Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Thisisaniceusername[edit]

Resolved: User blocked GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Thisisaniceusername currently has an article at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection. He is repeatedly removing other people's valid comments from the AfD and accusing them of harrassment - see [1], [2], and [3]. This is despite several warnings, even from an admin or two, on User talk:Thisisaniceusername. Please note that he has also already been blocked once for WP:3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that - just went to deliver a {{ANI-notice}} and I see he's already been blocked. That was quick work folks, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicely typed up though. ;) – B.hoteptalk• 13:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It would appear he's contesting the block. N419BH 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The unblock request was turned down. Last I saw there was further contesting occurring. I believe Thisisaniceusername may suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. TFOWR 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I expect more unblock requests and demands to be pointed to the exact letter of policy as well. – B.hoteptalk• 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's there now. The AfD is a bit of a mess, quite a few unsigned edits and he's edited it with an IP and two usernames. No socking, just not logged in and he had to change usernames. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, there's no socking. He started with an IP, then when he and I had a disagreement he registered as "Youdontownwiki". That was blocked as an unsuitable name, so he changed it to "Thisisaniceusername". And he might have forgotten to log in once or twice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Ten Commandments[edit]

Resolved: Send it to the edit war noticeboard. Shadowjams (talk)

There are three lists of Ten Commandments in the OT; the TC article has listed them side-by-side for comparison for the last 18 months. There's now an edit war starting up on deleting one of the three as inappropriate, and that somehow acceptance for a year and a half does not count as consensus. That list does have its own article, but IMO the main article should include all POV's for comparison, even if one is mostly covered elsewhere. Anyway, the point is obtaining consensus to change a stable article, not demanding a new consensus to restore it to its stable state. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask God to add commandment 11: Don't edit war. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Pharoah edit war with Moses, and that ended with an indef block for him?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thou shalt not edit war.MuZemike 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not like this is something set in stone. Oh, wait... Anyway, why is a content dispute being posted here? To the extent there may be an edit war problem, the original poster who is reverting with edits marked as minor doesn't appear to hold the high ground. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, take two tablets and pray to me in the morning. And evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, weren't the Ten Commandments written on two tablets? –MuZemike 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Errm, weren't there Fifteen Commandments on three tablets, but Moses dropped one and smashed it to smithereens? Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Quiet, you. –MuZemike 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Send it over to WP:3RN unless for some reason (that I don't see) there's something egregiously bad or urgent about what's going on with it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The current block on User:Ryan kirkpatrick[edit]

Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jersay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay. However based on the edits of 109.154.73.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since the block being a duck match for Ryan kirkpatrick that would seem to suggest Ryan kirkpatrick is not a sockpuppet of Jersay, unless he happens to have moved several thousands miles. I have discussed this with the blocking administrator and this discussion is not a cricitism of his good faith block based on the evidence at the time, and he has no 6objections to a wider discussion about what should be done with this editor.

Traditionally block evasion has done no favours to the blocked editor responsible, however I ask that the block evasion itself is not used against Ryan kirkpatrick. If you look at his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick you will see a history of cluelessness, so I doubt he would have been aware of the consequences of block evasion, particularly when the (good-faith) block was in error to begin with. So while Ryan kirkpatrick's general cluelessness should be taken into account, the block evasion is the least of his "crimes".

The request for comment linked above shows zero support for Ryan and there is plenty of questioning about whether he should be allowed to continue to edit, and I was planning to propose a topic ban prior to his block.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this block is a good block but for the the wrong reason and should be maintained, or whether Ryan kirkpatrick should be unblocked with editing restrictions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • This is a discussion not a vote, and the simple "support unblocking" does not take into account what should be done about this editor. O Fenian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it is simple. He was blocked for sockpuppetry. He did not do that. He should be unblocked. Any other issues can be dealt with, but keeping him blocked for something that he did not do is wrong. Unblock him, and if there are topic bans or whatever needed for other conduct, those can be discussed and decided on. GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious that the RfC is lacking in support for the subject, but it usually takes some effort to get from there to an indefinite block. An editing restriction should be easy enough to frame: edit nothing which has to do with terrorism and add no mentions of terrorism to things which don't already mention it. Or is there something I'm missing? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy with that as a restriction. O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would support unblocking the user with an editing restriction of no edits relating to terrorism. Let's assume good faith and hope the user does not sock. If he does, we will be forced to reblock. MC10 (TCGBL) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblock - but on a short leash. I'd rather have editors be monitored and mentored rather than resorting to new accounts. But if problems continue then blocks may be appropriate for an extended period. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Contentious allegations - Al Gore bio[edit]

Resolved: RFC started by Use:BGinOC on the Al Gore talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been a persistent effort to include sexual assault allegations against Al Gore connected with a massage he had in 2006. Material has been added and deleted repeatedly to the article.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - and there are many more incidents of this material being added and removed. Repeated discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Al_Gore#Recent_allegations is seemingly resolved, then brought up again minutes later, going round and round. Al Gore's spokeswoman has said the allegations are "defamatory", and Gore reportedly strenously denies them. There are no witnesses other than Gore and the masseuse. She did not contact the police for more than 2 months after the alleged incident, then failed to meet with police for an interview for nearly 2 years. A police investigation was closed twice for lack of evidence, (in 2007 and 2009), and is now reopened for the "procedural" reason that a supervisor did not sign off on the closing of the complaint previously. The masseuse has sold her story to the National Enquirer for as much as $1 million, and charged Gore $560 for the massage. These facts, (especially the payment by the tabloid), make a prosecution unlikely. In any event, the complaint has not been brought to a prosecutor for charges; it is still at the level of a police report/investigation after nearly 4 years. The question is - should her allegations be in Al Gore's bio? My position is no, not unless and until a prosecutor brings charges. I think the allegations is "poorly sourced", contentious at this point, though they have been repeated now in numerous RSs. There are Wiki users on both sides of this issue, repeated removals and re-adds and unresolved repeating arguments on the talk page. A ruling is needed - the content dispute cannot be resolved by the many involved editors. KeptSouth (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are you trying to resolve an issue or just push your POV? Sumbuddi (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Well, the page is already configured for pending changes, so unless someone is requesting a block for edit warring or blatant blp vio I'm not sure admin action is necessary here. This looks like a content dispute for the BLP noticeboard, followed by possible an WP:RFC on the matter. -- œ 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
While I am in agreement with the pretense that the article is in dire need of attention by those in higher authority than the editors and writers who add content and then find it deleted by another editor or writer, I stand on the opposite side of the fence of KeptSouth. with the Portland police Department officially repoening said case, as well as the multiple arguments between supporters of inclusion in the article and those that seem to wish to keep this news off the article. Relevance has been met, it is a matter of public record, the name of the accuser has been released and it has been the subject of newspapers and magazines across the nation. This event even if it falls flat on its face and is found to be completely groundless will remain a significant historical highlight of the political history of 2010. At stake is Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased. This matter has gone beyond a flash in the pan event, yet those that wish for it not to be included refute every attempt at logical and precedent setting examples of other living person biography articles that do include similar allegations of sexual wrongdoings. Now that the case has been re-opened by the Portland Police Bureau, it is only logical to include a section with a paragraph or two recording the case for future reference. After reading his letter, I must ask - what would Jimmy Wales do? I think he said to BE BOLD! With that we are trying, but as KeptSouth explains, the discussion is turning into a war room full of too many little chiefs arguing the point incessantly and not allowing edits to be posted. BGinOC (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no Administrator action required here, as User OlEnglish already suggested, start a RFC on the talkpage or open a thread on the WP:BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Chuck Marean#Appeal by Chuck Marean[edit]

Resolved: Consensus is clearly against unblocking at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This community banned user is once again seeking mentorship and a lift of his ban. I remember him from about this time a year ago and personally don't recommend it, and have stated as much on his talk page here User talk:Chuck Marean#Comments by others about the appeal by Chuck Marean. If anyone else would like to look at the related discussions (they are posted there) and weigh in, please feel free. Heiro 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is the Madoff apologist who absolutely, positively refuses to accept that Madoff pled guilty and went out of his way to try to change the entire article to reflect that...on numerous occasions. And considering this edit nothing has changed. There seems to not only be a major trolling issue, but there's a serious competence issue, too. --Smashvilletalk 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If an experienced admin mentor can be found who will be on-Wiki at least as much as Chuck and who will be willing to follow his contribs, I'd be willing to support the proposal. Otherwise no. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I spent multiple years attempting this. It failed. [9] --ZimZalaBim talk 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Oppose then, and also thank you for your mentoring efforts, ZZB. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Absolutely not, forget it. The amount of hand-holding and supervision this guy needs is far and above any actual potential value he could have to the project. We don't need any more conspiracy theorists/POV pushers/original research/fringe historical revisionists. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I declined this user's last request [10] for an unban discussion because it had only been a few months since the previous one, and because they still did not seem to understand what Wikipedia is, how it works, and why their edits were not acceptable. Nothing I see here gives me reason to change that opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would also like to suggest that his talk page be revoked and he be advised to make any future request via email to WP:BASC due to his continual requests to be unbanned and his lack ability or willingness to wait a few more months and to to understand what it was he did wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose He seems to view editing as something different to content creating (I thought Wikipedia was for editing; I suppose considering Wikipedia to be an editing site is outdated) so it's quite hard to understand whether he has a grasp of what went wrong. Incidentally, it's not really POV pushing. Just find the endless argument on TANSTAAFL about the use of the word ain't.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dear god, no. I've logged in -- breaking my retirement -- solely to express this opposition. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
For context see this [11], as Chuck was one of the contributing reasons this user, who had de facto mentored Chuck for 3+ years, retired a year ago. Heiro 04:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's snowing. I challenge anyone to agree to lifting his ban after reading this admission of cluelessness. Fences&Windows 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the woeful display of cluelessness pointed out by fences and windows, Chuck essentially admits that he is useless to this project. RadManCF open frequency 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I just spent about 30 minutes combing through this editor's contributions and the interactions associated with them. The Madoff commentary alone showed a fairly severe disassociation with reality, but there seems to be a continued inability to understand the truly odd behavioral problems that have been patiently pointed out to him. I don't see any reason valuable editors should again be presented with this distraction. Kuru (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I left a more detailed explanation on his talk page, but in short, perhaps one day this user will be able to work with us, but not anytime soon. Sodam Yat (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Chuck's comments (past and present) lead me to believe that he is simply profoundly unsuited to editing here. It's very sad but I don't see how unbanning him could have a reasonable expectation of not ending in disaster. Mentorship should only be considered if we have a reasonable belief it might be successful but looking at Chuck's inability to understand the purpose of Wikipedia (he says thought it was some kind of "recreational editing site" that buys articles for people to play with, not a serious project to build an encyclopedia) and his inability to take on feedback, I just don't believe that it is viable and I think it would end up with another editor being burned out by him and having to spend all their Wikipedia time basically acting as a nanny. His view seems to be that if he hasn't heard of something or doesn't understand it he'd prefer Wikipedia articles be incorrect or inaccurate in order to fit his world view, rather than going and educating himself. This is seen in his desire to rename the Queen Elizabeth article "because whoever heard of the United Kingdom?" [12] and wanting to rewrite the introduction, because he'd never heard of/couldn't understand the Queen's titles,[13], tagging the banks article as disputed because he didn't understand the purpose of banks, [14] wanting to editorialise in the There ain't no such thing as a free lunch article because he couldn't understand colloquialisms,[15] wanting the Finance introduction rewritten because he couldn't understand the terminology [16][17] and who could forget him wanting to describe Bernard Madoff's actions as "good faith" and objecting to him being called a "convicted felon".[18] I just don't think Chuck and Wikipedia are a good fit and I don't think he's sufficiently competent to edit in a way that's not going to inevitably result in more disruption. Sarah 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment As the Admin who dropped the hammer on Chuck Marean, I don't think I need to add anything to this discussion. However, from reading the appeal of his ban on his talk page, I got the impression that I was supposed to defend my action there. So I added a statement, in which I most likely sound like a dork. I would have appreciated it had someone had dropped me a note that I was involved, seeing how I'm not always online; I'm not clear whether that was Marean's responsibility, or anyone who was involved. (Please note, sometimes I add to threads on WP:AN/I before I have read the entire page, as I had above. And the pressures of having a life away from Wikipedia forces me to then leave my computer for several hours, as it has just now.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    I think your not being notified was just a lapse in communication. Chuck mistakenly named me as the admin who closed the ban discussion (I guess because I'm the last person in his block log but all I did was give him back the ability to edit his talk page when he appealed to unblock-en-l). I was notified as a result. I guess when I told Chuck he had the wrong admin, I should have also passed the notification on to you. My apologies for that. I don't think you should feel you need to defend yourself - all you did was implement the community decision. Sarah 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I've had Chucks talk page watchlisted since he was banned last year. When his thing popped up recently, I added a few comments. When no one else had noticed after a day or 2, I posted this here at ANI. I wasn't sure if I should inform everyone he listed, I apologize if I should've. Regards, Heiro 06:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC).
No apology needed; I honestly am neither offended or feel injured by this. Rather, my attitude towards all of this is best described as puzzled with a seasoning of bemusement. (Does an Admin really need to defend her/his acting on behalf of the community?) I blocked Chuck Marean because the consensus at the time appeared to me that until he obtained a mentor no one wanted to deal with his edits. He still has yet to find one; not that surprising since he only posted a request for one a few days ago, after being blocked for about a year. And looking at all of the comments in this thread, I see no one has yet argued for lifting the block; almost every one is arguing quite forcefully -- & in some cases, more eloquently than I could -- against lifting it. Do we really need to debate this further? At least until someone steps forward & offers to mentor him? But that is something I sincerely wouldn't wish on even my worst enemy. -- llywrch (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggested he try Conservapedia, lol. Heiro 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, but not for the reasons above. He's a vandal. A funny vandal, but a vandal nonetheless. He is poking fun at all of y'all, and managed to continue to vandalize articles for years. All you have to do is look at the diffs - he is being intentionally obtuse - such as commenting at one point that an "edit" cannot be disruptive. Strictly speaking, that is correct, the editor is disruptive, not the edit, but as long as y'all let him, he'll continue to do this. I don't know if it is for his own entertainment or what, but he's doing the same thing in this request. And I know, I'm probably not AGF, but the evidence seems to me to be overwhelming. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always suspected he was a troll playing Forrest Gump, but he never breaks character, so its hard to decide. Either way, challenged or troll, he isn't compatible here.Heiro 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that thought has passed through everyone's mind; I know it has passed through mine. Unfortunately, there are people in the world as stupid as Chuck Marean is acting here: those stupid computer user stories are true, I can attest to that. But as I wrote above, even if he's not a vandal is there any reason to debate this further? Nothing has changed since he was indefinitely blocked about a year ago. -- llywrch (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we mark this resolved, inform Chuck and be done now? Heiro 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There may be people that stupid, but they are not that clever or well-spoken. This guy is not lacking in intelligence and probably trumps most of us here. His Madoff comments -- veiled social commentary on his opposition to government bailouts (including the concept of bankruptcy). It is true that he never breaks character ...sort of...read his edit summaries, and he gives you a clue that he is not in fact as clueless as he plays. I actually spent hours last night reading this guy's edit history and laughing my ass off. This for instance: [19]. If you look at the content and quality of his contributions as a whole, it becomes very apparent that he is taking shots at wikipedia in a sort of reverse self-deprecating manner. Were he to break form, it would no longer be funny or effective, and he would most certainly be banned outright. The fact that he has been able to behave this way for several years is in itself quite humorous (if one can refrain from taking oneself too seriously as many here are apt to do). I am not going to vote because while policy would dictate a particular position, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading his contributions and laughing so hard in the process. I appreciate cleverness and this unique type of intelligence although it is contra-indicated in this collaborative project. Minor4th • talk 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that he's a blatant troll. He's now claiming he didn't understand that wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia and that he thought it was "just an editing" site...whatever the hell that is. No one who is able to write at least semi-coherently is as incompetent as he appears to be. --Smashvilletalk 15:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a clear consensus here, this should be closed and Chuck notified on his talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Deletion of Jonathan Kane: The Protector[edit]

  • Wikipedia is really being cruel now-a-days.As An administrator has deleted the article.I created article three months ago.It was tagged for deletion under criteria G11 after two days of creation.I put hangon template on it and major cleanup was done then.User:DGG checked it and removed the template and told that the article was not an advertisement.It was just written like any other video game article.Now, Yesterday User:Orangemike deleted the article without even informing me or giving me the chance to oppose the deletion.This is the worst thing on Wikipedia.I am experienced user with over 900 edits.I know Wikipedia policies.Though, the article was treated like a pure advertisement.I agree that the article was stub.but, that isn't the reason to delete the article.This is truly unfair.I need justice.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    Well, I'd be prepared to restore part of the article, though I'd want to run it past Orangemike first. However, there are a few other comments to make first:
    I'm not sure why you weren't notified about the {{db-g12}}. Sometimes things like this slip past. I think OlEnglish should have let you know, but I also think you should have known better than to copy-and-paste from websites that state "Copyright 2008 - www.ourpcgame.blogspot.com".
    Assuming that the section I've identified is the only copyvio, as confirmed by the deleting admin, and there were no other reasons for the deletion, I'd be prepared to restore it. But watch those WP:COPYVIOs!
    TFOWR 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't tag it as G12, I didn't even tag it for speedy at all. I put a {{copypaste}} tag on it. And Orangmike DID delete it as G11. -- œ 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
OlEnglish, my apologies, you're quite right. ({{copypaste}}, followed by G11). Too early for me, not enough coffee.
themaxviwe, I'd still want want to hear from OrangeMike first, and I'd still want the copy/paste issue to be addressed.
TFOWR 08:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem :) I'd recommend WP:REFUND for Themaxviwe if he's really that distressed over it. -- œ 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I read the webpage when I wrote the article and I wrote them in encyclopedic format.In Completely different style.I didn't knew that it would break copyright policy.User:OlEnglish should had to notify me about it.Admin had to delete only the section not the whole article.I'm very sorry for the copyright policy.because when I created the article I was very new(my second day on Wikipedia), so I wasn't aware of any Wikipedia Policy.After experience on Wikipedia I forgot to remove the material from the article.That's all what I had to say friends.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 08:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Writing it in your own words to be encyclopaedic while drawing information from a source is fine; just cite the source. But apparently at least one section was felt to be a copy-and-paste dump from the source, and wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Since OlEnglish marked it as a potential copy-and-paste, there was no need to inform you as he was not suggesting drastic action such as deletion, but OrangeMike decided there was enough reason to delete it as a copyright violation (G12). If the article is restored, just be careful not to introduce any more copyright violations and there shouldn't be an issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have userfied the article to User:Themaxviwe/Jonathan Kane: The Protector. Since nobody other than Themaxviwe himself has edited the article other than for vandalism, reverts, and tagging, I was able to do this without restoring the history (and thus the copyvio section). There, Themaxviwe can work on it peaceably taking care to make it an encyclopedic article that is well-sourced. --B (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanx, B. As other folks have said, we are pretty serious around here about copyright violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much everybody.I'll improve article then move it to article space.Thanks again.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've deleted the userfied version as well. The text was a straight copy from [20] (More info section), the homepage of the publisher. Please, when restoring something alleged to be a copyright violation, check if the rest of the text isn't one. I'll no go and spotcheck some other conributions by themaxwive. Fram (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very annoying.I'm tired of this thing.I am telling everyone that this is the reason why Wikipedia is now-a-days being very bad.Now what??????I've told you that I'll improve the article and after all is OK I'll move it to Article Space then what's the problem with Fram.I have told up side that I wasn't aware of this policies when I created the article.(How many times I have to tell that I was only two days old on Wikipedia).Now,I am not a supercomputer that I'll improve the article in few minutes after restoration.It'll take me about one day to remove the copyrighted material and write the informative thing.Help me.This is extremely unfair.And Fram you want to check my contribution.OK?I want to tell you that I have created only two articles(except the moved articles).Other one is very stub type and I am sure that I have written it myself.Help meMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Max, copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately, not slowly edited out. By all means look at the source and write an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic in your own words, but you shouldn't introduce a copyright violation into any page, for any length of time. I suggest rewriting the article as your own work, and we can then see about moving it back to mainspace if it meets policy. I understand that you're new to wikipedia and you're not aware of our policies, but I'd recommend at least skimming them before attempting to write your own article, and especially understand that we cannot accept copyright violations. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
OK,I agree with all of you but would you please restore the Infobox of video gaming article to my user space?It's not copyrighted material at all.It'll also reduce my load when I'll create article again.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable request; I'm not an admin so I can't do this myself though, you'll have to wait for an admin to see this. By the way, please only leave me a talkback message if it's something with specifically demands my attention; anything which could just as easily (or in this case, only) be handled by another editor isn't worth leaving a talkback note for, and since I have this page on my watchlist I probably would have replied anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done The infobox is restored to the same location. --B (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Donny Long[edit]

Resolved: Article deleted, Donnylong community banned for many disruptions and obscene personal attacks - Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request admin assistance at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, where the individual "Donny Long" is still mass-IP hopping and adding personal threats, threats of disruption (and er, disruption). Since I've reverted three times today (though that was to remove personal attacks), I'd rather not do so again as this isn't worth risking 3RR over. I believe this needs the attention of an admin and application of the duck rule to block each new IP as it starts vandalising under this individual's name. He's already been blocked on about 3 IP addresses at least, I believe, and has been using dozens of IP addresses in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD of which he is the subject. Thanks in advance. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second this request. I have found the entire situation completely laughable, and the IPs actions deplorable and offensive. I have blocked one for 24 hours (suspect it has expired now) but I would go so far as to protect the AfD to stop this nonsense. There is a deeper, more worrying gap in policy that is allowing the idea of a 'subject' wishing for an article deletion to become an actual AfD argument, but that can't be fixed here or now. I propose protection of the AfD, this is unprecedented bollocks - if you excuse my language. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I was considering requesting semi-protection of the AfD, but expected that it would be a violation of policy since it would prevent non-autoconfirmed users from adding their arguments to the page. My current approach has simply been to mark all of Donny Long's multiple IPs with the SPA template and leave a request that the reviewing admin take care in determining consensus on the closure of the AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but the thing has been open for only two days and is already such a mess from this nonsense. The only reason I don't use strong terms is because I know WP:BLP includes non-article pages! S.G.(GH) ping! 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Re: 3RR: I would also like to ask an admin if they can confirm that since I have been reverting truly blatant personal attacks on this page, I am not in danger of violating WP:TALKO or WP:3RR? If I have incorrectly assumed this, I apologise and will refrain from reverting these comments in future. I will wait for this confirmation before continuing to help deal with this trouble user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have protected a few of the pages he likes to vandalize. His threats are pointless. You are not in danger of violating 3RR at this point, given that what he is typing is clearly vandalism. If he can rationally explain his points without personal attacks then don't revert.  7  13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that for me, 7. I thought so too but didn't want to risk a violation by just assuming I was in the right here. I have been very careful to leave any of his comments which could been considered even slightly constructive, and opted to remove only the most blatant attacks / threats. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 7, for your boldness in protecting it. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a few ages that the IP has been attacking seems wise. However, semi-protecting an AfD two days into it seems to be very unwise, especially in regard to prior discussions. Wouldn't it be better just to continue to mark the SPIs? AfDs shouldn't be limited just to autoconfirmed users. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked at WP:PP again and can't see any rule against protecting XFDs which are being vandalized. I'll shorten the time for now, and if any other admin feels that protection was inappropriate please unprot without any need for consultation with me.  7  15:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop being high and mighty just delete his page. Its a rubbish valueless article that the subject objects to, ow he is angry what can we do about him, he is on a dynamic IP and is angry about his rubbish wikipedia BLP. Never mind blocking him and protecting all and sundry just delete it and move on to something worthwhile. How dare he rudely try and tell us wikipedia editors what to do with his rubbish BLP article, ,keep the rubbish BLP keep I say. I am a wikipedia editor, how dare he. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...eh? Did you just argue both ways? S.G.(GH) ping! 15:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The first part is my position ... Stop being high and mighty just delete his page. Its a rubbish valueless article that the subject objects to, Never mind blocking him and protecting all and sundry just delete it and move on to something worthwhile... the rest is what I object to.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No part of me is carrying on in the way you suggest, I merely object to the idea that, if someone has done something notable, they can dictate through abuse and legal threat how their activities are recorded. If the article fits with WP:BLP, which is a matter of editing, not deleting, then it is a record taken from reliable sources that are all themselves accessible. If the subject doesn't want to be noted as existing in the wider world, then he should have thought about that before he went and did it. I couldn't care less what he says about it. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a legal threat at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Libel and no response from wiki. Let the AfD take its course. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Facepalm* Threaten Jimbo... Has someone blocked per WP:NLT? N419BH 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This section contains huge violations of WP:DOLT. There are multiple users who need to be quickly ushered away from bios of living persons here. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not harp on forever about this, I don't want to piss off everyone on Wikipedia, but this I have to say. Along with the founding principles of Wikipedia, everyone edits, and so on and so forth, must surely be the idea that - if information is notable - a user should be able to come to Wikipedia and expect it to be found here. Therefore, notable content must be included. I will accept without question any delete argument that argues on the basis of notability criteria, however any arguement made for deletion revolving around the idea that the subject does not want the article on Wikipedia... well, I find that to be the opposite to what we are here to do. Delete the unreferenced BLP violations, of course, but if the subject is notable the article should stay. And I don't respond well the bullies, and from what I have seen this is what the IP is doing, bullying. None of us should have to put up with the kind of content he has added to talk pages and the like. I have a very real concern that one is at risk of being cowed by the legal and verbal threats and abuse of this person into making a choice which is not based on actual policy. That doesn't sit very well with me at all. But hey, it's only Wikipedia... I can drop my stick :) S.G.(GH) ping! 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to note that I completely agree with what SGGH has written above. If we allow subjects to dictate encyclopedia content, as opposed to dealing reasonably with reasonable requests, we put the project in a very precarious place, where it can potentially be manipulated to its detriment. We have an obligation to our readers to provide accurate information about notable subjects, and any failure to do so based on bullying is malfeasance and a betrayal of that obligation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with both users! To give in to bullying can only set a dangerous precedent. If the subject isn't notable, then delete the article, but let's not do it (just or also) because we're fed up with coping with all the fuss and abuse he's been kicking up. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As I've said on several folks' talk pages, what I fear has happened is that Donny has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The closure read "the article is obviously causing the subject some distress" and at the base a user asked commenting users to consider the subjects feeling in this. I think this is the most worrying thing I have seen in four years of Wikipedia using. I hope other living persons with biographies don't think they can assault, abuse and manipulate their way into deleting or tailoring their articles. Wikipedia is not their personal biography site. I think I saw a serious step back today. Sad to see it. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to agree with SGGH entirely here. The individual refused to even tell us which statements he felt were libel; if the subject of an article can offer a legitimate concern then that's different to throwing a tantrum because the wikipedia article doesn't match his libellous blog. I am even more concerned by the fact that several users have opposed the ban proposal below on the grounds that mass-sockpuppetry, vandalism, libel, legal threats, and repeated personal attacks directed at many users, are apparently all completely justified if the individual has unspecified concerns with the article about him... and given that the behaviour continued after we deleted and salted his article, I fail to see how it can be claimed that that was the only reason, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal[edit]

Closing as "community banned", consensus seems clear
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given the above, I propose a community ban of User:Donnylong (the main account of the article subject). That will free us up to revert all of his IPs without the 3RR headache. The main account has been blocked since 2008 anyway. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I would support however it is possible that if the AfD results in delete, the user will (hopefully) never, ever come back here. If the result is keep, it might not ever die down and in that eventuality such an action might be necessary. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    Whether it eventually dies down or otherwise, the user has already more than proven that such action is necessary, and necessary now. If he never comes back, then he's unlikely to be missed; if he does, we can immediately deal with it per a community ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
True, you can count my comment as a support of the ban. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support. (edit conflict × 2) I reverted all the edits I saw which were unquestionably vandalism, but given the amount of abuse he's given us, I see no reason why we should be forced to answer the occasional question he leaves which isn't a threat or personal attack (but is still almost always written in capitals with a good serving of profanity). He's already received 31-hour blocks on about 6 IPs and a permanent block on at least one username, and that's just the ones I've warned and reported. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support said community ban, whether the article is deleted or not, he's really not someone we need around here. Heiro 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose We don't ban people for having abusive bios written about them and responding by lashing out. We do ban people for writing abusive biographies. This is disturbing behavior, especially from an admin. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No, we edit bios until they are neutral and well reference, but we do ban abusive, disruptive editors who vandalise other articles. None of us wrote the article. I find the behaviour of some other users regarding this topic to be extremely disturbing myself, and the whole thing treads on, for me, something as central to Wikipedia as the idea that "anyone can edit". S.G.(GH) ping! 16:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
He's lashing out because we refuse to let him control the article, which seems to be his only purpose for being here. His personal attacks, socking, vandalism, et all deserve a Community Ban.Heiro 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) We also ban people for abusing many, many IP addresses in an attempt to bully us into deleting his article because we won't change it to be an advertisement for him. We already went to pain-staking effort to verify all the sources in the article, remove anything which was POV, etc., and he refused to identify what he mistakenly referred to as libel, while all the time abusing us all repeatedly. Are you saying that using at least 20-30 IP addresses to vandalise a myriad of pages, repeatedly leave personal attacks, threats of disruption, and legal threats, as well as to attempt to cheat the AfD process, is not worthy of a community ban? More than that, you seem to be suggesting that it is "disturbing behaviour" to suggest that this warrants a ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
((also ec)) I'm not sure I follow, Hipocrite. Are you saying the bio was written by an admin and that's disturbing, or it's disturbing that I'm proposing a community ban? I'm not an admin, by the way. It appears from the AfD that the article will be deleted yet the subject continues to sock abusively, posting expletive-laden screeds, disrupting the AfD, making personal attacks, and issuing legal threats on Jimbos talk page because we won't simply delete it immediately on demand. I personally think the article should be deleted and I voted as such at the AfD. But the gross disruption isn't warranted. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I cannot condone the behaviour of the user, they appear to be acting out of anger and frustration about what they feel to be legitimate and un-addressed concerns over their BLP. If the disruption persists, banning may be necessary but this discussion is premature. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I suspect I'm too involved to !vote, but I tend to agree with Delicious carbuncle here. This may well be a non-issue in a few days, and banning someone clearly upset about content describing them in an article won't prevent any further disruption, but risks continuing to escalate it. - Bilby (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Anger and frustration may explain his behavior, but they do not excuse it, nor do they oblige us to allow him to continue to vent his feelings here. He's got a blog where he can do that, and the capacity to e-mail his complaints through proper channels. Despite his repeated inability to communicate exactly what it is that he wants, he's been extended a great deal of latitude, and behaved in a way that would have gotten most ordinary editors blocked ages ago; his status as a complaining subject of an article is not a license to do whatever he pleases, disrupting the community and annoying those trying to help him. As an inherent SPA only interested in one thing, and having no intent on improving the encyclopedia, we lose absolutely nothing by banning him, and gain a measure of control over his disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The user's account is blocked as well as a number of IPs. I expect that any disruptive IPs will continue to get blocked. Banning isn't magic that prevents anyone from accessing Wikipedia with a different IP. What purpose will it serve? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • As mentioned above, it will serve to allow this user's disruption to be reverted by any editor without having to worry about WP:3RR which would usually prevent it unless it's absolute blatant vandalism. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. While the user is making a lot of noise about the contents of the bio, what appears to have touched off his current spree was the removal (by several editors, myself included) of his insertion of links promoting his current web business into various articles. I don't see any sign that the user has any constructive intent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This project is definitely much better off without him; he's been vandalising and disrupting ever since he got here. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support ban – We don't need him disrupting Wikipedia any more. MC10 (TCGBL) 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef ban to prevent further damage to encyclopedia - He's been using sockpuppets in a way probhibited by policy, and edit warring using those socks (one sock, another, but there are more), attacking other editors at a talk page at Talk:Donny Long. I'm going to have to look at some more policies to make a decision on how to vote at AfD, but he is disrupting the Wiki, and I'd support a indef site-ban to stop this from happening. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 10:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Donny is quacking again: 94.100.22.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    And again: 216.155.145.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    And again: 178.63.231.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So much for the theory that a duck's quack doesn't produce an echo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I understand that Wikipedians have repeatedly inserted unsourced and grossly defamatory material into the man's BLP, and that these accounts have not to date received any community sanction whatsoever. If my understanding is correct on that point, it is simply unjust for us to take action against the aggrieved party as long as we haven't first swept in front of our own doorstep, and pronounced article or BLP bans against the editors concerned. Justice must be done, and seen to be done. Once the defamatory edits to his BLP have been surveyed, including oversighted ones, if any, and appropriate sanctions have been taken against all those who made them, we should apprise the subject of the actions we have taken and can revisit this. --JN466 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    We thoroughly reviewed the article and ensured there were no BLP violations and he continued to abuse us stating that we should use his blog to "fix" the wikipedia article. Frankly the only libel or BLP violations I've seen in this entire process are the ones he's been throwing at us from dozens of IP addresses, and he continues to vandalise wikipedia from multiple IPs despite the fact that his article has now been deleted and salted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    I seem to remember seeing BLP violations in the article's edit history. By the way, using the subject's self-published sources in his own BLP is okay by our policies (subject to certain constraints). --JN466 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    I believe there were a couple of rather nasty BLP concerns in the article, but a couple of users quickly removed them and thoroughly reviewed the article to make sure it was per-policy; no change in Donny Long though, who insisted that we "play by his rules" and insert libel about other people into his article, or outright delete it, or he would continue to cause disruption by rotating his IPs and vandalising; that's a threat he acted on, even after we deleted and salted his article per AfD consensus. His behaviour has been completely inappropriate, he hasn't come close to making a single positive contribution, and he's broken about every policy we have. What else does a user need to do to be worthy of a community ban? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    Were any actions taken against the users who inserted these "nasty" BLP violations? If not, then please let's do that first. --JN466 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So far as I can see, they were just hit and run, eg this guy in 2008 User talk:Tspuches. We don't have a 'one strike and you're blocked' policy, although that can happen. Any editors who continued to violate BLP would end up blocked. A number of edits were oversighted this year, and the time before that there was thought to be vandalism, 2008, the page was blanked and protected and an editor blocked - which turned out to be a mistake as the edits were not BLP violations. There may have been some stuff I missed of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - since the article has been deleted, and even the AfD discussion courtesy blanked, now we can finally ban the guy, who has violated just about every rule we have around her, from sockpuppetry to NLT to civility to AGF, and who has spread every kind of bile there is across every discussion he has ever been involved in, and who persistently threatens to maximize his efforts to besmirch Wikipedia across the Internet in every way he can? To say that he has nothing to contribute to what he persistently describes as "wiki" or "the wiki" or "my wiki" is to engage in dramatic understatement. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, continued pattern of disruption, even after the article was deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Moot. Article is deleted, and despite some of the usual DRV caterwauling, will in all likelihood not be returning. Take this as a lesson that piss-poor BLPs have an effect on the real world, and that not every human being will, or should be expected to, act rationally when their life is distorted for all the world to see. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Guess we're lucky that dead people can't get an Internet connection, or we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - if a good faith contributor risks being blocked for 3RR for reverting clear disruption to the project (that is taking place by repetitive socking), there is something seriously wrong. He can legitimately appeal when he's ready to make constructive contributions; the appeal would be given extra consideration in recognition of the frustration factor, though based on what I'd seen, I am doubting that there is going to be change (should he return). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I can see no possibility of this editor contributing constructively to Wikipedia, and a considerable likelihood of continued disruption e.g. insertion of spam links, continued personal attacks and socking. Long story short, there's no downside to banning this editor. If anyone wants to pursue action against anyone who inserted BLP violations in his article, go for it. That's a separate matter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The consensus here looks pretty clear with only a couple opposes to many supports. I am going to be bold and add the necessary tags. If this is improper, feel free to revert me. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson - attacks, talk page blankings, etc.[edit]

Problems with this user, mostly around the articles Al Gore and the afd about a new article. Lots of WP:NPA, despite warnings on her user talk page, and even blanked statements on a talk page. Maybe a ban/block is inappropriate and this person is just wound up right now, but someone should really figure out a way to slow her down. — Timneu22 · talk 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has carried over from the content dispute above. Definite personal attack, no question about it. I've left a handwritten final warning on TruthfulPerson's talk page. Just so you know, we are supposed to notify any user we discuss here. I included this notification on the talk page, with a warning that any personal attacks here will probably be met with a block. N419BH 16:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about non-notification. Didn't know. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Happens all the time when a new editor comes to this page. Next time there's an issue that needs to be brought here, you'll know. N419BH 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also warned the user about deleting others' comments from a talk page (the actual diff of which is here). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
YAWWWN. Steven, are you referring to your warning to Brendan Frye after he blanked the section I added? Oh -- you somehow overlooked that, didn't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talkcontribs)
Here's another example of modifying other users' comment. — Timneu22 · talk 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to wake you, TP. Please post a diff showing where Brendan altered your talk page comments and I'll give him a warning, too. Unless you're just lying again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's entire contrib history shows that he has a large "I'm here to fight the censorship of the liberal agenda!" axe to grind. From this topic to the Obama affair allegations, POV-pushing at Coffee Party USA, and WP:OR dribble like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-birtherism. He began his editing career pushing some of the weakest of the birther arguments as well. This is inevitably heading for some sort of block or topic ban, we've seen this pattern far, far too many times. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that also. He has a long list of warnings. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"She", not "he", right? — Timneu22 · talk 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea, I am a bit old-fashioned and probably slightly un-PC in that I default to male pronouns when a gender is not known, rather than to some New Age xe/xhe junk. But anyways... Tarc (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I got the impression the user was a woman, and this edit sort of led me further that way. None of this really matters anyway!Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Truthinyourface (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is going to spiral out of control quickly as this user finds ancillary articles such as the Portland Police Bureau (Oregon) to add a history section to. Facepalm Facepalm Tarc (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
twice.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This user needs to be blocked now, for at least a couple hours. Every edit of hers is a revert, and everything she does is reverted. It's an all-out war on multiple pages. — Timneu22 · talk 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I just had a look. They're at 3 reverts at Portland Police Bureau (Oregon), and they've been warned about 3RR. A block now, and they'd complain they didn't know until too late. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope... TFOWR 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The user was blocked for 12 hours; however, I believe we could start discussing a topic ban from all articles dealing with American politics broadly construed. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just some additional info: As noted by Steven J. Anderson above, User:Truthinyourface is similar. User:TruthfulPerson also edits from User:207.29.40.2, as evidenced here and here. This is not an accusation of abusive sockpuppeteering, just an attempt to gather all editing histories together if a review of editing behavior is to be done as suggested above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The name says it all. Call me hard-liner, but here is yet another case that is unable to understand WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and thereby eats up the time of those who do. A topic ban is logical, and pending further investigation I'd be willing to look at a full ban if abusive behavior can be established via socks. Jusdafax 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with move[edit]

Resolved

I just moved the page Srv school to Sri Raasi Vinayaga school, and it's intermittently showing the new page as a red link and acting as if it doesn't exist. I'm not sure what the problem is, but perhaps an admin could look at the move log and figure it out. Thanks. Torchiest talk/contribs 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me; try bypassing your browser's cache. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, intermittently? Ah, I see. It just did the same for me; interesting. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Same here; the links are all blue, and even popups shows the content of the second article when you hover over it, and shows the first article as a redirect of the second article. The move log shows that the page has been moved, so I do not know what is the problem with the page. Perhaps one server hasn't been updated yet? MC10 (TCGBL) 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, there we go. Purging the cache worked. Now try viewing the page. MC10 (TCGBL) 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Never had that happen with a move before. Torchiest talk/contribs 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban of user:WillBildUnion?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I was asked to look at this with a view to summing up consensus. There seems to be a consensus to impose a topic ban on WillBildUnion from making edits related to Christian, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics—broadly construed, and to include talk pages—for six months, to be reviewed after three months if Will wants a review. That topic ban should now be considered in effect. Uninvolved admins may use their discretion regarding how best to enforce it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia often attracts cranks. WillByuildUnion's only purpose is to use Wikipedia to promote his own original reearch. He is remarkably consistent, so you can learn it all [here]. He is an SPA POV-pushing violator of NOR and all he does is waste other editors' time. Can we just be rid of him? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoo, after reviewing some of his edits, at the very least, I think this warrants a topic ban from Christianity and related articles. Verbal chat 14:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) More disruptive editing: [21], (this is particulalry funny), [22], [23], [24]

A topic ban would be fine, but include Hebrew and Roman and Egyptian related topics too, please .... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Has he made any constructive edits? Looking into it further I'm leaning towards full ban. Verbal chat 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to try something short of full-ban. Would it be sufficient to ban him from topics relating to Caesarion, loosely construed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WBU Proposal[edit]

Topic ban for Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics.

  • "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to the Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics, broadly construed." wording revised for procedural issue Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, c'mon, do not ban, anything. I promise to shape up, stop talk page talk of over excessiveness, and do editing with RS. No ban of any kind needed. I'm here to make Wikipedia better by the standards of it and assume good faith. WillBildUnion (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Show us you can do this by working on something else constructively.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. Verbal chat 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
For at least six months, then review. Verbal chat 18:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I stop editing Christianity, Hebrew, Rome and Egypt articles. I beg and apply for a no-ban.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that a ban won't stop you from editing the encyclopedia otherwise -- if you're going to stop editing those articles, a ban won't affect you at all, even if it's active. BTW, Todd, would you like to amend your proposal to include an end date? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - request that the ban be considered extensive, and that it be extended to topics and edits related to Christianity, Hebrews, Romans, and Egyptians. (I'm thinking of Son of God — OK, that one's Christian, but a generic article on the topic "son of (a) god" might not be.) Also note that, if he agrees, it won't effect his editing. I suggest a 6 month ban, with review after 3 months. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    Agree with Ncmvocalist's phrasing: "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Procedural point (no view on substantive issue) - we need to have a wording to make this workable, if it is to be enacted. "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to the Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics, broadly construed." is one way of doing it. Can the proposer and commentators specify their preference(s) please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I really don't know if this can be done or how easily it might be enforced, so feel free to mercilessly reject this proposal; however, after taking a look at this user's contribution, I'm not sure I see his edits as disruptive (except the one about Nero's faked death). I do agree, though, that they are unsourced and, most probably, original research and, as such, should be removed. So, my proposal is simple: would it be possible to enact some sort of an editing restriction by which this user is to refrain from inserting unsourced material into articles, restriction to be enforced through progressively increasing blocks? As I've said, I don't know if it's feasible, but it might be worth a try... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bans and blocks should never be punitive. In this case the point would be to prevent conflict (tedious but predictable reverts) and to give the user time to watch how seriou editors work together to write encyclopedic articles, and to study our policies. So for me that would be the rationale. The idea of a topic ban is, as advice in one of our policies or essyas says, that tthe best way to learn how to be an effective editor is to edit article utterly unrelated to one's interests and beliefs. If all this ever applied to a user, it is this one. So for term: One week? Two weeks? A month? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, durations which are shorter than 3 months are likely to be too short for any community restriction; staying away from the topic means ensuring you don't keep looking back at the topic to the point that you are tempted to return (upon the timer running out) to the behavior that resulted in the restriction in the first place. Some people have compared it to a type of detox, though I think it's just a way of establishing good editing habits for the long term - even in contentious topics. Note - this is a general observation rather than one that is necessarily specific to this or any particular case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an ongoing over exaggeration concerning my time here on Wikipedia. I perhaps am guilty of minor rule breaking (3RR), but vandalism is totally out of the question. I haven't provided sources enough for some of my edits. Some of my edits were not likened by "the cabal". Even though: be bold! And mi were. Because of personal reasons that some supporters of megaban here seem to have, I cannot be banned major or minor. However I restrict myself from editing said articles, I wont edit articles unless I have refs to stock up with. Let's not let crap unfold anymore. I thank you and wish well. I beg and apply for less, I beg and apply to for none.WillBildUnion (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a violation of the topic ban? Will someone please step in and do something? It is clearly an example of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I add a source. And even without a source it's not disruptive. Talk pages are not articles, but of course are articles talk pages.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Note that the wording we supported above states "edits", not "edits on articles". I'd really suggest not pushing the limits before the ban discussion even closes.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. I beg pardon.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." and this will be broadly construed.--Adam in MO Talk 06:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as written by Adamfinmo Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


I do not think this guy gets it. this edit is not appropriate, and I suspect it is incorrect. Surely this is a Roman/Egyptian topic. Surely he is flauting the prohibition. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey c'mon now. I restrict myself from editing ancient said articles.WillBildUnion (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - as written by Adamfinmo, support an indef block if repeated violations. Time to find other Wikipedia interests. It is important to learn to contribute instead of violate WP:SOAP. And please review WP:NPOV. Jusdafax 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Greg L[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No one is going to be banned today. If needed, take this back to WP:WQA, but I, like Mazca, feel that the best thing to do is to mutually disengage and let the matter drop. Nothing for admins to do here except watch the two of your fight for entertainment value. --Jayron32 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Before an issue goes any further I thought I'd take it take it here first. Greg L comes to a page where I was attempting to get an image recognized as FP. He posts something about a sort of blindness and offers NO constructive criticism or anything relevant or of value, probably his first shot at me, then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility, his userpage even has profanity on it and a "non political correctness" userbox declaring he doesn't care about civility. He should be banned, even though I know this isn't the main board to discuss that.

The page in question: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Auguste_Mayer's_"Battle_of_Trafalgar"#Lost-titled_painting_of_the_Battle_of_Trafalgar

His userpage (scroll down): User:Greg_L

--I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


  • Quoting IdLoveOne: probably his first shot at me: he confuses not liking a picture with a personal attack. Quoting him further: then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility. In fact, I wrote as follows:

• Quoting you: Too bad for you then. Please try to not take these things personally and react in that vein. Your post seems inappropriately combative and we don’t need that here. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote there was hostile so that allegation is not true. I was correctly pointed out that he shouldn’t be combative and personalize things in his posts when others don’t see things his way.
The user box does not endorse incivility so that is yet another thing that isn’t true.
My user page features a link to a sub-page treatise on a subject on which Wikipedia has an article: F*ck
IdLoveOne is simply misrepresenting every single fact and is wikilawyering here to exact some retribution while he/she escalates molehills into mountains. It’s just that simple. It seems petty and childish and IdLoveOne probably needs an enforced cooling off period if he/she can’t control his/her temper any better. Such silliness. Greg L (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Moved. This can't wait, this guy just won't stop, so I've moved it here. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • IdLoveOne started this as a Wikiquette alert and the editor moved the entire contents to here now. This editor is proving to be disruptive and might benefit from a 48-hour break. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day, so I moved this here in hopes of getting mediation since Wikiquette is slow and you just continue to harrass me. Two other people were able to politely and without hostility point out their problems and we have no disputes, but you're different. I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now, and have NEVER had to report another Wikipedia user or even an anonymous vandal's IP and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin, but you've called me blind, a liar and implied threats: "We don't need that here" like you're going to block me; and this userbox about about being "politically incorrect" is what that is. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Parsing this one:
  • “All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day”: Writing that you should refrain from personal attacks isn’t “bullying”. Also, your “all day” is quite the exaggeration; your taking offense to my not liking your nomination started at 22:11 and you posted the Wikiquette at 22:36. Thus, it took a grand total of 25 minutes for you to spin up.
  • “I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now”: That is irrelevant to what the facts are here.
  • “[I called you] a liar”: No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true.
  • “implied threats: ‘We don't need that here’ like you're going to block me”: Uhhm… no, it means we don’t need that here (personalizing things and getting combative).
  • “and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin”: There’s a first time for everything and I suggest you stop wikilawyering and misrepresenting every single thing to which you take offense.
Note that WP:Civility, here states that it is uncivil to “mislead, including deliberately asserting false information”. Your allegations here are entirely untrue. You were very politely advised to not personalize things and refrain from using hostile language like “Too bad for you then”. Indeed, we don’t need that kind of thing over there. Rather than take that spot-on advise to heart, you spin out sideways over the course of 25 minutes and start a Wikiquette and then move it to here.

Maybe you’ve had a rotten day over on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates because J Milburn reverted a whole bunch of pictures you recently added to some of Wikipedia’s articles. He had this comment on FPC: “[T]hose articles are already very over-illustrated, and, having worked with editors on articles very like them (if not them, I don't remember) concerning images, I can assure you that every image is carefully chosen. Additionally, I am not wild about the EV in any of the uses.” I can’t help what J Milburn does but it’s clear that your tenor was getting increasingly combative and less collegial with each let-down on that thread. Now your behavior is simply disruptive. Greg L (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be, at best, a minor civility issue - I see absolutely no evidence of any seriously disruptive behaviour or anything warranting immediate admin action. I'd strongly advice IdLoveOne to disengage - a disagreement over a featured picture candidacy is all this should be, and doesn't need to be personalised. ~ mazca talk 00:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mazca. This is the last thing I have to say to you, Greg L, I know that it is probably pointless but I feel I must anyway:
1. I don't care if you don't like Auguste Mayer, he died over a century ago and I have no reason to defend him. The FPC and Wikipedia guidelines are clear, if you dislike a image or don't feel it is FP-worthy you have to post a valid reason why. I don't know much about Macular degeneration, but it has nothing to do with art, the quality guidelines of Wikipedia and no one in the section cares about it, but if you really felt it was an interesting fact somehow connected to the image you could've explained, and it's not about if you like the image or not, there are specific things that must be considered to decide what is feature-worthy, not just if you don't like a certain type of artwork - I'm not interested in portraits right now, so I don't comment on them and you could just as easily have passed over the image I suggested and we wouldn't be here.
2. You failed to follow policy and assume good faith and took an innocent comment out of proportion, that is why we're here and it is disruptive, ban-worthy behavior that needs no, as you put it, "Wikilawyering". Now my nomination is cluttered up with hostile notes and attacks on me that might scare people off from contributing valuable feedback that I could've used to develop my ability to understand what Wikipedia sees as feature-worthy and tips I could've used to fix up the image and possibly restore it to where it should be.
3. "'I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now': That is irrelevant to what the facts are here." Yes, it is, you've attacked my character, called it into question and are trying to spin a block on me, so I do think that 4 years good behavior shows that I have good character and wouldn't be doing this if I really didn't find it necessary.
4. "'[I called you] a liar': No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true." *crickets* I don't have anything else to say, I'll let the administrators make their decisions. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Mazca, I don't have a problem with a disagreement about the image, it's the fact that he turned something simple into an argument. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • From what I can see the argument that developed absolutely resulted from both of you taking each other's comments more personally than they were initially intended. In neither case was anything seriously wrong done - nobody needs banning. ~ mazca talk 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

X-romix[edit]

Resolved: I removed his editing rights Spartaz Humbug! 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User X-romix (talk · contribs), who was previously banned from Russian Wikipedia for pushing different fringe theories and harassment of different users, now came to Jimbo's talk page complaining about reverts of his image nominations for deletion on Commons. In his complain he accused putnik (SUL) and me (SUL) of being "gay activists" and being "controlled" by another user. He also linked to a LiveJournal community where libelous and offensive statements are regularly published (it was blacklisted locally for that reason). Besides, he started totally off-topic advocacy of himself being "unfairly blocked" on Russian Wikipedia. I find claims of me being gay activist and controlled by some other user totally inacceptable; I also believe his behvior on Jimbo's talk page should be regarded as disruptive. vvvt 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when you discuss someone on this noticeboard, you must inform them that they are being discussed here. I have done this for you in this case, but in the future, you must make certain to do it yourself. I haven't looked at the actual issue you raised; I am just making certain you understand this requirement. Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually aware of that fact. Thanks anyway. vvvt 18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Posting sensitive personal information about Wikipedia users without their consent on Wikipedia pages is a blockable offence regardless of whether this information is true or false. One of those users is actually a minor, which makes this case much more serious. I am inclined to indefblock X-romix. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that would be an excellent idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I was following the discussion on Jimbo's page and agree. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at most of it, and agree also; in addition to it being an WP:OUTING, I found some of the comments homophobic and generally offensive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal; I confirm that X-romix keeps slandering these two and other ru.wp users in Russian LiveJournal community (consisting mostly of banned ru.wp users), this time he simply "extended" this into en.wp. — AlexSm 22:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this response to my ANI notification, I have to agree with the above editors. I suspect that allowing X-romix to continue editing on the English Wikipedia will only result in his repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Gavia immer (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IP user 184.59.77.102[edit]

This started when per wp:blp, I reverted some of the user's unsourced additions of contentious info to Jim Bowden and Gary Majewski [25], [26]. After explaining the blp policy to user on my talk page [27] and explaining why the content was removed, user argued but (after disruptive edit [28]) eventually added content back to article properly sourced with refs. I helped out and encouraged [29]

You would think that would be the end of it. However, user has again continued the trend of disruptive edits with borderline personal attack edit summaries ([30], [31]), and keeps on un-archiving my talk page and removing info [32], [33], [34]. User was warned [35] before restoring archive on my talk page again. I'm not looking for drama, but the aggressive editing on my talk page/removal of article content/edit summaries led me to post here. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you report a user to ANI, you should notify said user. No problem, however; I've just notified them. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sorry, my bad. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who has say in any decisions to read the back and forth between omarcheesboro and myself. He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced.

I tried to discuss with omarcheeseboro on his talk page the idea that perhaps he had options in how he chose to enforce wikipedia's rules concerning unsourced material; specifically that he *could* have sourced the added content *himself* (thereby both adding to the completeness of the articles in question). Instead of acknowledging that the option was available to him, he repeatedly pasted in boilerplate or links concerning sourcing.

Instead of having a discussion with me, he chose to try to paint my argument as an argument against wikipedia policy. At no time did I criticize or say I disagreed with wikipedia's sourcing rules. I specifically and repeatedly said that my beef was with HIS choices on how to enforce them.

I don't like being treated the same as someone who is deliberately trying to defame a living person with unverifiable charges disguised as verified information.

This is what omarcheeseboro *should* have done:

He should have sourced and corrected the most potentially libelous addition: Jim Bowden arrested for DUI. You type "Jim Bowden dui" (without the quotes) into google and you get MANY returns.

Once he saw that this had been a good faith effort to contribute, he should have sent me a message directing my attention to what needed to be sourced and cited his correction to the Bowden DUI addition as an example of how to do it properly. Perhaps giving me a day or two before he was reluctantly forced to revert the additions.

I'm all about results - the result of omarcheeseboro's actions (while seemingly in line with wikipedia policy) was that accurate and contextually important information was removed from the pages of wikipedia whilst simultaneously putting off someone who was only trying to contribute.

He compounded this by taking a smug position that he was constrained by the rules and could do nothing else - even though that is clearly a load of bull.

Maybe omarcheeseboro doesn't think much of the effort involved; perhaps this is all very easy for him. For me it is not. I have been very ill for years and I simply have very little energy to completely dot every i and cross every t.

Considering the effort I have to muster to write this sort of material, it is infuriating when someone lazily wipes it away - not because it is wrong - but because some attention to proper etiquette was missed.

On top of that he went looking through all of my recent additions and reverted them all. For me to think this was done out of his concern for following the rules, I would only have to be shown that he was consistent in his fervor for the sourcing of all of wikipedia.

So, I just to the first article I could think of to check for the many sourcing errors I knew would be there. I randomly chose the Enola Gay article and immdiately found that of the 11 citations, 6 were broken, missing, or hopelessly vague.

I told omarcheeseboro of this and instead of deleting the sections he completely ignored the issue. If he had any real concern for the letter of the law that he is holding fast to - he would have wasted no time making the needed deletions. Instead he allowed the idea to for and take hold that perhaps a zealous attention to the rules was not his motivation - perhaps he had some personal reason to dig up all my edits and revert them.

There is no way to know because he refuses to explain himself; instead copying and pasting canned responses in a dismissive and offensive manner.

Personally I do not think that omarcheeseboro can really defend his actions in any other way than to claim his actions are by the rules. My attempts to discuss it with him (including undoing him deleting all conversations on his talk page) was my way of making him examine what his choices truly were. He side-stepped that quite nicely and he remains unexamined by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24h, repeatedly deleting uncontroversial info in retaliation for someone else reverting his controversial additions is disruptive. ~ mazca talk 00:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, per our policy — especially, when it comes to WP:BLPs —, all bits of info, especially if negative, must be sourced. Otherwise, they can be challenged and removed at any time. Any user can choose not to remove them and try to look for references, instead, but that's a matter of preference, as per WP:BURDEN. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, but doing so in a way to disrupt is absolutely a pointy tactic. Deleting non-controversial information about when an NFL player was drafted just because there's no specific source there is just trying to get a rise out of another editor. Dayewalker (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Of the deletions by omarcheeseboro that 184.59.77.102 was complaining about, the only one that could be construed as potentially damaging was the bit about Jim Bowden getting arrested for DUI; which is easily verified with the most trivial of effort. It seems to me that omarcheeseboro caused this situation by his actions on the rest of this user's edits. Fixing one possibly imflamatory edit is one thing, going through and reverting multiple edits of a particular user is bound to anger them. To quote from WP:BURDEN: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Looking at the work of 184.59.77.102, I see no reason to think that he is anything but an asset to wikipedia. Obviously he needs to learn the proper way to do things. Zilla1126 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I was referring to Omarcheeseboro's edits, but Mazca blocked him before I could type my answer. ^_^
I had warned the IP editor that he was heading for a block... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Caution: Zilla1126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is no friend of ours, and unlikely to be a good-faith editor. He was one of a group of Freepers who trolled us in November 2005; it was quite unpleasant, and I deleted their nastiness from my talk page and from his (check the deletion history, as well as that of Wikipedia liberal bias, which gives the IPs he or his friends -- I believe "meatpuppets" is not inappropriate here -- used before he registered his account). Preferring to be lenient, I didn't block him. In dealing with these people, put on your thickest skin, and remember they already know our policies, and have known them for almost five years. See here (change the "x" to and "f") for a sample of their off-wiki coordination/comment.
On editing articles on sports figures, perhaps we can AGF and all shall be well -- and indeed maybe he's changed -- but I just needed to give a heads-up. Antandrus (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Antrandrus, do you have some basis for saying that the person contributing anonymously from IP address 184.59.77.102 and myself (zilla1126) are the same person? I can state categorically that we are not the same person. I for one don't like my name being included in a group that you call "meatpuppets". I certainly did not add any nastiness to your talk page; hopefully you are not saying that I did. It just so happens that "184.59.77.102" is Chris, my Son. I think you and this omar fellow should cut him a bit of slack. Chris suffers from Myotonic Dystrophy DM1 and is barely functional for a couple of hours a day due to his hypersomnia, physical fatigue, and executive dysfunction. It takes a lot for him to build up the steam to focus long enough to get something like editing a wikipedia page done - omar going through Chris's work and seemingly destroying it was a little too much for him. I'm sorry he reacted in a anti-social manner, but that sort of thing is one of the effects of this disease and it will only get worse. His considerable intellect is and will remain unaffected by his illness; however his ability to use his gifts is being stolen from him day by day. You and the other editors might want to think about what might be going on the other side of the keyboard before you pass judgement. Zilla1126 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this assertion by the IP:
"He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced."
This is totally inaccurate. I added some refs to his contributions, expanded, and copyedited a little bit. I didn't delete information, and left a positive note in the edit. See the diff [36]. One would think that this would've resolved the situation, but no. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Chris was inaccurrate is stating that; omar did not delete information after *I* sourced it. What he did do however was immediately go right in a move things around and make other "improvements" which Chris took to be a purposeful affront. Whether it was intended that way or not, it was a little odd considering what had already transpired between them. I may be not entirely impartial when it comes to my Son, but I think that omar should apologize to him for what anywhere else in the world would be unimaginable rudeness. In the future anything Chris does on wikipedia will go through me first - I'm not sure how many of these sort of "corrections" he can take without completely giving up. I can't let him lose hope. Zilla1126 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24[edit]

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.

Resolved: Banned, WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Information[edit]