Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Repeated accusations of personal attack over a period of nine months by User:Binarygal

On Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library starting in April 2009 (see Removed external links), Binarygal (talk · contribs) (at times using an anonymous IP, see WQA) has made repeated accusations of being bullied and the victim of personal attacks as well as making vague accusations against other editors being involved in a conspiracy. The recommended WQA process has been followed twice with no resulting change in behaviour or acceptance that this behaviour is a problem. Repeated passive-aggressive style claims of being a victim of personal attack can be considered a personal attack against those accused and in this case is disrupting the normal consensus process. Binarygal has become a WP:SPA, only editing this talk page since the beginning of 2009. In the most recent RfC discussion, Binarygal has made references to my previous account name which was changed for professional privacy reasons and prior issues with Binarygal making assumptions and statements about the professional associations of other editors that may be considered infringements of the guidance of WP:OUTING (see example diff). If she/he wished to substantiate these claims of attack, Binarygal has been advised many times of the dispute resolution processes available by several editors over this period on the talk page itself as well as during the associated WQA discussions.

As advised in the last WQA (see WQA), rather than raising this issue for a third time on that forum, I am raising this notice for assistance with these repeated accusations against me of bullying, conspiracy and harassment which are disrupting potential consensus on this talk page and I believe constitute a personal attack due to being repeated consistently over such an extended period.—Ash (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a simple topic editor. That is all. I know little about Wikipedia procedures, but I do know about the topic I edit and related issues.

Some months ago, prior to the date mentioned above, it became evident that there was a concerted attempt to misrepresent the reality of the topic in question, ITIL. It became clear that there was an issue regarding the Open ITIL movement, and a fairly clear attempt to marginalize it in terms of documenting its very existence.

I correctly resisted this in the article, but the reaction by the editor above in particular was almost unbelievable from my perspective. He launched what I can only describe as a campaign of attrition against all references to the open movement, and simultaneously against myself.

This continued beyond a point which anyone could consider reasonable, nor should have to tolerate. Votes on links came and went, but were repeated if they went the 'wrong' way. The determination to remove all such links is self evident to anyone who reads the history.

That is what I invite everyone to do. Please, please read the full history, because I am sick of this. He has used his knowledge of the Wikipedia procedures as one of a number of sticks with which to bully me, including outright abuse.

You will see that I have consistently requested a full investigation by Wikipedia. This has never been forthcoming.

On the specifics above: no, I have never 'outed' anyone. Please read the history. No, I am not a conspiracy nutcase as he tries to imply. Please read the history.

Yes, I stopped editing other articles when this campaign and the associated abuse began. He destroyed my enthusiasm and I lost my faith in Wikipedia. Please read the history.

It is all there to be seen. My colleagues are appalled, and I have often felt sick having read his diatribes, innuendos and false accusation. This HAS to be stopped.

Even here he is using his knowledge of Wikipedia procedures as a pseudo-bullying technique. I have no idea how this page differs from the others he has placed his abuse and false allegations on, but it is yet another attack upon myself.

Nothing is going to stop him: he will continue to seek to remove the last of the Open ITIL links come what may. The countless hours and thousands of words he has invested in his pursuit of a single link tells a tale of its own. This is not normal, and I feel very uncomfortable: yet all I have done is try to defend the integrity of an article!

Please could someone finally investigate? Read all the history, and then try to tell me that this is acceptable, that his behavior is ok, and that the assault on the link(s) is that of someone merely trying to improve the quality of the article. Please also look at those other places he made his false allegations against me.

Please, this time, research this edit campaign and what has been happening with respect to the abuse of myself. Please check everything. All I ever wanted to do was use my knowledge to improve articles, yet this has become impossible to do.

BinaryGal (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked this over, first, I don't see any outing happening. Please supply diffs showing outing, Ash, your's don't show outing. This looks like a content dispute over a set of links, and yes, there's incivility from both sides. I don't actually think we need admin involvment. Looks like a content dispute, looks like you may need a mediation or something a bit more.

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, I raised this notice for repeated accusations of bullying rather than being outed (the form of outing is a subtle one of claims of professional affiliations for with the guidance would be tricky to interpret, for example in this diff where there is an assumption of my professional affiliation). As described in WP:HA#NOT, unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. As Binarygal has constantly resorted to accusations over such an extended period rather than engaging in creating a consensus, it seems reasonable that this guidance applies.—Ash (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no unfounded accusations, just as there is no 'outing', except in his mind. I couldn't be less interested in an argument. Please someone, do read the whole history and research this carefully. The determined edit campaign, and abusive treatment of me for resisting it and protecting the article's value, is self evident if you see the whole picture and understand the place of the open movement in the ITIL landscape. You should see why I feel like I am the subject of bullying. All I want is to be left in peace. BinaryGal BinaryGal (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I have been involved in some of the discussions regarding a couple of external links and whether they are appropriate - simply expressing my opinion taking on board the guidance at WP:EL. I disagree with User:KoshVorlon about this being just a content dispute - it has got well beyond that. User:Binarygal has repeatedly made accusations against User:Ash for which she has presented no evidence, at the same time claiming to be the victim of bullying, abuse, etc.. Anyone else who expresses an opinion that she doesn't like receives similar accusations, and the suggestion that they are not acting in good faith. Binarygal has repeatedly been advised to make her complaint at the appropriate venue rather than just repeating her demands that a 'senior editor'/'Wikipedia police officer' investigate on the article's talk page, but has failed to do so. It should be noted that while Binarygal claims to be 'a simple topic editor' who knows 'about the topic I edit', a look through the last two years of edits to the article itself shows no contributions from Binarygal other than reverting the removal of external links. Editors cannot be permitted to continue to make these accusations without presenting any evidence to back them up. The nasty dispute on the article's talk page may well be detracting from efforts to improve the article. I would suggest that (a) an uninvolved admin looks at the existing RFC on the talk page and closes it with a recommendation that whatever the outcome, it is respected by all editors for the next 6 months - the issue is whether an external link is included - it's a trivial matter, and it certainly doesn't justify the unpleasantness that has gone on, and (b) one or both editors be asked/forced to step away from the article, its talk page, and each other completely for the next 6 months or more - neither editor has made significant content contributions to the article in the last year, and there are other editors around who will revert vandalism, etc. Both editors may see this as harsh, but they would both be able to use their time more productively, and it would benefit the project as a whole. I would suggest that 'do nothing' would be the worst outcome of this discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation. Whilst those two, who know more about the mechanics of Wikipedia procedures than I do can round upon me, all I can do is ask for people here to investigate the truth. Please read the whole history. Please focus on what has actually happened.

You will very quickly see what is wrong: you will see that the edit is not a simple article quality edit, but part of a bigger drive to remove references to all of the ITIL Open movement. ITIL is very political, with large vested and commercial interests attempting to marginalize 'open'. I am sure senior Wikipedia people will be well aware of this sort of aspect.

Removing all the links to open movement websites only makes sense in this context. That is what has happened, until now, when the article is left with just a single open link. That link has been attacked multiple times by the same people. There is no consensus at all to remove it, despite the efforts of Ash, supported by Michig.

That is the context, that is the background, and that is the truth.

Michig refers to the link issue as trivial. If it is, why has there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive to remove it? Why would someone expend countless hours and words over months/years to drop a link which so clearly is of more value than most of the others on there, and without repeating the talk page, offers very useful content to article readers? The answer is because I am telling the truth.

Please read through the whole history spanning back years. I am not a nutcase with a conspiracy theory - this is how the market is and it explains what has happened here throughout.

As for the personal attacks, again, read the history. You will see that by defending this article I have been subjected to repeated bullying. Yes, bullying to a degree that colleagues have urged me to do something to stop it.

That isn't an extreme allegation. I have been very restrained and careful, and not accused either of the above with affiliations to anything, nor of anything else other than attempting to remove all the open links.

Is that wrong, when it is the truth? I don't think so. Please, please read for yourself.

Yet what I get back in return for doing this has been awful. The mechanics of Wikipedia have been repeatedly misused against me, I have been abused and I have been falsely accused... again and again and again.

Yes, I have been asking for an investigation for many months, on every page this has been discussed. I readily admit that I just edit and know less about the procedures here than they do, which is why maybe I have asked in the wrong places, but I would hope that somewhere someone might care enough about that article and the foul behaviour going on, step in and do the necessary research.

Maybe now someone will do it. I hope so. BinaryGal (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In would be very grateful if some could actually investigate this fully. It would then be abundantly clear that the major problem here is Binarygal. Look at the article's edit history. Several editors have removed the external links in compliance with WP:EL, only for Binarygal to repeatedly revert - this is why "there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive", but on her part to prevent their removal, by claiming that the link in question is so important and constantly playing the victim, making accusations of a conspiracy against 'the open community' (I thought we at WP were part of the open community), and accusing others of bullying. Comments such as "Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation" are typical of the innuendo and assumption of bad faith on her part. Go ahead, investigate away. If any of BG's claims are found to have substance, take action aginst the offenders. If BG is found to be at fault, please ensure that it stops. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. The "innuendo and bad faith" is clearly in the head of Michig, as my words were harmless. Why twist my words like that? In fact why come back with such comments at all when all I am asking for is a full and thorough investigation? Why try to discredit me like that?

And yes, the irony of Wikipedia procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic isn't lost upon me.

Please do look at those edits, and who made them. Please do look at ALL the edit history and talk page history. Also please consider the politics of the topic in question, and definitely the abuse I have had to suffer for defending the integrity of the article. This really has to stop now BinaryGal (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Binarygirl has above again claimed "Wikipedia procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic". There has been a difference of opinion regarding several external links for some time. User:Ash has raised several RFCs about these, which is a perfectly reasonable approach aimed at gaining consensus. One of them was perhaps ill-advised as it was repeating a previous RFC that failed to achieve consensus. Differences of opinion are not a problem. Accusations that other editors are acting in bad faith, however, are. Please review the following edits by Binarygal:
  • 8 October 2009: "The reality of the ITIL arena has been bulldozed aside and hidden through these edits"
  • 4 November 2009: "The undemocratic raidroading removal of that link..."
  • 11 November 2009: "Perhaps one day the hierarchy of Wikipedia will investigate and see for themselves what has gone on and who has been involved."
  • 22 November 2009: "If it wasn't wrecking the article and so clearly political, it would be laughable". "I wonder what the thousands who have registered there think about what is happening here? I know what I think: I think that attempting to hide open ITIL from the public will not stop it from existing and flourishing, but it may bring further ridicule onto Wikipedia".
  • 23 November 2009: "Not that you are biased of course". "a desperate attempt to remove a valuable resource link, because it happens to be open"
  • 25 November 2009: "And we know from the ITIL Community abuse that this is isn't a democracy, but a political/commercial campaign."
  • 27 November 2009: "have been subjected to abuse and a constant string of allegations for my troubles"
  • 24 December 2009: "another effort to subvert democracy".
  • 28 December 2009: "simply more abusive behaviour, and bullying. An investigation is essential"
  • 28 December 2009: ":I have been systematically bullied in this manner and via abuse throughout by one editor, with another engaging from time to time."

So in summary, Binarygal has, over the past 3 months accused User:Ash of having an agenda against the open ITIL community, "undemocratic railroading removal" of links, "wrecking" the article and having political motives, a "political/commercial campaign", "abuse and a constant string of allegations", and has above accused another editor of also "engaging from time to time". I would invite Binarygal to specify who this other editor is and provide evidence for any of these claims.

She has directed towards me: "Not that you are biased of course".

These are serious claims. If evidence can be provided by Binarygal by reference to specific edits then they should certainly be investigated. If Binarygal is unable or unwilling to provide evidence for these claims or justification for these assumptions of bad faith, then she should be prevented from repeating them.--Michig (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Several issues arise from those further false allegations:

"User:Ash .... one of them was perhaps ill-advised as it was repeating a previous RFC that failed to achieve consensus." - Michig. I suggest looking at this more closely. It was not just ONE repeated effort to remove the link having failed, but months of repeated arguing, and yes, abuse. Repeating the effort again and again presents a pattern. Ditto repeating abuse over months, which I consider to be bullying.

Taking my comments out of context, as Michig has done, is frankly out of order too. Anyone can selectively take words out of context to wholly misrepresent them like that. I hope that someone will actually read them in context: in the context of the abuse I have been subjected to, and in the context of the repeated efforts to drive this edit through.

The genuine abusive phrases, rather than manufactured ones like those above, will be self evident. But I would much prefer an Administrator to actually look at the real evidence and read those pages than engage in fruitless argument here.

"Discussed in the two previous WQA's referenced above" - Ash. Both were raised by Ash himself and got nowhere because there was no substance to them. Quoting ones own efforts as evidence is surely transparent.

The bottom line is there to be seen on the talk pages and other pages this has been dragged through. All I have done is to seek to prevent an edit which devalues the article on the topic I know a lot about. That is all. The repeated efforts, without consensus, using different methods is something I have never encountered, nor ever expected to.

I too want an end to it, but not at the expense of allowing the article to be edited such that there is absolutely no reference to a significant part of the ITIL landscape. I want the article to represent the reality, and to be accurate. That is all, and it is why I am in this situation. I am not the one who has been driving this, as the pages will confirm to anyone who reads them. It has to be ended. BinaryGal (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• What I can see is a lame content dispute (it's just a couple of external links), and a lot of tl;dr comments about it. Don't drag each other to AN/I, do some proper resolving of this content dispute. I can see nothing for an admin to do. What do you want me to do, ban BinaryGal for annoying you? Fences&Windows 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the content dispute itself is lame, however Binarygal's long term behaviour as discussed in the two previous WQA's referenced above constitutes disruptive editing, particularly where this has had to effect of disrupting potential consensus in RfCs. I was advised in the last WQA to raise this matter by using ANI and WP:DDE also advises to go to ANI so I don't feel like the issue has been "dragged" to ANI unnecessarily. If the advice of the ANI is that no admin is interested in dealing with a deliberate pattern of unsubstantiated passive-aggressive accusations of personal attack then perhaps an RfC on the ITIL talk page about Binarygal's contributions might be in order? By the way, I'd guess "dr" stands for "drama" but what is "tl" shorthand for?—Ash (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a further discussion on the ITIL talk page is the last thing that's going to help. If nobody is prepared to take any action, the most helpful course of action would be for both User:Ash and User:Binarygal to voluntarily leave the article and its talk page alone and move on. You both have the opportunity to put an end to the whole issue by walking away from it, which is exactly what I intend to do.--Michig (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Fences & Windows here... this appears to be a dispute over an external link. There are many ways in which to deal with this matter, I don't believe that any of them need to be addressed on ANI. I would suggest that it continue to be discussed in an appropriate manner on the talk page of that article. Whether or not the link should be in the article I'm not sure, and though I could wade in here myself (I work for a software vendor that specializes in ITIL and I've passed ITILv2 and v3 foundation certs) I don't really feel the need to on ANI.

I should note that if uncivil behaviour is occuring, then it might be best to go to Mediation. But I would advise that all participants stop making flammatory comments, and focus on the topic matter. I would like to remind everyone on this page to assume good faith!

Should this fail, what do the parties wish for Wikipedia administrators to do? Protect the page, etc.? I'm not sure what they can do about a content dispute. If this is not about content, then I would suggest that matters be taken to the RFC page, etc. but only after mediation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that despite the repeated efforts to remove all references to the open ITIL movement, consensus was never achieved. But attempts were repeated again and again. What can be done to stop that? Is there any mechanism available to stop someone simply going on and on like that indefinitely? BinaryGal (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that actually. There was a straw poll for one of the links which was open for a fortnight, and quite a few reasonable points were put forward, but you didn't recognize that consensus had been achieved. I think it worthwhile at this point to note that voting is considered bad form. I have also read through the other discussions, and the other contributors made some fairly valid points, none of which I believe you have adequately addressed. Could you also confirm for me whether you have any affiliation with the websites in question? If so, then you should not be adding them to the article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Daedalus969

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 - Warned both users to knock it off. Will block if necessary, contact me if it continues. tedder (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm being bombarded by this fellow on my talk page. [1]. He's made 13 comments, he is becoming increasingly belligerent. I think it would do him so good to have a break. The argument is near hysterical. I asked him to stop, I told him I'd come to this noticeboard, etc., but that seems only to have inflamed him more. Thank you.Malke2010 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shopping anything, btw. I'm trying to get help. I was once blocked for far less than this. I did not instigate this, Daedalus did. There is no rhyme nor reason for this behavior. He has continued to post to my talk page offensive posts even after I told him to stop and that I would go to this board. I am not adept at reporting these things, I am not shopping anything. I am simply sick of this man's rants about me on my page and I believe that his behavior more than justifies a temporary block for him to regain his perspective. Thank you.Malke2010 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And please think about this: what reasonable individual starts this in the first place? He puts something on my talk page, said I didn't even have to reply to it. It sounded nutty to me so I deleted it. I'm allowed to do that on my page. Out of nowhere he appears on my page and he's telling me I'm allowed to do many things on wikipedia,but lying is not one of them. I have no idea what he's talking about, so I leave a message on his talk page, "Dude what are you talking about?" And then the next thing I know he's unleashing a torrent. User: Coldplay Expert and I were having a discussion when Daedalus appeared. Coldplay Expert made the reply to him, and then it went on from there. I stayed out of it. Finally, I told Daedalus, I did not lie in my edit summary, I made a mistake. I told him to stay off my page or I'd come here. He is following me all over the place. I go to JpGordon's page, and there he is. I've been blocked in the past so I went to JPGordon's page because I know he lives in California and he's probably still awake. Then Jade Falcon, for reasons unbeknownst to me, archives my request. I don't know what is going on here, but this man needs to be blocked. This behavior, these posts, this entire argument is his, and it has no rationale other than apparently to create all of this distress. So please, I ask you, stop him. Thank you.Malke2010 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you continue to mislabel the facts. I was not ranting to you, or about you, and I don't see how anything I have said was offensive, in fact, you were the one being offensive with your insults about myself, and your insults about my motivations, both of which are completely wrong. I never ranted about you, all I did was try to tell Coldplay that they were wrong in putting words in my mouth, and to read my posts.

Secondly, you did instigate my further posts on your talk page when you insulted me behind my back at CE's talk page. If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues aside, why are you shopping this around? (example, example) tedder (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you continue to misconstrue the facts. Initially I left you 3 messages. I first told you that you cannot tell another person to stay out of any discussion. You removed that with an inaccurate edit summary. I then told you that you cannot lie in edit summaries, as that is what I thought you did. You then sent me a message asking for clarification, and I replied further. That is 3 messages. All the rest were addressing and in regards to Coldplay Expert, not you, so there is no way you can say that I was harassing you. Secondly, I only continued to post to your talk page after you wrongly assumed my reasons for discussion and insulted me by labeling my arguments as without reason.

For any who do not wish to read the discussion here, I'll post a summary of what happened. As a disclaimer, it is the same summary I have posted 2 times now:

" Alright, first, I'll start by stating things in a summary, then I'll explicitly cite and explain:

First of all, I stated that Mal is not allowed to lie in edit summaries. You then come on the page defending Mal, saying that she can remove posts and other things. I correct you, saying that she cannot do specific things, and again refer to my above statement. You fail to listen and again put words in my mouth.

Now for the explicit explanation:

I stated, to Mal, that she is not allowed to Lie in edit summaries, as she did here. You come defending her, stating that she can do whatever she wants with messages on it, citing WP:UP. I clarify to you, that she can not indeed do anything she wants with any messages. I state what she cannot do with messages. I do not state that she perpetrated any of the described acts. Further, I never stated that she was not allowed to remove messages.

You then quote policy at me again, putting words in my mouth again while calling me blind, citing WP:CIVIL(talk about double standards). I tell you to make sure you've read my entire post, because it was quite obvious you weren't reading it, otherwise the aforementioned points would be obvious to you.

You wrongly state that you have read the post, even telling me that I didn't back up my accusation(even though I quite clearly did, when I cited her lying in an edit).

I express rightful disbelief at your fallacy of having read my post, per my points above.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that you have not read my post. You are quite obviously assuming and reading into my posts, instead of reading them explicitly, as I have asked of you. So again. Read my post, please, before responding any further.

”

There, there is everything that happened. Only 3 of the initial messages(those posted before Mal insulted me on CE's talk page) were directed to Mal, the rest were directed to Coldplay and only Coldplay.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the {{xt}} template appears to be experiencing some problems.. my summary is there, but I don't know why it isn't showing up..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was doing something wrong, I finally figured out what with some help, and found it was tad ugly, so I opted for cquote instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. Just stay off of her talk page and let this go. AniMate 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request of Daedalus969

Resolved

 - Unblocked by Gwen Gale after discussion on user talk.  Sandstein  14:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tedder has now blocked Daedalus969 for this edit which Tedder believes represents "continued incivility", also citing WP:NOTTHEM as a block reason (see User talk:Daedalus969#December 2009). As an unblock request reviewer, I believe this is a mistaken block. While I hold the strong view that incivility is blockable disruption, I see no incivility in the cited edit. Also, WP:NOTTHEM (which I originally wrote, by the way) is part of WP:GAB, which is intended as nonbinding guidance how to write a successful unblock request and not as general policy for conduct while not blocked. I'll grant the unblock request unless other admins disagree here.  Sandstein  07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) '

Please do not unblock this user. Here are the diffs of incivility: Tedder:[2] 1st. [3] 2nd. [4] 3rd. [5] 4th. [6] 5th. [7] 6th. [8] 7th. [9] 8th. [10] 9th [11] 10th [12] Thank you for your consideration of others. Malke2010 07:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These are unhelpful diffs. Not all of them are by Daedalus969 or are even diffs. Those that are by Daedalus969 are not incivil on their face. "You are an asshole" would be incivil, but "Stop doing this and that" is not. I'm also not examining the whole history of Daedalus969, just the edit that was specifically cited by the blocking admin as the block reason.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

in this diff he is definitely incivil. Please keep reading down on the right. [13] Thank youMalke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(big ec here) I'd like to see some quick admin consensus before unblocking. It's harassment to carry on with this dispute across multiple arenas (~65 edits across User talk:Malke 2010, User talk:Coldplay Expert, User talk:Daedalus969, WP:ANI, User talk:Tedder). He was given many warnings to disengage and to understand it from other points of view, not to mention the warnings on his page. That's my take on the situation. I tried de-escalating both users. I cited NOTTHEM more as advice to Daedalus969. No complaints if he is unblocked, but I did want to explain things from my point of view. tedder (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

forgive me for not being an expert at making diffs. I am not a regular user of noticeboards, etc. But Tedder is correct. Daedalus969 has been crossing over pages, he's insulting, using foul language, abusive language, and being accusatory. He's accused me of lying, etc. This man has come onto my talk page and created this drama. There was no need for this. A block will help him regain perspective. Blocks are meant for that. It is not a punishment. It is meant to give the user clarity and time to reflect on his own behavior. Malke2010 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocks aren't supposed to give a user clarity, they are only for disruption. Blocking to "cool users down" is not the right thing to do. (note: Also removed huge paste of content from Malke 2010, please use diffs or links instead) tedder (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, forgive me, but that is exactly what I was told back in the summer when I was blocked. It is meant for the user to regain perspective. And something else, the jade falcon had adopted me, but apparently after an email with you Tedder he has withdrawn. So this whole thing, not of my doing has cost me a good relationship with someone who was helping me on wikipedia. Now who do I see about that?Malke2010 07:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that nowhere in the e-mail did I say it was tedder who I conversed with. It was an uninvolved user who wishes to stay anonymous so that they don't become involved. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO: this should have stopped after EC made the edit that the "Added comment" edit summary was likely a mistake, if Daedalus969 would have assumed good faith, it would have stopped there instead of him continuing to press the issue that Malke was lying and going against policy, when there was no policy violation, just Deadalus969 assuming bad faith that Malke is out to get him or something. Q ^{T C} 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, thank you. He arrived on the page already acting like something had been done to him, that he'd been disrespected in some way. The whole opening line, "You can do many things on wikipedia, but lying isn't one of them." and then the diff of the edit summary, as if something egregious had been done. I don't even know this person. I've never had any prior contact until he came to my page. Malke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say one other thing: I do sincerely feel bad for this man. I realized this when I started to read over his posts and realized how rambling they were and that the anger didn't make any sense in view of this perceived edit summary insult. Something is clearly upsetting him. I can see where everyone has tried to reason with him in his unblock request and I admire the patience everyone there is showing him. And I want to thank Q for understanding.Malke2010 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone just unblock Daedalus969 or block me as well? After all I contributed to this just as much. The dispute is over so cant we all just get along?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how blocking you would help anything. I've more or less told Daedalus what he might do, to get a swift unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I don't think your actions merit a block in any way, Coldplay Expert, but that doesn't mean you were completely in the right. First of all, you apparently leapt to Malke's defense without actually knowing what you were talking about. WP:UP most certainly does not give users free license to do whatever they want with their user talk pages. Daedalus969 replied thus, and you began putting words in his mouth, arguing (repeatedly) that there was no refactoring of comments when in fact Daedalus969 never alleged that there was. Now, I don't know whether you misunderstood what he wrote deliberately or not, but your behavior wasn't good either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This block should stick. I don't know Malke or the full story here, but the nutshell is that Daedalus has a long-term pattern of uncivil, strident belligerence. He's been cautioned about this many times and has long acknowledged his WP:STICK issue in his editnotice. This block is not for a specific recent diff but for his history of being on the wrong side of a bright line. Daedalus needs to acknowledge the totality of the concerns and agree to change his approach. In a word, he needs to listen. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I thought Daedalus was biteing Malke so I decided to defend her. Yes, I misunderstood what he was saying apparently but not on pourpose.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them [20] [21], while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times [22] [23] [24]. There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously [25] [26] and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago, and is unrelated. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appealed to me on my talk page to make a comment. He was POV-pushing and refusing to read previous discussions on the talk page of Europa. No "highest quality references" were produced, just a total unwillingness to understand the term "transcontinental country" and the same kind of tendentious and misrepresenting edits that we see here. Izzedine is clearly a highly a problematic editor. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is being dishonest and trying to insult your intelligence.

Are these not the *highest quality* references -

• National Geographic - [27]

" Georgia is geographically in Asia—the mountains forming its northern border serve as the Europe-Asia boundary ”

• UNdata - "Western Asia"
• CIA World Factbook - "Southwestern Asia"
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office - "South-western Asia"
• Library of Congress - "Southwestern Asia"
• Intute - "Georgia is located in Southwestern Asia"
• Open Site - "Southwestern Asia"

After reading the earlier discussions on the talk page of Europe, where Mathsci had bullied and intimidated a very articulate and constructive editor Npovshark (talk · contribs), It became clear that I was wasting my time with him. Izzedine 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Izzedine be blocked if he continues writing personal attacks on me like this. It is indisputable that his wish to remove Georgia from sections in Europe is simply POV-pushing. That he tries to insult an experienced editor like me in this way shows that he has not really understood the core principles of wikipedia. If the BBC classify Georgia as a European country (like Armenia) that is an example of ambiguity. I believe National Geographic use the same classification, despite Izzedine's cherry-picked quote and the ambiguities in the definition of the borders of Europe. The historical evolution of the borders of Europe is discussed in several books, meticulously cited in the article. Is Izzedine throwing doubts on these sources now?

The edits above by Izzedine are clueless and an abuse of WP:ANI. Izzedine was told clearly that the status of transcontinental countries is ambiguous. He is simply bringing a silly content dispute, discussed multiple times on Talk:Europe, to this inappropriate noticeboard. He has not read the notes in the definition section of Europa and therefore is wasting time here, when several editors have confirmed his error. If major organisations like National Geographic, the BBC and the CIA use different classifications, there is an inherent ambiguity, and that is what is reported on wikipedia in an anodyne and neutral way. No matter how many times Izzedine stamps his foot and shouts at other users, the status of Georgien will not change. If he continues repeatedly writing in this way, it is probably appropriate that he should receive some kind of block for tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Besides I don't quite understand how Izzedine can make these claims after he invited me on my talk page to give an opinion after he edit warred with User:Satt 2. I did not agree with either user. NPOVshark's editing history is also exceedingly problematic. Izzedine's interpretation is completely off target like most of the rest of what he writes. He omits to mention all the other editors who disagreed with NPOVshark. I don't find that very surprising really. Izzedine is a disruptive editor: he seems to write whatever suits him, even if it is a gross misrepresentation. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the Europe article or talk page since early December. I left it after debate. I did not bring it to ANI you brought it here Mathsci! And what personal attacks? look at what you've said about me.. who is being more hateful? Let's just accept we had a disagreement Math. I'm sorry we've clashed, I'm no longer interested in the subject of Georgia's continental location, It doesn't matter. take it easy. Izzedine 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, this noticeboard is for discussing users' on-wiki behaviour, not content disputes. That is why your recent actions on Europa were brought up. You were disruptive there. The mere fact that you have made personal attacks on me as being "dishonest" and "trying to insult your intelligence" is extremely relevant here. Please tone down your language and refactor these comments. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by Izzedine, reinserted for readability: "What is your aim here Math? to push for me to be blocked? I'd be willing to refactor or delete comments as a good faith gesture to make up good between us as editors, but would you be willing to do the same? it would be a skewed dialogue if not. Izzedine 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)" Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. You have been POV-pushing on Europe and now again on Mesopotamia. Your edits have very little to do with content and are tendentious. As User:Dbachmann quite rightly said on Talk:Mesopotamia, if you continue POV-pushing in this way, the correct sanction might be a community topic ban. I have added my own views on Mesopotamia at the RfC on its talk page. I would advise you to stop POV-pushing and treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. When editors initiate naming disputes like this, it rarely has anything to do with adding content and those commenting from the sidelines are often gratuitously insulted for disagreeing with often unjustifiable POVs. In this case, as I wrote in the RfC, I think it is unjustifiable to say that "Ancient Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" are used synonymously. I have given my reasons there and will not discuss this further here. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malark pey The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks? – you called me an ultranationalist first. And as you described here - you don't give two cents about Iraq. Athenean has been 'raiding' my edits over the past week, encouraging disputes and disruptiveness. He has *never* edited Iraq articles before, he has been serial undoing many of my older contribs - deleting references as he goes, and not even bothering to use talk pages. Athenean is simply throwing mud and insulting your intelligence, and wasting all our time. I'm not an "Iraqi ultranationalist" I'm a history scholar and a member of the British Museum and British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Izzedine 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What or who you are in the real world is irrelevant. It is your behavior on this site that matters, and so far it has been nothing but disruptive and tendentious. And no, I haven't been "raiding" your edits or any such nonsense. Stop playing the victim. I just casually came up on the article on Mesopotamia and was struck by how many times the word "Iraq" (in bold, no less) appeared in the lead, and posted on the talkpage [28]. I was validated by the response of User:Taivo and User:Dbachmann [29]. Izzedine's response? [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. Lastly, don't twist my words. What I meant by ultranationalists not giving two cents about Iraq is that ultranatonalists are usually completely uninterested in articles that have nothing to do with their country. You are completely twisting my words. This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Athenean (talk · contribs) has been raiding my edits, one after the other after the other. It is duplicitous and tendentious the way he is crying wolf about it. At any rate, I don't want to argue about it, this is pointless and wasteful. I'd rather build bridges than throw mud. Christmas time should be merry, too. Izzedine 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you, cool it. Izze, you would appear to have been jumping the gun without some talk page discussion first[36]. on you reverted things to different forms after that, citing that "discussion still underway"... in other words, using your own warring to your benefit while claiming to sound fair. Not acceptable. Systematically removing all the existing references was also completely unacceptable as there was no fair cause given to do so. Just because a link changes isn't a reason to remove a reference, even (I learned the hard way, too). Since the end result was conflicting reference information, that's what the talk page is for. Not that it probably would have helped all that much, but it's a necessary first form of dispute resolution that at least defines the issue. That said, I'm going to revert back to the version before the first unjustified source removal. Izze, your edit summary of [37] edit shows the very dubious nature of your actions, as what Athenean did in one revert is the exact same thing you did, just spread out across 20 to either confuse and/or make it look justified. Try to combined you edits at least a little, please. I don't care about which sources are whose or what content they have-- Izze, you hacked at the article for no given reason, systematically removed old and put in new references and adjusted wikilinks to a different POV. cont.

Hi there, I think you've misunderstood, the first diff is five days old, and much discussion has been going on since, at that stage I was simply restoring the deleted references. and the second diff was actually me *deleting my own* references because of the discussion that was underway - in good faith. I agree with you I am the one who provided those references! I didn't want to remove them. This edit from five days ago was undoing a mass deletion of references, nothing dubious about that. I don't know what you mean I haven't removed any references (other than restoring Taivo's version in good faith) ask - Taivo. It can be very complex to work out the true picture when faced with a long version history and several editors. But thanks for the advice. Izzedine 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved is edit warring at this point, in that the only changes are to predominately restore old versions or remove the content of others. I see no 3RR violations, at least. Tavio seems quite aware of the policy and has wisely backed off for now. Take it to the talk page on the sources. Dispute there can start the normal process, and this is just pointless edit warring that will just get everyone blocked at some point more than likely. Again, I'm reverting back to places before reference removals started. It's the removals/replacements that were without any discussion. That's what they started as. That's where they need to be discussed from. Period. [38] is the version I'm reverting to, as it was the last version before the debated edits started. There you go. Since it's inevitable this will start up again, remember that you were here tonight, and consider this an unofficial final warning in that any admin is free to block for disruption here on without additional notice. You really don't want to go down this road, since I know you've seen it happen a thousand times here before and the ending it never pleasant if certain editors decide to "go rouge" or just shove their agenda forward. I'm entirely comfortable having said all of this since I don't remotely care about the content in the article, nor have I ever come across it before. Izze, you've been placing in your POV in a not-so-subtle manner ever since the old reference removals started, so I'm reverting to before that started. That's what the ANI was about originally, that's what I'm addressing now, nothing more. Future manners of tag-teaming, incivility, suspected puppet use, etc., can be taken through their normal incident boards. Content disputes need to start with discussions, first, which is what should be done now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This dispute on Mesopotamia has not been resolved so I have removed the unsigned "stale" tag added by User:Datheisen, which did not seem particularly helpful. It confused two separate issues involved here: a resolved issue, namely the POV-pushing/edit-warring by Izzedine/Satt 2 on the status of Georgia in Europe; a current unresolved issue, namely the dispute on Mesopotamia and Iraq. The first was brought up to add context to Izzedine's recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC here on whether "Ancient Iraq" is synonymous with "Mesopotamia" (the content underlying this dispute). I hope that archaeology experts like Dougweller (hint, hint) will add their comments, even if it directly contradicts the 2 centimes worth that I added. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's replacement of Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamia) at Babylonian mathematics[39] has been undone by five different editors since May[40][41][42][43][44]. Izzedine - and only Izzedine - has reverted all of them, seven times so far [45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. - Ankimai (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in Iraq this time [52], repeating the same line over and over again [53]. It is quite clear from his history that this guy is here on a mission and will never stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And he's edit warring over other issues as well: I count seven reverts in Muntadhar al-Zaidi from Dec 14 to Dec 24, no matter who had edited in between.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60] - Ankimai (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing by Izzedine

While Google searching for information that might clarify a content dispute involving Izzedine, I accidentally came across a forum in which a user who identifies themselves as Izzedine on Wikipedia attempts to enlist other users to vote in his favor on talk pages and revert any change to his version of the article. Well, you can read it here but in a nutshell it seems he is trying to defend his Iraqi heritage and is POV driven (note: the forum has been edited to remove the evidence. The original can be seen here). Can this be handled by ANI?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I like how Google works both ways on help. Well, where else would this go? We're allowed to "note" that that exists but can't treat as what would be anything close to a reliable source. ...It's been awhile since I read the ArbCom ruling on defining such things, but I do remember that it was "more okay" in article work. Honestly, it's not like it drastically changes the situation, but that it makes any additional good faith all that much more of a challenge. Sigh.... like 5 days ago when this disappeared as stale Izze contacted me on my talk page[61] in what was an encouraging tone... but given I was attempting to be equally encouraging in a reply[62], actually suggesting optimism if they felt they had materials to improve the article... sadly it seems that optimistic view died in less than 24 hours as that forum posting was on the 27th (talk page here the 26th). That would seem to be in contrast to my 'reminder that any admin is within his/her rights to block you without further notice' as a conclusion that the majority of civility ANIs reach. Also specifically said that ANI wasn't for content disputes which is why our replies had to be limited. Cont.

Give a final warning, imo. On anything and everything on the topic. If the wholeheartedly refuse, do say they're subject to a block for disruption until the starting of the official DR process is taken, as I also suggested originally. After trying to be ridiculously fair and neutral in my evaluation, the "optimistic" Izze within that same day was apparently of the same mindset as before? *Sighs* ... Ignoring any kind of civility suggestions and refusal to admit to anything whatsoever (even things such as "edit warring", general concept, being shoved around by everyone at the time)? No desire to listen to a third party at ANI shows a continuation of a disruptive pattern of things started at the articles. ... gives low expectations for any future compliance. This is still way better than the last time I offered significant opinion to a edit warred Middle East article, though. ...Yeah, final warning to desist on pretty much everything, and that off-wiki promotion of disruption of on-wiki matters can at least [strongly] subjectively be be read. Key point being the call to disruption here since that's what any block is meant to based upon ongoing types of. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann has already suggested a topic ban for Izzedine's on-wiki behaviour. I think this off-wiki canvassing merits an indefinite topic ban if not an indefinite ban. He seems to be breaking all the rules of wikipedia - the canvassing on the forum reveals that he is indeed pushing a nationalist point of view. This was already evident when he started arguing that the terms Iraq (or Ancient Iraq) and Mesopotamia are synonymous on the two talk pages - something Dbachmann has described as "nonsense". Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some sort of admin shortage, or do they just get Christmas to New Year off?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Many Admins have an off-Wiki life, & the holidays place especial demands on our time from SOs, family & friends. (For example, I spent most of yesterday helping my wife clean the house for our New Years' party.) Unfortunately, many troublemakers have fewer such demands on their time & can devote a lot more time to disrupting Wikipedia. Maybe the solution would be for the community to show less patience with problematic users at this time of year. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if Assyrian-Babylonian/Izzedine has deleted those forum posts in the meantime, but Google cache still has them, here. - Ankimai (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE ABOUT LINK: You have to scroll up the page to Assyrian-Babylonian's previous comments to see him self-identify as Izzedine. He has removed the identifications from his second posting (where Ankimai's link goes). (Taivo (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes, he must have read this page. It's now very hard to assume any kind of good faith on his part. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also hard to assume good faith when he characterizes me as a "Freemason" and Athenean as an "(anti-Iraqi) Greek" rather than just talking about "other editors". (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Seems like it wouldn't be possible to connect the editor definitively to this on line canvassing, and if it is not actually punishable then there appears little action needs to be taken. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Salam brothers and sisters, I am trying to defend our heritage on Wikipedia and I urgently need your support ahlan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mesopotamia (I am lzzedine) Please help us ya ahlan, before they ban me, there are only two Iraqis on there, myself and Mussav, any support you can add will help, you can post there anonymously if you wish."

- I'd rather say it's impossible not to connect him. - Ankimai (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's quite clear that Izzedine and Assyrian-Babylonian are one and the same person. How else would A-B know that I was a Freemason unless he had read my Wikipedia profile before I removed personal information a couple of months ago? It's called soliciting meat puppets and every other case I've known of has resulted in either indefinite or year-long bans. (Taivo (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

General responses to off-wiki canvassing can include:

• Heavy additional short-term watchlisting, either by involved editors e.g. a wikiproject or by uninvolved editors e.g. admins or a dedicated anti-vandal wikiproject.
• Temporary EditNotices, if necessary and more helpful than harmful.
• Semi-protection, if necessary.

If such off-wiki canvassing, either of this type or of the /b/-type disruption in a thread below, becomes too common it may be worthwhile asking for "transclusion" to be added to watchlists, so interested vandal fighters can "transclude" {{WP:Articles needing short-term watchlisting/List}} to their watchlists. The list would presumably be permanently-protected or in an admin-edit-only space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The evidence is absolutely damning. There is no doubt that Assyro-Babylonian is Izzedine. This is the very worst kind of disruption and for me this is the final straw. This editor is not here to help write an encyclopedia, he is here on a mission. IF nothing comes of this ANI posting, I will request a community ban. Congratulations to Stinging Swarm for finding this out and posting it. --Athenean (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Izzedine's gone quiet since the 28th, but this is clearly unacceptable. I've been keeping a somewhat loose eye upon his activities at Iraq, Mesopotamia and elsewhere and he's on a final warning. Any further disruption, no matter how slight, and I will block him for a couple of months. There is no reason why good contributors should have to waste their time over patent silliness. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, his MO is to lay low following a major dispute and/or rampage. He seems to have a knack for pulling back right before he is about to be blocked, which is why his block log is relatively small considering the amount of disruption he has caused. Laying low for a while also has the benefit of throwing admins off his scent, allowing him to resume his POV-pushing at a later date. However, this has the net effect of being EXTREMELY disruptive. Thus, I would go even further. At the next rampage, I will ask for a full community ban. This has been going on for almost a year now, and has GOT to stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good tactic, but it doesn't work with me, Athenean. I've had a lot of practice :) Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured. That's why I'm particularly glad to see you on this case. --Athenean (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review please

Resolved

 - Block endorsed, editor has resolved to continue socking. Fences&Windows 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a review of my most recent block of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

The editor has been a decent vandalism fighter, but also has a long history of some pretty strong incivility. After a recent block for this gem, his block has been modified a number of times for further incivility and most recently extended to two weeks for sockpuppetry. However one of the socks he created was Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which appears to have been created with the sole purpose of making this legal threat. I have indefinitely blocked the sockmaster for WP:NLT until the legal threat has been retracted. Note that COM is not able to edit his own talk page due to misconduct during block, but the sock is able to retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: COM has been able to edit his own talk page. since the block was modified so both he and the sock are able to retract the threat and/or request {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction 2 :COM is now able to edit his own talk page, and this admin needs more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to me to be more of a case of a blocked angry editor (who said when blocked, please block me indef so I can start socking) who was more being stupid that really making a legal threat, imo that it wasn't as a legal threat very meaningful and although for the issue and the socking round it I suppport an extension to his block I feel that an indef is perhaps not the best option in this case as having him in a known account would be better than multiple socks. I have left COM a note asking him if his sock wants to withdraw the legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

May be hard without talk page access, unless he uses another sock, of course! Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in my post above. COM should be able to edit his own talk page since the indef block. He also has the capability of requesting {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, Crotchety Old Man already got consideration for being an established user with valued contributions when I extended his block to one week and removed talk page editing privileges for a vicious personal attack. I can't speak for other admins, but speaking for myself, the edit on his own talk page while he was blocked would by itself be enough for me to indef block most other users. That it was only extended to a week was a leniency that he abused. I recognized the "blocked angry editor" angle as well, but he's still responsible for his own edits. We of course walk a fine line between preventative and punitive. In this case, the right result appears to have been reached, keeping in mind that "indefinite" is not "forever". Todd could have asked someone else to review the legal threat rather than take action himself (since he'd been previously involved). However, we're still within the 1-week extension that I issued, so Todd's request for review here is perfectly appropriate. A review of that behavior by itself might well warrant it being changed to an indef regardless of any subsequent behavior.  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is a good vandalism fighter, he reverts as vandalism anything he disagrees. 201.43.205.124 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note – The IP is a sock of de facto banned user User:Pé de Chinelo, part of a /17 range I just blocked. –MuZemike 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am not really sure if the legal threat block was entirely appropriate; he did do it, as another editor mentioned, while he was "playing in character". However, I recognize that we have to take even that seriously. I would be fine with leaving the indef block as is, but perhaps after a week, we should reenable his talk page access so he can actually withdraw his legal threat. Note that his most recent block included: "00:55, 31 December 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Crotchety Old Man (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)". NW (Talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit - I thought I fixed that this morning. It's fixed now and he can edit his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef We have 2 issues: the socking, and the use of that sock to violate WP:NLT. The socking is bad enough, the NLT is horrendous. Not only de we need the block for the NLT, but the socking as well. Support indef, with reduction to a week once legal threats retracted/recognition of the absolute stupidity of the action tales place - not concurrent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef until the legal threat is withdrawn. That's standard practice. Durova³⁹⁰ 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. No doubt COM had a history of valued contributions. No doubt also COM had a persistent history of incivility and WP:TALKO violations (see e.g. this AN/I oder this thread). The user also vandalized a high-profile article only to prove a point ([63]). Adding to that the fact that the user, in defiance of the block, resorts to socks and add the legal threats, and add the fact that he seems incapable of constructive dialogue with whoever disagrees with him or warns him, I cannot see how anything less than an indef (or a very long, like months) block can be useful. --Cyclopia^talk 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. If he wants to come back, he can withdraw the sock's legal threat, declare and cease use of any and all socks and abide by policy and norms, particularly in regard to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:SOCK. If he agrees to the above, I see no reason not to unblock him, though any breach of the above should render him liable to an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef - If Crotchety Old Man is willing to make a serious {{unblock}} request that acknowledges the trouble he caused, we should consider acting on it. Lately he has seemed to be off in his own world so an apology is unlikely. If he does make one, lifting the block may be considered. What he's been doing lately is unacceptable behavior for an editor, and there is no need for us to put up with more of that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• COM has replied on his talkpage to the question, does your sock want to retract the legal threat? with... "Hey guys! Todd finally got it right. My attorney withdrew his legal threat"... Which if it is a retraction is a bit of a cryptic retraction . Off2riorob (talk)
• Support indef - this kind of behaviour, renders an editor irrelevant to the project. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef at least until or if the guy decides to get serious about a retraction and own up to his socking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. The idea that COM was making a genuine legal threat is fantasy. The two-week block for incivility and socking was already plenty: we should have the flexibility to see when a further block is unnecessary, and this is one of those cases. If he carries on socking and swearing left, right and centre, then we can extend the block. I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that his 'legal threat' justifies an indefinite block, especially as COM's non-existent attorney has withdrawn it: "My attorney withdrew his legal threat." Fences&Windows 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Indef. per above. This has been going on for a bit too long. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. Vandalism reverts don't make up for socking, trolling, and legal threats. When asked to desist, he just promised to make more socks. Pcap ping 03:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Given the trolling that has resumed on COM's talk page, I have protected it indefinitely. It seems this discussion has run its course. Toddst1 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block.  Sandstein  14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats of violence by SingingZombie

Resolved

 - User indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU. Edit summaries oversighted.

User SingingZombie appears to have posted real life threats of violence or exhortation to violence in several edit descriptions in the edit history of Murder of George Tiller. Here you can see the descriptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_George_Tiller&action=history. His statements appear to constitute a threat of lethal force against anti-abortion activists. I'm not really sure how to handle this, but perhaps authorities need to be contacted (who? where?) and a ban seems appropriate to prevent him from advocating violence any further on Wikipedia. Presumably his edit descriptions should be removed from public view but somehow preserved if needed as evidence by authorities. Also, based on his talk page it seems that there have been previous incidents in this subject area, raising even greater concern. Locke9k (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of SingingZombie's talkpage I noted they were previously advised not to make comments in regard to anti abortionist activists, following an ANI discussion. As a consequence of the comments made per Locke9k notice above I have indefinitely blocked SingingZombie. Since SingingZombie's other edits appear generally good faith, if not exactly policy compliant is all cases, I would like a review of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. Perhaps if SingingZombie agrees to the terms of a topic ban (via email) and to abide by the letter and spirit of WP:CIVIL, he could be unblocked eventually, however, comments like those in edit summaries, especially after being cautioned against them, are totally unacceptable and if ti weren't for his previous good faith contributions, I would unreservedly support (in my non-admin opinion) an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a large difference between civility issues and the comments shown here. I don't know what other edits this user has made and frankly I do not care. There's no place for that on wikipedia and no place here for the person who writes it. Support the indef block and indef should mean forever.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is just no way that SingingZombie's edit summaries are in anyway acceptable. And in case anyone doesn't know incivility, attacks or any other bad behaviour in edit summaries cannot be gotten rid of. We are stuck with SZ's remarks in edit summaries in one form or another (even if we delete the edits) LhvU's block is spot-on and while I understand HJMitchell's point about SZ's action elsewhere being in good faith IMHO nothing can mitigate this--Cailil ^talk 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm: oversight can't do anything about it? --NellieBly (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I also contacted Oversight at the time, and they have been removed, but I didn't want to make a drama out of them by noting it then. I worked on the basis they would be visible long enough for people to comment upon my indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd point out here that people like SingingZombie make Baby Jesus cry, but I'm non-religious. HalfShadow 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm atheist and pro-choice, but I don't condone violence against those who hold contrary opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• That is a less than helpful comment. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough using main account to run bot tasks

Over the last 8 months, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made approximately 400,000 edits [64], rocketing themselves to the setting themself high atop of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The vast majority of these edits were done with AutoWikiBrowser and furthermore, many were primarily cosmetic. Irrespective of that, they are seemingly using some kind of macro or modified AWB build to automate the saving process unless we are to believe that they really are sitting in front of their PC for several-hour-long stretches hitting "save" at close to 30 edits per minute [65].

Most recently, they had been running a task that made three edits in sequence to articles in order to complete a task that could conceivably be done in a single edit. [66] Had the proper steps been taken and Bot Approvals Group was engaged, they surely would've denied a bot using such an inefficient method of editing. I note Rich has since discovered a workaround for this issue after my prodding.

My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use and furthermore flooding recent changes with tasks that really should be run with a bot flag (if at all). Upon querying the user, their stated reason for running bot tasks from their main account was uncompelling [67] and they resumed the task from their main account.

I invite additional scrutiny and advice as to how to convince or compel this user to respect Wikipedia:Bot policy and AWB's rules of use. –xeno^talk 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly in the last 8 months. There's a serious amount of low level dirt that needs cleaning, BRFA is seriously slow, I prefer to fix a problem rather than file a request for someone else to do it. Wiki - if anyone had forgotten - means quick. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm not asking you to ask someone else to do it, I'm asking you to ask BAG for approval to do it from a bot account rather than your main account. The tasks you are running are not in any way mission-critical such that you can't wait a few days or a week for BAG approval. –xeno^talk 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't just ignore bot policy because WP:BRFA "is seriously slow". Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Rich and he does a lot of excellent work, however, as an occasional recent changes patroller, I can tell you the AWB edits do flood the recent changes- he can be in the same list 4 or 5 or even more times and the standard 50 edit display only shows the last 1 or 2 minutes on a normal day (perhaps someone can give a statistic for how many edits are made a minute to the whole wiki?). I have to say, it would be preferable for these edits to be made from a separate, bot account, though they do need to be made. HJMitchell You rang? 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are roughly 12.57 every second. This is the total number of edits divided by the total number of seconds that Wikipedia has existed (I rounded up to 9 years here). I agree with Xeno though in that Rich has way to many edits. He has already opted out of the list of edits here, and until this recent dump, his name was on the top. He has 250,000 more edits than the guy right behind him as well. I don't see anything wrong with a ton of edits, but the flooding of recent changes and other things is a concern. Also, he practically is a bot with the number of edits that he has. I don't even know of a bot that can make over 106,000 edits in one month, as he did this past month. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK guys point made. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

"My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use ". Darn this guy is doing a good thing. He makes good edits that nobody else can be bothered to make!!. Guys we shouldn't be sitting around moaning about Rich. His edits in my book have been of great help to this project and I seem no harm in him using his own account to do so. I think this is a case of jealousy over his edit count above anything else. Who cares about edit count? What the frick does it matter whether he notches up 400,000 edits with his own account or under a different account? The same tasks will still need doing either way so who cares? There are far more serious things to be worrying about than Rich Farm having a high edit count LOL!! I will always support whatever Rich wants to do, we should be thanking him for his dedication to making such repetitive edits, he doesn't have to bother making a single edit on here. If you add um the sum of his edits this year they have made a massive difference to the encyclopedia in terms of considtency, formatting and cosmetics. He is clearly content to do so using his own account so why stop him. Have a great new year Rich I appreciate every edit you make even if these people don't. Above all is this ANI report really necessary? I strongly dislike the way such decent editors get reported here like vandals. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do try to assume good faith. The problem is clearly stated and has nothing to do with jealousy or relative edit counts, but with the reason for the edit count: namely, running unapproved bot tasks from a main account contrary to bot policy and AWB rules of use. I'm not saying the edits aren't useful, but they should ultimately be done from a approved, flagged bot account. The ANI thread was necessary because I've brought this up to Rich a couple times, and it did not appear that he was going to modify his approach. I've given him a suggestion as to how he could have a fairly open-ended bot approved for tasks like these and hopefully this can now be marked {{resolved}}. Thanks for your input. –xeno^talk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did assume good faith but the way you started your post saying "he has made approximately 400,000 edits, rocketing themselves to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits" makes it look as if you resent this fact and the way he achieved it... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was more to highlight the dramatic and exponential increase in Rich's editing rate. –xeno^talk 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any concern about the content of the edits? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen his bot's block log? He is prone to making controversial changes (moving tags, mucking about with named refs, etc.) which is why BAG should have oversight. –xeno^talk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience I'd say the vast majority of his edits have run relatively smoothly and he is responsible enough to sort any major issues out. I wouldn't go as far as to say he is prone to making controversial changes, he seems to get most things right, unlike BetaCommandBot.... As for Smackbot, when it has performed the level of edits it has, one can imagine that issues crop up everynow and then... Actually I have advised Rich to run a bot instead to do certain big tasks as it would be more efficient, but he seems content to do thinks using AWB with his own account even if it takes longer. Do you think he is suffering from editcounteritis? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The tasks that should be done, should be done from an approved, flagged bot. The procedures in place should be followed rather than ignored without good reason. And it looks like Rich has got the message (see above at 19:28), so there's probably no need to draw this out any longer. –xeno^talk 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh - We had a shit long discussion about this a year ago, and the community decided that it was against policy to run a bot on the main admin account, unless it was still being developed, so he is technically not following policy. However that being said, BAG has been insanely slow at approving anything, for the past few weeks/months, so I totally cannot blame him for continuing to run it. Unless you plan on getting BAG to start fixing and approving shit faster, then I recommend we allow him to continue running the bot. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  The tasks he are running are mainly cosmetic and are not time-sensitive in the least. He can wait for BAG approval just like the rest of us. –xeno^talk 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Coffee the problem is that BAG is too slow to authorise things as its projetc members have many other committments on here. Given that Rich often performs a mass of different tasks every day I think it is a tall order to expect him to file requests for each one. Everybody is free to edit and do what they think is an improvement to the encyclopedia. But for the especially big runs that may be sene as "flooding the recent changes" at a rate of 20 odd edits a minute I'd say that might need some discussion if it is a prolonged activity... But to date he has made over 600,000 edits to english wikipedia and is still using the method he has used for a long time and seems to mostly be a success... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Rich is in agreement. However, I would like to point out that the general consensus with Rich's last BRFA was that it should be approved, even though not technically necessary. At that point, Rich withdrew the request. It's actually faster if you leave the request up to get approved. There's no hurry for general fixes. They can be approved in a fairly timely fashion. --IP69.226.103.13 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think proposing an "open-ended bot" is a good idea. That sounds equivalent to writing a blank check that allows the bot to do whatever Rich (in his good judgment) thinks needs to be done. That bypasses the checks-and-balances that the BAG is there for. On a different note, I'd prefer to see a reduction in unnecessary edits, such as removal of optional spaces and blank lines that has no effect on presentation, but clutters up diffs – particularly multi-version diffs where changes by other editors are obfuscated because the diff engine has difficulty matching paragraphs. Lastly, I think running an unapproved bot because the BAG is too slow to respond sets a bad precedent – particularly so when the bot behavior (partial-date delinking) id different from the bot proposal (full-date delinking). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the past eight months Rich has been "rocketing" to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits? Ah, I think he's occupied No. 1 position for years. He has gained the immanent trust of the community. BAG should get its act into order. Tony (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? [68] Anyhow, this is peripheral to the true issue which I noted was the lack of a bot flag for the vast number of edits being made. –xeno^talk 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, BAG has been less than helpful to get crap done for the past few months (other than MBisanz). It looks like we might need more people or different people. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see more people commenting on the BRfAs and more BAG members, however, atm there's a very small number of people active there, and they seem to receive very little thanks. But just because the process takes a long time, does not mean it's okay to ignore it, as Rich appears to have done here. There are good reasons that automated editing is supposed to be done on a separate account which has the bot flag. There are also good reasons to go through the BRfA, for example, the task gets input and ideas. Rich has gone against policy, and what appears to me to be the sensible path. I don't think it's unreasonable to except Rich to always go through a BRfA, and he should do so in the future. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A compromise?

Obviously Rich is running what amount to multiple bots on his main account. From the comments here it appears that the bot tasks he's been running have been largely unproblematic. (Indeed, if someone had made a half-million or so controversial edits, there would already be blood on the floor.) As noted, there are a number of good reasons to want automated tasks to run under proper bot accounts, and there are also at least a few minor concerns about a few of the tasks. Since bot-flagged accounts tend to draw less scrutiny when in action, it is also proper for us to want the BAG to approve the tasks in advance. Tcncv's point about offering any editor a blank cheque is also well-taken; it wouldn't be a good idea to give Rich a free hand to run any bot task he wants, just because even the best of us occasionally make mistakes.

So, a compromise. Since it appears Rich's bot tasks have generally appeared helpful and responsible, could we get the BAG (and/or the community) to offer a blanket presumption of permission to Rich for running tasks, and only demand the full BAG process for tasks for which an explicit objection is raised? Here's how I envision the process:

1. Rich posts an 'expedited request' at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This request will include a brief description of what task is to be performed. As part of the 'presumption of expertise', this step may also include a link to a batch of test edits (fifty perhaps?) demonstrating the principle.
2. A brief comment period will elapse. (Three days? Five days? No more than seven days, certainly. How long should it take for some reasonable number of BAGgers to skim the new request?) During this time, any editor may raise an explicit objection to the expedited process. If an objection is filed, Rich will have to go through the regular, full BRFA process.
3. If the comment period elapses without any comment (or with only positive comments) then Rich may proceed with the new bot task.
4. If any unforeseen problems arise, any member of the BAG can request the suspension of any of these 'presumed permissible' tasks pending review by the normal BRFA process.

It's nice and lightweight; it takes into account Rich's general competence; it avoids overburdening the BAG with additional paperwork; it means that there will be a second set of eyes on Rich's bot edits; and it gets these bot edits under a proper bot account. The BAG is free to add any other standard conditions they feel appropriate (edit throttles and the like) which would apply universally to all of these 'presumed permissible' requests. What do people think of that process? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds better than other possible ideas. Thanks for being the sane one here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think adding a speedy approval process for proven bot operators is a good idea, but I think this would be a policy decision within the BAG, preferably with at least one BAG member granting the speedy approval. If we can't get even one BAG member to review the request (and either grant, deny, or hold for further discussion), we definitely need to increase the ranks. Requests such as SmackBot XXII should not sit for weeks at-a-time with no activity. I would further suggest that requests for speedy approvals be limited to clearly uncontroversial operations and that and have at least some independent discussion as evidence of consensus and need. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The six weeks it took for SmackBot XXII not to go anywhere is impressive, by any standards. Ohconfucius ^¡digame!

Agreed, good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, something like this would be fine. Anything to have those innocuous cosmetic edits start to be made with the bot flag would be an improvement. –xeno^talk 02:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see this issue close to being resolved. Rich is a janitor of the first order, like a big machine gobbling up selectively all the garbage in the sea without doing harm to the ecosystem. His making scale edits in his dynamic way (when he perceives a job needs doing) is obviously counter-culture to the bureaucratic functioning of the BAG. We are all agreed that Rich is responsible and responsive with AWB, and the only concern I note from the above discussion is the potential for problems if another editor starts making non-controversial edits on a large scale. The above proposal is good, in that it streamlines the bureaucratic process and allows Rich to get on with cleaning up the crap floating in our ocean. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Me too. A bot should be running with a bot flag, and there seems to be general agreement that Rich does good work (with a few reservations). So there must be some way for BAG to nod this one through quickly, and I hope that the solution above is acceptable all round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion about the BAG moving to slow ironic. While I do think it does drag out a bit, people need to remember that earlier this year, the BAG took quite a bit of heat for moving too fast. The criticism was they were not waiting long enough for community input. And it was over items that on the surface seemed to be just as routine and non-controversial, but turned out not to be. Well, the community got what it wanted... -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to move Rich's tasks through as quickly as possible. But the problem has been and remains that very few people comment on BAGs. I could quite easily approve most of the pending bots, and then in 2 months get my head handed to me for approving a bot without consensus. So I wait long enough to be able to plead that it looked like silence was consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is true that BAG has taken heat, and also that individual members (and others) have been great with their work, whether considered opinions on fine detail, or swift approval of requests. It just happens that it is voluntary, therefore sometimes requests languish. As I say, WP:SNOW requests have been approved or approved for trial swiftly, and xeno has made some helpful suggestions. I don't think this is a big deal, maybe I should get a little more involved with BAG, and spend a little less time with reg-exes. I thank everyone for their suggestions and kind words and wish them a great new year. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

Isnt it the job of the bot op to advertise the bot? Go to wikiprojects, the village pump, even (dare I say it) IRC? If the bot-op does his/her job correctly, then we wouldn't have the problem we have now. Tim1357 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If people weren't so wonky we wouldn't have problems, either. But I suppose that's another discussion for another day. I don't see a problem with Rich's edits. But I also am not one to look for rules that are being broken for the sake of it. Don't say that isn't what people are doing. If the edits are fine, and the only complaint is that they did not go through BAG, then that is what they're doing. But of course, we're all free to spend their time however we want to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If nobody comments on a BAG request then silence is consent, BAG can use their own judgment in the lack of community input. If someone complains about it tell them they are welcome to contribute to future discussions instead of not contributing and complaining about it later. If the community decides a bot should not be approved after it has been approved then unapprove it. People are going to complain no matter what you do, don't try to please everyone or you will accomplish very little. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Silence is not always consent. BAG had already had serious problems with treating silence as consent. It has been discussed at WP:BOT. BAG members weigh the community impact of a request. Rich's bot request probably would have been approved and was moving towards being flagged even thought it might not require a flag when Rich removed the request.

If the proposer withdraws the BRFA, it won't get a request. There's no need established with the broader wikipedia community for a special set of policies for Rich. If there is, link to it. Rich can post a BRFA. If he uses the bots responsibly and he's good at coding and he's a communicative editor, and the task is well supported or uncontroversial he can make an argument at BRFA in the BRFA for speedy approval. As can anyone else. BAG needs more members. A useful bot operator is currently running. Others can also offer their services. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If people don't choose to participate in BAG discussions then yes, that means BAG has to use their own judgment. People need to speak if they want to be heard and if they stay silent then those making the decisions need to assume they are not objected. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that most of us here are in agreement that Rich's edits to date have been good and that he is considered a reliable and responsible editor. I'm not saying that Rich shouldreceive special treatment above anybody but I do think that given the scope of his tasks on a daily basis that it would be a good idea for him to forms a good agreement with people like M Bisanz and is given freedom, and reviewed every few weeks or something, I dunno. I also sympathise with Bisanz that the input at BAG is very limited and how he could be blamed down the line for authorising a bot to run with little discussion. Hopefully we can reach a conclusion on this but I'm glad to see that all here are with Rich so to speak and not against what he does in practice in his edits. I believe his edits have overwhelmingly been uncontroversial and are mostly acceptable (and often much needed). A good New Year to you all. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

USER:Cathar11

how do i report a user. i have been giving the stament of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)

the stament i used is below

• critics of islam(such as Nonie Darwish,Geert Wilders e.t.c) think this was a terrorist attack carried out by Muhammad.

i have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"

but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.

he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.

in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.

But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !

he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this issue on the article talkpage? This appears to be a content dispute. All entries must be by WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss this on the talk page first. Also, I think you need to provided better sources as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth directing the user to the mentoring process judging from some of his edits. I'd also question how appropriate it is to have statements about maybe killing former presidents on your userpage, but hey ho. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

request block for IP 93.222.90.99

Resolved

 - IP blocked 31 hours by LessHeard vanU.

IP number 93.222.90.99 added completely unsourced and false info about the model Iga Wyrwał [69]. The IP is very similar to the IP which was adding the same nonsense in October: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. I suggesting blocking both IPs.  Dr. Loosmark  18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think this is vandalism, it may be better posted on Administrator intervention against vandalism instead. Mononomic (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ok.  Dr. Loosmark  19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

LoadsofJerks/LotsOfJerksOnHere

Resolved

 - I'd point out the irony of this guy being a jerk, but I suspect he wouldn't have the intelligence to get it... HalfShadow 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Two users (most likely just one), User:LotsOfJerksOnHere and User:LoadsofJerks have been posting comments similar to this on editor's pages (User talk:24.176.191.234 and User talk:AussieLegend). Block or ban or something please? Mononomic (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Erledigt -- The Anome (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan refactoring comments at sock puppet case

User:Betty Logan is the subject of a sock puppet case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty, filed by Beyond My Ken. She has been in the habit of refactoring statements posted by editors on this page, including ones by the filing party [75] [76]m whereupon he asked her to stop refactoring comments [77]. She continued, moving one of mine [78], which was reverted by J.delanoy, which she reverted as vandalism here. When Beyond My Ken filed a comment regarding a post by the clerk that the user is probably a sock but since she is "behaving", a block may not be warranted, I posted a comment endorsing his statement [79] that socking is, by defintion, disruptive. It was posted properly in endorsement of a comment. User:Betty Logan moved this comment out of sequence in the case here, to a section where I have posted comments regarding the case. I returned it to where I posted it, stating "please stop moving comments by other editors - this is directly related to the comment just before it and is where it needs to be". User:Betty Logan moved it again here, telling me where I can post on the case. I returned my comment to where I posted it and User:Betty Logan moved it again, stating oved Wildhartlivie's comments to appropriate section. 'Response to Clerk' is a section started by Ken in his section. Please restrict your comments to the appropriate section. I even posted a comment that I posted this comment where it was properly a response. This was followed up by a personal attack posting by User:Betty Logan, casting aspersions on my editing history and commenting on her perception of my edits as "I'm wondering exactly what his role is on Wikipedia besides arguing with other editors." [80] [81] I do not appreciate a user refactoring my comments according to how she thinks they should be posted, and I strenuously object to the movement of my comments from where they pertain. Besides this, she speciously posted various other editors' names with whom she had disputes to a sock puppet case involving me, which was dismissed as specious and unsupported, and filed a report here. I would appreciate something being done about this disruptive editor who spends more time refactoring the comments of others than to providing evidence in her own case. I want my comments returned to where they are pertinent to the sock case and her to stop refactoring. How is this behavior not disruptive? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been just watching this case and the other sock case that Betty Logan got involved in that she shouldn't have. What concerns me is that Betty Logan freely moves others comments without a thought of whether she should. The clerk at the case says that this is probably sock account but that if there is no disruptions well... Since when do sock accounts who are originally blocked and evading given good faith like this. Socking alone should be enough to return the user to their blocked status. If you read through the evidence on the case you will see the disruptions that this user has caused. I think the Betty Logan account needs to be blocked and she need to return to her other accounts and return to the project when her block expires. She shouldn't be allowed to evade a block or ban with a sock. Thanks for listening and happy New Year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for the duration of the SPI case which, per my comments at their talkpage is indefinite - since I don't know how long it will be. I also noted that any block review should include an undertaking not to make such edits again. I felt that a block was the only way to convey the seriousness of them editing other peoples comments on a page where they are being investigated for alleged sockpuppetry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro

Copying my post over here from WP:COIN, where it has gotten no action and the user had continued his/her behavior. If there's a better place where someone will actually read this, feel free to move it there and let me know.

• Edgar Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A.montenegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user:A.montenegro has been appearing repeatedly over the past few weeks to do what appears to be a whitewash of the article Edgar Martins. Article before a.montenegro appeared: [82], A.montenegro's additions: [83] (trouble is mainly in section Digital Alteration Controversy"/The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ). Because the user's additions were so non-neutral, I integrated the parts that could be kept and removed the rest: [84]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [85]).

Warnings have been left on his/her talk as well as the article talk, explaining what was wrong with the user's additions. Other users have expressed on the talk page their agreement with my perception of A.montenegro's version. Based on the user's talk page, which contains a bio of Edgar Martins, and the user's determination to add only favorable information to the article, it appears A.montenegro is someone strongly interested in the reputation of Edgar Martins. I gave him/her a final, non-templated warning this afternoon, explaining the policies he was violating and why, and he/she just reverted the article again to his/her version. I'm not well-versed in what can be done in a case like this- the user is not responding to their talk or to article talk, and their edits are disrupting the article. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any interaction by A.montenegro in attempting to come to any consensus as regards their editing. However, before commenting on possible sanctions I would ask if any of A.montenegro's additions are verifiable? If it is not, then it is also a case of OR as well as COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

His additions are generally cited to the article subject's website or art critics' comments, which is fine as far supplying the artist's or critics' take on the controversy, etc. However, he tends to use these bits to overwhelm the factual matter of the section - posting paragraphs of direct-quoted text where the artist praises himself, etc (i.e. [86]). I'm struggling to find a precise way to characterize it, but I think the trouble is basically...he's overwhelming the encyclopedic quality of the article with shiny, overly-positive quotes. This wouldn't be such a problem if the user was willing to interact on any talk page, and hash out with other editors what he wants said, but instead he just keeps pasting. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The article subject's website is a WP:Primary source, but if the art critic's comments upon the content from the primary source is a reliable secondary source then they can be incorporated. However, given that the only edit outside of the article appears to be a self bio on their talkpage, it seems to me that an NPOV inclusion of any content would be best done without input from A.montenegro. We have the information needed for the article, so perhaps a block on the account for violation of WP:Consensus and disregard of WP:COI is appropriate. I would look to other comments before a uninvolved admin makes any agreed action, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

edit war

Resolved

 - 119.173.81.176 (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours by LessHeard vanU for edit warring. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I filled an RPP @ [87]. The reason I am posting here is becuase User:119.173.81.176 has been engaged in 2 edit wars in the past few days. --MWOAP (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days for continued disruption. Since they appear to be willing to dispute any matter they come across I have disallowed their ability to edit their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson album invincible

Resolved

 - For future reference, these requests belong at WP:RFED.

i recently noticed that the page for Michael Jackson Invincible (album) says 10th album when actually it is his 6th with epic/sony records, could someone with "protection-access" for the article please see this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.89.48 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is part of an edit war. This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page. 71.125.80.139 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without any 3RR or Warning?

2/0 recently indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul64. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? - 59.164.204.229 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Xeugene and Pacifica Forum

This has come up before, but needs a closer look. Xeugene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account solely for editing the controversial article Pacifica Forum - he has no other edits, not even to Talk:Pacifica Forum or User talk:Xeugene. Today, he has repeatedly inserted the same content, an edit that adds unsourced disparagement of the Southern Poverty Law Center, falsifies the contents of an existing quote from a referenced newspaper article, and adds al large amount of unneeded whitespace in the article, causing the diff view to be nearly useless at detecting his actual content changes. He marks his edits as minor. I don't care to break 3RR (I am right at the limit, if others do not consider this blatant vandalism), so I would appreciate having others take a look at what's going on here. In my opinion, if others do consider this vandalism, or similarly unacceptable, it is simply time to block him. As I said, he has no edits outside this single page, and his current edits are an attempt at sophisticated deception. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a slow-moving edit war over this article between apparently pro- and anti- Pacifica editors. Each of these editors has inserted info that turns out to be a twisting of the facts presented in the refs provided. I've attempted to keep the article neutral. One of the editors warned the other about vandalism, but other than that, I don't think there has been much communication between the parties involved. Or with the parties, I might add. I did alert fellow members of WikiProject Oregon to the situation here. I'm not sure what amin action is needed--the edits have been easily corrected so far--though I haven't looked at the most recent edits (I have other stuff to do today). Whitespace and marking edits minor are newbie mistakes and I don't think these should be considered part of the editor's more worrisome actions. Katr67 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about sophisticated deception, but they are certainly not interested in the Wikipedia model of consensual content building. Since they have not changed the content of their preferred additions to the text there is no need for them to remain within the editorship, at least for the time being. I suggest an initial lengthy block (1 week - 1 month?) will convince them that their disruption is not appreciated. If they return with the same edits then they can be indeffed as a disruptive SPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Katr67, I agree with you about the long-term problem on that article (I have it watchlisted due to some previous noise on the article); my singling out one editor wasn't meant to imply that others are clean. It happens that this one editor is a problem right now, since they are explicitly falsifying the contents of sources. For the record, I do think there's a "sophisticated" element to the way they are repeatedly adding whitespace, but per WP:BEANS I really don't want to advertise the technical issue here. It is not the main point in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 - blocked for legal threat

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened to sue Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I believe normal practice here is to issue an indefinite block until a retraction is made. Nableezy has requested that the block be made with autoblock turned off as he has a shared ip at work. nableezy - 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...You're requesting your own block? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The "legal threat" is that he'll sue if Sandstein doesn't block his account. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep, for reference, the rather weird goings on are occuring on User:Sandstein's talk page. O_o We don't block on request, but we do block for legal threats. Not sure here. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he could be blocked because of the legal threat, and because he is arguably asking for it in bad faith... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure, I have gone with the "we do block on legal threats". Indef blocked. A request to be blocked is typically ignored, but a request to be blocked coupled with blockable behavior is generally responded to with a block. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor can always ask for an unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Empty

Resolved

 - Question answered by Zetawoof.

I noticed that the newpage patrol list is virtually empty, except for every few moments when people create a new article and its dealt with at a normal rate. Redirects, which are not part of the default display, are not empty. That suggests to me that there was not an error in the database, but that someone or some group has essentially cleared out the backlog.

While this is a good thing if it was done as normal page patrol is, I don't believe I've ever seen the backlog clear. This means thousands of articles were marked patrolled over the last few days (last time I remember looking).

Is there some project doing this, or an individual? I'm in the process of looking through the patrol logs to see any strange patterns, but if anyone can help point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. [Cross posted to Wikipedia Help]. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ironholds (and other members of WP:NPP) brought the backlog to zero early on the 31st. Massive, well-deserved respect for all involved. :) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I needed to know, thank you. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to ask there first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ermm.... NLT and COI?

Joe Burd (talk · contribs): here and here. Reads like a legal threat to me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound so to me. He is not saying "take the pic down or I'll sue you." He is just saying he can provide evidence of copyright. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very stern and final warning given to the user. He is saying "The previous comment is unwarranted slander, legal ramifications may apply."(in response to the comment "Unlikely uploader is copyright holder"). That is a threat, if the user continues it will result in a block. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Conservapedia troll returns

Resolved

 - Blocked by Antandrus. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DaMo2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is outing, trolling, and now edit warring. I've sent an email to WP:Requests for oversight, but I haven't heard back yet. It might be best that we block this one for now until something is done about oversighting; the user is posting my name and making inaccurate claims about my age in edit summaries. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN

Admins, please see relevant thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ITN. HJMitchell You rang? 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer us to respond on there, or on here? Both?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk now HJMitchell. Where do you want a response?--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoolio9690 again

User:Hoolio9690 was blocked for [88] carrying on an on-wiki fued about a couple of articles. He's at it again. I don't have time to deal with it. It's party time. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to discuss the matter through my talk page or email. I am trying to establish that I am not carrying out a wiki feud, but am merely attempting to prevent slander and denigration of an article which I started. Now that unreliable sources are being introduced to the article, I am found helpless and only desire the Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) article to be deleted rather than have libelous and untrue remarks about the author. Concerning the other article (Isacovici), that is also my main desire. If you wish to deal with this issue, please write to me. I am more than happy to explain exactly what I've been doing. For example, the primary source material that is sourced in the Isacovici article actually exists and if needed, I can upload it. Even though wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you must realize that the published sources out there are unreliable and do not source the legitimacy of the copyright documents. This is a serious issue and I'm starting to tire of the wikipedia community ganging up against me. Hoolio9690 (talk) Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

OK, you're entitled to discuss it, as long as you're civil. However, you must stop reverting or you'll end up being blocked for edit warring and if you revert 3 times in on day you're very likely to be blocked. Leave the article(s) alone and take it to talk pages to discuss the matter. I'll be happy to act as an informal mediator if needed. HJMitchell You rang? 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

HJMitchell clearly remembers WP:3RR. Oh no. We are doomed!--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Party time"? This is Wikipedia, not Rambo.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell. I'm perfectly willing to be civil. I just don't want the pages to be constantly reverted back and forth. Thank you very much for your help. I've sent you an email Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

---

I have rolled back Hoolio9690's changes for a number of reasons:

1. He has introduced non-article text into the article. Hoolio9690 should refrain from doing so, even if he feels that the article should be deleted.
2. The article seems to be well sourced and so far as I can see there is no libellous material.

It would be best to take this to the talk page if there is a content dispute, however if the article is to be deleted then please ensure that discussion is done under this forum.

With regards to the editor's conduct - may I suggest that they use the talk pages more frequently to discuss the changes they are making? I have done a brief review of their edits, and it appears that they are not trying to find consensus on various articles but are just reverting changes. I have checked the logs for this account, however, and I cannot see that they have ever been blocked. However, after delving into the history of the user's talk page, it appears that they have been, quite rightly, warned about their editing practices. That they have blanked their talk page is their right, however it does not seem sensible to me to have done so.

I would strongly advise that Hoolio9690 review Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Consensus and the 3 revert rule, but only after understanding the spirit of this policy.

I would also ask other editors to please refrain from making comments that could be seen as aggressive, even in jest. It's easy to make these comments (I've done so before, to my regret) even when you are probably in the right. We must really all rise above bad behaviour! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I have also reverted his edits on Salomon Isacovici. I have studied the sources at length, and Hoolio9690 is clearly inserting unverifiable, POV, Original research material in order to further his dispute with the late Mr. Isacovici and his family about the primary authorship of a book. See this previous ANI posting by the other side]. Hoolio9690 has a very serious conflict of interest here. His self-created bio is up for deletion [89], and he is now requesting deletion, which I personally think should be granted, though the AFD tending towards keep. I urge other administrators to keep an eye on this situation.--Slp1 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. It looks like there are some good eyes on the situation. There's no reason for User:HJMitchell to not monitor the talk page discussions-he's an editor in good standing, and that's what is often needed: outside eyes from one more editor in good standing who is not already editing in a situation. HJMitchell qualifies.

If you look at the user's talk page you will see the block notices, just check the last revision before blanking. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 07:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempted insertion of Javascript into my talk page

In User:Torchwoodwho's edit [90], they appear to have tried to add some Javascript into my talk page, perhaps in the belief that it might be activated when the page is read. I've asked them on their talk page to explain this. It certainly does not look accidental: it looks like an attempt has been made to hide it in a link in another editor's comment on that page.

Has anyone seen any similar suspicious activity recently, from this or any other user? -- The Anome (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where that java came from, but frankly, I've been very accommodating in trying to hunt down what happened. It seems to reference a user named Henrik in the code and I'm not sure what the connection is. I have a long edit history as a vandal fighter (just check my contribs) and I'm just as worried about this as Anome. The issue seems to have corrected itself for whatever reason in my end, but I have asked general help if anyone has seen something similar and I've reached out to Henrik to see if he knows what's happening since the java appears to be associated with his namespace.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tracked it down to an issue with either the Articles for Creation Helper tool or another mod I'm running written by Henrik [91]. There must've been some kind of a wire crossed in my dashboard, but this is obviously not a malicious script. It seems to run rampant sometimes and I've found the code inserted (via google search) in other wiki pages. [92], [93]. The google search: [94]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I certainly don't appreciate being warned about vandalism! I've obviously been doing research into this to discover what the issue was and I've come up with some compelling results that it was either a user error or a malfunctioning helper tool. I'm quite offended with this warning and would appreciate having another admin look into this situation. I've done nothing but constructive work on Wikipedia for quite some time and this is a blatant slap in the face to a good long-term user AND VANDAL FIGHTER! Where is my assumption of good faith in this matter?! I've been communicative, proactive, and engaged on the issue and I get a vandalism warning?!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work tracking down the cause of the problem. Ignore the warning. Give Fastily a barnstar. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 3:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User: MisterWiki

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting all of my edits (which were CONSTRUCTIVE) for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and is not explaining why he is reverting me. As of right now, the Internet is barely working, so I can't really do much about it.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I took a cursory look at the anon user's contributions and found things such as [95], which is not obvious vandalism, at least not by my standards. It appears constructive. WP:ROLLBACK explicitly states rollback should only be used for blatantly obvious vandalism. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm used to having my constructive edits reverted. In fact, I've actually been blocked for reverting vandalism at one point.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Being "used to having constructive edits reverted" is not a good thing.... Just because someone has rollback doesn't mean they can stomp all over you. (Note that is not an accusation of MisterWiki, just a general comment about User:66.177.73.86's past history.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't stand up for myself. If I do, they'll just block me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reverted your edits because of your past history.

I reverted them because I believed they were vandalism. Again, sorry. Cheers, MisterWiki talk contribs 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody hates 66.177.73.86...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to blunt, but you didn't even think to check? Rollback is quite a potent tool and those to whom it is entrusted are expected to use it with caution which, evidently, you did not here. Also, for the record (and I'm not taking a side here, contrary to appearances) this is not the first time MisterWiki has been reported to ANI. HJMitchell You rang? 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rollbacked again my edits. So there is no problem. :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of whether or not they were vandalism, at least in my opinion, they were not obvious. On 22 December you were warned for a second time regarding rollback and that it is specifically to be used for only blatantly obvious vandalism (as WP:ROLLBACK states). If there is any doubt, the undo feature should be used instead with an appropriate edit summary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia hates me. Under my countless IP addresses, I have been prosecuted, reverted, blocked, and harassed... and, 99% of the time, I didn't even do anything. People have reverted my constructive edits and then blocked me for asking why they reverted me. People have blocked me for no reason at all. In fact, I've actually been blocked for reverting vandalism. I am really considering just leaving the site for good.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies 66.177.73.86. Sorry. :( --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm really very used to it. At least I wasn't blocked this time.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you've come to the right place- ANI is where this kind of thing can be dealt with. Now, I hate to make a fellow rollbacker look bad, but this not being the first (or, apparently, second) time you've been warned, rolling back your own edits is not quite the point. HJMitchell You rang? 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried. They've just blocked me for it. Nobody ever listens. When I was blocked for reverting vandalism, they gave me a longer block just for proving to them that I was reverting vandalism.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have revoked MisterWiki's rollback. From the diffs provided above, it is clear that there has been a pattern of misuse of the tool. NW (Talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear to me.--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, I really do, but I think it was the right decision. HJMitchell You rang? 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't!--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do have to agree with NW on this one as well, regrettably, as another fellow rollbacker. I talked to MisterWiki on IRC and advised him to try to learn from his mistakes, demonstrate this with tools like twinkle, and then perhaps request the permission later after this has been adequately demonstrated. I'm not an administrator, but I assume rollback takes 2 seconds to add and 2 seconds to remove. It shouldn't be a big deal. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. It takes two clicks of a mouse to remove or grant rollback. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To the original IP poster, I would strongly encourage you to create an account on the site. While it is regrettable and A Bad Thing, IPs are often not given the same regard that an account holder gets. I think you'll find your experience here much more pleasant if you use an account rather than an IP. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Joemama993

Joemama993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Back in August of 2009, I wrote to Joemama993 saying that radio station airstaff schedules like these were strictly not-allowed under WP:NOT#DIR. After several warnings Joemama993 was blocked for his actions. He came back and said he would only write schedules in prose, which is allowed. On January 1, 2010, he went back on his word. I warned him again, several times, and took it to AIV and was directed here. This is clearly a user who is violating WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Joemama993 of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this guy seems to edit on everything radio station related. There is no variety in his edits. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas

• Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would an uninvolved, independent admin like to take a careful look at this user's overall edits, please? I get a strong sense that he is engaging in some kind of parody. While that can be amusing, the purpose doesn't overall seem to be to improve Wikipedia. I could of course be completely wrong about this. --TS 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting admins time. At least provide some diffs. --GoRight (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It has been suggest that my sarcasm is unhelpful, therefore I shall strike my comment. --GoRight (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very civil thing to say to Tony! However, Tony, why do you think he is doing what you say he is doing? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. That's why I ask for more admin opinion. Lar has arrived at an opinion, describing an enforcement request he filed as "frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering" [96], then blocked him briefly for "disrupting this process and wasting time." [97] This user's conduct on the enforcement page, and elsewhere, seems to be ridiculously over-the-top, and there's a feeling that something funny is going on. His confrontational discussion style (see for instance talk:dog) is rather unusual even for a very new Wikipedian unused to our ways. I think the more admin eyes here the better. --TS 07:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours (before seeing this thread, for what it's worth). His editing over the past few days is unacceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just before that I left him a note. Hopefully he heads that advice when the block expires. Prodego ^talk 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)