking him to restore it. As there was a discussion about the article name in April and the article 2012 phenomenon is a fairly actively edited one. He refused to move it back and Arthur Rubin did the move, asking him to fix the redirects. The comment about blocking was "I suggest you fix all the redirects. It should give you something to do while contemplating why I didn't also block you. " Gregbard has complained before about harassment, see [26] asking that all members of a Wikiproject be given a 24 hour block if there was a problem. Unless he comes up with some proof quickly I don't see much to do here. Dougweller (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
We need some diffs or evidence to show that this is happening; until then, we have no evidence that harassment is happening. (Note: the section Dougweller mentioned above is here.) MC10 (TCGBL) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The threat of blocking was improper, due to my long history with what I consider Greg's inappropriate edits of logic articles. As for this incident, I wasn't stalking Greg (although I have, at times gone through his edits to logic categories and templates, and proposing deletion of some as absurd, without possible definition, or inherently violating NPOV). 2012 phenomenon has been on my watch list for some time, and I noticed the move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur has taken responsibility for his offense to me. I have accepted. Just so that we are perfectly clear: 1) My complaint to Incidents was justified, 2) Arthur has admitted to the offense, 3) I will continue to engage with Arthur in a civil manner, however 4) I reserve my right to bring this incident up again in the future as evidence of a pattern. Be well, and thank you. Greg Bard 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

However, your complaint of stalking which should have been a complaint of being wikihounded, has not been shown to be valid as he has said that he has your article on his watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before and the day before, then it is reasonable to presume that it will come up tomorrow because each instance supports the conclusion that the sun will come up in the morning. So that is why I am stating for the record that this instance, any others I have reported in the past, and any I report in the future will all support a conclusion that yes Arthur is wikihounding or wikistalking or otherwise being wikidisparaging of my contributions ---whether he is or not. It needs to be this way because we all know that Arthur is perfectly able to abide by the letter of the policies, without any care for the spirit of them. So the idea is to encourage Arthur to be mindful not to inadvertently portray himself this way. Having incentive to reflect on ones own negative disposition is not a bad thing. At this point I would at least hope that he is asking himself if his dispositional beliefs are worth the fight he will inevitably incur if the pattern continues. Greg Bard 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of long-term patterns continuing, Gregbard is a long-term tendentious editor with a history of antipathy towards many of the editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, of which Rubin is one. He needs to be reminded that when other editors undo his edits (especially those likely to watchlist the same articles he edits) it may very well have nothing to do with wikihounding or wikistalking or wikimisbehavior of any sort: the simpler explanation is that his edits are bad and that undoing them was the correct thing to do. The solution is not to shoot the messenger, it's to make better edits and grow a thicker skin. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me state for the record that I am not a tendentious editor, quite the contrary. I edit in ways that prevent, avoid and otherwise clarify POV issues by covering the meta-perspective. However Arthur and most of the rest of the math department have settled into their own version of reality in which I am the biased, POV editor. I recently tried to elucidate on this situation by creating the article Mathematosis which the group promptly deleted. When I moved the content to the Countering Systemic Bias project, they went to work destroying my legitimate venue for communicating such concerns. I hate using the term "fascist" for obvious reasons. However, objectively that is exactly how to describe the situation. They have forcibly suppressed my ability to oppose this reality that they have created for themselves. Interestingly, they have accused me of "ideological" editing because I want to cover legitimate aspects of topics from within an academic perspective of philosophical logic. You see in their minds, this emphasis from within a legitimate academic field which they don't care about is all about WP:Weight, and Bias. In reality they don't even really seem to understand what an "ideology" is. They confuse legitimate subject matter for bias because of their own systemic bias. There has been at least some admission of this from some of the more reasonable members. Furthermore, in response to your "thinker skin" comment: I reserve the right to complain, and I will. I don't have to pretend about the reality around here. Greg Bard 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Seven months ago is "recently"? And a unanimous-except-for-you "delete or merge" decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis is "the group promptly delet[ing]"? Makes me wonder about that "I am not tendentious" assertion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
With respect, please keep in mind that Wikipedia editors are a self selecting group. If you intend to portray that some valid democratic and legitimate peer review has taken place, let me dispel that fallacy. I am only one of very few regular editors in the philosophy department. If we assembled a legitimate review of the situation with academics from all relevant areas properly represented, we would have a totally different political situation. Currently we rely on people considering this fact in their deliberations. However, that is far too optimistic. It is a perfectly reasonable claim that I have: Wikipedia suffers from a severe political bias due to the inordinate number of mathematicians as compared to philosophers who study logic. Greg Bard 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Maashatra11[edit]

Gaza flotilla raid is protected for more than 1 revert in 24 hours as stated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. User:Maashatra11 has removed multiple images in one of their recent edits from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366590058&oldid=366586582 --386-DX (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you give individual diffs of them reverting? Fences&Windows 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, have you tried discussing with this user or on the talk page of the article? You've not left them a message about this AN/I post either. Fences&Windows 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious IP disruption from multiple addresses[edit]

I've been presented with a case on my talk pages that is getting a little confusing, having evolved from some disruption and pov issues raised at a previous ANI thread with which I dealt with.

  • Here is the original complaint.

Here are the three IPs involved.

The -43 IP was reported for [27] [28], the -49 for [29] and -189 for [30]. Originally I took most to be pretty tame apart from the -43, which was blocked. The others were warned.

Subsequently, -49 has left this innapropriate vandal warning to advance its agenda by implying counter-agendas are illicit. A new IP, 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done the same here and 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done this and this.

The IPs seem to be following Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · logs) and Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · logs) around, reverting or changing content and disagreeing on articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Six-Day War and someone called Caroline Glick. I suspect there are ArbCom sanctions relating to Palestinian or Israeli topics, however I am not fully familiar with them.

The IPs are hopping all over the place, making warnings and blocks difficult, please advise. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone informed. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Two more IPs have popped up and I believe they are connected to the ones noted above. They are 69.110.8.85 and 99.132.106.62.
--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:EunSoo and socks[edit]

Resolved: EunSoo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and his socks have been blocked appropriately, and the edits have been reverted. MC10 (TCGBL) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

EunSoo (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday by User:Syrthiss for edit warring on Ayumi Hamasaki (see). EunSoo soon came back editing under an IP address and his block was extended. Today, he came back with a bunch of socks and made the same edits as he did on the previously mentioned article. Some are listed here and these are the others 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs), 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 222.124.223.42 (talk · contribs). He also edited under 125.162.70.81 (talk · contribs) but this one was blocked earlier. IPs 92.118.181.151 (talk · contribs), 200.48.170.215 (talk · contribs) and 201.15.105.230 (talk · contribs) were just blocked by Zzuuzz. But can someone protect those pages because he will be back soon. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He came back 118.97.148.195 (talk · contribs). MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Being sorted as we speak. – B.hoteptalk• 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the articles affected by the IPs you have mentioned remain in the state that they left it in. Can you confirm that what they have done are good edits? – B.hoteptalk• 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't really gotten around to reverting all of the edits the IPs made, But mostly all of the edits made are not good edits but to the EunSoo they are. MS (Talk|Contributions) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
How is adding this "Also known as = MatsuJun, Matsumoto Jun (松本 潤)" a bad edit? And MS didn't explain why it was a bad edit 200.81.202.164 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I've done the ones I can safely do for now. If there are further problems in the next few hours, add here. In the next few days, add pages to WP:RFPP, or by Monday, if I am around, ping me on my talk page. Cheers. – B.hoteptalk• 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Obvious sock right above and he's back editing under 115.69.217.106 (talk · contribs), 61.7.142.159 (talk · contribs) and 201.18.12.26 (talk · contribs).

He is also using a different editor's edit summary (here to "justify" his edits. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit summaries >.> Sorafune +1
As a pro-active move, someone may want to warn the Japanese WikiProject about this editor and anons in general. Originally, he was working on Korean-related articles. But because of my relationship with Japanese-oriented articles (and remembering that awhile back I pissed him off at a non-Wikipedia wiki site), he's given up on Korean articles and is now attacking many of the Japanese articles. People like this editor has all the free time in the world, and nothing will stop him. Groink (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the editor is still targeting some Korean articles. There's been a lot of the same type of editing going on in Hyuna. That article should be protected as well; I'm getting tired of reverting. Sorafune +1 23:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

More contrary WP:ENGVAR edits[edit]

Just an FYI, the problems reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Contrary WP:ENGVAR edits and questions are continuing. The editor is continually reverting/repeating the same edits over again[31][32][33][34][35][36] and it looks like he/she is opening up sockpuppets[37] which are also being used to vandalize tags[38][39].MrFloatingIP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious disruption is obvious - note any further instances to WP:AIV where they can be dealt with quickly as vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest blocking this editor, if it has not been done already. MC10 (TCGBL) 21:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The only named account in the previous report is inactive, and it is abundantly clear that the anon editor does not have a fixed ip address so CU will not make a definitive match. Presently, whacking the ip's as they appear seems the way to go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I mean block the IP temporarily (for 24 hours, if it's the first block). MC10 (TCGBL) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive newbie Chirco evading block with 2nd account.[edit]

Resolved: Obvious sock is obvious (and blocked), no need for a SPI

Nick Chirco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

ChircoN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Chirco and the man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Possibly this belongs on some other noticeboard, and quite possibly I will fail to provide the appropriate info in the proper way, for all of which, I apologize in advance. Maybe this user qualifies as a sockpuppet?

User:Nick Chirco, new here since 1 June, was just blocked at 04:03, 7 June 2010 for 24 hours after some disruptive editing. Now I see that he's endeavoring to fix things to his liking using a new account, User:ChircoN. I noticed this because he's reverting my edits (incl. some reversions of his edits) on pages I'm watching. I know there's a way to provide the accounts' relevant links, but I don't know what it is. Still, here are the nicely-intersecting contributions lists for Nick Chirco and ChircoN. Activity with the second account started some ten hours after the 24-hour block began. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat cheekily, I'll say upfront that future reports like this should go to sock puppet investigations (however, kind people have dealt with my sock puppet reports here, before, and may yet deal with yours...) It may also be worth mentioning this to the admin who blocked Nick Chirco. TFOWRidle vapourings 15:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Thanks for the tip (and I can see the {{user}} template, too). Next time I'll do it all better (I hope), so it's not cheeky at all. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked the sock, reset the original block; I didn't extend it as assuming extreme AGF, a new editor might not have realised he wasn't allowed to do this. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chirco now evading block with 3rd account[edit]

Frightfully sorry to be a nuisance, chaps and chapettes, but this user has apparently set up another account, if only to fix some "grammer" (so far). Starting a sock account appears to be the only recognition this user (originally User:Nick Chirco, then User:ChircoN, now User:Chirco and the man) has shown any of the notices on his Talk page(s). Thanks for your attention. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, with instructions to return to original account and request unblocking from there. Primary account indef'ed as well.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving problems[edit]

Resolved

Hi! There was an article called Apraxia, which is about the disorder. An editor moved Apraxia to Apraxia (disorder) and created an disambiguation page instead that is called Apraxia. I did not agree with this, because I think the disorder apraxia should be the main page, and get a tag: This article is about the disorder apraxia. For other uses, see Apraxia (disambiguation). So I moved Apraxia (that now was the disambiguation page) to Apraxia (disambiguation). But when I wanted to move Apraxia (disorder) back to Apraxia, there was a message saying that it was impossible and that I should request the help of an administrator. So here I am! Can you please help me? Lova Falk talk 19:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Just to make things clear. I don't have a conflict with this editor, I just did not agree with the moving. Lova Falk talk 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved the page to the location you requested. The disambiguation page could also probably be deleted, to be honest. But in any case, in the future, {{db-move}} can be used in these circumstances. NW (Talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Lova Falk talk 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
For future cases, you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves, which serves the same purpose. {{db-move}} may be faster, but it is not appropriate in all circumstances. MC10 (TCGBL) 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More socks of User:45g[edit]

Resolved

The blocked sockpuppet 45g (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (also known as Grace Saunders (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) may have some more sockpuppets – see Wikipedia:Help desk#Requesting unblock of User:45g. Can someone with more knowledge of SPI please post this to SPI? Thanks. MC10 (TCGBL) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and a sleeper check put in at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grace Saunders. TNXMan 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat and general incivility[edit]

Resolved: No legal threat, but user blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Anthonyhcole#June_2010, where I placed a WP:NLT warning after this editor make a half hearted accusation of libel at Talk:Acupuncture. Although I did not take the threat seriously, it is good to leave educational warnings to prevent problems in future and accusations that may be taken more seriously. I also asked them to strike the accusation. Unfortunately, their response has been to repeat the accusation, more forcefully "Too right. You did libel me. ... I now accuse you of being a fool" (diff). Could an admin please just have a talk with this editor about how we avoid legal threats and the term "libel", and that incivility and repeating of the threat in response to a valid warning is not appropriate. I would also appreciate the comments being struck by the author. Verbal chat 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of a legal threat is that it involves an actual statement threatening to take legal action, which seems to be absent here. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Is libel a verb? S.G.(GH) ping! 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We have taken the view in the past that accusing other editors of libellous behaviour is not to be tolerated due to the chilling effect we are trying to avoid. Now, I happen to know that what I said isn't libellous at all, but that actually makes the situation for Anthonyhcole worse as he is making unfounded accusations of a legal nature. I am not asking for him to be blocked, unless he keeps making such accusations, but I would appreciate an admin making it clear that this behaviour is not tolerated here. Verbal chat 13:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
More importantly (what, with me not being a lawyer an' all) is this libel? (I reckon "no").
If it were me, I'd ignore it and move on. The editor isn't going to go to court over Verbal uncollapsing a collapsed discussion. Ignore it. TFOWRidle vapourings 13:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Saying "you libeled me" is not quite the same thing as saying "I'm going to sue you for libel". It is an intimidation tactic. As TFOWR notes, the best option is to not be intimidated. The user in question is very possibly headed down the wrong path in general, and time will fix that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but what I am asking for is someone who isn't involved to tell this editor that this behaviour is not on. Repeating the accusation and calling the complaining editor a fool does not help the project. It is better to give a gentle talking too now rather than require an indef block later when they go too far. Verbal chat 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This has now been dealt with to my satisfaction, thanks. Verbal chat 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not mine. I have just been rebuked. I have asked Sarek on my talk page to explain what I have done to deserve the rebuke. But perhaps this is the place for that. Please explain. Anthony (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You claimed that someone calling your edit misleading was libelous. Not cool, whether or not you actually intended to take legal action to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You'll need to be clearer than that. Not cool? Anthony (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this at my talk page:

Libel is a legal term for a false statement that when written, negatively impacts the individual it is written about. For one thing, throwing that term around can create a chilling effect - especially in an instance like this where there was obviously no libellous statement made. While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation...and that is not acceptable. In addition, calling someone a fool is an ad hominem personal attack. Wikipedia operates on consensus and cooperation, not on intimidation and insults. --Smashvilletalk 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And will respond shortly. Anthony (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The history. I collapsed an off-article Acupuncture talk page discussion about User:Middle 8 here [40] with "Copied to COI noticeboard" on the hat. These two edits happened within seconds of each other. Ten minutes later Verbal reversed both [41][42] with the edit summary "It wasn't copied there" on the talk page edit.
I asked Verbal on his talk page what the problem was and he said, inter alia, "Misleading note." I asked "Misleading?" To which he did not reply.
Back on Talk:Acupuncture Verbal, still not explaining what he meant by misleading, posted this: "Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note." I responded [43] with "Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? Ad hom? NPA|PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly?" You know the rest.
I object to being called misleading. It is a description I'll happily wear if demonstrated. But it has not been demonstrated. In the absence of that demonstration, I deserve an apology.
Verbal has demonstrated he is a fool by inferring a legal threat in no way inherent or implied in my use of the term libel. It can be and is used in law, but also, in popular usage simply means any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise.
So. I have been defamed here. Mildly, sleazily, underhandedly, in a sly, drive-by, hopefully-under-the-radar way by this fool. Rather than apologize when I called him on it he has brought it here, and you have drawn the same false inference and accused me of intimidation. I now deserve an apology from you. Are you mature enough? Anthony (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours for repeating the "fool" attack after being warned by two admins it was an unambiguous violation of WP:NPA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
They say it's better to wait for an apology rather than demand one. Demanding an apology makes one look very egotistical. –MuZemike 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Nicely refactored -- I missed that one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, my timing was absolutely horrible there, but it really doesn't take away from the general message, though. –MuZemike 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Anthony emailed me to ask for advice about this. My experience of him is of a very decent editor who is normally extremely patient. He's been editing since 2006 more or less unblemished—he had one prior block in his log, but it was apparently an error and he was unblocked minutes later. [44] This situation seems to have caused by a mixture of frustration and a misunderstanding. I've restored Anthony's ability to edit his talk page so he can post an unblock request if he wants to, and I've asked Sarek if he would consider unblocking, or allow me to. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • This matter is not resolved. Using the adjective "libelous" is not making a alegal threat. "I am going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. Describing someone as "a fool" for not knowing that difference is blunt, but hardly untrue or worthy of a block.  Giacomo  07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Giacomo. It's a bad block. Anthony made no threats, legal or otherwise. Calling someone a fool is not a "nice" thing to do, but it certainly does not warrant a 24-hour block. Another classic case where a veteran content editor gets blocked because another editor misconstrues his remark. Poor show indeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Calling someone a fool once is borderline and deserves a warning. Doing so repeatedly after being told not to do it again is self-destructive. Doing so again on ANI after being told not to do that again is in a sense suicide-by-cop.
If he acknowledges the NPA policy and agrees to stop using "fool" to describe other editors in the future, I don't see unblocking as unreasonable. But I think he needs do acknowledge that, regardless of what he feels, the community (writ large, Giano excepted) feels that it violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and that it was not OK, and he needs to agree to not push personal attack buttons again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there. Both responses seem over-the top, so clearly everyone was just fed-up because of the content dispute. Time to unblock and forget about it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that templating a regular editor and such comments as "it is good to leave educational warnings" from the aggreived are hardly likely to result in a cooling of tempers and couldbe interpretated as bating. Just unblock him and tell him not to do it again - nicely!  Giacomo  08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the whole template-warning-response to Anthony's original comment was incredibly foolish, but this would be made a lot easier if the users who want Anthony unblocked simply asked him to say OK to making an assurance that he won't call another editor a fool in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I did ask Anthony by e-mail to consider posting an apology or assurance. The problem is that it ignores the frustration factor. Someone says something they could have phrased better. They're templated. They get irritated and make a remark they shouldn't. Then they're told they'll only be unblocked if they offer assurances and withdrawals and ablutions. A point arrives where the best thing is simply to ignore everything that's happened and move on, not try to force anyone to eat humble pie. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I disagree. The frustration was recognised that he made a remark that he shouldn't have; but the block was because he kept making the remark after being warned more than once to not do so (and that wasn't through inflammatory template warnings either). Still, given how incredibly foolish the original templating was, everything's been done for him; he just needs to type two letters together (O and K) and sign in response to what I posted - I don't think that's humble pie at all, and that's the point where no admin is going to object unblocking (in fact, if he can do that much, I bet there'd be a competition for who can unblock him first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin offers the best solution. I think we should just move on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this is all just an unfortunate chain of events that grew from an unremarkable and perhaps deliberatly misunderstood edit. I am very ucomfortable about this block and even more uncomfortable that ritual humiliation is required to save admin face for making it. In this particular case, it's probably best to unblock and move on rather than start digging to deeply.  Giacomo  09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to go offline now, so I've unblocked him as there seems to be agreement. I'll leave a note for Sarek too. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, as there didn't actually seem to be agreement, did there? I never asked for a block, it was Anthony's response that lead to a block. Also I note I am in an active disagreement with SV. It is standard practice that accusing other editors of libel is considered a form of legal threat, and my motivation in using the appropriate warning template was to give a warning and prevent further disruption. My comments were not libellous (I suggest Anthony read up on that) and not were they incorrect, his edit was misleading (for several reasons I will explain if anyone asks). Anthony then repeated the acusation more forcefully, and included personal attacks. On being warned, correctly, he repeaded the behaviour which lead to a block. I'm not to interested in the block, but he then again repeated the personal attacks and accusations in his unblock requests. This is not on, and should not be encouraged. There was no misunderstanding on my part. If you read the chain of events, and my summary above, you will see that a few people here haven't actually looked at what happened. The point of all this should be to stop future disruption, ie future (incorrect, in this instance) accusations of libel and personal attacks. I fear that by SVs actions Anthony may now feel his actions were entirely correct. Lastly, despite what SV says if you look at Anthony's edits you will see he is not a veteran editor at all. Verbal chat 09:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Verbal, I would appreciate it if you would consider this closed and simply stay away from Anthony for the next few days (and, if Anthony is reading, visa versa).
Nothing is to be gained by further conflict at this point. There was an issue. There is reason to believe that it's over with now. If he is abusive again later we can deal with that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I considered the matter resolved when Sarek gave the initial warning. Unfortunately SV has undermined that warning, and I hope it wont lead to problems in future. At no point have I been vindictive, despite people apparently projecting it onto me. Repeated accusations of libel are not on, whether justified or not (not justified in this case, if you think it is justified you should ask for a retraction or follow WP:LIBEL). I will continue to edit as normal. Verbal chat 09:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wholeheartedly agree with Ncmvocalist. This user was blocked for repeating a personal attack, after being warned not to. I think this block was the right thing to do at the time and should be left alone until it expires. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 09:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Verbal. Though I appreciate the gesture, SlimVirgin acted ahead of consensus and I would urge any admin who disagrees with her to revert. I'd like to be unblocked by consensus here. Anthony (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You were unblocked as a result of an unblock request that you posted - that does not require a community consensus. It is unlikely that the community is going to go to the trouble of coming to a consensus to reblock you because that is not the way we work here, and Wikipedia isn't (supposed to be) a bureaucracy. Furthermore, reverting without a consensus to do so would constitute wheelwarring. The best thing that you and Verbal can do is move on so that this thread can be closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Anthony, although I have no wish to see you reblocked and would not support that action. Verbal chat 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It reads to me Verbal, like you have quite a bit of a problem with him being unblocked after all that effort to get him blocked. Perhaps you need to consider your own part in this and stop templating editors in good standing and also stop saying such things to justify your actions as "it is good to leave educational warnings" because you are wrong on both counts. He made no legal threat to you at all here. Please learn to understand what is written not what suits you to believe is between the lines. What followed was the result of you misinterpreting a perfectly reasonable edit.  Giacomo  09:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're working under a misapprehension. I made no effort to get Anthony blocked, please read what I have written. I left the discussion after Sarek placed the warning, and for this warning to stand is all I have asked for. Thanks. Verbal chat
You made your point. Please stop belaboring it here and on SlimVirgin's talk page. Many many admins have reviewed and commented. Please consider this closed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Giacomo, although I concur with you that there was no legal threat and that Verbal should not have templated a regular, Anthony repeatedly offended Verbal. He wasn't just venting — which I would understand —, he kept on accusding the other of being a fool, even after being asked to discontinue. He was blocked for he didn't pay heed to the warning. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Salvio, I would appreciate it if you also accepted this as dealt with and move on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the templates should be deleted if we are not to use them? Verbal chat 10:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been traveling and haven't followed this affair, but I have always found Anthonycole to be a helpful and patient editor; perhaps it's time for everyone to back off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, when Verbal called for consensus, I assumed that meant consensus was expected.
To be sure I understand what I did wrong and what you require of my future conduct: I should have said something like "accusing me of a threat to go to law because I used the term libel is foolish", rather than "doing so demonstrates that you are a fool"? Is that it? As here, for instance, where Verbal is behaving with hypocrisy, it would be OK for me to say what he says is hypocritical but not OK for me to say it demonstrates that he is a hypocrite. Is that right? Anthony (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Right. One could actually go further than just taking the "personal" out of it. It's good that you've compared the "you're a liar" to "what you're/he's saying are lies" - but consider comparing those 2 examples to "you've/he's mischaracterised/misstated my position - my position is X". That effectively gets rid of any (often unprovable) suggestions about the user's intent and also falls within the spirit of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. It's something to think about anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this particular block, but the tendency of words such as "libel" to be taken as legal threats even if not intended that way has come up several times before, and has been discussed by ArbCom a few times, primarily in the two Alastair Haines cases. Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats was written into the NLT policy to address this situation, and sometimes pointing users to this section and asking them to take it into account is a useful step in this type of situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, on re-checking, I see that the most useful discussion has been moved over into Wikipedia:Harassment#Perceived legal threats, although I'm not sure just why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Newyorkbrad. In future, if I use the term, I'll be sure to define it. Anthony (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I figured it must have been moved because the effect of perceived legal threats is to threaten and intimidate (aka harass) other editors without necessarily breaking the letter of NLT. Somewhere between 18 Nov 2009 and 22 Nov 2009, it was moved on the basis of this but I haven't looked beyond that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP and talk pages of schools in China[edit]

A user with a dynamic IP from Jiangsu was asked once on Wiktionary and later here to not add parent categories to subcategorised articles or insert Chinese orthography errors. (See wikt:Appendix talk:HSK list of Mandarin words/Elementary Mandarin and this talk page, for example). He continued disruptive editing on Category talk:Education in China by province and was blocked. Now he's back again and continuing to edit-war on that talk page and leave sarcastic comments about the appearance of Template:zh on dozens of talk pages.

He was just blocked as 114.233.133.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but popped back up literally minutes later as:

And more to come, no doubt ...

On Wiktionary he was blocked for a month; see wikt:Special:Contributions/114.233.133.51.

Due to the large number of talk pages and the dynamic IP, neither semi-protection nor blocking are really practical here. It's also a major ISP in China, so a rangeblock might affect a large number of users (not too sure how many from there are actually editing). Can someone have a look into this? Not really sure what the options are for dealing with this. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

114.233.128.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 3 months. It's only 4k IPs, and I doubt that many Chinese people are editing enwiki, with the GFW and all. ([45] seems to be all this person). Ping me on my talk page if he comes back on another IP. Tim Song (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Here is another IP this user has been using that is currently unblocked. 114.233.130.164

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.233.130.164

--Pstanton (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in China right now, and Wikipedia seems to be accessible, though I've had some inexplicable timeouts for certain articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan and User:Mister Flash[edit]

Resolved: Some socking and prankstering followed by some blocking. TFOWRidle vapourings 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and editing. Both these users exhibit remarkably similar behavior and a consistent pattern of assisting each other to revert edits involving "British Isles". Their behaviour is extremely disruptive and both these editors have a long history of inappropriate edit summaries where everything is an anti-British-Isles conspiracy or general ad hominen comments. Recently, their behaviour is simply getting worse. Some recent examples:

--HighKing (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to go to WP:AN3. - NeutralHomerTalk • 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a longer term problem here that so far, has failed to be addressed by AN3. Inappropriate edit summaries, blind reverting without engaging or discussing, ad hominen attacks, and tag-teaming meat-puppetry. I believe it's best to discuss centrally (at least initially, and decide a course of action). --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
HK is correct, there is a longer term problem, and that problem should be explained here so that users can view this issue in the correct context. For over two years User:HighKing has attempted to remove the phrase "British Isles" from as many articles as possible. Recently he has been joined by another editor User:Bjmullan with apparently the same mission. The tactic is to identify articles, almost at random, from the What Links Here facility at British Isles. Instances of British Isles are then either removed directly or flagged with a cite tag for later removal. Every argument under the sun including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV is used to justify removal, but the most common is to require inappropriate references for what is normally an issue incidental to the subject of the article. In a recent case at Britain's Strongest Man the article was even PROD'd in an attempt to remove "British Isles". HighKing's actions have been the subject of RfC and various other remedies, but all to no avail. He has steadfastly refused to enter into agreements not to either add or remove British Isles from articles. The current complaint is the result of the latest rash of attempted removals, and yes, I have been reverting removals, but only in response to a determined attempt to eliminate yet more instances of British Isles. I reject the accusations of meat puppetry and tag teaming; neither of these activities is taking place. I am happy to enter into an agreement with HighKing not to add or delete British Isles from articles but he always rejects the idea. We are surely moving towards a topic ban for all those involved in this dispute, a dispute which has spread across Wikipedia to hundreds of articles and which has caused concern and annoyance to very many editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
My edit record speaks for it's self. I, unlikely MBM which seems like a SPA, conduct edits in a wide range of subject and I have only ever removed or replaced BI when there are valid reason for these changes. MBM on the other hand just revert and reverts, seldom if ever investigation the reason for the change. I find his behaviour at Enceladus (moon) where he broke the 3RR to be unacceptable (the NASA reference used does not use the term BI). At the article Silphidae‎ is reverted my edit FIVE times before actual checking the reference. He final comment was "Yikes, the BI junker is right, accidentally". What MBM doesn't seem to realise is it wasn't accidental it was me trying to improve the article. Bjmullan (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
My edit record also speaks for itself, and MBM's illogical tirade above is an example of his ad hominen approach to the problem. You will never see MBM or MF actually discuss an article and references, only attack editors. This project relies on policies to produce well-sourced and well-researched articles. We even have a page set up for discussing this topic, but MBM and MF steadfastly refuse to entertain any sort of logic or references or reasonable discource. MBM's policy of reverting and name-calling is the problem, not the term "British Isles". Anybody that gets involved, from admins to countless other editors, get the same treatment of being accused of being anti-BI editors. This ANI report is not about whether BI usage - many editors disagree, but all editors are bound by the same code of behaviour and the same policies. There are only two editors that consistently breach policies, whether 3RR or CIVIL, and despite numerous past warnings, show no signs of adjusting their highly disruptive behaviour, hence this latest ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the 'page protection' route has been exhausted. Time for administrators to shut-down the removal/addition of British Isles from any articles, by handing out subject bans to whomever they see fit. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to request a RS citation for the use of a controversial term. And British Isles is a controversial term. I see no procedural problem in deleting the term British Isles if it remains uncited after having been tagged “citation needed” for a reasonable time. I also see no procedural problem in adding the term British Isles if a RS citation is provided. Shutting-down the removal/addition of British Isles from articles is not the answer. RS citation references is. Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That is true and every editor bar these two have agreed with this, but these two editors simply don't or won't agree, and refuse to countenance any discussion over usage of the term, directly leading to blindly reverting and the other ongoing problems and disruptive behaviour. It has gone on for far too long and must be addressed. This is about behaviour and not a content dispute. I sincerely ask admins here to please not ignore this issue as has happened in the past. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we need to go to ArbCom and get a ruling similar to The Troubles. Then there wouldn't be any issue about blocks and other sanctions. Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway - as I have already if you read the block logs of some of the major combatants here. Your choice. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a cop out of dealing this incident. Your last block was appalling and positively encourages MBM and MF to continue their disruption. And why is it that I read Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway as confusingly illogical as I don't see any blocks handed out this time (maybe because you've no excuse to block me this time), and as a threat directed to me personally? Wouldn't it be great if you were as quick to direct threats at MBM and MF? I have not edit warred (including your last ill-conceived block), I follow consensus forming procedures, I explain reverts, put in good edit summaries, and try very hard to reach agreement - all of the advice I've been given by various admins over my years of editing. But MBM and MF literally do the opposite, and this complaint is still open, no blocks handed out, and you're talking as if I'm the problem and you want to haul it off to ArbCom? Seriously, I don't get it. It seems strangely one-sided to me.....
And isn't ArbCom usually for issues where the *usual* processes have broken down? Can we point to *usual* processes and failed remedies? Have we reached that stage here? Or, like I suggest, it's really just a case of a pair of *remarkably* similar editors that need to be strongly encouraged to follow normal consensus-forming processes? --HighKing (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"As if I'm the problem" you say. That's exactly it, you're the problem. If you didn't try and get rid of British Isles like you do there wouldn't be a problem. Show me someone who's trying to put in British Isles all the time; exactly! No one is, but you and BJMullan are doing the opposite. Mister Flash (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This will you your only warning Mister Flash - if you cannot conduct yourself civily on this site and communicate without using personal invective you will be blocked. You've had site policy explained multiple times. If you are not already aware that comments like the above are inappropriate - consider yourself advised of that they are. Please consider refactoring as per WP:Civil and WP:NPA--Cailil talk 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No HK, BlackKite's suggestion and action against you is not a cop out it is the inevitable result of the wholesale failure of all editors involved to attempt any form of constructive dispute resolution. I have repeatedly asked you all to seek mediation. By not doing so you have all refused to engage with the dispute resolution process. You have all continued your disruptive patterns of behaviour and at this point I am in favour of wholesale topic banning (and in some cases site banning for single purpose accounts) of everyone involved in revert warring.
Each of you bare a responsibility for the problem and ArbCom will deal with the totality of the matter. You were warned a number of times by me and others that this would be the outcome.
I recommend disengaging from the reverting, adding or removing the dispute terms from articles and entering formal mediation. If this is not done forthwith the only options the rest of the community have are these: a) block all of you until you get the message; or b) send the matter to arbcom and let them dealt with it--Cailil talk 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll go for mediation. Tell me how. Mister Flash (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Follow the process at WP:RFM - all parties must agree to participate or the request will fail.--Cailil talk 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Just read the first paragraph of WP:RFM and we've got "Complaints concerning the actions of another editor are not appropriate for content mediation, and should instead be directed to the Arbitration Committee.". Is this OK for the BI usage problem? Mister Flash (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Mediation is then a non-starter as I don't agree. This is NOT about the so called BI issue but the fact the neither MBM and MF adhere to the rules and guidelines of WP. Things like reverting with comment, reverting because they don't like the edit, reinserting un-referenced material, using OR to add BI to article, remembering the 3RR and using the article talk page for a starters. Bjmullan (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong here as I don't know the full history of this. Was`there not agreement among editors to create Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples as an attempt to discuss rationally any disputes over the term 'British Isles' being used or not used in articles? Jack forbes (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There wasn't general agreement. Also, it's used only to discuss British Isles not being used in articles. No one ever puts a case to put it in. So it's all about getting rid and not about proper usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, technically that's wrong, but in reality a quick look at the page shows exactly why we do need something similar to WP:ARBTRB. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I would have thought mediation would attempt to iron out any disagreements between the parties. I would suggest to the participants that this should be the first step before thinking of going to WP:ARBTRB. WP:ARBTRB will still be there if mediation doesn't work. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both of you (Black Kite and Jack) this should be fixable through mediation if each editor entered into it willing to bury the hatchet and accept that their current behaviour is not constructive. But since Bjmullan just rejected mediation ArbCom is the only option.
In this situation rather than going for a troubles style resolution the committee could simply be asked to look at the behaviour of the editors involved in the revert wars - those using the BI special examples page properly can be left alone--Cailil talk 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well then, since no admins have the appetite to tackle the problem (of behaviour) of two *remarkably* similar editors, and shy away from addressing the issue as set out here, and are actively pushing towards ArbCom, let's do it. But I'm really really disappointed at all the admins that have actively chosen to ignore the underlying behaviour issues and I see this as a *massive* buck-passing exercise. --HighKing (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This is one of those mind sapping disputes on wikipedia. I don't see it as a mediation issue as we have two SPA editors (Flash and Midnight) who have prevented any attempt to take a more structured approach by blind reverting (often with abuse) and unthinking refusal to accept any change. HighKing to be fair has been prepared to engage in that process. Either a small group of admins have to engage with the examples page and resolve them issue by issue until the SPAs realise things have changed. While I would accept mediation I don't hold out much hope of it working given that this is a behavioral issue. I agree with Cailil that it is probably Arbcom, however I think the full range of behaviour on the examples page (with the links to articles) should be subject to review. --Snowded TALK 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of admins watching this page, so perhaps there will be a small group willing to engage with the examples page and help resolve the issues. Black Kite and Cailil, would you both volunteer your time to do this? Jack forbes (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
While I see merit in the BI Special examples page - I, as an Irish man am the wrong person for the job. You'll notice I haven't blocked anyone for BI insertions / deletions. The reason for this is the appearance of bias. While I am not biased or involved and can see the totality of the matter it would be better for an action taken not to have even the appearance of bias. I will still look in on this from time to time and may follow through with civility or 3RR blocks - but right now what's needed are topic bans. Someone else will have to implement that. Also I'm not wikipedia enough or regularly enough to keep up with that page. For all of these reasons I'm not teh man for this job. I will however make submissions to an RfAr if one is opened--Cailil talk 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't need Admins to resolve the issues, what we need is for MBM and MF to stick to the rules and action to be taken against them when they don't. But it looks like no one seems to be willing to do that ... Bjmullan (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have tried that before, but the problem is that it needs everyone to take part in the process. Also, the reason I gave up with the SE page was that nearly every time I "closed" a discussion, the "losing" side kicked up a fuss. I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of bias by both sides. Now, that probably means that I was doing the job correctly, but it becomes such a time sink because of the Wikilawyering by both sides that I eventually said "OK, find someone else to do it". I'm quite happy to give it another go, but the disruptiveness on both sides must stop for it to work properly. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If I recall, only one "side" kicked up a fuss when you closed a discussion. I also can't recall you ever been accused of bias by anybody but "one side" either. And no, you weren't doing the job properly. And no, you stepped away from the job in Dec, after a particularly disruptive day by our favorite pair of *remarkably* similar editors, when you said Fuck That" and deleted a call for help on your Talk page, and told us you didn't have the stomach for that crap any more.
Last time when you were involved, I decided I would voluntarily go along with the SE page despite my misgivings that it would end up simply as a form of censorship. I got involved primarily because of your encouragement and that of Snowded. You got involved at the start and to my mind quickly identified problematic behaviour and problematic editors. You issued direwarnings on Talk pages, laying down the law. The law was simple, and what was needed. But that failed. Not once did you take action.
But you're not alone. In Feb, User:2over0 filed an AN/I against MF, but it got nowhere. It seems admins can't separate disruptive behaviour from the issue of consensus forming. Let me help. As Black Kite pointed out in his rules, if an editor refuses to engage in constructive consensus forming discussions, reverts without providing explanations, reverts with inappropriate edit summaries, or breaches 3RR - then that editor is being disruptive. Doesn't matter if they're discussing "British Isles" or "Gaza Strip" or "Northern Ireland".
Black Kite, I used to have the greatest of respect for you as an editor and as a no-nonsense admin that wasn't afraid to step up and get a job done. The stickier, the better. But today, I don't believe you are the best candidate to get involved. Even though you were primarily involved in setting up the SE page, you abjectly failed to police the process or take any action when there were clear breaches of *your* rules, and it gives me no confidence that you'll do it right this time. But the final nail in the coffin was in April. I filed an AN/I report against MBM here (same issues as we're discussing here) which you marked as resolved (Taken elsewhere), but what you actually did was block *me* for edit warring! Except I had a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 separate articles! That was bullshit. That was unacceptable. I'm not paranoid, but it does show more than a little perverseness and inconsistency that you steadfastly refused to hand out blocks to huuuuugeeee breaches of *your* rules last year, and then take on a perverse interpretation of edit warring to hand out a block to me.
But kudos to you and Cailil for responding here. It's a deafening silence from the other admins. --HighKing (