Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive711

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

Noticeboard archives


Non Free File uploads[edit]

I have noticed the number of non-free file's that this editor has been uploading and the number of times he has been notified and warned about them, can an administrator have a look and see if any action is or may be required. Mtking (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at his uploads. A small fraction are good, but he needs someone to explain the policy to him. If he dosen't get scared off by the wall of notices, explaining why his uploads are getting tagged beats blocking him. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Mayukh.infinity[edit]

This is only taking place in one article, which is Infinity (band). The problem is, this editor keeps replacing the original article content with this band that comes from India (see here for the diff). Whilst it was reverted once he has kept restoring his version of the content without explanation. [1] [2] and after a message was given to him (which was a request to create a separate article) he simply ignored the message and worked on his version of the article once again. [3], [4], [5], [6]. I heard that a couple of anonymous IPs are getting sick of his version of the article, and that is the reason why I'm bringing this incident here. Minima© (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is someone who doesn't understand what they are being told, so I've imposed a 48-hour edit-war block to at least stop it for now and hopefully get his attention - I'll keep the band article watched in case we get no response and he goes back to it after the block expires -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Words of dubious origin[edit]


There may be a need to remove this summary from the history [7] (right hand summary by User talk:Club Belgrano de Córdoba)

The word seems to be a little dubious [8] Chaosdruid (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse in edit summaries that didn't get RevDel'd. Looks like a judgment call to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
We've got an essay with essentially that word in the title, so it really doesn't even come close to being a revdel candidate. —DoRD (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't generally use revdel to remove profanity, even blatant profanity. Nothing compels it, we do have WP:NOTCENSORED after all. Revdel is reserved for something really horrendous or damaging (outing, defamation, etc.). -- Atama 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

For several weeks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been making dubious and unsourced additions to the disambiguation pages WSM, Pippa, and possibly others. In the first case, for example, they are adding an entry for wrestler Mark Henry, apparently on the grounds that the letters "WSM" appear on his tights. I explained that disambiguation pages are for names of things, and made requests of the user, in WSM edit summaries, on Talk:Mark Henry, and on Talk:WSM for confirmation that Henry is known by the name WSM, but in response received only a link to a photo of the wrestler. The user continues to make the addition, and their talk page is full of other recent vandalism warnings, so I'm now assuming that the disambiguation edits are vandalism rather than a content dispute. Since it's not an obvious case it would be good if I could get a second opinion. If it's agreed that this is vandalism then a block would be in order; if not then I'm open to further discussion if anyone can get the user to actually respond coherently. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation is for situations where someone might do a search for something, but come up with an article on a different topic, of the same or similar name. If he has a reasonable case that Mark Henry or Kelly Ripa are known as WSM or Pippa, there is not a problem with him adding it to the page. I suggest you stop accusing him of vandalism, these seem valid if somewhat obscure (Regis Philban does call Kelly Ripa 'Pippa' - a number of bloggers commented on it when Pippa Middleton hit the headlines; and the wrestler does have those initials on his pantyhose). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, fair enough for the Pippa claim, though it would be helpful if the nickname could be sourced (as I've requested on the relevant talk pages). The WSM issue still seems like quite a stretch to me—we don't generally add links to disambiguation pages for decorative text which appears on a particular person's clothing. For example, there is no link to Butt-head on AC/DC (disambiguation), nor to Orko on O (disambiguation), even though those characters are always depicted with those letters on their garments. The IP's persistent refusal to engage in dialogue on this issue led me to believe that they were choosing to act disruptively, though as I said, it was (and still is) difficult to be certain. If the consensus here is that this isn't actually vandalism, then what would be an appropriate forum for gathering further factual information and opinions on whether Mark Henry is an appropriate entry for WSM? I asked about two weeks ago on Talk:Mark Henry but received no responses; likewise the only contribution to Talk:WSM has been a photograph and some onomatopoeia from the anonymous IP. The photograph establishes that "WSM" appears on the costume but says nothing about whether anyone refers to the wrestler by that name, nor about whether anyone is likely to search for "WSM" expecting to get "Mark Henry" as a result, at least one of which would seem to be a sensible prerequisite for a disambiguation page entry. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Mark Henry, I would suggest putting an entry not in the main part of the disambiguation list, but a "See also" entry at the end, saying something like:

See also[edit]

  • Mark Henry, a professional wrestler who wears a "WSM" logo on his costume

This would indicate that "WSM" does not refer to Mark Henry, but if someone goes to Wikipedia wondering, "What's the name of the wrestler who wore 'WSM' on his costume?", they will be able to find the answer easily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is not where to put this: it is if it is important enough to bother with. I would wager not, given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Using rollback and putting vandalism templates on the IP's talk page in a content dispute is definitely bad form. It doesn't matter how destructive or wrong you think the edits are: Vandalism is characterized by intentional efforts to damage article content, not disagreement or misunderstanding about policy and best practices. Rollback and vandalism warning templates should only be used for incontrovertible vandalism. Since the IP was including good-faith rationales (however misguided we think they are) in the edit summaries, you should have known that it was not vandalism and that it was inappropriate to treat it as such. --causa sui (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I had some time earlier removed the vandalism templates (though of course there's nothing I can do about the edit summaries). It's difficult to judge an anonymous contributors' intentions, including whether a dispute even exists, when over a period of weeks they are persistently unresponsive or incoherent to attempts at initiating a dialogue, and when their recent edit history is rife with indisputably damaging edits (but still possibly long enough ago that a different person was using that IP). At some point one has to stop assuming good faith, though if in this case I have acted too hastily, then I apologize. I would also ask, however, that in the event that further attempts at engaging the contributor prove fruitless (and by this I mean only that the user continues to refuse to discuss the objections to his or her edits), how should the situation be remedied? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 1) You keep asking for references but per MOS:DAB References should not appear on disambiguation pages. 2) You're arguing that it's perfectly acceptable the WSM page has the World's Strongest Man competition but totally wrong for a man constantly referenced as "World's Strongest Man" Mark Henry and has the letters WSM appear prominently on international TV every week. And you complain *I* make no sense? -- (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't conduct the content discussion on this page. Take this to the article talk page please. Fut.Perf. 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:[edit] appears to be another open proxy along the same vein as User:, stalking my edits adding snide comments/insults. Request immediate block.

I also request that this IP and the previous IP be declared as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of banned User:TomPhan so the snide remarks can be removed. banned users don't get to make comments, but some people are fighting to include his comments since "no one's proven he's a sockpuppet of anyone" despite what I consider to be clear and compelling evidence to the contrary. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP resolves to a major broadband ISP in the US. I doubt it's an open proxy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
TOR node then? In any case it's clearly the same user and should be blocked. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about identifying TOR exit nodes...that might be a tool reserved for Checkusers. In any case, this goes beyond just checking for quacking. I think this should go to WP:SPI for definitive examination. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Use this link. As not all exit nodes can access all IPs, use when checking. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The link I use is here. TNXMan 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Bookmarked. Thankee. I hope it doesn't need to be used very much. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "This goes beyond quacking" I completely disagree. There is a very clear pattern of harassment here from a single individual stalking me from page to page (this includes accusations of murder). IP shows up making snide comments (often referencing past discussions and/or policies and then 1-20 edits later, he vanishes never to return. SPI takes WAY too long and will only return 2-3 weeks from now with "edits are stale". That's the entire problem. Of course the edits are stale. He doesn't stay around long enough on any one IP address. I firmly believe these fit the pattern of edits quite clearly and request a block ASAP. Buffs (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
He's moved on to (talk · contribs · WHOIS), probably another open proxy (geolocating to the Netherlands) that he's already used previously, some time in May. Clearly a consistent abusive pattern. Blocked the two latest IPs. Fut.Perf. 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Concur that it's a  Likely open proxy based on the WHOIS response. Did I read the case history correctly that this all ties back to GENIUS(4th power)? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Request review of block[edit]

Can others please review my block of‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I issued a block for WP:NLT based upon this which resulted in my issuing a NLT warning, then this which resulted in my blocking the user. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good block, obvious legal threat IMO. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Clear, unambiguous (and very heavy-handed) legal threat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. They had a 3RR block coming anyway, but that was the icing on the cake.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I try to request reviews when I use NLT blocks.
On a secondary issue; I only blocked for 72 hours as it was an IP; but looking now, the IP appears to have been stable for quite some time. Should a longer block be used (I try to avoid indef on IPs, is the only reason I didn't use that from the start). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to leave it at 72, and if they come back after that with more threats or disruption, bump it up to at least a few weeks. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Not only a good block for a blatant legal threat, but some of the most atrocious spelling I've seen on wikipedia. It would still be a good idea to see if his complaint has any merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears the IP was correct as to the date of birth, the original source in the infobox has changed to no longer contain the information, however the source in the lead still does. Though neither here nor there on the block issue. Monty845 21:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to think that artist management agencies employed people who knew a bit more about spelling and grammar...not to mention how to properly represent their clients. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Actually, the IP was wrong, the IP wanted to change it to 77 (which is what you initially changed it to) and not the 79 in the actual source. What is funny is:
  • The legal threat is so poorly written that it smacks of some HS or MS fan
  • The legal threat claims that making this change is because of "hate" and could be viewed as slander... er no. In order prove libel/slander, you have to A) show that the person making the libel/slander did so KNOWING that what they were saying/writing is wrong and B) show that the lie was intended to be malicious. If you can't show both, then you can't win.
  • The legal threat cited a judge who "ruled 5 times" in cases similar to this one. Really? I looked it up and the case involved photos that Noella claimed hurt her career and the judge ruled in favor of the magazine not Noella! Some of the reported comments from Noella's lawyers are priceless---but would be a violation of BLP to copy here!---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow...did their lawyers used to work for News Of The World? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The IP was warring it to 79 see [[9]], when I undid my removal, I didn't realize it was the wrong date I was restoring, corrected it as soon as you brought it to my attention. Monty845 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment) Good block. Quite a legal threat indeed. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As a polite request to those physically capable of restraining themselves, could we get less snarky commentary on the relative grammatical skills of inexperienced users, please? No need to add insult to injury. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
If this is still an issue come Tuesday, we can revisit it. In the meantime, prayers, best wishes, etc. 28bytes (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is acceptable that an editor brought to the WP:WQA is allowed to state to another editor "No dude I wont fuck you. You aren't my type" and more unacceptable rude behavior? And..nooooooooooo... I dont think I'll be notifying the editor of the comment as there's no reason to draw the discussion to this venue. If any Administrator wants to get involved they can go to the WP:WQA. I'm coming here because the WP:WQA has broken down and is the problem, the editor himself/herself does not need to come here and continue to be rude.Camelbinky (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you, having been on the receiving end of some of OrangeMarlin's incivility in the past. While the original reason for bringing him to the noticeboard may have been a bit light (it seems like a one-off thing, and users have every right to remove comments from their talk page), I would block him, simply for the impropriety of being incivil on the noticeboard about incivility if nothing else, but as I said, I've got past history and may be somewhat biased. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin is going through a critical medical procedure very shortly and doesn't even know if he'll be alive on Monday - can we cut him some slack until we at least know he's pulled through? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If his medical issues prevent him from interacting within our polices, he should self-select out of such interaction. If he can't do that, the broader community can and should implement steps to prevent such disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying that we should block someone who, odds are, won't make it past Monday. because he was rude to someone who has been harassing him for years? Delightful standards we have around here, I'd say. Guettarda (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's encourage him to ingore laws too. What does he have to lose?
Nobody said what the odds were. Either way, the standards of conduct don't change. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I will be documenting Orangemarlin's behavior here. Once completed, I'll save the document off-wiki. If Orangemarlin returns and doesn't repeat any of the behavior in question, then the matter is resolved. If he returns and repeats the behavior, then I'll post the RfC for community input. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Cla68's solution works for me. Can we close this? 28bytes (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh goody, You can all play pettifogging bureaucrats while we wait to see if he lives. The rest of us can read Dylan Thomas instead:] "Do not go gentle into that good night..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Possibly dying is no reason to be an unrepentant asshole. He's been a douchebag in a few venues now. He gets no sympathy from me. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Meh. OM has acted like a jerk many times before, and typically it goes away for long periods after an outburst. I think trying to track him and manage his incivility is a waste of time. Either he will be back before long with a much better attitude for at least months, or he will not. I agree with many of his observations and POV about articles, and disagree almost universally with his approach to dealing with the nutters he encounters while working on non-scientific medical articles. Everyone who complains about his tact or lack should do 10 edits to an article or talk page in the field of alternative medicine or pseudoscience for every 1 edit to a notice board about OM. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

IP Editor adding unsourced BLP changes after being unblocked[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The above IP address was recently blocked for unsourced changes to articles on living persons. Immediately after being unblocked, the editor has resumed the behavior without discussion. ( Example) I was told this would be the correct place to report this. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. - SudoGhost 08:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

War rape, Sri Lanka[edit]

There are Edit War and sock puppets are involved in the War rape and Sri Lanka pages.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed. I've blocked Hudson for 48h as his second violation of 3RR in about 10 days, and protected a version of the war rape article as it was before the edit war began. He's also been warring at Sri Lanka but the article is more high profile and I think under a certain protection already. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Thetruthnow2012 and Golden Triangle (UK universities)[edit]

Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs) who cannot obtain WP:CONSENSUS for his edits at Golden Triangle (UK universities) is resorting to disparaging personal attacks against other editors. His other accounts include:

The content dispute can be viewed at the dispute resolution entry I started. He initially edit-warred over the page, but stopped after receiving a WP:3RR notification, primarily because he was convinced that the other editor Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) and I were also guilty of violating 3RR. I wasn't.

Thetruthnow2012's correspondence on other users' pages was mildly uncivil [10] [11] [12] [13]. (My response: [14].) But he really let off steam after I started the dispute resolution entry to amicably resolve all content issues. In response to the DR, he started a reciprocative entry [15] [16] which included WP:SHOUTing and phrases like:

  • two wrong editors perpetuating falsehood don't make a right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • That is 'Yk Yk Yk's opinion, but such an opinion reveals a form of SPITEFULNESS on his/her part nonetheless.
  • The so-called editor known as 'Yk Yk Yk' also claimed that I made unnecessary changes to the web page entitled 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'.
  • For both said editors, like a SPITEFUL TAG TEAM

Seeing that he felt aggrieved that he was being cornered as a relatively new user, I re-explained to him (in the most courteous tone) what was wrong with his edits [17]. His response [18] [19] included personal attacks and accusations of bad faith:

  • i.e. 'rangoon11's false cooking of the statistical data
  • BY 'YK YK YK's OWN ADMISSION she stated that she only changed my edited webpages and sided with 'rangoon11' on the frivolous basis that it was puffy
  • it can safely and legally be said that the editor known as 'YK YK YK' is as dishonest and disreputable as 'rangoon11'

Also, his messages [20] [21] [22] inviting other users to the dispute resolution "arena" suggests that he is deliberately kicking up a fuss (WP:BATTLE) to make a mockery of Wikipedia.

User:Mr. Stradivarius is offering him the chance to tone down his hostility [23] at the dispute resolution page. I suggest we give him one more opportunity to WP:CALM down and resolve the content dispute in a collaborative manner. Otherwise, block him for incivility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith and harassment. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 00:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

USER: rangoon11 & YK YK YK and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and Golden Triangle (UK universities) 2[edit]

Yet another frivolous response by the editor 'YK YK YK' who has wrongfully dragged me into yet another arena when she had failed in the previous one. And this time he/she has piggy-backed on Stradivarius and what he had brought forth regarding the tone of the discussion. Be that as it may, it appears that 'YK YK YK' has failed to deny any of my assertions and such said matters have now become UNDISPUTED. And because 'YK YK YK' wants to make a NON-ISSUE into another issue that was never part of her initial complaint to David Wilson, she cannot now use this as a basis for her complaint, SINCE IT IS 'YK YK YK's FUTILE attempt to DIVERT EVERYONE FROM THE MAIN ISSUES THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL BASIS OF THE DISCUSSION. With that said, I will take the liberty to address a few things that she kept from the discussion but had placed on my TALK page.

'YK YK YK' contention that the tone of my words is not to her liking or uncivil is a non-issue, but such words (i.e. 'spiteful' or 'dishonest') are benign at the least and mild at the most. Indeed, such words are legally used in courts of law or published in newspaper/newsmagazine editorial columns everyday (i.e. New Statesman; Punch, et cetera). Even David Wilson referred to the editor HRH2 who had complained about 'rangoon11' on a previous occasion as 'boastful'. However, it must be pointed out here that there is NOTHING CIVIL ABOUT 'YK YK YK's REPEATED AND UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP OF ACCURATE SUPPORTING INFORMATION BACKED UP BY VERIFIABLE CITES AND AUTHORITIES. And there is NOTHING CIVIL EITHER ABOUT 'YK YK YK's ADMITTED ENDORSEMENT OF ANOTHER EDITOR'S (rangoon11) REPEATEDLY UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP OF MY EDITS AND REPLACING IT WITH HIS/HER OWN INACCURATE ONES ON THE SOLE BASIS OF BREVITY and NOT SCHOLARSHIP. BY 'YK YK YK'S OWN ADMISSION TO DAVID WILSON ON HER COMPLAINT, SHE STATED THAT SHE KNEW THAT I WAS ACCURATE AND THAT 'rangoon11' WAS ERRONEOUS, BUT BECAUSE SHE FRIVOLOUSLY THOUGHT THAT MY EDITS WERE 'PUFFY' SHE FELT THE NEED TO DELETE IT ANYWAY AS WELL AS ENDORSE 'rangoon11's WRONGFUL DELETIONS. 'YK YK YK's own admissions bears witness to the fact that my said edits were censored out of spite. By definition, what both said editors committed was spite. How can anyone naively assert otherwise. See it for what it is and nothing more. And because of 'YK YK YK's failure to deny such assertions of fact, such matters have now become UNDISPUTED.

Another frivolous contention that 'YK YK YK' has repeatedly brought up was the notion that I felt cornered. I take offense to 'YK YK YK's non-issue contention. Such an inference by her is false and shows her lack of competence in such matters. It should be remembered that it was not I who brought forth this complaint, but ONLY 'YK YK YK'. This editor known as 'YK YK YK' has no other complainant on her side even though she continually relies upon 'rangoon11' for her complaint. But her said reliance is grossly misplaced, since the other said editor has yet to appear as a complainant in either arena to defend both his/her noted baseless inaccuracies and repeatedly unwarranted censorship of verifiably accurate ones, as a matter of record. And David Wilson cannot act as her witness, since his only involvement was due to the issue of the 3-Revert Rule, which has been amicably resolved and rendered moot as of Wednesday. As a consequence, editor 'YK YK YK's purported trilateral support is legally non-existent, incompetent and inadmissible.

Her blind adherence to the ideals of a concept is untenable, for I myself, do not share her flimsy and vacuous notions. And such positions held by 'YK YK YK' cannot be enforced upon me or anyone else for that matter. The idea of Wikipedia is that it is a free online encyclopedia, nothing less and nothing more. What I have done was provide valid corrections and further relevant supporting scholarship backed up by verifiable cites and authorities to two existing web pages, while editors 'rangoon11' and the sole complainant 'YK YK YK' had blatantly sought to replace my said edits with ADMITTEDLY inaccurate ones that were unsupported by any reliable and verifiable citations.

Based upon all of the foregoing, I request that the Administrator rule against the editor known as 'YK YK YK' and prevent her and others like her from ever censoring my future valid edits ever again. However, that being said, I welcome any other editor with superior scholarship and valid citations to provide their own input to the said web pages, for it is a free online encyclopedia after all. It appears that 'YK YK YK' continues to ignore that fact.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT! Pesky (talkstalk!) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Censorship without validity is unlawful." This is going to go just fine for Thetruthnow2012, because he knows dem rules. Doc talk 09:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For those that haven't twigged on, this is a counter-post to Yk Yk Yk's post above. I've changed the heading level accordingly. To Thetruthnow2012 - above you said that Yk Yk Yk had "failed" in the dispute resolution thread. Does this mean that you don't intend to participate in it any more? We really need your cooperation in that thread if we are to sort this dispute out amicably. If you choose not to participate, though, that's fine too - in that case I will leave it to the editors here at ANI to decide how to proceed. (I should warn you, however, that some of the editors here have banhammers and are not afraid to use them...) — Mr. Stradivarius 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of admin action and Thetruthnow2012's refusal to participate constructively in dispute resolution, Thetruthnow2012 has continued trying to bulldoze through with his edits at Golden Triangle (UK universities) [24], with edit summaries:
  2. Reinserting what was unlawfully censored by previous editor [26],
badgering a user who reverted him [27] and attacking User:Rangoon11 [28] [29]. Admins, please intervene. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yk Yk Yk, I can appreciate that you are frustrated with the situation here, but I don't think accusing the admins of inaction will help your cause. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and we need evidence that a block would prevent continued damage to the encyclopedia. I admit that Thetruthnow2012's edits today are not very promising - reinserting disputed edits to a page which is being discussed on WP:DRN is never a good sign - but I don't think the situation warrants a block just yet. I advise you against overstating your claims; for example Thetruthnow2012's edit on Rangoon11's talk page today does not look like it is "attacking" him, although it is clearly not assuming good faith. Accurate posts based on policy are the way to get things moving here.

Having said that, I prefer another way forward; we don't have to settle this on ANI just yet. Because of the difficulty of engaging Thetruthnow2012 in discussion, we haven't got round to discussing any content in the DRN thread yet, but I am of the opinion that Golden Triangle (UK universities) has some fundamental problems which require the article to be substantially rewritten. If we go ahead and do this without Thetruthnow2012, then it could defuse the situation by itself. Of course, this doesn't excuse disruptive editing, and if there is any more disruption we should deal with it appropriately. If there is any action that obviously requires admin attention, then we can bring it here. If not, then you can see a sketch of the way things might escalate at the bottom of WP:DISRUPT. For now, I suggest discussing this back on WP:DRN and keeping an eye on Thetruthnow2012's edits. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I fully understand the blocking policy and only requested action when he began disruptive editing again. I am concerned about the edit-warring on the page, not trying to teach the editor a lesson. If the DRN and ANI weren't filed, there would still be an edit war and no one would notice. Having said that, my actions have caused WP:DRAMAtic walls of words, and since other editors are now aware of the page in question, I will walk away from this. — Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is no one going to block Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs)? He's back and shows no signs of getting the point and continues to revert and make ridiculous claims of censorship. This is a total waste of time. --Daniel 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This should be a listed reason to block. Ah - just label it "disruptive editing". Note that Thetruthof2011 (talk · contribs) has realized that 2012 is actually the time for "truth". Should we give them that long? Doc talk 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Regrettably, I think it is time that Thetruthnow2012 spend sometime in the cooler. Mtking (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked for 48 hours for the continuing edit-warring and the accusations of illegal activity in the edit summaries at Golden Triangle (UK universities) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree that the continued edit warring today warrants a block. Hopefully this will persuade Thetruthnow2012 that dispute resolution is worth persuing. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Harassing behavior from IP[edit]

Hello, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is still harassing me on my talkpage about his being blocked on the French Wikipedia. Would someone please take notice that it actually is a blatant sock of Éric Gagnier or at least block him ? He recently started to contact random users here, explaining to them, in French, that I blocked him for nothing (which happens to be wrong, but this young man does not seem to be equiped with the ability to understand the reasons of his block). Thanks. --MAURILBERT (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 month -FASTILY (TALK) 05:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, --MAURILBERT (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Help Needed[edit]

The user LegalEagleUSA pretended to apologize for attacking me in one talk page but refused to remove offending accusations and then proceeded to harass and threaten me again in another discussion. This user also began their Wikipedia editing history by attempting to canvas several other editors by posting accusations against me and at least one other editor directly in their user pages.

The following users have all launched and continue to launch personal attacks on me and other users for having edited the article on Marisol Deluna. There is a legal sounding notice on LegalEagleUSA page threatening those who edit or reverse any of their contributions on Wikipedia but and he/she has attacked me and another user in a long rant on the following page:

Also, the following users joined in the Ad Hominem attacks on the proposed deletion page and followed me around to other debates to continue the harassment:

Mr. Brown

Alteran1, now going by ElizabethCB123

These and MANY other new or one time users have personally attacked me even after being warned by several editors to stop. You can verify this in the link below. There is currently a threat to expose my identity (which they claim to know) on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an administrator looking into these users behavior and history of abuse towards me and others since the abuse shows no signs of stopping even after I had moved on from the debate, stopped responding to them, and moved on from the article in question. The pages where all these accusations can be found:

Thank you! Aa1232011 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talkcontribs)

Thank you Mtking. I did not know I had to inform people of this. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It says it in the bright orange box at the top of the screen whenever you post here, but many people still don't see it or forget it so don't feel too bad. :) -- Atama 04:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I see it! I scrolled down straight to begin the edit but appreciate your assistance. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please review before feeling victomized. I cannot speak on behalf of the other editors, yet please read my comments before making any conclusions. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely something worth looking into at Marisol Deluna‎‎ there has been some threats made (and retracted) along with what looks like a little ownership going on and may be sock or meat or Tag team editing, it is also not clear what this lady has done that is of real encyclopaedic note so some more seasoned eyes to look at this would be a good idea. Mtking (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to Aa1232011. It seemed fishy at the time to me, and I was led to believe by others that they knew who Aa1232011 was in real life. I have no opinion on their identity or intentions, and no longer will be editing Marisol Deluna's article. This is my personal Wikipedia account, and I had done some small edits to the article at her request. I refused to become too far entrenched in major edit wars on her behalf, save for voicing the concerns about the intent of the edits made. I couldn't in good conscience continue editing her article for her as I vehemently agree with the philosophy of ownership and remaining neutral. Alteran1 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology Alteran1 and for shedding some light into what is really going on with the editing of this article. I'm assuming when you say "I had done some small edits to the article at her request" and "I couldn't in good conscience continue editing her article for her" you are referring to Deluna herself? Please correct me if I am wrong in my assertion. I agree with Mtking statements. Combined with Alteran1 admission that "others" (plural), and I believe he also meant Deluna herself, asking him to engage in an edit war on her behalf, it proves my suspicion that this is possibly a non-neutral tag team editing the article and engaging in an edit/mudslinging war. I was baffled as to why anyone would claim to "know" the identity of ANY editor in real life with certainty, but am becoming convinced someone on here was responsible for the recent hacking of my personal email accounts since it started the day the first accusations against me were made on here (and for which I have opened a cybercrime report with local authorities) and since people claim to "know" who I am threaten to expose my "real life" identity. In light of the harassment I and others have endured for being the first to bring this article to the light of day and the fact that there is now at least one user claiming he was goaded by "others" to engage in an edit war, I am requesting other experienced editors or administrators also look into the article in question and the offending editors. Thanks again. Aa1232011 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be said that I have no association with, have had no communication with, nor do I know the identities of any of the other accounts who have accused you Aa1232011. To the extent of my knowledge, none of these accounts are sock puppet accounts either. But yes, I do know Deluna personally and professionally, which is why I chose to distance myself from the article. As far as I know, she has no knowledge as to the identities of the the other accounts. Alteran1 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Im pointing out that user Mr. Brown and others also admitted to personally knowing Marisol Deluna during the proposed deletion process here so I am raising the issues of neutrality, ownership, conflict of interest, WP:OUTING, personal attacks, harassment, bad faith, threats of legal action related to the article in question.

I would like to apologize to Alteran1 for being pulled into wrongful questioning by User:Aa1232011 due to my remarks. Hoping you will freely edit. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LegalEagleUSA your accusations are against Wikipedia rules and regulations and without merit. I have been editing Wikipedia for years and I can tell you my I.P. address changes constantly not by any doing of my own but because it's dynamic and changes periodically. That doesn't constitute foul play. Just in the past few months I have been,,,, and others. If you look, there is overlap of articles I'm interested in and have edited through the years like for example "List of Black Fashion Models" "Catherine Zeta-Jones" "Stacey Q" and countless others which I'm not going to hunt down to satisfy your quasi investigative "observations". You on the other hand went around posting your claims to several editors talk pages (aka canvassing), threatened to out peoples RL identities, use legal action, and went ahead and posted this long thread of suspicions towards others for removing uncited claims from a subpar article. Sorry but your excuse that you "overhead" someone talking about specific users who edited this article is a bit improbable (someone said user did this or that and you remembered?) as is your claim of knowing with certainty who anyone is in real life or us being in the same city which you would have no way of knowing. (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Query about edit comments by User: on Ronald D. Moore[edit]

Seems to me that the anon editor is crossing a line by making relatively innocuous edits to the article content but leaving insulting edit comments. Just wondering whether these edit comments should be removed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Since WP:BLP also applies to edit summaries, this edit summary is a clear violation. There's no way that the sentiment expressed in that edit summary would be allowed to remain in an article, so the summary's presence in the article history should be reconsidered. I've notified the editor about this discussion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed those two edit summaries under RD5: BLP vio (but forgot to log the second half of that).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to ban a user from Noah Ringer's article.[edit]

I am requesting that user DavidEOliver1973 be banned from Noah Ringer's article. Over the course of this week, he has repeatedly edited the article to include information that does not make sense and/or is completely false. These have been major edits, too. He also posted an image which was found to be in violation of Wikipedia's policies and has since been removed. I might also add that I am certain this user is the <redacted> who was banned from Noah's official Facebook page, as his personal Facebook page seems to point to a mentally unstable and possibly perverted personality. I don't want to defame him here, but I have to be as blunt as I can. He needs to be banned for editorial and security purposes. (I don't understand the template for notifying an editor, so I was unable to notify him. I apologize.) Thank you.Lonewolf1380 (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the other party. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) A topic ban seems like a drastic remedy, as far as I can tell, image policy templates aside, the editor has received only one message related to the article, and none from you. The editor was reverted once for the large amount of editing they did, and then added an image with a copyright issue which was then removed. I don't think it is fair to use off wiki activity as the basis for a topic ban (certainly there isn't a good reason here). Finally, not sure if there is even a dispute, but I would suggest pursuing dispute resolution before requesting admin action. Monty845 16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Uh, let's remember that the subject of the article is a minor and the editor in question, whose facebook page is apparently <outing redacted> appears to be a middle-aged man. I don't know what the problem was at facebook that caused him to be banned from Ringer's page, but I think perhaps this needs more attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Who says that is his FB page? And if it is, who says that is a photo of him? GiantSnowman 20:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Publishing an editors's personal information if they have not revealed it themselves is very much not allowed, so I have redacted and RevDel'd the outing done by Steven J. Anderson - If it turns out that DavidEOliver1973 had actually published that information, then I will happily revert my actions and apologise, but as there are serious implications to the identity accusations here, I thought prompt removal was of the essence -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have also redacted the outing done by Lonewolf1380 - there may be a problem here, but unsupported public "naming and shaming" is not the way we work here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Under WP:Child protection, I think requests like this are suppose to go straight to arbcom (I have emailed the arbcom list). --B (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Except there is no child editor involved, the minor is the subject of the article. Seems like a stretch to me. Monty845 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, regardless, without considering off-wiki content, nothing is going to be done without going through the usual process of warn the user, inform them of our policies, give them the chance to change, etc. If an immediate intervention is needed (as the original requestor is asking), then that's something that needs to come from a body that can consider the off-wiki evidence. --B (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

This particular idiot is removing punctuation from this article, and some people are reverting his edits only for them to happen again. Because of the nature of his edits, the system can't detect the edits, and users who revert his edits instantly revert their own edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a newer user who isn't familiar with WP:MOS, but some would say that's the "sneaky" part. Still, the IP's only edits are from yesterday, and they're all in that one article. I also see only one warning on their Talk page, and it's rather WP:BITEy. Without an indication that the editor has worked elsewhere in Wikipedia (and I'm not hearing any quacking at all), my 2p is that the IP should have had their errors pointed out instead of being told to go "back to your hole". I don't see any indication for administrative action at this point; I think watching the article, the IP, or both should be enough for now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
He's uploaded several images that are clearly taken from other websites, even putting copyright information on the image page. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Urk...I missed that, must have been further back than I looked. Still, one warning isn't sufficient, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The warning posted on the IP's talk page is also inappropriate and incivil. Get off my article? There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. In addition, the text that follows is WP:BITE-y and aggressive, an attitude that should not be used towards new editors, or anyone for that matter. What ever happened to assuming good faith here? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The "uploaded several images" was probably intended for the section above, "Request to ban a user from Noah Ringer's article." Peter E. James (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a WP:BOOMERANG. The edits appear to be in good faith and an effort to reduce verbosity. User: is owed an apology for the insults on his talk page, the article talkpage and here from the complainant and a referral to policies. User:, as pointed out you do not own the article. You could have just as easily invited the IP to discuss on the talkpage and outlined your concerns without telling a newbie to "waddle back into his hole and await further instructions." However, given that your first thought was to say that "someone should block the bastard" on the article talkpage I would be surprised if he wanted to discuss anything on the talkpage. Please read WP:DBN.Fainites barleyscribs 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta's personal attacks on others, and their restoration[edit]

During the latest bout of disputes over Delta's edits, an AE request was filed, in which Delta posted this rant in response, in which he names specific editors including me, accusing them of having harassed, bullied, and stalked him. No diffs were provided by Delta to show why he thinks these claims are justified, thus they are obvious violations of the no personal attacks policy - Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. I informed Delta of this, giving him the option of removing them, or providing the diffs. [30] He took option number 3, completely ignore it. So I removed the names myself, to downgrade it from personal attacks to just gross incivility [31], and informed him of this [32]. It's taken him mere seconds to ignore my advice not to revert and thus restore the attacks, unequivocally denying that they are such with the edit summary "Not a personal attack, please dont edit my comments". [33] This remains his sole contribution in terms of communication with me over this issue so far.

So, I'm now doing what I said I would in my second post to him, and giving the admin corps a chance to show they can prevent him from doing this a third time (see background below), or persuade him to give assurances that he understands the no personal attacks policy, that he will take the necessary action in relation to these attacks or allow someone else to do it for him, that he will not make them in future and certainly not edit war to restore them where found. In the interests of avoiding this turning into yet another unfocused and rambling Delta clusterfuck, I will let this thread run for 24 hours, and if it fails to solicit a satisfactory undertaking from Delta, or a satisfactory and Delta-appropriate action from admins, then I intend to file Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 3, as it will have become clear to me at least that even after his claimed reformation, ordinary measures & sanctions are still failing to prevent even basic policy abuses by this editor.

No more excuses, no more delays. Procrastinating over resolving/closing reports caused by this editor over NFCC editting is one thing, but ignoring reports of this sort of behaviour is a whole other ball game. In the interests of wide & unbiased comment, I do not want this report shuffled off into the tar pit of his dedicated sub page, this is a specific incident quite separate from his ongoing difficulties with NFCC enforcement. If it's not considered an incident per se given the background, I've no objection to a transfer to WP:AN. Needless to say given the history, I think any recommendation of this being resolveable through Rfc/U, is a complete non-starter, a waste of everybody's time.

Background Info

Now to the background: I've been down this road with him just last month, where he made 4 similar reverts of personal attacks on me in rapid succession, in a venue & discussion which did not concern him in any way. As a reminder, that attack was Hammersoft's comparison on RD232's talk page of my discussion style to that of a member of the Westborough Baptist Church, which, while some tried to lawyer around the issue, is and always was a quite disgraceful attack on another editor's character & reputation. Since then, Hammersoft has apologised for making the post & removed it, RD232 has agreed it should never have been there, and the first person to revert me in my attempts to remove it, Ched, has also apologised, stating he had misread the situation and should not have done so.

So, all we were left waiting for in that situation was Delta's explanation for a complete lack of communication as he reverted what he knew were taken as obvious personal attacks, for treating 3RR as an allowance and not a bright line in doing so (going so far as to label one of them a vandal revert), and for nonetheless breaking it anyway. [34] [35] [36] [37] Sadly through the actions of admins Slackr [38] & Fastily [39] at the report and counter-report at WP:EW with two outrageously myopic and I fear biased findings (and an actual 3RR block by Sarek was overturned merely on procedural grounds by TenOfAllTrades log and the promised further evaluation of Delta's behaviour never materialised), Delta has been effectively ultimately rewarded by admins for some rather blatant WP:GAMEing. That's likely why he seems to have no issue with repeating it now, freely - this is now two recent incidents where he has edit warred to restore personal attacks on me with no justification, and where only one of them was even a post belonging to him. And this follows a specific incident in 2008 in which he used his bot to harass me, in a manner that drew a specific condemnation in Betacommand case 2. All this from an editor who is claiming in his attacks that I am the one stalking and harassing him. It's unnacceptable.

I have notified Delta, and also Fastily & Slackr, as far as the background mentions their prior admin actions

MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of attacks & restoration[edit]

I'm separating out the discussion of the facts of the report from the subseuent immediate ban proposal by User:Ohms law, as conflating the two has had the rather predicable effect it was always going to. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta Community ban proposal[edit]

Initiated by User:Ohms law at 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Δ (talk · contribs) is a disruptive user, and is banned from editing Wikipedia by the community.

Do you really want to contribute to or look at this? No chance in hell of this passing in this user's view


  1. Support— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support User has shown that he incapable of consistently contributing in a civil collaborative manner and actively refuses to assume good faith. I take issue with those who believe this is a WP:NFCC issue. It is not. It is a problem with civility and interaction. WP:NFCC is simply the realm in which the problems most frequently occur. You can be a police officer and justifiably pull someone over for speeding and still be a complete jerk about it. Claims of "They just don't like that I pull people over!" are completely misleading as they ignore the actual problems. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support - This time - I'm not with him. Island Monkey talk the talk 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


  1. Oppose It is totally understandable that someone would be upset after they have had just about every process that Wikipedia has thrown at them in succession. In light of the very recent attempt to get him topic banned that by all accounts has failed, I find it hard to fathom how anyone expects a full community ban to succeed. NFCC is a thorny area, it needs to be dealt with, and whoever does deal with it is going to catch a lot a flack over it. Could he have responded better, probably, but as illustrated by the recent bot proposal, he is trying to work constructively with the community. Also, I would note that strictly construing this discussion, we are attempting to ban User:Delta who has made 1 edit ever, I suggest you properly list the person you are trying to have banned. Monty845 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Monty845's excellent summary of the situation above. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If people don't like being called out for bullying and harassing Delta, they need to stop bullying and harassing him. Wiki-mobbing needs to stop. Fut.Perf. 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I for one am sick and tired of the unending proposals for Δ's head on a platter. Good *@#()$*@ Christ the number of times people keep clamoring to have his wikihead on a pike. People make claims he's a relentless edit warrior, yet looking over the last two months and 5 reports at WP:EW of Δ edit warring not ONE of them found against him. But that's not good enough, he's still an editor warrior and has to be banned from the project. Unreal. Absolutely, unequivocally, unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Detla is far from the ideal editor, no one is going to argue that, but he does a lot of very good work, almost all of it non-controversially. A small number of people take issue with a particularly touchy subset of his work, the NFCC, and then justify their crusade against him by claiming that it is civility or edit-counts that break community sanctions that that are the real motivation behind their attempts at shutting Delta down. In a word, "bullshit". This is an NFCC issue, aggravated by civility issues and Delta's non-cooperation with a few rather old community sanctions. I would love to see Delta be more civil, but Future Perfect has a point, and Delta isn't the only one that has been uncivil in this whole affair, Delta has bared the brunt of a ton of attacks. I would love to see that stupid edit throttle restriction go out the window, because he is the only one that chases after file moves and fixes the redirects, a heavily automated, completely legitimate/necessary, and a very helpful task, which he has broken the throttle to do without making any mistakes or pissing anyone off. Delta is valuable. He's not more trouble than he's worth. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - the guy's been harassed up, down and around for ages. Yes, he's made mistakes in his time here. No, they're not worthy of a public hanging. He does a lot of work that needs to be done but tends to be controversial; that lends itself to clashes. He has to focus on improving civility, but he definitely does not deserve to be community banned. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, though quite why I have to type this to oppose such idiocy is beyond me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  8. Per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  9. I do believe I have seen an improvement in Δ‎'s communication recently (I say this as someone who has watched Δ‎ for years). Yes, there are more improvements he can (and should) still make, but banning him solves nothing, especially if those supporting a ban on Δ are not willing or are unable to tackle NFC issues in his place. I'm also bored of constant criticism of Δ no matter what he does: for example, accusing him of incivility when he (justifiably) gives a templated message to someone, and then accusing him of incivility when he gives someone a hand-typed note. (As an aside, I noticed this discussion on Δ's talk page about a noticeboard to report NFCC violations, I think this is a good idea, and might go a long way in addressing some issues.) Again, Δ‎ is not perfect, and he can and should still improve, but I don't believe he should be banned. Acalamari 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per above (again). Although I might consider a NFCC topic ban or "interaction" ban for a few other folks. Just sayin. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  11. Oppose It is completely inappropriate for !votes on penalties this severe to be occurring on AN/I. Follow dispute resolution. --causa sui (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  12. Oppose and to be clear that Delta's comments that MMN is highlighting is very difficult to take as a personal attack given that pretty much it can be clearly seen in AN boards and subpages that those users are his most vocal opponents. A bit of snark and bitter language, but in no way a personal attack. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  13. NO. It's the same merry-go-round all over again... Delta raises notice that they intend to remove images and gives people interested an opportunity to fix the issues. No improvement happens,.Delta removes image. Multiple people come out of the woodwork to undo the removal of the images claiming various exemptions reasoning for why NFCC doesn't apply to these. Delta points to the NFCC criteria and re-deletes. Opponents reach out to one of many DR avenues to call for Delta's head on a platter. End the mob-mentality and witch hunting. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - This is all about fair-use rules on wikipedia. What I have come to realize is that problem is not Delta and other "strict constructionists"; and it's not users who are more inclusionary. The problem is the rules. The rules are wishy-washy, especially the "is it needed" rule (NFC 8, if I recall correctly). A couple or three weeks ago there was discussion of questioning the wikimedia honchos about this. As far as I know, nothing was done. But they are the authors of these rules, yes? As such, they need to answer for those rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Seriously? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  16. Oppose There's nobody on the planet who thinks an ANI discussion to ban delta was ever going to either succeed or be the right thing to do (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  17. Oppose More forum shopping by this travelling circus. Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  18. Oppose What the hell? No. You can't BAN someone for this kind of behaviour. Egg Centric 19:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  19. Oppose After seeing this mess running last Monday and Tuesday, even the rest of the week goes "WTF". This looks like nothing more than a great deal of dead-horse beating, and should be treated as such. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  20. Oppose 'nuff said. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Agreed, but I've refactored slightly as per the edit summary. [40] MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense Face-smile.svg Egg Centric 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


  • Whatever happens with the community ban proposal (I can guess), I will not be happy if it also distracts from the original report. I will still be looking to see what action has been taken after 24 hours regarding the reversion of these attacks (at which time it's normal to also close & evaluate support for the ban proposal, should it still be there). MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would note that the closing admin basically supported Delta's statement, "No action. Forum shopping. Wikihounding needs to stop." It is now archivedclosed, and censoring it seems to serve no purpose other then to further inflame the situation. Monty845 16:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If FastilyFut.Perf intended to support the accusation that I have stalked, bullied and harassed Delta, then I'm sure he can say so himself in time, and avoid a block of himself by providing the evidence. Personal attacks do not cease to be attacks when the discussion is hatted. The policy mandates removal, and that is not, and never will be, an act of "censorship". MickMacNee (talk)
Whether you think the comment is right or wrong, removing a comment or part of a comment is still censorship. NPA policy is just approved censorship. Regardless, I don't think this qualifies under the policy. And I was referring to the hatting statement by Fut.Perf. Monty845 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I meant Fut.Perf of course, getting my F's mixed up. I see he's already made the same attack here, so any time he's ready to provide diffs, I'm here. I'm not sure what you mean by "NPA policy is just approved censorship", but if you mean to say it doesn't matter, and commenting in Wikipedia should be some form of protected speech, well, you couldn't be more wrong. It's a core policy, so it's pretty important, and certainly non-negotiable when the user's behaviour matches the definition of a personal attack, to the letter, in black and white. If you're reading another part of it, or have another interpretation of the cited part of it, then let me know. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that while NPA requires that unfounded personal attacks be removed, the act of removing them is still censorship, it is just a form of censorship that the community supports, but that is besides the point. The point is that the statement was not an improper personal attack as it is a request related entirely to on-wiki activity that asks users to stop launching attacks like this entire discussion against Delta. Monty845 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I see. You're trying to argue that the definition of "personal behaviour" in WP:NPA is something that is happening in real life outside Wikipedia, i.e. it's only a personal attack if he meant to say I was stalking him in real life. I think that's absurd, and completely wrong. People could use the same defence to excuse calling someone a homophobe, i.e. 'I only meant it in relation to your editting, not you as a person'. It's bogus, people have been blocked for doing just that for years, certainly where such statements are made without evidence; it fits the exact definition of why personal attacks are harmful. It really doesn't matter if you're doing it in the context of asking for some action like a topic ban, or just in general. And for the record, harassment has a Wikipedia definition in behavioural policy, which is of course what I think of when I see such accusations made against me, but the obvious overtones are there also - it's hard to see how someone can be described as a stalker, bully and a harrasser on Wikipedia, but not have those traits in real life. Anyway, you might be interested in skipping to the section WP:AOHA, which links it to the concept of unfounded personal attacks, which makes it even clearer that you're just wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@MickMacNee: The comment of Δ's that you redacted was "I would like to see a topic ban regarding NFC and those who enforce it applied to Crossmr, Georgewilliamherbert, CBM, MickMacNee, Aaron Brenneman, and Buffs." That is in no way a personal attack. If you think calling for bans merits an WP:NPA block, I expect to see a new section below calling for a ban of the supporters of the ban proposal just above. Somehow, I don't think I'll see such a section. 28bytes (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The removed part in of itself is not the attack. The naming of those people, alongside the accusations that he has been harassed & stalked, is the attack. I could have easily removed the whole post, but just removing the names is what stops it being a personal attack, and turns it into a mere incivil rant. I couldn't give a toss about the ban proposal, it's not of my making, I'm just here to see what admins will do about the reported incident. If you want to state here that in your opinion accusing named editors of harassment, stalking & bullying, without offering any evidence to back it up, is not a clear cut personal attack, then please confirm that's your intention. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You could really take the sting out of the allegations of harassment and stalking by leaving him the hell alone. Just saying. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure. And in other news, everybody will be pleased to know I have infact, stopped beating my wife. Seriously, wtf? MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your wife will be glad to hear that! Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is this here? I'm getting tired of this forum shopping. It should be on the subpage. GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    This was answered in the OP. And this is not forum shopping, unless you can tell me where I've tried to get this incident acted on before now (apart from, obviously, Delta's talk page, to no effect). And you can be sick of it all you want, you aren't the one being attacked. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I see no notification on Delta's page of this section. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My mistake, I missed that. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Choose your battles. If Delta wants to call for six other editors including three admins to be topic banned because he's "fucking tired" of them opposing his mass editing campaign, let him. Calling people stalkers and harassers because they oppose you is over the top and frankly, a flame-out that defeats his own case. However, he does have some extra latitude to express frustration on his own talk page in defending himself at arbitration enforcement. Let him be rant there about why he's acting as he is. You and everybody else can judge for yourselves whether that's a fit attitude for editing the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    The attacks were made at WP:AE, not his talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    voila!. I think that makes my argument even stronger, as it's fair on a notice board when accused to say that your accusers, not you, are the ones at fault. Not necessarily a great approach, but one that everyone is entitled to. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    Oh come on. The arbitration enforcement noticeboard is the last place to be throwing out a stream of personal attacks and general ranting. That noticeboard is where you demonstrate that you have not violated previous remedies the arbitration committee has found it necessary to place on you, due to your proven past misconduct. To quote just a couple of them, "Betacommand has often been grossly incivil to other editors and has made a series of personal attacks against other editors, generally in the context of disputes concerning operation of his bots"...."in admitted retaliation for criticism by another user, Betacommand engaged in harassment and in disruption to make a point" (the user was me)....."The level of disruption (caused by Delta) has been well beyond what a collaborative project should be expected to accept even in a contentious area such as fair-use policy and image-tagging, and must be brought to an end either via dramatically improved user conduct or via sanctions imposed by this committee." Do these sound in any way familiar, in the context of the behaviour I'm citing from just yesterday? Or last month? Does making blatant personal attacks sound like dramatically improved conduct to you? Something the committee is going to ignore when people make the sort of excuses they're offering up here? Instead of the evasion, derailment and general whining we've seen so far, the only thing people should be concerned with here, is demonstrating that the report I've filed is bogus. The thing people certainly shouldn't be doing, certainly those admins who value their bits at least, is blithely repeating the attacks, as if they'd never read WP:NPA and couldn't give a shit about it, or what Delta does. If they can't do that in a reasonable time and in a focussed manner, then I've said what I'm going to do next. I might even extend the deadline to 48 hours to allow him to comment here, or at least show his continued refusal to do so, because as has happened before this year, just as you start trying to get his behaviour examined for one incident, he goes and gets blocked for 24 hours for an unrelated incident. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    I would counter that the arbitration board may be an unwise place to make wild accusations that other editors are acting like stalkers but it is not a forbidden place. If you do have an accusation of bad faith to make, there's the place, that's its purpose. Removing comments there is probably unwise as well. Perhaps not forbidden, but if someone insults you, removing the insult is usually best left to a third party. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    I couldn't disagree more, on all points. And my stance is largely supported by relevant policies and the noticeboard's own instructions. I'd welcome you offering the same wordings to the contrary if you can, but in my experience, that's more the case of 'it's unwise/shouldn't be done, but people sometimes ignore it', rather than, 'it's not forbideen, so its allowed'. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    All the people listed do oppose Delta, and do regularly drag him through the various noticeboards. Now; I'm not passing judgement on whether of not that is deliberate harrassment (honestly - I have no idea) - but get some fucking empathy. If he feels harrassed then it is obvious he is going to be upset about it. Instead of just letting the angry outburst slide (or perhaps address it another way) you've opened yet another noticeboard thread, basically exacerbating the problem. Get some common sense, ignore the minor personal attack and get on with editing something. Delta causes problems, although he does good work, and needs a serious attitude adjustment - but battling someone over that, at least in my experience of these things, is just not going to work. It will simply continue to be a battle. Mick; you are far from civil yourself, and are old enough and ugly enough to realise it cuts both ways - just shrug and take it. --Errant (chat!) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    ↑ This. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    Look, whatever you think I do ErrantX, I don't run around calling people stalkers or harassers or bullies without evidence just because they criticise my edits, I don't deny having made obvious personal attacks when I proveably have, and I don't cooly, calmy, edit war to restore them, hours after the event. And if this is a minor attack, what's a major one? I've tried ignoring these allegations as they've crept back into his repertoire after he resumed NFCC work off the back of his ban. Guess what? That doesn't work any more now than it did years ago, and it's as ineffective at adjusting his attitude as the 'he does good work' nonsense, a viewpoint which arbcom categorically slapped down the last time he reached this level of such brazen and obvious attacks on those who merely criticise his methods. MickMacNee (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reality check[edit]

unactionable allegations unrelated to matter at hand, unlikely to generate any positive result
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's a comment MickMacNee made on his talk page after he received an indefinite block:

Hah. Sociopath wouldn't even cover you Sandstein, you power crazy fuck. Just happened to be wandering along reviewing my contributions eh? Out for a little stroll were you. Just spotted a little personal attacky wacky did you? Fuck you, you utter freak. Maybe I should join the fucking Westboro Baptist Church, it seems being compared to them is viewed as rather a mild insult around these parts, and on current evidence I think I would start meeting a better class of people frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mick: this was after you'd already been told that if you kept carrying on like that, "you may lose your ability to edit this page". I saw your comment but didn't take away your talk-page privileges. Sandstein saw it and didn't take away your talk-page privileges. In fact, no admin did. Why? Because it was obvious you felt attacked and were lashing out. And yet here you are, demanding an NPA block against Δ, for lashing out in response to being brought up for arbitration enforcement.

You will not get any admin to take your requests for NPA blocks seriously until you clean up your own house. Your attack against Sandstein is still sitting on your talk page, unredacted and unapologized for. You expect to be able to post things like that without consequence, and then run to AN/I to get other editors sanctioned? No. I have a low tolerance for hypocrisy. Dish it out if you can take it, but if you can't take it, then don't dish it out. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I remember that one now. What a classic! Nobody's ever called me a power crazy sociopath fuck, not here at least. Where's the love? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Come off it. Don't even pretend that you know even half the context behind that situation, or what my state of mind was then. Sandstein is going to answer for his actions at arbitration soon enough as regards our bilateral interactions and what he did and didn't do to provoke that reaction, so don't be too quick to start comparing yourself to him, as if that's going to make you look like a model admin in my eyes. As far as my interaction with Delta goes, I'm not even a fucking admin, so I can't do any of the things to him that Sandstein did to me. And at least he tries to offer evidence to back up his claims as to what I have and haven't done, as policy requires. As for it still being there, it remains as much out of a wish to preserve the timeline intact as anything else, given it is currently evidence for an ongoing arbitration case. As you point out, it does more harm to me by still being there than to anybody else. I'm not that fussed as it happens. Why don't you remove it if it offends you so? Are you expecting me to react to such a removal in the manner Delta does, with immediate restoration, followed by gamey edit warring and zero communication? If Delta want's to claim it was made out of the heat of the moment, what's his excuse more then 30 hours later when I try to remove it as the obvious attack that it is? And there's the rub - your little comparison here is faulty, as I have never denied that it was a personal attack. You can try and claim sensible admin credit for not removing my access while clearly enraged, but fuck it, most sensible admins end up on the right side of that call as a matter of course. How it relates to your perception of Delta all these hours later, and while he cleary denies it's even a personal attack at all, well, that's your square to circle, if you're wanting to play the glass houses game. I won't dignify this post as being an actual serious request to remove it, but if you stop by my page and ask me, who knows. Sandstein has certainly never asked for its removal that I'm aware of, so again, don't presume to speak for him. As for "Dish it out if you can take it, but if you can't take it, then don't dish it out", unless or until you present a diff of me calling another editor a stalker, bully, or harasser, without evidence, then you can stick your comments about hypocrisy where the Sun doesn't shine. Frankly, if this sort of low ball tactic is all you have to offer by way of a passable admin like defence of Delta, that's something that reflects poorly on you, not me. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of text. You may want to consider replying more concisely in the future. Or at least toss in the occasional paragraph break. Anyway, I tried to explain to you why you weren't going to get what you wanted here, but if you want to filibuster some more instead of getting it, be my guest. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea... I'm fine with closing the proposal above, but it is instructive. Delta has a lot of friends who will defend him, he's somewhat justified in making this comments that started this, mick also has civility issues, and he's also been slighted here. Everyone's got egg on their face, and nothing else is going to come from this. Drop the stick, move on, get over it. We should speedy close anything having to do with delta that comes here for the next six months (barring something completely over the top occurring, of course).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Let MMN talk, by all means, let him say whatever the heck he wants. There's an active ArbCom case in his name going on right now, and the Arbs are aware of this thread, or at least one of them is. If MMN wants to paint himself in a bad light and jump right into the fire himself that is his choice. For once, I agree with Ohms. Give Delta six months of not being harassed at all, and we'll see if there is a change on his end from not having to constantly battle off a constant stream of attacks. I'd like to think there would be. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to admire/despair of MMN for his complete lack of self-awareness/irony. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sven, don't even try and Lord it over me when you cannot even bother to figure out who has proposed what in the above report before you started your usual eager defence of Delta. You're quite correct that arb Xeno is now well aware of just how much due diligence you put into these kneejerk defences. You might think you're helping Delta here, you might even naively think that you're standing up for the NFCC by acting this way in issues which have nothing to do with it, but whether you realise it or not, that's what editors like you thought when they were doing this exact same thing years ago. Read and absorb the arbcom remedies from last time. If you think it's going to go any differently for him a third time given the exact same behaviour and excuses, the exact same inaction or paralysis from admins, the exact same battlegrounding and wikilawyring from the pro/anti NFCC peanut gallery, then you're delusional. I've tried my best to avoid that here, this is the admin board and this is an admin worthy incident, requiring some simple action from either Delta or an admin, I'm not fussed which. But if nothing happens, so be it, I've said what I'll do. I'm not going to go out of my way to convince the ardent Delta fans or the disinterented others, I've had years to observe how much of a pointless a task that really is. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, guys! Everyone's hurting here, everyone's lashing out here (everyone's probably thoroughly burned-out here, too). When people hurt, they lash out - that's normal. I'm totally uninvolved in any of these disputes, and don't want to become involved, either; but if we could all just take three steps back, and realise that the other guy is hurting just as much as you are, it might make for greater understanding and go some way towards defusing the whole situation. You only have to read this stuff to see the levels of hurt that people are suffering. Is there any way that someone can break this vicious circle and just stop hurting each other - nobody's going to be able to move forwards until that can be done. Pesky (talkstalk!) 08:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom motions[edit]

While the community rejected a ban on Δ here, I would like to note that Arbcom have a motion regarding re-instating the former community ban on him, in addition to a motion to topic ban him from non-free content enforcement. Acalamari 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Disappointing that they seem to be explicitly overriding what the community wants, but what can ya do? 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The majority want him topic banned. How are they overriding that?--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
28bytes' comment is in reference to the site ban mainly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hi Crossmr! Fancy seeing you here. If there's ever a motion to ban you from interacting with or commenting on Δ, I will be sure to keep your "majority = consensus" philosophy in mind. 28bytes (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
SupportChed :  ?  00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I could say the same about you. You've made more comments in these recent discussions than I have.I also never said majority = consensus, trying to misrepresent me again? I said that in my opinion 32 vs 17 seemed to be more than a simple majority as outlined by WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This is odd. I told you on your talk page that of your recent project space edits, 135 out of 136 were focused on Δ. You objected and said, no, you found 4 other project space edits in that time span that were about something else. Which would put it at 131 out of 136. I conceded I missed some of those edits, yet twice now, you've posted to noticeboards claiming I "misrepresent" you. Either you missed my "I stand corrected" comment, or you think it's somehow appropriate to repeatedly point out someone's error after they've acknowledged the error and corrected it. Well, it's not appropriate to do that. It's rather dickish, actually. If you really want to continue this kind of petty squabbling, take it to my talk page. Doing it on a noticeboard isn't useful to anyone. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
and yet you continue to make these almost true statements to try and malign me. Since you like to count edits so much, why don't you check how many you've made to the delta discussions over the last say 3 or 4 days vs how many I've made. Nowhere did I ever say majority=consensus. I've repeatedly said that I felt 32 vs 17 is more than a simple majority as outlined by the policy in question.--Crossmr (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Attacking the integrity of other editors out of their perceived opposition to someone you're trying to defend is more than a little unseemly. Please, if you're okay with Delta's behavior just say so. That's your opinion. Other people are not okay with that behavior. That's theirs. But don't burn the house down to show your disappointment in the results. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: Sock drawer emptied out --B (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Kids4Fun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freesaveliy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Kids4Fun was indefinitely blocked on July 4 by JeremyA with the block summary of "Vandalism-only account: Block evasion: Vandalism". Freesaveliy is an obvious reincarnation (the account was created right after the block and is continuing Kids4Fun's fights). I'm bringing it here rather than blocking the reincarnation myself as I am currently in a dispute with the user at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_9#File:Socialdemokraterna.svg. --B (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

no am not stop accusing people with no valid reasonFREESAVELIYtalk 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're not Kids4Fun, you're doing a great job of impersonating him. --B (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
you cannot ban people for infinity then suggest probably impossible and pointless requests about appealing to be unblockedFREESAVELIYtalk 20:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
There are 13 pages where both accounts have edited, which is pretty impressive for only 100 edits... Also the edits to Muammar Gaddafi are similar, particularly the dictator|absolute leader addition. Looks like a sock to me. Monty845 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Good intuition B. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts have been  Confirmed as indefinitely blocked user Chaosname (talk · contribs):