Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Long-term disruption from IP[edit]

Resolved: Thanks Elen. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 02:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
108.65.1.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log); user notified of this thread.

The above person has a long history of changing sourced figures in articles such that they no longer match the sources. Here are three examples from February, May, and November this year. I tried explaining referencing to this person back in April when I first noticed the problem, but I can't see that the behaviour has changed. It seems futile to try to help this user futher, as they do not communicate at all, having never edited a talk page or used an edit summary. Previous one- and three-month blocks haven't worked, as the same behaviour resumed almost immediately after the blocks ended. Although this person does make some constructive edits such as typo corrections and minor formatting fixes, I think the burden they place on the many, many others who have to waste time reverting them and checking their other edits makes them a net negative. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 04:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why an indefinite block isn't warranted. If editors repeatedly make intentionally disruptive edits, I don't much care if they occasionally make good edits. To use an extreme analogy, that's like saying it's okay to murder someone as long as you help a few old people across the street.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It's always dangerous to indefblock IPs, because even static ones can be switched out to a new user if the account with the ISP ends. I have blocked for a year. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the block and the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DoDo Bird Brain[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Sockpuppet confirmed to be Yourname (talk · contribs) and the IPs blocked and sock puppet tags deleted due to IP hopping. This is over. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The blocked user DoDo Bird Brain (talk · contribs) is back, this time using three different IPs. As of now, the user has used the IPs 174.127.124.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.97.239.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 137.132.250.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to attack me and leave threatening messages on my talk page, despite filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoDo Bird Brain. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • One of the IPs actually vandalized the SPI page, adding a couple other users. I don't know if they're related or not. Calabe1992 05:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected User talk:Sjones23 for 3 days; that's all that can be done. –MuZemike 06:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this is indefinitely blocked user Yourname (talk · contribs) (by admission), who recently has here as Troller101 (talk · contribs). He IP-hops literally all over the CIDR spectrum, so anything he touches will need to be semi-protected. –MuZemike 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we please re-tag DoDo Bird Brain's socks to match the sock master and confirm these socks if possible? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've already moved everything to the correct SPI pages. I've also deleted the tags on the IPs, as there is no purpose tagging them since they're so random. –MuZemike 06:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Done. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, particularly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#topic ban?, per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#Close please? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've read through the discussion and am prepared to close. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

History merge needed on Skeleton in the closet[edit]

Resolved

Skeleton in the cupboard was moved to Skeleton in the closest (mis-spelled) and then copied and pasted to Skeleton in the closet by user:Floppydog66 . Please could an admin do a history merge between these two pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closest&curid=15185590&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closet&action=historyFayenatic (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (t) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing edit-warring and incivility by IP editor[edit]

Resolved: Suspected open proxy network sent on long hiatus. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at 188.227.160.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is causing trouble across a swathe of articles, including violating 3RR and incivility? The IP has also submitted a 3RR complaint against another editor at [1], which needs to be dealt with. The IP is clearly being used to evade a block or ban and is probably the banned editor Scibaby, judging by this comment. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not scibaby, I said I would be reverted as scibaby, which is what happens to anyone who edits a CC related article. I would have thought removing blp violations was a good thing, was I wrong? 188.227.160.244 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Next time apply a templated 3RR warning. If someone had done that earlier the IP would have been blocked already. Whoever this editor may be, fair warning is always helpful. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
However the editor reported by the IP is also clearly in violation of 3RR. They should both be blocked really, which suggests that protecting the article may be a better idea. Black Kite (t) 21:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's debatable since one revert came with the comment that they'll remove one of the objectionable references, which they did in the next edit, after which the IP continued anyway. In other words, one could argue that Thought's third revert combined with the following edit was actually only a partial revert. Anyway, it seems obvious to me that this IP has something else in mind altogether, and no doubt someone will push the CU button quickly. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
And yet he still broke 3r so he could put a lie into a BLP, which is that the heartland institute distributed her book, her book is a free download, and no source was given which says what he kept putting into the article. And I see it has in fact been reverted back in, well done for the BLP violation Heironymous Rowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.160.244 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. You're at 5R or something like that, for something that isn't remotely a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Really? Using a blog is not a BLP violation? OR is not a BLP violation? whatever indeed 188.227.160.244 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, really. Is a claim being made that is defamatory or libelous? No. Case closed. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
What has that got to do with it? It is wrong, hence a lie, hence a blp violation, pull your head out of your arse and try using it. 188.227.160.244 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the dispute is about whether a particular organisation has distributed a book. That concerns a publication and a company, not a living person. Hence BLP doesn't apply and you can't claim any exemption from 3RR on that basis. Note that BLP applies only to content about a living person, as WP:BLP makes clear. And while I'm at it, you could try being a bit more civil. I'd support a block of you on that ground alone since you appear to have a persistent problem in that regard. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems this IP is User:Marknutley, who was banned from the topic area in WP:ARBCC and was subsequently caught sockpuppeting in the same topic area and is currently indefinitely blocked. See this comment. It is one of a number of edits from the same range, which clearly all come from the same person.[2] Note that it geolocates to the same region as Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
(added) I've raised this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
pull your head out of your arse and try using it is certainly MN "style" William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Zedshort[edit]

Zedshort (talk · contribs) Is using Wikipedia to promote a link to an external petition. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnyfarmofdoom (talk · contribs) and I have reverted Zedshort's edits that added the link. Goodvac (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup. Going through a list of the more enthusiastic supporters of the Energy Catalyzer to look for signatures. A new (or 'new') single-purpose account only here to promote a highly-questionable cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm a bit involved with this editor, so I won't push any buttons--but this is a kind of soapboxing that should not be allowed. They've stopped since the ANI posting, so maybe a block would be punitive. I welcome the input from other editors--really Andy and I should stay away. Especially Andy. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, I guess I fail to understand why I should not contact other users that have an interest in the subject of the Energy Catalyzer and offer them a chance to sign a petition to the White House to review the usefulness of the device. When is that wrong? How are my communications wrong as I had communications with those persons in the discussion of the device in the article? Under what conditions can I communicate with others and if the writing of the message is wrong please give me an example of what would make it ok to send the message to other users. Also, I would like to know who removed my previously place message here? Surely I have the right to respond. In addition to that the user AndyTheGrump may be stalking me and it should stop immediately. I placed a very polite welcome to another user and Andy responded with a message on my talk page that was not appropriate. Surely you have rules against stalking and harassing other users.Zedshort (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I could make a good argument that it is YOU that's stalking and harassing, by spamming users' pages with this petition stuff. Wikipedia is not a social network, and stuff like petitions and canvassing are not allowed. If you get an "F.U." kind of response to your spamming, that ought to convey the message to knock off the spamming. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have received no "F.U." message from anyone I contacted. I guess I should insist that you make the case that I am stalking people and not just make the contention. It does not matter if it is in reference to a petition, it is a semi-private communication that was not sent to you and only to those I was rather sure would be interested. If I had placed the message within an article that might be considered inappropriate. Simply repeating the same message to those people does not make it spam. If I indiscriminately sent it to a great many people who had no input on the Energy Catalyzer article and discussion then it would be spam. You are indiscriminately using the term soapbox and stalking. If there is a relevant wp guideline then direct me to that. And again, I want to know who removed my first post. I consider that to be vandalism.Zedshort (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social network, and is not for advocacy. Contacting users to sign a petition about any subject (other than, perhaps, Wikipedia itself, on behalf of the Foundation) is completely outside the remit of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote technological invention, in userspace or otherwise. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Zedshort is one of the new accounts that appeared in the AfD for Energy Catalyzer, accounts listed in the DRV. This petition and the accompanying activism make it even more likely that there was behind-the-scenes coordination (aka meatpuppetry) at the AfD. Personally I think editors like Zedshort should not be allowed to continue editing if they are not here to help build an encyclopedia, but just to use wikipedia as a cheap and effective means of mass online publicity. On the DRV another editor mentions an Italian patent, but there have been patents for the motionless electromagnetic generator, a device where no working model has ever been produced and where the underlying "theory" has been dismissed. Editors like Fedosin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) have been blocked quite recently for POV-pushing and advocacy in fringe science. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Even without looking at the circumstances surrounding the AFD discussion, the most recent edits prompted my report. This is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a forum for advocacy. Though contributors often use talk pages to post personal messages, it seems to require a suspension of guidelines, not to mention reality, to consider user talk pages 'semi-private'. To the contrary, a literate user would understand that any talk page message, especially from an account which has been previously engaged in a contentious or even interesting discussion, will be viewed by numerous parties--it's a public posting, and as such constitutes soapboxing and spamming. Rather than acknowledging this, the user is deflecting accountability, seeking to make the behavior of others the issue. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Also, what Bugs says. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

While taking in Drmies point, I feel I must respond to the claim that I have been 'stalking' Zedshort. Here is the message he/she left on User:Brian Josephson's talk page, 'welcoming' the professor to Wikipedia (and incidentally making less than polite comments about other editors). [3] My posting on Zedshort's talk page consisted in its entirety of a section I entitled "'Welcome to Wikipedia?'" which stated "Can I suggest that perhaps your welcoming of prof Josephson to Wikipedia is a little belated - he's been contributing since 2006... " [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey Andy, just to make matters clear: by suggesting distance is good I do not mean to say that you are guilty of anything here. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Done. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, particularly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#topic ban?, per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#Close please? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've read through the discussion and am prepared to close. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

History merge needed on Skeleton in the closet[edit]

Resolved

Skeleton in the cupboard was moved to Skeleton in the closest (mis-spelled) and then copied and pasted to Skeleton in the closet by user:Floppydog66 . Please could an admin do a history merge between these two pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closest&curid=15185590&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closet&action=historyFayenatic (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (t) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]

Resolved: Seems OK now. Please keep an eye on it, if you get a spare moment. Thanks to the admins who pitched in. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged. If an admin or two could clean up the backlog, it would be appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog remains and getting worse. AIV reports going back some 5 hours. Kinda pointless to have an AIV page with no one to check it. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
We're working on it (I've already declined three). We don't get paid for this, you know, and the only beers I get are virtual. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Ljekperic[edit]

Ffkks, though final warned, keeps deleting AfD tag. Probable recreation of autobio (compare with Ljekperic).— Racconish Tk 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

24 hour block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Racconish, I guess you knew this was going to happen. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reporting Halaqah[edit]

Hi there.

Halaqah who is disrupting African related articles especially Serer related articles have been warned before. In one of their latest edits, they placed the wrong tag on the Isoko people article:[5] eventhough there are inline citations in the article and the article is marked as a stub.

Whilst patrolling, I removed the template and told them they used the wrong tag, placed it in the wrong section and the article itself is a stub [6]. They undid my edits and started to be uncivil again [7].

I undid their edit for the last time and gave them a warning on the edit summary [8].

I also followed it by giving them a warning on their talk page [9].

They undid my edit again [10] and removed the warning I had posted on their talk page and called me an idiot [11].

They have now started again attacking all Serer related articles that I have edited as well as articles I have been discussing as you can see for yourself on their contributions [12].


Tamsier (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


I cannot block him I am not an Administrator.

Tamsier (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why you are not an admin. User Tamsier has a Loooooooong history of problems here on wikipedia.[13] +[14] so i find it strange they are "Warning" me. LOL. One of them is using wikipedia for ethnic propaganda (they were warned by several editors and blocked). They clash with so many editors and have so much civil problems. Take for example the Stupid woman comment here [15] Strange that they would cite me for editing wikipedia on Serer topics. Is that what you call attacking- I call it editing. Are any of the edits vandalism? - no. Are any of the edits against policy?-no. Abusing Admin notice board to discuss edits you do not like is pointless. Such debates should happen in the correct places. I got angry at the posting on my page as have other editors [16]. They also have a history of using these spaces to complain see [17]. Please see some more of their rants against other editors. [18] and [19]. The list is longer. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole thing is stupid. An unreferenced tag is not appropriate, but a refimprove tag is, and I have added it. No admin action is needed here. LadyofShalott 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi there,

Thanks for your decision, but is Halaqah going to be punished for what he is doing to all Serer related articles as well? For example placing inappropriate tags on Serer religion, etc. which has the least amount of excessing infor compared to other religious articles. He is also inviting other editors on the Almoravid dynasty talk page where I was discussing to Serer medieval history to present [20]Their contribution history I have pasted above. I think this problem is much bigger.

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we do not punish people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct the problem is much bigger Tamsier. Cool down and look at your legacy. I am starting to worry about your health. Even when I show you the problem you spend all day on a talk page complaining about Islamic conspiracies.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMARANG, Tamsier's behavior here includes:

I apologize if my comment was inapropirate and I have removed it. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Additional comment: Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion [21] and edit warred over it! [22] He also nominated a user page for speedy [23]; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them "people like you always cowar to the muslims" add that to socking and various PA. I've seen editors indefed for far less, we've been so far very indulgent with him and refrained from responding to his personal attacks and focused on discussing content...Frankly he should consider himself lucky. Tachfin (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Compliments to the Lady and the others who have attempted to make sense of the mess made by the plaintiff. Both editors, BTW, have a block log to be proud of, and them staying away from each other would be a good thing. It seems to me that especially Tamsier needs to be on a short leash given this, besides a host of edits that prove little more than that the editor has a POV and a slight competence issue in editing Wikipedia.Drmies (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You know Drmies, Every single thing I was blocked for i was vindicated for all those issues ultimately wikipedia got changed esp useless categories in living bios. This is not the case with this editor. Not to mention I was here since 2006. This editor I think would be best removed from wikipedia and if it continues I will have no shortage of supporters to do so. It must end. It is not just me vs. Him. It is him vs. Wikipedia editors. What really is silly is I warned him about drawing attention to himself (per that Boomerang thingie. If you want to push a racist pov on wikipedia best to do so quietly. Now people are crawling all over his edits and well i am vindicated again, cuz all the evidence is in his editing. Talk about an agenda. Even when you try to help him he/she isnt happy and turns on you the next day.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Be very careful how you present your case. Although the article may have developed in time through the efforts of other editors to match your expectation, it does not excuse your combative attitude. By suggesting you have supporters may violate WP:MEAT and if you drum up support, that violates WP:CANVASS. Just a word of warning. --Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

IP abuse[edit]

The IPs 89.204.152.52, 82.113.103.164, and 82.113.122.167 have been blanking user (talk) pages, mainly targeting Ihardlythinkso, Nepenthes, and Cloveapple, at the rate of several a minute in the past hour; can something be done about this? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I've blocked a couple of em. Someone smarter than me should figure out what's going on here and what should be done. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It may be related to a chess article dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.204.136.55 shows that that IP was editing a chess article and if I remember correctly chess is User:Ihardlythinkso's main editing area. I was only targeted after reverting vandalism to Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Cloveapple (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • A rangeblock would be easy, in my opinion, since we need only a /24 for the first IP, and a /23 for the second two.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not still going on, is it? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • The vandalism stopped about 18:10 UTC from both ranges. I don't see any rangeblocks. Maybe the anons lost interest. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of Joe Circus[edit]

Jayjg has blocked Joe Circus for civility and harassment while in a debate with him on Circumcision. Whether the block was warranted or not Jayjg should not be the one blocking Joe per WP:INVOLVED. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I disagree with imposing a hard and fast rule. Some cases are so obvious, I wouldn't want an admin to waste our time here. Rklawton (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say this particular case clearly warranted a short block [24][25] Rklawton (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say this comes under the "any reasonable admin would probably have done the same thing" exception.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that a block wouldn't have been warranted, although I wasn't seeing anything major. It is disturbing that it was done by an involved admin. This could have been handled much better.--JOJ Hutton 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There could have been a tidier way of implementing the block, but it was still warranted. Note that there is also an SPI case for Joe Circus too. From a general technical perspective, it seems quite likely that he's been abusing multiple accounts since the block. WilliamH (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Other admins who should have been called on to implement the block in such a case, so it does not have the appearance in any sense of an admin using the buttons to win in content disputes or other disagreements. Edison (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. WilliamH (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't a content dispute, that was extended trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, Sarek. Just to be clear, I didn't block him for "civility" (or incivility, for that matter), and I wasn't "in a debate with him on Circumcision". Gary, please make more accurate statements. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't had any content disputes with that editor, and his actions are part of an off-wikipedia harrassment campaign against a longstanding Wikipedia editor. Those who wish to know more can e-mail me for the details. Since his block, he has socked in various ways. If he continues this harrassment if and when he returns, I intend to block him for a month. Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable as a trolling block. The user is able to discuss and realize his issues on his talkpage - Checkuser although not conclusive , talks about proxies and possible/likely connections to multiple accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've blocked California Mom, Aussie1947 and EditTalk indefinitely, check the SPI case for my comments. From my perspective, I'm willing to say: yep, Joe Circus is abusing multiple accounts. Off-wiki-gal is worth keeping an eye on too. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If the OP's posting here is what triggered the ISP, then the OP should be awarded an honorary boomerang. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's abusing multiple accounts, then we should extend his block. Rklawton (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The SPI was filed a day before this. Other than being punitive, I don't see what extending the block will do - if anything, it'd act as even more reason to continue socking. But if the disruptive behaviour (including socking) continues after the block expires, he will definitely be sanctioned accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have made no objection to the block, only that Jayjg pulled the trigger. Anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see Jayjg arguing with Joe all over the page and then the block. It looks bad and should have been handled by an uninvolved admin through normal channels. Jayjg is quite heavy handed with newcomers coming to the page and tends to wp:bite them if he disagrees with their viewpoint. I hope this moderates his behavior in the future. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see Jayjg arguing with Joe all over the page and then the block"? Seriously? Actually, anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see me responding to exactly one post of his. That's it, nothing more. In the future, please make more truthful statements. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I stand behind what I have stated. Your perception of reality is incorrect. Whether you responded to Joe or his socks or he responded to you is still interaction and yes it is all over the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Garycompugeek, can you please provide WP:DIFFs of Jayjg arguing with Joe all over Talk:Circumcision? He addresses Joe once, while you constantly argue with him. If anyone is too involved, it's you. If you really approve of the block, why does it matter that it was Jayjg who made it, other than your content dispute with him? You are not here because you think Jayjg is too involved, but because you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Responding to Joe's socks after he was already blocked now retroactively makes me involved? Please don't be ridiculous. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the constant barrage of POV-pushing socks on that subject, it's not surprising that Jay has little patience with them. Viewed in isolation, it might have been better to hand it off to another admin. But how often does he need to go through that same process? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that someone who considers circumcision as somehow "mutilation" on the same order as so-called female "circumcision", and who honestly thinks that there's "nothing funny" about circumcision, is taking the subject way too seriously and personally, and would probably be best off to stay away from the topic altogether. FYI, here's a joke recorded by Leo Rosten, ca. 1960: "It is said that the rabbis get the salaries, and the mohels get the tips." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure Bugs, I remember you, and while you and I don't see eye to eye, you always make me laugh :) Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Califoria-Mom (talk · contribs) earlier this evening, as well as the open proxy that was being used. It is my opinion that Joe Circus has been abusing open proxies to disrupt Talk:Circumcision (compare with California Mom (talk · contribs)). As such, I believe that the following accounts belong to Joe Circus:

As such, I support an indefinite block of Joe Circus due to the blatant disruption. –MuZemike 08:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's probably safe to assume that 193.105.134.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same user, per this edit. (Could someone deal with the image file on Commons, please?) Jakew (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Hello. I am not an admin. As such, I hope I am allowed to comment here. Anyways, The way you all are discussing this would make pirates' toes curl and the Gestapo proud. If an involved admin enacts a block on an individual editor, they should immediately lose their admin status. Seriously. No questions asked. Has anyone ever considered why a police officer can not also be judge, jury and executioner? "Well, I am after all a cop, so I shot him because I was sure a judge would have sentenced him to death..." Certain folks in this discussion need to take a long look at themselves and ask "what has happened in my past to make me like this?"Turqoise127 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can post here. After all this is the wiki that anyone can edit! But seriously comparing this to the Gestapo is a little bit much. He blocked an obvious troll. He didn't try to kill all of the Jews.--Adam in MO Talk 07:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You should also review WP:INVOLVED. Even if I were involved with this editor (and I wasn't), this block was a straighforward action with which even the editor's most ardent defenders have no issue (they just have an issue with me, which in reality isn't related to this action). Moreover, the blocking offense was on-going personal attacks on a Wikipedia editor (not me), part of an off-Wikipedia campaign of harassment, and nothing else. And just to be very clear, and to repeat what I stated above, if Joe Circus continues these attacks on that editor when and if he returns, I will block him again for a month, if some other admin doesn't beat me to it. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Turqoise. Your missing the point Adam, there's absolutely no reason that another uninvolved admin could have implemented disciplinary action. Jayjg watches the page and frequently comments on talk:circumcision and for that reason alone should never exercise authority there unless no one else is able. You most certainly were involved Jayjg. Your continued denials only illustrate your inability to admit you were wrong and take responsibility for your actions. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Oddly enough, your claims about my involvement above have turned out to be false, and most experienced editors here disagree with you that the block was inappropriate (see, for example, this comment by Ian.thomson). In fact, as you've stated, you yourself don't object to the block, just to me. Your involvement here has everything to do with your WP:SPA advocacy on Circumcision-related topics, and nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriateness of this action. I am therefore going to give your opinions on this matter they weight they deserve, which is exactly none. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jayjg,
You write >(they just have an issue with me, which in reality isn't related to this action).<
Please take these suggestions in the I hope friendly spirit with which they are offered:
  1. Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, the "issue" that these other Wikipedia editors have with you may not be unconnected to the perception of apparently going against the spirit, rather than the legal letter, of WP:INVOLVED, for example.
  2. Another suggestion would be that as an Admin perhaps you should ease out of the habit of calling other users liars/untruthful/dishonest when they see things that are different from your view of things, as in the example of your perception of "untruthfulness" in Gary above. Having been invited to check the Talk:Circumcision page on ANI above, then yes one could at a pinch legally count only one direct incident of you with that particular now blocked user, however the overall picture is of you in the middle being sarcastic and waving the stick at other users left, right and centre. Particularly I'm wondering what to make of Now there's no way of backing down from your real motivation, no way of disguising your bad faith, and no way of avoiding sanctions if you continue. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC) To my eyes, from any admin, that doesn't read like a model of a appropriate non-WP:INVOLVED threat of "sanction"
  3. A third suggestion might be to just voluntarily take a holiday from admin tools for 3 months, and try to develop a more neutral participant attitude with other editors?
Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
PS having just seen the new line above "I am therefore going to give your opinions on this matter they weight they deserve, which is exactly none. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)" this kind of underlines the 3 suggestions above. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi In ictu oculi. Just because you've had lengthy content disputes with me at various articles (e.g. Yeshu), that's no reason to consistently follow me around and insist that in any dispute I am doing something wrong, regardless of the details. Your more recent and clearly inappropriate interactions with me (e.g. Talk:Ger toshav#Ger toshav is not the same as ger v-toshav, Talk:Ger toshav#Re "stop playing games" please see version before half of article deleted, Talk:Messianic Judaism#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again) indicate that you are simply unable to be neutral when it comes to me, and that your suggestions are not actually offered in a "friendly spirit". The last of those discussions makes it quite clear that whenever I have a dispute with another editor, you invariably ignore the facts of the case, and instead claim, imply, or insinuate that I am somehow to blame, despite the fact that (as you can see in the latter discussion) no other outside editor there agrees with you in any way. I think a far more helpful suggestion would be for you to just take a voluntary 3 month holiday from following me around and taking the side of whoever happens to disagree with me, and during that time try to develop a more neutral participant attitude towards me. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, well, I'm sorry but please note that you did invite "anyone". And also note that "follow me around" would require use of a time machine on my part to follow you to pages you have not been, to "follow you around" in advance of your appearances. Whatever, the above suggestions were offered in good faith, you are free to note other's views of what constitutes the spirit of WP:INVOLVED and the other points, or not. So be it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I don't see Jayjg inviting "anyone" to do anything here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a pattern where, almost any tim there is an AN/I discussion involving Jayjg, In icto oculy intrudes to make some sort of attack or threat against Jayjg, without actually contributing to the discussion. Is this stalking? Is it time for an RfC on In icto oculi's stalking obsession with Jayjg? As for this thread: given the unanimity that this user should have been blocked and blocked wuickly, and the lack of evidence that Jayjg meets the standard of an involved admin, it seems to me that this issue has been resolved and can be closed. WP is ten years old which means that by this pooint we have a great many sysops who have edited a wide variety of articles over many years. It is important that a sysop not use her tools in the course of an edit conflict with another user, but in this case it is clear that Jayjg was acting as anyo other sysop would have acted, and no question that this was part of an edit conflict with this user. Let's be cleare about what an actual abuse of sysop powers is, and lets not muddy the waters. Did Jayjg use sysob tools to resolve a personal dispute with another editor? No. That is precisely why everyone else agrees that the block was fully justified. So, end of discussion Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,
Well I don't know what to think now. I hadn't looked at the page. I saw this here, "anyone" was invited to look and comment, I did. More fool me. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone cares enough to dig up some diffs illustrating what Slrubenstein says above, the above replies have convinced me to support any proposed interaction ban that prevents In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) from jumping into issues in order to score one off Jayjg. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Johuniq, I ran into this behavior at Talk:Messianic Judaism. Jayjg started an RFC regarding another editor and material he kept deleting that had multiple reliable sources. In ictu oculi used the RFC not to respond to the issue, but instead to attack Jayjg and make vague accusations that Jayjg was probably to blame in some way. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If people really think the block was unjustified just because the wrong admin issued the block, then how about another uninvolved admin unblock and then immediately reblock Joe Circus, if that will make everybody happy? I'll even do that if necessary. –MuZemike 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As of a couple of hours ago, Joe Circus has been reblocked for 2 weeks by a patrolling admin at the SPI case. WilliamH (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A gutsy and 100% justified block - when someone uses multiple accounts on a highly controversial topic in order to try to manipulate the debate ought to be blocked, perhaps a permablock is in order. To require some other admin other than the discoverer of the deceit to do the block is just a formality that wastes time and continues the circus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about editing by Arcillaroja at Central Europe and Eastern Europe[edit]

Arcillaroja (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
Central Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eastern Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Now a user's sentiments are his private affair, but if they happen to disrupt a set of articles, it's no longer private. This one's been going on for 3 years straight simply because it goes on in peripheral articles (Eastern Europe, Central Europe) few seem to care about. Both my requests for Third Opinion were ignored. I also put a series of warning templates on his talkpage over several weeks, which he ignored. Other editors (Montessquieu, ValenShephard etc.) were exhausted by this guy's tenacity, and they receded.

Background: so Arcillaroja grinds his axe for years; he engaged in bitter disputes with other editors long before I entered these articles. I have reason to believe that his editing is guided by racism against Central/Eastern Europeans. In some talk pages, he seems to justify this by implying that racism against ethnic Central/Eastern Europeans are present in certain groups in Western Europe. Which is an obvious fact, as the events of 1941-44 would tell you.

-- He deleted this info from the lede twice just today: [26]. Let's see what exactly he deleted: "A prevailing regional self-definition appears to draw the line between Eastern and Central Europe at the Eastern borders of Romania: those West of this border generally self-define as Central Europeans, while those East of this border as Eastern Europeans."
Who on earth would delete such a harmless but informative and relevant line? To put it another way, he deleted the self-definition of Central/Eastern Europeans while leaving some pointed and rather patronizing Western definitions in place. I'm just kinda waiting when he will delete this deadpan-neutral line from the article too (a matter of time): "Eastern Europe, home of the bulk of world Jewry until the 1940's, is the birthplace of Hasidic Judaism, Litvak Judaism and several Orthodox churches." Then we might be close to adding anti-semitism to his rap sheet as well.

-- Another line he deleted, this time from Central Europe, is [27]. Which is: "The historic term, denoting both a cultural area and a geopolitical region, came back into fashion by the end of the Cold War, which had divided Europe politically into East and West..." How is this line offensive or redundant to anyone in this particular article? Beats me.

-- He keeps placing the systemic bias tag on Central Europe ([28]), which is hysterical for 2 reasons.
1: That particular article is so far from being systematically biased as it can get. As already discussed on its talk page, the article presents 8 to 11 disparate points of views on the definition of Central Europe. Many of these definitions come from Western European historians and encyclopedias, the rest from Central European experts. Arcillaroja is, however, discontent. His "unbiased" dream article would appear to be the equivalent of a patronizing diatribe from a certain 1940's Western POV where actual Central/Eastern European voices of self-definition are totally absent (from their own article).
2: It is actually him who keeps introducing systemic bias to the Eastern and Central Europe articles. Again, he keeps deleting context-relevant self-definitions by the Central/Eastern European ethnic groups ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] etc. etc.), sometimes replacing them with pure nonsense ([35] [36]), or what could be described as judgmental Cold War-era Western opinions.

While his English is not good, still be prepared that he will want to manipulate you when he appears here: inevitably, he will cast me as some kinda die-hard local activist/vandal. Uh huh. I've been here for nearly 7 years, helping rewrite a bunch of articles from scratch. I've also been a member of WP:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which is relevant here.

Anyway, in a perfect Wikipedia, an admin with a BA/MA in European History or International Relations would come and deal justice in minutes, as the case is clear to anyone with some grasp on the subject: a racist user is doctoring some ethnic articles under the guise of improving them. But seeing how Arcillaroja's tendentious activity has been ignored for years, I wonder if anything will happen at all. Imagine the collective admin uproar if he happened to be some far-right Canadian patriot who would target, say, the Illinois article, doctoring it systematically so that it makes Illinois folks appear to be degenerate pushovers with no voice of their own.
Thanks for reading. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing WP:RFC/U, based on the above ... (and Illinois folks are "degenerate pushovers with no voice of their own", signed, a far-right Canadian patriot :-) </sarcasm> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not seeing WP:RFC/U at this time as the user in question will ignore it based on witnessing his conduct thus far. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So what exactly are you asking for? I'd say dispute resolution is the venue for you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I can do that, but it seems to be a 'lite' approach, seeing this user's drive, anger, energy, beliefs etc... What I'm asking for is direct admin intervention, either by asking him to stop his ways, or whatever else. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've left a note for Arcillaroja here telling him that the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions exist. But the above discussion is hardly complete enough to justify any admin action yet. This is the first time he's ever been mentioned at an admin board. All that your evidence shows is that he sometimes argues very tenaciously on talk pages and some of his reasoning is unusual. Over three years he has made 104 edits at Eastern Europe. If Gregorik believes that Arcillaroja's editing there is improper, give us some more persuasive diffs. If you can't find any blatant examples of ethnic bias, I suggest starting with the content issues. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment on one of the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I lack the time and desire to dig through 3 years of his activity for additional diffs. I think I've presented hard evidence of ethnic bias. I mean he keeps deleting the very definitions and self-definitions of Central/Eastern European identity from the Central and Eastern Europe articles which are supposed to be the primary definitions in these cultural/ethnic articles. What remains is some skewed, secondary Cold War definitions that should only be mentioned in passing. Is there a way to protect these articles from this kind of tendentious disruption? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The most you could argue is that he's illogical, not that he is biased. Please don't extrapolate so far from the evidence you presented. Blatant ethnic warriors usually make outlandish statements that can be quoted as diffs. If you don't have time to do more digging into the record, this may be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't close just yet, please. Waiting for additional remarks. In the meantime, imagine that what if in an article titled Definition of being American someone deletes all the primary definitions and replaces them with a paragraph called "Definition of being American according to unsympathetic non-Americans". That's what's going on in these 2 articles. Racism and bias is sometimes not in-your-face but it's still present. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Direct quotes from Arcillaroja would be more persuasive than your summaries of what you believe his thinking is. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Obviously Arcillaroja is smarter and more subtle than that. But don't close yet. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to say some words in my defense. Firstly I want to make very clear that accusing me of being a racist is something that I personally take as offensive and a very serious accusation. I reject such accusations and would like to ask Gregorik to soothe the general tone on these boards. Eastern Europe and Central Europe are ongoing topics of debate. I think it is also very difficult to provide neutrality for such political articles. As I have explained before in the talk pages of these articles, there are different opinions on what these geopolitical terms refer to. These articles are very polemic, in that they include or exclude countries arbitrarily depending on who writes a certain paper. I personally don't have the knowledge to say conclusively what is the right definition and I doubt that there is someone that would take such a chance. But I do know this: Trying to change an article with unsupported claims is not what wikipedia is about. These are examples of what Greogorik edits:

"A prevailing regional self-definition appears to draw the line between Eastern and Central Europe at..." or "One Western definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural..." A prevailing regional self-definition? From who? Where are the sources? is this presented in the article as a fact or as an opinion? Why is it in the lede?

These type of edits are rather constant in Gregorik's misbehavior. Sometimes, he adds an opinion, and then one or several online resources that do not support the claim made or that are very poor in regards to their neutrality. Gregorik thinks that trying to be as neutral as possible is the same thing as having a conservative agenda. And he thinks of himself as a very progressive editor. And not only thinks it, he simply adds it to the article. No sources, no discussion... He just does it because he is worth it. Example:

"The following countries are still being labeled Eastern European by "conservative" commentators (in the former geopolitical sense, due to their Communist past) and as Central European by "progressives" and..."

I think adding these words (conservative and progressive) to the lead is not very neutral either. And to finish, I would like to underline the fact that Gregorik is a Hungarian editor. And Hungary is a country which is directly discussed in these articles. In my opinion, the matter in itself is too close to the personal background of this editor and that affects his work on the topic.

Please, Gregorik, before making such accusations, bring hard evidence. That I'm a racist, and anti-semitic (!?!?), right winger, double your age (I certainly don't hope so!), with poor English (in that is not bookish and intricate enough, you mean?), ect, ect, ect is quite offensive... And requesting hard measures from admins against me because we don't agree is not very friendly either.

I hope that I have explained my position clearly. If I made any edit which was not in accordance with wikipedia's rules, then I more that willing to discuss them and I welcome any third opinions or other ideas. Arcillaroja (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm as friendly as they get, Arcillaroja. In this case, I'm not even pursuing this further (as I lack the time and desire as said earlier). So no worries, I won't take it to RFC/UserConduct. I've written ALL I wanted on this subject. And I stand corrected: you're not anti-semitic (though I never said that, please read it carefully), and your English is fine. I suggest that we leave this thread open for another 24 hours for additional admin comments, if any, and then close it. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
OK Arcillaroja (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment There are not many of Arcillaroja's edits to look at. On the main article Europe, very occasionally we get disputes about the use of the terms Western Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Europe which have ambiguities depending on context. By contrast Europe is a stable article and most disruption has been from sockpuppets of returning banned users. This is not the case on the less watched articles just listed, which are much less stable. A superficial glance at the edits of Arcillaroja does not suggest POV-pushing; his editing has been in line with consensos on Europe. However, edits like these by Gregorik, who I understand self-identifies as Hungarian, are problematic. [37] (edit summary: "Give it up, you sad loser, sorry!") [38] (a revert: "My apologies to Arcillaroja") I can recognize quite disruptive edits on Western Europe by Rejedef (talk · contribs), who self-identifies as Polish, whose suggested changes to Europe have not been accepted by any other users. Similar edits on Western Europe were reverted by Arcillaroja and other users. On Eastern Europe it is also Gregorik's edit summaries that are problematic. Just recently with two reverts: [39] ("too funny!") [40] ("still the entertainer"). The edit summaries of Arcillaroja seem fine.[41] Arcillaroja has only made 314 article edits in his 3 1/2 years on wikipedia, which makes this request look a bit odd. I would not be surprised if a more detailed analysis revealed more problems with Gregorik's editing; but nothing probably that warrants anything more than a mild warning to avoid giving the appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. The inflammatory phrasing of this request does not help. I have not looked at article talk page comments. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hanging the hangman, as it happens on ANI all the time. Thanks for the input, Mathsci. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It's called WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Nothing unexpected though. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have now looked at Talk:Eastern Europe. Gregorik's editing there seems a little like POV-pushing. I don't see any problems with the edits of Arcillaroja. I also looked at Talk:Central Europe. There the extremly disruptive editors were Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), blocked three times under AE, and socks of Stubes99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). There is also a recent content dispute between Gregorik and Arcillaroja about definitions and sources. Gregorik's last comment yesterday verges on a personal attack:[42] "When it all adds up, are you a valuable contributor to the Central Europe and Eastern Europe articles, or a troll with an axe to grind?" The rest of this edit by Gregorik seems confrontational and unhelpful. For the article Europe, the 1997 book of Lewis and Wigen, "The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography", was an invaluable source for questions of this type; it addresses this particular point on pages 60-62.[43] Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Now there's a book I'll probably read, as the blurb says it "bravely exposes the ethnocentrism at the heart of geography". But your own sweeping judgments are unhelpful. Don't expect that 3 pages in a book (not even written by Central Europeans!) will cover the deep issue of Central/Eastern European identity. Anyway, I've already closed the case with Arcillaroja above. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you should be more careful what you write, particularly here. The diff above is a personal attack by you; and so far no evidence has been found of any "thinly disguised racism". The book I mentioned is published by University of California Press and is a WP:RS. If you are objecting to it because it is not written by authors from Eastern Europe or Central Europe, that could create problems for you under WP:DIGWUREN. Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope, it cannot create problems for me. The cultlike system of WP rules creeps me out (so I remain a WikiSloth), but I'm in no real danger of gross violation. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
On a previous occasion in July 2008 another user objected to a book on Chechen culture written by Johanna Nichols from the University of California, Berkeley for the same reasons you gave. That was Log in, log out (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Read my line again please. I was questioning your odd suggestion that 3 pages from any book would solve this century-old issue, not questioning the Holy RS. Please take it to my talkpage if there's anything else. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The book I referred to is written by experts; I selected three pages as an example. On the other hand, you have not been using any kind of comparable source: indeed your method of editing, using dictionaries etc, looks like classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, where you have a pre-formed point of view which you are going to "prove" by cherrypicking isolated statements from sources. You write here that this is "a century-old problem". Wikipedia, however, is about transferring and paraphrasing information from WP:RS into content in articles. Please do not use it as a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:FORUM for airing your own personal views on national identity in Hungary or anywhere else. Continuing to do so, for example by tendentiously pushing a point of view on article talk pages, could result in a report at WP:AE and a topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
1. Don't expect us casual WP:WikiSloths to observe other WP rules than WP:DGAF and WP:Ignore all dramas on the long run. We're still invaluable here, because we think outside the box. I for one have been here for almost 7 years without a single ban. If we're banned, we shrug. 2. Develop a sense of humour. Especially as an admin. Creepy admins == Bad for WP. 3. Close this thread please. Thank you, Mathsci. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Gregorik keeps POV-pushing [[44]] and acting childishly. It is disappointing. it seems that he only gives validity to the opinions that are favorably to his views. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring On Stanton.jpg[edit]

EEkster insists to delete File:Stanton.jpg, and continues to editwar on the picture, even though it is a U.S. Government picture. Please end this editwar before things get out of hand. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll presume you're referring to Eeekster, who is known for examining uploaded images and verifying their status and permissions for usability on Wikipedia. If so, I'd suggest you listen to any advice they offer, rather than repeatedly removing the correctly-placed notices regarding image licensing. Doing so just might let you avoid hoisting yourself on your own petard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A CU on the filing editor would probably be the simplest path to resolving this problem. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To what end? There have only been two editors working with that file: BusyBlacksmith and Eeekster. Looking at Contribution histories, I don't see any indication of non-constructive editing. The WP:CHECKUSER tools can't be used for fishing. As to the issue at hand, it looks to me like a content dispute, one that's generating a bit more heat than needed. My 2p is that this should have been handled on the file Talk page, or on that of one of the users involved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I already tossed it to PUF for discussion and with that I'm done with the file. Eeekster (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image seems to have come from [45] where the attribution is to the subject. CIreland (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't "insist" on deleting anything. But I do insist on leaving the delete tag until the problems are resolved. That's standard procedure. Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged for speedy under WP:CSD#F4, as of now the image has no license at all. Kelly hi! 01:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a U.S. government photo, and as such, it fails the wikipedia "fair use" rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Initially the image had a PD-text license tag. As this is clearly invalid for a photograph I removed it and put up an F4. Eeekster (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, WP:CSD#F11 is probably more appropriate, since the uploader does assert a US Government license. I'll change it. Kelly hi! 01:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would a city official have a photo taken by a U.S. government photographer? Not that it couldn't happen, but it seems odd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. It does seem to be the most appropriate speedy tag, though. Kelly hi! 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "no evidence of permission" seems to apply. The OP asserts it's a US government photo, but he presents no evidence to that effect. In fact, it appears to be a state photo, and as we recall from the Loughner situation, Arizona's state photos are not public domain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes - The Safety Council of Northwest Ohio[edit]

Can another administrator please have a look at The Safety Council of Northwest Ohio and the cycle of reverts occurring there? I believe i am to involved right now to continue handling this one myself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is sounding like either puppetry or a flood of SPA's now - if you look at the page history, you'll see four new accounts, all repeatedly inserting the same information, and then exiting stage left. Here's a list:
Could somebody check into this please? Note: I will notify all the users shortly. Notified. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Opened a WP:SPI case on it - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rausperk. I equally managed to wander into WP:3RR territory, as Sarek quite rightly pointed out. Won't happen again :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed - they are all socks. All now blocked, and any underlying IPs which were also being used for editing Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request early termination of RfC[edit]

Having just proposed a rename of Bibliography of biology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and had the decision go against him, Curb Chain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has started a new one. The wording of this new request is unclear, but he seems to be trying to dial back the clock so as to undercut the recent decision. This RfC has no constructive purpose and I request an early termination. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See also some of the background in this earlier ANI discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RM issue is different from this one. As the RfC explains, List of important publications in biology was moved unilaterally to Bibliography of biology. I want to gather consensus in a procedural manner that List of important publications in biology should be redirected to Bibliography of biology as this is effectively deleting an article.
Note none of the other articles in this serisseries (List of important publications in science) are named in this way. For the sake of consistency, I believe all the articles should have a consistent name.Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. The wording of his RFC is unclear having confused myself and others(RockMagnetist and Jowa fan) as to exactly what he was proposing. According to User:Bduke at the RFC several editors have been attempting to slow down Curb's attempts to rename "List of" articles into "Bibliography of" articles without any support from any other editors for an RFC at this point.AerobicFox (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
For further context, this also came up at List of publications in physics a few days ago. Relevant threads that I was involved with are at WT:PHYS#Bibliography of physics, Talk:List of important publications in physics#Move, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies#Outside comment on page moves. Quite a number of "List of publications in.." pages were renamed to "Bibliography of.." without prior discussion. This appears to have been done in good faith, but it also appears to have been done more-or-less unilaterally (WikiProject Bibliographies is only a few weeks old, and had about three active participants at the time I was interacting with them). I'd suggested at the time that they start an RFC on changing the naming convention for such articles. I have not followed up to see whether or not they did that. Per my post on the WT:WikiProject Bibliographies page, I feel that "List of..." is more consistent with the guidelines given at WP:LIST, but if a project-wide RFC declares otherwise, it isn't worth arguing about. My concern is that no such RFC had been attempted at the time the mass-renaming took place. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The issues are getting a bit confused here. Curb Chain did rename a block of lists to bibliographies, without our knowledge or support, but the current RfC is an effort to undercut a consensus to keep Bibliography of biology as it is. The steps recommended by Christopher Thomas would be appropriate if we actually intended a block rename of articles, but no one besides Curb Chain ever contemplated that. Our main goal is to improve the lists. We think that "Bibliography of ..." is a better name for them, but we intended to make the change, with consensus, one article at a time. Finally, the decision for the previous RfC on the name of Bibliography of biology was labelled "no consensus", but really there was a consensus - among everyone but Curb Chain - to keep the name. However, that is all background and is already being discussed in a separate ANI. The purpose of this ANI is to terminate an inappropriate RfC. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment and chronology As regards WikiProject Bibliographies, User:Curb Chain was invited to be a participant by me on Oct 31 here. Since that invitation, he has not participated in the project, other than defending his actions re some unilateral moves on the project talk page. I personally don’t consider Curb Chain as having any productive association with the Bibliography project.

  • On Sept 23, 2011, the article List of important publications in biology was nominated for deletion.
  • On Sept 30, 2011, Curb Chain made the following deletion vote in that AfD: Delete I can't see how this we could ever define "important" as in the sense of "landmark". So many things fall within the continuum of important and unimportant.
  • Sept 30, 2011 List of important publications in biology was deleted per discussion at the Afd
  • On Oct 1, 2011, Curb Chain nominated List of Important publications in medicine for deletion based on the precedent set in the biology AfD. His arguments throughout this AfD were based on the contention that important could not be defined. Several other similar lists were nominated with the same rationale at the same time. Most of those AfDs resulted in a Keep decision.
  • On Oct 4, 2011 I contributed to the AfD with a Keep position suggesting the List of be renamed Bibliography of This suggestion resulted in several other editors showing some interest in that convention.
  • On Oct 7, 2011 I began drafting the project WikiProject Bibliographies to see if we could begin to bring some better advice and stability to these types of lists. That effort went on behind the scenes in collaboration with a few other editors, as the draft project page developed. User:RockMagnetist was one of those editors.
  • On Oct 29, Admin User:King of Hearts moved the deleted List of important publications in biology out of the incubator into the mainspace [at the request of RockMagnetist?] for the expressed purpose of using the list as a test bed for the draft advice in the draft bibliography project.
  • On Oct 31, RockMagnetist made an improper cut and paste move to Bibliography of biology. He asked me to fix the redirects and history, which I did on Oct 31.
  • On Nov 2, in this discussion, Curb Chain began alluding to the need to move all such List of important … articles to Bibliography of …. At the time, no one within the Bibliography project that I can tell was ever contemplating that in the short term.
  • On Nov 2, User:Curb Chain began making unilateral moves of these articles and brought down the criticism of several other editors on the Bibliography project, a project whose participants had nothing to do with Curb’s unilateral actions moves.
  • On Nov 2, Curb Chain also unilaterally, and without any discussion with me or warning, moved the draft WikiProject Bibliographies out of my user space and into the Wikimedia space. I did not move it back as it was complete enough at that point to survive in the Wikipedia space.
  • Over the next few days, several editors advised Curb Chain on his talk page and article talk page to slow down and stop making , unilateral and disruptive moves.
  • On Nov 6, Curb initiated a WP:RM on Bibliography of biology to move it back to the List of title. That discussion was closed on Nov 13 with no consensus to move.
  • On Nov 14, Curb removed redirects from the List of important publications in biology claiming those redirects amounted to deleting the article with that title and that deletion was done without consensus. (He was apparently ignoring the consensus at the RM and the AfD of the same name, or he does not understand the consequences of deletion and renaming on redirect as such)
  • On Nov 15, Curb initiated the RFC under discussion here.

Desired outcome, as an editor and an Admin I’d like to see two outcomes here. 1) I trust someone will explain to Curb Chain why his actions between Sept 30 and today have been disruptive to the project. 2) That the RFC underdiscussion is closed as soon as practical. 3) I trust that whoever closes this discussion will not associate Curb’s actions with either the intentions of or actions of the WikiProject Bibliographies. There are currently over 450 articles in WP that can be classified as bibliographies. Their article titles are all over the map. The project has never promoted or even suggested wholesale renaming on any grounds, and I believe for the most part wants any renaming to be done when necessary through the measured RM process. The project's sole purpose is to improve the quality of this type of list within WP. Whether Curb’s actions are intentionally designed to bring discredit to the project and its participants can’t be determined, but I certainly would like to see his actions as outlined above disassociated with the intentions of the project. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we are dealing with deliberate disruption or competence issues, but patience is wearing thin on my end, and I've had less direct dealings with Curb Chain than several other of the involved editors have. His actions are disruptive, whether intentionally so or not. LadyofShalott 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Abusive IP Edits: IP 190.46.108.141[edit]

[46] "You dopy little fuck", "just stop being a retard, and I'll stop treating you like one" not to mention the little diatribe entitle "Cunts". Has already been blocked a week for incivility and edit warring. [47] Is now edit warring to keep his "cunts" diatribe in place. Also such gems as "You were, and remain, a fucking idiot, You're a despicable liar.". Could someone please block this guy, does not make any attempt whatsoever to discuss, just responds with abuse. I have tried to discuss his edits but I don't believe I should have to put up with this anymore. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) [48] Diff of AN/I notice as he habitually removes warnings. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Possibly a dynamic IP, so we might need to consider other action if they continue -- Boi