Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mortician103 (talk | contribs) at 03:46, 21 March 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    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


    Viktor van Niekerk

    I'm involved in a long-running dispute with User:Viktor van Niekerk regarding his ownership of the ten-string guitar article.

    This was previously a soapbox of Viktor's, which he defended by personal attacks on anyone who tried to fix it. This went on for more than a year in fact, during which time a number of other editors just gave up. If newbies, typically they just left.

    I have managed to make some progress, largely owing to a block another admin put on Viktor for incivility. However he is now back and has commenced a program of harassment in order to get his soapbox back. He is particularly aware of its high Google rating when compared to his own personal websites on the subject.

    See my talk page, particularly User talk:Andrewa#General reply and User talk:Andrewa#Personal attacks, and some recent diffs from Viktor: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] .

    I fear that this will just escallate until Viktor is eventually banned. Any help greatly appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you haven't even used your admin powers since February, let alone "abused" them. (This information you dug up should be useful in solving the content dispute.) I see no personal attacks, personal vendettas, or whatever else Viktor alleges, as in this thread title: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Objective_Expert_musician_needed_to_resolve:_Editor_abusing_his_admin_status_in_personal_vendetta.2C_supporting_misinformation. Viktor, if you are reading this, and I presume you are: please back off on the accusations, assume good faith, have a look at our conflict of interest and no original research policies. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seconding what Antandrus says. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't abused them, and Viktor knows I haven't. See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for his first attempt, and note that it was resolved to this effect on 4 March 2009. The other diffs I give above include several subsequent repeats of the same allegations, and surely this counts as both harassment and disruption. He has also posted similar material elsewhere on the web, naming both me and Wikipedia, see for example this post to the 10 String Guitar Yahoo! group.
    Viktor has been active on Wikipedia since 31 January 2007. He is intelligent and determined, and able to quote policy when it suits him, but shows no willingness to acknowledge it at any other time.
    I think we need to resolve the behaviour issue before it will be possible to properly address the content issues. Viktor is bold now in his harassment because sadly, similar tactics have always worked for him in the past.
    The diff you quote of my research into Viktor's credentials actually worries me a little. Viktor has now posted a 3rd level NPA warning on my user talk page, possibly in retaliation for my posting one on his, and referring to the talk page in question. I posted this material there because Viktor was quoting himself as an authority, and there seems doubt as to his actual credentials. I think it's legitimate rather than attack as he himself raised the topic of his credentials, but it's the only even borderline thing there as far as I can see.
    And it is borderline, in that it's really no solution. The solution is for Viktor to stop quoting himself as an authority. But how? Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - From what's visible at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar Viktor is consistent in using "status as admin" and is not claiming Andrewa used or abused his "admin powers." A few colorful firefights notwithstanding, the admins tend to support one another and it's hard for the lay editor to tell if an admin is "abusing" his or her status when a couple of unrelated admins drop in supporting the admin's POV on an issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be very careful about giving any credence to Viktor's accusations. Viktor has been active on Wikipedia for over two years, and has in that time happily quoted policy when it suited him.
    The charge that I have abused my status as an admin is simply false, I have done no such thing and there is no evidence offered that I have. Yes, it's a harder one to decide either way than the more specific charge of abusing my sysop powers, and yes, that is probably the very reason that this phrasing has been used.
    Similarly, the charge that I have a vendetta is simply false. My motives are twofold: To improve the articles concerned (see Viktor's version if you haven't already done so), and more important, to make Wikipedia a safer place for other editors to do so too (difs available on request for the many, many stale personal attacks that went unchallenged and often the victims just left Wikipedia, apparently unnoticed). Yes, these both do involve standing up to Viktor, and no, he does not like it. That is not my fault.
    Be aware that my contact with Viktor has been purely as a result of Wikipedia, but that Viktor's consequent attacks on me have also been made in several other forums, and may continue there, see [8] [9] [10] and many more postings to that group. Another place he has been particularly venomous is Myspace, but at least some of those pages have thankfully been deleted. More recently he has linked to diffs and previous versions from Wikipedia page histories, and may be expected to do so again.
    IMO Wikipedia is not the place to address what he has said in these other forums, I must decide whether to do so myself or whether to just hope that others will form the opinion that Viktor's credibility is not sufficient to undermine my own. But I do ask you to be very careful about making statements that he may be able to quote, possibly out of context. I realise this is not always possible! Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My dispute is about contents. If you want to take this further, please at least take note of the contents problems.Andrewa is making this personal. My disagreement with his edits are purely based on factual information. I seek to maintain academic standards (such as not linking to or including proven misinformation) while Andrewa (be it in his capacity as admin or editor?) has repeatedly included misinformation as well as defending it by making very dishonest claims (such as that "four" equals "eight" and that there is no difference between saying one or the other) [11]. I need hardly point out that this conduct is unscholarly and unethical. Here is the evidence and there is more, if you ask me for it:

    According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

    After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin/editor Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

    Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [13]

    Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator/editor, deliberately posting false information (after being warned it is false). Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

    The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

    "Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

    Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these 12 notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

    However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [14] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.

    Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings". So why is Andrewa falsely claiming that they are saying the same thing and linking to misinformation after repeated detailed explanations to him (off wikipedia) about this content? If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

    Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his powers as admin/editor to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (here under "Sources" [15] and elsewhere) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NO, Viktor. I see bullying and abuse here, but it's not Andrewa who is doing it. Please read the behavioral guidelines I linked above. Read them. Don't wait; don't post another WP:TLDR; don't deflect from the actual issue, the issue that brought you to this board, which is the way you are behaving: you need to assume good faith of other editors, be calm and polite and engage with them civilly: go read the guidelines I linked, and then, even more important, abide by them.
    Regarding your claim, "Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements" -- you need to read WP:COI. You may not publish your own research here. Your website, as it is self-published, is not a reliable source; it is not independent, and it is not peer-reviewed. Please go read our policies and guidelines. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it time for a topic ban? Frankly the idea that the biggest paragraph (the historical dispute) has three things cited with one simply saying "a lot comes from here" is the biggest problem. I'm going to watch the article and if nobody can find sources for all the flowery language ("luthier noted for his innovations", "inspired by", "As was his practice, he sought advice", "concerned with the problem"), I'm dumping it. The tone is wholly appropriate and the entire Repertoire section feels like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes I took a hatchet to the article when a scalpel was probably needed. Most of it was unsourced and the language was a mess. Find some source, even one that's not reliable as a starting point, and discuss things on the talk page before putting it in. Games of "I know the truth" from anyone isn't productive, but feel free to revert and just ignore me if you guys wish. Sometimes, getting everybody mad at an outsider works wonders for corroborative effort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits are certainly food for thought! They raise real issues and I think they're progress. Discussion on the talk page is also appreciated. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban on Viktor, if it applied to Narciso Yepes and the ten-string guitar and related articles, would effectively ban him completely. He has indicated no interest in any other topics. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned Viktor and have also brought up the big worries about OR and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please supply proof of whatever I am being accused of in relation to Andrewa. I have not seen any. On the contrary, I have ample proof of my discussions with Andrewa off wikipedia. We have been through the contents issues I've raised. Andrewa has persisted in linking to unreliable sources and defending his actions by claiming there is nothing inaccurate in his sources. I cannot assume good faith any longer. How can one assume good faith when an editor has been pointed to reliable resources (published texts by Narciso Yepes in musical journals) yet still supports online sources that are not scholarly or peer-reviewed? How can I honestly assume good faith when an editor says there is no difference between saying "four" and saying" eight"? How can I assume good faith after I've explained to this editor in quite some detail, repeatedly both on and off wikipedia, the difference between Marlow's claims of "four" resonances and Yepes's statements of "eight" resonances? How can I assume good faith when this editor on 8 March (knowing better) still claimed that there is no difference between saying four and saying eight resonances and that the sources he supports contain no misinformation? This is a very simple matter: saying four resonances (C, Bb, Ab, Gb) is most certainly not the same as saying eight resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#). Seriously, how can anyone assume good faith when an editor claims 4=8? And that after I've gone out of my way to explain the contents to him. We have even met in person and he had the opportunity to ask me about the contents of this matter. But still Andrewa has persisted in defending factually inaccurate information and making accusations against me that are unfounded. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For the last time

    Viktor, this is not about content, this is about your behavior as an editor. It's about you personally attacking others, and not following our no original research policy. The issue isn't about whether you're right or wrong, but whether you are following policy, or not, and you are clearly not. Stop posting your content dispute here, it is pointless and drags away from the issue at hand.

    There so far seems to be a rough consensus by uninvolved parties to topic ban you. Does anyone else support or oppose this?— Dædαlus Contribs 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Please supply proof of your allegations that I am attacking/harrassing Andrewa. This is not the first time Andrewa has made false allegations against me:

    Here here, under Sources, Andrewa makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites".

    Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music. Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

    Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group. So there also Andrewa has made a false accusation.

    So have I "harrassed" him? Or is this another cry of wolf by an editor who has been failing a contents dispute and resorts to getting me banned from wikipedia so he can express his POV?

    Please supply proof of harrassment. I can also supply proof of Andrewa's attacks against me.

    Please also supply proof of breach of policy. I too can supply proof of Andrewa's breach of policy, for example WP:LINKSTOAVOID, by linking to to pages with known misinformation, myspace, and yahoo groups.

    Please supply proof of the alleged "original research". Everything I have posted in the ten-string guitar articles on wikipedia (prior to Andrewa's considerable rewrites) could be verified by referring to Narciso Yepes's published articles and interviews in musicological journals, by referring to proven facts of physics in acoustics textbooks, and by referrign to published sheet music for the 10-string guitar.

    It takes more than empty allegations (from however many editors) to ethically ban someone who is simply trying to uphold standards of scholarship and factually correct information on wikipedia. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Viktor, you can either listen to what people are telling you or keep on repeating your claims until you find yourself topic banned from the subjects. Those are your options at this point and it seems that you would rather win a few points today by repeating your same arguments than be allowed to edit on those articles. Nobody cares about the content dispute since it seems quite clear that neither side can clearly produce reliable sources justifying their beliefs; you conduct on the other hand is maddening. I would heavily support a topicban and we'll see if Viktor really cares more about neutrality and getting a good article or just getting to say what he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topicban, extremely broadly construed. Wikipedia has absolutely no place for people pushing a POV or using themselves as sources, and the sooner we come down on it, the better. //roux   05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support temporary topic ban. While I want to believe this editor can calm down and make an honest attempt to present his case in a rational and concise manner, his behavior in his multiple postings to various noticeboards of the same or similar TL;DR complaints makes it extremely difficult to believe that he isn't pushing OR or a POV and isn't otherwise engaged in tendentious editing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose of a user ban, support edit protection on the articles which amounts to a topic ban for all of the involved parties, and suggest WP:MENTOR, involuntary if needed. From what he has written on the talk pages Viktor seems cogent enough. His technical explanations of resonance, and other reasoning on the subject clear and easily understood by this layperson. The goal is channeling that talent and energy into useful WP article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Revision, I looked over the recent edits to Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. They seem fine to me and so I've struck out the edit protection part of this note. I'm concerned about the tone of recent messages such as on 11:28, 18 March 2009 and 11:34, 18 March 2009 and still suggest mentoring. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof

    Plase note that the allegations made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [16]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

    The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February [17] and here we have Andrewa responding [18]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [19] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [20].

    Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.)

    Now I intend to edit the articles with references to reliable, verifiable sources. I will NOT waste any further time in this pointless argument as I am innocent of harrassment against Andrewa, who merely wants me gone so he can have his POV. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest round

    Please see this dif and this dif for Viktor's current stand. I think we are making progress, but there's a way to go. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also the timestamps on my post and Viktor's post above. I've spoken to him about sequencing of threads, as he has often posted new ones to the tops of talk pages. Perhaps someone else would like to support me on this? It's a minor point perhaps, but annoying, and IMO indicative of exactly the attitude that needs to change. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Viktor

    Seriously, does anyone think the discussion at the article talk page is getting better? More walls of text from Viktor including more assumptions of bad faith. I've had enough of these games. I've blocked him for a week. Between the COI, the harassment, the sarcastic insults, the sockpuppetry, he's had more than enough time to play here. Years of this is more than enough. Asking for review because honestly if he comes back and doesn't change, I want to make it permanent and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You know what, I was wrong on the sockpuppetry. That was an misreading of the facts. I've notified him of that. However the rest is there still. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kommentar I'm sure y'all have viewed this archived WQA regarding similar issues. As much as I would hate to think we needed to topic ban Viktor, the incessant belief that its "my way or the highway I'm going to insult you until the ends of the Earth" are not productive, not does it fit the collaborative model. I believe Viktor has much to add ... but cooperation, and a few doses of common sense seem not be part of his arsenal. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the block. After many warnings and even bits of begging, he began again with the PAs. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this block not indef and/or coupled with a permanent topicban? //roux   18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially because I have been involved with the article and don't think it would be prudent for an involved admin to do it. I've been chewed out enough for heavy banning on the Macedonian articles already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think indefinite would've been quite accepted, but given that he was recently blocked for 1 week, blocking for 1 week again is awfully unusual. I would support extending the block to either a fortnight, or a month - after this extension, I can support a community measure specifying that future instances will be handled via an indefinite block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Viktor's past behavior

    In hindsight, it actually should have been indef, as, if anyone bothered to read the WQE BMW provided, we'd see that he was previously blocked for 1 week for the same thing. The -exact- same thing. As far as I've learned, when users are blocked for things they've been blocked before for, the blocks are usually lengthened.

    After reading this WQE, and looking at this user's behavior now, I do not see that he has changed in the least, and I do not think he will change his behavior at the end of this block, as he has already proven that he only thinks his blocks as a minor setback, and will return to what he has been doing when he was blocked in the first place.

    If this does indeed happen at the end of this block, I would support an indefinite block, however, I don't see why we should let him continue to do what he was originally blocked for, after he's shown so clearly he doesn't intend to change.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal A (no chance)

    Those in favor of an indefinite block now, as this user has shown they can't change, and they have no desire to change their behavior they were blocked for.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    COmment The editor is consistently uncivil and has made no effort to work collaboratively or by consensus. the ownership issues he demonstrates are among the most extreme I have encountered, and there is no basis for believing that he will relinquish his soapbox nor change his style in favour of a more reasonable or accommodating approach. A permanent ban is appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I note here, one of Viktor's acts was to eliminate all mentions of Ramirez's view (his book versus Yepes' speeches), which makes more sense when you consider the language on his talk page that "the heirs of Narciso Yepes have invited Van Niekerk to continue his research interests". I think the COI interests are much more serious than it looked like before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked into this even more, I agree with Ricky. I think the articles may have been targeted for "clean up" before some kind of commercial project is launched. It's worth noting that the source Viktor has disputed is someone whose name is used in the marketing of an "entry-level" 10-string guitar and his edits have been strongly written to discredit this person (mostly on a single published observation about the resonance brought on by sympathetic vibration of strings, which is one of the piths of a 10-string guitar). Aside from these worries, I think both sources have been cited to support more assertions than either reliably can do. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no commercial project involving me, and prior to this ANI, I was the only one trying to clean up the articles. No, what brought this to a head was simply that someone finally persisted.
    I suppose the use of a photo of the Michael McBroom Janet Marlow entry-level ten-string guitar may look suspicious. It would be far better to have a picture of a Ramirez or a Bernabe instead, Viktor's personal instrument would be ideal. (A photo I took of my main personal instrument currently leads the twelve-string guitar article, and by coincidence my Maton is even about the same age as Viktor's Ramirez.) I have emailed several owners, including Viktor, asking for release of suitable photos. McBroom's is simply the only suitable photo yet offered. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa I didn't say you had a conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think you could mean that, but you did say that the articles may have been targetted, and you didn't say why you think this, or by whom, and I seem to be the only possible candidate. Among Viktor's many false charges against me is COI, and specifically that I am in some way connected to Janet Marlow. So I thought I should clarify. Perhaps I am being oversensitive, and if so I apologise. Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal B (chance)

    Those in favor of an indefinite block should he continue said behavior after his most recent block expires.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Well, this was my thought, but I wouldn't mind if someone else wants to, considering his refactoring of his talk page to eliminate all other views and just post his screeds. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to give a final chance here. TO be honest, the topic is one that makes me go "huhwha?" - if he's an expert and willing to work within our guidelnies to help with it, that's great. If not, then he can take a walk. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a long term to indefinite block. I approached Victor off lines about ways to work within Wikipedia. To sum up the reply, he's upset and has left the house. While that makes the block redundant it lines up with what I was trying to achieve which were ways to demonstrate willingness to work with fellow editors. That can be done as part of a petition for readmittance. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; re-blocks are cheap, and while his behavior is disruptive it's not dangerously disruptive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, because he does know what he is talking about (as a string player, former college theory and orchestration teacher, I believe this to be the case -- of course on the internet everyone's a dog, so if you like, "woof") -- but Viktor, if you are reading this, you really need to change your behavior, and start interacting with our other volunteers politely, civilly, and with understanding. I would rather we 1) did not lose your expertise, and 2) you work with other people, not against them. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcayne

    There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Erkikektic and Marfoir

    As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages [21] [22] . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. [23] [24] Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Wikipedia policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."SPI guide? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will voluntarily remove myself from the mediation process entirely and leave it between you, EEMIV, Marfoir, THF, Cool Hand Luke, Bignole, GlobalCluster, and everyone else involved with the content issues if it makes you feel better. Let the investigation against me proceed, but don't use me as your excuse against resoloving the dispute. Erikeltic (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm amazed. What a mess one simple discussion has turned into. Oy. Welcome to Wikipedia. Marfoir (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; a content dispute turns into a discovery of possible meat (or sock)-puppetry. Quick, someone get the movie rights to this. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems as though every person who posts about 'Admin Abuse', 'Bullying' etc. doesn't realise that they will be subjected to a thorough examination as well. It's funny watching them try to redirect everyone to their original complaint, once people have got wind of their meat or sockpuppeting, violation of the policies they link to etc. Great way to kill an evening. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And now, Erikeltic (not Marfoir,which has been oddly silent while E remains somewhat active), has updated his user page three different times. Initially with a non-free image and the caption "victory is mine" (this after a consensus was reached in an article that he was a part of). When he was advised he could use such in his user page, he replaced it with an anatomical drawing of an anus with the caption: "Indeed, they are everywhere". Lastly, he updated it with a childish ditty about his interests: a pun on articles to tell his detractors to 'bend over and kiss my ass, you people'. Now, I get that folk are allowed to clever up their page, but I am fairly sure that this user - who is still awaiting the outcome of an SPI - uses the wiki as a battleground; the comments about winning and calling the folk on the losing side of an argument assholes.
    This user has spent a majority of their time either making uncivil comment in article discussion, creating pointy subarticles, wikihounding others, meat-puppeting (or socking) and turning their userpage into an insult. I am wondering why this person is still here. I am quite certain that they see the inaction here and at SPI as apathetic of their behavior; indeed, I think he sees it as approval for their behavior. I don't see it as improving until someone steps in.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Is this thing on? Test, test test... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I hear you...just passing through...not an admin and I avoid the fiction and pop-culture demesnes like the plague, but I will agree from what I've seen here that this guy does not grok wiki, and I don't see that realization of what we are about imminent. Were I sysopped, I'd indef until I saw some sign of a epiphany. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User creating MANY one line pages

    I have come across this user [25] who has been creating a ton of pages like Ancorichnus. The entire content of the page is "Ancorichnus is an ichnogenus." I then tagged one such article for CSD here [26] and the author removed the tag without providing an explanation here [27]. I don't see how that 4 word article meets the qualifications for the wiki, but other editors and administrators are encouraged to comment on the situation. Do we normally accept such articles for the site? DougsTech (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These articles — stubs — are acceptable. I've reverted your invalid use of rollback in which you removed content that was added by the author of the article. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified the user of this thread. We need all of the taxonomy articles we can get (IMO). These articles are marked as stubs and the creator has a history of working in that area, so it is reasonable to believe the articles would be expanded. Granted, the stubs are cryptic and I would suggest the creator should provide a tad more content before moving forward, but otherwise they are not detrimental. Seems like there is an essay or something about giving a stub time to expand before tagging for CSD. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Users who feel those stubs are too short may assist in expanding them. The edit tab is your friend. =D Thanks to IP Address Man for the warning about this thread. I do love it ever so much when users who have a problem with my editing run off to tattle to the admins instead of discussing it sensibly. As for now I have to go. I've run out of time I meant to use editing because I had to come over here. Abyssal (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abyssal's idol during his youth was the actor, Stubby Kaye. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your attempts to lighten things up, but the non-sequiturs do not always help as much as one would have hoped. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, how about this approach then: "LEAVE THEM BE. There's no rule that says an article has to be fully developed upon creation." Do you like that better? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But, ideally, the best way in this particular case would be to develop a better "template" for the stubs based on other genus articles. That would have probably avoided any type of CSD tags in the first place. Also, the OP could have AGF a bit more and tried to discuss on the creator's talk page instead of templating a regular. But that may just be a deletionist/inclusionist difference of opinion. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, yes, a four word taxo stub with one wikilink and no references is not CSDable, and can easily be fleshed out later. However, the onus really should be on the page creator to give it at least the bare details that give it actual information value; if nothing else its lazy editing. Abyssal is a good and prolific stub creator, and he does return to flesh out his stubs, so I am not really concerned, but I still think we should take pains not to dilute our standards for stubs too far. It really, really doesn't take much to make even a brand new stub not look like crap, and {{sofixit}} is not an excuse for creating and then abandoning a barely tolerable article (regardless of the size). Bullzeye contribs 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And, once again, an article creator removed a CSD tag with no one blinking an eye. This is getting ridiculous. Under no circumstances should the creator of an article remove a CSD tag from that article. Ever. —Kww(talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    False! Abyssal removed the speedy, then was templated with {{uw-speedy1}}, and then a different user (User talk:Cunard) removed the speedy. That is absolutely the right thing that happened. Therefore, Abyssal did not get away with the error "with no one blinking an eye". He broke the rules, DougsTech called him on it (by templating him), and then a third party removed the speedy. That is how it should be. First, Abyssal should not have removed the speedy, but second, it should have been declined anyway. I'll drop Abyssal a note requesting a) better stubs, and b) no more de-tagging. And to DougsTech, please slow down a bit and check things out more carefully before tagging, but otherwise keep up the hard work! --64.85.216.254 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creating the articles is not a problem. Than none of them are sourced, despite his being warning that unsourced articles are a bad idea is the crux of the problem. Why are no sources being added. The articles are little more than "XXX used to be." Without any sources, we cannot evaluate whether these are legitimate or just made up. We can assume good faith for now that they are legit, but why should we put up with mass quantities of sourceless stubs. If they were sourced, I'd commend this user, but as it is now, we cannot tell the difference between good stubs and out-and-out hoaxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And, once again an article creator removed a CSD tag with no one blinking an eye...Under no circumstances should the creator of an article remove a CSD tag from that article. Rules are descriptive. If no one is bothered when a rule is broken, that would suggests that it's not a problem. See WP:IAR and WP:POLICY. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EugeneKaspersky

    Resolved
     - Blocked. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New user who is impersonating an administrator ([28], [29], [30]), faking barnstars by other users on his talk page, faking talk page comments by other users [31], perpetrating a hoax [32] and impersonating a prominent real life person by his user name (violating WP:REALNAME) and self-description.

    For context, see the vandalism and hoax edits that have been going on in the article Kaspersky Lab since January by numerous IPs and one-purpose-accounts, e.g. KasperskyHimself, Kasperski69 (blocked), DmitriMedvedev (likewise impersonating Dmitri Medvedev), Hwahwahwah (blocked), TheHelperBot (likewise impersonating a bot), 66.104.111.66, 173.15.141.106 and others. I would also appreciate it if someone would have a look at the request for protection for that article.

    Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible that it could be a misspelling of Karpersky Antivirus (I cannot find the link), which is a commercial antivirus software? MuZemike 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaspersky Anti-Virus is a product of Kaspersky Lab (the vandalized article). Eugene Kaspersky is the person impersonated by this user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user is still claiming to be an admin, is still making changes to other people's comments on his Talk page, and is still claiming to be Eugene Kaspersky. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the claim to be an administrator. Mostly so that when I claim to be one no one will see through my evil scheme. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked by seicer for username, maybe the userpage should be blanked/deleted/redirected. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any possibility that Mykleis21 (talk · contribs) is the same person? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ... and everyone has been very worried about Lambchop, as she hasn't said a single word since Shari passed away. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that movie: The Silence of the Lambchop. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The sequel--Silence II: Return of the Mint--was awful, though. //roux   23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It gave me a Charlie Horse. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not so much a present AN/I issue as not knowing who to ask

    I've noticed what could end up being an issue, and when I looked further into it, noticed some possible abnormalities in the process that resulted in a change to the MOS. I've been trying to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, but I feel like my larger questions are being evaded and finally, the editor suggested I should talk about it at the Village Pump, where he had posted a notice about a template change, although the post has now been archived, or at MOSNUM, except that is where a consensus (of four persons) decided on something that was ultimately, and possibly deceptively, slipped into the MOS. I don't know that this is currently an AN/I issue, but I feel like others need to know about what has gone on, and comment on it. One of the responses the editor did make was essentially, "So what if the MOS is changed? You can choose not to follow it", which seems to be a bit naive regarding process around here. The editor responding has only been registered here since November, and doesn't seem to have worked much on articles outside of his template change editing, so I am certainly willing to assume good faith regarding his knowledge of proper process, but when I really dug deeper into what has occurred, what to me is a major change has had no community approval although the change would effect just a little less than 25% of all Wikipedia articles. I'd appreciate some feedback about where to raise these issues, either here or on my talk page, if these events seem as major to others as it does to me, and how to proceed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give us a hint of what this is about specifically? Like what the change is? TIA Tom 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a good starting point: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Template swap for Neuroscientist biography articles .28no visual change.29. –xeno (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Tom 04:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I've been trying to get the answers, although I'm not getting them. It was a change to the MOS birth and death date template that is in the MOS to be used. It's basically been slipped in without discussion by anyone but four persons and is slowly being inserted into articles. I can't find where consensus was obtained definitely for this change and I honestly feel that the way it is being presented is a bit deceptive. The posting regarding it has been called a proposal, but I don't see how something is a proposal when the MOS has already been changed and the proposal states that the MOS recommends it. It's basically a decision that (maybe) was made by four persons. This is a tremendous change to what we use in all those article. I think what's happened is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add more commentary, when I started looking for actual consensus to change the template, I don't find any consensus. I find discussion, mostly taking the form of proposing a change to a "family of templates", discussion taking the form of instruction to those that questioned it, and no clear consensus in any way. The discussion I found was here, which doesn't to me seem to any clear definitive consensus, or even a conclusion for discussion. The next discussion was here, requesting the MOS change, based on "concensus opinion from the prior discussion almost universally supported the less complicated syntax of the new templates" (referencing the discussion on the previous link. It was posted at 3:55 pm, 11 March 2009 my time, and his conclusion that it be done was posted at 12:41 am, 12 March 2009. This is less than 9 hours, citing a consensus that I can't clearly determine. Is this how things are done here? I sincerely feel like this has been surreptiously done and yes, I have a major issue with it. The other issue is that he has created a marriage template [33] with no outside discussion, which itself may not be an issue, and has to now inserted it into over 100 articles [34]. I'm not sure about this template, and fundamentally don't oppose it, but this isn't how I expect that things occur here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) These changes from {{birth date}} to {{birth-date}}, etc., didn't receive community input and will massively delink dates in infoboxes in a non-reversible way. It is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary_injunction prohibiting any such date linking or delinking until the case is resolved. 62.147.38.252 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure about that comment or its validity and can't comment on it. However I can add that the editor has also gone ahead and made changes to many infobox person templates doc pages inserting this new template into those infoboxes [35] (see edits of March 14) citing This change has concensus, please refer to Manual of Style birth and death date template guidance and talk page discussions. I will note that the consensus he refers to is basically the discussion between 5 persons on the MOSNUM talk page and to me, it is not clear it was a consensus to institute WP-wide changes. Even the "consensus" was described as four individuals who thought the templates had merit. Maybe this is an issue for here, but in any case, if it is not, please direct me to where this issue should be brought up. These changes effect over 600,000 articles - over 22% of all Wikipedia articles and the wider community has not had one iota of input into this change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the wider issue, these new templates still seem to link dates. –xeno (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it requires a specific parameter with a linked date to be inserted in order for the dates to be linked in the infobox. Used as they exist, there is no date linking from the templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but as long as it doesn't replaced a date-linked template with a non-date-linked template it wouldn't fall under the arbcom injunction. To answer your original query, perhaps initiating an RFC would be the best way to get wider attention to this issue. –xeno (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where would you suggest one be started that would get the widest notice? Obviously doing it at MOSNUM wouldn't get a lot off attention since it all started with a "consensus" there that wasn't a very clear consensus determination? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    {{birth date}} and {{death date}} etc (the "old style" templates) don't create linked dates anyway. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the WP Bio talk page. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) It is suggested that there was some subversion of the MOSNUM process. Then why not bring this up at MOSNUM? We went through an extensive discussion last month regarding the merits of plain text dates (5 May 1955) versus numeric (1955|5|5) syntax templates, and there was only one voice of opposition, and the opposition was to deprecating the old template. No one asserted that the arcane syntax of the old templates was more desirable. All others favored the templates upon which this family of date templates is based. Users are free to use the old templates, and the old templates were not deprecated, so all we are talking about here is where contributors are pointed to for the best choice on birth and death date template use.

    That's it. So what is all this hooplah about? Let's get some perspective here. If there are some global issues larger than MOSNUM, then why not comment on the Village pump thread concerning these templates? None of the folks posting here have posted either at MOSNUM or Village pump. I am not really sure what is expected from administrators.

    Finally, to 62.147.38.252, this has nothing to do with linking/delinking. As you can see in this edit[36], there is no change to the old article. If the link is there, folks can leave the link just as it was. If there was no link, folks can leave it without a date link. It's the editor's decision. The old template does not allow this flexibility. As for my edits, I leave the articles as they were. If they had a link, I leave it. If they didn't I don't add one. I am completely neutral about it. I can see both POVs and really don't care which way that issue goes. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I brought this here to find out where the real discussion needs to be broached. But actually, after having given this much thought, I do believe this change violates the arbcom injunction. As you have said, if date delinking is overturned, then all that needs occur to the first birth/death templates is a change to the template itself. No one has to go back through and check to see if a user opted to add the parameter that links dates on your template. De facto, if a user does not add the linking parameter to the template when adding it, delinking is automatic and there is no way to quickly and efficiently correct this should the arbcom case overturn delinking. That you've added the templates to 2500+ articles and changed the MOS in turn extends that to what should be occurring according to MOS and the infobox per project, which is indeed widespread. Effectively, it violates the injunction and I am beginning to think that the arbcom case may be where this needs to be discussed. I've seen you say that no one objected or questioned this, but that's not true, the more I look, the more I find questions by editors. Instead of really answering those questions, we keep getting thrown a lot of technical jargon that at first read, even to those of us who have extensive education, seems far too complicated to know how to address.
    You keep wanting to take this issue to the Village Pump, but that is not the place for a long and extended discussion or to work out extensive issues and as you note, your post didn't get much response. There is a reason for that - it isn't something that people who read and post to that page are accustomed to debating. Also, your posting has been archived for a few days now, so it is no longer there. MOSNUM is not the place to discuss it, as you can see, nobody was aware this change was occurring except for what basically was 5 people. That's not community. The discussion was actually about the merits of the start and end date templates. At no time that I can find was there ever a discussion about implementing this on a wide basis or to extend the discussion specifically to birth and death date templates. And there was never specific consensus to request a change to the MOS that I can find.
    I believe the MOS change was done surreptiously, citing a consensus that is not clear to anyone of whom I have asked opinion and there certainly was never a consensus to go ahead and request a change to the MOS or by extension, the infoboxes for individual projects. Projects have never been approached about this aspect of your template. Nobody knows. You have already gone through and changed far too many infobox template doc pages which changes the recommended infobox formatting for a myriad of individual projects. The change essentially mandates delinking because it can't be undone if the parameter is missing. Meanwhile, this is a birth and death date issue. There has never been a need for time zone distinctions, the adding of hours or seconds anywhere I have ever seen in regard to the date of birth or death in a biography article. It is meaningless and unnecessary in that sense. All in all, it really does appear that this effectively violates the arbcom injunction since it has already been put into effect, although that was done on maybe the agreement of 4 out the 5 individual editors in the MOSNUM discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you don't want to respond to my notes at MOSNUM or Village pump, what is wrong with the suggestion of doing an RFC? I'd be happy to participate in that with you. Really, I do not have any nefarious intent. I am trying to see that wikitext is as simple as possible for everyone to use.
    Comparison of syntax between old and new
    wikitext article
    Old {{Death date and age|2008|1|11|1934|5|2|df=y}} 11 January 2008(2008-01-11) (aged 73)
    New {{Death-date and age | 11 January 2008 | 2 May 1934 }} 11 January 2008 (2008-01-12) (aged 73)
    One of these two has needlessly complex syntax. I am confident the community will make a good decision. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you simply do not answer direct questions, concerns or complaints. In the "extensive discussion", which was later presented as a consensus, which was never called that, you were asked directly "REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION: Is this a discussion/proposal to replace our currently 'layman' dates with "computer nerd" dates throughout WP?" [37] you never answered the question. You talked around it. I would please like you to show me, as I have asked you repeatedly, where the final consensus is. It isn't there, anywhere. So four people didn't complain about your template, they also did not endorse changing the MOS and instituting changes to the infoboxes. My perspective is that simply an RfC will also be talked around and have jargon thrown in. And you completely ignored my concern above that this is effectively a de facto delinking issue that has been put into the MOS. As I said, you yourself said that if the arbcom decision is for linking, it's a simple matter to fix the older templates. Without going through each use of the new one individually to ensure the linking parameter is used, re-linking is effectively not possible. That's why I have approached an arbcom member about this. I don't think this is simply an issue of taking it to an RfC after thinking about the ramifications of what has gone on. I hate to be a person who throws around the name, but maybe I should ask Jimbo how this should be handled. It is clearly beyond here, and I'm not convinced you haven't done an end-run around proper process. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now. On a daily basis contributors read about dozens of issues and don't comment if people have already commented as they would have. Simply because only 6 people commented doesn't mean that the substantial number of people monitoring MOSNUM due to the link / delink issue did not agree to what was being said. You feel that the discussion was too complicated. Well, it doesn't get any more complicated than the side by side comparison above. In fact, it is you that is arguing in favor of a needlessly complex template. So you decline to discuss in MOSNUM, Village Pump or an RFC. Note that your argument is generic- everyone thinks their issue is earth shattering- so important that they can claim that WP process is inherently broken, can be gamed by nefarious individuals such as myself and folks need to escalate all their disputes to Arbcom. Get some perspective. This issue is not earth shattering. It is only about which date template is recommended in the MOS guidelines. That is all. You can use your old template all you want. It is you that in practice are making an end run around open discussion and a consensus based process. Ok fine. Whatever. I want to assure you I do not have nefarious intent, and I am sure this will all come to a mutually agreeable resolution. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Redsred

    Resolved
     - tpage access has been disabled. //roux   21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redsred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Resolved

    Redsred has retired. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I'm striking this because of the message below.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The timezone header was not intended as vandalism. Just as a joke. Apologies for any confusion. --Redsred (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So THAT's where that came from. I just assumed everyone on the system was in the UTC time zone anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether this user was constructive or not, but this message has me worried.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I turned him in to WP:AIV. We'll see what they decide to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was actually indef'd yesterday, by Carlos just before he posted the "resolved". Watch for IP socks? Recommend leaving user page as is for now, but if he makes further trouble (as opposed to making a valid unblock request), he should be disabled from editing the page. [38] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Jersay for the 3rd time

    Resolved
     - Indeffed by LessHeard vanU //roux   18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jersay has once again reverted cited information from List of terrorist incidents, 2009. diff. He has been warned over 9 times and blocked twice for identical vandalism. He has been reported here 4 times I think. The code for list articles make it extremely difficult to revert "cannot be undone" edits, forcing editors like me to copy and paste each and every line instead of one big copy edit. I'm anticipating a definite block/ban, if this isn't the place can someone direct me to a higher authority? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do we waste our time mollycoddling people who pull this crap? Months of warnings and two blocks have had zero effect. It's WP:RBI time. //roux   05:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned he might carry a bias towards Somalia. A significant majority of his reverts have been on Somalia-related incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would reporting to WP:AIV be appropriate? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After two blocks, he still undoes these list entries and never leaves a Talk message. It seems that his mission in life is to delete things that (in his personal opinion) do not qualify as terrorist incidents. Due to the difficulty of reverting his changes to these lists, I'd support an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How can this be done? I don't plan on spending hours on noticeboards demanding a ban, so could we pool some volunteers? You're an admin, right Ed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's broader than just Somalia, or just terrorism. Jersay is an extremely prolific editor of articles about wars, terrorism and conflicts generally. He's stepped hard on people's toes over the recent crimes in Northern Ireland, he's got views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he pushes his POV that civil unrest constitutes a revolution. He's made responsible editing of the various list-of-wars articles very difficult. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jersay is a tendentious editor of the highest order. Regarding his involvement with Northern Ireland related articles, firstly he created Second Northern Ireland Revolt. During the deletion discussion for that article, he moved it to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland. After the deletion of the article, it was reposted at Republican Violence in Northern Ireland, Paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland 2009 Paramilitary Conflict. While this was happening he was constantly adding details and a link to the article to List of wars 2003–current and List of ongoing conflicts (example diff 1, example diff 2), claiming it was a war or conflict that started on 11 February 2009, which ignores that both the Real IRA and Continuity IRA (two of the participants in the "war") have been active for over a decade. In more general terms, he seems to have his own definition of what incidents are terrorism and which are not. Constrast this addition with all his removals of incidents he says are not terrorism. The source makes no mention of terrorism, and while a grenade attack on a commercial establishment may be terrorism it may also be a dispute between criminal gangs especially when police have yet to determine a motive. O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "New" editor Canadian87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems very familiar.. O Fenian (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack. //roux   01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed a sock report. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs behavior

    Recently I have witnessed constant nonconsecutive edits by few Ips, namely 203.56.87.254, 124.190.113.128. My observations, let me presume that those IPs controlled by the same person.

    Connection between IPs

    However, those IPs crossed the line then started to mocking from Lithuanians:

    Therefore I ask, that appropriate measures be taken in order to prevent further violations of basic WP policies. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned both; most diffs are rather old. If uncivil behavior continues, I'd support a block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going by the IPs and the times (April last year?) I wonder if these two are the same person. One IP is a company in Melbourne, the other an Australian ISP. The edit from the company is at about 23:30 UTC, 09:30 local, the other is 06:30-ish UTC or 16:30 local. Edits from work and home, perhaps? Tonywalton Talk 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. But now, then I looked it in more detail other possibility emerged, that it may be proxies or somebodies sock's IPs. For instance after reverting routine "improvements" of IP [65], Ip was not present for the several days, but somehow he managed to revert me back in mater of minutes. Can anybody run the check over this? M.K. (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user's ISP contacted by an admin with claims of "libel"

    Resolved
     - The issue has received sufficient coverage and the parties have reflected on the utility of the actions taken. –xeno (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am quite concerned that an admin has contacted RMHED's ISP, telling them that User:RMHED has committed "libel" on Wikipedia. When asked about the libel claim, the response was, to say the least, not very reassuring - "Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was". Contacting ISPs may be a good idea, but surely this should only be done in extreme cases (this isn't even a banned user), and only by official Wikipedia representatives (i.e. "the office"). Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: User:RMHED is now banned, but was not when their ISP was contacted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it disturbing that, when I asked above where said libelous comment was at, that they pointed to a diff that contained no libelous content. Rude? Yes. Libelous? Far from that. To contact an ISP and harass a user over that is a bit over the top. seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry if I have cause a problem here. I certainly did not intend to. A few months ago, I wrote an American ISP about a serial vandal who was taking advantage of a /8 to daily vandalize TFA. At the time, I did not think contacting ISPs would be a problem, and I apologise if I have overstepped my bounds here. I will avoid doing this in the future. J.delanoygabsadds 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a long term serial vandal it's worth a go, but not for someone who was an ok contributor for a while and only went a bit wrong for a few weeks. Unless you mean that RHMED was the serial vandal. Such abuse would have to be long term or very serious in order to contact an ISP in my opinion, and false claims of libel shouldn't be made to try and cause trouble for someone- that would be almost "libelous" :) Sticky Parkin 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, per Sam Korn's comments above in the ban discussion, it seems like RMHED has been socking and disrupting for quite some time. //roux   18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps true, but this was not known (as far as I know) when the ISP was contacted. RMHED was not banned and was not labelled a long-term abuser. This has the appearance of being related to RMHED's attacks on user:Jimbo Wales. Outside of that, it was simple vandalism and a bit of trolling. The response seems, to me, to be inappropriate for the level of annoyance that was being caused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, I think it would be good for Wikipedia to start coming down like a ton of bricks on people who are deliberately and knowingly flouting all policies. It would make the prospect far less attractive to those who do--RMHED, MS, G*, HR, etc--and make our lives easier, not to mention increasing the public opinion of Wikipedia as a useful and semi-reliable resource. //roux   04:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily disagree. My concern is who does it, how they do it, and what specific information is given to the ISP. That's why I started the thread, but I now see that this isn't a concern that others share. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jdelanoy, I'm not trying to single you out here. While I find it very concerning that you told an editor's ISP that they had committed libel, seemingly with no evidence of any libel having been committed, I am actually more interested in the general case. Should admins be contacting ISPs, and under what circumstances? I think that most ISPs will automatically and naturally assume that an admin is acting at the behest of, or at least with the knowledge of, some official body within Wikipedia. My opinion, therefore, is that admins should only be doing this if they are instructed to as part of an "office" action. Better yet, the office (or WP's legal counsel) should be the ones speaking to the ISPs.
    Suspicions of abuse don't always turn out to be true. Rather than saying User:SuspectedSockpuppeteeringVandal did such-and-such, the only information given to ISPs should be IP addresses and times. The ISPs have the logs and ability to determine which of their users were involved. Telling an ISP that a specific user is an online vandal or libelled someone is possibly harming the reputation (and business relationship) of a possibly innocent person. And opening the reporter up to charges of libel themselves. I think there should be a little more (perhaps a lot more) thought put into this type of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly harming? No. The ISP investigates. If they see a problem, they terminate. If not, they don't. This is a standard every day thing. I worked as a chat monitor at AOL (a long long time ago and not for that long of a time) and reported many people for abuse who lost their accounts. I know of many people who had to deal with such complaints. These are every day occurances and don't "harm reputations". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava, if you think I'm just drama-mongering here, why are you stirring the pot...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I'm hoping this stays up long enough for you to be blocked for your blatant disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping that people stop responding to a thread that has been marked resolved, but that doesn't seem to be happening either. Have a nice day! 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't in the business of controlling user's actions off Wiki like this. This isn't really a matter for ANI. Was jdelanoy disrupting? No. Was he involved in stalking? No. Was he making legal threats? No (it was a complaint, which anyone can file about anyone, ISPs get them all the time). Why is ANI linking to other ANI? Drama begetting drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin contacting another editor's ISP is likely to be seen as a representative of Wikipedia, especially if they identify themselves as such. I don't know if that was the case here, but it seems naive or disingenuous to pretend that admin actions off-wiki are unrelated if they spawn from incidents on-wiki. I made this a separate thread so as not to derail the discussion of banning RMHED which was proceeding to its obvious conclusion. I believe there are a couple of serious issues here, and your accusation of drama-mongering isn't helping address them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jdelanoy never stated that he represented himself as an admin, nor would it really matter. Anyone has a right to complain to an ISP about any problematic behavior. The ISP then sees if the complaint has merit or not. 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Don't really see an issue here. J.Delanoy's action occurred offsite and through proper channels. If his allegation wasn't adequately backed up that's the ISP's concern, and probably harmed no one. Threats and harassment are concerns at ANI, not actual action of this type. DurovaCharge! 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently I'm the only one who views this as a problem - feel free to mark it as resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesnt say anything on WP to stop someone contacting an ISP. people who do are encoraged if they think they need to bt the ISP's. there is nothing illeagl about doing so if thats what your's worried about.  rdunnPLIB  13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the thread at all? It details my concerns and that's not one of them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neon white's unhelpful commentary at WQA

    Resolved
     - SheffieldShield fulfilled my request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Neon white (talk · contribs) has periodically made a series of unhelpful commentary at Wikiquette alert. During 2008, I found problems with his commentary and would make a note of that in the threads themselves. By November/December when a frivolous claim was filed against me by a now-blocked user, but there was no change in his commentary. As a result, I responded with this - relatively short to read for yourself, so I need not recap. Now I find a pattern, despite some useful contributions, so I've made a note at his talk page again. What I've defined as unhelpful is contained in both links, and particularly on the first occasion, another uninvolved editor, Eusebeus, has agreed with me. This doesn't require administrator "action" as such, but I'd like this reviewed by other eyes - I think it's possible that an administrator will get through to him. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would, but he believes that by stating some users are here to simply stir up drama, that it is considered a personal attack. Whatever. seicer | talk | contribs 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pffft. That wasn't a personal attack, and I was the one it was aimed at. (I don't agree with it, clearly, but you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to consider it a personal attack). Black Kite 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered it a personal attack, it was unhelpful. Civility applies in WQAs too. --neon white talk 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, let's not push people who are generally helpful and genuinely trying to help away from the so-called "cesspool" that is WQA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there's nothing to discuss here. Neon white recently participated in WQA that i filed. And i thought his comments weren't particularly helpful. However, it was clear he was trying to help, was civil, and given that forum is to seek input from uninvolved editors (who will have a range of opinions and responses) who cares if I or anyone else feels he gets it "wrong." Someone else can chime in on the relevant threads and say so. The mere fact that he's present and giving input, reading the background to disputes and so forth, is a service he's trying to provide.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, after a few nudges in the WQA, there are no issues with WQA regulars, because they are generally helpful, BMW included - but I have difficulty adding Neon white into this subcategory. He's of the belief that he thinks he's always correct and helpful - but that's the entire problem; I responded to these two incidents on his talk page, but these are not the only episodes where he's demonstrated a lack of clue. When a pattern emerges (like above), or this becomes a more regular problem, then it destroys the entire purpose of having Wikiquette alert if it goes unspotted. This would be quite easily resolved if someone got through to him: that a problem needs to be addressed.
    Bali ultimate, your comment doesn't stick - the lot of us are here voluntarily helping out whether it's at WQA, ANI or wherever else on the project - this isn't about intentions. Tendentious editors are often in the mindset that they are helping this project - the fact is that their input is seriously not helping. I'm not saying, nor do I think, that neon white is a tendentious editor, but it's just an example of a problem that doesn't just go away by leaving it as what it is: a problem. A lack of clue at this stage in dispute resolution can not only escalate problems, but can end up adversely affecting the rest of the project, particularly in terms of time spent.Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Ncmvocalist is the one making the unnecessary drama as assuming bad faith against Neon White. I also agree with the idea that Seicer's such comment, "spastic" is totally unacceptable not only as an editor, but also an admin. (Remember some user was blocked yesterday for saying "retarded") This thread is a waste of time.--Caspian blue 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "He's of the belief [...] he's always correct and helpful" isn't an assumption of bad faith; if anything, it's the opposite. I think Ncmvocalist makes an important point that seems to elude many here: an editor can be unhelpful, unproductive, even disruptive, while acting in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might not be bad faith but it is pretty presumptuous to think you know what someone else believes. I have never suggested i am always correct and helpful. WQA is limited in what it can resolve. So often you are merely stating your view and hoping editors take note. --neon white talk 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must disagree with your stance. This matter brought up here is nothing necessary for administrators' eye. If Ncmvocalist concerns so much on Neon white's general conduct on WQA, then file a RFC/U. No need to make a drama here. I rather am disturbed by his diversion from the main issue on Seicer's incivility.--Caspian blue 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you are still upset that I've ruled against your continuing battles with various Asian-related articles. seicer | talk | contribs 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're again diverting your incivility issue to unrelated matters or blame others. But you're completely wrong. I've always been disturbed by your incivility before you even became an admin (eg. your RFA). I expect you behave like an admin. --Caspian blue 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would've been wiser to disclose that in the past, you've engaged in conflict with not just myself on multiple occasions, but apparently with Seicer as well, and therefore lack the neutral eyes of an administrator that was requested. Indeed, you seem to reinforce the precise point of this thread, much like Hans Adler below, of users genuinely severely lacking a vital sense of clue in their commentary. What I've learnt from this thread is that factional problem editing, that pervades Wikipedia, is at its peak. Still, it is of heightened importance that I acknowledge that SheffieldShild is the only other administrator that has provided necessary input in line with my request - *bows down* thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, no, but since you're very "maturely" resorting and diverting to the unrelated matter, I must say your "wonderful" past regarding your "substantial complaints" many times and your acting as a "unauthorized admin clerk" both of which caused many controversies. Regardless, I wonder why you did not make this spin-off file to WQA where the original pertinent complaint was filed. A user pointed out the term, spastic used by the admin is inappropriate and offensive to some people, so striking it would be better for everyone to remain civil. That should be really no big deal but your support for Seicer and urge to others to "understand" the background why Seicer said so is odd enough. Then why can't you see the possibility of people taking offense to the term (actually the target is just one editor)? As for requested objective eyes, can you say objectivity in regard to Seicer given your past? I only can your contradiction. I understand why SheffieldShild's comment is only valuable to you is because he is the only person not to criticize this filing. Good to know. Just for clarification, I have only a couple of direct encounters with Seicer for his rude comment at the article of Korean cuisine way back and his RFA. However, his incivility is nothing new, but I've not care because his activities are not my matters. The only encounter with you is some user's unblocking thing. I almost forgot about the case until you and Seicer mentioned the "past".--Caspian blue 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you frivolously accuse me of bad faith? The only person trying to divert the focus of this thread is you, and you're practically begging to go to arbitration over your unacceptable conduct in these threads because you're being plainly disruptive on so many levels. My past has no connection to this thread; yours has plenty, as it directly does not comply with the request I made in this thread - you are neither uninvolved as you've engaged in clear conflict with both myself and Seicer, nor are you an admin With that aside, you've not only misstated/misinterpreted my position to the extreme, but have clearly not read my comments in full at the Wikiquette alert - please refrain from misstating my position - it's not appreciated, and it won't be tolerated. This is in two respects - my comments at the WQA, as well as with regards to SheffieldShield's input where I've clearly stated the reason I appreciate his input. Trying to assert otherwise is, once again, disruptive - I suggest you stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just getting hilarious, who're praising your filing here? None. Almost everybody say that nothing administrative action is needed and this is wasteful based on bad faith. Thus, you're just digging up your hole deeply with the personal attacks. That way makes your failed attempt to bash Neon white turning successful? As for the comment regarding going to arbitration, do not lie based on your "dream". If my recall was correct, didn't you "the one who was summoned to RFAR for your disruptive behaviors"? In fact your past has many connections to this thread because this is an evidence of your pattern of disruption as somebody already counts the number of your "frivolous filings" recently. Besides, you have some issue with Neon white in past so this filing on petty nip-ticking things is really from bad-faith. I recommend you stop all disruption and start logically if you want some respect from others.--Caspian blue 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pleased to see that you've stopped fomenting drama on this page. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you already broke your own pledge. bug :P --Caspian blue 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to stop him; he's making a case against himself. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. I've enjoyed seeing your show as always. :)--Caspian blue 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, For those who are blind or who have difficulties reading and comprehending text, it clearly states that I am tired, not retired. What a good comment on the top of an admin's talk page.--Caspian blue 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This complaint about Neon white is a complete waste of time unless Ncmvocalist learns something from this thread. Both of Ncmvocalist's complaints on Neon white are unfounded and border on the frivolous. I am prepared to assume good faith, but then the fact remains that Ncmvocalist is rather thin-skinned and not assuming good faith:

    • Ncmvocalist's first complaint against Neon white was for trying to get a WQA thread back on track. If the first reaction to a WQA complaint is "Yet another frivolous report by a manipulative tendentious problem editor - within a few days, he's managed to file 3 complaints which should say something on its own." from the accused, that's not going to change the behaviour of the problematic editor (in this case apparently Kris, who complained about Ncmvocalist; but I didn't look closer into this).
    • Ncmvocalist's second complaint was because Neon white responded "Please do not attack WQA contributors. That is unacceptable." to Seicer's "Now you are creating drama to simply create drama. [...] Stop taking words out of context, and stop being perpetuating drama."

    It seems to me that in both cases Ncmvocalist attacked Neon white for constructive feedback to unconstructive WQA contributions. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kommentar As far as i am concerned this is purely based on personal reasons and has nothing to do with my comments. I comment on his hostile attitude towards another editor [66] and Ncmvocalist didn't like it. I've been successfully involved in dispute resolution for as long as i can remember and never had any problems and successfully mediated many disputes. Accusing an editor who is trying to resolve a situation of "creating drama to simply create drama" is simply not acceptable. WQA volunteer are not there to create drama, they are there to help. Editors are required to assume good faith on that matter. This is all in Wikipedia:ETIQUETTE which i would think WQA contributors should be familiar with. --neon white talk 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've "never had any problems" isn't an accurate statement; an editor has posted on my talk page suggesting to the contrary; both myself and Eusebeus has posted to your talk page suggesting to the contrary; SheffieldShield - the only uninvolved administrator here - has also posted to the contrary; I have no doubt there are others who also think to the contrary. This isn't about some old problem; the fact remains that intentions is one thing and overlooking pretty clear concerns is another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - could we maybe wrap this up? A couple of people who don't like each other got their knickers in a twist over each other. Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, walk away. This thread has already attracted more than enough of utterly uninvolved people coming in to sling mud, as is their wont. Ncmvocalist: grow a thicker skin. Neon white: you mean well, maybe some people don't always see it. Both of you: stay away from each other until you can play nice. Everyone: have a cookie and some ice cream. //roux   23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe that care should be taken when handling heated situations such as those that come to WQA and that those who find themselves not receiving a "suitable" ending in their POV can walk away with a bad taste. Carrying over that poor loserhood to ANI is probably improper and begs the question: "What admin action is required here?" Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The editor Neon white commented in favour of last year ended up blocked for 3 months, while Neon white's comments at the most recent Wikiquette alert clearly failed to produce a consensus in his favour. So I fail to see how this is a bout a loserhood of some sort, or about thicker skin. It really should be rather simple; he is under the mistaken belief that there is some sort of personal bias against him - so he will use that as an excuse to avoid listening to rather clear concerns. Any editor who engages in similar commentary would be called out in the same way. As such, the uninvolved administrator work that was required was already provided by SheffieldShield, so the purpose of this thread has been achieved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Resolved
     - sock blocked Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lawyer33 (and, IIR, several others/socks) was blocked for legal threats at Lifehouse (band). These typically involved vague reference to a "cease order" ([67], [68], etc.) "in effect to any fans who are tampering with this page. Ben Carey is not an official member." Now, we have User:Lawyer12 again removing reference to Ben Carey being a member of the band saying, "The Official Member lineup is available. Cease & Desist EXCESS editing."[69] (I have added Carey as a member, sourced to a Manila Times article.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One sock was User:Lawyeruniversal2. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a well-intentioned user who is resorting to sockpuppetry, threats, etc because they don't know how else to correct the content in the article. (The band's website lists three members. Ben Carey is not listed.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how "sockpuppetry, threats, etc." squares with "well-intentioned", to be honest. If I think a story in my local paper is inaccurate I don't start out by assuming the way to get them to retract it is by chucking a brick through their window and screaming bogus legal threats through the hole. It's also possible that the Manila Times (which describes Carey as "the newest member of the group" in July 2008) is more of a reliable source, or at least a source with less potential for COI, than is the band's own website. Perhaps the lineup has changed since the article was written - slinging bricks isn't the way to put that point across. Tonywalton Talk 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No - a Cease & Desist notice is a legal threat in the US, sent just before filing an actual suit. Semi-protected the page for 1 week and blocked Lawyer12 (talk · contribs) for NLT and block evasion. Feel free to correct the errors in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify. By "well-intentioned" I mean acting in good faith, by which I mean, acting with the motivation of improving Wikipedia's accuracy. I think my post made it quite clear that, while I sympathise with the user's motives, I do not condone their means. Unfortunately, it is quite common for editors near to an article's subject to resort to disruptive tactics if their first attempts to correct an article are reverted. This isn't the first legal threat we've seen from someone who claims one of our articles is wrong. On a side note, I presume the remark about the conflict of interest was a joke. I'd be the first to agree that a band's website isn't a reliable source for whether or not they are the best thing since sliced bread, but I really think it'd be unlikely to be involved in any campaign to pretend that the band has one less member than it really does. Of course, that would explain why all the so-called official photos of the band only show three members (they have been photoshopped!) and no doubt all of this will soon be documented in the new Lifehouse (band) conspiracy theories) article (or not). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an effort underway to deal with the conflicting sources underway on Talk:Lifehouse (band) and whether or not to note the mentions of Casey in the article. Barring any more appearances by the Ministry of Truth, we should be fine now. (We'll deal with SheffieldSteel#Lifehouse_coverup_controversy later.) Thanks all. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yasser Latif Hamdani

    I've indef blocked (overriding a related WP:3RR block) User:YLHamdani, who claims to be the article subject and was adding unsourced info the BLP Yasser Latif Hamdani; info which another user, User:Yasser Latif Hamdani (also claiming to be the subject), claimed was wrong and potentially dangerous to his person. Another editor claims to have verified the latter's identity (see WP:BLP/N). The indef-blocked user also published an email address on the talk page which appears to belong to the latter editor (though this isn't verified). I'd like another admin to review my actions and/or comment on what else might need doing. Thanks. Rd232 talk

    User:Shipvalid/User:Testsgreat

    Resolved
     - Wikipedia is safe once again. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked for page move vandalism; I had noticed a similar pattern of edits with a few accounts and was already thinking of mentioning it here. The other accounts are User:Testsgreat (who is also blocked now), User:Eukaryotic, User:Grantmister555 and possibly User:Onlyboat. —Snigbrook 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Everybody's blocked now [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TinyDictsh

    I tend to take comments like the one this idiot left on my talk page seriously. He's been blocked, banned and kicked off the site, but I feel it's necessary to follow up with a ormal request to his IP and possible reporting to local authorities. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't need to provide the diff but I think you should have it oversighted and more on. But I would understand if you could ask for a CU and then inform authorities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nick1444

    Resolved
     - Wrong venue. — neuro(talk)(review) 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick1444 continually uploads images with proper licensing and fair use rationales despite a final warning. DiverseMentality 02:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV is the right venue for this. — neuro(talk)(review) 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording on that complaint is slightly awkward. It sounds like there is a rule against uploading images with proper licensing and fair use rationales. Or have the rules changed? Can I now upload any image I want? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User DystopiaSticker - attack/POV only account

    Obvious POV warrior who appeared on Wikipedia only to stoke the Coulter fire has now resorted to shameless personal attacks. Given zero constructive contributions and a slew of warnings in the past (see this version of his talk page, before he blanked it), I don't think this one is here to do anything but cause disruption. Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like for someone who isn't attacking me purely because I don't like Olbermann to make a complaint about me, please. Afterall, Blaxthos has done nothing but defend Olbermann and attack Fox, using policies only when they support his agendas. I called him out on this and that's necessary for me to be complained about? I'm not allowed to ask why Blaxthos can deny arguments made by Coulter because of her politics but at the same time use people like Olbermann as sources in Fox News criticisms?--DystopiaSticker (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I'm not an admin, and don't give a flying fig who either Olbermann or Coulter are. Nevertheless, personal attacks such as the ones you made at Blaxthos' talkpage are not okay, and in fact are completely forbidden. Comment on content, not on the contributors. Your edit here, removing the other personal attack you made, is a step in the right direction. The next step is not making them in the first place. Moving on to other edits... this is hardly 'fringe'; the Globe and Mail is one of Canada's national newspapers, and probably the most respected. It's roughly akin to the New York Times. Directly misquoting the paper in order to promote oneself is poor form, and a reasonable target for criticism. Whether it meets the level of notoriety to be included in an encyclopedic article is, however, something to be debated--calmly--on the talkpage. Not reverted with a claim of 'fringe'.
    Now, all that being said... Blaxthos, you're not exactly working in the most collegial manner on the talkpage either, and a lot of what you've said has come this close to personal attack territory.
    If I may offer a suggestion, the two of you should go off and find an article that neither of you is at all emotionally invested in, and collaborate to get it to GA status. To pick something that's been on my watchlist lately, how about Viola? Pretty much all it needs is references and some cleanup of a bit too much verbiage in spots. //roux   05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to say, I didn't remove Globe and Mail criticism because of them as a source - in fact, the Globe and Mail wasn't even the source in the reference list. The 'source' of the Globe and Mail criticism was an episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann is notorious for attacking all things Fox and has been caught misquoting and misrepresenting facts numerous times himself. It's not enough to add criticism to a Fox article simply because Olbermann said the criticism. It's akin to Rush Limbaugh making the baseless claim that Ted Kennedy is a soulless sodomite who pillages settlements in Mongolia. It's a serious claim, yeah - but Rush Limbaugh isn't a good source. If a link to the review was found or a serious, unbiased source was found stating the same criticism, I'd be happy and wouldn't argue about its addition. Until that is so, why would it be allowed? Why allow the addition of Olbermann's criticism and force people to disprove Globe and Mail's review's true wording from there rather than prove the original wording of the Globe and Mail review in the first place? Should I add every Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh criticism of random politicians and keep them in biographies until editors can prove to me they're wrong? Or should, like usual, the criticism be ignored until a proper source is found? I've crossed the line, yes. But Blaxthos has made it impossible to try and edit Olbermann's article with anything but absolute praise of the man. He's dismissed any and all criticism of Olbermann and personally attacked those trying to add the criticism. For him to complain about me for the exact same things he's done numerous times is ridiculous. --DystopiaSticker (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. DystopiaSticker forgot to sign in and signed his comment upon logging in a moment later. A trip to that IP's talkpage is.. edifying, to say the least. As is a look through the contribs. Quite a lot of distinctly partisan vandalism. Talkpage edits seem to be signed afterwards, but no repetition of reverted vandalism edits to articles under his own name. Someone should look at this. //roux   06:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed that DystopiaSticker, Dsticker and 64.53.227.39 are the same user. The evidence does not support that he is deliberately socking, but does show disruptive editing.
    DystopiaSticker -- you need to stop editing in this manner. You probably need to stop editing this and similar topics full stop, unless you switch to good quality editing immediately. This is a final warning; if there is another disruptive edit on any topic in future, your editing access is very likely to be blocked. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse that. No more warnings. dougweller (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon and Kate

    Are you happy now? You've gotten your way after butting in where you weren't wanted or needed, after trying your hand at editing after only a few weeks. I joined Wikipedia and wait a full year before trying my hand at editing.

    All that time and effort I put in has gone to waste, no thanks to you. Tell me, where you bored or trying to cause trouble for me and my show? I watch the Gosselins faithfully every week, I look up episodes on TLC, I e-mailed Discovery to find out when the current season ends and the new season starts. Then you come in and decide it's not to your liking and think because it needs fine tuning when it does not.

    I am not givng up, I will find a way to put the show's information back the way it was, long before you came along, especially since you're only one who had a problem with the episodes. Other users have come in and tried to delete/add/move episodes and I always went behind them and fixed it. If I could I'd report you but since I can't all I can say is you "vandalized" a great show that I took care of!!!!!

    Happy now? 70.24.233.37 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    The above was posted to my talk page. This user has a rotating IP address, so it changes every day or couple of days. It appears he or she "owns" this set of articles page. I would say that the likelyhood of an edit war on the show article and show episode list is high when s/he "returns" to editting the articles. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Jon & Kate Plus 8 and List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 episodes has been semi-protected to deal with this. Saying that they emailed Discovery and so they believe they know the truth aren't productive. Apologies since that also prevents you from editing, but we're limited technologically. Are there any other articles we should be watching? I do wonder what would make somebody so obsessed with how an online encyclopedia lists the order of episodes for a television show. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention Ricky81682. I'm the admin who semi-protected the pages yesterday, since the 70.24.233.37 IP editor does not seem to be using a registered account. 76.66.201.179, bear in mind that you can edit the article if you log in. In the mean time, I have tried to explain to the troublesome IP how to deal with a content dispute in this thread on my talk page and as you can see, they appear to be more interested in causing problems, rather than finding consensus. Twice I've explained the dispute resolution avenue, and twice I have explained that email is not a viable source... to no avail thus far. Is the 70.24.233.37 IP operating in a range that we could block? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Wikipedians seem to love linking to policies, I believe WP:TRUTH and WP:OWN touch on the subject. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well as I've said either e-mail Discover OR show me proof, which no one has, that Season 4 has ended. As for "owning" it I don't, I've just been doing all the edits for the episodes for the past year and User:76.66.201.179 swooped in from nowhere and expected me not to notice they changes they've been making? After only being on this site for a month and trying to change stuff on Jon & Kate Plus 8, for a month. 70.24.233.37 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Emailing Discover is pointless, as emails are not reliable sources, nor are they verifiable. //roux   22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He also tried to annoy me too, while i don't really care, i'd like to mention that this becoming a real problem. And also i you look at his contribs then you'll notice that he's the one who only been editing for less than a month. I smell socks. A new user wouldn't know how to edit so well or be so obsessed with a page, maybe he is a sock, maybe we're missing something. The Cool Kat (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I say blocks of 24 or 48 hour periods if they continue. Soft-block, of course. Perhaps a week if it's really disruptive but at some point, either they'll create a log-in or just keep on playing with rotating IP addresses. If it's rotating fun, it may become disruptive enough to make a request to the ISP. The IP annoying is more of a concern because it's possible for that to rotate and some innocent user shouldn't be subject to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromised account

    Resolved
     - Well handled all around, user is unblocked again. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My username is User:Landon1980 and I received an e-mail from another e-mail account I had never heard of and they said they had hijacked my account and that I could no longer log in. I tried to log in and my password has apparently been changed. Could an admin please block my account so whoever this person is can no longer access my account. The only user rights my account has is rollback, so I suppose no major damage could be done, but still. 67.48.127.231 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser confirms the IP is Landon, blocking account, feel free to email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org for more assistance. MBisanz talk 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirmed, I ran this at MB's request. ++Lar: t/c 07:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what the hell am I supposed to do now that my account is compromised? I don't get this, they hijack my account and don't even make any edits? I had an eight digit password all numbers. Do I make another, or can something be done to un-compromise my account? 67.48.127.231 (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just logged out and reset your password, but this will only work if you had an email address registered to the account and the person who hijacked it did not change the email registered to it. MBisanz talk 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a registered e-mail. I'll check it out, thanks. 67.48.127.231 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It worked. Is it safe to unblock my account now? I'm thinking if they compromised it once they can do it again. Would it be safer if I created a new one and started fresh? 67.48.127.231 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Change your password, then log in to your account, request a checkuser to confirm it is this IP that owns it, and then you can be unblocked. Pick a harder to guess password. MBisanz talk 08:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Might want to change your password to something super tough....with numbers and letters. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 20, 2009 @ 08:08
    I don't suppose you know any technically gifted pranksters? The easiest way to hack an account is actually with physical access to your computer. That's not to say that one can't do it by brute force attack on the password, but that isn't easy. Dragons flight (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, with today's computing power, your basic Dell could crack an 8 digit, numbers-only password in mere minutes. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And eight numbers sounds to me suspiciously close to "date of birth", which, coupled with your username, would mean that only some 732 (366 * 2) possible passwords had to be tried, even for someone who doesn't know you at all. Fram (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the login page allow multiple, repeated attempts? (I don't know, I always manage to get my password right on at least the second or third attempt...!) Because limiting further attempts would limit the effectiveness of a brute-force attack - something like "allow three attempts, then prevent further attempts for five minutes, then allow a further three attempts, etc". (I suppose this is really a question for WP:VPT, but I'm just curious). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimedia throws up a captcha after repeated failed login attempts, which makes submitting candidate passwords a substantially harder problem. Dragons flight (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. It would be trivial for an attacker to make their program use open proxies to get around the captcha. --Chris 10:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just received an email sent from Landon1980 (gee, I hope 1980 isn't their birth year ) which asked for confirmation that "it is indeed me so I can be unblocked". I ran a CU and I find that the IP that has been posting here reporting the issue (and which it was confirmed by me last nite is the same IP that this account has been using for some time (one of a small set)) is still being used by Landon1980.

    Further I confirm as well that the mail Landon1980 sent me was sent via that IP. This sort of thing is always open to misinterpretation, and can waste arbitrary amounts of time, but in my considered opinion either there never was a compromise at all, or the person that was using the account for some time is successfully back in control of it again. In either case I think it probably is safe to unblock the account. I would admonish the user to choose a strong password (the login screen gives handy links to information on strong passwords, please read them) and to make sure they are not vulnerable to social engineering... one should not believe every mail one gets purporting to claim they have compromised one, for instance. I hope that helps. If there are specific further questions please advise. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your findings are good enough for me. Landon has been unblocked at his request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Static IP 74.78.20.70

    Resolved
     - Blocked 72 hours by Yannismaroufor vandalism. Tonywalton Talk 11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    74.78.20.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - All edits seem to be vandalism, incl. page/section-blankings, wrong dates etc. Most of the edits are related to Guns N' Roses and earlier bands of the members. But also other music related articles like Iron Maiden were vandalized. WP:AIV does not want to deal with it since there's no recent activity. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you think this is a static IP? Tonywalton Talk 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism since March 11 on very similiar topics? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on a dynamic IP but have had the same one for a couple of weeks or more - it could stay unchanged for months if i don't restart my router (and there isn't a power failure). Tonywalton Talk 11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have to reconnect every 24hrs and therefore will have a new IP every day - without restarting my router.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 72 hours. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 10:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the main thing. Marking as resolved. Tonywalton Talk 11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and harassment

    User:Skipsievert has, for months engaged in disruptive editing at the Sustainability article where a number of editors are working, since November, on upgrading the article to FA status.

    In response to a complaint to User:Jehochman in December, I documented some instances of Skipsievert’s disruptive editing here. Jehochmans proposed findings were accepted by Skipsievert and relative peace descended on the article with only occasional disruptions, such as this, or this. We made considerable progress with editing until early March.

    Accusations of bias

    March 4 - Skipsievert begins to argue that we were relying overly on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a major compendium of research carried out under the auspices of the UN. He raises this on the article talk page and User:Granitethighs (a subject matter expert in the field), attempts to explain the value of the report.

    Skipsievert then begins removing references from the article: [75], [76], [77], etc. (removing a total of 12 references). He then continued for the next week to tendentiously argue his point against the consensus of five other editors.

    March 11-13 - User:Travelplanner refers the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [78]

    Granitethighs posts the verdict of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (MA is a reliable source) [79]

    Skipsievert continues to argue the point with one of the editors from the Reliable Source Noticeboard ad infinitum [80]

    Attempted outing and harassment

    March 16-18 - An attempted outing of an editor [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]

    Accusations of bias towards the UN on the part of article editors Nick Carson and Sunray [87]

    Harassment continues [88], [89]

    March 20: In response to complaint by Skipsievert on Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, User:EdJohnston responds: “not clearly a COI problem” [90]

    Continued harassment by Skipsievert [91] has all but stopped forward progress on editing the article. Clearly we are in need of assistance. Sunray (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a suggestion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first link is to someone asking if there is a conflict of interest. The third one is that person removing a reference, saying you can not link to something you've written yourself. Those are the rules, the editor clearly explaining it. Didn't bother looking through the rest. Dream Focus 12:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His suggestion was actually a declaration of a temporary 1RR, which sounds like a good idea. Meanwhile, can you tell us which specific links you're referring to as the "first" and the "third", because there are links all over the place here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struckthrough the background info, above. 1RR will help with the disruption on the article page. Would you be able to provide direction on the harassment and outing on talk page(s)? Sunray (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on anything else, the target of the "outing" actually outed himself almost a year ago [92] Someguy1221 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I hate to enter into this but no one informed me it was going on, and I just noticed it. Without being superficially polite may I say that I am being unfairly presented here by Sunray? I am interested in one thing and one thing only in the article, neutral presentation. Here is a link that I hope does not cause more confusion... and I hope I handled this the way I should have according to guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims
    That was my intent, and also to open up more of a discussion about neutrality on the Sustainability article and also here Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites I never outed anyone and would not harass a fellow editor, at least not knowingly. I do not think my behavior was boorish either. I tried to bring up what I considered to be real issues. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NotAnotherAliGFan

    Going against a lengthy discussion and consensus on the talk page of Pandemic (South Park), user reinserted trivia twice (diff 1, diff 2).

    WP:SYNTHESIS was discussed at length on the Jabba the Hutt talk page in reference to this user's edits (diff). User has started doing the same to The Coon article (diff 1, diff 2). This is apparently done under the guise of NOTOR.

    The same has been done to Fantastic Easter Special, (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Uncited information is also knowingly added to the same article (diff).

    I'm not sure if it should go here or at the Wikiquette page, but this user has also started messing with my sandbox in my own userspace (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Alastairward (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear... the stalker is now complaining about me. Please watch his edit history in comparison to mine and ask yourselves why he reverses my edits on pages, in which he otherwise had no involvement beforehand (or afterwards). As for his sandbox - hey, if he's a "no original research" advocate, why does he allow it on his sandbox?
    As for "uncited information," that is a blatant lie - you are welcome to check for yourselves. And yes, NOTOR is as legitimate as the rest of WP rules. The fact that Alastairward doesn't like it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, unless he has ultimate ownership over it... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His sandbox is his sandbox. You need to WP:AGF and stay out of it. If it doesn't go against WP:BLP, and any WP:OR does not make it into the articles, then leave his sandbox the heck alone...you're playing in his sandbox and accusing him of WP:HOUND?? That's pretty rich ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to ignore the chronology in this whole affair. Yeah, I played in his sandbox to make a point and my apologies if this violated anything. The fact that he's been following me around for a while doesn't seem to particularly bother you, aye? As for WP:AGF - "Uncited information is also knowingly added to the same article"; I merely reinstated someone else's edit and added the {{fact}} tag. I reckon it's better to leave it there and ask for positive contribution rather than engage in sheer deletionism for spite. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    you violated WP:POINT and WP:UP#SUB as someone is alowed to have an article in progress in thier user space.  rdunnPLIB  13:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll refrain from any further replies unless my points are addressed: my behavior has been caused by repeated taunting by that person, and I could care less about the borderline "civil" crap. An attack is an attack, no matter how nicely you dress or how eloquently you formulate your sentences. Had he ever assumed good faith in me, he would leave me alone and that's that. Otherwise, I seriously consider this to be personal harassment. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Ok, then we'll refrain from further discussion until you actually show us some diffs that show how they have been taunting and attacking you, please. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And again with The Coon article, (diff) discussion was offered and quite roundly refused by this editor. Alastairward (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in the same article, again ([diff]). The problem seems to be that consensus is gained on this matters in the past with other editors and admins. The user in question takes a little break, then returns and with some pretty disingenous edit summaries overturns the advice and previous consensus. Alastairward (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As directed by AliGFan on my talkpage, I went a strolling around. Found some interesting things:

    While at the same time, I'm finding dozens of attempts by Alistairward to engage this editor in useful dialogue. Maybe I'm looking for l'oeuf in all the wrong places? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    US Department of Justice blocked by bot

    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Resolved
     - IP unblocked as the proxy no longer seems to be open. –xeno (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This morning I noticed that ProcseeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) blocked 149.101.1.116 (talk · contribs · block log) for one year with a summary of "blocked proxy." This IP address is tagged as belonging to the United States Department of Justice, with the following notice stamped (in bold) at the top of the talk page:


    Since the bot did not leave a block message, I presume it also did not contact the Foundation regarding this potentially politically-charged action. As such, I have un-blocked the DoJ IP. On the surface, this block troubles me because the DoJ was not blocked for being an open proxy, it was blocked for just being a proxy (as if any government or corporate group directly accesses the internet without a proxy these days). Immediately after posting this, I will be leaving a note for the bot operator. Any admin who feels my un-block was improper or unwarranted should feel free to re-block the DoJ without needing to consult me first. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the block summary it was a open proxy (port 3128). I cannot connect through that port at the moment so I assume they must have fixed the problem. --Chris 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That "warning" about notifying the government was posted here [93] by a user who is not an admin. Since when do ordinary users tell admins what to do? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since admins were created, with the remit of serving the community, including those parts of it who are not admins? I don't see why admin privileges are necessary to remind people to abide by WP:SIP. Algebraist 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If an IP address site has vandals working there, then the site is subject to being blocked. Typically IP address blocks are short. The nature of that "warning" is to intimidate wikipedia admins. But there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia - not even by the justice department. That warning should be removed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And since a non-admin placed that intimidating warning, it's only fair that a non-admin can remove it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was simply adding the same note that's already given to us on the blocking form. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It amounts to a legal threat, and legal threats are against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it a legal threat? This is a non-issue. The same instructions are repeated on the blocking form. Move on. –xeno (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nature of it amounts to a command, and by mentioning the U.S. government it would imply that something terrible is going to happen if that command is not obeyed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a command, and it is possible that something terrible might happen if it's not obeyed. None of this magically makes it into a legal threat. Algebraist 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a legal threat. See Mediawiki:Blockiptext, it's the exact same text. –xeno (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finally answering the question directly. And now we know who really runs wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What question? The only question you've asked was 'Since when do ordinary users tell admins what to do?' which I answered immediately. And we already knew who runs Wikipedia: it's run by the Wikimedia Foundation. That's also who's responsible for this warning. Algebraist 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you should really know this. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Some hounding and other uncivil behavior

    Resolved
     - Ks6 is on a short break Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi; I wanted to reference [[94]] this discussion for review by an administrator, on behavior toward me by two users that may amount to WP:Hounding, and other behavior contrary to Wikipedian standards. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kage (ks6) who somehow just got away with using two socks, one of them to edit war [95], is fresh off a short edit warring block [96] and is being looked at for edit warring again [97] against five other editors (3 of them admins, not that that should mean anything, but he's consistently casting around for an admin who will "back" him), is complaining about hounding? No. His edits are being watched because he does not value consensus and he refuses to acknowledge that unsigned, anonymous blog posts (with which he may have a COI) are not reliable sources. A number of editors are watching him now for this reason. If his editing behavior improves, this scrutiny will eventually diminish (and at the moment is only making the encyclopedia better). (and he has once again has forum shopped without notifying me).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) It isn't necessarily hounding for editors to follow up on the contributions of an editor who's been disruptive, which seems to be the case judging by other threads on this page and on your Talk page. It is difficult to give a more specific answer without seeing specific diffs here, but it might be best for you to let this drop and get back to productive editing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets' make a small timeline: Ks64q2 posts at the sockpuppet page (which I created) at 14:04 that "He and another user are under a WP:ANI for that behavior right now, I believe"[98], then posts this actual section at 14:29[99], and then goes on only two minutes later to change his earlier statement to "He and another user are under a WP:ANI for that behavior right now- both have shown up in the thread below".[100]. No mention of the fact that in a discussion of his sockpuppetry, he is not only trying to poison the well by pointing fingers at a few other editors, but that the accusations made elsewhere against these editors are just posted by himself. As I said on his user talk page,[101] he may consider himself very lucky that the editor who closed the sockpuppetry investigation was accepting his explanations and promises at face value, without taking the previous and current behaviour into account. Fram (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to use photo from Corbis?

    is it possiable to use photo from corbis or not?Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a matter for ANI. You want WP:Media copyright questions. Algebraist 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiramisoo redux

    We've blocked the socks of Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) but he is now removing CsD templates with the edit summary "ad hominem deletion request" and doing at least one redirect on an article up for AfD which of course removed the template [102] - I see someone's also complained on this editor's talk page for removing a category. His category work seems a bit all over the place as well, with some questionable additions. dougweller (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had enough of him and his "whatever I think I can do" style. Indefinite block. Frankly, I think I should have blocked him after the craziness of adding celebrities into Category:People with OCD without discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I will give him credit to telling User:Arthur Rubin here. First user talk page edited other than his own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I imposed the first block of the user. I'd agree with the indefinite block at this point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    non-consensus move of Julian the Apostate

    User:Bloodofox recently moved Julian the Apostate to Julian (Roman Emperor), and I've just moved it back. There have been many, many WP:RM requests to move this page, and none has ever achieved success in moving the page. Bloodofox's move clearly lacks consensus, so I've reversed it. I wonder if an uninvolved administrator might consider move-protecting the page, and if an uninvolved user might advise User:Bloodofox that such moves are a bad idea. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified him of the discussion. However the talk page seems to be leaning towards Julian of some type so I don't see how Julian (Roman Emperor) is unreasonable. If he had moved it to Flavius Claudius Julianus in spite of the lack of consensus, then that would be a different concern. Akhilleus, perhaps an RM on Julian versus the current name (or all three, I don't care)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the talk page isn't really leaning towards that. A request to move to Julian was made last July, and many of the same people who participated in the July discussion participated in the most recent one. Bloodofox's move was already proposed and got no consensus, and it's not winning consensus right now, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd argue that there is a pretty solid argument for going with something like Julian (Roman emperor) rather than the very controversial current name. I've never formally proposed the merge; I actually just mentioned it in a recent post, to which there was no response. Per WP:BOLD, I figured I'd just go ahead. Why this is on the noticeboard here I have no idea. This is all pretty routine. However, it can't be all bad if it's drawing more attention to the ongoing discussion at the article in question. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coolsprings

    Resolved
     - blocked

    I need other admins to look at this user. S/he has been basically trolling for a while, making bizarre page moves like moving Dallas to Dallston, and some other non-consensus moves like Atlantic City, New Jersey to Atlantic City generating disruption on the talk page. S/he also moved his/her user talk page into mainspace, where it was deleted by me and now s/he's just trying to provoke me at my talk page. His/her user page seems to indicate that the account is a group account which is usually per se blockable, especially given the drama fomented by this user, but I leave it to an "uninvolved" admin to determine what to do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolsprings also blanked this thread after you posted it. I blocked Coolsprings for 24 hours. I suspect a longer block is in order, but I'll give them a chance to show more responsible behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed

    This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

    The account is wasting other editors time and disrupting talk pages. I'd like to see if somebody else could intervene and explain how Wikipedia works before more time is wasted. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I don't need a soapbox for my ideas . . . I have a webpage and several Blogs for doing this. My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth. Seems everybody at Wiki thinks the Government is telling The Truth, lol, anyone who disagrees with the government's POV is considered a "soapboxer" or "conspiracy theorist."
    I was told by an administrator that if I am an expert on a subject, I should say so. I'm an expert on the John F. Kennedy assassination and a skeptic of the Government in regards 9/11.
    In the "Controlled Demolition" article's Talk Page I suggested opening up a new subject in the Article explaining why it appears that a bomb destoryed the entire two 100-story World Trade Centers, left a tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and a blanket of dust inches deep throughout New York City. The government's explaination is ridicuous. Governments do lie, U know! A bomb better explains what happened at the WTC's. I also mentioned that two references are needed for the most crucial paragraph in that article. I don't know how to add, "Citation Needed" to the one sentence and the other reference (#23) is a broken link. (Just noticed that someone fixed it but the link #23 does NOT cite a page explaining why there was such a tiny debris pile and blanket of dust throughout Manhattan . . . see the Talk-Page, cited herein.)
    There are many other ppl besides myself who believe bombs destroyed the WTC: Google, Thermobaric + wtc. As I said above: The article on "Controlled Demolition at the WTC" is poorly referenced in a crucial paragraph and is one-sided.
    How do we know the editors/censors of Wiki who are harassing me are not government agents bent on covering up the truth? Rather that allowing a discussion on a Talk Page, these ppl would censor and ban me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have got to be joking. Wikipedia editors are government agents bent on covering up the truth? Please. Go read our policy on reliable sources (nothing claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy fits), and WP:TRUTH. Better yet, go back to your blogs and/or Conservapedia. //roux   20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to Roux's comments, a requirement of editing here is that you assume good faith of other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a Canadian, and if I was government I'd be getting paid more. You are espousing a point of view that is definitely considered on the fringe side of things. You'd require extensive reliable sources to be able to include such material in the articles. You're not being censored, you're going over ground that's been covered many times on these articles, and being informed as to the guidelines that need to be met for such activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go look at reference #23 as a "reliable source" to explain the tiny debris pile and dust everywhere several inches thick. What page number in reference #23 explains this? Same to U about "Good Faith" editing!
    On no! The truths! Hide the children... (in fact, i think this is just a troll.)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't poke fun at the user here. WP:BITE and WP:NPA apply here on ANI as much as anywhere else.
    It's clear to me that Raquel is trying to do things which Wikipedia is not here for, including WP:SOAP etc. However, that needs to be politely communicated, and she needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in a positive manner. I left long message on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hafta go for about 72-hours. I also promise to be more careful in the Discussion Pages but please don't ban me or erase anything I've written! If U want me to erase or edit something, please discuss it on my Talk Page before erasing what I have written! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What you have written remains in the article history - but content that is not sourced to reliable references may be removed from the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth". With the best will in the world, on her own talk page this editor claims to have been around since 2005; if s/he hasn't got the clue by now, and does not move forward, it has to be "kiss, kiss, bye-bye". Without the kisses. We have far too many such editors and give them far too much leeway as it is. Absent a severe change of attitude, it's time for a kick+door scenario. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP socks of banned users editwarring

    See:

    Can some admins/checkusers more familiar with the banned users' records look into this ? Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please. They are trying to get me blocked because they see me as a threat. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That entire AfD has been a disaster of personal attacks and nonsense rambling on both sides of the discussion. Should just run a CU on every user that has edited it. Nableezy (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no knowledge of whether Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) or UnknownForEver (talk · contribs · logs) (same as "--→ Ãlways Ãhëad") have edited under other usernames in the past, but I don't get a sense that either has done anything socky during the debate in question. On the other hand, User:Nangparbat, still manages to knit several socks a day...every day... with which to embrass herself and frustrate attempts to raise the debate out of the mud. --Boston (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't/never have accuse anyone of being a sock puppet because I lack the practice on how to discover/find one. But I agree with Nableezy that you just might as well do a UC on everyone. And yes, Nangparbat is getting annoying. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm gonna do my first accusation now. I think User:Molecularsphere is Hkelkar's sock. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have previous experience with Nangparbat, as you can see at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch. I've stopped doing much with him, as his ISP appears to be even more dynamic than most and you'd have to softblock at least half a dozen or more /16 IP ranges to stop him coming, which I am not prepared to do. My best advice at this point would be to try and work with him as best you can rather than just screaming "banned editor! block them!" at every manifestation. Manifestations, which, as you noted, occur frequently.
    Should that fail, it may, and I say this is the very loosest sense, may be possible to build an abuse filter to help stop things. However I don't see that as being particularly accurate nor useful for this purpose. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cena Jr's continued trolling

    Cena Jr. continues to troll the talk page of List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. He does not agree with the new format that User:Moe Epsilon has implemented based on a prior consensus, and the user continues to troll the talk page and leave rude/uncivil comments. His account is an obvious SPA, which leads me to believe he is a sockpuppet of somebody. A few examples of his comments: [103] [104] [105] [106] trolling AN (again) removal of content against consensus (again, and again, once again) [107] [108] [109]

    If I listed all of the trollish edits here, I'd be posting nearly every one of their edits (but if you need more diffs, I can give them). This person does not have even 100 edits, and the majority of them are trolling about this article. The user is clearly not here to help build the encyclopedia and I believe a block would be in order. iMatthew // talk // 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skookum1, and intentionally inserting POV

    This edit, along with other recent edits by User:Skookum1, demonstrate a willing and admitted insertion of POV into an article to effectively "prove a point". This is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and doubly so in a biographical article like Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician).

    I'm not here to bicker or bitch, I'm here to research, clean up, and edit. So I reverted this edit. This user seems to have a heavy involvement with this article and I fear for its factuality at this point. However, as already noted, I'm not here to bicker. If someone desperately wants to discuss Wikipedia policy, this seems like a good opportunity. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How very nice someone with a Minnesota IP address has taken an interest in a Canadian political bio and is concerned about the "factuality" of it so much so that rather than deal with the POV issues in that article, he chooses to "go after" an editor who posted an edit he didn't like. Yes, it had a POV tone - actually somewhat sarcastic - but the rationale was to point up how POV the sentence and section it was appended to really are. BC politics is a veritable cornucopia of half-told truths, no small amount of shutting out dissenting opinion, and not just in BC but everywhere in Wikipedia political leader articles are regularly monitored and edited by professional media consultants. I'm not saying Minnesota-IP is one of these, I'm saying that the article is heavily "doped" by pro-Campbell mediafiers and that most of its sections read like promotional material (not surprising since there is an election campaign this spring, and the Premier is up to his neck in alligators, or lawyers rather, and just at the moment also trying to pitch a controversial policy in an allegedly pro-native claims settlement, and it just happens that the section I made that edit to concerns that very issue. The section, however, only presents the Premier's presskit, not any of the criticisms of that agenda by the opposition party/ies, by the First Nations groups themselves, not even by those the section/sentence claims negotiations have resumed with. What I'm getting at is that the article is POV and needs major attention; I've held back from major edits to it expressly because I don't like Campbell one bit and think his government has been a disaster and deserves every alligator snapping at its corrupt heels; so I don't edit the article. What I do do is take out the superfluous bunk that Campbell's media people have scattered through Wikipedia on unrelated articles, about him handing over so much dough here and snipping such-and-so a ribbon here, and a whole section on how we had a big party on the Legislature lawn for all the happy taxpayers etc etc. The page in question is "owned", but not by me....if taking a bite at the flatulent rhetoric that it reeks of is something to be admonished by the adminship for; I suggest you read my responses on the talkpage in question; the issue is not going after my rejoinder which Minnesota-IP saw fir to "correct", but why Minnesota-IP hasn't taken issue with the heavy p.r.-brochure tone of the whole article. For teh record, a number of us regular BC editors stay away from political articles expressly because of the noxiousness of the province's politics and the insidiousness of the propagandists working for any side in its complex political equations. it's not me that the adminship should be concerned about, but rather the concerted efforts to use Wikipedia as a political p.r. tool. Perhaps if Minnesota-IP were a BCer and familiar with more of the province's politics and political history he'd be able to make more "corrections" of the article's dominant POV/p.r. tone. My adding to "negotiations have resume" with "but have gotten nowhere" is scarcely a reason for a complaint of my POV-ness, or suggesting that the article's "factuality" will suffer by my participation in it. Exactly how much of BC's "factuality" can Minnesota-IP even be aware of; I see little evidence in their user contribution of any other political article, or any other article to do with BC. Researching what, exactly? If it's land claims policy, he's welcome to rewrite and augment the section on it; instead he complains about me, apparently because I'm critical of the article's subject and his politics. I, for one, can guarantee you I'm not part of any political machine; I'm interested in making sure all facts are presented, not just the ones favourable to the politician whose bio it is.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting an experienced editor blocked, apparently the intent of Minnesota-IP's complaint here, because of my interest in political neutrality and genuine factuality - "completeness of information" - is a nice manoeuvre, seen it before, and clearly someone familiar with how Wikipedia works or "can be worked", as one p.r.-training advisory/course puts it. Shoot the messenger, it's an old game. WP:AGF should apply to me in this case, and indeed until I was personally attacked for this one little post, I did have it )AGF) with Minnesota-IP originally; but given the extremity of his complaints, including this, for a not-untrue counter-view to the existing POV tone of the section is.....a tad on the "cut his throat to shut him up" side; I've also been quite POV on the talkpages for articles like 2008 Canadian parliamentary crisis and Stephen Harper; and have recused myself from them simply because of the ongoing "washing" campaign from supporters, official or otherwise, of politicians of all stripes. Booting me off or blocking me will only serve teh POV interests of those who don't like people who don't let them get away with their intended cooptation of Wikipedia as a way to control information and as a p.r. tool. The Campbell article, for the most part, is political spam, other than some information that's cited and remains as fact which no doubt his handlers don't like, nor Liberal campaign strategists. That's what's important, not my few words that touched off this oh-so-dire complaint about my writing a rejoinder to what was clearly half-information. As I told Minnesota-IP, if he were half as interested in "researching and cleaning up" the article, including adding much-needed new copy on the Aboriginal Reconciliation policy just fielded this last few days, or the increasingly complex scandal "under the Premier's watch" to do with the BC Legislature Raids, fine and dandy. But no, his priority is having me shut down. You figure it out, it's not hard who's the POV-meister here.....WP:Duck. I'm trying to prevent Wikipedia from being a WP:Soapbox and WP:Spam for political machines, if that's punishable by admin censure then so be it; but I don't think I"m as important as the larger issue here - the cooptation of political articles by political machines.....what Minnesota-IP could better spend his time doing is researching more about Campbell's policies and the criticisms of it currently largely missing from the article, and that section in particular. For the record, while some bands and tribal councils have resumed negotiations, most have not, and many never entered into them, and outside band councils there remains wide mistrust of the provincial govenrment's motives and alos of their own band government's motives. All that's missing from the section in question; perhaps Minneota-IP could spend some time researching that and adding to the article if he's so interested; instead of bitching about me....Skookum1 (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD refactoring, removal of sourcing discussion

    Can some neutral editors consider whether this is appropriate at an AfD [110]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No. AFD discussions are supposed to be threaded to provide a proper flow of said discussion. Organizing them by head count is not only nonconducive to WP:NOTAVOTE but also serves to polarize the discussion into yes/no camps. It is against basic AFD decorum and should be reverted back. MuZemike 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh psh, that 'not a vote' thing is yet another elephant in the room we need to banish. It absolutely is a vote, we just weight some votes (e.g., those citing policy etc) more than others. Honestly, organising XFD pages that way provides a much, much clearer way to establish consensus and close. That being said, this instance of it should be reverted; as it is such a major change to how XFD is presented, a change like this should be discussed at WT:XFD. //roux   23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of instances where WP:BOLD is a good thing, but not here. These discussions sometimes go to and fro as people add relevant or previously overlooked points regarding policy, or the article gets updated or whatever, so a timeline of discussion could be very helpful to the closer. Thus not a good idea to reformat this or any other AfD discussion in this way. Regarding AfD as (not) a vote, while technically it is not, other than those unsalvageable articles (total copyvios etc) that have to be deleted and cannot be saved, off the top of my head I don't recall ever seeing a closer contradicting consensus. Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Scjessey

    It's my fault. I did not know this was inappropriate, and when asked about it I explained my reasoning and apologized. Filing a report about it here seems extraordinarily unnecessary. Feel free to clap me in irons. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is resolved. Time to move on. Fetters will not be required.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to accept it was done in good faith and was a mistake. But not only were the votes and discussion reordered, but discussion of sources (as is noted in the edit summary) was also removed. I'm not really sure about putting it back how it was or if that's even possible, but as several votes have been added in the meantime, it's rather troubling. It's a controversial AfD on a controversial subject (currently the subject of an Arbcom proceeding) and removing the discussion and listing of sources is very prejudicial as that's the key to the argument for keeping the article. At the very least, perhaps Scjessey could try to put that discussion back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As indicated, the sources are listed on the talk page (as well as being woven into the article itself). Having said that, the sources do not have much of a bearing (if any) on the whether or not the article should be deleted. It is not a "controversial" AFD, as you describe it, as evidenced by the results (thus far) of the nomination. A well-sourced POV fork is still a POV fork. I am not sure how it could be described as "prejudicial" - people "voting" in the AfD should be reviewing the article before making up their mind, not the text of the nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all we can do now is ask that the closing admin takes the circumstances into account when determining consensus. Let's leave it there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree Malcolm. Scjessey's refusing to restore discussion from the AfD he removed is unacceptable and prejudicial. Since when is it okay to remove the discussion of reliable sources from an AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Scjessey didn't realised it was inappropriate to refactor an Afd. I had a look at the AfD, I agree it may have been prejudicial, that it may have swayed the later !votes but I don't think it can be disentangled now. We have to make the best of a bad job here, I think, and ask the closing admin to do the best he can in the circumstances. If it is kept, another AfD can be listed; if it is deleted, it can be reviewed at DRV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand all that, but there is also the issue of REMOVING comments addressing the sourcing for the article. That Scjessey continues to argue he/she was right in doing so is a problem. When I posted this notice I hadn't realized that Scjessey was the nominator for the deletion, which makes it all the more inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Distruptive editing, POV pushing and sockpuppetry

    Mortician103 (talk · contribs) appears to be here only to push this agenda during his/her brief tenure editing as this user. This user started editing using talk pages as a forum for this agenda. [111], [112], and has shown evidence of sockpuppetry [113] first identified by NJGW (talk · contribs) (I concur), and two instances where ipsocking was used to give the appearance of consensus [114] and [115] where I believe the editor logged out to comment on own discussion (on Talk:Jesse Washington this parenthetical comment added by Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) for clarity). Going further, removal of relevant facts from an article because they differed from this editor's POV, although they were sourced (but not footnoted) [116] and civility issues. I believe this editor has gone far enough. I need a non-involved admin here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be a bit WP:IAR to block this early, but I don't see any indication that this editor has any chance of being a net plus to the project. We should also be blocking left-wing and conspiracy fringers early, too. THF (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support censorship at all. However, sockpuppetry and disruption shoud be dealt with. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I created an account after editing without one, there is no sock puppeting... And any civility issues come from unfounded accusations like this one with obvious personal agendas against other users.
    If any other administrator can look at my edits and tell me they go against standard procedure and policy, then please do so. toddst1 has been actively trying to get me banned since I answered a question on David Duke's talk page. I think that's when he chose to continually harass me and revert justified edits.
    My edits have usually come after debate and discussion on talk pages. toddst1 only links to WP:consensus and reverts my edits without actually taking a stance on the consensus. His actions on Jesse_Washington_lynching show that he didn't come to any conclusion on the consensus reached in Talk:Rob_Knox. His basis for penalizing me came from me supposedly going against a consensus he doesn't even understand. His only defense is that he's a "passive" administrator, which is obviously untrue with his continued harassment against me. Mortician103 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, that user on Jesse Washington's talk page is not me. I am very frustrated at these unfounded accusations. Look at my ip address if you can, and you will see that I have a different one. Mortician103 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is right that I have not taken any active role in the consensus discussion - that was deliberate. No consensus exists when the editor is agreeing with their own IPsock. That is one of the reasons I brought this here. This occurred on Talk:Rob_Knox and Talk: Jesse_Washington_lynching. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    toddst1, how is it possible for me to log out of my account to sock puppet when this account was created a week after that discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox started? Please don't leave out important information like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortician103 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "No consensus exists when the editor is agreeing with their own IPsock." Consensus comes from continual discussion and debate, not democratic vote. I made no effort to hide the fact that I was the same user when I added to the discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox. In fact, I made this account to avoid the issue. Also, IPsoc did not occur on Talk: Jesse_Washington_lynching, please don't state your assumptions as facts. Mortician103 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Agenda from Administrator

    I believe Toddst1 is on a personal campaign against me that consists of petty accusations, intimidation and other forms of harassment. I first answered a question on Talk:David Duke that hinted of sympathy towards white nationalists. He deleted and penalized me the first time. I then reworded my answer so as to be less "preachy" and simply answered the question in the most succinct way possible. Toddst1 then penalized me again and deleted the question. I found this behavior to be a bit petty, and informed him of my objection. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Duke&oldid=277089336#Kenya

    He also reverted my edits to Rob Knox based on a consensus from a short discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox. I continued this discussion from my days of editing as an unregistered editor. Toddst1 appeared in the discussion suddenly after my edits to Talk: David Duke, insisting that my edits conflicted with the consensus. He also made a remark that led me to believe he thinks I am a U.S. Southerner and insulted me based on a stereotypical phrase associated with racism. The main reason I'm making an appeal to other administrators is the following sockpuppet accusation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mortician103

    It is a simple case that I created a new account after editing unregistered from my house and a public place. If Toddst1 had looked at my account creation date, he would see that the case for IPsocking is uncalled for. I believe he willingly ignored this fact for the sake of his campaign to get me banned. My IP address is now available to the public, a situation I tried to avoid by creating this account. My family is now potentially open to retribution from extremist groups because of an administrator's personal dislike for me. He is now hastily bringing his case before you after I told him that I would be taking my complaints to other administrators.

    I request that Toddst1 cease his personal campaign against me and immediately delete his sock puppet allegations. Mortician103 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When you edit Talk:Rob_Knox as 3 different editors, then claim consensus (with yourself)[117] [118], the claims of sockpuppetry are very valid. Editing like that will put you on any admin's radar if it doesn't get you blocked for that alone.Toddst1 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not edit as three different editors. I never quoted myself or agreed with myself. I simply continued the dialog with other users. Surely Wikipedia's sockpuppet policies are not blind to the case of someone graduating from IP to account? Mortician103 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1, 2, 3 which you confirm each was you here. Add misrepresenting your own actions to the list. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I confirmed they were all me to clear up this confusion. One of your accusations was that I logged out of this account in order to give the illusion of consensus. This is an impossible case as I created this account after making those contributions, except for one small and irrelevant change. I really don't see the issue here. From WP:SOCK
    This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.
    I did not violate any of those clauses. I was not deliberately misleading in Talk: Rob Knox. Also: Clean start under a new name is a valid cause for creating a new account. Surely this can be reduced to someone wanting to make their first account? Mortician103 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clean slate doesn't apply when you continue your old arguments. That's sockpuppetry. Then claiming consensus is highly disruptive and an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia processes. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you're arguing for deception of which there is no probable cause. If you read that section out loud, I think it's pretty clear the same person was continuing the argument. I didn't create multiple accounts to vote Nay/Yay on some deletion or merge vote, I continued a dialog with no deception. Also for my argument, the "accounts" did not concurrently continue the discussion. The dialog occurred in a linear fashion that reflected my daily life and eventually the creation of this account. Just admit that you are blowing an innocent situation way out of proportion. I feel it is only to my disadvantage to actually defend myself for creating a new, unique account. Mortician103 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <-Let's just be clear about what is happening here. Mortician, who believes in a white homeland according to his user page, is pushing for the person who killed Rob Knox to be described as "black", even though there is no evidence that race is relevant to the crime; and arguably using misleading tactics to create an impression of consensus for this change. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prove that it is less relevant than his name or hometown... Anyway, please take that debate to where it belongs Talk:Rob Knox. I've already illustrated my points. And the White Christian Homeland is a parody of the mission of Zionists. Funny how it's offensive when Christians hold this belief. Funny was my intent, but the satire is lost on the overly sensitive maybe. Mortician103 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No - the discussion is about Distruptive editing, POV pushing and sockpuppetry and about misrepresenting your own edits. This belongs right here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the debate on whether Rob Knox's murderer's full details (what I was referring to) should be censored belongs on Talk: Rob Knox. I see though that you're intent on banning me for perceived POV as evidenced by your refusal to drop the simple IPsocks case. You were intent on banning me since Talk:David Duke, which is why I believe your power abuse should be kept in check. Especially when it endangers my safety. Mortician103 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    88.108.128.0/17

    I've just pulled FT/2s rather long hard block on this ISP range which belongs to Tiscali UK. If anyone dissagrees with this please say so.Geni 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This rings a bell to me for some insidious vandals; links would help. --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions log, Block log. Add the CIDR Gadget in your preferences to see the range contributions, though I can't see any at the moment... NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the range being used by RMHED for his ..whatever it is he thinks he's doing.. --Versageek 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD clarification

    Automated Tissue Image Systems just survived AfD a few days ago and has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Tissue Image Systems. Isn't this discouraged or am I missing something? -- Banjeboi 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous AfD discussion was about SureClick. This doesn't appear to be the same article, unless I'm missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous AfD was a bundled nomination that included both articles. But for some reason the discussion only focused on SureClick and didn't address ATIS at all. I see no harm in renominating it. Reyk YO! 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm except not following policy. I agree the article is a mess but the policy is that any article that just went through AfD, can't be re-AfD'ed so soon. At least that's what I've always been told. They shouldn't have been bundled together, but they were, as part of an AfD that was closed as No Consensus. This makes the article safe for now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly an occasion where WP:IAR can and should apply. Reyk YO! 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could use a pair of eyes

    This is an experiment in trying to head off trouble before it arises. After a case of overlinking at consciousness, I wrote this to the editor who did it, and he responded with this, also cross-posted to my talk page and to talk:consciousness. Based on this rather bizarre response, I foresee that there is likely to be drama when I undo the overlinking, and I wonder if I can trouble some helpful admin to direct a pair of eyes toward the page, to be ready to head off any problems that may come. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Maurice Carbonaro (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia, but may be on other languages. Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nukes4Tots is back from his second block in a week

    User:Nukes4Tots is just hours back from his second block in a week[[119]], and he has proceeded to call me a stalker 4(!!) times since returning[[120]], [[121]], [[122]],[[123]], because I filed a second CheckUser on him. The most recent CheckUser I filed is currently hidden from regular users and has been deferred to ArbCom, so any further details are currently unavailable unless you contact ArbCom. I will just say that calling someone a stalker over 4 times, across multiple pages, and after returning from a block, isn't really conducive to civil editing to a collaborative environment. I realize that people don't like to be accused of or busted for sockpuppeting, but 'stalker' is definitely a disparaging and uncivil term. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=278669912"