Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive685

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Vandalbot![edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Timotheus Canens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody block it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is the one to blame... T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Leakingisgood[edit]

Leakingisgood (talk · contribs) whose first edit was December 30th just copied someone's userpage to his [1]. I can't recall what we do when this happens, although I'll revert him and notify him of this discussion. There have been other problems with this editor, see their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the second time he has copied Favonian's user page. Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Third time, actually. GiantSnowman 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:MaxIsScared[edit]

User:MaxIsScared is likely a troll. His bizarre edits includes randomly undoing legitimate edits [2], adding unsourced info [3], removing sourced info [4]. I believe he is a sock of indef blocked User:DiehardNFFLbarnone since he makes the same exact edits on Terrence Williams.—Chris!c/t 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He now become User:IHateGlennBeck, User:TerrenceWilliamsforPrez.—Chris!c/t 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
All three blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Timfitzpatrick and DFCU Financial[edit]

There is a long history of inappropriate additions of non-notable living persons to the DFCU Financial article, usually by IP editors [5], [6], [7], [8]. The most recent of these [9] was done by User:Timfitzpatrick - a probable impersonator and the name of one of the real life employees of the company who is continually added into the article, and one of the subjects of this ongoing harassment campaign. I have notified the user. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, user had been previously warned about the addition of defamatory material in June 2010. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed a listing --in the article, not even in the external links, of a facebook group about the bank. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 76.89.129.139[edit]

Blocked 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco[edit]

Resolved: Semied for 6 hours by Materialscientist Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Massed vandal attack. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist has dealt with it. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warrior[edit]

Resolved

Edit-warring to insert unsourced POV material on Ron Wyatt - over the past few days, Dougweller has reverted 3 times and I've reverted 3 times. Looks like a block is needed now, but I don't think I should do it as I have been involved in the reverts. In fact, I actually did block, but then suddenly realised I shouldn't, so I unblocked - can someone else please take a look and do what is necessary? Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block as the editor restored their preferred unsourced version after the edit warring warning. Note I only blocked for 24 hours as it was a first time block. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

SALT request[edit]

Resolved

Some kids have been making articles about themselves and their mates - can an admin SALT a couple of articles please? Ragnar Hansson has been A7ed three times, Ríkharður Árnason twice, and Jón Gunnar Hafsteinsson once. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Handled by ErrantX, tho probably WP:RFPP is the better venue. Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I made a bit of a hash of it ;) but got there in the end. Syrthiss is right, sometimes RFPP is faster. --Errant (chat!) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops, hadn't realised that RFPP was for SALT requests as well, many thanks though for the quick response guys. GiantSnowman 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page[edit]

Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Anglo Pyramidologist is a recent account whose main contributions have been to "identity" topics: British Israelism (the theory that the British descended from the "lost" tribes of Israel and the Jews are imposters), Young earth creationism (the theory the earth is only 6,000 years old), Christian identity (a "racialised" understanding of Christianity) and the British National Party (a party that speaks for the "indigenous" population of the British Isles). His comments at Talk:British National Party#The BNP and animal welfare are abusive:

  • Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie....
  • . Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views. Do you have a conscience?
  • All the most evidence Multiculturalist is a troll, he is now pointing out other posters spelling errors - just to wind them up or attack them. This is despite his OWN posts are filled with poor spelling and punctuation, for example he spelt nearby as 'near by', above, there should be no space between the two. Also going to his talk page, reveals he has mispelled 'terminology' as 'teminology' (23:30, 14 July 2010), in fact i counted more than 10 spelling errors on his page in total. So not only is 'Multiculturalist a troll, he is also a hypocrit and can't spell English perfectly himself.
  • Also look at Multiculturalists sources on the animal welfare nonsense hes posting - Seachlight, a well known anti-fascist magazine written by communists. How is that a neutral source on the BNP?
  • Also why are his only sources from cranky communists like searchlight? Kind of ironic Multiculturalist above tries to smear the BNP by linking them to murder, when he quotes from communists. The communists under stalin killed millions of innocents.

Anglo Pyramidologist has been asked to avoid personal attacks on the talk page: "Also, you need to avoid personal attacks." He was also given a template message on his talk page.[12]

This discussion falls below the standards of etiquette that editors should follow and I recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be blocked until he agrees to civil discourse.

TFD (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the user's behavior is unacceptable. I've left a final warning on the his talk page.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that Anglo Pyramidologist is not the only editor who opposes Multiculturalism's changes. Both sides are being unnecessarily dogmatic here, possibly because of the strong feelings that the BNP engenders, but Anglo P does not seem to be behaving outrageously. His edits suggest that he holds a world view which I find, shall we say, less than sympathetic. But I don't see any egregiously bad behaviour here. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a vandal on the BNP page who is now removing local election details, and secondly is posting sources about the BNP from Searchlight a communist source. This source is biased and not neutral. I have made no personal attacks against this individual vandal, he also attempted to wind me up by saying i cannot spell (and is basically trolling me). I'm not sure why i got the warning, i've done nothing wrong. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is NOT a "communist source", and describing it as such has just let slip your biased POV - kudos. GiantSnowman 16:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight was founded by a communist - Gerry Gable, furthermore it is backed financially by the Communist Party of Britain and Young Communist League. Here is a website exposing the Communist basis of Searchlight - http://searchlightexposed.com/. Searchlight in their protests also have communist banners, they display these publically. You can find hundreds of videos on youtube which show this - so not sure what your agenda is here denying these links. It has nothing to do with biased POV. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, wrong again - Searchlight was actually founded by two Labour MPs (Reg Freeson and Joan Lestor), as well as anti-fascist and YCL member Maurice Ludmer. Gable is merely the publisher, and hasn't been a member of the Communist Party since 1962. Yes, it's got a left-wing lean, as anti-fascist activity tends to do, but that doesn't make it 'communist' - so describing it as such is wrong, and once again shows your biased POV that you seem unable to remain neutral when editing these kind of articles. GiantSnowman 17:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This board is not for content disputes. Anglo Pyramidologist has continued personal attacks against another editor event after receiving a final warning from an administrator.[13] In fact he is continuing that attack here by calling another editor a "vandal". TFD (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not in a content disupte - I'm completely uninvolved. Never edited any of the articles in question, never encountered either editor before. I was merely pointing out that Anglo Pyramidologist clearly has a POV when he edits these articles - which has manifested itself through personal attacks against those who oppose him. GiantSnowman 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD is continuing to make false accusations against myself, so i have reported his posts. Please stop with the personal attacks. I only called someone else a vandal AFTER THEY DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION on the BNP's page in the local elections. That's what vandalism is - deleting material. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that Anglo Pyramidologist clearly has a POV when he edits these articles, i don't have POV, all i pointed out is that quoting COMMUNIST sources on a BNP (nationalist) page is not neutral. In fact, most other posters agreed with me on this - if you view the BNP's talk page. Searchlight is not a neutral source, so anyone quoting from it is baised. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: the user mutlticulturalist is deleting MORE peoples content on the BNP page - 86.10.119.131 (talk) (150,617 bytes) (Undid revision 422528221 by Multiculturalist (talk) dont delete peoples material bro. That's not even me this time he deleted content from. As was pointed out above many have a problem with Multiculturalist editing the BNP page. He is biased (look at his name). The BNP is a nationalist party which opposes multiculturalism, so how is a user with 'multiculturalist' as a name percieved to be neutral? He also left me personal attacks all over the BNP talk page, but the mods don't take action against him ever. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please check the talk page on the BNP section where another user has just owned up that multiculturilist is their sock puppet account. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's prooven that the account is a sock? then it must be banned. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No it has not been proved and is not true either. It is merely another example of Anglo Pyramidologist's unfounded abusive comments about other editors. TFD (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
He's accusing me GoodDay! --Snowded TALK 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
WHAT? Holy smokers AP. Accusing Snowded of being a sock-master, is like accusing J. Edgar Hoover of being a Commie. Honestly, such an accusation borders on paranoia. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
AD's behavure is veryy poor and in actionable. But I do feel that he is not alone in this. Mulitcuturalist has als made epaeted PA's (such as a ccusing users of biase) has edited from (what they admit) is OR POV. I think that it would be best if both accounts were blocked from editiing far right pages.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that User:Multiculturalist has said some offensive things on that talkpage, he deserves a warning also and should keep his personal opinions to himself as they seem quite extreme. If someone has made a comment linking themselves to another account then report it at WP:SPI - I have edited in many areas of the wiki and that section of articles is infested with opinionated editors unable to edit in a NPOV manner. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you all take a look at the BNP talkpage, you will see that I only criticised Anglo Pyramidologist after he had launched an unprovoked personal attack on me: I do not remember even having encountered this user before. I had merely questioned whether we should allow a pro-BNP POV passage to stand which had stated that "The BNP supports animal welfare" and I provided sources to highlight the fact that they favour hunting with hounds and that their opposition to Kosher was not necessarily to do with animal welfare (citing scientific research which indicates that this may be more humane than other methods of slaughter). Anglo Pyramiologist responded by saying "Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie and claim the BNP are for animal cruelty when in fact they are against halal and kosher barbaric killing methods and have donated to green peace's save the whale campaigns." He then followed this up by saying "The BNP supports animal welfare. This is in there manifesto, and they have donated to save the whale campaigns. Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views." Regarding Anglo Pyramiologist's assertion that I vandalised the section on local election results, this was in fact a new section comprising blatantly pro-BNP POV which he had created himself without first referring it to the discussion page. I reverted his edit and pointed out to him that there is a tag on the article which states that it may already be too long to navigate comfortably, and that it therefore does not help matters to add further sections. As for Snowded, s/he has been an editor for a lot longer than me and, judging by his userpage, belongs to a totally different political tradition. Our styles of editing and debating are so dissimilar that it's beyond me how anyone can believe we are the same person: if someone criticises me I respond in kind (occasionally resulting in a protracted debate) whereas Snowded, to his/her credit, simply issues the miscreant with a warning.Multiculturalist (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what they said, that does not give you the right to dish out personal attacks of your own. Just step back for a bit and let the admins handle any civility issues. The content dispute isn't going to be solved here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • note - I have also warned user multiculturist that his comments attacking the group of people on the talkpage of the article he is involved in contributing to is in violation of WP:BLP and his vocalized dislike of the group on the talkpage is disruptive and attacking in nature - if he hates the group and can't keep his hatred in his pants he should not be commenting there at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted the latest personal attack from AngloP. Its pretty obvious s/he is not listening. I suggest a neutral admin takes a look at the page and issues warnings if they deem it appropriate. --Snowded TALK 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, so your removal of others comments is vandalism. Furthermore you still never answered why you are obsessed with the BNP and the BNP page on wikipedia when your profile states you are a far left wing anti-monarchist 'anti-nazi' socialist. You clearly have a biased agenda against the BNP and are not neutral. I have no idea why you are allowed anywhere near the BNP's page, you are not neutral and are breaking wikipedia policy on neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have a biased agenda towards the BNP - so why do you continue to edit such topics? GiantSnowman 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin take a look at this please, continued accusations of sock puppetry by Ango P but refusing to make an SPI report, more personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Its tedious --Snowded TALK 20:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the only edit(s) i made on the BNP page was two. Firstly updating their election(s) results, which is entirely neutral, and i do that to other parties (national front, UKIP, english democrats etc). However snowded and multiculturalist (if they are the same user) deleted info which personally upset them that two recent BNP councillors were elected. On both those accounts they deleted local election material on the BNP, obviously because of their personal biased views on the party. Secondly my only other edit was getting the holocaust denial tag off the party bar - which was a smear. And a mod or admin removed it, and agreed with me that the BNP are NOT holocaust deniers. My only problems with the BNP page, is that the user multiculturalist is biased, not neutral and is only editing it to smear the BNP or make them look bad. How exactly can someone be trusted to edit BNP material when their name is 'multiculturalist'? The BNP is a nationalist party who stands against multiculturalism, therefore someone with the silly name multiculturalist is hardly going to be neutral are they? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's the matter of your sock accusations against Snowded. Are you going to retract those accusations or file an SPI report? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, multiculturalism is well bad and all that. GiantSnowman 21:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Anglo Pyramidologist blocked for a day for repeated personal attacks and ludicrous sockpuppet accusations after repeated warnings. I hope everyone will redouble their efforts to discuss the article on its talk page calmly, maturely, and biting their tongues to avoid insulting others, even when they think it justified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song)[edit]

Looks like there may be some canvassing going on at that AfD (which I will deal with), but I'll also promote that AfD here to attract a more neutral crowd. Your comments there are welcome, if you have a few minutes to look at it. Prodego talk 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Darwinek continues to move articles without discussion and in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:POINT[edit]

Previous AN/I discussion on this subject

User:Darwinek continues to move articles without discussion and in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:POINT, and without proving sources to justify the need move articles. His edit summery of “to correct name” [14][15][16][17] is subjective and violates WP:NPOV. This issue has previously been discussed here and he has been warned here. By continuing to make these unilateral moves Darwinek has demonstrated by his that he is unwilling to open discussions to seek consensus for moves on an article-by-article bases, and it is time to take admin action to stop his disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DIACRITICS. Fainites barleyscribs 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"His edit summery of “to correct name” [82][83][84][85] is subjective and violates WP:NPOV." No it doesn't, edit summaries are not subject to NPOV. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
See no issue here, user was WP:BOLD as he is allowed to be, its not up to him to start a discussion on every article, its up to you to start a discussion if you object to his move on each article. ie WP:BRD. Retain is about varieties of english which isn't applicable here. And I see no point violations as he isn't doing anything to purposefully disrupt the wiki. As for discussions on the matter, there have been some in the past. Although he wasn't part of them the ice hockey wikiproject (which I mention because those are the articles you used as examples) came to the conclusion that European ice hockey bio articles get them if the players name includes them. So he isn't editing against consensus, but rather with it. I also note that he did attempt to discuss with you on your talk page about the moves on March the 8th and you did not respond. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Darwinek posted his message on my talk page only after I posted on my talk page that I was taking a wikibreak.[18]. Dolovis (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It would make life easier if a discussion could be held on any necessary changes (or nor as the case may be) to WP:DIACRITICS. I'm surprised this wasn't opened up last time given the opposing views. Fainites barleyscribs 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that one wasn't because its a perennial argument that never gets fully settled because it seems to be a roughly split 50/50 down the middle on if they should be used or not which is why WP:DIACRITICS says there is no preference. And I would bet another reason would be due to the warning in that page to "Beware of over-dramatising these issues". I think this is again a case of over dramatising it when it could have been discussed on their talk pages as was attempted by Darwinek on the 8th of March. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Until the issue is clearly settled to give consensus to mass moves, Darwinek should follow the policy of WP:RETAIN which states that the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Darwinek has supplied no sources to verify the common use of diacritics in the names of there people, and his edit comments that it is the “correct name” is clearly WP:POV. None of the sources included in these articles support the renaming of these articles. Djsasso's says that WP:BOLD applies, but that policy contemplates the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is something that Darwinek has neglected to follow. I am not able to revert these moves because I am not an admin, and (unlike Darwinek) I am not able to move these articles back over a redirect to continue the BRD cycle. Dolovis (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you see that he isn't following the BRD cycle. He was bold, its up to you to revert, then you discuss. Since you have not reverted then he is following the cycle. And as pointed out he tried to discuss with you and you did not reply which indicates he is able to continue doing the moves since you did not discuss. As you were told in the last discussion, any editor can move an article over a redirect (unless its been edited by another user which is rarely the case). It does not take an admin to do so. It is in fact what you should be doing if you object. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I would revert if I could, but I do not have the needed admin powers to revert the move of an article over the redirect. Would an admin please move the above linked articles back to their originals names so that I may pursue this matter on an article-by-article bases through WP:BRD as instructed by DJSasso. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, you don't need admin powers to move an article over a redirect, or even to revert these moves. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move explains how. Ravendrop 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but it does not seem possible for me to revert Darwinek edits without admin help. Even the informational link provide by Ravendrop states "If page A has subsequently been edited, or the move software is behaving weirdly, only an admin can sort things out", please I am requesting admin help. Dolovis (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
What that means is that if I moved location A to location B. And then a 2nd editor came and edited the redirect that was left at location A, for example change the page that it was redirecting too. Then it takes an admin to fix it. But if all that happened was page A moved to page B then you just have to pick move and type in the old name and hit submit and it will move over top of the redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I just checked with the first move you cited, and you should be able to revert it without any problem as the original name (what is no the redirect) has not been edited. To do this go to Special:Log/move and search either by the user name or the name that the article was originally at, and then hit the revert button at the end of the line. Enter your reasoning for reverting and confirm. I'd do it for you, but since I'm neutral about the issue at the moment, and you're the main opponent of it, I feel its better for you to revert it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talkcontribs)
That would also work. Either way is good. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now figured out how to revert the moves, and have invoked WP:BRD on some of the moved articles. Pursuant to BRD, I will now wait to see if Darwinek wishes to open discussions on the affected articles talk pages to determine if renaming is appropriate on an article-by-article basis. Thank you for your assistance. Dolovis (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly would you want to do that? As explained above, diacritics are commonly used throughout the Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that you did do it in fact, looking at your mass reverts [19], this kind of action just looks like looking for trouble. Especially since most people above, and most people at thew previous AN/I discussion have pointed out to you that the moves were correct, according to WP guidelines and that you should probably leave it well enough alone, and FIRST start a discussion rather than engaging in mass reverts of another user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that the mass changes are a problem, but not the mass reverts of Dolovis. The mass moves made by Darwinek without discussion or consensus, that is where the problem lies. Dolovis is merely restoring the status quo ante so that discussion can take place, per the BRD cycle. As an admin, Darwinek should know better, especially since this exactl same issue was brought to AN/I within the last few months. Deliberately doing the same thing that was objected to previously, again without a consensus to do so, is disruptive, and absolutely terrible behavior for an admin, whose job is to reduce disruption, not create it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As pointed out above, he wasn't really doing something against consensus, as consensus at the hockey project (and he was moving hockey articles at least thats what I see from the examples) is that bios of hockey players whose name contains diacritics have them added. So he was moving them to be inline with the hockey projects standard. Personally I don't think they should have been reverted but its Dolovis's right to do the reverts. I like most others in both discussions think he should have left it well enough alone. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:RETAIN, these sorts of moves should not be undertaken without some sort of prior discussion. Even if it is in line with the hockey Wikiproject, they are only a Wikiproject and not in charge of articles about hockey players. If Darwinek or the hockey wikiproject wished to undertake these changes, then he or they should have opened a centralized discussion on the matter in one of the main Wikipedia discussion boards and obtained consensus for such a change. Thus, Dolovis is perfectly correct in reverting them and invoking both WP:RETAIN and the necessity of WP:BRD. SilverserenC 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So as part of the BRD cycle I undo Dolovis mass reverts (because I think they are wrong headed) that should be within purview of the BRD cycle as well, right?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, WP:RETAIN explicitly states: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs" - this isn't the case for the vast majority of the articles here, at least I haven't found one yet where it would be applicable. For Monkey Sake! Most of these articles are barely a month old or so and nothing more than one sentence stubs. Clearly they have not "evolved sufficiently". They're still in the primodial Wiki ooze more or less. Hence WP:RETAIN just doesn't apply here, and I would really really appreciate it if people actually bothered to read policy/guideline pages rather than just quoting them like some fighters in an old kung fu movie ("WP:Drunken fists!" "WP:RETAIN!" "WP:Flying mongoose!" "WP:DIACRITICS!" "WP:Shadowless Fist of Death!").Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You know perfectly well the rules regarding this area and also the fact that reverting a revert is not a part of the WP:BRD process, but instead part of a very different process. Considering the past clashes between the pro and anti diacritic sides on Wikipedia and across multiple ANI discussions and policy pages, an admin should know better than to unilaterally move articles and change them to diacritics when it is an obviously controversial action to do so. SilverserenC 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So you're dropping the WP:RETAIN defense (which is in the title of this thread) and changing the topic of conversation? Ok, fine, then the edit-warring, to the extent it's even there, appears to be due to Dolovis being too emotionally involved in removing diacritics at all cost from these articles, bringing up his complaints in pointless AN/I threads which waste everyone's time, stubbornly and repeatedly quoting the same inapplicable policies even after it has been pointed out to him/her that they're inapplicable, and insisting on reverting these moves even after lots of folks have told him to leave it well enough alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Man, those would be great links for Wikipedia essays! Anyone else think so? I got dibs on writing the first draft of Wikipedia: Shadowless Fist of Death! -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:RETAIN doesn't apply here for a few reasons, one its about english variants, diacritics or no diacritics are not a english variant. Secondly the articles haven't evolved enough for it to apply even if it was an english variant. They are one sentence stubs. Thirdly, no a wikiproject does not own the articles, but they do create standards for articles under their purview, that is sort of the point of a wikiproject. Local consensus can overrule a guideline, in this case since the guideline says there is no preference for or against a wikiproject can certainly come to a consensus to use or not to use them on articles in their scope. However, I was merely pointing out his moves were not out of consensus as there clearly was a consensus within editors of those types of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
And clearly these moves are not agreed upon, since there are multiple users objecting to the moves. As I said, if a user wishes to move multiple articles in relation to WP:DIACRITICS, considering the past controversies in this area, they should re-obtain consensus to make such actions beforehand and not unilaterally do so by themselves. SilverserenC 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek indeed shouldn't have moved those article titles, expecially with the 'annoying' accompanying edit summaries. It was agreed (I thought), that the pro-dios & anti-dios sides wouldn't claim their versions were correct. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all kinds of ridiculous. Darwinek made a bold move, Dolovis reverted. Why the hell is everyone still arguing? Everyone just needs to drop the posturing and, oh, I don't know? Discuss? If they are all hockey bios, then I encourage either of the involved editors to open a discussion at WT:HOCKEY and help achieve consensus on how we wish to treat these articles. Resolute 02:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No argument with that idea. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is an ongoing mass-move of hundreds of articles without prior consensus, IMO, it should be blocked without ado per WP:MEATBOT if the moves don't stop and stay stopped as soon as someone asks. (It does sound like this one has stopped, for now). BOLD doesn't apply to operations like that. BOLD is for single edits, more or less. Boldly make your one edit, then wait for other users' responses and discuss and reach agreement accordingly before doing your next edit. 100's of repetitive edits without consensus: treat it like an unapproved bot whether or not an actual bot was involved, and block. See also "fait accompli" as referenced in many arb decisions. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What we need is a clearly written policy at least at the level of the WikiProject. Policy that would reflect common sense and general use of diacritics throughout the EN Wiki. Moving back/deliberately creating articles without diacritics is a great step back in what the Wikipedians achieved here since 2004. I propose we create a discussion elsewhere, where we could express our opinions and/or vote to finally settle this and avoid cowardly ANI reports like this. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop using loaded words like "cowardly", especially since it was your action without discussion or consensus, which you knew from the last time it happened was going to be objected to, which provoked the report. Your suggestion for a Wiki-wide (not Project-level) discussion is a good one, but it's a step you should have taken instead of just picking up where you left off after the last AN/I. Your notion of "progress" may or may not be shared by a consensus of editors, that's to be found out, so stop behaving as if you have the green light to make these changes, because you do not. Again, as an admin, these are things that a rank-and-file editor should never have to explain to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wait for the wiki-wide discussion. Similar one was there in May 2008, it concerned only WikiProject Tennis but it "legalized" already normal convention of using diacritics. Discussion, again started by anti-diacritics revisionists and purists, can be found here. Mass-scale voting, AFAIR, was organized at WP:RM during one of the mass moves requests. The result was to keep diacritics (except special cases) and the WikiProject Tennis is peacefully operating since then. Still it seems the community needs to discuss it again, so let's do it. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:HOCKEY is the best place. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If I am reading Darwinek's comment properly, I think he intends this to be a discussion with wikiwide impact rather than just hockey bios. If that is the case, a centralized RFC would probably be best. Resolute 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not long since we had a big thread (was it here or on AN?) on the subject of diacritics, foreign-language names &c. That thread didn't really settle the broader issue, and certainly didn't result in policy change. I expect there'll be another skirmish soon enough, and another, following some dispute on a different article. We have to acknowledge that some groups of editors will prefer names which are "accurate" from their own perspective - and these perspectives may differ. WikiProjects often have their own guidelines favouring names which work from that project's perspective, so a wikiproject on a latin-alphabet-but-not-anglophone country will probably be more sympathetic to diacritics.
Is it worth starting a bigger discussion so the community can try to narrow the policy gap a little? Or has that been tried before? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Music reviews added against consensus[edit]

Siberiankiss1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been adding now over a hundred reviews to a music site, DEAD PRESS. When looking into it last month, it was deemed to be non-RS and to have malware associated with its links (see RSN discussion here:[20]) I removed the links, and left a message with the user. The user replied by email, where he said the malware alerts were false, but did not discuss the reliability issue. I had assumed this was over, but it seems they have been back at it, adding dozens more links to the site. I think this user's edits need some admin scrutiny, The Interior (Talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the user's talk page, letting her know that she has now run afoul of WP:SPAM. I'm certain that, now that she understands the rules, she'll stop, but if there's any further problem, I'd be happy to block her. I've added her talk page to my watchlist, but feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page or request help here if the problem resumes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thnaks, I'll check up on them after a bit. The Interior (Talk) 02:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Spam blacklist anyone? There's a link right now in List of albums released in 2011. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to reopen WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR[edit]

Not an incident. Moving back to AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

PR Firm Editing?[edit]

I've just tagged the Hawaii Convention Center article with a {{News release}} tag, and upon some digging, I noticed that most of the edits were done by User:JenTLC. Her edits are strictly to the article in question, the 3RR violations are over a month old at the latest (so no use even reporting it to 3RR or edit warring due to age, seeing they only cover recent 3RR violations), she's been dinged with numerous Non-free Image deletion warnings, and I don't know if I should tag the article with {{db-spam}} seeing the article is a mess. Any advice on how to handle it?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it, but did you notice the spelling Hawai'i? I've seen this elsewhere, not sure why editors change it to this, some sort of nationalist thing I presume. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It's "Hawaii" in Hawaiian. --Errant (chat!) 10:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the glottal stop is part of the spelling. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I've often seen spellings Hawai'i, Kaua'i, Moloka'i, etc., for the Hawaiian islands. It's apparently to give a visual cue that the trailing "i" is to be pronounced separately. As in "mo-lo-ka-ee", not "mo-lo-kye". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
See here. The article started as cut-and-paste copyvio. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Good catch. I trimmed it all up and rev-deleted the edits with the copyvio material. --Errant (chat!) 12:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted File:HawaiiConventionCenterMeetingRoom.jpg, another of her uploads...claimed it was cc/gfdl-self, but it's on the organization's own website. I'd say she works for them or an associated PR firm. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding overtly racist editor and recidivist sockpuppeteer[edit]

User:Giornorosso was blocked on 13 March 2011 following this discussion on ANI. After that block, the user went on to create sockpuppets Beholdernig (talk · contribs), Killtheniggur (talk · contribs), Lootsucker (talk · contribs), and Howardnug (talk · contribs), all of which were blocked on 27 March. Although I pointed out the likely connection of 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a follow-up discussion on ANI, it remained unblocked. When I asked User:Tiptoety, the checkuser who had handled the sockpuppetry case, why it was not blocked, they blocked it for a week. Tiptoety left on a wikibreak when I asked them to explain why it wasn't indef blocked.

The week-long block on the IP has now expired. New user Holy0cow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has appeared right on schedule to continue editing the same articles and with the same agenda as Giornorosso. I cannot understand why the IP was not indef blocked in the first place, or why Tiptoety would feel that a week-long block was appropriate, but I am not privy to the checkuser information. As far as I can tell, this is a racist POV-pusher and persistent sockpuppeteer using a static DSL IP - why is it not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't assume an IP is static, end-of, especially since in many cases a router reset will change an IP. Thus, IPs are rarely, if ever, indef'd. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't happen all that often, but IPs are sometimes indef blocked, or blocked for very long periods. Year-long blocks are not uncommon for school IPs, for example. Looking over the contributions from the IP shows that the same user has had it since March 2010. How much collateral damage is likely from blocking this single IP from the Czech Republic, even if it turns out to be dynamic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Many users change IP when they get blocked so the fact they've had it for a while may not say much... Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that it appears that this user had had the same IP for over a year now and did not appear to change it when their main account was blocked. None of this answers the question why was the IP not blocked at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If the IP was being used by a registered user, then I presume it would have been caught in an autoblock when the user was blocked, wouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I will leave it for others with access to the checkuser data to comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
All above-reported accounts are  Confirmed as Giornorosso (talk · contribs), and they have already been blocked. –MuZemike 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Dominic, a checkuser, has blocked the IP for 3 months. NW (Talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
85.160.221.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now blocked for 24 hours, because I don't know that there's any value to blocking longer than that. If checkuser or somebody more familiar with the region feel a longer block is necessary, no objections from me. Same if 24 hours proves too long. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In this removed posting to ANI from 85.160.221.224 (currently blocked), the user says "I think that it is clear that Delicous Carbuncle tried to have me blocked completely from the very beginnning, and he tries to permanently blcok one of my IP adresses". So, given this and the "checkuser" block of the IP in question, there should be no question that this IP was being used by User:Giornorosso. It comes back to the same question, why was this IP not blocked previously and why, when I asked about it, was it only blocked for a week? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question. But can we be sure the guy has a static IP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree. The later is a silly question. Obviously we can't be sure it's static. As I pointed out above, the fact it had been used for a long time was largely irrelevant. We realisticly had no way of knowing of they would change IP the moment their IP was blocked. There was obviously little reason for them to change IP when their IP wasn't blocked no matter what else was blocked (clearly if their IP was autoblocked too it would be different but no one with access to checkuser has suggested any of this was poorly handled). Blocking for a short time to test was obviously therefore appropriate, as many including me have hinted at. Escalating that block if they come back afterwards is obviously also appropriate and the normal way to deal with it. Making a big fuss over something that could have been handled simply by asking for a longer block once it became clear they were coming back with the same IP after being blocked well you can guess what I'm going to say... Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a silly question. I've had the same IP for about 3 years now. However, I haven't made any effort to get it changed. But you've given further information, which is good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No it is a silly question to ask why someone wasn't blocked for longer when the reason was given multiple times by multiple people before you asked and where if you were confused, you could easily have asked for clarification on the parts that were confusing you. Also I gave no further info in my post above that couldn't be gleaned from the existing discussion. It's already been explained several times in this thread before my post that changing IP is sometimes easy, often simply a router reset. An uptime for a router of 1 year is not really that unlikely if you have a decent router, a decent household power supply and a decent ISP and no changes that require resetting. Therefore anyone who knows how, and we have seen many times on wikipedia, many do know how, can change their IP on demand. Not really mentioned above but in other cases an IP may be a bit sticky and if you reconnect within a certain number of hours you get the same IP. In this case, it's even more likely that a person may have an IP for a long time since even short resets, short power failures, moving the router location, even changing router can all be undertaken without losing IP but anyone who knows how and is able to put up with no internet for however long is required can change their IP. (Some ISPs assign IPs semi-staticly meaning even days later you will get the same IP (but it's not truly static as the ISP doesn't in any way guarantee you will keep the IP and can change it at any time at their discretion). In that case you may be able to request it to be change, but can't usually do it yourself and if you do request they will likely ask why and 'I got blocked from wikipedia and want to come back' isn't usually going to cut it. There are of course a large variety of other policies.) As I've already said, they key parts, i.e. that it can be trivial to change an IP and the longetivity is irrelevant was mentioned several times above before DC asked again. If for some reason there was any confusion, the polite thing to do would have been to seek clarification rather then continuing to suggest the situation was poorly handled. BTW, one of the reasons we don't like to spell things out in such detail is because while many know, many don't so per WP:BEANS it's best not to, but sometimes I guess we have no choice... Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nil Einne, while it is certainly possible that the IP is not static, your supposition that it could be a dynamically-assigned (or even semi-static) IP seems far less likely than it simply being a static IP. Again, I am unable to assess the collateral damage of a long term block on a single DSL IP from the Czech Republic, but I would guess that it would be negligible. Regardless, you are missing the point entirely - the IP was not blocked when the user was originally blocked, nor was it blocked when I specifically pointed it out in a follow up ANI discussion (that resulted in another Czech editor being temporarily blocked as a sockpuppet), nor was it blocked following the sockpuppetry investigation. My question is why wasn't it blocked? Here we have an overtly and self-identified racist editor creating sockpuppets with offensive names like User:Killtheniggur and their IP is not blocked for any length of time until I ask about it? We block IPs for innocuous vandalism all the time, but for some reason this particular one doesn't get blocked? There is something not quite right about this whole episode. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It's always a dilemma where the persistent, recurrent sockmasters are concerned. It's a consequence of wikipedia's refusal to require registration. Meanwhile, anything you didn't want stated openly could have been stated in an e-mail to the OP here. One thing that can be bothersome is the fact there don't always seem to be enough admins around to handle problems quickly. Like with the Sundae situation, where an RFPP was placed and it was like 3 hours before someone did something about it, hence inadvertently making a legitimate user feel like they had been labeled a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Despite what negative things (per wikipedia standards) this editor has done, the responses to his repeal appear well beyond the pale by one of wikipedia's administrators. If not, I'd like to see what wikipedia standard applies to the ongoing conversation. My guess is none. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I see the responses as being reasonable. Meanwhile, I like where the blockee says he was "forced" to create socks. What a crock. No one "forced" him to do anything. He chose to do it. It relates to his glaring character flaw of racism, in the sense of blaming others for his own problems. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think what Thegreatdr is not understanding is that this guy has had a history of being blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and had sockpuppet after sockpuppet put down. It has to be very tiresome to deal with people who are this determined to create havoc on Wikipedia and even the admins at times will be less cordial or less polite than they would normally be after dealing with the same person for so long. This racist is desperate for attention and he's getting it here through his continued use of sockpuppetry. At some point, I imagine it becomes ridiculously tiring to try and talk sense into someone who has none and refuses to listen to any. Dachknanddarice (TC) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thegreatdr, what specifically is beyond the pale? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe User:Thegreatdr believes that I acted inappropriately in telling the user that racists are, inherently, not welcome at Wikipedia, and in advising him that his racism would doubtless have other lasting consequences in his life, much more serious than merely being blocked from a web site. He seems to have forgotten to notify me of this discussion, as is customary, but fortunately, I noticed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It is one thing to advise someone what they have done to violate wikipedia standards, but it is quite another to start attacking them personally. What happened to assuming good faith and being polite/showing editors a little respect? I know this user has done some non-trivial things on here to enforce a certain POV, but in some cases, he apparently had references. The conversation about his repeal got quickly sidetracked into how certain countries do/do not have free speech, which is peripheral, and not entirely relevant to the block levied, and how he should be ashamed at his POV. If there is an element of burnout in dealing problematic editors, take a time out or some time off. Don't get personal. Isn't throwing attitude at editors (in at least one case by an admin) part of what got the global warming folks in hot water last year? I apologize to Fisherqueen for not throwing the notice on their page, but I did post it on the problem editor's page, which I knew they were watching. This is the second time I've reported the actions of an admin onto this page before, despite five years on here, and wasn't completely versed in the process. My interest on here is improving the met project per wikipedia's article progression (which despite his other issues, he was trying to improve), not in becoming an admin. As part of a couple minority groups, I'm sensitive to these kind of overt attacks on others, even if I don't subscribe to his viewpoint. People do deserve some respect, regardless, and these kind of attacks could turn other editors off to wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked into the history of the editor in question? It's appalling. The guy has no value whatsoever to wikipedia. He's forfeited any expectation of "good faith". And if the admin's blunt and truthful statements discourage other racists from editing, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes calling a racist a racist is needed and appropriate. We shouldnt sugarcoat something if it is true. I dont want to be throwing around "Jimbo said" or anything like it's gospel but if I recall correctly Jimbo did once say that those that have an unhealthy obsession with adding only negative POV about race/religion/etc should in fact be blocked/banned. I think we have to draw the line on our Wikipedia version of "free speech" or "freedom to edit" one's choice of topics at the point where it is really an unhealthy obsession with just spreading hate and getting it into Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Thegreatdr is directing people to a discussion in which Giornorosso repeats their earlier claim that I "hate" them because of their beliefs, I would like to say that I have no ill feelings toward Giornorosso, although I do find their beliefs objectionable. If Giornorosso were able to edit neutrally, they would not be blocked now. Anyone who holds extreme views is unlikely to do well here since they will eventually come up against issues of neutrality and undue weight. In this particular case, any presumption of good faith is now dispelled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I have strong opinions about numerous social and political topics. I defy anyone to determine what any one of them is by looking at my edits. We don't extend the assumption of good faith to persons who are overtly acting in bad faith. That's just nonsense. Overt racism is not welcome here, just as it is no longer welcome among polite company in the vast majority of the civilized world. Society is much less tolerant of racism than in it used to be and Wikipedia is not an exception to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
We should not be tolerating anyone who is explicitly and/or obviously racist, hetero-/homosupremacist, an extreme polemic, etc. In all the cases I've seen of such people editing, they've wound up unable to check their beliefs at the door and call others out on the rug for opposing their views. Their weltanshauung does not permit anyone but themselves and others like them to be right or pure, and so they generally have a major issue with a project like this. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still looking for a plausible reason why the IP used by an overtly racist editor and sockpuppeteer was not blocked, even after a checkuser was involved in the sockpuppetry investigation. Considering that Tiptoety has been active on de.wiki since they had someone declare them on "wikibreak" here, it is unlikely that they will be gone forever and I will again ask for an explanation when they return. In the meantime, if anyone familiar with checkuser and blocking IPs has an explanation, I would be glad to hear it. (To forestall another suggestion that IPs are not blocked for long periods or that it may not be a static IP, see for example this one year block of an IP by Tiptoety just days ago.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

I just came across this editor, apparently in an edit war on Bee Movie with an apparently dynamic IP. I gave him a warning but he blanked it and said "I know", then started dicking around when I asked what he was doing and offered to help. Checking his contributions, it looks like he's been in edit wars all over the place - his history seems to be almost entirely reverting stuff.

The latest wars have been with the above IP addresses, which are presumably the same person. I've no idea who's right here, but as Fjp1995 flipped me off when I asked him to explain (and carried on warring), I've indef blocked him, and I've blocked the latest IP for 24 hours - both for edit-warring. I really don't know what's been happening here other than edit-warring, or who's right - it's late here and I need some sleep. I'll notify Fjp1995 and the newest IP.

Can anyone work out what this is about and whether anything needs to be done? (Feel free to change my blocks without needing to check with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just been created and commented on Fjp1995's Talk page - presumably a sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I first noticed this guy on March 20 when I followed up on one of his early AIV reports and mistakenly blocked an IP who was making good edits. Discussion between me and seaphoto is at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 8#65.8.221.157. Since then, Fjp1995 has been filing many AIV reports on what appear to be content disputes. I have not been investigating them as my pop-cutlure knowledge is insufficient to know which edits are any good. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have the same problem, that I don't know anything about these topics, so I can't decide who's right - is there a Project anywhere that might help, do you know? (I can't think of any obvious ones) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As I'm a bit baffled by what's going on, I've had another try to talk to him, at User talk:Fjp1995#Your editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the user might be very young. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, judging by the answers I think you're right. I'm tempted to ask him to slow down, stress the need to talk, offer help when he needs it, and unblock - what do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, thinking again, I don't think I really want to offer to help too much, because I know nothing of pop culture TV and care even less - and I don't way to get dragged in to "Is SuperPingoBoy 11 or 12 years old?" arguments. So maybe just a friendly warning that he'll be watched. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
One thing is to remind him of the verifiability requirement: if he's going to say that SuperPingoBoy is 11, he needs to have a reliable source that says he's 11. (Unfortunately, a lot of young editors seem not to realize that neither the SuperPingoBoy Wikia site nor its fan forums are reliable. But I digress.) That's why the standard second chance says to show both what changes you'd make to an article and what reliable sources exist to back it up.
I think unblocking would be in order. I also think that a one-revert-rule (or even 0RR, though that's a bit harsh) would be a reasonable condition for the unblock: if he's going to revert an edit, he must discuss the matter on the talk page (and not escalate straight to AIV). —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds great - I'll go with that (will do it after I've had lunch) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the problem has been solved. Since unblocking, Fjp1995's 2nd and 3rd edits (actually reverts) seem to be troublesome. This revert removes a table of Aron Warner's filmography that seems to be accurate according to IMDB (not an RS, I know, but in this case...). This is a table that he has removed 6 times from the article since April 6th 3rd. While it's not verified by a RS within the article, I'm troubled by this odd obsession of removing some random producer's film credits. This revert consists of changing the initials of the name of a storyboarder for the television show Phineas and Ferb from a "J.G." to "L.G." Elsewhere in the article, the storyboarder is referred to as "J.G." or "Joe." This appears to be a nonsense revert. He has not discussed either reverts on the article talkpage or with the contributor he reverted. Chillllls (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)corrected date Chillllls (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Dianaa has had a word with him, and I've reverted his new edits and given him one last warning - if he does it again, he's blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Byzantinus and COI[edit]

Byzantinus (talk · contribs) is an editor whose sole contribution is the addition of the same publication by a certain Konstantinos D.S. Paidas on Byzantine "mirrors for princes" in several Byzantine-related articles. Wareh (talk · contribs) and I have reverted his first additions and tried to explain WP:COI to him and to engage him in a discussion, but he refuses to communicate. Instead, he returns every few days, re-adding the publication. In the latest round, in an effort to bypass Wareh's and my concerns, he tried to insert the publication as a cited source, cf [21] or [22]. While this is an improvement, the last diff shows clearly that the intent remains purely and simply the promotion of this particular publication, and the COI concerns have still not been addressed. After consulting with Wareh, I ask for administrator action in the form of a concrete warning and, if that fails, blocks. Constantine 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a bit of a pity. The guy does seem to be a genuine published academic on Byzantine matters (assuming that he is in fact K.P.), so it would be nice if we could retain him as a knowledgeable contributor, if only he could be made to show a bit of a wider range of editing interests. Fut.Perf. 06:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. If he is indeed this scholar, he'd be valuable. Pity that most of them I've come across only come here to add their own publications. Constantine 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
An expert contributor on Byzantine history would be worth their weight in gold, if they could actually make a transition to broader contributions. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to reach out on their talkpage, although I'm no byzantinologist; they've had some (deserved) criticism, maybe it's time to switch from bad cop to good cop. bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Good effort. I sincerely hope he responds. Constantine 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see from my comments on his talk page that I'd like the COI issue addressed, but that I've also laid out clearly for him how his own works can become cited while sticking to the established Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, while his editing clearly shows that he has seen our talk-page comments, he has not responded. The presumption that he is Konstantinos D.S. Paidas is natural, since his account currently has the single purpose of promoting and including this writer's work. I feel that all his edits mentioning that writer should be reverted until he takes notice of the repeated COI objections and follows the appropriate procedure (bringing up the proposed edit on the talk page, leaving it to neutral editors to make the edits based on good reasons -- which of course he is most welcome to help us appreciate).

Of course, I equally feel he should receive all possible encouragement to use his scholarly knowledge to edit where there is no self-promotion issue, and I'm glad this has reached a wider audience who may help with diplomacy towards that end.

Unfortunately, I want to end by saying I'd like some feedback here about what should be done if it remains a single-purpose apparent-COI self-promotion account. A block perhaps to get his attention? I'd prefer words to blocks, but that's hoping for something we haven't been able to get after repeated efforts so far. Wareh (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • COI is a problem when it harms content - for instance, affecting neutrality. I'm not convinced that trying to cite an extra source in history articles is very high on the "harm" scale, even if the source is only partially relevant.
  • Although likely, it is not guaranteed that somebody citing one source repeatedly is the writer of that source. It might just be a third party who really loves that source Face-wink.svg sometimes when I find an interesting source I'll use it in a few articles before moving on.
  • If the problems continue, then sure, technical countermeasures can be appropriate - but I think a potentially valuable new contributor should get one extra chance compared to the average kid who's been caught pasting "Joe is cool" 6-7 times into an article about their school. bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobot block[edit]

Yobot made an error which was reverted. The error was reported to the bots talk page. Subsequently the bot repeated the error. I then blocked the bot for edit warring. User:Magioladitis then unblocked the bot, apparently without fixing the problem. Are bots allowed to edit war? Are bot owners allowed to unblock their own bots? SpinningSpark 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Some notes. I usually load every list of pages twice. Everybody who follows Yobot's edits knows that I report and try to fix every bug. Since the task was over the block was unjustified. We also have a {{nobots}} to prevent a page by being edit by a bot. Moreover, Spinningspark is an involved editor. They shouldn't block. Additionally, 2 edits don't define an edit war. And this isn't all. Checking Spinningspark's log you'll find that they blocked for vandalism without giving final warning. You can see the back use of the block tool on Yobot's block log when they used "account creation blocked", fixed after 4 minutes and didn't leave a message on my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Check Special:Contributions/12.40.65.2 fo instance. The editor wasn't active at the moment of the block and didn't get a final warning. -- Magioladitis (talk)
  • For clarity, how is Spark involved? And what does blocking vandals without final warning have to do with this? (I don't think you're going to find many admins jumping to undo a block of an IP with a few prior vandal warnings, but no "final" warning.) Anyway, while stating "edit warring" as a block reason isn't very good here, an automatic bot can be blocked for a repeated malfunction. The main questions, I would think, are whether these were malfunctions, whether it was going to be fixed, and whether a block was the appropriate way to handle the situation. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
To answer your questions:
  • I find it inappropriate the person who reverted the edit twice and works on the page to block. If this was an actual edit war it would be completely inappropriate to block the other party of the edit war or protect the page in your own version. Check Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION.
  • Preventing a bot from editing because of a rare bug occuring in a single page by blocking it is also inappropriate. Thye are ways to do it.
  • The bug is rare. I'll report it to AWB's talk page but the best solution until is fixed is to use {{nobots}} with |deny=AWB since the problem isn't only restricted to Yobot.
  • With my examples I saw that Spinningspark is not familiar with the policy nor the tools and they are misusing them at the moment. IF they have made a block request for the above block, it would have been rejected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bots that are broken are routinely blocked; the standards are not as high as with blocking actual editors. Yobot's user page directly says, "Administrators: if this bot continues causing harm after receiving a message, please block it". Since the bot made the same broken edit after receiving a message about it, blocking it is a reasonable response. Editing the bot's user page is supposed to stop the bot, so it's not clear why the edit would have happened a second time anyway.

I know I have pointed out to Magioladitis before the need for the Yobot not to re-do edits that are reverted; the bot can easily keep a list of pages it has edited and avoid editing them a second time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how Spinningspark is involved here, but by definition a user is involved in any situation that involves that user's bot. Carl is spot on with the blocking bit: we assume good faith with humans and with bot owners, but we can't assume good faith with the bots themselves, so it's always safer to block a bot temporarily until the owner can solve the problems. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That unblock was highly inappropriate, basically akin to an admin unblocking themselves. Even if the block was placed in error, which I do not believe it was, we can't have admins undoing a block on one of their own accounts. WP:WHEEL is first-day reading material for administrators, I suggest a refresher course is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The unblock wasn't inappropriate if the bot wasn't going to make that edit again. The unblock reason on the other hand... Prodego talk 03:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Boy, the unblock reason was very sketchy if you ask me. And unblocking your own bot 7 minutes after it was blocked is really inappropriate if there wasn't any conversation about the mistakes it was making (which there didn't appear to be). An edit warring bot to boot. And the "involved editor" bit....that's a odd interpretation of that concept. Hopefully there won't be a re-occurrence of this. RxS (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The both of you(nevermind, Bot operator) should have gone about it better (repeated errors->block->friendly heads up->confirmed fix->unblock). Fixed bot? Hopefully this is stale now but the lack of discussion really makes this a shame that should not be repeated. NOBOT does not need to be used. Your bot should function properly. You guys both should have discussed it better to lift the block since it looks like everything was going to be fine. Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ummm... how many times has this bot been blocked? And who keeps unblocking it, usually minutes later? Involved indeed... Doc talk 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If the block was right, we have to block all AWB bots until all bugs in AWB's bug page are fixed. This is nonsense. We have {{nobots}} for a reason. And I don't understand why Carl overcomes some facts: That the block reason was wrong, the blocking admin didn't contact me after the block and has a history of tools misuse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot's been blocked seven times. Except for three of them (two unblocked by the blocking admins and one unblocked by you several hours later) the average time of your unblocking your own bot is seven minutes. To call a blocking admin involved in light of this is... unfortunate. Doc talk 06:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Involved to the article and I mean in the context of "Edit war" in which they blocked Yobot. I get as you agree it was not an edit war and the blocking reason was invalid. Take note that the first block was 100% wrong and they had to rethink about it. Block/stop a bot makes a sense if the bot makes a series of bad edits. Going back to the example of the anonymous IP you'll see that Spinningspark can't exactly understand when exactly an editor (or bot) is active or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Check this too: Special:Contributions/216.70.249.102. 1 year block to a school IP without schoolblock by the same administrator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
When you raise the specter of "involved", you must know very well that most think of "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved." You have been very involved in unblocking your own bot in five out of seven cases. You shouldn't unblock it the next time it screws up: hopefully that won't happen again, right? The world won't end if another admin looks at the circumstances before you unblock it... Doc talk 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Then we go back to the main question: Do you agree with the block and/or the block reason? I don't like the expression "screws up" so please rephrase. I have no objections to leave my bot blocked if it's malfunctioning or the community disagrees with its/my edits. The blocking reason was invalid and the block unreasonable. Feel free to reblock if you don't think so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment Without researching and digging into history, I'm just curious. (and note: I have a great deal of respect for both editors/admin.) Couldn't you guys have just talked this out a bit on your talk pages without escalating into noticeboard drama thread? Not enough research to comment on who was right or wrong, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what's expected here. If a bot is making bad edits, it should be blocked. If it's been fixed, it should be unblocked. Seems pretty easy to me. — Ched :  ?  07:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
To me, this entire episode would be avoided if the admin who unblocked had communicated to the other admin about their reasons *before* unblocking. Two minutes dropping a comment onto their talk page and this wouldn't be an issue at all. To me, that is the ENTIRE issue now. It doesn't matter whether the bot messes up, malfunctions, or screws up. Communication is important, and that is where the actual malfunction is. Next time, drop a note to the person who makes the block before you undo their action 7 minutes later. That's the long and short of this, and I hope this message sinks in. -- Avanu (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'll do next time. The bot didn't fix the issue and I don't it's gonna do on the next few weeks. Bot has more than 10 known bugs as all AWB bots and the AWB software itself. Just think what is the best way to handle these cases because bugs will keep coming. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Resolved? — Ched :  ?  09:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any acceptance by Magioladitis that bots should not re-do reverted edits which is the issue for me. This is a simple principle; bots don't take precedence over humans. Apparently, this has come up before according to Carl's post above. On why it was brought here, as far as I was concerned, the matter was ended after the first case when I reported the mistake to Yobot's talk page. I only blocked after I got no response there and Yobot made the edit again. If Magioladitis had responded to that with "sorry for the problem, but I'm working on it" or somesuch, again that would have been the end of it. His response was nothing of the kind, after self-unblocking and being asked on my talk page if he had fixed it or I should go to ANI, his reply was "Please report to ANI. Thanks". So now we are here, does Magioladitis accept that bots should not re-do reverted edits? SpinningSpark 15:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not really the point though, is it? If he agrees to communicate with the blocking admin before unblocking his bot, then whatever the issue, it will get discussed first. The errors you point out above seem rather minimal, and while I don't support introducing errors into Wikipedia, the only real problem here is that the bot was unblocked without any communication between the blocker and the blockee. Bots probably end up having issues occasionally. So that isn't unexpected. But what is expected, and what Magioladitis had agreed to do now and in the future is to discuss unblocks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My answer wasn't a result of impoliteness but I am rather busy in real life and with other stuff in Wikipedia. I always try to fix stuff. Since I didn't mark the report as "resolved" this means I leave it open to fix. Check my talk page and you ll fix all (or 99%) of the reports. I don't accept the block reason since I don't think the bot participated in any edit war and the problem could have been solved otherwise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed [23]. There were unbalanced brackets. Drama is over. Thanks and sorry for wasting your time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-revert behaviour.[edit]

Resolved: PLAX... err, WP:BOOMERANG applied. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like someone to help me and User:Dreadstar to avoid a conflict. The user has followed all of my recent contributions (what, it itself, I don't think is a problem) and revert each on of them.

The last time I acessed Wikipedia, I've worked on:

Also, in the artitcle about the writer Bill Kennedy, I mistakenly remove a whole paragraph (that I believed was) tagged as uncited, when the tag only referred to the last sentence. Dreadstar reverted not only my mistake, but also the removal of a bad external link I have done.

These blank reverts of virtually everything I tough is getting on my nerves. If we go further in the past, we will find more situations where it happened.

Dreadstar seems like a good editor, but with not much patience. I wish I could have more of his trust. --Damiens.rf 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you notify him of taking him to ANI? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bugs, he subtly notified me on my talk page.. :) Dreadstar 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Tagging every single uncited sentence in an article with {{fact}}, as you did with Simon Peyton Jones, is never a good idea, Damiens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
And with Chilling Effects, you stuck a {{who}} in the middle of a sentence that had cites at the end that answered the question. Again, not cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens has a long history of disruptive, drive-by tag-bombing on a very large number of articles, espeically problematic on WP:BLP's like this, where I first noticed this behavior. I've been trying to help him gain a greater understanding of the problems here,[24][25] and have added many sources to the articles he's done this to. Dreadstar 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, you tag bombed Simon Peyton Jones asking for cites when they were already there, so far as I'm concerned Dreadstar was right. On Shakeel, yes, there was a source to tripod, I doubt it's reliable, so yeah, asking for valid sources is ok. On Chilling Effects you tag bombed that one too and asked for references that were already there. Someone needs to stop, but I don't think it's Dreadstar. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And I just blocked him for edit warring "porn star" into the lede of Kira Reed with the edit summary "I hope this is not someone trying to force me on 3RR", without providing any citation to establish that the term actually applied.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's rather ironic,[26] given his fact-tag blitz. Unless there's some hidden fact not stated in the article, Kira Reed does not qualify as a "porn star". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Users in the range 220.255.2.XXX[edit]

Edits such as [27] [28], [29] and others, from this range of IP addresses at Hard disk misunderstand or misrepresent MOS:NUMBERS; continuing removal of the IEC binary prefixes in a table that is intended to illustrate the difference between binary and decimal prefixes. The user(s) have had the issue explained several times. Doesn't seem to be an English comprehension issue. Odd IP-hopping behavior, with 5 or 6 addresses used in 30 minutes and different addresses in consecutive responses. Can't drop template on all of the Singapore ISP IP pages, but the subject appears to be aware of the problem he's causing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have protected the page for a day. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 1 month Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

174.54.34.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Just Today Harassment, and soap boxing. The IP seems pretty stable for over a month now been pretty disruptive and thus needs a vacation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I smell socks, just can't figure out where they are coming from. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
My thought as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Several users smell pretty socky at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination). The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding overtly racist editor and recidivist sockpuppeteer[edit]

User:Giornorosso was blocked on 13 March 2011 following this discussion on ANI. After that block, the user went on to create sockpuppets Beholdernig (talk · contribs), Killtheniggur (talk · contribs), Lootsucker (talk · contribs), and Howardnug (talk · contribs), all of which were blocked on 27 March. Although I pointed out the likely connection of 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a follow-up discussion on ANI, it remained unblocked. When I asked User:Tiptoety, the checkuser who had handled the sockpuppetry case, why it was not blocked, they blocked it for a week. Tiptoety left on a wikibreak when I asked them to explain why it wasn't indef blocked.

The week-long block on the IP has now expired. New user Holy0cow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has appeared right on schedule to continue editing the same articles and with the same agenda as Giornorosso. I cannot understand why the IP was not indef blocked in the first place, or why Tiptoety would feel that a week-long block was appropriate, but I am not privy to the checkuser information. As far as I can tell, this is a racist POV-pusher and persistent sockpuppeteer using a static DSL IP - why is it not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't assume an IP is static, end-of, especially since in many cases a router reset will change an IP. Thus, IPs are rarely, if ever, indef'd. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't happen all that often, but IPs are sometimes indef blocked, or blocked for very long periods. Year-long blocks are not uncommon for school IPs, for example. Looking over the contributions from the IP shows that the same user has had it since March 2010. How much collateral damage is likely from blocking this single IP from the Czech Republic, even if it turns out to be dynamic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Many users change IP when they get blocked so the fact they've had it for a while may not say much... Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that it appears that this user had had the same IP for over a year now and did not appear to change it when their main account was blocked. None of this answers the question why was the IP not blocked at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If the IP was being used by a registered user, then I presume it would have been caught in an autoblock when the user was blocked, wouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I will leave it for others with access to the checkuser data to comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
All above-reported accounts are  Confirmed as Giornorosso (talk · contribs), and they have already been blocked. –MuZemike 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Dominic, a checkuser, has blocked the IP for 3 months. NW (Talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
85.160.221.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now blocked for 24 hours, because I don't know that there's any value to blocking longer than that. If checkuser or somebody more familiar with the region feel a longer block is necessary, no objections from me. Same if 24 hours proves too long. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In this removed posting to ANI from 85.160.221.224 (currently blocked), the user says "I think that it is clear that Delicous Carbuncle tried to have me blocked completely from the very beginnning, and he tries to permanently blcok one of my IP adresses". So, given this and the "checkuser" block of the IP in question, there should be no question that this IP was being used by User:Giornorosso. It comes back to the same question, why was this IP not blocked previously and why, when I asked about it, was it only blocked for a week? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question. But can we be sure the guy has a static IP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree. The later is a silly question. Obviously we can't be sure it's static. As I pointed out above, the fact it had been used for a long time was largely irrelevant. We realisticly had no way of knowing of they would change IP the moment their IP was blocked. There was obviously little reason for them to change IP when their IP wasn't blocked no matter what else was blocked (clearly if their IP was autoblocked too it would be different but no one with access to checkuser has suggested any of this was poorly handled). Blocking for a short time to test was obviously therefore appropriate, as many including me have hinted at. Escalating that block if they come back afterwards is obviously also appropriate and the normal way to deal with it. Making a big fuss over something that could have been handled simply by asking for a longer block once it became clear they were coming back with the same IP after being blocked well you can guess what I'm going to say... Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a silly question. I've had the same IP for about 3 years now. However, I haven't made any effort to get it changed. But you've given further information, which is good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No it is a silly question to ask why someone wasn't blocked for longer when the reason was given multiple times by multiple people before you asked and where if you were confused, you could easily have asked for clarification on the parts that were confusing you. Also I gave no further info in my post above that couldn't be gleaned from the existing discussion. It's already been explained several times in this thread before my post that changing IP is sometimes easy, often simply a router reset. An uptime for a router of 1 year is not really that unlikely if you have a decent router, a decent household power supply and a decent ISP and no changes that require resetting. Therefore anyone who knows how, and we have seen many times on wikipedia, many do know how, can change their IP on demand. Not really mentioned above but in other cases an IP may be a bit sticky and if you reconnect within a certain number of hours you get the same IP. In this case, it's even more likely that a person may have an IP for a long time since even short resets, short power failures, moving the router location, even changing router can all be undertaken without losing IP but anyone who knows how and is able to put up with no internet for however long is required can change their IP. (Some ISPs assign IPs semi-staticly meaning even days later you will get the same IP (but it's not truly static as the ISP doesn't in any way guarantee you will keep the IP and can change it at any time at their discretion). In that case you may be able to request it to be change, but can't usually do it yourself and if you do request they will likely ask why and 'I got blocked from wikipedia and want to come back' isn't usually going to cut it. There are of course a large variety of other policies.) As I've already said, they key parts, i.e. that it can be trivial to change an IP and the longetivity is irrelevant was mentioned several times above before DC asked again. If for some reason there was any confusion, the polite thing to do would have been to seek clarification rather then continuing to suggest the situation was poorly handled. BTW, one of the reasons we don't like to spell things out in such detail is because while many know, many don't so per WP:BEANS it's best not to, but sometimes I guess we have no choice... Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nil Einne, while it is certainly possible that the IP is not static, your supposition that it could be a dynamically-assigned (or even semi-static) IP seems far less likely than it simply being a static IP. Again, I am unable to assess the collateral damage of a long term block on a single DSL IP from the Czech Republic, but I would guess that it would be negligible. Regardless, you are missing the point entirely - the IP was not blocked when the user was originally blocked, nor was it blocked when I specifically pointed it out in a follow up ANI discussion (that resulted in another Czech editor being temporarily blocked as a sockpuppet), nor was it blocked following the sockpuppetry investigation. My question is why wasn't it blocked? Here we have an overtly and self-identified racist editor creating sockpuppets with offensive names like User:Killtheniggur and their IP is not blocked for any length of time until I ask about it? We block IPs for innocuous vandalism all the time, but for some reason this particular one doesn't get blocked? There is something not quite right about this whole episode. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It's always a dilemma where the persistent, recurrent sockmasters are concerned. It's a consequence of wikipedia's refusal to require registration. Meanwhile, anything you didn't want stated openly could have been stated in an e-mail to the OP here. One thing that can be bothersome is the fact there don't always seem to be enough admins around to handle problems quickly. Like with the Sundae situation, where an RFPP was placed and it was like 3 hours before someone did something about it, hence inadvertently making a legitimate user feel like they had been labeled a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Despite what negative things (per wikipedia standards) this editor has done, the responses to his repeal appear well beyond the pale by one of wikipedia's administrators. If not, I'd like to see what wikipedia standard applies to the ongoing conversation. My guess is none. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I see the responses as being reasonable. Meanwhile, I like where the blockee says he was "forced" to create socks. What a crock. No one "forced" him to do anything. He chose to do it. It relates to his glaring character flaw of racism, in the sense of blaming others for his own problems. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think what Thegreatdr is not understanding is that this guy has had a history of being blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and had sockpuppet after sockpuppet put down. It has to be very tiresome to deal with people who are this determined to create havoc on Wikipedia and even the admins at times will be less cordial or less polite than they would normally be after dealing with the same person for so long. This racist is desperate for attention and he's getting it here through his continued use of sockpuppetry. At some point, I imagine it becomes ridiculously tiring to try and talk sense into someone who has none and refuses to listen to any. Dachknanddarice (TC) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thegreatdr, what specifically is beyond the pale? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe User:Thegreatdr believes that I acted inappropriately in telling the user that racists are, inherently, not welcome at Wikipedia, and in advising him that his racism would doubtless have other lasting consequences in his life, much more serious than merely being blocked from a web site. He seems to have forgotten to notify me of this discussion, as is customary, but fortunately, I noticed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It is one thing to advise someone what they have done to violate wikipedia standards, but it is quite another to start attacking them personally. What happened to assuming good faith and being polite/showing editors a little respect? I know this user has done some non-trivial things on here to enforce a certain POV, but in some cases, he apparently had references. The conversation about his repeal got quickly sidetracked into how certain countries do/do not have free speech, which is peripheral, and not entirely relevant to the block levied, and how he should be ashamed at his POV. If there is an element of burnout in dealing problematic editors, take a time out or some time off. Don't get personal. Isn't throwing attitude at editors (in at least one case by an admin) part of what got the global warming folks in hot water last year? I apologize to Fisherqueen for not throwing the notice on their page, but I did post it on the problem editor's page, which I knew they were watching. This is the second time I've reported the actions of an admin onto this page before, despite five years on here, and wasn't completely versed in the process. My interest on here is improving the met project per wikipedia's article progression (which despite his other issues, he was trying to improve), not in becoming an admin. As part of a couple minority groups, I'm sensitive to these kind of overt attacks on others, even if I don't subscribe to his viewpoint. People do deserve some respect, regardless, and these kind of attacks could turn other editors off to wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked into the history of the editor in question? It's appalling. The guy has no value whatsoever to wikipedia. He's forfeited any expectation of "good faith". And if the admin's blunt and truthful statements discourage other racists from editing, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes calling a racist a racist is needed and appropriate. We shouldnt sugarcoat something if it is true. I dont want to be throwing around "Jimbo said" or anything like it's gospel but if I recall correctly Jimbo did once say that those that have an unhealthy obsession with adding only negative POV about race/religion/etc should in fact be blocked/banned. I think we have to draw the line on our Wikipedia version of "free speech" or "freedom to edit" one's choice of topics at the point where it is really an unhealthy obsession with just spreading hate and getting it into Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Thegreatdr is directing people to a discussion in which Giornorosso repeats their earlier claim that I "hate" them because of their beliefs, I would like to say that I have no ill feelings toward Giornorosso, although I do find their beliefs objectionable. If Giornorosso were able to edit neutrally, they would not be blocked now. Anyone who holds extreme views is unlikely to do well here since they will eventually come up against issues of neutrality and undue weight. In this particular case, any presumption of good faith is now dispelled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I have strong opinions about numerous social and political topics. I defy anyone to determine what any one of them is by looking at my edits. We don't extend the assumption of good faith to persons who are overtly acting in bad faith. That's just nonsense. Overt racism is not welcome here, just as it is no longer welcome among polite company in the vast majority of the civilized world. Society is much less tolerant of racism than in it used to be and Wikipedia is not an exception to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
We should not be tolerating anyone who is explicitly and/or obviously racist, hetero-/homosupremacist, an extreme polemic, etc. In all the cases I've seen of such people editing, they've wound up unable to check their beliefs at the door and call others out on the rug for opposing their views. Their weltanshauung does not permit anyone but themselves and others like them to be right or pure, and so they generally have a major issue with a project like this. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still looking for a plausible reason why the IP used by an overtly racist editor and sockpuppeteer was not blocked, even after a checkuser was involved in the sockpuppetry investigation. Considering that Tiptoety has been active on de.wiki since they had someone declare them on "wikibreak" here, it is unlikely that they will be gone forever and I will again ask for an explanation when they return. In the meantime, if anyone familiar with checkuser and blocking IPs has an explanation, I would be glad to hear it. (To forestall another suggestion that IPs are not blocked for long periods or that it may not be a static IP, see for example this one year block of an IP by Tiptoety just days ago.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Byzantinus and COI[edit]

Byzantinus (talk · contribs) is an editor whose sole contribution is the addition of the same publication by a certain Konstantinos D.S. Paidas on Byzantine "mirrors for princes" in several Byzantine-related articles. Wareh (talk · contribs) and I have reverted his first additions and tried to explain WP:COI to him and to engage him in a discussion, but he refuses to communicate. Instead, he returns every few days, re-adding the publication. In the latest round, in an effort to bypass Wareh's and my concerns, he tried to insert the publication as a cited source, cf [30] or [31]. While this is an improvement, the last diff shows clearly that the intent remains purely and simply the promotion of this particular publication, and the COI concerns have still not been addressed. After consulting with Wareh, I ask for administrator action in the form of a concrete warning and, if that fails, blocks. Constantine 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a bit of a pity. The guy does seem to be a genuine published academic on Byzantine matters (assuming that he is in fact K.P.), so it would be nice if we could retain him as a knowledgeable contributor, if only he could be made to show a bit of a wider range of editing interests. Fut.Perf. 06:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. If he is indeed this scholar, he'd be valuable. Pity that most of them I've come across only come here to add their own publications. Constantine 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
An expert contributor on Byzantine history would be worth their weight in gold, if they could actually make a transition to broader contributions. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to reach out on their talkpage, although I'm no byzantinologist; they've had some (deserved) criticism, maybe it's time to switch from bad cop to good cop. bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Good effort. I sincerely hope he responds. Constantine 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see from my comments on his talk page that I'd like the COI issue addressed, but that I've also laid out clearly for him how his own works can become cited while sticking to the established Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, while his editing clearly shows that he has seen our talk-page comments, he has not responded. The presumption that he is Konstantinos D.S. Paidas is natural, since his account currently has the single purpose of promoting and including this writer's work. I feel that all his edits mentioning that writer should be reverted until he takes notice of the repeated COI objections and follows the appropriate procedure (bringing up the proposed edit on the talk page, leaving it