Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing![edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original section header: "Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing. Don't like an edit? Call them a sock! I don't like Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, they must be socks of each other! Hitler then would be leader of the USSR!"

I usually just read Wikipedia. Every time I edit a little, incivility causes me to leave. I have decided to edit but again I see that it is hopeless. As administrators, you should try to put an end to this Wikipedia nonsense.

Problems include: 1. If people don't like an editor, just call them a sock. Some sez guy, who is a sock of GrouchoPython, called me a sock just because I made some useful suggestions that he didn't like.

2. I made some very good suggestions to the Obama article but there is a knee jerk reaction to revert them, not even discuss them. Then the discussion is hidden in a collapsable box. What kind of hospitality is that? It borders on incivility.

2a. These suggestions include not jumping back and forth from year to year in the intro. For example, the last version talked about Obama in college and law school, jumps to Senate then jumps back to law school and jumps back to a House run (in between law school and his senate run). If this were a school paper, that section would get an F yet this is called a Featured Article. Get real and at least consider my good suggestions and discuss them.

2b. Obamacare is not mentioned at all. Even if you hate the word, thousands of articles have it, not the formal name. So a brief mention of the word "obamacare" should be mentioned. In that section, there is detailed accounts on the date it was passed by the House and Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with the biography of Obama. Yet some important changes are omitted. (FYI, the 1099 requirement, the Medicaid co-pay proposal, the free birth control requirement recently enacted).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let's have administrators reading this try to solve the incivility problem, the false sock accusation problem, and possible ways to have good suggestions, like mine, considered and discussed not just reverted and responded with sock accusations. After all, we are trying to write a good encyclopedia, not a bad amateur blog!

On the other hand, I've read WP enough that I know that people like to be cruel and do bad things. Therefore, you can edit Wikipedia yourself. I will just read it and not fight an uphill battle to do good. Midemer (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue that requires an administrator? That's what this board is for. If you have an issue with the content of an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If there is a content dispute that cannot get resolved on the article's talk page, take it to WP:DRN for content dispute resolution. If you have a broad policy concern, raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But this appears to be wrong noticeboard for your issue - it does not make policy, and it is not for solving content disputes. Singularity42 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, it's up to the community to decide whether your suggestions are good. Of course you think they are, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, invoking Godwin's Law instantly in the topic header? Tsk, tsk... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
READ GODWIN'S LAW. It says arguments will result in comparing one side's beliefs with the belief's of Hitler or Nazis. No, I did not say that other editors are Hitler or have similar beliefs. I am not Hitler and do not have Nazi beliefs. Midemer (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, I agree. The community should decide. However, it is incivility to squash discussion as has been done. Collapsing discussion into a box, essentially censoring and closing it is bad. Then falsely accusing sockpuppetry.

Administrators should put a stop to this incivility, threatening blocking, if necessary.

You see, the knee jerk reaction in WP is to say "Bushranger and Singularity42, you two sort of agree so you are socks of each other". How would you like to be accused of that?

WP needs to think of a better way. As for me, I will let the bullies and the clowns have their way. I've made good suggestions and smart people would discuss this, even if it is not adopted. Best of luck to Amateur Wikipedia, I mean, English Wikipedia. Midemer (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing you can do to help is to avoid characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, as you did here [1]. Your edit summary was the opposite of AGF. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I said it was an accident, that this editor deleted a lot of other stuff. That editor's edit summary said he was concerned about one little word but deleted a lot of stuff, maybe because he used twinkle. Midemer (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Without a specific incident or specific complaint about a particular editor, you are simply making too broad a complaint here. It isn't that nobody cares, just that there are steps one takes and in the correct way and location. This sounds like it might well just be a content dispute which can be directed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can bring up this situation for the community to discuss. If you have a problem with a specifc editor or editors you should then bring it here. You must show good faith in others by not overreaching in your complaint and sounding like you are just mad because they are not letting your contributions stand. This happens often in the more controversial articles. I suggest cooling down and resetting you frame of mind and then deciding if you have a content dispute or a probelm with individual behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Comment I smell a troll. First, is this tasty edit summary. He then goes on to state that he thought it might have been a 'friendly joke'. For what it's worth. Ishdarian 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This user has 78 edits in almost 5 years. Only 26 of those 78 were to articles. See [2].--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I filed a SPI report here. The similarities are obvious. I have a bad internet connection right now(in and out), so please excuse the mistakes. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
User:DD2k has a history of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit. DD2K makes no attempt to discuss edits, which is the way WP is supposed to be. I looked at DD2K's talk page and he falsely accused User:Jack Paterno of being a sock. I say falsely accused because there is no CU data that shows he is a sock. DD2K just yells loud enough until someone thinks "if it is said many times, it must be true." If this is WP, I want no part of WP. Congratulations, you have just chased away a good editor with good ideas. Midemer (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to assume good faith about the OP here. To me it looks like someone who wants to contribute, but chose a very bad place to start (articles are prominent political figures are very tricky) and then was greeted with contempt. Midemer, I encourage you stay around and help build Wikipedia. For your own sake, I encourage you to stay away from Obama, Romney, Santorum, etc. articles until you've gained experience. Dealing with these articles is a complete headache even for experienced editors, as they are constantly edited (both in good faith and otherwise) by people with a POV who may or may not be aware of their own bias. If you feel you must contribute to these articles, I suggest you use the talk page to discuss potential changes by expressing your opinions in the most straightforward way possible (i.e with zero reference to other people's perceived biases). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two key things from my very own user page:
  1. Who are all these socks (essay)
  2. First rule of Sockpuppet Accusations: Put up or shut up. Either file your case, or STFU
Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I admit that my sympathy for people who complain about the Incivilities! Done! To! Them!, using uncivil terms to do so, is limited. As is often the case, the OP believes he writes with the voices of angels, and while there is no reason on the limited information supplied to presume he is anything other than a brilliant political commentator, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you will wind up on the minority side, whereupon your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Unless the OP is alleging his attempts at discussion are being censored off the pertinent talk pages - which of course would be a serious violation - this isn't a matter for AN/I. If (as appears more likely to be the case) no one's paying attention to the OP's POV, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines requiring editors to do so in writing. Ravenswing 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Firstly Congratulations! to the clue-full editor who re-factored the Header, thus contributing to a calmer discussion at this page. This ought to be done as a matter of course, if necessary.
Secondly, Bad Wikipedia Habits do result in inferior articles. This editor has made a legitimate comment that editors who shoot from the hip with accusations of sock-puppetry are being un-civil, and doing a dis-service to en.Wikipedia. This sort of tactic employed to "win" content disputes is, um, despicable. And too prevalent, see above.
Can we please work on, and concentrate in a focused way on improving articles, and only on improving articles, not on attacking strangers? NewbyG ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That would, indeed, be nice, and if the OP has any specific complaints about the behavior of specific editors (backed up, hopefully, by specific diffs and/or the specific articles in question), as he has been repeated exhorted to do, no doubt any such allegations will receive the proper scrutiny. With only two dozen edits in articlespace over five years, though, you'll no doubt forgive people for skepticism that the OP has indeed met with a recurring pattern of hostility against his edits. Ravenswing 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban DarknessShines TopGun[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently the community decided that an interaction ban between Users DarknesShines and TopGun was an appropriate course of action. I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator review the following history of possible gaming the system.

Users notified of interaction ban Top Gun at 11:54, 24 February 2012, Darkness Shines at 11:54, 24 February 2012.

Both users are extensively and acrimoniously involved in an RFC. I request that both users be banned from the RFC.

DBigXRay makes his/her first edit at this heated RFC.Revision as of 14:17, 24 February 2012.

DBXR awards User:DS a barnstar at 04:37, 25 February 2012.

User:TG nominates for deletion one of the few articles that User:DBXR has created.

User:DS joins TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion (whether the article should be deleted or not) here.

A Sock Puppet investigation on user [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray|DBigXray] seems to indicate there have been some more SPI's, so that can be looked into also, but additional requests for sock puppet investigations have been added.[3]

I request that User:TopGun be blocked for a period of time for gaming the system for the deletion nomination, and I request both users, User:TopGun, and User:DarknessShines, be blocked for evading their interaction bans.

I request that both users be banned from participating in the RFC. They are using it to continue their bad interactions with each other. If there really are underlying issues they will not be resolved with either one of them commenting.

I request that both users be banned from nominations for deletion of any articles that either user or associates have worked on, maybe any AFDs at all. I request that both users be banned from interacting on an AFD that the other has nominated or participated in. Maybe any AFDs at all.

I have no good faith left to assume with these users. This is a waste of everyone's time.

Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've in no way violated the interaction ban. I saw a post about a school on the help desk [4] (where I reply regularly), and I nominated the school article for deletion as it did not have any reliable sources. There was no interaction with DS. I had some debate with another user DBigXray about the sources where I discussed with him the sources of the article in much detail without heating up the discussion on my side. Although DS joined in to that discussion, I made no replies to him and did not mention him. I did include the sources he provided in my analysis which did not lead to any interaction either. I'll also note that this is the only AfD I've nominated as of yet (and it was never edited by DS) and any reasonable editor will say that this nomination was not out of normal... this report is baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with TopGun that my report is entirely baseless. I should have included that in the initial wording. If this was the only AfD TopGun has ever made, and as the only AfD nominated, not out of order at all, then he should not have used his "only AfD nominated as of yet," for an article by someone interacting with DarknessShines. I stand by all my requests above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
None of my replies in the Afd are heated or to DS, but to the creator DBigXray. And they are around the policies and sources. Fortunately for me, DbigXray himself specifies that I got to the article through his comment on the help desk. So this is not at all about DS. He is the one who entered there without any previous edits, and I could not have anticipated that. Still I did not interact. And my ban is with DS, not with any arbitrary person who interacts with him. About the RFC, I don't think DS made any comment there, only I did on the references posted there by some one else... are you even checking what you are posting? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support banning the wrongdoer
(as my name has been taken above) i would give an explanation The above user Topgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the article for deletion at once. and then he opened 3 Sockpuppet cases against me the 3 IPS in question are
  1. 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
  2. 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
  3. 180.149.53.194 is my IP when i forgot to login , i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed[5]
IopGun seems to be motivated against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past and had tried to get be blocked numerous times i can give all the evidence if needed be --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hounding is following your contributions, thanks for clarifying that I came to the article after replying you at the helpdesk. This is not hounding and the nomination was on its own merits. I've filed the SPI per the reasons given there. Any content disputes I had with this editor are long idle/resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes TopGun has been hounding me since my return to editing and following my comments on RFC on indians in afghanistan
  • another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments on talk pages or mislead admins from his own wrong doings ,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I started (requested) that RFC, for everyone's information. This can not be considered hounding by any approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
While I was actually trying to help this user on how to find sources, this is the comment I get in reply [6]. And then wikireader appears out of nowhere (really suspicious now), who always makes a comment on me instead of content like the current one. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Another wrong and misleading attempt . see the timestamp of wikireader's comment . it was earlier than my comment. exactly opposite to what you claim above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That was in reference to the nomination, not your last comment. I specified when I referred to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm seriously loosing my patience with this. Are you all serious? Pseudofusulina - how is it a violation of a topic ban for TopGun to interact with a user he is not banned from interacting with? All of you get off ANI and find something better to do, you're wasting everyone's time. When there is a real interaction ban violation between the users that are banned from interacting with each other, than you can come back. The rest of this RFC nonsense isn't ANI's problem.--v/r - TP 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
They are interacting on each others' AFDs. If you don't edit in their area, you don't get the delight of going to a page where both have edited, where they come up with an AFD for the others' article (currently DS), or they are trying to save an article the other has AFDed (TG). Since they cannot be kept away from each other even with a ban, I'll just leave their space (wikipedia) to them. An interaction ban that doesn't include blocking the interacting users from gaming the systems is a joke. Everywhere they do this, they are piling this nonsense on wikipedia, if it isn't dealt with now at AN/I, that's where it will go, all over the Pakistan articles, RFCs, AFDs, talk pages. However, I can solve that by giving up on editing. I don't edit that much anyhow, and retention of editors isn't an issue, more come along all the time. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It is an interaction ban with each other not a ban from editing or discussing content with any one at all... can't be more clearer than TP. You dragged us to ANI. Come back when you have a diff where I or DS reply to each other, mention each other or comment on each other. I can not simply leave any topic I was already editing just because DS entered the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions. This report is completely unfounded.--v/r - TP 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban violation[edit]

  • On a side note, I'll like to report a clear (one-sided) ban violation from DS to which I've made no response:
This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. DS has now nominated [7] this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per the article talk page note he made before the ban to me and acknowledging it there now. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I cannot comment on Pseudof's speculations, but as far as the AfD nominated by DS on Pak Watan is concerned (an article which TopGun contributed to and of which there is evidence at Talk:Pak Watan that DS has gone there uninvited before), this is outrageous and inexcusable stuff from Darkness Shines. I think this one's a no-brainer where gaming the system may apply (nominating an article for a deletion discussion, while having knowledge that the article is of interest to another user with whom there is an interaction ban). I will again reiterate my suggestion that a topic ban on Darkness Shines on all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles which are of interest to TopGun and where DS has barged in unwelcome) should be in order. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - DS said that the nomination would likely happen several days before the iban. Mar4d and TopGun have been emailing each other. Neither of these things are wrong, but in the interests of clarity ... - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment DoOnce the interaction ban was placed, both players needed to stop treating the entire wikipedia community as if we are morons and cannot see they are gaming the system to circumvent the ban and that neither one intends to leave the other alone, community ban or not. So, I missed this game play by DS, catching only TG's. I'm more interested in keeping TG in line because of his editing contributions in an area I see as needing work. OK, I didn't spend 5 hours getting correct every detail of their bad faith interactions to circumvent the ban. OK they were both guilty of gaming and violating the ban, rather than only one gaming. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD, don't comment on each others' AfDs, don't participate in AfDs at all, don't interact with each other. Who isn't tired of this? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not violate the ban even remotely, you need to read WP:IBAN. Don't imply a cascading IBAN by yourself. Read TP's comment to your bad report above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would recommend Pseudofusulina read WP:IBAN. I gave notice 10 days before nominating that article that it would go to AFD if sources were not found[8] I believe this is ample time to prove the terms notability and whether or not it is what the article says it is. I hounded nobody to that article, I got there from the what links here on the article of the made up word Pakophilia as can be seen from my removal of the temrHere And I got to the made up term after following it from Here. There are no IBAN violations here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While DarknessShines did indicate an intent to AfD before the interaction ban, nominating it after the ban was placed is, in my opinion, a violation of the ban. However, perhaps a warning would be better at this point rather than a block. TopGun's deletion nomination is, at best, pointy. A warning there would do as well. But, I do support banning both editors from the RfC in question. Their views are clear and their further comments are only muddying the issue. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I formally supported my interaction ban with DS so that we don't interact any more (which means I don't want to), and I requested for that RFC to be initiated, so I'm a key participant. There have also been no interactions there or anywhere else... I think that is enough to get a good faith? As far the RFC itself is concerned, there are some serious referencing issues which I pointed out... purely content dispute. About this Afd with ban violation, I think it should be outright closed/reverted like any other edits of a ban violation and made sure this doesn't happen again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Xavexgoem and countless others on 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: Nothing to see here. Accuser's own edit summary attacks are almost beyond the pale.  Frank  |  talk  04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at his edits. He is a POV-pusher.

He falsely accused me of sockpuppetry of being editors I've never heard of. I have been reading WP for years.

When you don't like an edit (even though mine are well thought through) and then you falsely accuse people of sockpuppetry, you are being incivil and should be banned. If DD2K were a grown-up, he would discuss things like saying "I disagree with your suggestions and think the edit should be like this....".

Only an incivil person or juvenile would think "I don't like him.....he is bad....he is a sock." If everyone was this way, we'd look at President Assad of Syria and think "he is bad" and then make a complaint to WP saying "Assad is a sock, ban him".

To disagree with an edit and, instead of discussing it, to say to the other person is a sock is bad behavior and should result in DD2K being blocked. As far as I know, this Gaydenver editor (whom DD2K falsely accuses me of being a sock) never edited about the Obama 1099 issue (which makes Obama look good...I admit I am an Obama fan) or made suggestions to make the introduction of the article (lede) chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DD2K disagrees with an edit, does not discuss it, but makes false sockpuppet accusations. For this incivility, he should be blocked. At least block him 72 hours pending SP investigations. Midemer (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see on the talk page of DD2K that he wrote a sarcastic edit summary of "For Pete's Sake", did not discuss things, then after the person tried to discuss things with him (user:Jack Paterno), successfully got that person blocked permanently. He falsely accused him of being a sock and there is no CU data to support this assertion. This shows that DD2K has a record of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit (and makes no attempt to discuss). This kind of behavior is very destructive and harmful to WP. DD2K should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind. If he is not, I predict DD2K will keep on doing this as he has done before. I see he did it in Nov 2011, is doing it in Feb 2012, and keeps on....This is disruption. Midemer (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The checkuser has responded. I am not a sock. This other sock person is, according to posts, an employee of the City of Denver. I am in Los Angeles. DD2K, in an archived CU request of Gaydenver, also accused User:UT Professor, an employee of the University of Texas (Austin?). This shows that DD2K is really grabbing at straws. He must be blocked for massive disruption extending over years. Midemer (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Midemer, the clerk (not checkuser) said nothing of the sort. He simply pointed out the technical impossibility of proving you are a sock at the moment. Regardless, there's no merit to your complaint. You came to the Barack Obama article and made some changes. When those changes were reverted, you went to the talk page and insisted your version was better in the complete absence of sources, in addition to insulting everyone who edits the article. If you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith, especially of those who disagree with you, you should avoid content disputes, or perhaps avoid Wikipedia entirely. I can't fault DD2K for assuming bad faith on someone who acts like a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that is false. I made some suggestions. I did not constantly revert and insist on editing the same thing. DD2K is the one who should be blocked since he has falsely accused people on multiple occasions, whenever he doesn't like an edit. I looked at his talk page. He reverted someone's edit and instead of explaining it just wrote "For Pete's Sake" as an edit summary. He later became more sadistic and just falsely accused the person of being a sock. That kind of disruption should cause DD2K to be blocked.
Someguy1221, you and I are discussing things now. This is the way it should be. I don't just start accusing you of being DD2K's sock and get you blocked. See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me, and a disruptive editor, like DD2K. Midemer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC) You didn't provide any links and it's not clear from your contrib history (or DD2K) but if a checkuser (and possibly a clerk) felt there was a legitimate case to consider and ran a checkuser request, then it's hard to imagine DD2K did anything blockable, unless they lied about evidence. Checkuser requests aren't used for fishing and by and large will only be run of the checkuser feels there is a valid reason to do so. The feeling of another user that there is valid reason does not significantly affect that decision. In other words, the fact that DD2K may have been wrong here doesn't indicate they are being disruptive. BTW, you have failed to notify Midemer of the discussion as the orange box clearly says you should, I have done so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misreading it...but wasn't Midemer the editor that started this discussion? - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right I got confused and checked the wrong person. Apologies to Midemer for incorrect claim. Well the part about Midemer not notifying Midemer was technically correct, but there's no requirement to notify yourself that you initiated an ANI discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found the checkuser request now. Gaydenver apparently has a history of one sockpuppetry so saying someone is a sockpuppet of Gaydenver is itself hardly disruptive. Continously accusing people of being a sockpuppet (even if the person you connect them to is a sockpuppet) without evidence may be. The checkuser request was declined because the Gaydenver case is stale so that's not relevant here. (Note as I said above if the checkuser request is actually run, that likely means there was sufficient evidence.) I make no comment on the evidence presented, but you'd need more then one case for this to come close to being blockable. The headers of this page, other then telling you to notify people you discuss also discuss ways you can attempt to resolve problems with another party like a RFC or WQA. From what Someguy1221 has said who appears to have looked in to the case more, I suggest you be aware of WP:Boomerang before trying to pursue any problems with DD2K again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment). Hello, Midemer, this is Shirt "Mr always nice to everybody and never says anything in the slightest bit snarky" 58. You wrote:See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me... You are either delusional or a troll.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Shirt, if you were an admin, would you block indefinitely? (Just throwing this out there for the purpose of discussion--finding "a way forward".) Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Drmies, if I were an WP:ADMIN, I would immediately recuse myself from any sysop action as WP:INVOLVED, come back as an editor, strike the comment as a personal attack, apologise to the editor, and talk to them about how to improve the project.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

tpg on obama:talk[edit]

Will someone please revert [9]? There's nothing in WP:FORUM or WP:TPG that supports an involved editor hatting or stuffing comments they don't like into an archive. Note: I did remove some comments that we totally off topic per TPG. Nobody Ent 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the Obama page slipped off my watchlist. Is Gaydenver back as yet another sock? Tarc (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
See the above section, and the one two above. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) If somebody thinks that a) unsourced claims, b) offensive rants, and c) personal opinions do not violate WP:FORUM, go ahead and revert. Might become precedent though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Even if it's not supported by a specific wording (although as you say, it does allow the complete removal of OT comments), I have seen in place archiving, quick archiving etc being used be in a particularly active talk page like that concerning a controversial recent event. Whether it was needed here I'm not going to comment but since I don't feel there's a good reason to keep the comments, I'm reluctant to revert. Incidentally why did you want an administrator to do the reverting? Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't have to be an admin; I'm 1rr and would rather have another editor make the revert in the spirit of consensus. Nobody Ent 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess my point wasn't obvious. I meant since this is at ANI, it seems you must be requesting the help of an admin and if not, what is this doing at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The danger of archiving is that it can be abused very easily. Don't like an opinion, particularly if it is very good....remove it either by reverting or archiving. This is very evil. Obama is a liberal and is against book burning. I am against book burning. Fox News fans love book burning.

EXECURTIVE SUMMARY Administrators should be aware that disruptive users will quickly revert talk page comments, put them in a hat (collapse them), or quickly archive them. If they do this, that is very disruptive and can start fights. Because it is disruptive, users who do these things should be blocked immediately. DD2K is a user that does this. He's not the only one. Midemer (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Midemer (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I've given Midemer a time-out for this edit. I am open to comment if anybody thinks I am being too harsh, but it seemed to me like a classic WP:POINT violation. --John (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I also suggest Midemer stop bringing up DD2K in to every single discussion as it's starting to sound like harassment. Although DD2K may have done the initial archiving, the reversion NotEnt was asking us to remove was not done by them. And I note they really failed to notify DD2K having checked the right contrib history this time. I don't feel the previous notification of discussion is sufficient since this is a different topic. However I'm not going to bother with the notification since it seems unnecessary given that Midemer was quickly blocked and no one else is interested in discussion DD2K in yet another thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly after looking at his comments I'm thinking a longer block is going to be needed until Midemer is capable of comprehending that Wikipedia is a collegial, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move of "Health" --> "Human Health"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: Moved back by Barek. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article formerly entitled Health has been moved to Human Health by Autoarbitaster. I can find no consensus for this move (it does not appear to have been discussed at all). I have no idea whether this is an advisable change. However, there appear to be a number of other problems with it. Chief among is that the new title does not follow the policy for Article title format in that it does not use lower case after the first word. There also appear to be (many) problems with redirects and disambiguation. I recommend that this change be reverted until there has been discussion of the intent of this move and general agreement that it is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I stupidly (albeit trying to help) created a section to discuss on the article's talk page...but with a suggestion in my post to "change" the article to the way it already was (sheesh, been one of those nights). Anyway, I struck my comment, but the section is there if anyone really has some further suggestions for the changing the title/redirects etc. since that's where the discussion should take place if so. Quinn RAIN 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that this has been marked as "resolved" but I thought I would give some advice for any future such "incidents". When someone makes a move such as this "without discussion", it's called a bold edit and the best way to handle it, if there's an objection, is to simply move it back and invite the mover to discuss the move, no harm no foul. It only becomes an "incident" if the mover refuses to discuss the issue constantly repeating the action and/or blows a gasket. Only then should one consider "reporting" the action to one of the noticeboards such as WP:DRN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also fine to take it here if someone is deliberately redirect-scorching by moving pages and editing the subsequent redirect to prevent it being moved back, but otherwise what Ron Ritzman says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"Redirect scorching", eh? *files away term for later use* - The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacob Bronowski[edit]

Not an admin matter. Take it to the talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have deleted his name from the list of Senior Wranglers (Mathemtics Tripos, Cambridge University) as such rankings were abolished in 1910, when he would have been 2 years old. I have corrected the entry and don't know who did it. They won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.171.149 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a long list of "Senior Wranglers since 1910", so a) you are wrong, and b) Why delete just this one name, rather than the whole section? And in any case, this is not a matter for AN?I, since no admin action is appropriate or requested. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP[edit]

IP blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

31.47.9.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This anonymous user continues with exact the editing pattern he/she has been repeatedly warned of. He/she adds unsourced material (diff), even to BLPs (diff, diff), and disrupts by re-reverting when getting reverted (hist). The user's talk page is full of warnings and even a final warning. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeffrey Lichtman (edit talk links history)[edit]

Can somebody take a look at this article? Assadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been repeadetly reverting good-faith edits and mislabeling them as vandalism, and keeps inserting apparent non-neutral material and original research. Also, Assadson might be a sockpuppet of DiltonDoiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Klilidiplomus+Talk 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A newly registered editor, User:RexRoth1, has entered the fray, his only edit to being to revert my last rollback. I've posted a 3RR warning on Assadson's page, and to satisfy WP:ANEW, opened a topic on the Lichtman Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
My assumption is RexRoth1 is now editing on behalf of Assaadson based on the timing of my 3RR warning. I don't normally accuse editors of sock puppetry without opening a report, but, in this case, both editors should be blocked, regardless of the sock puppetry issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocked them both, irrelevantly of the SPI issue they are both in flagrant violation of 3RR. Mfield (Oi!) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a safe bet that they will continue to open new accounts as soon as they are blocked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
If they both come back as themselves after the 24-hour block, I will file an SPI report. As for any future new accounts, one possibility is an SPI report, and another is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've already semied the page for a fortnight. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Salvio, one less thing to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:78.101.214.226—Possible legal threat[edit]

This user appears to have made a legal threat in this edit summary. It also looks like a possible impersonation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thought it best to report to you folks. NTox · talk 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I think that the user was making a broad reference to things like abuse response, and what happens to people who vandalize. I see "Thanks Jurisdiction Wikipedia" in the summary, but I don't think he was trying to imply that he was part of WMF at all in the summary. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I looked over the contribs and saw him reporting a vandal to AIV. He seems to simply be trying to revert vandalism. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I think you may be right. Nevertheless, I was troubled by the legal comment and thought it best that someone more experienced take a look. Looks like it's been taken care of. NTox · talk 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

YehudaMizrahi[edit]

WP:NOTHERE editor is no longer here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

YehudaMizrahi is a persistent POV-pusher. He repeatedly makes the same changes at Palestinian people and Palestinian Christians, despite the fact that the sources cited in the article do not support his POV. He removes material from Ofra Haza without explanation. When confronted, he has insulted both RolandR and me (ben zonah means "son of a whore").

When he has been warned about edit-warring, YehudaMizrahi often logs out and continues to edit anonymously. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YehudaMedinaMizrahi/Archive for more information.

Would somebody please review the relevant history and take appropriate action against YehudaMizrah? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material this editor, using several IPs, frequently removes from Ofra Haza is the fact that she is of Yemeni origin, and plays Yemeni-influenced music. This editor has also removed the word "Yemeni" (or in some cases replaced it with the Hebrew version, "Teimani") from many food articles, including Malawach, Jachnun, Skhug and others; and has disruptively edited many dance articles, including Yemenite step, Hora (dance), Flamenco , Huayño and many more. These have been reverted by many different editors, few of whom have noticed the disruptive editing in other areas. I have reported him twice for sockpuppetry. Although my reports have been recognised as accurate and justified, no action has been taken because this editor's editing pattern involves spates of activity using a main account and several IPs (all registered in Hamilton, Ontario), followed by periods of inactivity. So, by the time reports are examined, the editor is not actually editing. But the overall pattern is both tendentious and disruptive, and the incivility towards both Malik and myself in itself deserves sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just invoked WP:NOTHERE and indeffed YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. If any admin thinks I was too heavy-handed, feel free to tweak the block settings. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
So administrator Salvio giuliano blocked an editor participating in one of our most contentious topic areas who:
(1) repeatedly uses non-English phrases to call other editors "son of a whore", "wanker",
(2) uses non-English and English phrases to tell other editors "kiss my ass", and "go fuck yourself"
(3) logs out to continue, under various IP's, a long-term campaign to remove the word "Yemeni" from multiple articles.
WP:NOTHERE seems an accurate assessment: A good call on the block, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz & User:RolandR - Biased users not allowing sourced information but allowing non-sourced information from others[edit]

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I have contributed a lot of information on youtube articles that User:Malik Shabazz has even decided to keep. At first he allowed one of my source on but after 2 months he took it away, since I was concerned I put my source again and he responded by already threatening me that he is going to block me. He is very rude and pushy.

As for User:RolandR, he leaves the Ofra Haza article without sources, he has allowed non-sourced sentences in Ofra Haza's article, but when I put a sentence on Ofra Haza's Teimanim background with sources, he took it off and right away he messaged me threatening me in a rude way that he was going to block me. All I'm doing is trying to contribute to wikipedia, he is also accusing me of other things which are not true. He has issues and his articles are clearly biased since he is allowing non-sourced information. For anyone who is concerned, please do check out the Ofra Haza article. I already reported these users. Please do report these people for a non-bias wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehudaMizrahi (talkcontribs) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This and this are unacceptable. His reactions were downright civil compared to your's. If gentile Christians were present as well (which the first source indicated), it's unbalanced to limit it to only Jewish Christians, so Malik is correct to have reverted you and asked you to stop.
Calling someone Malaka (see Malakas, folks) is also totally unacceptable. As for this, is is indeed our business, because it is unacceptable to use different addresses for sockpuppetry here. As for claiming that he's allowing uncited material, the first source in the article says "Ms. Haza proudly asserted her background as a Yemenite Jew." Another also says "Ofra Haza was born on November 19, 1957 in the Hatikvah quarter of Tel Aviv to parents who had immigrated from Yemen". Your claim that the Yemeni bit is totally inaccurate. Furthermore, your attempted change reverted here cites a source which again says Haza was one of nine children born to parents who had emigrated from Yemen" and at no point does the word "Teimanim" appear anywhere in the source you cite.
In short, not only were Malik and RolandR right to revert you and let you know that you will be blocked if you keep it up, you were wrong to misuse sources, make various personal attacks, and claim that they were the ones causing sourcing problems.
I recommend backing off, or an admin would be completely justified in blocking you after one more screw up. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not only from Ofra Haza that this user and his many sockpuppets is removing the word "Yemeni", but also from many more, including Bo'az Ma'uda, Malawach, Israeli folk dancing, Achinoam Nini, Jachnun], Yemenite step and several others. This slow-moving tendentious editing is extremely disruptive, and is wasting the time of very many editors. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange socking and edit warring[edit]

This strange edit warring discussed here a couple of weeks ago has reared its head again. Revertorium (talk · contribs) and several IPs in the 69.171.160 range are edit warring, with Revertorium claiming that the IPs are socks of the banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs). Anyone know anything about this? Should we block both? (see also WT:PLANTS#Orchid_wars) SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for 24 hours (IP 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)) as they were being disruptive. If anyone knows anything about this though, please unblock/lengthen blocks as necessary. SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A knee-jerk block without any investigation? Bad move. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes - it was preventative, not a punishment per WP:BLOCK. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

As such, I have made Revertorium's block indefinite. --MuZemike 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This accusation is blatantly false. Several admins know exactly which banned user loves to accuse me of socking, and I'd say that is who is behind the specific edits from the 69.171.160.0/24 range. My guess is that the named socks above are User:Vigilant. My guesses and 50 cents will buy you a coke. I keep this account as a sort-of doppelganger now (with very rare exceptions like this edit), and I edit regularly now under a new account; names have long-since been disclosed to the WP Functionaries. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where the hell do you find a Coke for 50 cents these days? --NellieBly (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
On one day in 2003 you could get it for a nickel. [10] - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for clarifying what was going on. I don't anyone any of us at WP:PLANTS would have suspected a banned user faking a revert war with himself. Circéus (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, this exact thing happens surprisingly (disturbingly?) often... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Two different banned users. One using the IP range noted above, the other using Vigilant, Revertorium, etc. Both edit-warring against each other. Over the past year, I have been accused, without any evidence, of socking from many different accounts (one of which was a poor attempt at impersonation) and IP address by one of those banned users, which is why I chose to step in and refute this time. It seems like everywhere he goes, he sees socks that absolutely must be me, but he is sadly mistaken. I will now go back to my regular (and long ago properly disclosed to the Functionaries) account now, and leave this one as a doppelganger again.
As for 50 cents for Coke, well, it was 50 cents when I started using that saying back in the early 90's. I haven't made it keep up with inflation, because "that and a buck twenty-five will buy you a Coke" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Pfagerburg (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the 69.171.160.xx range again from six months. There was some discussion at WT:PLANTS, but it was agreed that it was probably a sensible course of action. Then the following conversation happened. It's pretty pointless as the range has been blocked, why is "Can'tWehaveADialog?" harping on it further? I mean, he's obviously not defending the IPs/users concerned. Can we get a IP check and if possible also a IP block on that one? I have an eery feeling that trolling of a sort is at play here, but as I mentioned to someone in private, I haven't really done enforcement for years now (the mop didn't turn out to be something I normally deal all that well with). Circéus (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to ask someone to do that! SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion moved from WT:PLANTS

Can we talk about this in just this one section without the banhammer falling immediately?

These are the IPs that have been used from the 69.171.160.* range to edit WP:PLANT articles, almost exclusively orchid articles:

Note also the common thread with Military Brat and anti mormon stuff intermixed with plant articles.

IPs in the same range editing topics near and dear to Merkey's heart:

Take a look at the evidence compiled here. Jeff Merkey has gone to great lengths to insert (probably) copyrighted text into many articles using a wide array of IP addresses to mask his work.

Can we talk about this here and ANI without getting out the ban hammer?

Please note that there is text directly below the edit window that reads, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. "

Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think introducing yourself first would be the polite thing to do? What's this all about? Who the heck is Merkey in the first place. Using his name is not enough justification for mass reverts. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
[11] Merkey's history. Poke around. Tons of sockpuppets, indef'd at lesast 20 times, legal threats, calling people's work, crazy stuff about gays and Mormons, the works. Also, [12] search for Merkey.
He has effectively polluted your orchid articles by adding tons of edits with no citations/sources over a wide range of IP addresses. Do what you will. Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Obsidian, this user is another sockpuppet of User:Revertorium and User:It'sJeffMerkeyYouFools from the Orchid Wars discussion above.--Tom Hulse (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you not read the section heading? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You're kidding right? Lol. You want to have a "dialog" about how Jeff is using sockpuppets and is editing while banned... while you use sockpuppets and edit while banned? You can't see how ridiculous your postings are? I for one one would like to thank you for the free entertainment. This is better than a soap opera, lol. ;) --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one inserting thousands of edits of dubious copyright status into hundreds of articles on Wikipedia? Can't *you* see the difference? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mindjuicer and false accusations of sockpuppetry[edit]

Mindjuicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was recently topic banned from alt med articles per the thread towards the top of AN/I right now. He has taken to making false accusations of sockpuppetry against myself, User:SummerPhD and User:Famousdog on his talk page. I warned him here that this can be construed as harassment and explained that all three of us are established editors that edit many pages. He removed my message without responding and has left the accusations on his talk page. I'm not asking to have the user blocked, rather I would like these accusations to either be stricken or taken to WP:SPI and then stricken when it's confirmed that there is no socking. I will notify the user of this discussion momentarily. Noformation Talk 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the user has been notified but removed the notification here. Noformation Talk 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I wasn't going to bother SPIing you as I'm leaving WP for good but it seems you don't know when to stop. --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If you're leaving then blank your talk page and go. As long as you're still here and there are false accusations about me and other editors then it's something that has to be dealt with, sorry. Noformation Talk 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are "suspicions of sock puppetry" and WP:SPI is "a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry", I'm not sure I can see any reason one of us (or should that be "one of me"?) cannot dispose of this by starting a thread there with MJ's accusation. Other than the complete waste of an investigator's time (which I'd imagine would be brief), I'd have no objection. Otherwise, whatever. MJ is, purportedly, gone. Problem, purportedly, solved. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for block review[edit]

The block has now expired. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Jehochman has blocked an IP editor for 48 hours, for a matter which was precipitated by user:jehochman, who is thus involved. 48 hours seems excessive. Indeed the block seems punitive, without further sensible explanation. NewbyG ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if you could link to the blocker, the blockee, and diff the precipitating event(s). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, broadband is playing up. See talk page for IP editor 90.179.235.249 . Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Convenience links: Jehochman (talk · contribs), 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs). I've also notified both editors, which you hadn't done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What are you complaining about? The IP was disruptive, as explained in my block message, and then posted two unblock requests that were both were declined. Jehochman Talk 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I would not pursue this particular thread, Newbyguesses. Nothing good will come of it, and I understand that there is justifiable frustration over this matter that is not being adequately addressed. I am also frustrated; but I'm not about to open a thread like this when I know that the thread is completely doomed. Things will work themselves out - it'll be okay. Cheers... Doc talk 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Please visit my talk page and explain concerns, calmly, with context, and any relevant evidence. Best practice is to attempt a discussion rather that coming straight here. Jehochman Talk 04:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I see no evidence of an "involvement" that would suggest that Jehochman could not rationally or objectively make an administrator's decision. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Heh - well, I guess it's all in how you read the first paragraph of this. Perhaps the vague language should be "hammered out"? I see more misunderstandings on "involved" than perhaps any other policy point - especially among administrators. Doc talk 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • All too often "involvement" is invoked to attempt to de-legitimize even simple blocks. It seems pretty obvious to me that the IP was plenty disruptive. And what about Tiderolls' denying the unblock request? Or we going to review every block on ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Heck no! I said that NBG should not pursue this here - close the thread. Doc talk 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's been my observation that the area between cries of "Involved!" and cries of "Drive-by adminning!" is disturbingly narrow. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You're forgetting "admin abuse". Doc talk 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not that I hvew the faintest idea what going on here, but if the suggestion is that the thread be closed not because there is no case to answer, but because "justice won't be done" than that seems a poor precedent. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ahh, a thirty-second review suggests to me that this is a block that could stand review. Not saying of course that I'm prejudging, just that this appears messy enough that it bears review. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It does need review, and you are correct that I suggested closing it only because I felt that it had no chance to be taken seriously, and not because it had no merit. Doc talk 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • re:Doc's comment on admin abuse. Personally, even admins. get tired of being abused. If you cut us, do we not bleed? ... sigh ... — Ched :  ?  06:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've said many times that cries of "admin abuse" mean that an admin is indeed being abused. Doc talk 07:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
if the IP agrees to and acts to stop attacking other editors, and stops encouraging others to violate policy, I can shorten their block to time served. Jehochman Talk 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Diffs, please, for the attacks and encouragements for others to violate policy? (I note how harsh we are to complainants who make claims such as that without evidence.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If Jehochman doesn't mind me finding the diffs for him, here they are: Clear PA on North8000 and S Marshall: "You and S Marshall are either trolling or incapable of clear judgement" [13] [14]. The encouragment to violate policy is sketchier, but I presume the comments here [15] [16] are what's being referred to, in relation to the discussion preceding them. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Let us not forget this one a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. User:Jehochman 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Newby, you are involved in the WP:V dispute on the same side as te IP, aren't you. How is your participation here not merely an extension of that same battle? (Same comment applies to anybody else who spilled over from that dispute to here.) Jehochman Talk 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


I have encouraged the user to discuss their differences with Jehochman, on the IP's talk page. I too had questions about this block here. I would note that the arguable PA, noted by Bushranger, took place in the context of dispute resolution, and it did not inflame that discussion, at all, nor was it even noted upon by the third party DR mediators - there should be some leeway for users in that context to layout their differences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP followed me to a totally unrelated page and told a user I had just unblocked to disregard my advice about how to remain unblock. That was disruptive and downright cruel to the other user, because it was goading him to get blocked again. When I checked the edit history and saw that the IP had made personal attacks against other editors; the balance of weight was that the IP needed to be blocked. My prior comment about the IP (which probably motivated the IP to hound me) did not factor into the equation at all because at the time I did not recognize that this IP and that IP were the same one. IP numbers aren't memorable like usernames. If the IP renounces personal attacks, hounding and disrupting, they can be unblocked early. Otherwise, the block expires after another day. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Were you talking to me? I am not on any "side" here user:Jehochman. And, it appears we do have the luxury of discussing this for another day, and then it's all over. Yet you rushed to unblock (with a manufactured consensus) another memorable user who had been fairly blocked.
These inconsistencies are the reason I have braved the wrath of this page, not any "side", as if that is what you want to think. And I do not want "blood on the floor" , I know what a trial it must be especially here for admins to face accusations that are way unfair, and have to bear it. No, I don't want that at all, and for me, believe, it ain't about winning, just seeing some fairness done, and efficient process. NewbyG ( talk) 14:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. I think I understand better. I hope J and the IP can work it out, as I have encouraged the IP to do. The IP should be reflective. I am sure J will listen to you with a sincere and generous purpose. Hopefully you will do the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, sorry if I'm not terribly informed on this yet, but is "disregard [Jehochman] advice" what wa