Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive721

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Admin requested to close RfC[edit]

Resolved: RfC closed

An administrator is requested to close and summarize a request for comments at Talk:September 11 attacks#RfC: Conspiracy theories link. Since the article is under administrative sanction, I think an admin would be good as the closer, rather than just an experienced editor. The RfC has attracted considerable comment, with over 40 participants, but seems to be winding down (only 2 new participants in the last 4 days). My summary in comparison to the last consensus we're trying to overturn (just of the numbers - I've stated an opinion opening the RfC, so I'm biased in evaluating the arguments) is at Talk:September 11 attacks#Comparative summary. --GRuban (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a close.--v/r - TP 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I've closed it. There was clear consensus and no reason to drag the conversation out any longer.--v/r - TP 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've always appreciated the legendary judgement of Paris. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested indef block for IP 82.198.250.2[edit]

Resolved: Year block stays

82.198.250.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just applied the 4th year long block to this IP. In addition it was CU blocked for a year but the block was lifted as it was a hard block and not soft. I hate to say this but I think it's time for an indef, but I want to get some opinions here first before doing so. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In general, IPs don't get indeffed. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand that, why do you think I'm asking here? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Has the company to which the IP is registered ever been informed of this? It's not like this is a dialup IP: it's registered to an active UK company. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I just found the report on AIV, saw the number of previous blocks was pretty high, blocked it for a year like normal, then reported it here. That's my entire interaction with the IP. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This IP is shared between schools and certain public institutions, like libraries. It is very likely it won't remain assigned to Synetrix, or to schools, forever. That's the reason IPs are not indef'd. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:ABUSE would be the next logical step, I'd say. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering it's blocked, and easy to block, and very difficult to prevent abuse from the IP, I would say that's pointless. There is an interesting discussion at WT:ABUSE about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, going to keep it at a year then. Just wanted a couple extra opinions. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have supported a 5-year block myself. If this school has not been able to police their students about proper Internet usage, then the school (more specifically, the faculty and staff) has itself to blame when their Wikipedia editing privileges have been taken away. If anyone disagrees with that, please look at the over 5 years' worth of blocks. –MuZemike 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I commonly block schools that have been repeatedly blocked for 3 years, and HJ Mitchell commonly blocks them for 1001 days. I agree with MuZemike: If the IT professionals cannot stop vandalism of Wikipedia, then they shouldn't complain when they get blocked for a long time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If can I can throw my $.02 worth in here, it looks like that very soon after the block is lifted this vandalism immediately starts. I think a longer block may be a good diea here, and perhaps some sort of contact with the IT staff of that location? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd--geek requested[edit]

Resolved

Hi geeks. This may be nothing, but it is odd nonetheless. I blocked 209.30.99.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (another year-long schoolblock) for vandalizing after I saw their fine work on a DYK, Dragalevtsi Monastery. That article was vandalized a little while later by 173.209.68.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--and look at their contributions and the overlap between the IPs: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District, E.O. Wilson...such different IPs, could they be in the same school building? Or do we have some kid here who craps up Wikipedia from their smartphone after the school's IP is blocked? Drmies (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • PS: I blocked 173 for a week, but perhaps that should be longer based on whatever technical response comes to my question above. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • PPS: Is there any point in notifying blocked IPs of an ANI thread? With the ghost of Jonathan Edwards hovering over this, I guess I'll follow the letter. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • 209 is registered to the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District using AT&T internet access, and 173 is registered to SmartCom Telephone LLC using it's own internet access. I'd guess that the kid vandalized from his school, got blocked, and then vandalized again with his phone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Ha, thanks geek! Well done. So--do we have a "student block" to be issued concomitantly with the school block? And do we call the principal to tell them that one of their kids is using a phone illegally during school hours? And do we spank the kid ourselves? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
        • All of the above, damned kids need to be shown who's da boss. Blackmane (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Sadly, corporal punishment is not an admin power (I think only stewards can spank people). I think the year-long schoolblock will be enough and I imagine the vandalism from the phone was a parting shot. -- Atama 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Stewards can spank people?!? How do I become a steward? NickCT (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Hmm, I'm not sure about that, Atama. Are you suggesting that when the LadyofShalott spanked me last weekend she was abusing her powers, or overstepping her boundaries? Drmies (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
                • Drmies, what you do in privacy is your business. Nick, unfortunately you just recently missed the window for nominating yourself for stewardship, but elections are running right now for the new group of stewards. You can possibly ask the candidates how soft their hands are on the questions page (though I'd not recommend it). -- Atama 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • A soft touch perhaps? --Blackmane (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Disruption at Vassar College[edit]

I requested Vassar College be semi-protected yesterday but that request was denied at RFPP. I renew my request here where other admins may see and act on it. The article has been persistently disrupted by one or more unregistered editors for well over a month now. I posted a message in the article's Talk page on July 27 and have received no answer. The unregistered editor changes IPs regularly so a message on his or her Talk page would probably not be very helpful (nor would an ANI notice). The article was briefly semmi-protected a few days ago but the disruption resumed the day after the protection expired. Can someone please help? Blocking the editor(s) would not be helpful considering the ever-changing IPs and a rangeblock would not be a good idea considering its size. Lengthy semi-protection seems the optimal solution but I'm open to constructive help of any kind. ElKevbo (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree that the article get vandalized a lot, I can see that much. It could be a group of people vandalizing the page, perhaps some spirtited members of another school. I am not sure whether or not the article should be blocked, that is for the admins to decide. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not a whole lot of vandalism, but I see ElKevbo's point. I've semi-protected for a week--let's hope they get tired of it. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I know it's low-level but it's persistent and disruptive so I appreciate the help! ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking[edit]

Ken keisel (talk · contribs) is accusing me of wikistalking and being "a real danger here". Considering his edits show ongoing problems with the concept of WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research, as these diffs indicate, I ask that he be restricted from making similar accusations about editors who are making good-faith efforts to insure that articles he has worked on comply with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with Sarek's take on this. --John (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The user in question (keisel) has been here for nearly 6 years, albeit with some lengthy gaps. But he should know better... unless he's been flying under the radar until now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A review of SarakOfVulcan's edit history will show that he has been following each of my edits with edits of his own for the last week, regardless of subject. These edits include subjects that SarakOfVulcan has previously shown no interest in. The situation became disturbing when SarakOfVulcan made an edit on the Gerhardt Cycleplane article, that took place on 20:00, 9 September 2011. SarakOfVulcan deleted a factual statement referenced from a cited book published by the US Air Force. In his explanation he posted; "just about every other ref calls the Gossamer Condor the first successful human-powered craft", referring to an aircraft that appeared a half century later. The article lists several Human-powered aircraft that existed before it, with appropriate citations. SarakOfVulcan offered no reference for his claim, which contradicts the properly referenced information in the article. SarakOfVulcan has been warned that continued editing of every article I have edited, often with erroneous information as seen above, would result in the matter being placed on the appropriate Wikipedia notice board. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue seems to be the definition of "successful". They apparently did a few test flights. Did anything come of it? Or was it like the "Spruce Goose", i.e. flown a little bit and then mothballed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the issue is Ken keisel using selective sourcing, or not bothering to source at all. The Cycleplane article is just one instance of an ongoing problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wright 1903 Flyer made a couple of test flights before being wrecked by a strong wind. It was rebuilt into a different aircraft, but is still considered the world's first "successful" airplane. The total number of flights made is not relevent. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
SarakOfVulcan wouldn't know about selective sourcing, since he prefers not to use sources at all. See his comments on the 20:00, 9 September 2011 edit of the Gerhardt Cycleplane article. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"prefers not to use sources at all." Riiiiiiiiiight. You know, Ken, your history of putting things on Wikipedia with this level of reliability is why we're in this discussion. Stop digging.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You can say what you want, but you edit is there for everyone to see. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the edit in question, by the way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks like he's already been warned on his talk page, Sarek. I'll input there. lifebaka++ 19:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Lifebaka, I'm sorry, but I cannot accept "input" as a verb. Informally, maybe, or in a memo, but not in a public forum like this one. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Verbing weirds language. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's a verb, just not an intransitive one. You have to input something, you can't just input. At least, my Apple ][ would always complain if I failed to input something following an INPUT statement.</pedantry> 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question Sarek could you explain, preferably with some diffs, why Ken keisel's edits are being legitimately followed as part of your job as an administrator? John and Bwilkins have both said that this is what you're doing, but I'm not sure I understand why. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUND states "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." In this diff, I removed a statement about Irving Harper that was cited to a particular source, when a Google Books search in that source showed that Harper's name appeared nowhere in the book, never mind in a way that supported the edit. In this diff, I removed a statement that appeared nowhere in the given source. In this diff, I supplied a reference supporting an unexplained change that Ken keisel had made. In this diff, I removed uncited original research. Do you notice a trend here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice two trends. 1) Ken keisel is not referencing claims the way he is supposed to and 2) Sarekofvulcan seems to be addressing this problem in a very aggressive manner. Much of the actual information in question, provided your own diffs, appears to have been correct but inadequately sourced. Aren't there other ways to handle this? Do non BLP, non-vandalism edits need to be flat out reverted because you, one reviewer, aren't seeing the information in the sources provided? Aren't there tags to show that something fails verification? Aren't there ways to try to bring issues like this up with someone in a collegial manner that might actually help them reform their habits? We want knowledgeable people editing here. Of course we want them to abide by policy when they do so, but it just seems to me that there is room for improvement on how this has been handled. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
People have been collegially telling Ken keisel to cite sources for three years now. It hasn't worked yet. If you think you can get him to follow policy where nobody before you has succeeded, feel free to engage him yourself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
One diff merely shows someone saying that to him once, and not a repeated pattern of him getting advice over and over again which is what your statement claims. Now I'm not saying that other people haven't pointed this out to him, or that this hasn't been a problem for years. I'm simply saying that following him around and reverting his additions isn't a particularly productive way to solve the problem, and I don't care that two other admins claim this is part of your job, because IMO its simply going to provoke this editor to do things like accuse you of stalking. Perhaps he needs a mentor? Perhaps you need to start an RfC? Perhaps he can be leveled with if someone else steps in? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
two years, 8 months. Not just "one diff".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, there was this discussion here about adding unsourced material back in May, that ended with a block for threatening to report his stalker to the local police.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This is within the normal scope of admin interventions. The question is, if another admin takes over who has no other background history here, will there be any change in ultimate outcome in responses.
Ken's right that Sarek seems to have made one mistake while responding to Ken, but Ken's missing the point that everything else appears to be reasonable "You can't say that without sourcing, and this is becoming a behavioral problem" admin response.
A mentor or RFC would be great. But the policy is pretty straightforwards. Ken, please listen to the feedback that sourcing accuracy and citations are important. You're being far too loose with this and it's gotten you in trouble (and will continue to get you in worse trouble if you don't correct the problem).
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You'll find a thread on Ken's talkpage from me about using sources as well [1]. In this case the problem was using 'insider information', and a sense on Ken's part that he was doing the project a favour by including such info, which he cannot source because it's not been made public yet. All his articles are about aircraft, not BLPs, so it's slightly less problematic, but the talk page contains numerous conversations about sources, so it is an ongoing problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Couple of more concerning things [2] demanding to know if Sarek is a child - not helpful. Also [3] and [4] which appear to be fibs designed to get Sarek into trouble - even less helpful. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Elen those links convince me even more so that he needs a mentor, or that a systematic effort to evaluate the problems with his editing are needed if he can't be leveled with. Going around reverting his edits is clearly not an end in itself. I can't imagine that Sarek is resigned to shadow another editor as a solution to this problem. I wont speculate to motives but all I can see happening from that activity is provoking something out of Ken that might get him blocked or otherwise dealt with. Most of the edits Sarek linked to from Ken were accurate pieces of information that were added without the proper sourcing. The encyclopedia gains nothing if good edits that are poorly sourced are deleted as opposed to actually verified. Such edits also do not require deletion on sight, like BLP and vandalism concerns do. In fact in most other circumstances deleting as opposed to tagging or discussing on talk will lead people to think the deleting editor is the disruptive one. Another question to you all is, what is being sought here? What type of solution are you all looking for? More warnings building up a block? Or do you want this editor to actually comply with policy, because again I suggest other means will work more effectively.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A very minor point: it's "Sarek", not "Sarak". This edit summary seems to indicate that Ken knows it's actually spelled Sarek (plus, all one has to do is use their freakin' eyes to see that it's not "Sarak"). Doc talk 03:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I would have considered that pedantic if it wasn't misspelled a total of 7 times in this thread. -- Atama 04:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be basically respectful (and correct) if Kan (eep) Ken would spell it properly from here on in, Atema (urk) Atama ;> Doc talk 06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I took a second look in light of the comments. Maybe mentorship would be a good idea. Not sure if I can commit that much time to it but I am happy to keep an eye on Ken, if he will accept that. Or maybe someone else has more time? --John (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I find Griswaldo best reflects my thoughts regarding this thread. I do not think any of SarekOfVulcan's actions should be considered an admin function. It is the function of normal editing. While SarekOfVulcan might demonstrate sound judgement with regard to admin tool use, he is not in keeping with best practices for collaborative editing. I also know that Ken is amiable to collaboration, as we have interacted personally. This thread became disproportionate when the biggest deal was made regarding semantics. How improper it should be for an editor to say you appear to be stalking me. The initial argument was to ask Ken to retract his concern (his word), and to adopt the opposing rational, which effectively was; "He didn't stalk you -- you should recant -- he did stalk you but as an admin function". I do know Ken well enough to say, he reacts much better to sound reason, than straw man and ad hominem. Many discussions with Ken rely too heavily on these.--My76Strat (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Unarchived thread - waiting to hear Ken keisel's response to Griswaldo's last question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My main concern with SarekOfVulcan remains his following me onto each article I edit, and deleting information that should be tagged at worst. I have tried entertaining him in discussions on the article's talk pages without success, and any efforts to work with him in a civil manner has resulted in outbursts. I think you can see from the way he has responded to accidental misspellings of his name in this discussion how he deals with adversity. The issues he has raised should all have been discussed and resolved on the article's talk page. Not simply deleted. He consistantly acts in a devisive, not helpful manner, and not one that is becoming of an administrator. I am constantly looking for the best references thaty can be found, and referencing my edits in the manner I learned when I began editing here in 2005. If that method is dated than I encourage others to modify my edits using a more up-to-date method. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
May we please have some diffs for your accusation that he responds to civil attempts to work with outbursts? See WP:DIFF if you don't know how to provide a diff. And for Sarek overreacting to you managing to misspell a name which was correctly spelled in front of you? Looking above, it appears to be Doc9871 pointing out that you've been misspelling a word which was correctly spelled in front of you, to which Sarek has not commented. There is nothing on your talk page or his about you misspelling his name either. Please quit inventing stories about him, we keep records.
Also, the question directed at you was "what can be done going forward? Do you think you could put Sarek's mind at ease by promising to be more meticulous with your sourcing?" Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Bullis49[edit]

The block log for User:Bullis49 says "Self-admitted sockpuppet of pigsonthewing"; but the account was nothing to do with me, despite the abusive user's claim to the contrary. How can I have that falsehood expunged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the claim of being a sockpuppet of PoTW. Not sure how we move this forward, but one way could be to unblock and reblock for a different reason. I don't think we can expung the block log though. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Developers can (I gather) remove the block reason from the record, but would only do so in extreme circumstances. Since the user is already blocked, it would be possible to just amend the block reason. I do not understand why Andy Mabbett was not made aware of this block at the time it happened, and invited to comment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I unblocked and reblocked with a rationale of "Disruptive editing: Impersonation of Pigsonthewing". Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Pacs2.jpg and File:Pacs1.jpg[edit]

I uploaded these images years ago, and have tagged them with KeepLocal. User:RHaworth has deleted these images, despite their being marked as such. I restored them and tried to discuss this on his talk page, but he(?) didn't really seem to agree with this, or listen, as he has now tagged them again for speedy deletion, and protected them citing "vandalism". I am not happy, as KeepLocal has been okayed for use on two separate occasions (see its TFD discussions). Also, tagging an image with KeepLocal is not vandalism. As I don't want to get into some kind of half-baked edit war, please could an uninvolved admin undo this, and ask him to behave, and respect the wishes of his fellow users. Thanks. Also, File:Pacs1.jpg. fish&karate 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • What has any TfD discussion got to do with anything? I am not questioning the validity of the {{KeepLocal}} tag. I am questioning the presence of these two images. The only reason fish&karate can offer for keeping these images is "would like to be able to keep them on my watchlist". I do not consider this a good enough reason for keeping local. I request a ruling by an uninvolved admin. (OK, I apologise about the "vandalism" tag - please read as "uploader is removing speedy tag from their own upload".) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that RHaworth tagged them for speedy and then protected them - I'm not entirely sure this is an appropriate use of the tools given this isn't a clearcut administrative action, it's a difference of opinion (and particularly pointless given that I'm an admin anyway, so I don't see what possible benefit there was of doing this). As regards the TFD discussion, this contains a list of reasons why a user may want to retain a local copy of the image they created and submitted. I agree with all these and they sum up the reasons I would like to retain the images on en.wiki, very eloquently. I don't understand why this would upset RHaworth so much that he has to delete them, protect them, and tag them for deletion again - whatever happened to respecting a reasonable and in-policy wish from a fellow user? fish&karate 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I also apologise for protecting. After doing it, I was amazed to discover that it was an admin saying weakly "I want them on my watchlist". Also, if you want me to look at some TfD discussion, do you think that providing a link to it might be a good idea? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The TFD discussion(s) are linked on Template talk:KeepLocal. You may think "I want them on my watchlist" is weak (others do not, see the aforementioned TFD discussion), but is that small request so weak you felt compelled to a) ignore my wishes, b) speedily delete the images, c) ignore my further request to leave them on en.wiki, d) re-tag them for speedy deletion and e) protect the images? If the main point of contention is now that I didn't give you enough reason to not delete them(! - any reason should be enough as they break no policy), why not say so, and ask for additional discussion, rather than summarily re-tag them for deletion? fish&karate 10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The gist of the TfD was that because Commons is not directly answerable to us as editors (i.e. that it has its own policies) that editors should be able to reserve the right to retain local copies of media in case something happens to it at Commons. I'd argue that the only negative thing that could happen to an image at Commons is that it's deleted, and that unless there were a threat of that we shouldn't be retaining forks of any media at all. "Keeping something on my watchlist" sounds all well and good until one realises that this entails essentially overriding Wikipedia's use of the file at Commons. Why not just tick the "email me if a page on my watchlist is changed" option in the Commons preferences? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • No, the gist was that users should not be forced to use Commons if they do not wish to. I have no objection whatsoever if an image I submit is uploaded to Commons (and nor should I - they were freely given) but to retain a local copy is not unreasonable. fish&karate 10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Agree with Chris seems like a week reason to keep copies here, why not list for WP:FfD and see what consensus is rather than debate here. Mtking (edits) 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, but, it's not just a case of "retaining a local copy": it's a case of forcing Wikipedia to use your local copy when displaying the image. That actually has quite an impact on both projects as it requires someone to attempt to keep both forks in sync, leads to confusion when an editor thinks updating the Commons image will fix it here, and so on. It is not obvious to me that an image offered freely to Wikipedia is any different from any other contribution offered freely to Wikipedia, and the words "edited mercilessly" spring to mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
      • In that case, Chris and Mtking, why not send every image marked with NoCommons or KeepLocal to WP:FfD and delete these templates? If you want the commons image used rather than a local copy, to prevent the horror that is two copies of an image existing on en.wiki and on Commons, rename it on Commons (I won't mind!) and update the article's image links appropriately. Or go and produce your own image and do what you like with it. fish&karate 11:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
        • There's no need to be so aggressive. I'm not proposing deleting files, just trying to establish why they're being kept in two places at once and whether we should endeavour to come up with a list of good reasons for doing it (rather than the present situation, which seems to be "if you feel like it"). Maybe a |reason parameter on {{KeepLocal}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
        • The KeepLocal issue is an annoying one: people tag their images (despite WP:OWN!) with KeepLocal with no reason why. I proposed a while back that KeepLocal should have an optional reason parameter so people can put the reason in. What's to stop someone who just has, say, generalized animosity towards Commons from just tagging all images with KeepLocal? "We're using it in a high-value template" is a pretty good reason. "Just because" isn't. "I want to keep it on my watchlist" seems a pretty crappy reason to keep a file locally rather than put it on Commons and enable all the projects to use it and potentially prevent improvement of the image and the metadata. Should we do the same with policy pages and Meta or, say, original source materials and Wikisource or dictionary definitions and Wiktionary? Without particular reference to this case, I think it is high time we re-evaluate continued existence of KeepLocal given the incompatibility with WP:OWN, and the implicit idea that we must always abide by KeepLocal's placed by uploaders for their benefit (like not wanting to use Commons) rather than for meaningful community benefits (like preventing breaking of high value templates). —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Given the contempt that some of the Commons managers have towards wikipedia, keeping a local copy here does not seem unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Agreed. I'm also concerned that editors who don't want their images on commons (for whatever reason) will choose not to submit them at all, rather than knowing they can submit them and keep them on en.wiki. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
              • If an editor is so spiteful as to not release a file under a free licence in case it happens to be uploaded to Commons (because once a file is freely licensed, anyone can upload it to Commons without the author's permission) then that editor should have a word with himself. The same also applies to the hypothetical "Commons managers" who would delete a file out of spite just because en-wp is using it (I really must make sure I'm up to date on the boogeyman of the week: I thought it was still de-wp). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
                • I recently marked File:SarekOfVulcanAvatar.jpg as KeepLocal because I'm not sure that my licensing would stand up under close scrutiny. I took the picture myself, but the carving I photographed was anonymous public art in the middle of the woods. I have no problem with it being uploaded to Commons: I do have a problem with it getting deleted once it gets there if there's no backup on Wikipedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
                  • That sounds like an imminently sensible rationale to me, as was SlimVirgin's in the last TfD for {{KeepLocal}}. Evidently there is some degree of support for local copies; the question is to what degree that is. Now that the immediate problem at hand has been resolved, though, that discussion should really take place somewhere other than ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I uploaded images of Mategna's Triumphs of Caesar here that I reconstituted from the Royal Collection because of possible problems on Commons (cf the National Portrait Gallery problems of Dcoetzee). The joins between the layers of the images could be detected when magnified 10 times (each image being made up of about 10 pieces). An Italian user uploaded my images to Commons claiming he had found them at the website of the Royal Collection, but that licensing was deceptive since magnification shows that they are my reconstituted images (the detailed images can only be viewed piece by piece). In addition one engraving from Vienna was deceptively labelled as being from the Royal Collection. In cases like that, there is a reason for keeping images here. Mathsci (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that after the great "porn" purge a bit ago on Commons, several users walked away from the project. By forcing their images over to commons, you may alienate them from uploading anything at all.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While I have a low regard for the way Commons is operated, losing a few (child?) porn purveyors doesn't seem like much of a loss. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about child porn? That's a rather disturbing comment to make about other editors, with no evidence that I can see, and despite not being directly targeted at an individual editor, it could be construed as being targeted at anyone who stopped uploading to commons over that fiasco, and thus easily identifiable. Honestly you should be blocked over that. Child porn allegations are extremely heavy handed. From what I saw, even users who didn't upload any "pornographic" images left the project simply because of the way the entire incident was handled with Jimmy just going through and wiping out anything he didn't like.--Crossmr (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool your jets. It was my understanding that Jimbo was zapping stuff that he considered to be child porn, but I don't know if that was the scope or if it was broader (maybe you missed the question mark in my comment). But the whiners seemed to forget that they're anonymous, while Jimbo is the very public face of wikipedia, and he had to do what he thought best. Kind of a broad-ranging IAR. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo went off half-cocked as part of a knee-jerk reaction to some article on how Commons was a treasure trove of degeneracy. From what I saw at the time, basically anything with nudity in it was fair game, and there were messages all over the place trying to get him to stop. With him running roughshod over anyone who disagreed with him. It certainly wasn't limited to, nor focused on child pornography, and he deleted a lot of in-use images at the time as well. The people who left were image uploaders, but also those who were just disgusted by his behaviour in general. tacking a ? onto child does very little to soften the implication and generalization of what you wrote.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo was zapping stuff that he considered to be "out of project scope", which included child porn but also pornographic artworks like [5], which he deleted three times in a row (so hardly an error) despite being clearly in scope for Commons and not child porn at all (it is now used on ten Wikipedia articles in different languages). Actions like this led to the departure of a number of Commons contributors, and the removal of a bunch of rights Jimbo had previously, and probably a loss of faith in the leadership qualities of the co-founder for many other editors as well. Fram (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
One question: What, pray tell, are those images supposed to be? They look like blobs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the rest of us were afraid to ask ... --Epeefleche (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
MRI scans of the thoracic cavity, from the look of them. Center is the heart, with the lungs on either side. Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Correct. fish&karate 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User Pages[edit]

Somebody added a link on my userpage recently - a link to an article he had created. This was done without my knowledge nor consent -in fact, I don't even know the guy - and I personally wasn't too happy about it. I left a message on the person's talk page basically requesting him (politely) not to do it again. I have received no reply, and do not expect to. However, it got me thinking. Are there any rules against modifying other people's userpages? I know that articles are considered to be everybody's and therefore we are all free to modify and edit them as much as we want, but userpages are not articles. Do we own our userpages? Anyway, are there any written guidelines or rules which deal with this? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP and WP:TPO outline the expected conduct associated with User and User Talk pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand's disruptive editings[edit]

Hi. Administrator Atama advised me to report this issue here. User:Gilabrand who has previously been block by the ARBCOM and is unblocked with the promise of not causing any further disruptions, is engaged in disruptive editing in Babylon (program). He refuses to come to term with the editors, often in form of remaining silent, refusing to participate in the discussions (See [[6] and [7]) and simply reinstating the changes that are times and again contested without supplying a description, as well as supplying bogus edit summaries. He has also vandalized my talk page.

Diffs
  • This and this diff are of an edit warring in 10 May 2011. He has:
    1. Removed all maintenance tags from the article with this edit summary: "tags unneeded" and "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them"! Well, I do not know how he can possibly count {{bare links}} as someone having grudge, or how he can count {{Unreferenced section}} as unnecessary!
    2. Merged "Company information" section with the lead section, which is against WP:MOS. Lead section must no have novel info.
  • This diff shows the six edits that he did in 10 May 2011 which include:
    1. Moving the auxiliary information about the company from "Company information" section at the bottom of the article to the top, and rewriting them in an advertising manner.
    2. Using euphemism in "Malware-like behavior" section to reduce its effect in a non-neutral manner: He replaces the accurate adverbs of time with the inaccurate ones, which is not allowed in WP:MOS. Also, he renamed the "Malware-like behavior" title into the vague "Controversies".
  • This diff is his eight edits that he has done on 15 September 2011. He has:
    1. Again, has shifted focus of the matter from Babylon to its creator in the History section, thus converting the "History" section so that it is now "History of the producer" instead of history of the product.
    2. Again, has add novel information to lead section that is not about the subject of the article. (Something about "Babylon-Enterprise", which is obviously a separate product.)
    3. Commited the same violation of WP:MOS about use of accurate time adverb that he did back in May, in the same section ("Malware-like behavior").
    4. Again, he attempted to reduce the negative weight of "Malware-like behavior" section by calling the behavior "potentially intrusive" instead of "intrusive".
    5. Added a single spam link to See Also section; though this is not much of an issue.
  • This diff is that of an edit on 21 September 2011 (today). He has:
    1. Failed to respond to my communication in his talk page. (See latest permanent link.)
    2. Reinstated all his previous edits while knowing that they are likely to be contested. These include deletion of External Links section, removal of formatting from References section and reduction of the image size despite the fact that the image is no longer the same.
    3. Supplied a bogus edit summary that reads: ce; add info & ref
  • This diff is what he has done to my talk page on 21 September 2011. He has:
    1. Deleted many of my communications
    2. Deleted the protection template
    3. Supplied the following edit summary: "Edit warring and other violations of Wikipedia policy"

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not vandalism? It looks like naive act of vengeance.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand has already cites these "arguments" at the COI noticeboard. He was informed that the editing of the article actually improved it, and he admitted that he had no evidence of COI. Meanwhile, he has accused other editors - in fact anyone who comes to the page - of COI, and has engaged in active edit warring for the greater part of the week. I never touched the article after he made a string of edits. They were objected to by other editors. There is a clear consensus for my additions to the article, which were all reliably sourced. Yet FleetCommand insists that I am in violation of consensus. An administrator even wiped out some of his problematic comments this morning. I left him a polite note on his page regarding his challenge of my edits, but he has chosen to focus the problem on me. Looking at the history of the article, there is an obvious attempt to keep information from being added, especially if it reflects well in any way on the company. FleetCommand's attempt to commandeer the article and draw me (and others) into a fight, all the while appealing to various noticeboards for support, is worrying.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This argument is only half true. I was told that his edits were not COI, but was also told that they are not okay. In fact, administrator Atama said "that may be like saying that a burglar is innocent of jaywalking". In any case, Gilabrand has failed to participate in the post-noticeboard discussion and continued to reinstated previously contested edits. As for an administrator wiping out my problematic comments, this is another matter entirely. Surprisingly, Gilabrand has removed that administrator's comment in my talk page in his vandalism attempt (for which I supplied the diff above). Now, since I supplied the diff, you can see for yourself that this second COI is another COI entirely. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That said, I would like to reiterate that if a user is once suspected of COI but was cleared, it doesn't mean that he can do ANYTHING he wants, like disruptive editing and refusing to work towards reaching a consensus. Also, there is no policy that says "if FleetCommand is told that he was wrong about a COI case, Gilabrand may refuse to work towards a consensus." Fleet Command (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a clarification, I pointed out that Gilabrand was indefinitely blocked for WP:ARBPIA violations, and less than a month ago the ArbCom block was "provisionally suspended". My comment about "burglar innocent of jaywalking" was because disruption at an Israeli article (Babylon is an Israeli company) for a person in Gilabrand's circumstances would be much more serious than a COI suspicion if this was shown to be in violation of the block suspension. I also suggested that there did seem to be MOS violations, but I also stated that I felt that Gilabrand's edits at the article were "overall an improvement". My suggestion to try ANI was because there may be other administrators more familiar with ARBPIA or Gilabrand's previous troubles, and that WP:COIN was a poor place to try to find administrator advice or action since there aren't a lot of admins that hang out there. I also brought up the possibility of making a request at WP:AE but I doubted that this fell under the P-I dispute area. I don't like to get involved in AE-related issues personally, which is why I suggested another venue for advice. -- Atama 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Update: In his latest edit, this user has broken apart the "Critical reception" section into two "Malware behavior" and "Awards" section, again integrating the same contents that are times and again contested. This contribution has one message: "I have interest in conflict and love dispute." In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and avoid an edit war, I shall stop editing the article for a while. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Fleet-As mentioned in the talkpage discussion, it is clear that you are passionate. But it is also clear that your views are non-consensus, relative to the subject matter of that string. I wonder whether you may not be bordering on using noticeboards to seek to chill the editing of others, whose view does not match yours.

I mused about that when you used a noticeboard to bring this complaint against me, which was found to be without basis. As we were involved in precisely the same editing dispute. Your views in that complaint were not shared by other editors. You then accused a second editor, who had disagreed with you, of COI--in statements that had to be suppressed by a sysop on the basis of our outing policy. You then brought another complaint, which similarly went nowhere, against yet a third editor -- the subject of the complaint. And you now bring this fourth complaint, which I don't see as having merit, though of course I am involved in the underlying issue in which you are disagreeing with the three mentioned editors and others.

And, of course, this has all happened within a few hours, as you have reverted multiple editors at the Babylon article, without consensus support for your views. I would hope that you are not using these noticeboards as tools to seek to intimidate editors with whom you have an editing dispute. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. In addition you are gaming the system: You are stealing another person's topic to win a content dispute in your favor on the pretext that the articles are the same. Yet you are committing the same error as him: You do not discuss the content at all. You constantly comment on me and make believe that a consensus is reached while there is no such thing. Until now, you have refused to even comment on my objections. Please stay out of here. Fleet Command (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and besides, one person might lodge many complaints in ANI and all of them might get rejected. Neither the lodging is a crime nor the rejection is a shame. Most important of all, lodging complaints and rejection does not mean you are allowed to do whatever you like. In Wikipedia, consensus is the primary way of decision making. Disputes should be solved through dispute resolution. Fleet Command (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(On a small side issue, and without prejudice to FleetCommand's primary complaint here.) FC, your response above seems to indicate you thought Epeefleche's contribution was a personal attack. I didn't read anything remotely attacking in there and it only weakens your case if you make such assertions. Epeefleche may have written things you disagree with and which you think are an attempt to weaken your case; this does not make it an attack. Also, any user can comment here and it does no good to ask people to stay out. Bringing an issue to AN/I implies that anyone and everyone can and will comment, and that your own as well as others' contributions will be closely scrutinised. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
But my dear friend, if you actually read clause #2 of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, you see that it defines "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" as a personal attack. If Epeefleche's comments are not meant to to discredit my case against Gilabrand and his disruption of Wikipedia, please tell me: What are they meant to be? Fleet Command (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I can only repeat that Epeefleche's comments above did not, in my opinion, constitute a personal attack - even in terms of the clause you mention above. I have now had the chance of looking at the discussion on the talk page of the Babylon (program) article and this seems to me to be a content dispute which should be resolved there. I cannot see anything at present requiring administrator involvement, though I would counsel all sides (yes, you too FleetCommander) to be scrupulously polite to one another. There is an unnecessary degree of acrimony over what is really a rather trivial detail in the article itself. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I do accept your counsel and I will either initiate a MEDCAB case or leave the matter entirely. I also do not demand any action against Epeegleche. (Though I still think his post can be at best seen as pointless and should be removed and at worst a personal attack and a malevolent attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in favor of his friend.)

However, let us not go astray from our discussion: Gilabrand. His past actions have not been constructive to the article and will prevent it from ever becoming a Good Article. He has shown no sign of willingness to abandon his disruptive behavior. At this point, I believe it is enough for him to promise that in the future, he will be more cooperative, will respond to my communication and do not refuse to get the point. Although I believe that a block may also be appropriate, with respect to Blocking policy § Disruption and with respect to the Arbitration Committee motion that has set a much more strict standard of behavior after his block is suspended, as well the recent chain of personal attacks that he has started against me in his talk page. At this point however, taking the matter to the arbitration committee is not very friendly. Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that academic arguments are so viscious, said Henry Kissinger, is that there is so little at stake. That is certainly the case here: this entire war is about the most picayune editorial changes. Gilabrand wants to say it this way, FleetCommand wants to say it another way. Gilabrand wants company information at the beginning of the article, FleetCommand wants it at the end. Gilabrand wants to write "...Israeli entrepreneur Amnon Ovadia who sought to create an English-Hebrew dictionary", FleetCommand wants to write "...Amnon Ovadia who had the idea of creating an English-Hebrew dictionary". FleetCommand insists that it is important to specify the exact date that Microsoft issued a warning about Babylon - 7 August 2010, while Gilabrand thinks that the month alone is sufficient.

It is true that FleetCommand has deleted a few documented facts from the article. The stuff he wants to delete might be construed as a commercial pump-up of the company and the product, but then again, it might not. In any case, it isn't really important stuff. FleetCommand is obviously touchy about people futzing with his prose, and Gilabrand clearly has a short fuse, something that has gotten her into trouble here before.

Full disclosure: I am the editor who recommended that Gilabrand's indefinite block be rescinded. I therefore feel a sort of paternal concern in ushering her back into the fold of wikipeace and love.

Be that as it may, this editing dispute ranks in my mind as one of the stupidest and most pointless that I have seen. If I were an arb, and if editing conflicts had asses, that is where I would kick this dispute out onto. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, I must contest your use of euphemism to describe the situation. Gilabrand has vandalized my talk page. In an edit, whose summary reads "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them", he has deleted {{bare links|date=February 2011}}! Besides, he has failed to communicate thrice and violated WP:BRD. These cannot possibly be passed for a good-faith content dispute. Fleet Command (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So, to the substance of Fleet Command's complaint. I find little to differentiate the behaviour of this user and Gilabrand. The latter certainly refactored a talk page comment made by the former which was ill advised, but not what I myself would call vandalism. Nothing that Gilabrand (or for that matter FleetCommand) has yet done deserves a block, unless pointless angels-on-head-of-a-pin arguments render you both due a block. You should both spend more time proposing constructive compromises rather than prolonging this. Please note, I'm not taking Gilabrand's side in this content dispute. But it was you FC, not Gilabrand, who brought this to AN/I and in my opinion it doesn't belong here so it's you I'm criticising for this. Now, I've made my position clear and won't prolong this with further posts. If any other admins wish to express a contrary (or supporting) opinion that would be fine. If none is forthcoming in the next 24 hours I suggest we strike this issue as 'no admin action necessary'. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? He deleted three whole discussions on my talk page as well as one of my replies and you don't call it a vandalism? What do you call a vandalism? Yes, it is obvious that you are taking Gilabrand's side, you need not have said it. Fleet Command (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kim (and others), as to dismissing the complaint brought against Gilabrand, which is the original focus of this matter. As to Fleet, I have a different view. See, e.g., my above comments re Fleet's editing against consensus, Fleet's attempted outing of an editor w/whom he is in conflict (itself, a blockable offense), Fleet's bringing multiple baseless complaints in the past 24 hours against a series of editors w/whom he is engaged in a content dispute, Fleet's edit-warring (2.5 months after being unblocked on the basis of an agreement not to edit war), etc. Whether they are addressed elsewhere or here, these have built up to such a point that they do perhaps deserve some attention, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: If anyone is looking for further input on the above from Fleet, please be aware that he has been blocked for 36 hours for edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sascha30[edit]

This follows on from this earlier thread, now archived: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Can action be taken against an IP user who constantly refuses to follow guidelines on Talk pages?
The IP user, who is now occasionally logging in as User:Sascha30, has not taken heed of any of the guidance given to him and is continuing to make unhelpful edits.
I recently reminded him of correct Talk page etiquette [8]. I admit that my post was a little tetchy (I have since apologised).
He then made this reply [9] in which I was told to leave the discussion, and called a useless bureaucrat who posts nonsense.
I feel that this is the "defiant response" that User:Qwyrxian mentioned in the earlier thread. Can anything be done? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who have commented on the relevant pages. Things seem to be improving. Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There are clear competence issues here. The user is incapable of accepting any other opinion regarding anything (wikipedia editing details as well as content issues) and regards anyone not looking for "those 79 states of which we have no proof of recognition" as against the "spirit" of making the page ok. I ran out of patience 3 weeks and decided to ignore his talkpage monologues (but lookng now: not much has changed). There is a limit to what even a good faith editor newbe can do... L.tak (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Impersonation Accounts[edit]

Interesting evening over at Anderson Cooper, two new accounts have popped up tonight. The first claims to be Benjamin Maisani, and made comments on his talk page and the AC page. The second claims to be editing in tribute to a deceased Wikipedian, and is disrupting at the AC page, Talk:AIDS, and Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality‎ in their memory. Some admin attention would be appreciated, thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this heads-up. The second account has been indef blocked by NawlinWiki, and those edits have been removed. I've removed the name of that deceased Wikipedian from your comment, for the sake of those who don't want this account associated with his memory. More eyes on those articles tonight would be useful. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, is it possible to force a name-change on an account? (Of course it's technically possible, but do we do that sort of thing? That would be nice in this second case.) DeliciousBits (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Both of these accounts were, of course, banned User:Brucejenner. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That account should further be blocked indefinitely as it is itself an impersonation account. --76.6.36.188 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Brucejenner already is indef'd. (An indefinite block is SOP for banned users.) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Logged out user, with unchanging IP, continually restoring a "badge of shame" comment on my talk page, that I keep deleting[edit]

Resolved: IP warned and content from user talk page removed, report to AIV if they do it again Nil Einne (talk)

A logged out user keeps restoring a comment[10][11] I keep deleting.[12][13]

Per our Wikipedia:User pages guideline, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages."
Per our Wikipedia:User pages guideline, "Policy does not prohibit users, [...] from removing comments from their own talk pages, [...] There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed."
Per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. [...] It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of 'Badge of Shame'." (emphasis in original)

Our Wikipedia:User pages guideline states, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user," but the anon's edit summary establishes that this is not his or her purpose.

The interesting thing about this user is that the user's IP doesn't change. Can it be discovered who this tendentious game-player is? This may be the only way to stop this mischievousness.

Is there something I should be writing on the anon's talk page, so as to get to the point of blocking or something? I've had more to do with my life than Wikipedia lately, so please forgive me if I've forgotten what to do. -- Ríco 22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the message, and if the IP restores it again, you can leave them a pointer to the policies and guidelines you've referenced above. If they persist after being warned you can take them to WP:AIV. There's not much point in warning them now, they've only made two edits and both are over a month old. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have given my support to Ríco's comment on the IP talk page. Since last time the IP's removals were about 1 month and 10 days apart and it's only been about 1 month and 10 days, I don't see any harm in giving a clear cut warning to that IP at this time. If they are still using the IP this should make clear to them they aren't allowed to repeat their actions and if they do, filing a block request will be easier. If they come back with a different IP, that specific IP can be warned. If someone else using that IP sees the warning well another editor already left a welcome and ISP tag and in any case they were always going to see the ANI discussion tag. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You can delete nearly anything you want to from your talk page. You can also go to WP:RFPP and ask for lengthy semi-protection. In such a case, you should also provide an unprotected sub-page for IP's to edit upon (and which you can ignore if necessary, and it won't pollute your normal talk page). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have re-removed the message you originally removed. As others have said, this combined with the warning should hopefully be enough. If the user persists in re-adding the message feel free to report them. BTW, in terms of determing whether the IP is a logged out editor with an account, there's not much chance of that happening, see WP:SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong & poor policy interpretation: can someone have a word, please[edit]

See this from MangoWong. I am becoming fed up of having to counter the often snide comments of this user but this particular one is a recent example of their unwillingness to accept what I believe to be a correct interpretation of policy. There is similar stuff scattered all over Talk:Yadav and other caste articles in which they have had an involvement, and even in forum discussions such as this one. I feel that there is a need for some uninvolved admins to provide some input on what is or is not policy. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Diff of where MangoWong argues the toss about what DougWeller said at AN3. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
And recent advice regarding continually bringing up these types of issue and instigating inappropriate "teaching". MW is clearly stalking my edits, given the number of WikiLove messages that they post to users whom I have become involved with, but that is merely an irritation - I can live with it. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If I might make a suggestion: I don't really think you're dealing with the user particularly well on your part, either. I read from his messages that he's having difficulty understanding WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but at the same time it appears nobody's really bothered to explain in an uninvolved fashion that these are non-negotiable Wikipedia policies and that he must follow them. I'd say that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the user seems to be trying to make his efforts in good faith, however misguided, and it might be worth stop seeing the user's lack of policy understanding as "snide" comments. If after explanation he continues to fail to get the picture, then it is possible a WP:TBAN might be appropriate. But, how about trying the WP:AGF route first. --Tristessa (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about my attitude. The problem is not really that but rather the fact that this type of issue has spread across so many articles and tends to be driven by the named contributor. The consequence of this is that there is a substantial back-story and potentially a list of diffs as long as my arm. It has reached the point where I am struggling to nail things down both in terms of examples and in terms of policy interpretation. I am aware that my initial comments here are somewhat vague: this is borne of frustration and that is indubitably my fault because the last thing that I should do is become frustrated with another editor. My request here was for intervention regarding the specific policy issue precisely because it is so difficult to nauil MangoWong down to any particular definitive statement: the pedantry, lawyering and refusal ultimately to "see things through" is extremely disruptive, in my opinion. But it is a frustration shared by others. I'll sleep on it and see if I can better define the issue, a part of which is the repetitive nature of the general policy disputes across multiple articles and the certainty on the part of MangoWong that they are correct despite umpteen others trying to explain that they are not. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've had pretty similar problems with MW, as like Sitush I've been involved in the current cleanup of Indian caste articles, which were nearly uniformly in terrible condition, uncited "my caste is severely awesome" propaganda pieces. We've gotten a lot of blowback of "how dare your cited scholarly sources debase my caste's awesomeness!", which is not surprising, but MangoWong has had a very irritating habit of lurking in the background, constantly butting in to encourage inexperienced editors to engage in bad behaviours: ANI-ing Sitush and I for removing uncited material, insisting that citations for the lede don't apply to the infobox and thus material can be removed, making extremely vague statements about articles being "terrible" and then refusing to either improve them or go to dispute resolution, etc. Further, on a disturbingly frequent basis, whenever a "new editor" or IP turns out to be a sock of one of WP:India's many "caste warriors", MangoWong has frequently been their moral supporter throughout the Talk page. As Sitush says, it's tricky because the list of diff's is indeed arm-long, and it's a tremendously long pattern of simply encouraging bad behavior, dragging up endless allegations of mis-editing and refusing to fix, DR, or often even to narrow down what his complaints are. Further, he's made many blatantly incorrect statements both about WP policy and about Indian history, and no matter how many times he is contradicted by other, or how many times his only supporters are sock-puppets, he persists. Sitush, let me know if you need help assembling diffs, particularly of his literally trying to get IPs to edit war on his behalf to keep his hands clean; rather "hey buddy, you're new here, don't let these biased Westerners push you around! Go get 'em man!" MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, MW is clearly a bright person, so I'm not trying to label him a vandal nor am I trying to get him banned or TBed. He just has some sort of huge concern with how Sitush and I are handling caste articles, and simply refuses to actually address the issue, while continuing to get other rifled up about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I had an accident recently and things have taken a slight turn for the worse over the last couple of days, which is making things a little awkward for me. My problem, I know. But MatthewVanitas or anyone else, feel free to stick some diffs in here while I try to sort things out. This is a very complex situation but the obvious immediate examples are evident at Talk:Lodhi and Talk:Yadav, where MangoWong has been arguing the toss about generic policy issues but refusing to provide examples of their point at a localised, article level. Indeed, in both cases, they have mentioned the point that they will reveal more (?) if others turn up to support them. It is a disingenuous and semantic tactic that sometimes seems to have bordered on "rabble rousing" & there have been numerous requests for clarification from MW that have been met with a pretty much stonewalled response. It has been suggested that the wider policy issues be raised in a more appropriate forum (the Pump might be one) but these have not been taken up. And when the issues are raised here or at RSN or at DRN, AN3 or, indeed, wherever ... well. MW always appears to contest the numerous and varied opinions of long-term contributors and continues to restate various non-consensual interpretations of WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:DUE etc on individual article talk pages. Far too many new-ish contributors (as well as clear socks and meats, although not of MW his/herself) appear to have been drawn into untenable positions as a consequence. This is a net loss to the project. I know that there are issues here and I do feel that they need addressing if only because this sort of semantic disruption is actually consuming a vast amount of the time available to genuinely constructive editors but, sorry, I am on Tramadol again and need a little time unless someone else can help me out. Like MatthewVanitas, I do not think that MangoWong is ill-intentioned, merely misguided ... and unfortunately dragging other people down that misguided path. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to block me for incivility. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, guys. I think this is getting way too personal from a number of aspects. I'm really sorry to hear about what you're going through, Sitush; but we'll stick to the matter at hand and let's please try to keep personal affairs out of what's going on. I'm going to see if I can have a chat with MangoWong and talk through his side of things, and advise him where appropriate on how WP:V, WP:RS, etc. are interpreted by the community at large (without prejudice to either side of the dispute). Then hopefully MangoWong will chip in on this AN/I thread and we can go from there. --Tristessa (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a talk page message for MangoWong that I hope might be helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I am reducing my contributions generally due to my circumstances but having started this thread I thought it necessary to explain that some things have changed and are limiting my ability to see things through. Several people have commented directly on various talk pages & their thoughts are appreciated (well, I appreciate them, at any rate). I have not always acted appropriately in this particular instance but as has been said before, there is a long-ish back story. It is also in a topic area which I sense a fair few experienced contributors have chosen to stay out of precisely because of the fractiousness. It is one that sooner or later is going to need to be addressed in some sort of substantive manner, especially with the WMF "push" to increase the visibility of WP in the subcontinental area. I am simply not in a state to expand on it right now as I will likely only make matters worse. My apologies for this: I have raised an issue here and it will probably die a death due to other events. That's life. Thanks for your thoughts & those offered by others: let's hope that some sort of communally useful progress can be made in due course. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Drama ↑ MW 00:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
↑ MangoWong, surely you're not surprised to find out that some people have a very low opinion of you. Despite the whining displayed on your userpage about how admins are leaving articles to rot (the usual complaint from editors who are wrong), your talk page was again visited by an uninvolved admin who pretended to explain the rules and guidelines to you as if you don't know them.

Hey, uninvolved admins, this isn't kindergarten. You don't have to be nice to someone who doesn't play by the rules, and MangoWong does not play by the roles--and they're dragging along a bunch of sidekicks (like Zuggernaut) who in turn also start crying like a baby over perceived admin abuse. Look at how often these caste POV pushers are taking up space on this board. MangoWong is a net negative who shouldn't just be blocked but banned. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I surely break some rules. Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3#Don't bite the newcomersMW 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps an admin could clarify RS policy, specifically what constitutes a "passing comment". It seems a great concern of MW's, as illustrated by these diffs from the last four days: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] although I notice that despite bringing it up so often, MW has not taken his concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetteDoe (talkcontribs) 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It's not so much an issue of not knowing rules; MW is actually quite well-read on a lot of WP policy, in a short time. Again, intelligent person and sincerely interested in the project, but the issues are that he has taken certain unshakeable stances on India topics (the term "Shudra" should not be used, varna is obsolete) and is using policy as a bludgeon, in such a way that questions whether he is serious about policy, or desperate to exploit policy to further POV ends. Even setting aside that, he's using policy statements as sweeping condemnations vice actually trying to be constructive: "your sources are rubbish and fail WP:V and WP:UNDUE and are full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS" is not constructive, when for a fraction of the effort he spends arguing he could say "on page 12 of Schmidt, I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate the Foo caste's funeral ceremonies in Rajasthan to other areas, since Schmidt only covers one small portion of the Foo's populated area." There's being a helpful stickler, and there's using (often slanted) policy as a weapon.

MW's issues with varna, "Shudra", etc. aren't exactly ANI issues, but are sweeping WP:INDIA issues that we eventually need to get everyone around the table for. In the meantime, however, accusations that Sitush and I are inserting "derogatory material", "OR lies", ruining caste articles, etc. are allegations that either require him to file an ANI over these alleged grievous harms to the project, or else keep his peace if he can't build an actual case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time then to start giving lists of examples, as I did above.JanetteDoe (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The underlying issues here are about sourcing and content and are only marginally behavioral in nature (with no side exhibiting perfect purity). I don't think this needs to be discussed here on ANI. Qwyrxian has opened a consensus seeking discussion on the issue here and, perhaps, the best way forward is to close this thread and let that discussion proceed. --regentspark (comment) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour[edit]

I believe that User:Domer48 is being a disruptive editor by violating "disrupting progress toward improving" according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

The article in question is Volunteer (Irish republican). I removed a section from the article per WP:TOPIC as it is entirely irrelevant to the article. Domer48 reverted saying The Volunteers were and became Republicans. I've since opened a discussion on the articles talk page and Domer48 has continually refused to engage in discussing or answering any questions directed at them. Rather they are continually stating "Sources please", despite the fact i provided a source that is in the article and the fact he has failed to provide any sources at all that back up his claims in any form whatsoever.

This violates attempts to improve Wikipedia and constitutes disruptive editing.

Mabuska (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will briefly comment by saying that this sounds like par for the course given my experiences with Domer48. I don't know the details of this dispute but he/she is a very difficult editor to work with in my experience. --RA (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It really is a content issue that is simple to resolve, however Domer48 won't engage in discussion to provide evidence for their opinion on the matter. Mabuska (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Have you & Domer attempted working things out on either of your personal talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If they won't engage in proper discussion on the article talk page, what makes you think going to user talk pages would make a difference? I did already try to engage with them on their talk page on an edit to the section in question and asked them to provide evidence for the content dispute on the articles talk page. Their response was to delete the entire section without a response. How can you collaborate and work with that? Mabuska (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I know whatcha mean. I've been barred from his talkpage for over a year or two. His 'door in the face' method is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This is what happens when you try to discuss with Domer48 on his talk page. We'd had our differences, but even when trying to keep things civil there's no budging – simply ignoring the problem til it goes away. JonCTalk 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
He gave me the treatment, when I changed my mind & chose to oppose his All Ireland article idea - 'bout 2 yrs ago. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Also i must add in the following "discussion" where Domer48 responds to a further issue with the same section with ad hominem rather than actually discussing the issues and questions raised. Totally unwilling to engage in proper discussion to help improve the article. Mabuska (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, Domer48 is usually loath to discuss anything he doesn't feel like discussing. He's an expert at gaming the system and will frequently simply trot out an essay or guideline—even if it doesn't really support his view—rather than discussing and trying to reach consensus with other editors. A recent example of this has been at Talk:Kingsmill massacre#Names of victims, in which a new editor was bitten by Domer48 citing rules and calling their points "inane". D48 then simply vanished, ensuring no more progress could be made on the matter. A very difficult editor to work with indeed. JonCTalk 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest proceeding along a WP:BRD path. One editor does not make WP:CONSENSUS, and if D48 chooses to revert without discussion, or engage in policy shopping, call them on it by starting the WP:DR process. It's not like D48 is a US Senator, after all...one editor can't stall the whole process! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I already made the edit before the discussion and they reverted it, hence why the article talk page discussion started. So the avenue of WP:BRD has already been trodden and there has been no relevant discussing from Domer48 on it at all. I simply want Domer48 to answer the questions asked to vindicate his opinion and to stop being disruptive with his lacking or ad hominem responses. I will however take your advice N5iln. Mabuska (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would now like to highlight that Domer48 has decided to turn his hand to making ad hominem statements and canvassing in an attempt to undermine me as an editor and to possibly sway opinion on this matter. Evidence of ad hominem is all of his responses (other than their first one) in this discussion, as well on this admins page where i am "the other editor", as well as canvassing N5iln after they made a response here that they didn't agree with, canvassing that also contained ad hominem.

Alleged issues with my editing behaviour are not the issue here, rather its Domer48's. If there are issues with my behaviour, its for another discussion on this page. Such attempts at canvassing and ad hominem to try to divert from the fact Domer48 is being disruptive by his failure to answer the simple questions asked of him, further highlight the problems of working with this editor. Mabuska (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what he did with me wouldn't qualify as WP:CANVASSING, since he wasn't asking me specifically to side with him. Any time I comment here, it opens the door for someone involved in the particular episode to speak with me semi-privately on my User Talk page. It's part of "normal operations" on Wikipedia. With all that said, I think there's more than a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude drifting about. I still feel the issue can be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes without direct admin intervention, but Domer48 first has to take the act of self-preservation and show a willingness to both talk AND listen. Failing that, well...maybe admin action will be warranted in the near future. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As an outside editor looking in, and not one to comment on such matters usually, I have to say I can't make heads or tails of what is going on here. The user's page] is so convoluted, and the article discussion so broad (rather than going at it point by point) that I don't see how anyone aside from experts on the subject could possibly make any sense of right or wrong here. Quinn RAIN 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC) BTW, whether within policy or not, I don't appreciate being [forcibly removed from watching you user page] just because I object to the way you communicate with other editors. The whole point is collaboration. Quinn RAIN 02:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In all technicality the core issue to which i reported Domer48 is over a very simple matter that revolves around the removal of information per WP:TOPIC and reverting of that by Domer48 and their continued failure to provide evidence that it is relevant. An expert isn't needed to resolve the issue as all Domer48 or anyone has to do is provide evidence to back their opinion up - Domer48 has continually failed to do so despite continued asking. Mabuska (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued failure to discuss[edit]

The Dispute Resolution appears to be a dead-end as there is no input at it, and Domer48 still refuses to collaborate and discuss the issue appearing to simply disappear from it altogether other than to remove a couple of article tags i added to the section in question.

To try to vindicate their position without providing a single source at all they even swapped sentences around to make it appear thats its sourced: Heres the swap, and heres the attempt at claiming its now sourced after i placed a {{cn}} after the dubious statement. If it was as Domer48 claims in the edit summary "editor simply ignores fact", then i'm sure they can provide the evidence (which i've been endlessly asking for).

This behaviour is rediculous and regardless of whether they call it a personal attack, is disruption pure and simple by refusing to discuss, whilst continually making edits that constitute synthesis, whilst throwing in an underhand edit to give the appearance that something is sourced. How hard is it to discuss things and to provide hard, cold evidence to back up their viewpoint?

Mabuska (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer48's refusal to appear here & respond, seems another example of this apparent behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I find it telling that Domer48 deleted the ANI notification from their Talk page with the edit summary of "per talk page header", and said Talk page header states that "Trolling will be deleted with extreme prejudice". Apparently, "trolling" means anything Domer48 doesn't want to hear or doesn't agree with. I wonder if a notification regarding a pending RfC/U would meet with the same non-response. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've finally gotten responses at the Dispute Resolution notice, and Domer48 finally made a comment on it as well - yet another comment laden with ad hominem and no providing of any evidence. This AN/I was about getting Domer48 to stop being disruptive and to provide his evidence, the Dispute Resolution board i was directed too seems to finally be getting somewhere - and thanks for the suggestion of that place as i didn't know of it.
Whilst that is all i wanted to resolve here, Domer48's overall recent behaviour outside of that article leaves me wondering should anything be done about that? The ad hominem arguements he has recently directed at me when all he had to do was provide a source - colvoluted ad hominem arguements at that; the lack of responsiveness whilst continuing on making article edits; failure to even explain his actions at this AN/I whilst making ad hominem comments about me on other editors talk pages; the fact others here in this dicussion have remarked negatively about his user page and talk page etc. etc.
Mabuska (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Now Domer48 seems to be really ramping up his attempts to get sanctions against me for nothing - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mabuska. When will this incivility end? Mabuska (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
He's really digging his own grave over there. JonCTalk 10:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/99.88.78.94, block expired but block bar still showing[edit]

Is anyone else still seeing a pink "this user is currently blocked" bar for this IP's contributions count? From a look at the block log the last block should have expired on the 8th, but still... pink bar. Am I missing something in the block log, or is this a bug? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That will be an autoblock from a recently blocked account. It can also indicate a range block, but not here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, autoblocked via user:Timmy Polo, which neatly establishes that the user who shared that IP recently was indeed one of his socks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, autoblocks - or rangeblocks - don't show up as a pink bar on an IPs contributions (plus the one that's showing shouldn't be, because it's expired). This is surely a bug (or very misleading). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If an IP is actually blocked, even indirectly, the most recent block log entry for that IP is displayed, even if that entry has expired. It's been that way for quite a long time. I'm sure it would be nice to see the real reason for the block, but still it's useful to see if it is blocked. bugzilla:23059 btw. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't displaying the "real" reason allow other editors to match up the IP with the user name, thus a potential privacy violation? Franamax (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The only indirect method which exposes the underlying logic tying users to IPs is autoblocking, isn't it? And if a user is autoblocked then if the user name is known it's already possible for non-checkusers to confirm the link between user and IP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I can see it, and obviously he's not blocked, or wasn't. Perhaps resetting the block explicitly will override it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It's autoblocked, and apparently with good reason. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've reblocked the IP directly for another year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Rangeblock[edit]

Resolved

Could I get someone to do a short (probably 3 hours) rangeblock on 62.0.224.128/26? Repeated vandalism of the Scottsboro Boys article from multiple IP addresses including:

62.0.224.157

62.0.224.159

62.0.224.160

62.0.224.161

62.0.224.167

Thanks. Trusilver 06:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, the vandalism stopped after the page was protected and did not extend to other areas of the project. Trusilver 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Article or topic ban for two users[edit]

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Deepdish7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Kolokol1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request that the two users be banned from editing the Berezovsky article and its Talk page, or possibly a topic ban that would prohibit editing any other article or Talk page related to Berezovsky.

The Berezovsky article has generated a lot of controversy in the last few weeks. It has been locked twice by User:Black Kite. The battle has been fought in many Wikipedia forums, including the following:

The article is currently locked and will be until September 28. However, Deepdish and Kolokol continue to battle in some of these other forums during the block. At BLPN and at COIN, several editors have endorsed the idea of an article block (the Berezovsky article and Talk page) at a minimum, and possibly a topic ban that would include anything related to Berezovsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • As a side note: This shows clearly the intention of going on with edit warring after the page protection is lifted.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - both users topic banned from editing any other article or Talk page related to Boris Berezovsky - Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking over this, I'm seeing that Deepdish7 has issues editing without warring and avoiding other editing issues, and that Kolokol1 has issues with civility. Perhaps it would be easier to give them both a bit more WP:ROPE so that they can hang themselves and earn indefinite blocks? lifebaka++ 01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly, give them more rope and they'll hang themselfes. Not a good idea I thinkTMCk (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Any topic ban for Kolokol1 will have to be a broadly construed ban. I would suggest a post-1992 Russia topic ban for him, given that he has declared he has a close connection with Berezovsky but refusing to say what that connection is. Not that I am suggesting he should out himself. As he is very clearly an SPA who is engaging in advocacy across a wide range of articles relating to Russian politics, such a topic ban is warranted. But before we enact such a ban, is it possible for him to get a free photo of Berezovsky with OTRS permission for us to use on the article? lol. --Russavia Let's dialogue 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Just trying to be objective here... Both editors are essentially newbies based on the number of their edits. Perhaps they need some help and advice. They do appear SPA at this point; none of them edited in a wide range of articles. They accused each other of COI problems, which I think was extremely unhelpful. Deepdish7 was already blocked twice, caught with sockpuppetry and said that he is prepared for a "lifetime struggle" [27]. Kolokol1, on the other hand, did not receive a single warning. No idea if any sanctions would be warranted at this point...Biophys (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please consider useful long term contributors have to deal with this disruption and it affects them - its worthless to the improvement to the Biography itself - never mind giving them more rope - topic ban them now, their disruption of the BLP is enough already. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the BLP issues, it's pretty obvious that main problems come from Deepdish3 editing, as was already noted by several people at article talk page. Therefore you was right by reverting edits by Deepdish3 here. I am telling as a long term contributor to these subjects.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you please point out exactly where I broke any BLP rules??? I haven't seen any proven case so far, and was happy for information I inserted to be changed to make everything NPOV and correspond to BLPDeepdish7 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Deepdish7 is not a newbie, he has been a single propose account since over eighteen months. Just ban him from the BLP and get it over with. Off2riorob (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. Main issue here is not for how long he edited, but that he started receiving official warnings more than a year ago, e.g. here, at the bottom. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • support topic ban for both narrowly construed this bio- any wider topic ban for either user is a separate topic, perhaps AE?--Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • In case 2 users in question are banned then Off2riorob should also is also banned then from editing anything Berezovsky-related as well as all IP addressed he used for that article, since he was engaged in edit war on Kolokol1's side, and is now engaged in edit war on Paul Klebnikov page Deepdish7 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out, that unlike Kolokol1 I was always happy to discuss my edits and change them to be in accordance with NPOV and BLP. Which makes a big difference between me and Kolokol1, and why I think it would be fairly to block him alone in this case.Deepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Even if you decide to block both of us (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Wikipedia whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-basedDeepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • support topic ban for Deepdish7. Reading through this thread including his recent defense further down I don't see any other working solution. No comment (as of yet) about Kolokol1.TMCk (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although not strictly relevant, I have just spent a chunk of time backing out changes Kolokol made to this discussion, including but not limited to adding section headers in the middle of previous discussions and making a significant change to one of my comments. I have left a stern warning on Kolokol's Talk page. What really made me angry about this was that there was already a discussion on Kolokol's Talk page that I started with respect to refactoring and the problems associated with it. For Kolokol to come here and repeat the same behavior makes reminds me, regrettably, of Deepdish's unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even when they are brought to his attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I inserted two subsections (see diffs below) with the sole purpose of making the reading of this oversized discussion easier for the users. Please don't brand this well-intentioned purely technical improvement as an act of malice - this not constructive and is simply not worthy of everyone's time. And what is the "significant change" I made to your comment? I don't think I did. Please provide diff. Thanks --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450871837
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=450872055
  • Sigh. First, I didn't accuse you of malice. Second, I would normally have assumed good faith in the addition of the subsections if it weren't for our previous discussion about refactoring. Even so, I didn't think it was malicious - perhaps more willful or stubborn or something along those lines. Finally, here is the diff of the change to my comment, which is, of course, what bothered me the most.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. I hope you will accept my apology and take my word that this insertion of gibberish in the middle of a word was a completely inadvertent technical error, perhaps a glitch in my keyboard. Happened to my posts too.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I accept your apology, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding subsection headers is a standard practice on Wikipedia. You should have familiarized yourself with the guideline you are referring to before issuing stern warnings. There is, of course, nothing wrong in not being familiar with it, and subheaders weren't strictly necessary here, but warning people over this is a bit rich. At this point I think it is better for you to let Kolokol1 alone, it is obvious that nothing good will come out of this bickering. Colchicum (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding subsection headers at the end of these kinds of discussions is common (as has already been done here). Adding them in the middle is not and can cause problems in misleadingly characterizing or confining comments to a particular subsection. And you don't even acknowledge my point that he changed one of my posts, which no matter how you interpret WP:REFACTOR and other related policies, is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the diffs (including the two above) and haven't found any changes in any of your comments. And I am afraid you won't find many supporters of your interpretation of WP:REFACTOR. See WP:REFACTOR#Resectioning. Stop already. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Response from Kolokol1:If I am banned, I would like to be given a reference to the specific WP policy that I have violated. In the edit war, I was removing information basing on the policy highlighted in the first paragraph of WP:BLP, namely: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have always explained this, specifically referring to this clause. I have never received any warning. My understanding is that the WP:3RR rule is not applicable for WP:BLP. With respect, I do not see how you can ban me for trying to implement your own policy. A ban without explanation and not referenced to a specific violation would be arbitrary and lawless. I will appeal--Kolokol1 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Please refer to Wikipedia:ARBRB#Purpose_of_Wikipedia states that you can't use WP for advocacy. You clearly are, and have admitted as much after the issue was brought up with you. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Decorum states no assumptions of bad faith. You have accused me of being in the employ of the Russian government, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I have dealt with such loony accusations in the past, time and time and time again. And then we have Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. Take note. And it goes for both of you. (written by User:Russavia)
      • For the record, I have never admitted engaging in advocacy, as defined by WP:Advocacy. I admitted being connected to the subject, whom I tried to protect from being smeared in an attack page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Russavia, my understanding is that I am being reviewed in the context of the edit war over Berezovsky. If am penalized for advocacy, I would like to see specific instances of advocacy in my edits. With regard to you, I indeed suspect you of advocacy for the RusGov - both in your posts, and in your campaigning to have me banned. This is not a bad faith on my part, but evidence-based. I am entitled to ask the question, which was perfectly legitimate in view of your impressive body of work promoting various Russian Government agencies, and particularly your correspondence with the Kremlin spokesman, which you disclosed. I am not unaware that your interlocutors in the Kremlin spend millions on PR contractors in the West (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/24/public-relations-russia-georgia-ketchum ), which, of course, does not necessarily mean that you are one of them. I asked the question, you gave the answer, I am satisfied, matter closed. It is now up to admins to consider whether or not this is relevant. I am not accusing you of COI, but detect a strong bias in favor of RusGov, which, as can be easily sourced, is out to get Mr. Berezovsky. If you want me banned on this basis, please file a separate complaint.--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You have removed a lot of well-sourced material and violated wikipedia Deletion policy. That alone justifies your ban, as well as having a conflict of interest on this page. I in turn do not have a conflict of interest. If interested admins can see IPs I logged from, one of which was my working address (which should remove any accusations of my connection with Russian government either)Deepdish7 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Question for admins Is it possible to give both editors a WP:DIGWUREN warning, and as written in the remedy, "counselling" on what the problem with their editing is. That is a fair warning to give, and if they decide to hang themselves with that rope, so be it. --Russavia Let's dialogue 06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Regarding DIGWUREN, I would be happy to have this situation go into arbitration, no problem--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see very specific references to what is wrong with the editors. Now, Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) has engaded in sockpuppetry (2 times) [28], repeated instances of edit-warring (wich has already earned him two blocks and page protection of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), posting copyvios ([29], [30]), massive BLP violations (see the entire edit history of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), canvassing [31], misrepresentation of sources, incivility, and his only purpose of editing Wikipedia has been "adding negative information" on Berezovsky, which he himself admitted many times and promised to continue no matter what. I haven't seen any disruption of this level from Kolokol1, let alone Off2riorob, who is just trying to enforce our BLP policies. Another relevant ANI thread: [32] Colchicum (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    Support narrowly-construed topic ban (perhaps just the article) for the two editors mentioned in the original post. These two accounts have locked horns and show no intention of disengaging. Not only does a situation like this destabilize an article, it also essentially shuts out any editor who wants to work on the article but doesn't want to enter the morass of angry postings and reversions. Actions not beneficial to WP. The Interior (Talk) 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm getting the feeling it'd be easier to just indef Deepdish, Colchicum. He does not seem to understand our policies, or the reasons for them, and when informed about them seems unwilling to follow them. Even after a few blocks for edit warring, he (as mentioned above) does not seem to understand that he is doing anything wrong and (also as mentioned above) believes that what he is doing is justified, both of which are evident from his currently visible unblock request. He's currently blocked for two weeks for edit warring, but I have a funny feeling that he'll end up reblocked within a few days after it wears off, and since blocks are preventative I think we should just cut out the middle man.
    As for Kolokol1, I worry that he is not necessarily here to build an encyclopedia and he is having trouble discussing content rather than contributors, as well as some other civility issues. There's nothing particularly actionable there yet (except perhaps some discretionary sanctions), but as my obvious subtext implies, I'm pretty sure there will be if nothing changes. Kolokol1, please review our civility policy and other behavioral guidelines. You'll find most of your interactions here a lot smoother if you do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Lifebaka, thank you for your advice. I would be exceedingly grateful for a specific reference of incivility on my part. Will immediately apologize and take it back. I am all for "discussing content rather than contributors", and urge you to read and comment on my content instead of worrying about my motives for being here, which I have stated on numerous occasions: to protect a friend from being unjustly smeared in violation of Wikipedia's own policies. I would like to add to the attention of admins: your colleague yesterday asked me to make a formal declaration that I have no intention to litigate over what I called "potentially libelous" material, which I did (COIN#I declare that I have no intention ). Then, presumably, coming here and trying to find an alternative remedy from an unjust attack must not be punishable by bans, should it?--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I think that accusing me of being an SPA who is employed by the Russian government is one specific reference. Another specific reference is where you have repeated the accusation. Another specific reference is where you have, yet again, repeated the accusation. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Editors_counseled. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Russavia, for god's sake, these references have nothing to do with me! I did not accuse you of anything, I simply noted that because of your self-proclaimed sympathies, your writings, and your declared contacts with the Kremlin PR Chief, you may be working for them, or have COI. A perfectly natural concern under the circumstances. You inquired about my association with Berezovsky on a much lesser grounds, and I did not take offense. But if I offended you, I am sorry. And you are an SPA, or rather DPA, by your own admission, writing almost exclusively on two subjects, as you name suggests - RusGov agencies, and planes. --Kolokol1 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The "general test" for a SPA: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." In other words, SPA has a clearly negative component to it. Even assuming Russavia is mainly interested in Russian and aviation articles doesn't mean he's a SPA, whereas an account like yours, with relatively few edits, and almost exclusively about Berezovsky, seems to fit the definition. Even assuming, as you state, that you are not using the account "improperly", you admit to having an agenda, which seems to be more about protecting Berezovsky than protecting the article or Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)