위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive563

의장 경고

나는 오늘 처음으로 이 오래된 편집본을 보았다.나는 이 섹션이 시사하는 주제를 담당할 사람이 아무도 없다는 인상을 받았다.SunCreator (대화) 2009년 9월 9일 20:49, 9:9 (UTC)

'공식'이 아니라, 신규 사용자가 이상한 댓글을 달았을 뿐이다.사악한 살틴 (토크) 2009년 9월 9일 20:54 (UTC)

보관 권고는 기술적으로 정확하다.그것은 매우 이상한 용어로 쓰여 있다.아니, 이 사람은 공식적인 사회자가 아니고 (우리는 그들을 가지고 있지 않다) 그리고 이것은 어떠한 경고도 받을 만한 종류의 것이 아니다.포스터를 WP에 전달하십시오.페이지를 SOFIXIT 또는 보관하십시오.행정 조치는 필요 없다.듀로바³¹⁴ 21:31, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

그 차이점은 거의 두 달이나 지났으니, 지금 그것을 다룰 필요는 없다.— 신경^(talk) 06:18, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

요청 블록 오브 제프 빌먼

나는 케빈 코울린에서 진행중인 반달리즘에 대해 행정관이 도움을 주고 싶다.나는 최근 NE 오하이오 주의 믿을 만한 일간지에 잘 기록되어 있는 코플린의 소송에 관한 섹션을 추가했다.나는 정보를 뒷받침하기 위해 출처를 제공했지만, Coachlin의 친구 Jeff Billman은 계속해서 정보를 취소하고 그것이 반달리즘이라고 주장한다.Jeff Billman은 토론에서 상황을 계속 잘못 전달하고 있다.출처 자료를 읽어보면 알 수 있듯, 코클린은 기사가 명예훼손에 해당하지 않으며 보도된 초혼 의혹에 대해 고소할 의사가 없다고 인정해 소송에서 기각됐다.나는 그 소재가 특별히 코클린에게 아첨하는 것이 아니라 사실이고 뒷받침될 수 있는 것이기 때문에 이해한다.

Jeff Billman이 이 페이지에 대한 추가 수정사항을 차단하십시오.감사합니다."제임스레너 (대화) 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC) 23:05"

• 당신이 케빈 코클린을 고소하는 제임스 레너와 동일 인물이고, 이 소송에 대한 정보를 기사에 추가하려 한다고 가정한다면, 이것은 엄청난 이해 충돌이다.당신은 당신이 직접 관련된 법적 문제를 놓고 누군가와 전쟁을 편집해서는 안 된다.공작 (토크) 23:14, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)
  • 공식적으로, 나는 소송 당사자들 중 누구와도 현재 연줄이 없다.문제의 편집본의 본질이 나에게 중요한 것이 아니라, 단지 그것이 서툴게 소싱되어 있고 분명한 이해 상충을 가진 사람에 의해 제공되고 있는 것이 분명하다.감사합니다, Jeff Billman (대화) 23:20, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)
• Jeff Billman은 확실히 일을 도와주지 않았다.Xe는 반달리즘이 아닌 편집을 되돌리기 위해 반달리즘 롤백 도구(Xe가 세 번 한 것처럼 1, 2, 3)를 사용하지 말라는 좋은 충고를 거절함으로써 Xyrself는 어떠한 호의도 하지 않고 있다.이곳의 다른 관리자들이 알고 있듯이, 그 도구들은 그런 식으로 사용되어서는 안 된다.그들은 단지 이 사건에서 정확히 일어난 일, 즉 나쁜 감정과 분쟁의 확대만을 야기시키는 역할을 한다.Jeff Billman은 관리자가 아니며, 롤백 도구의 이러한 측면을 확실히 배우지 못했다.나는 위키피디아의 방향을 가리켰다.반달리즘 but xe는, 아아, 지금 그것을 위키리크하고 짚신을 만들고 있다.위키백과에 대한 포인터:롤백은 아마도 다음일 것이다.

  Xe는 또한 "너무 많은 시간을 할애하는 아크론 지역 주민들의 더 어리석은 행동"과 같은 미개한 진술로 Xyr를 비난함으로써 어떠한 호의도 하지 않고 있다.

  Xe는 더 나아가 분쟁을 잘못 전함으로써 자신에게 어떠한 호의도 베풀지 않고 있다.이것은 서투른 콘텐츠에 대한 논쟁이 아니다.그 내용은 기사의 다른 출처와 마찬가지로 기사의 다른 출처에 사용되는 신문의 독립 기자들로부터도 잘 소싱되어 있다.문제는 소싱이 부실하다는 것이 아니다.문제는 그 내용이 출처의 말을 반영하지 못한다는 점이다.이를 사실적으로 지적하고 이슈로 집중하기 위해 셸키니로부터 제3의 의견이 필요했지만, 이는 토크 페이지에 언급되어 왔다.기사에 대한 보호 수준을 준보호에서 완전보호로 올렸고, PCOK는 논란이 된 내용을 삭제했다.출처를 잘못 알리지 않는 좋은 문구로 이를 해결하기 위한 추가 시도가 토크 페이지에서 이루어져야 한다.

  나는 제프 빌먼에게 세 번째 충고를 반복했다.반달리즘 롤백 도구를 사용하여 반달리즘이 아닌 편집 내용을 되돌리지 마십시오. 단지 다른 편집자 반달리즘이 이해 상충이 있다고 해서 다른 편집자에게 전화를 걸지 마십시오. 다른 편집자의 사용자 대화 페이지에서도 그랬습니다.삼촌 G (토크) 00:28, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

  • 처음부터 이것이 WP에 관한 것이라는 나의 입장이었다.BLP는 명백한 이해 상충을 가진 편집자가 만든 불충분한 컨텐츠에 관한 우려사항이다.나는 이것을 살아있는 사람들의 전기 게시판에서 주목했다.정책상 편집이 있는 그대로 되도록 허용할 수 없다는 것이 나의 입장이다.현재 당면한 문제에 대해서는, 이것은 보복을 위한 시도로 초기 논란을 일으킨 편집자의 허위 주장이다.나는 많은 기사에 대한 편집자로서 나의 기록이 그 자신을 대변하도록 할 것이다.감사합니다. -- Jeff Billman (대화) 00:58, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
    • 네가 방금 한 말이 대부분 틀렸다는 것만 빼면 말이야.소재가 제대로 공급되지 않고, 단순히 출처를 정확히 나타내지 않는다.아마도 편집 전쟁에 관여하고 다른 편집자를 반달이라고 부르는 대신(여기에서는 그렇지 않았다) 그 진술이 출처에서 말한 내용을 정확하게 반영하도록 직접 기사를 편집해 볼 수도 있을 것이다.기사의 주제가 당신에게 자료를 삭제하라고 요구했기 때문에, 당신의 회상은 다른 편집자들이 추가했던 것만큼이나 갈등과 잘못된 생각을 하고 있다.이 일은 쌍방이 잘 처리하지 못했다.Shell^babelfish 01:05, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
      • Shell, 만약 기사의 주제를 고소하는 사람과 이름이 같은 사용자가 그 소송에 대해 편집하고, 그것이 BLP 공지 게시판에 보고된 후에도 계속 편집한다면, 나는 그것을 반달리즘이라고 부른다.그게 틀렸다면 솔직히 사과하지만 여기서 말하고자 하는 것은 정책을 회피하는 것이 아니라 진지하게 정책을 따르려고 노력했다는 것이다. -- 제프 빌먼 (대화) 01:15, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
        • 그것은 틀렸다.WP에서 정의한 반달리즘:VAN은 고의적으로 파괴되어야 한다.그것은 편집자가 기사를 해칠 의도가 분명히 있다는 것을 의미한다.네가 그 용어를 사용하는 것은 정책에 어긋난다.

          COI의 주장은 정당성이 있고 제임스레너는 전에도 이와 관련된 문제가 있었다고 지적할 것이다(그의 토크 페이지 참조). 그러나 그것은 여전히 반달리즘과 동일하지 않다. -- 아타마시 01:22, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

          • 네가 이 말을 하는 세 번째 사람이니, 나는 물러설 것이다.하지만 나는 이것이 나에게 단 한 블록도 허락할 수 없다고 생각한다.다시 한번, 나는 진심으로 정책을 고수하려고 노력하고 있었다. -- Jeff Billman (대화) 01:26, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
        • 반달리즘은 "내가 결정한 것이기에 롤백 도구를 사용하여 되돌릴 수 있다"로 정의되지 않는다.WP에서 설명한 바와 같이 위키피디아를 파괴하려는 의도로 편집하지 않는 한:반달리즘, 그렇다면 롤백 도구를 사용하여 되돌리면 안 된다.이것은 명백하며, 당신이 도구를 요청했을 때 동의한 규정의 일부였다.이러한 편집은 공공 기물 파손이 아니기 때문에, 당신은 왜 그것들을 되돌리는지를 설명하기 위해 선의의 시도를 해야 한다.롤백 도구는 편집 요약을 사용하지 않기 때문에 이러한 편집 유형을 되돌리는 데 사용해서는 안 된다.롤백 도구를 부적절하게 계속 사용할 경우 관리자라면 언제든지 빼앗길 수 있다. --Jayron32 01:29, 2009년 9월 10일(UTC)
          • 제이론, 넌 이걸 믿지 못할거야...하지만 내게 이런 특별한 도구가 있는지 몰랐어좀 더 구체적으로 말하자면, 나는 이것이 모든 편집자들이 이용할 수 있는 도구라고 생각했었다.나는 그것을 요구한 기억이 없다.만약 내가 도구를 포기하는 것에 동의함으로써 간단히 이것을 해결할 수 있다면, 나는 기꺼이 그렇게 할 것이다. -- Jeff Billman (대화) 01:34, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
            • 너무 걱정하지 마.오늘은 어떤 블록도 나눠주지 않을 것이다.우리는 당신이 BLP를 높은 수준의 참고자료로 보유하기를 원하는 것에 감사한다.그러나 그렇게 할 때, 부디 조심해서 선의를 갖고 문제가 무엇인지 정확하게 설명하십시오. 이 경우 출처가 정확하게 표현되지 않는 것으로 보인다.나는 모든 사람들이 이제 그 문제를 알고 있다고 확신한다.너의 의도는 좋았어. 단지 너의 처형이 어떤 불필요한 드라마를 불러일으킨 것 뿐이야.WP를 계속 시행하십시오.BLP 정책도 그렇지만 가능한 명확하고 반론적인 방법으로도 그렇게 하도록 노력하십시오.해결된 것으로 표시하고 있다. --Jayron32 01:39, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
              • 제프의 변호에서 롤백 도구는 공공 기물 파손만을 위한 것이 아니라 기물 파괴를 포함하여 명백히 부적절한 편집에 대한 것이다.이것은 심각한 BLP 위반으로, 출처가 추가되고 있는 것을 지원하지 않았다.우리는 그들에게 즉시 반응하도록 되어 있다. 그래서 그런 의미에서 제프는 옳은 일을 했다.내가 하고 싶은 말은 그가 그렇게 자주 굴러가지 말았어야지, 혼자 처리하려고 하지 말고 더 빨리 다른 사람에게 도움을 청했어야 한다는 것이다.그러나 제임스 레너의 편집은 분명히 소싱된 것처럼 부적절했다. 그뿐만 아니라, 당사자들 중 한 명으로서(진짜 그 사람이라고 가정할 때), 그는 그 기사를 전혀 편집해서는 안 된다.SlimVirgin^{talk contribs} 03:01, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
                • 당신은 디프트의 편집 요약이 실제로 말한 것을 읽지 않았다.가서 읽어봐.여기엔 꿈틀거릴 공간이 없어편집 요약을 읽은 후에는 원래 주어진 조언에서 한 요점을 고려하십시오. 편집 요약을 2시간 동안 반달이라고 부르는 것은 상황을 악화시킨다.나는 이미, 당신도 놓친 다른 토론에서 제프 빌만이 일주일 전에 공공 기물 파손 롤백 도구를 사용하지 않고 되돌아가고 있었다는 것을 지적했었습니다.그리고 — 로! — 그 당시 이 페이지에는 "제프 빌만이 그들을 계속 되돌리고 그것이 공공 기물 파손이라고 주장"하는 불평이 단 한 건도 없었다.xyr 사용자 대화 페이지에서 편집 요약서 및 인수인계 디스패치에서 반복적으로 누군가를 반달이라고 부르는 것은 논쟁의 에스컬레이션과 분노의 폭발을 일으키지 않았다.삼촌 G (토크) 03:44, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

그래, 반달리즘이라고 불리는 어떤 도구를 사용하는 것이 좋은 생각이 아니라는 네 말이 맞아; 비록 롤백 도구는 그렇게 하지 않지만, 나는 그가 롤백을 사용하는 것이 문제라고 생각했어.어쨌든, 제이론이 실을 닫았으니, 나는 아마 코멘트를 하지 말았어야 했다.나는 단지 제프가 옳다는 것을 지적하고 싶었지만, BLP는 그가 옳은 일을 했다는 것을 말하고 싶었지만, 나는 그것에 대해 더 이상 말하지 않을 것이다.SlimVirgin 04:50, 2009년 9월 10일(UTC)

TFA의 겉보기 양말 서랍

도움이 되는 체크 유저가 Jdfngkjfnd(대화 · 기여)를 볼 수 있을까?오늘 특집 기사와 함께 회고한 사람들의 대화 페이지를 파손하는 상당히 실질적인 양말 서랍이 있는 것 같다.<>멀티 엑스퍼< (대화) 01:16, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

WP를 참조하십시오.SPI. 내게는 완전한 조사 유형 상황처럼 들리지만 "빠른 요청"을 위한 특별 섹션이 있다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 01:59, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

그래 고마워, 나는 그들이 그곳에서 빠른 요청을 했는지 몰랐어.<>멀티엑스퍼< (대화) 02:41, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

세드나10387

다른 편집자들로부터 받은 좋은 조언에도 불구하고, 고향의 다양한 면과 제도에 대해 WP에 부적절한 기사를 소개하는 것에 대해 의도적인 것처럼 보이는 Sedna10387(토크 · 기고)을 다루는 것이 지겨워지고 있다.그의 가장 최근 작품은 내가 AfD에서 지명한 피츠보로 비즈니스와 빌딩이다. 그러나 그의 이전 기사는 AfD, 오락 후에 속도감, 카피비오로 삭제되었다.또한 그가 자신의 글에 넣기 위해 수많은 무료 로고를 업로드하고, 글 자체가 삭제된 후 삭제하도록 태그를 달아야 하는 문제도 있다.아이가 선의로 편집하고 있다고 생각한다. 하지만 WP 정책과 절차를 준수하지 않으려는 것 같고, 그가 그렇게 동의할 때까지 그리고 그가 동의하는 것에 대한 이해를 보여줄 때가 왔다고 생각한다. (만약 그가 충분히 경고를 받지 않았다고 생각하거나 다른 편집자들이 그를 교육하기 위해 노력하지 않았다고 생각한다면, tr.그의 토크 페이지 역사를 송두리째 훑어보면서, 그가 여러 번 공백으로 남겨진 대부분의 메시지들)Deor (대화) 2009년 9월 7일 13:41, 7 (UTC)

그리고 다시 한번 삭제 논의를 생략하기 위한 시도로 피츠버러 비즈니스 앤 빌딩을 자신의 사용자 공간으로 다시 이동시켰다.(그는 전에 프랭크와 메리 레스토랑과 라운지에서 이 일을 했다.)아무도 보지 않을 때까지 자신의 사용자 공간에 모든 것을 저장할 수만 있다면 소재의 결함을 전혀 해결하지 않고 기사 공간에 다시 미끄러져 들어갈 수 있다고 생각하는 듯하다.나는 그 동작을 취소했다(그것이 옳은 행동이었는지는 확실하지 않지만, 내가 얼마 남지 않은 인내심을 빠르게 잃고 있다).Deor (대화) 2009년 9월 7일 13:57, 7 (UTC)

AFD 통지서에는 "기사 편집은 자유롭지만, 기사 내용을 비워서는 안 되며, 토론이 끝날 때까지 이 고지를 삭제해서는 안 된다"고 적혀 있다.기사를 사용자 공간으로 옮기는 것은 사실상 기사를 공백으로 만드는 것이다.위험이 지나갈 때 유저가 아니라 그 장점에 따라 평가해 기사 공간으로 복원해야 한다.다시 옮기는 게 맞았던 것 같아.

내가 그에게 보낸 메시지는 과거에 백지화된 것들 중에 하나인데, 나는 그에게 여기에 있는 이미지를 포함한 저작권 문제를 알려주었다.그의 유일한 반응은 이미지에서 {{npd}} 태그를 제거하는 것이었습니다. 파일:2nd building.jpg & File:프랭크와 메리의.IP로 JPG. (거기서 추측이나 외출 금지; [1] 참조).그것과 기여는 이것을 하나의 기미가 된다.)이는 문제가 직접 해결되지 않고 사라지기를 바라는 역사를 반영하는 것 같다.블록이 필요한지는 확실하지 않지만(그럴 수도 있지만, 나는 최근 편집된 내용을 광범위하게 살펴보지 않았다) 그러나 만약 콘텐츠를 처리하지 않고 보존하기 위한 이런 종류의 태그 제거가 계속된다면 분명 그럴 것이다.나는 그가 선의로 일하고 있다고 믿지만, 의사소통은 필수적이다. --Moonedgirl 17:03, 2009년 9월 7일 (UTC)

한 가지 분명한 문제는 미국에 '핏즈보로'라고 불리는 도시가 하나 이상 있다는 점 때문에 (상업회의소의 광고도구가 아닌) 기사가 눈에 띄었다 하더라도 그 제목이 어떤 피츠보로를 지칭하는지 명시할 필요가 있을 것이다.야구벅스 당근 2009년 9월 8일 10시 36분 (UTC)

← 나는 그에게 지역사회와 어떻게 교류해야 하는지에 대해 상당히 상세한 메모를 남겼다.바라건대, 그는 반응하길 바란다. --Moonedgirl 13:05, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

보기 좋지 않고, 아직 편집자가 사용자 페이지를 업데이트하는 데 재미를 보지 못했다.시리스 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 12시 19분 (UTC)

그는 내 토크 페이지에 메모를 남겼다.희망이 있을지도 모른다. :) --Moonedgirl 13:32, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

IP 인신공격 & WP:BLP 위반

나는 이 IP가 그의 토크 페이지 포스팅을 되돌린 공격 편집자들에게 관심을 돌렸기 때문에 이것을 개인적으로 다루고 싶지는 않다. 그리고 다른 누군가가 제발 IP 토크 페이지에서 그의 인신공격에 대한 그의 복귀/제거와 배우 기사 토크 페이지에 대한 그의 공격 포스팅의 우선적인 이슈를 다루기를 바란다.IP 75.128.20.15는 배우 급여에 대해 거의 변경되지 않은 소리를 Talk:Brad Pitt [2] [3] [4] [5] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Talk:안젤리나 졸리 [10] [11], 이어서 토크에:리스 위더스푼 [12] [13]IP가 그러한 게시물에 대해 경고를 받았을 때, 그는 토크 페이지에 글을 올리면서 응답했다. 기본적으로 그는 나와 다른 편집자가 이 배우들의 출연료를 비밀로 하기 위해 일한다고 비난했다.사용자 대화:ThinkBlue는 [14] [15] [16] 및 내 토크 페이지[17]와 자신의 토크 페이지에 게시[18]를 게시한다.이것은 며칠 동안 잠잠해졌다가 IP가 다시 소란을 피우는 것으로 되돌아왔다. 이번에는 Talk에:니콜라스 케이지[19], 그때 나는 게시물에 대한 최종 경고를 올렸다[20].오늘, 그는 자신의 토크 페이지에 이 글을 올렸는데, 여기에는 나의 기부 페이지 스크린샷과 함께 이미지 족쇄에 대한 링크와 내가 홍보 담당자로서 다양한 사람들을 위해 일한다는 그의 주장이 추가되었다[21].스크린샷 제거에 대해 이미지 섀크로 연락하지만, 이 시점에서 나와 사용자:ThinkBlue, 다수의 WP:BLP 위반은 모두 IP토크 페이지에서 나에 대한 콘텐츠와 함께 외출을 시도하고 이를 제거함으로써 해결되었다.감사합니다.Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

• 나는 남은 비반전적인 비누상자를 되돌리고 지금까지 계속되어 온 시간의 두 배인 기간 동안 편집자의 편집 권한을 취소했다.2009-08-11년 이후 이 프로젝트의 목표에 대한 실제 기고가 없는 상태에서, 기고 이력을 점검하는 것은 다른 편집자들의 비눗방울과 모욕밖에 보이지 않는다.삼촌 G (토크) 23:58, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)
• 감시하기 위해 외출을 시도했다.Evil saltine (talk) 00:21, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

너희 둘 다 덕분이다.Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

• 이 편집을 참조하십시오.돌팔이?팀 송 (토크) 2009년 9월 9일 18:14, (UTC)
  • 봤지. 그럴 가치도 없어 보였어.삼촌 G (토크) 01:28, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
    • 고립된 신비처럼 보인다.비록 그 IP가 어떻게 모든 페이지의 이 하나의 IP 토크 페이지를 찾아낼 수 있는지는 모르겠지만.팀 송 (토크) 2009년 9월 10일 12시 10분 (UTC)

엡500

Eb500 (토크 · 기여)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eb500&action=edit&redlink=1 사용자들은 알바니아 기사의 신뢰할 수 있는 출처로부터 종교 자료를 계속 훼손하고 있으며, 수많은 편집자들에게 뒤바뀌어 대화 페이지에서 논의하라고 지시했음에도 불구하고 이 문제에 대한 논의를 거부하고 있다.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history --I Pakapshem (대화) 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

나는 이 실에 대해 사용자에게 통지했다.베티아 (나팔을 불어라!) 2009년 9월 9일 14시 48분 (UTC)

나는 그가 행정관의 강력한 경고가 필요하다고 생각한다.--I Pakapshem (대화) 15:36, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

9월 1일 이후 4번의 편집 ... 기사화면에 그의 옆모습/참고문을 설명하기 위한 시도.나는 이것을 반복적인 공공 기물 파손은 말할 것도 없고 공공 기물 파손으로 보지 않는다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

Eb500이 참고문헌으로 편집한 내용을 추가하지 못한 것 외에, 나는 여기서도 어떠한 잘못도 보지 않는다.또 기사토크 페이지를 보니 아이 파캅셈에 동의하지 않는 사용자도 있는 것 같다.나는 이 경우 논평 요청이 순서대로 진행되었다고 생각한다. 여기서는 관리자 개입을 할 필요가 없다.베티아 (나팔을 불어라!) 11:37, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

잘 살펴봐, 그는 소싱된 조사의 데이터를 파괴하고 있고 단지 조사와 함께 새로운 데이터를 추가하는 것이 아니다.소스에서 데이터를 변경하면 파괴된다.--I Pakapshem (토크) 16:06, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

사용자 여러분, 알바니아:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_by_country의 무슬림들에 대한 위키피디아에서 이 페이지를 확인해 보십시오. 이슬람교도들은 65%에서 70%까지입니다. 그리고 미국 국무부 웹사이트:http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90160.htm도 같은 비율로, 일부 사용자들이 보통 쓰는 정보는 참고가 되지 않습니다,고마워요.—Eb500(대화 • 기여) 18:00, 2009년 9월 9일(UTC)에 의해 추가된 서명되지 않은 의견 준비

사용자 여러분, 토크 페이지에서 미국 부서에서 잘못 사용하는 65% -70%에 대한 설명을 참조하십시오.CIA의 팩트북도 참조하십시오.또한 그곳에 게시된 숫자들이 3개 대학에서 실시한 설문조사를 명확하게 참조하고 있으며 파손되어서는 안 된다는 것을 알 수 있다. --I Pakapshem (토크) 18:35, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

끊임없는 인구 수치의 파괴.

C filev(토크 · 기여)가 크로아츠 기사에서 논의되었던 인구 반달과 동일하고, 114.76.205.60, 91.150.103.172, 78.3.240.245, 그리고 많은 다른 IP들, 또한 74.216.33.161과 동일하다는 것은 명백하다.그는 믿을 만한 출처에서 나온 인구수만을 사용하라는 애매모호한 말을 듣고 말 그대로 수십 차례나 되었지만, 인용된 출처[22][23][24][25]][26]와 모순되어도 정확하지 않다고 믿는 인구수를 계속 작게 만들고, 그 숫자를 합산하여 얻은 숫자들을 바꾼다.그가 동의하지 않을 경우 RS에서 발견된 수치 [27][28].계정 편집과 IP 편집을 종합하면 그는 일부 기사에 3RR을 걸었고, 그는 여러 기사에 대해 몇 달 동안 편집 작업을 더디게 해 왔다.(예를 들어 크로아츠에서 그는 7일 동안 9번 돌아섰다 [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37])그는 계속해서 기사로 돌아와 여러 편집자들이 계속 정리해야 하는 난장판을 만들고 있다.나는 이미 IP 토크 페이지[38]에서 그에게 몇 번 주의를 주었다.

지금쯤은 WP:V를 존중하는 데 관심이 없는 것이 분명하고, 행동을 개선할 시간도 충분했으므로, 그의 주장을 굽히지 말고 막아주십시오. --Enric Navy (대화) 11:20, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

사용자:피에트루 / 사용자:Notpietru and Maltese (개)

나는 내 일부 행동에 대해 권한이 없는 관리자로부터 의견을 구하고 있다.몇 달 전, Maltese(개)에서 User:Imbris 및 사용자:피에트루. 주로 편집전은 민족주의적 자부심이었다.몰타 개 품종은 몰타에서 이름 붙여진 것처럼 들리지만, 사실 출처에는 현재 크로아티아에 있는 섬인 Mljet에서 이름이 지어질 수도 있다는 것을 보여주는 많은 것들이 있다.임브리스는 대체로 크로아티아인의 관점에 대해 지나치게 밀어붙이고 있었고, 피에트루는 그것에 대해 너무 강하게 밀어붙이고 있었다.사용자로부터 최종 경고 후 얼마 지나지 않아 Pietru가 떠난 덕분에 이 기사는 현재 비교적 균형을 이루고 있다.탄탈라스39와 블록오버는 기사 [39] [40]에서 되돌아온다.피에트루의 기여를 보라: [41] - 몇 가지 편집을 제외하고, 그는 4월에 편집을 중단했다.

최근에 사용자:노티에트루는 말티즈(개)를 몇 번 수정했다.Notpietru는 Pietru이다. 이것을 확인하기 위해 땅을 파야 했지만 -- Notpietru는 User에 대한 메모를 덧붙였다.피에트루는 그의 새로운 정체성에 대해 얘기했다.Pietru의 사용자 및 사용자 대화 페이지를 리디렉션하고 사용자:그의 오래된 정체성에 대해 언급하지 않았지만 그는 그것을 되돌렸다.별일 아니었지만, 피에트루는 상당한 블록 레코드를 가지고 있었고, 그의 사용자 이름이 사실의 링크를 부정하는 것을 볼 때, 나는 노트가 신중할 것이라고 생각했다.

내게 훨씬 더 걱정되는 것은 피에트루가 억울하게 몰타(개)에 임브리스에 대한 비난의 수위를 느닷없이 낮추고 있다는 점이다.그는 기사에서 "말타"의 사용 중 하나를 위해 불필요한 위키링크를 추가했는데, 매우 부적절하고 미끼적인 편집 요약을 했다. [42].나는 그에게 이것이 불공평하고 선동적이라고 생각한다고 말했다. (임브리스가 오랫동안 실질적으로 새로운 편집을 하지 않았기 때문에)[43] 임브리스는 결국 그 고리를 되돌리게 되었는데, 이는 기사에서 몰타가 여러 번 언급되고 있고, 매번 그것을 연결할 필요가 없다는 것을 고려하면 적절하다; MOS는 그를 지지하고, 우리 모두는 그것이 이전부터의 오래된 문제들 중 하나이기 때문에 이것을 알고 있다.Notpietru는 그것을 "반달리즘"이라고 부르며 되돌렸다[44].나는 그에게 공공 기물 파손에 대한 근거 없는 비난을 하지 말라고 경고했다.[45] 노티에트루는 이제 자신의 옛 사용자 이름에 대한 나의 메모를 포함한 경고문을 삭제하고 내가 그를 괴롭히고 있다고 생각한다는 암시를 했다. 사용자 대화:망고쥬이스#말티즈 개.

노티에트루는 분명히 임브리스를 미끼로 대응하려 하고 있는데, 나는 그 기사가 또 다른 전쟁으로 전락하는 것을 보고 싶지 않다.차단을 요구하는 게 아니라 노티에트루가 나 아닌 다른 사람으로부터 이 말을 들어야 할 것 같다.망고쥬이스^talk 15:57, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

다음 이후 기사를 편집하지 않았다.임브리스의 국수주의적 편집 편향은 분명해, 그들의 토크 페이지를 훑어봐.나는 임브리스에게 "배팅"하는 것이나, 개 기사에 대해 화를 내는 것에는 관심이 없다.이것보다 더 중요한 건 없다는 걸 알게 돼서 반가워, 망고프로젝트는 안전해!ελληάάάάάήή ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ((토크) 16:12, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

왜 임브리스가 편집에 민족주의적 성향을 가지고 있다는 주장을 꺼내는가?당신이 하고 있는 일은 오래된 개인적인 갈등을 되살리려는 것뿐입니다.제발 그만해.망고쥬이스^talk 16:24, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

나는 계속할 생각이 없다.위의 제 코멘트를 읽어보십시오.ελληάάάάάήή ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ((토크) 16:26, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's not small user: 오, 의심의 여지가 거의 없어임브리스는 편집에 대해 "민족주의적 편향"을 가지고 있는데, 이것은 다른 크로아티아에서 온 것이다.) 사실 내 의견으로는 그것이 다소 절제된 표현이라고까지 말하고 싶다.사실상 그의 모든 편집은 크로아티아 민족주의와 관련된 갈등에 얽매여 있다.나 자신도 그의 논쟁, 특히 그의 편집에 의해 선동된 헤이 슬라브에 대한 5개월간의 편집 전쟁을 계속하려고 애쓰면서 지쳐가고 있다.솔직히 말티즈(개)에 대한 편집이 그의 기여에서 눈에 띄었을 때 나는 실제로 그가 약간의 실제 편집을 한다고 생각했다.알고 보니 그건 그의 많은 논쟁 중 하나일 뿐이야.

임브리스가 곧 지적하겠지만, 나는 그의 관심에 시달리는 사용자 그룹(다른 사용자들 중:이반 슈탐북, 사용자:이러한 사용자와 나 자신 없음).그러나, 이것을 "그들은 모두 같다, 이것들은 개인적인 원한이다"로 축소하는 것은, 이 분쟁의 모든 측면을 볼 수 있는 적절하고 객관적인 방법으로는 보이지 않는다. --DECTOR 16:45, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

(1) 나는 몰타 섬이 인정된 원산지라는 미참고 주장 때문에 몰타(개)에 관한 문제에 관여하게 되었다.The Patronage over the breed "belongs" to Italy. (2) Personaly I have not any POV against Malta, and can say that Pietru made fantastic editing on all Malta issues. (3) Mangojuice helped the article greatly, anyone working with him can say he is among the best editors. (4) Even if Mangojuice portrays the issues differently, Pietru and I had not ed피에트루가 둘 다 언급해야 한다는 데 동의했기 때문에 몰타/mljet에 대해 경고하였다.그 시점에 Pietru WP:그 기사를 소유했고, 고대 그리스 로마 시대의 출처를 찾아 깊이 들어가면서 페데레이션 시놀로지크 인터내셔널의 출처가 믿을 만하다는 것을 증명하기 위해 수많은 출처를 그에게 열거해야 했다.즉, FCI는 세 장소를 모두 특정 순서에 따라 나열한다(애석하게도 위키에 있는 세 곳을 나열하는 순서가 아니다), FCI는 이탈리아에 대한 후원자만 준다.(5) 이탈리아를 포함시키고자 했던 단순한 이유 때문에 몰타 도그 문제에 대한 나의 편집이 어떻게 민족주의자로 특징지어질 수 있을지는 모르겠다.품종을 책임지고, 출처를 정직하고 진솔하게 묘사한다.(6) 내가 평범하게 시도한 것은 피에트루를 탐닉하고 개의 이름을 크로아티아어, 말타어, 이탈리아어로 모두 나열하는 것뿐이었다(상장 순서가 처음에는 문제였다).그 후 몰타어에는 그 품종의 구체적인 명칭이 없다는 것이 정립되어 지방 명칭을 전혀 포함하지 않음으로써 그 문제를 잠재우게 되었다.(7) 다른 두 변종은 등재되어 있지 않기 때문에 실제로는 슬프다. 또한 몰타가 몰타 공화국 기사와 연계되어 있는 기사에서는 이탈리아가 이탈리아 공화국과 연계되어 있다.기사, 나는 크로아티아(위키링크드)라는 단어를 섬 Mljet의 문맥에 넣고 싶었지만, 그 시칠리아에 있는 멜리타가 (신뢰할 수 있는 출처) 최소한의 증거(신뢰할 수 있는 출처)를 가지고 있다는 것을 우리 모두가 알고 있을 때, 그러한 시칠리아에 있는 멜리타가 (신뢰할 수 있는 출처)를 가지고 있고, 그리고 Mljet이 대다수의 출처를 가지고 있다는 것을, 그것을 나열할 수 있어야 한다고 믿는다.그 섬이 있는 나라를 괄호로 묶어서.피에트루는 처음에는 달마티아 근처의 시칠리아에 멜리타를, 아드리아에 있는 믈제트를 나열하는 것을 꺼렸다가 입국을 허용했지만, 은폐하기 위해 우리에게 그 기사에 역사적 부분을 많이 포함시키지 말라고 요구했다.(9) 나는 그 품종이 어떻게 개발되고 어떻게 인식되었는지를 밝히는 믿을 만한 모든 출처를 포함시켜 di에서 "밀고 있었다"고 있었다.역사상 다른 시대였지만, 이탈리아에서는 개를 보톨리라고 불렀다는 사실, 그리고 퍼팅하운드와 같은 개에 대한 설명인 퍼팅하운드. (10) 내가 오기 전의 기사는 껴안고 있는 생물에 대해 이야기했고, "특정 시"로 그 품종을 미화시켰을 뿐이었습니다.몰타, 관심의 중심지등등...

DRERECTCTOR의 비난에 대해서는, 그는 비방하지 말라고 경고하고, 이전의 유고슬라비아의 분야에서 나의 편집이 순전히 자비롭다는 것을 깨달아야 한다.나는 DREYCTOR가 더 이상 그의 분야가 아니라 단지 그의 분야가 아니기 때문에 염려하고 있다고 믿는다.나는 여러 분야에서 편집해 보았지만, DRERECTOR씨처럼 증오심에 중독된 유저는 만나본 적이 없다.DREAMCTOR씨는 세르비아인들과 크로아티아인들이 한 언어를 사용하는 한 국가라고 쓴 적이 있는데, 이 견해는 세르비아인들과 크로아티아인들 또한 더 이상 지지하지 않는다.그의 사용자 페이지에서 DRERECTOR씨는 그의 이탈리아 조상과 슬라브 조상에 대해 말한다.유고슬라비아(현 크로아티아)의 스플릿에서 태어났다는 사실은 그의 POV와는 아무런 관계가 없다.이 위대한 위키의 행정가들은 이번 유고슬라비아처럼 한 사람이 소멸된 국가의 민족주의자가 될 수 있다는 것을 깨달았으면 한다.유고슬라비아 POV를 밀어붙일 수 있는 것은 유고슬라비아는 사회정치적 체제 이상의 존재였기 때문에 나는 누군가가 자동적으로 공산주의자(사회주의자까지)라는 것을 의미하는 것은 아니다.

DRERECTCTOR의 말은 전혀 근거가 없고 무효하며 NPOV와 충실한 기여 기법을 달성한 자신의 기록을 정말로 재고해야 한다.예를 들어, 나는 Auja al-Hafir에서 편집했는데, 그가 그렇게 노골적으로 주장하는 POV는 어디에 있다.

DREAMCTOR씨가 말한 모든 것은 순수한 악의에서 나온 것이다, 나는 단지 한번만 ANI를 요구했을 뿐이다, 그때 Pietru가 나를 불쾌하게 만들었지만, DRICTOR씨는 정당한 이유 없이 항상 ANI 개입을 강행한다.

하지만 이 실마리는 DRERECTOR씨와 나 자신에 관한 것이 아니라 피에트루에 관한 것이다.

Pietru에 대한 조언에 대해서는, Pietru가 다른 사용자들에 대한 암시를 그만 둔다면, 이것은 단순히 잘못된 것이고, 망고쥬이스에 대한 어조와 무례한 것이다.

임브리스 (대화) 21:33, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

블라블라. 임브리스, 나는 너를 경멸하는 마음을 숨기지 않을 것이다. 그러므로 나는 네가 여기서 하는 어떤 일에도 관여하지 않을 것이다. 일종의 시민적 평화를 바라는 마음에서.만약 우리의 길이 다시 교차한다면, 우리는 분명하고 통제된 방식으로 무언가를 해결해야 할 것이다.그때까지, 나는 이 프로젝트에 대한 당신의 편집 "스타일"이 어떤 문명화된 접근법에도 불구하고 날아간다는 것이 꽤 명백하다고 느낀다.내 것이 항상 비난의 여지가 없었던 것은 아니다) 그리고 나는 이것이 일반적으로 삶에서 당신의 태도에 무엇을 의미하는지 생각하면 소름이 끼친다.다행히 별로 신경 안 써.

DRERECTOR... 임브리스가 여기 있는 여러 편집자들과 싸우는 습관을 들이는 것 같다. 왜냐하면 그의 편집은 천성적으로 논쟁의 여지가 있기 때문이다.행운을 빈다; 만약 내가 한가지 충고를 한다면, 나는 그 사람과 거리를 두고 다른 사람들과 잘 지내는 것을 제안할 것이다.다른 사람들이 실수를 고칠 시간은 충분히 있다...Brevi Finietur의 Vita Brevis Brevis Brevis Bre

그게 다야.ελληάάάάάάή ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ((토크) 15:02, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

사용자:KJTRGKL이 AfD에서 삭제한 기사를 반복 재생성

최근 AfD에 의해 Khatry Gotras와 가족 목록과 Khatry Sonames 목록이 삭제되었다.그 이후로, KJTRGKL (토크 · 기여)은 다른 제목으로 그것들을 재현하고 있다.나는 이것을 사용자:누가 만든 타이틀을 소금에 절였는지 JForget은 매일 한두 개의 새로운 타이틀이 떠오른다.KJTRGKL은 그들의 토크 페이지에 있는 메시지나 템플화된 경고에 응답하지 않는다.JForget은 내가 이것을 여기 또는 AIV. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:05, 2009년 9월 10일(UTC)에 올리라고 제안했다.

• 사용자가 문제에 대한 통신을 시작할 때까지 차단됨.↪REDVers 14:13, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)
  • 고마워, 도움이 되길 바라. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:14, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

위치타 대학살, 관련 기사 및 양말

우연히 나는 이 특정 기사를 자세히 보기 위해 NPOV 게시판에서 이 요청을 알아차렸다.나는 방금 막 몇 분 동안 pov 편집이 일어나고 있는 관련 기사들을 살펴보았다.위치타 대학살은 버드바스 10(토크 · 기여)과 스미시크르nm(토크 · 기여)에 의해 편집되고 있다.관련 기사는 Ptho(토크 · 기고)와 WVBN8(토크 · 기고)에 의해 편집되고 있다. 이 4개의 계정 모두 유사한 기사를 편집하고 있으며, 5개 이상의 편집은 하지 않았다. 일회용 양말 계정처럼 보인다.더그웰러 (대화) 21:06, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

그리고 나는 그나저나 자러 간다.내가 그들에게 알려야 한다는 건 알지만, 난 새들이 오기 훨씬 전부터 깨어 있었고, 편집도 해줬어...더그웰러 (대화) 21:09, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

이런, 새들이 또 편집을 했나?창문을 닫은 줄 알았다.내 잘못 :-) (토크→ BWilkins ←트랙) 10:59, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

나는 버드바스 10이 조니터크888 (토크 · 기고)의 양말로서 차단되어 있다는 것을 본다; 이들 편집자들은 모두 비슷한 의제를 가지고 있는 것 같다; 버드바스 10과 스미시크르nm이 미디어 블랙아웃에 대해 편집한 것은 거의 같은 것이었다; 그리고 두 새로운 편집자들은 서로 다른 버전으로 되돌아가고 있다.이건 양말 퍼피트리 같은데, 꽥꽥거리는 사람 있어?토니 폭스 (arf!) 04:04, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

내가 보기엔 꽤 분명한 것 같아, 돌팔이 -- 다스 마이크 06:25, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

다 막았지만, 분명히 버려진 계정들이기 때문에 편집자가 돌아오길 기대한다.더그웰러 (대화) 09:10, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

또 다른 돌팔이.--아르크실록소스 (대화) 15:49, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

난 그것을 얻었다.SPI를 받을 시간 있는 사람?지금은 아니야.토니 폭스(arf!) 2009년 9월 9일 16:27 (UTC)

그리고 리드프크(말·출납).SPI에 무슨 의미가 있어?내가 그 기사들 중 일부를 보호했다.왜 그 반달은 즐겁게 지내게 내버려 두었을까?더그웰러 (대화) 17:58, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

검침원은 출처의 허둥대는 것을 처리할 수 있다.토니 폭스(arf!) 2009년 9월 9일 18시 14분 (UTC)

양말 차단, IP 차단.니시키드64 17:47, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

고마워, 잘됐네.더그웰러 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 18:23 (UTC)

최종 경고 후에도 IP 파괴가 계속됨

IP 사용자:72.94.80.43이 반복적으로 Direc 목록에 잘못된 정보를 게시함몇 차례 경고 후 TV 채널이 중단된다.나는 그들의 이력을 살펴보았다. 또한 몇몇 어린이 채널 기사뿐만 아니라 디시 네트워크 채널 목록과 버라이즌 FiOS 채널 목록에도 자주 게재되었다.그들은 항상 PBS, 니켈로디언, 디즈니 채널 리스트를 줄에 올려놓기 때문에 나는 사용자들이 미성년자라고 생각한다.모든 정확한 채널 라인업은 각 서비스의 웹사이트에서 찾을 수 있으며 라인업 변경에 대한 출처가 없다.막아줘.AIV는 그들이 "선량한 믿음의 편집"이라고 생각하는 행동을 거부했다.분명히 그들은 어린아이의 미숙한 편집일 뿐이다.TomCat4680 (대화) 21:40, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

나는 IP에게 이 토론에 대해 주의를 주었다.여기에 보고할 때 사용자에게 알려야 한다는 점을 명심하십시오.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:21, 2009년 9월 8일(UTC)

아참, 깜빡하고 사용자 넣는 걸 잊어버려서 사람을 잘못 보내셨군요.내가 그들에게 알릴게.TomCat4680 (대화) 22:39, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

나는 실제로 "기사" 72.94.80.43의 토크 페이지로 그것을 보냈다.하하!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22시 51분, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

그래, 아직 삭제하지 않았다면 빨리 삭제될 수 있을 것 같아.TomCat4680 (대화) 22:59, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

잠깐, 이런 짓을 하는 것으로 알려진 반달범이 있어이름이 뭐였죠?마스코트구이는 아니지? 아님 밤비판?젊은 사용자로부터 많은 보고를 받곤 했던 한 사용자가 있었는데, 누군가가 그에게 그만하라고 할 때까지.그래, 나도 알아, 이게 정말 도움이 된다는 건 알아. 하지만 TV 방송국에 주로 집중했던 반달족이 있었던 건 기억나.기억나는 사람이 있으면 뛰어들어...GJC 18:20, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

글쎄, 마스코트구이는 디즈니를 좋아하는 것 같아.하지만 그는 IP 주소가 아닌 등록된 사용자 이름으로 편집한다.--Sky Attacker 여기 새가 온다! 21:39, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

누군가 IP를 막으면 안 되는 거야?TomCat4680 (대화) 23:23, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

후배 행정반원들이 놀라운 롤백 능력을 발휘할 수 있는 신나는 기회!

사용자 68.4.46.105

이 익명의 활동해 왔으며 관리자 등 누구든 자신의 행동에 대해 댓글을 달거나 경고문을 올린 직후 사용자 대화 페이지를 무수히 비운다 2008년 10월부터 사용자는.그들은 위키피디아에서 선한 믿음이 어떻게 작용하는지 이해하지 못하는 것 같으며 나는 그들이 최소한 일시적 금지를 받을 자격이 있다고 믿는다.키위수프 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 20:13 (UTC)

자신의 토크 페이지를 공백으로 만드는 것은 문제될 것이 없다. WP: 참조:블랭킹.편집자의 최근 기고문은 생산적이거나 최소한 선의로 보인다. Skomorokh 20:17, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

사용자:트루비

이 사용자는 뮤지션 안젤로 무어에 관한 (BLP) 기사에 비협조적인 주장을 반복적으로 소개했는데, 특히 그의 아내/전처, 미성년자, 그리고 현재 여자 친구로 추정되는 사람들의 신원을 확인/이름 지정했다.WP와 같이 이 청구들을 비협조적인 것으로 제거한 후:BLP는 지명된 개인이 공인이 아닐 뿐만 아니라 이름과 청구된 관계 모두 기사에서 조달되지 않고 구글 검색으로 확인할 수 없기 때문에 허용될 뿐만 아니라 상당히 많은 것을 요구한다.트루비는 다시 본문을 삽입했다.그리고 나서 그녀는 무어의 전처라고 주장하며 그녀의 비협조적인 기여를 제자리에 남겨두라고 요구하는 글을 내 토크 페이지에 올렸다.내가 바라는 것은 적절한 대응책이다. 그녀는 그것을 무시했고, 나는 그녀의 토크 페이지에 경고를 붙였다.

트루비는 그 후 두 번 더 비소싱된 내용을 재삽입했고, 나는 두 번 더 제거했다.결론적으로, 나는 이 세 개인들에 대한 정보를 포함함으로써 특별한 이점은 없다고 본다. 그들은 최소한의 imdb 참조와 기대되는 거울을 제외하고는 거의 온라인에 아무 관련도 없다.만약 그 주장이 사실로 판명된다면, 검증을 기다리는 지연은 무해하다. 만약 그 주장이 거짓이라면, 그들이 위키피디아에 오랫동안 서있을 수 있도록 허용하는 것은, 그 주장들이 더 나쁘지는 않더라도, 개인들의 잠재적인 불화/폐쇄에 대해, 거울과 같은 것에서 무기한 지속될 것이라는 것을 의미할 수 있다.

대개 반대 상황이 발생한다: 기사 제목은 자료 제거를 원한다.여기, 기사 제목/청구된 대리인은 비소싱 자료를 삽입하기를 원한다.나는 전 배우자라고 주장하는 누군가가 그녀의 전 여자친구를 기사에 새 여자친구를 원했을 때 약간 의심스럽다. 그래서 나는 이 일을 승인적으로 처리했고, 나보다 더 영향력이 큰 누군가가 이 일을 계속 감시해서 빠져나가지 못하게 할 수긍정적이다.트루비는 지금까지 나의 반응을 무시했고, 내가 내 의견을 굽히지 않으려고 노력했지만, 그녀가 그 기사에 대해 원하는 것 같은 권한을 그녀에게 줄 방법이 없다.훌라발루 울포위츠 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 20:29 (UTC)

난 그녀에게 3RR을 위한 12시간짜리 블록을 건네줬고, 그녀에게 그것에 대한 출처가 없는 한 그것을 다시 삽입하지 말라고 알려주었다.그것으로 끝이었으면 좋겠다.블루보이96 20:50, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

사용자:루이사디엘

루이스아디엘 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

이것은 무엇에 속하며 어떻게 제거해야 하는가?RaseaC (토크) 00:19, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

엄밀히 말하면 그것은 어제 영어 공부를 시작한 사람이 쓴 것처럼 보이는 사용자 페이지를 만드는 것 외에는 아직 아무 것도 하지 않았다.하지만 실제로 어떤 것을 편집하기 전까지는 블록에 대한 명백한 근거가 없어, 만약 그것이 여러분이 얻고 있는 것이라면.2009년 9월 11일 (UTC) 야구 버그스카로틱스^{What's up, Doc?} 00:25.

반드시 블록은 아니지만 콘텐츠/토크 페이지를 제거할 수 있는가?정말 대단한 일도 아니고, 아무도 해치지 않고, 그저 궁금할 따름이었다.RaseaC (대화) 00:49, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그것은 엉터리 영어로 된 것 말고도 어떤 식으로든 정책을 위반하는 것인가?2009년 9월 11일 01시 15분 (UTC^{What's up, Doc?})

음, 그들은 단지 소셜 네트워킹을 위해 여기 있을 뿐이고 백과사전에 기여할 생각은 없다는 것을 분명히 했다.(이를 위한 정책이 있어야 한다.그리고 수천 개의 위키백과 에세이에 묻혀서 내가 결코 눈치채지 못할 것이 하나 있을 것이다.슬프다.) 조금 보잘것없는 (대화) 01:19, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

내가 보기엔 그렇게 보이진 않지만, 관리자들이 무슨 말을 하는지 알아봅시다.2009년 9월 11일 01:29, 야구 버그스카라스틱^{What's up, Doc?} (UTC)

나는 어떤 징계도 반대할 것이다, 우리는 신참들을 물지 않는다.아마도 스페인어를 할 줄 아는 사람은 위키피디아의 목적을 간단히 설명할 수 있을 것이고, 그가 참여한다는 희망을 아주 좋은 말로 표현할 수 있을 것이다.또한 스페인어 위키백과에서 그가 더 편안함을 느낄지도 모른다.--Wehwalt (대화) 01:48, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사용자:UNBANNABLE143125134

UNBANNABLE143125134(토크/기여)의 사용자 이름은 처음에는 잠시 멈추게 하고, 세 번째 편집인 그들의 인신공격은 그냥 그것을 봉인한다.차단 가능한가, 아니면 경고를 더 받아야 하는가?그 당시 신사는 누구였습니까?(토크) 01:50, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그리고 이제 그들의 네 번째 편집 - [47].그 당시 신사는 누구였습니까?(토크) 01:51, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

신경 쓰지 마, 막혔어.그 당시 신사는 누구였습니까?(토크) 01:52, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

스토킹

안녕하십니까 나는 사용자 IJA와 Kedadi에게 스토킹당하고 있는데, 그들은 둘 다 코소보 관련 기사와 관련하여 내가 한 모든 변화를 되돌리고 있다.나는 여기서 중립을 지키려고 노력하고 있지만 이 두 동료들은 (내가 알바니아인으로 추측하는) 그것을 약화시키려 하고 있다.나는 이 문제를 어떻게 처리할 것인지 행정관의 도움을 받을 것이다.내 기부 페이지를 그들의 시각에서 숨길 수 있는 방법이 있거나, 과거에 알고 있던 스토커들을 다루는 다른 방법이 있다면, 나에게 연락해 줘.고마워!젠가3 (대화) 02:54, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

• 당신이 Talk에서 토론의 주제인 그 편집자들과 컨텐츠 시비를 벌이고 있다고 말하는 것이 더 정확하다.코소보에 대한 국제적인 인식은 번호 매기기를 필요로 한다.이것은 그들을 스토커로 만들지 않는다.그것은 가볍게 던져야 할 호칭이 아니다.실제로, 지난 주 동안 스토킹할 수 있는 대상 영역 이외에는 어떤 편집도 하지 않았다.그리고 Talk:Kosovo에서, 당신의 편집은 실제로 Kedadi를 따라갔다.

  이 문제에 대처하는 방법은 다음과 같다.당신과 의견이 다른 사람들을 상대하는 모든 사람들은 스토커라는 결론에 뛰어드는 것을 멈추고, 콘텐츠 논쟁에서 자신만의 길을 찾기 위해 기술적인 수단을 사용해야 하고, 동료 편집자들을 당신이 말하는 평범한 인간으로 간주하기 시작하라.User talk(사용자 대화)의 토크 페이지에는 다음과 같은 예의가 제공된다.젠가3#숫자표삼촌 G (토크) 04:09, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

나는 이 사용자를 스토킹하는 것이 아니다.나는 그가 편집한 내용 중 하나를 되돌리고 그가 먼저 나에게 연락한 후 그의 토크 페이지에 설명을 했다.또한 젠가3는 자신의 편집을 지원하는 유일한 사용자로 나를 포함한 8명 정도의 사용자가 자신의 편집에 동의하지 않는다.그는 의견 일치를 보지 못했다.스토킹으로 고소당한 것도 좀 이상하다.IJA 관련 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 19:26 (UTC)

만약 이 사람들이 날 스토킹하지 않는다면 IJN은 어떻게 이 게시물을 찾았을까?다시 한번 말하지만, 이 사람들이 (더 나은 용어가 없어서) 나를 따라올 수 없도록 내 기여 페이지를 숨기는 방법을 말해줘, 만약 당신이 이 문제를 다룰 수 없다면, 내가 직접 젠가3 (대화) 20:05, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

여기 나와 IJA의 Kedadial 20:48, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

괜찮아, 난 사람들을 스토킹하지 않아.젠가3 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 20:49 (UTC)

그렇다면 또 무슨 말을 해야 할지 모르겠고 WP에 온 걸 환영하고 행복한 편집.Kedadial 20:56, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

당신은 단순히 당신이 나와 의견이 다르다고 해서 나를 스토킹하거나 내가 하는 어떤 변화도 되돌리지 않을 것이라고 말할 수 있다.젠가3 (대화) 21:08, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

만약 당신이 WP:합의에 도달한다면 나는 결코 당신을 되돌리지 않을 것이다.Kedadial 21:18, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

그러나 너는 내가 정당한 출처와 추리를 가지고 있더라도 먼저 합의에 이르지 않고 내가 하는 모든 변화를 여전히 스토킹하여 되돌릴 것인가?나이스 젠가3 (토크) 21:32, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

그것은 WP의 "D" 부분이 될 것이다.BRD 사이클당신은 대담했고, 되돌렸으며, 당신이 그것에 대해 논의하지 않고 그것이 합의되지 않는 한 그것을 다시 추가할 수 없다.단순히 누군가의 기여를 주시하고, 정책을 따르지 않는 것을 고치는 것은 '스토킹'도 아니고 위키호킹이나 위키백과까지 하는 것이 아니므로 그렇게 부르지 마라.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

그래서 당신이 말하는 것은 이 두 개인을 "팔로우"하고 토론 페이지에서 의견 일치가 이루어질 때까지 각각의 편집 내용을 되돌리는 것이 완벽하게 합법적이라는 것인가?다시 말하지만, 이것은 단지 하나의 기사에 관한 것이 아니라, IJA는 내가 편집한 다른 것들을 이유 없이 되돌렸다.나는 모든 철자/문법 편집, 소스 편집 또는 모든 중립성 편집에 대해 토론할 것을 기대할 수 없다. 단일 편집에 몇 주 또는 몇 달이 걸리기 때문이다.젠가3 (대화) 21:51, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

또한 나는 두 사람이 강하게 느끼는 기사를 토론하고 있어, 나는 그것에 대해 아무런 문제가 없어.내가 문제가 있는 것은 사람들이 나와 연락하거나 어떤 종류의 담론에 참여하지 않고 내가 내린 결정을 되돌리는 것이다.젠가3 (대화) 21:53, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

젠가3, 당신은 실제로 IJA와 케다디에게 이 자리에서 보고했다고 말한 것으로 되어 있다.그러니 그들이 나타났을 때 놀라지 말았어야 했다.여러분의 기여 목록을 숨길 방법은 없다. 이것은 역사 기록이 공개되어 있는 공공 백과사전이다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 22:03, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

젠가3...나는 너의 기여를 검토했다.2009년 8월 이후 편집한 모든 내용 중 요약 편집을 한 것은 3개뿐입니다.기여도를 쉽게 식별할 수 있고 자동 반환될 가능성이 낮을 것으로 예상하는 경우 편집 요약을 사용하십시오."철자 수정"이나 "문법 수정"과 같은 간단한 것들은 분명히 토론할 필요가 없으며, 훌륭한 편집 요약을 만들 것이다.경고: 편집 요약에서 "철자 수정"이라고 말하고, 대신 실제로 내용을 변경하면 큰 화를 낼 것이다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

나는 젠가3의 편집이 더 이상 파괴적인 편집들을 가리기 때문에 그것을 보는 것이 위키피디아로서 나의 의무라고 느낀다.게다가 젠가3가 숨길 것이 없다면 젠가3는 두려울 것이 없어야 한다.모든 사람들이 우리의 기여를 볼 수 있는 이유가 있다...내가 알아낼 수 있게 해줄까?IJA (대화) 22:33, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

나는 사람들에게 그 의심의 혜택을 주는 것이 인간으로서의 나의 의무라고 느낀다. 그것이 바로 지금 내가 IJA 역사를 거치지 않고 그가 철저히 토론할 때까지 그의 모든 변화를 되돌리고 있는 유일한 이유다.주목해야 할 것은 오늘 내 친구들, 너는 또 다른 중립적인 사람을 잃었다는 것이다.물론, 한 남자가 이곳을 돌아다니는 것이 허락된, 견제받지 않고 편향된 사람들 위에 위키백과를 떠나도 상관 없을 것이다. 하지만 나는 내가 이것을 두고 떠난 첫 번째 사람, 혹은 마지막 사람일 것이라고 의심한다.젠가3 (대화) 04:11, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

음악 장르에 대한 비협의 및 비참조적 대규모 변경 사항

사용자:Sublimefan97은 내가 여기에 열거할 수 있는 것보다 더 많은, 많은 기사에서 바쁘게 장르를 바꾸고 있지만, 그의 공헌을 본다.그는 여러 번 질문을 받고 경고를 받았다; 내가 포함된 몇몇 편집자들은 이러한 변화를 반달리즘으로 본다.서브라이임팬은 이러한 변화에 대해서는 언급은 고사하고 편집요약을 제공하지 않으며, 때때로 참조라는 발상을 조롱하기도 한다:그는 이 편집에서 밴드 장르를 [폴카 사이케델릭 폴카]로 바꾸고 다른 모든 장르를 제거하기 위한 명분으로서 레스 클레이풀의 1991년 발언을 인용한다.클레이풀은 이 농담을 높이 평가할 수도 있겠지만, 이 모든 변화를 뒤집는데 많은 시간을 할애한 편집자들은 그것이 그렇게 재미있다고 생각하지 않는다.나는 이 반달리즘을 고려하지만 AIV의 한 IP는 동의하지 않았고, 내가 여기에 가자고 제안했고, 그래서 여기 있다.너의 충고는 친절하게 고맙다.Drmies (토크) 02:06, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 그러한 편집이 공공 기물 파손이라는 것에 동의한다.— Jeff G. (토크 콘트롤) 02:13, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

완전 헛소리.물론 그것은 공공 기물 파손은 아니다.공공 기물 파손 정책을 읽어 보십시오.반달리즘은 합의나 정책이나 가이드라인에 반하는 편집과 혼동해서는 안 되며(모두 파괴적일 수 있음),위키백과를해치려는 의도적인 시도다.-탐 02:20, 2009년 9월 11일(CoordinatedUniversalTime).

음, 우리를 바보라고 부르지만, 이러한 관행을 "중단 없는 편집"이라고 부르기도 해; ANI는 여전히 올바른 곳이야.사용자의 대화 페이지에 있는 경고와 완전한 통신 부족을 기록해 두십시오.고마워요.Drmies (토크) 02:34, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

Sublimefan97(토크 · 기여)은 24시간 동안 중단 편집 차단.— Kralizec! (대화) 02:54, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

오소리 드링크에 의한 중단

오소리 드링크 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

사용자는 샌프란시스코 자이언츠와 같은 기존 야구팀에 "실종"이라는 딱지를 붙이며 뾰족하고 터무니없는 카테고리를 추가하고 있다.그는 이미 경고를 받고 멈추지 않는다.나는 이곳의 행정 심판 중 한 명이 그에게 주의를 기울일 경고를 할 수도 있고, 그렇지 않을 경우 그를 잠시 샤워실로 보낼 수도 있을 것이라고 희망한다.야구벅스 당근 02:57, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

메, 얼굴에서 소리를 지르고, 짜증을 내고, 그들에게 흙을 차는 것이 더 즐겁다 :) 무제미케 03:18, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

• 3시간 동안 막혔다.나는 오소리 드링크에게 파괴적인 행동이 유일한 문제라는 것과, 그러한 행동을 중단하면 보다 효과적이고 더 연대적인 담론의 기회가 열린다는 것을 알리겠다. -페티(토크) 03:46, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)
  • 이 블록은 편집자의 두 번째 블록이라는 점에 유의하십시오.그 당시 신사는 누구였습니까?(토크) 04:13, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

요청된 이동의 종료

Talk에서 요청한 이동에 대한 관리자 규칙:Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard#Move_Back?토론은 5일 동안 진행되어 지금은 생산적인 토론보다는 오히려 은근한 분위기로 접어든 것 같다. --사이버코브라 (토크) 03:52, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

요청된 이동 논의는 보통 7일 동안 지속된다.–Juliancolton 04:27, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

위키백과:삭제/CyanogenMod 조항

위키백과:삭제/CyanogenMod는 부적절하게 포맷된 AFD(IP에 의해 시작됨)로 많은 신규 고객 및 SPA 계정을 끌어들이고 있는 것으로 보인다.나는 "sockpuppets"라고 말하고 싶지만 나는 아무도 화나게 하고 싶지 않다.맛있는 카번클 (토크) 04:25, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 토론을 빨리 끝냈다. 자세한 것은 나의 최종 이유를 보라.–Juliancolton^Talk 04:31, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

누군가 AfD 페이지를 보호하길 원할지도 몰라...맛있는 카르분클 (토크) 05:09, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 줄리안의 페이지에서 이것을 언급했는데 - 기사는 AFD에 있어야 한다 - 현장 외 활동 때문에 하루 후에 마감하는 것은 단기적인 해결책일 뿐이다.줄리안에게 일단 반응을 얻으면 다시 AFD할 계획이다. --Cameron Scott (대화) 11:15, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사용자:리퍼404

이 편집자는 반복적으로 WP를 추가했다.Mark Wahlberg와 나는 BLP 위반 사항을 몇 번 되돌렸으며, 편집 요약에서 변경이 부적절한 이유를 설명하는 데 시간이 걸렸다.BLP 문제 외에도 편집은 단편적인 문장과 문법을 남긴다.이에 대한 경고를 남기기 위해 그의 토크 페이지를 봤을 때, 나는 그가 2009년 2월에 막혔고 지난달에도 같은 페이지에 있는 같은 이슈와 심각한 불협화음으로 인해 막혔다는 것을 보았기 때문에, 나는 여기에 명예훼손 편집에 대한 최종 경고를 남겼다.이런 반응이었다.나는 이 사람이 협조적이거나 생산적으로 편집하려는 의도는 전혀 없다고 생각한다.이것은 용납할 수 없는 행동과 편집이다.Wildhartlivie (토크) 04:27, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

재범하다.이 편집 후에, 나는 그에게 또 다른 기회가 주어졌다는 것에 충격을 받았다.그 당시 신사는 누구였습니까?(토크) 04:29, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

Ripper404의 블록 로그와 최신 편집 내용을 살펴본 후, 나는 변명의 여지없이 계정을 차단했다.드레드스타☥ 04:35, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 Ripper404의 WP 위반에 대해 성급하게 복귀를 선언했다.Civil. 어쨌든 그의 위반은 어리석다고 생각한다. 192.12.88.7 (대화) 04:44, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

빠른 답변 고마워.Wildhartlivie (토크) 04:49, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

에르난도 데 소토

에르난도 데 소토를 반정도 보호할 수 있을까?연초에 있는 역사 수업의 일부분인데 IP 사용자들은 하루 종일 반창고를 내는데, 반창고를 일주일이나 2주일 정도 할 수 있다면 반창고를 줄일 수 있을 겁니다.지난 12시간 동안 4개를 만들었어.고마워요.헤이로니모스 로에 (토크) 06:12, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

1개월 동안 반비보호된 후 페이지가 자동으로 보호되지 않음.향후 빠른 조치를 위해 이를 보고할 수 있는 정확한 장소는 WP:RFP. 해피편집! --Jayron32 06:29, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

고맙다, 정말 고마워.빨리 행동할 필요는 없었어, lol, 그래서 이건 괜찮았어.지난 한 주 동안 몇 번이고 되돌려야 했고, 작년 이맘때 이 글에서 그것이 멈추지 않을 것 같았던 기억이 났다.이 소울은 속도를 늦추고 한 달 안에 다른 곳으로 옮겨야 해헤이로니모스 로에 (토크) 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC) 13:59 (토크)

의심스러운 편집-경전 IP

61.175.232.126 (대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)을 누군가가 잘 살펴보시겠습니까?지난 2월 한 사용자로부터 양말퍼트리(sockpuppetry)를 악용해 차단된 중국의 IP로, 지난 5월 또 다른 사용자로 자칭, 금지 사용자("토조 장군")로 다시 등장, 현재 마케도니아에 대해 Arbcom이 설치한 1R 제한을 깨고 편집전을 벌이고 있다.아마 또 금지된 사용자들이 있는 공개 대리인이겠지?Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

오늘 누가 사용했는지 모르지만 지금은 차단된 대리점이다. --zzuzz^(talk) 10:39, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 차단된 프록시가 블록 통지서를 스스로 게시하는 것이 좋다;-) 후트.Perf. 11 10:43, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사용자에 의한 회피 차단:DHawker

DHawker(talk · concer)는 콜로이드 은(coloridal silver)을 홍보하는 데 전념하는 단일 목적의 어젠다 계정이다.그는 최근 기사에 대한 편집-워링을 위해 세 번째 블록을 작성했다.며칠 후, DHawker는 219.90.234.177 (토크)를 사용하여 차단을 회피하고, ([48] 때문에 차단되었던 것과 같은 가식적인 주장을 계속하고 있다.이번이 처음은 아니다. 위키백과:IP를 사용하여 3RR을 우회하는 경고와 함께 DHawker가 해제된 Checkuser/Case/DHAWker에 대한 요청.나는 행정적인 검토를 요청하고 싶다; 나는 분명히 관여하고 있지만, 조치가 정당하다고 느낀다.마스트셀 23:31, 2009년 9월 7일 (UTC)

다른 사람이 이 편집자의 주장을 따라해 비교적 오랫동안 차단할 수 있는 가능성을 고려해 일주일 동안 사용한 IP 주소를 막았다.다른 문제가 생기면 언제든지 메모를 보내세요.만약 이 편집자가 정말로 블록을 따라잡는 이슈를 가지고 있다면, 나는 다른 이슈들이 곧 해결될 것이라고 기대한다.Jclemens (대화) 02:36, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

마스트셀은 DHawker를 침묵시키려 하고 있으며, 실제로 그들은 서로에 대한 환상을 가지고 왔다 갔다 한다.디에이커는 공격적인 편집자가 아니며 어떤 것도 파괴하지 않는다.그는 많은 타당한 주장을 하고 있고 그것은 그가 침묵하고 있는 이유 때문이다.friggen 유치원 같은 느낌. - ʄooʏiaɲ^τ_¢ 15:54, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

또한 차단 회피는 마스트셀이 간단히 삭제한 하나의 댓글(이것은 우리의 정책에도 어긋나거나 막히거나 말거나)이었다.그가 차단된 논의를 검토하고 DHawker가 얼마나 위협적인지 직접 확인하십시오. - -ooo^τ_¢ 16 16 16:00, 2009년 9월 8일(UTC)

Talk에서 추가 의견을 듣고 싶다.콜로이드 은.위의 "대화상자"는 실제로 그곳의 코스에 해당하는 것이다.나는 블록은 블록이며, 마음대로 회피할 수 있는 선택적 제안이 아니라는 나의 견해에 소수인 것 같아 더 많은 눈이 유용할 수도 있다.MastCell 17:56, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

플로이드ian이 무슨 말을 하고 있는지 헷갈릴 수도 있지만, 블록을 회피하는 누군가가 편집한 내용을 삭제하는 것은 일반적으로 정책에 반하는 것이 아니라 정책에 의해 승인된다는 것이 나의 이해였다.그 당시 신사는 누구였습니까?(토크) 2009년 9월 8일 18:00 (UTC)

그 편집은 확실히 DHawker의 스타일과 일치한다.IP GeoLocates to Adelaide(이것처럼 IP GeoLocates to Adelaide)(사용자가 (확실히 우발적으로 - 내 생각에 그것은 해당 페이지의 내 임기 전) 로그아웃 편집인 것 같다.SPI를 신청해야 할까? - 2/0 (포함) 18:08, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

어서, 이 사용자는 이 기사가 불공평하게 취급된다고 느끼는 사람에 불과하다는 것을 알아내십시오(다른 관점으로 누군가를 공격한 경험이 있는 편집자 그룹에 의해 종종 돌팔매질을 당하는 것처럼, 그리고 가능성이 생기는 즉시 금지되는 많은 변칙 이론 기사들.지금 위키피디아에서 보내는 얼마나 따뜻한 환영 메시지인가."당신은 우리의 견해에 동의하지 않소, 그럼 입을 다물거나 나가시오!"

그가 전쟁 편집 전용 계정이라는 비난에도 불구하고, 그는 그 기사의 토크 페이지에서 그의 편집에 대해 공정하게 논의했다.그는 완전히 유효한 연구와 그의 수정을 뒷받침할 수 있는 몇 가지 참고자료를 제공했고, 다른 사용자들의 반전은 모두 현실에 어느 정도 빛을 비추는 모든 수정사항을 되돌리기 위해 사용하는 하나의 참고자료에 의존했다.개정안은 종종 그 점을 무시하고 수정안을 정당화하기 위해 대수롭지 않은 오류를 골라냈다(예를 들어, 엔트로피 이모의 개정이 전혀 요구되지 않았기 때문에 내가 만든 이 우스꽝스러운 수정안과 다음과 같은 수정안을 보라).이것은 열성적인 사용자가 아니므로 그렇게 취급해서는 안 된다.기간- ʄooia 18 18_¢:37, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

DHawker는 단일 목적 편집기로, 프린지 뷰를 홍보하기 위한 편집 기록을 가지고 있다.지금 그는 탈루차단죄가 있는 것으로 보인다.나는 사용자가 장기적인 차단이나 대체 의학 주제 편집의 금지를 필요로 하며 다른 비-프링게 기사를 편집/개선하도록 권장되어야 한다고 말한다.Vsmith (대화) 22:06, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

비 출판 학술지 사이언티픽 리서치 앤 에세이(저널 웹사이트)의 인용을 강요하려는 편집전쟁과 이제는 모든 것이 삐뚤어진 관점을 밀어붙이기 위해서라면 건설적인 편집자를 암시하지 않는다.나는 확실히 주제 금지를 지지할 것이다.팀 비커즈 (대화) 22:37, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

나는 또한 그 금지에 동의할 것이다.이런 종류의 편집은 심지어 경계선도 아니다. DGG (토크 ) 06:44, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

이번이 처음이 아니라는 점을 감안하여, 나는 방어적인 차단을 향해 나아가고 있다. 위키백과:Checkuser/Case/DHAWker에 대한 요청 - 동일한 동작 및 동일한 기사.팀 비커즈 (대화) 22:40, 2009년 9월 8일 (UTC)

저널을 신뢰하거나 신뢰하지 않는 것은 저널을 만드는 것이 아니라, 연구를 수행하는 방법이 신뢰도를 결정하는 것이기 때문에, 그것 위에 그것을 밀어 붙이는 것만으로도 당신의 편견이 어디에 있는지를 분명히 한다.이것은 물론 인터넷에서 제품을 구입하여 시험한 연구와는 대조적으로, 그 결과를 콜로이드 은(oooh)의 모든 사례에 적용한다고 결론지었다.믿을 수 있고, 소문도 있다.미안하지만, 프린지 이론에 관한 한 편집자들은 멍청해.특히 프린지 이론으로 결론나면, 모든 관리자들은 "프린지 이론이 아닌 다른 것으로 본다면, 당신은 그것을 홍보하고 있을 뿐"이라는 주장으로 곧장 뛰어든다.기껏해야 기사의 금지가 보장된다.DHawker는 토크 페이지에서 문제를 일으키지 않고 있으며, 그의 의견은 유효하다.- ʄoo^τ_¢ 9ia: 01:18, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

@2/0: SPI 보고서를 제출할 필요 없음.DHawker가 편집에 서명했다는 점에 유의하십시오.누군가가 호주의 애들레이드에 가서 정확히 DHawker 스타일로 글을 올렸을 가능성이 있다고 생각한다. DHawker의 화젯거리 중 하나를 밀어붙이면서, 단지 DHawker를 위키백과에 곤경에 빠뜨리기 위해...하지만 오캄의 윌리엄은 그 설명에 무덤에서 뒹굴곤 했다.

@플로이드어:이곳은 출처를 논할 곳이 아니지만, 사실상 모든 의미 있고 원격으로 유효한 의학 저널은 MEDLINE에 색인되어 있다. 사람들은 일반적으로 좋은 것을 색인화되지 않은 저널에 게재하기를 원하지 않는다. 왜냐하면 다른 연구자들은 그것을 발견하지 못할 것이고, 그들의 연구를 인용하거나 그것을 기반으로 하지 않을 것이기 때문이다. MEDLINE 인덱싱은 품질을 보증하는 것이 아니다 - 많은 쓰레기 같은 것이다.저널이 색인화되었다 - 그러나 MEDLINE 인덱싱의 부재는 우리가 소스에 너무 많은 비중을 두어서는 안 된다는 것을 강하게 시사한다.

@모두:나는 그 기사에서 DHawker를 금지해도 괜찮을 것이다; 나는 이런 종류의 기사에서 반복적인 의제 중심의 토크 페이지 남용을 동등한 수준으로 참을 수 있기 때문에, 만약 편집-전쟁이 테이블에서 제외되었다면, 내 관점에서는 그것으로 충분할 것이다.MastCell 03:50, 2009년 9월 9일 (UTC)

블록 삭제 편집기의 주석 제거.Ncmvocalist (대화) 06:28, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

이 건에 대해 마무리 좀 부탁해도 될까?MastCell 00:02, 2009년 9월 10일(UTC)

편집 제한 제안

그가 블록에 앞서 편집전을 포함한 양말퍼트리 포스트 블록과 기타 파괴적 행위에 관여했다는 사실에 비추어, 나는 다음과 같은 제안을 한다(#1 #2 #3와 #4가 대안이라는 점을 분명히 해달라. 동등한 선호가 있을수록 더욱 제한적인 제한이 제정될 것이다).

1. DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 콜로이드 실버와 관련된 페이지 편집이 금지되어 있으며, 광범위하게 해석된다.
2. DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 콜로이드 실버 관련 기사 편집이 금지되어 있다.이 주제 금지에는 대화 페이지와 관련 토론이 포함되지 않는다.
3. DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 콜로이드 은(Coloridal silver)과 그 토크 페이지 편집이 금지되어 있다.
4. DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 콜로이드 실버 기사 편집이 금지되어 있다.이 페이지 금지는 토크 페이지를 포함하지 않는다.
5. [이 구제책이 제정되었다] DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)의 현재 블록은 원래 블록을 회피하려고 시도하면 2주로 증가한다.
6. DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 단일 계정으로 편집하는 것으로 제한된다.만약 DHawker가 다른 계정으로 편집한다면, 그는 첫 번째 사건에 대해 6개월, 두 번째 사건에 대해 1년, 그리고 그 후 무한정 위키백과에서 금지된 것으로 간주될 것이다.

나는 그것이 그것을 덮기를 바란다.Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC) 조금 바뀌었다. Ncmvocalist (대화) 17:41, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

• 모두 지원하다.Ncmvocalist (대화) 17:24, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

또 다른 것: DHawker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 콜로이드 실버의 편집이 금지되어 있지만, 그 토크 페이지는 금지되어 있다.

모든 현실에서 그는 콜로이드 은(Argyria의 한두 편집으로) 이외에는 아무것도 편집하지 않았다.- ʄoo^τ_¢ 10ia: 17:29, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

혼동을 피하기 위해 위에 당신의 제안을 추가했으므로 이에 따라 의견을 수정하십시오.Ncmvocalist (대화) 17:36, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

그가 매우 예의 바르게 행동해왔다는 사실에 근거하여, 그의 반전은 종종 같은 소재가 되돌아오는 것이 아니라, 기사에서 다른 면으로 나타나는 경우가 많다.네, 때때로 3회 되돌리기 시합으로 번질 수도 있고...드물게 4명...확실히 20명은 여기서 만들기 전에 많은 사람들이 보는 것처럼 보이지 않는다.요점은, 이런 종류의 것들은 편집자들 사이에서 해결되어야 한다는 것이다.DHawker는 종종 마스트셀과 협조적이지는 않지만 예의 바르게 행동해왔다.나는 어떤 종류의 개입이 필요한 이유를 알 수 없다. 그래서 나는 먼저 현상유지에 투표한다.

• 지원 6, 5 (이거 그가 했다.거기서부터 내려오는 것은 4, 2, 3, 1일 것이다. 하지만 나는 그 네 가지 선택에 반대한다. - ʄoooiaɲ 18_¢:06, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

나는 DHawker가 "매우 예의 바르다"는 당신의 주장과 그의 끊임없는 편집 전쟁에 대한 당신의 변명에 전적으로 동의하지 않는다.나는 또한 왜 나, 혹은 그 누구라도 이 사이트의 가장 기본적인 행동 방침에 대해 그렇게 일관된 경시심을 보이는 누군가와 함께 일하기 위해 우리의 방식에서 벗어나야 하는 지에 대해서도 명확하지 않다.하지만 우리 둘 다 입장이 분명하다고 생각하니까, 나는 이 일을 자유자재로 할 것이다.MastCell 18:29, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

현재의 토크 페이지만 읽는 것은 나에게 충분한 여정이었다.휴! 거기서 가장 인상적인 것은 만약 당신이 DHawker의 코멘트를 모두 빼냈다면, 결과는 크게 다르지 않을 것이라는 것이다.그들은 또한 불필요하게 토론을 개인화하고(단 한 사람만이 아니라, 나는 너를 매파적이지 않게 보고 있다) 음모론에 빠져든다.OTOH, 그들은 정당한 우려를 제기하지만, 이것들은 주로 토론과 타협의 정신을 가지고 있는 다른 편집자들에 의해 다루어져 왔다.기사 편집은 특히 최근의 편집에 더 큰 관심사다.편집 전쟁은 3RR이 뚫리기 훨씬 전에 일어나며, 그것은 당신 자신의 개인 버전이 반영되어야 한다는 결정에서 시작된다.결국, 나는 DHawker의 기여가 도움이 되지 않았다고 말하고 싶다.그들만이 "균형"을 옹호했다면, 나는 그들을 폐쇄하는 것에 대해 걱정했을 것이다. 하지만 두 가지 "측면"에 대해 다른 합리적인 목소리가 있다.그리고 물론 블록을 지나 편집하는 것은 금지 구역이며 더 이상의 혼란을 야기할 의도를 나타낸다.자:

• 3번, 5번, 6번 방망이를 바로 받쳐라.두번째 선택으로 4명이지만, 이것으로 인해 토크 페이지에서의 전투가 끝나지는 않을 것이다.1, 2 페이지 금지를 어떻게 처리하는지 보고 싶다.나는 또한 그들이 생산적인 편집자가 될 수 있다는 것을 보여준다면 다른 관련 기사들을 편집하고 가능한 항소를 위해 돌아올 수 있는 시간을 주도록 제안하고 싶다.Framanax (대화) 21:00, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

마침내 도끼가 떨어지기 전에 이것을 고려하십시오.마스트셀은 내가 '특수 프로모터'라고 계속 주장하고 있다.그 주장은 아마도 여기서 의사결정을 하는 것에 착색하고 있을 것이다.나는 마스트셀이 지난 12개월 동안 소위 승진이라는 것의 예를 실제로 제공하도록 도전한다.만약 그에게 증거가 없다면 그의 모든 제출에 대해 의문을 제기해야 한다.DHawker (대화) 23:56, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

"특정 프로모터" 용어에 대한 당신의 우려는 보증된다.욕설과 편집 내용을 복습할 때 라벨이 항상 내용을 기술하는 것은 아니라는 점을 명심했다.하지만 내가 발견한 것은 "POV 푸싱 지원"이라는 진부한 문구로 가장 잘 설명될 것이다.아마도 당신의 의도는 아닐지 모르지만, 당신은 사물을 단지 조금 더 최신의 관점에 유리하도록 바꾸려고 고집한다.나는 대체 견해가 적절히 논의되고 기사에 표현되고 있는지를 확인하는 데 매우 신경을 썼다.그것은 이미 당신보다 덜 대립적인 편집자들에 의해 행해지고 있다.내가 본 한 가지 큰 오류는 당신이 이온 은과 콜로이드 은을 혼합한 것, 또한 국소 용량과 내부 용량의 혼합이었다.우리의 독자로 인해 쉽게 혼동될 수 있는 주제를 적절히 분리하는 것은 매우 중요하다.내 인상은 당신이 기사에서는 적절한 균형을 추구하지만, 당신은 적절한 균형이 무엇인지, 즉 "사건을 지지"하기 위해 보증된 것보다 기사에 더 많은 것을 원한다는 것을 알지 못한다는 것이다.그건 괜찮을지 모르지만, 토크 페이지에서의 당신의 공격성과 기사의 편집-전쟁은 나에게 균형을 알려준다.너 말고 다른 편집자들이 그 일을 해내고 있다.Framanax (대화) 13:15, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

• 코멘트는 또한 보고하는 사용자인 마스트셀이 자신이 토크 페이지 '오용'에 문제가 없다고 말했는데, 왜 토크 페이지 사용이 금지되는 것이 선택권인지 모르겠다. - mindo^τ_¢ keepo -iaɲ 02:40, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

  나는 이 질문이 내가 제안자로서 대답해야 할 질문이 된다고 생각한다.MastCell의 논평에 대한 나의 해석은 상당히 달랐다. 적어도 주요 기사의 혼란을 다루면 개인적으로 "대화 페이지 남용"을 용인할 준비가 되어 있다는 효과였다.그러나 같은 방법으로 다른 사용자들이 그것을 용인할 준비가 되어 있지 않다는 점을 감안할 때, 나는 불필요하게 다른 편집자들이 관련 페이지를 편집하는 것을 만류하고 싶지 않다.Ncmvocalist (대화) 03:56, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

  나는 어떤 불분명한 의견을 듣기 위해 의도적으로 이 일에 관여하지 않고 있지만, 이것을 분명히 할 것이다.처음에 나는 개인적으로 이런 종류의 주제들에 있어서 흔치 않은 이야기 페이지 남용을 참을 수 있다고 느꼈지만, 나는 그것이 아마도 다른 편집자들을 만류하고 타협이나 합의에 도움이 되지 않는 환경을 조성한다는 Ncm의 의견에 동의한다.게다가, 이 실타래를 시작한 이후 내가 본 것은 완전한 주제 금지가 정당하다는 것을 확신시켜 주었다.

  진지하게 말하는데, 어떤 특징이 없는가?컨텐츠 정책을 희생하여 의제를 추진하는 데 있어 단일 목적의 헌신이 필요한가?백과사전에 대한 그 좁은 의제를 홍보하는 것 외에 증명할 수 있는 관심의 부족?확인하라. 위키피디아를 개인 의견을 주장하기 위한 비누상자로 남용하는 것, 그리고 지속적으로 어떤 유용한 자료도 생산하지 못하는 것?확인. 편집-경고용 블록이 여러 개인가?확인. 여러 블록의 블록 탈루?확인해봐. 이건 단순한 공공 기물 파손보다 그 프로젝트에 백 배나 더 큰 피해를 주지만, 우리는 그것을 처리하는 데 백 배나 덜 효과적이야.MastCell 16:28, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나의 이전 제안의 후속으로, 아마도 당신은 내가 좌절감에서 벗어나서 그가 성장하기를 제안했던 최근의 경우를 제외하고 이 '대화 페이지 남용'의 예를 제공할 수 있을 것이다.나는 그가 편파적인 편집자라고 여러 번 불평했다.그게 학대야?DHawker (대화) 04:07, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그렇다면 아마도 당신은 당신의 좌절감을 더 효과적으로 다룰 필요가 있을 것이다 - 편집자에게 성장하라고 말하는 것은 전혀 도움이 되지 않는다."MastCell에 대해 뭐라고 떠벌리고 있니?"라는 문장으로 문장을 시작할 필요성은 어디에 있었는가? 빛은 필요한 것이다. 추가 열은 필요 없다.그리고 확실히, 편집자를 편향적이라고 부르는 것은 그 자체로 또 다른 문제다.그러나 MastCell은 대화 페이지 남용과 관련하여 암시되고 있는 것을 명시했고, 그 사례들은 슬프게도 전체 논의를 거쳐야 하는 경향이 있다. 단발성 논평으로 간주하는 것만큼 쉽게 볼 수 있는 것은 아니다.Ncmvocalist (대화) 04:43, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 이것을 참고할 것이다.내가 현재 토크 페이지 전체를 읽었는데, DHWker는 안 돼, 넌 선을 넘었어.당신은 편집의 내용보다는 편집자의 동기에 의문을 제기한다.당신만의 믿을 만한 출처를 찾기 보다는 기관 전체의 동기에 의문을 제기하는 겁니다. 그것은 단지 여기에 있는 것이 아닙니다만, 우리가 현 상태를 고수할 필요가 있기 때문이 아니라, 우리가 기둥을 버리면 늪에 빠지기 때문이지요.나는 Ncm가 보여준 것보다 더 많은 예를 들 수 있을 것 같은데, 어쩌면 내일 그것을 시도해 볼지도 모른다.그 토크 페이지는 긴 시간 동안 고군분투한다.일단은 여기서 타협점을 찾으라는 제안을 하고 싶소.Framanax (대화) 12:41, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

• 구제 5에 대한 지원 1회, 블록 회피에 대해 일주일 더 차단, 편집과 대화를 원하면 IP를 이용하지 않고 채널로 통할 수 있다. --골베즈 (대화) 04:21, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)
  • 고마워만약 그가 합리적인 요청을 하고, 더 이상 그의 차단을 회피하지 않는다면, 우리는 그의 토크 페이지로부터 별도의 섹션을 건너뛸 것이다.Ncmvocalist (대화) 04:25, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

보관 후 추가됨

내가 이 문제에 대해 명확하게 좀 말해줄 수 있을까?오늘 나의 블록이 끝났을 때 나는 제안된 수정안에 대해 콜로이드 실버 토크 페이지에 코멘트를 할 수 있다는 것을 알았다.(내 생각에 상당히 직선적인 전방 보정.나는 그것에 서명했고 차단을 피하려고 하지 않았다.마스트셀은 토크 페이지에서 나의 코멘트를 지우고 내가 '주제가 금지된 사용자'라고 말했다.만약 내가 정말 '주제가 금지된' 것이라면 나는 그 논평조차 할 수 없었을 것이라고 생각했다.DHawker (대화) 07:15, 2009년 9월 18일 (UTC)

서부 오스트레일리아의 시크릿 하버

이 기사와 해당 토크 페이지에 도착한 신입 POV 푸셔(많은 사람 중 최신)가 토크 페이지 편집을 없애고 3RR을 위반할 뻔 했다.1시간도 안 되는 이곳에서 그의 행동과 의사소통에 대한 일반적인 기준은 기껏해야 불만족스러웠다.내가 아파서 (위독감에 걸려서) 잘 건데, 누가 좀 봐줄래?오딘차오스 16:52, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

• 문제의 편집자는 의사인 줄 알았다.그에게 도움을 청하는 게 어때?Drmies (토크) 2009년 9월 11일 16:32, (UTC)

그가 덧붙이는 정보는 좋은 것 같지만 중성적으로 쓰는 것은 그다지 서툴다.--Patton123 (대화) 17:09, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

• 나는 그가 오딘차오스의 토크 페이지 댓글을 삭제한 것에 대해 그의 토크 페이지에 최종 경고를 남겼다.완전히 선을 벗어난 행동. --Hammersoft (대화) 17:11, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

24시간 동안 차단됨.–Juliancolton 17:19, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

• 그는 현재 자신의 토크 페이지에 두 개의 차단되지 않은 요청이 있다. --Hammersoft (대화) 17:33, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

본질적으로 무슨 일이 일어났는지(그리고 왜 내가 그에게 단순히 경고하는 것 이상의 것에 관여할 수 없었는지)는 그 페이지는 틀림없이 교외를 책임지고 있는 개발 회사의 직원이 쓴 엉터리 POV 난장판이라는 것이었다.나는 2009년 9월 4일에 기사의 대부분을 삭제했다.현재의 편집기와 실질적으로 유사한 단어 사용을 가진 IP가 나를 되돌렸고 더 많은 순항력으로 추가되었다.그 후 나는 퍼스 교외에 관한 다른 C급 이상 기사의 형식(일부 비트는 세부사항이 변경된 기사에서 직접 붙여넣은 것)을 폭넓게 바탕으로 5일에 기사를 다시 썼다.이것은 다른 편집자들에 의해 확장될 수 있는 능력을 가진 "베어 본즈" 형식인데, 그래서 내가 왜 그것에 정착했는가. (발가, 웨스턴 오스트레일리아도 내가 POV 상황을 유사하게 정리한 곳이고, 선의의 편집자들이 나의 노력을 바탕으로 구축한 곳)

이 새로운 계정이 만들어지기 전까지 모든 것이 괜찮았다. 그리고 큰 소리로 나를 토크 페이지와 메인 페이지의 요약을 편집하고 되돌리기 시작했다.재미있는 것은 그가 노름 드 플룸을 사용하고 있지 않는 한, 서부 오스트레일리아에는 무디라는 GP가 없다는 것과 "혼.SC.D"는 명예 박사학위(즉 의학분야가 아님)이다.내 추측에 따르면 그는 203. 주소와 같은 사람이고 아마도 개발 회사에서 일하지 않는다면 그들과 강한 공통점을 가지고 있을 것이다.오딘차오스 02:34, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

저작권 관련 문제

{{adminhelp}}} 편집자로부터 이 코멘트를 받아 저작권 영역에서 편집하지 않기 때문에 여기로 이동하십시오.어떤 조언이라도 고맙게 생각한다. Skomorokh 22:42, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

안녕, 빠른 답변 고마워.사용자:사예달람76번길내 생각에 그 남자는 좋은 뜻인 것 같아. 하지만 저작권 진행을 이해하지 못하는 것 같아.내가 틀릴 수도 있지만, 그가 다른 웹사이트에서 직접 그의 소스 정보를 많이 복사하는 것 같다.나는 그가 그 페이지들의 저자가 될 수 있다고 생각하지만, 그는 그렇게 주장하거나 그의 출처를 인용하려고 노력하지 않는다.나는 보통 빠른 구글 검색에서 복사된 대부분의 텍스트(새로 만든 위키 페이지, 아직 다른 사이트로 미러링되지 않은 페이지)를 찾을 수 있다.예를 들어 Hazars Sayed Hashimfer Dastegir 페이지를 참조하십시오.나는 그 남자에게 징벌적인 행동을 하려는 것이 아니라, 그의 피실험자들은 그럴 가능성이 있다고 생각하지만, 그는 실제로 기사를 쓸 필요가 있다.내가 이 일에 도가 지나치면 말해줘.고마워!버디23리 (토크) 22:25, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

징벌적인 것은 아니지만, 그는 무기한 차단당했다.어제 몇 명의 관리자들이 그에게 메모를 남겼다.그의 반응은 지금 고갈된 JAMIA HASHIMPER ,BIJAPUR에서 오늘 와서 다시 하는 것이었다.계속하려면 이 문제를 해결해야 한다고 생각한다. --Moonedgirl 15:13, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

조사해줘서 고마워, 문라이드걸 Skomorokh 16:52, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사용자:위키레더41

Wikireader41 (토크 · 기여)은 밴쿠버 선과 같은 뉴스 출처의 자료를 밀어내고 표절하는 미묘한 POV에 관여하고 있으며 2009년 9월 의회 합동회의의 버락 오바마 연설에 그것을 첨가하고 있다.그는 최근에 이 자료를 연설문[49]에 베꼈다.그것은 거의 말 그대로 밴쿠버 선에 실린 뉴스 기사의 첫 단락을 사실상 복제한 것이다.[50] 나는 토크 페이지를 이용하여 그 자료를 자기 말로 써야 하며 우리의 NPOV 정책을 고수해야 한다고 그에게 설명하였다.나는 그 자료를 삭제하고 토크 페이지에서 이유를 설명했다[52] 그 후 위키리더41은 같은 표절 자료를 다시 기사에 추가하면서 되돌렸다.[53] 그리고 이것은 계속된다.사용자는 NPOV나 위키백과의 내용을 쓰는 방법을 이해하지 못하는 것 같다.여기 좀 도와주시겠습니까?그의 편집 이력과 블록 로그를 보면, 사용자가 여기서 POV 문제를 제기한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.비리다타스 (토크) 02:16, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

이 편집자가 날 속이고 있어우리가 콘텐츠 분쟁이 있다는 것은 명백하다.그는 WP가 무엇이 되어야 하는지에 대해 토론이나 추론, 의견 일치와 매우 매혹적인 독창적인 아이디어를 얻으려 하지 않는다. 우리는 이 기사에 대한 약간의 도움이 필요하다.위키리더41 (대화) 02:22, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그것은 나에게 거짓 고발을 하는 것처럼 보이지 않는다; 그것은 직접 복사하는 것처럼 보인다.한 단락에 불과하더라도 이런 자료를 추가하는 것은 허용되지 않는다.— 가비아 임머 (대화) 02:26, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

위키리더41은 밴쿠버 태양에 소싱된 다음과 같은 글을 썼다.

오바마 대통령은 미국의 의료제도 개혁안을 저지하기 위해 '스캐어 전술'을 구사하고 있다고 비난하고, 당파적 정체로 입법이 위협받을 경우 백악관과 정치적 싸움을 벌일 것을 의회에 경고했다.

셸던 앨버츠는 밴쿠버 태양에서 다음과 같이 썼다.

버락 오바마 미국 대통령은 19일 밤(현지시간) 자신의 전면적인 건강보험 개혁안을 저지하기 위해 '스카레 전술'을 구사하고 있다고 비난하며 당파적 정체로 인해 미국인에게 거의 보편적인 의료혜택을 제공하는 법안이 위협받을 경우 백악관과 정치적 싸움에 대비할 것을 의회에 경고했다.

강조된 단어는 위키리더41이 기사에 추가한 것으로 밴쿠버 선의 쉘든 알베르츠에 속한다.나는 사용자에게 그 자료를 자신의 말로 쓰라고 했고, 다른 작가의 말을 도용하지 말라고 부탁했다.나는 또한 사용자에게 우리의 정책과 가이드라인에 부합되게 잠시 시간을 내어 자료를 작성해 줄 것을 요청했다.현재까지 그는 나의 거듭된 요구에 대해 전혀 이해를 보이지 않는다.비리다타스 (토크) 02:30, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 그것이 말해진 것이고 쓰여진 방식이 태양에 쓰여진 방식과 실질적으로 다르다고 생각한다. 그것을 제거할 이유는 없다. 누군가가 동의하지 않고 그것을 다시 쓰기를 원한다면 나는 문제가 없다.Viriditas는 반복적으로 RS에서 유효한 인용 정보를 개선하지 않고 제거하고 그렇게 하기 위한 빈약한 변명을 찾고 있다.관리자들이 어떻게 생각하는지 봅시다.위키리더41 (대화) 02:56, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

너의 버전은 전혀 다른 것이 아니다.그 강조된 단어들은 당신이 아니라 밴쿠버 선의 쉘든 알베르츠가 한 말이다.우리는 뉴스 출처로부터 단어를 훔쳐서 사실로 묘사하지 않는다. 그것이 당신이 한 일이다.당신이 기사를 계속 수정하는 것은 매우 문제가 많고 우리의 가장 중요한 정책과 지침을 위반한다.너는 이 문제를 이해하지 못하는 것 같으니, 나는 내가 다시 기사에서 너의 모든 편집 내용을 삭제하기 전에 누군가 너에게 설명해 주었으면 좋겠어.비리디타스 (토크) 03:07, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

어떤 것도 사실로 묘사되지 않는다.그것은 실질적으로 다르다.다른 말로 바꾸면 삭제할 이유가 없어나는 누군가가 너에게 이것을 설명할 수 있기를 바란다. '내 모든 편집사항'을 삭제하겠다고 협박하지 마라.멀리 가지 못할 거야나는 우리가 이것에 대한 관리자 의견을 기다리고 우리 둘 다 그것에 귀기울일 것을 제안한다.좋은 하루 되세요.위키리더41 (대화) 03:14, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

여기 관리자의 의견이 있다: 복사된 자료에서 복사한 말 그대로 복사한 자료를 삽입하는 것은 잘못된 것이다.편집자가 표절된 자료를 삭제할 때 반복적으로 재삽입하는 것은 잘못이고, 카피비오 우려를 불순한 이유로 부르는 것은 잘못이다.가능한 선입견에 대한 의견 있는 출처 논의에서 나온 자료를 합의 없이 삽입하는 것은 잘못된 것이다.어떤 것이 인용되기 때문에 그것이 기사에 포함되어야 하는지 아닌지에 대해 논의할 필요가 없다고 보는 것도 잘못된 생각이다.Wikireader41: wp 정책에 따라 편집하지 않았다는 것을 깨달아야 한다.정책 편집에 대해 자세히 알아보기 - 제안 및 비판에 대한 대응 능력 향상·마우누스·마우너스·03:30, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

밴쿠버 선의 셸든 알버트스의 연설을 '특수이익에 대한 공격'이라고 표절한 의견을 표절하셨고, 알버트스를 탓하지 않고 사실이라고 진술하셨는데, 이 부분은 연설에 대한 의견이 아니라 연설 논의에 전념하는 부분이라고 하셨잖아요.오바마가 진정으로 한 말은 다음과 같다. "특수 이익단체들이 현재의 상황을 정확히 유지하기 위해 똑 같은 낡은 전술을 사용하는 동안 나는 가만히 있지 않을 것이다.만약 당신이 이 계획에 있는 것을 잘못 전달한다면, 우리는 당신을 불러낼 것이다."[54] 그 후말 연설에서, 그는 말했다. "하지만 우리가 지난 몇 달 동안 또한 본 것은 많은 미국인들이 그들 자신의 정부에 대해 가지고 있는 경멸을 강하게 하는 당파적인 광경이다.정직한 토론 대신 공포 전술이 눈에 띄었다."[55] 그래서 우리는 알버트가 문맥에서 여러 인용구를 취했고 연설에 의해 직접적으로 지지되지 않는 결론에 도달했다는 것을 알 수 있다.이것을 연설문 맥락에서 중립적인 방식으로 기술하는 출처를 자유롭게 찾아내어 당신 자신의 말로 쓸 수 있지만, 다른 작가의 말을 훔쳐서 사실이라고 진술하는 것은 용납될 수 없다.비리디타스 (토크) 03:22, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그래, 그건 꽤 명백한 표절 사례로 보여.복사한 구절을 인용 부호로 묶어서 출처에 대한 적절한 인용문을 제공하거나 처음부터 직접 작성하십시오.TenOfAllTraes(대화) 03:28, 2009년 9월 11일(UTC)

내가 보기엔 그냥 끼어드는 것이 정곡을 찌르는 것처럼 보인다.말 바꾸기가 필요하다.— 신경^(talk) 03:43, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그래서 우리가 이것이 곧은 카피오라고 동의한 것처럼 보이는데, 이제 어떻게 되는 겁니까?Alan16 (대화) 16:20, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

• 단지 호기심에서, 당신들이 주장하는 "카피오"가 아닌 것은 무엇인가?나는 특별히 누구를 옹호하는 것은 아니지만, 이 모든 것이 좀 이상해 보인다.밴쿠버 선에서 인용한 성명에서 특별히 독특한 것은 없다(예를 들어 단락에서 표현된 새로운 아이디어가 보이지 않는다, 단순히 일어난 일에 대해 보고하는 것이다).따라서, 나는 여기서 표현되는 표준에 따르면 위키피디아의 99% 이상이 어떤 식으로든 저작권 위반으로 간주될 것 같기 때문에 실제 문제가 무엇인지 궁금하다.
  — V = I * R (Ω과 대화) 16:41, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사용자 차단 가능 여부:Rcool35의 IP?

그는 블록을 회피하고 동적 IP를 사용하여 우리가 너무 많아서 차단할 수 없다는 것을 보여줌으로써 우리를 조롱하고 있다.나는 그가 편집한 기사에 76이나 99로 시작하는 IP에 의한 편집을 끊임없이 롤백하기 때문에 이것을 알고 있다.Roc-A-Fella Records, Roc Nation, Nas, Wisin & Yandel은 그가 항상 편집하는 기사의 예들이다.그는 또한 Street's Deciple과 Hip Hop is Dead and Stillmatic에서 0.5점 차로 평점을 뒤엎으며 정보를 조작하고 앨범 평점을 그의 취향에 맞게 더 좋게 만든다.그는 또한 배니티 레이블의 설립자를 그들의 예명으로부터 실명으로 바꾸는데, 굿 뮤직이 그의 가장 최근의 예시인데, 그는 또한 과거에 영 머니 엔터테인먼트와 사막 스톰 레코드에 이런 일을 한 적이 있다.그는 또한 사소한 일에도 대부분의 사람들을 화나게 하는 일을 하고 있다.해당 레코드 레이블이 한 세 장르만 서비스해도 특정 레코드 레이블의 장르를 '다양한'으로 바꾸고, 웹 사이트 이름을 소급 형태에서 기사와 같은 이름으로 바꾼다.

그는 또한 활동적인 세월을 그들이 활동을 시작할 때보다는 앨범을 처음 발매했을 때로 바꾼다.윈슨 & 얀델과 제이 지가 본보기가 되고 있다.그는 또한 관련 행위 부분을 공백으로 만들고, 이례적으로 작고 주제를 포착하지 못하는 콘서트의 이미지로 대체한다.사소한 것에, 그는 History라는 섹션과 "Beginnings"라는 서브섹션을 추가했다. 나는 이것이 더 큰 기사에 효과가 있다는 것을 알지만, 그는 그것을 라벨이 막 시작되거나 별로 많은 역사를 가지고 있지 않은 기사에 넣고 있다.이제 기분 상하게 할 생각은 없지만 그 사람에 대해 몇 가지 말하고 싶은 것은 마이스페이스와 Wordpress.com이 유효한 명성 출처라고 생각하고 있는데, 내가 그에게 로카펠라가 앨범을 발매한 것이 아니라고 설명했음에도 불구하고, 그는 매우 건성건성하게 대답하여, 비록 내가 흔한 크노가 있었음에도 불구하고 그가 옳고 내가 틀렸음을 암시했다.그 사실을 알아채다이 사람은 기사를 편집하면서 다른 사람이 아닌 자신에게 맞도록 편집하는 것처럼 행동하기도 한다. 더 나쁜 것은 그가 누구와도 교감하지 않고 왜 이런 편집을 하는 이유를 주지 않으며 왜 이런 편집이 더 좋은 기사를 만드는지 설명하지도 않는다는 것이다.우선, 나는 그가 Roc-A-Fella 기사를 편집한 이후 줄곧 그의 편집 내용을 되돌리고 있었고 나는 그의 '반달리즘'을 대부분 되돌렸다.그가 그것을 선의로 보이게 하는 것은 알지만, 그것은 공공 기물 파손이다.

내가 그 문제를 몇 번 꺼냈다는 것은 알지만 나는 아무런 반응이나 종결도 얻지 못했고 그가 하는 모든 일이 반복될 때 그의 편집 내용을 되돌려야 하는 것에 지쳤다. 나는 또한 우리가 그를 막을 수 없다는 사실에 화가 난다.나와 서프레셔스는 그의 편집 패터링을 내 손등에 대고 알고 있다.아마도 우리는 76과 99로 시작하는 IP를 주시하고 24시간의 임시 블록을 줄 수 있을 것이다. 왜냐하면 다음날, 그는 새로운 IP 주소를 갖게 될 것이고(여러분이 알고 있는 동적 IP를 가지고 있다), 그리고 반달들이 그것을 사용하고 있다는 것을 알 수 없게 IP를 사용할 무고한 사용자들을 위해서입니다.잘 대답해줘, 난 도움이 필요해, 난 이 일이 미복제 상태로 해결되지 않았으면 좋겠어.테일러 카라스 (대화) 07:01, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

위키피디아에서 보호를 요청하는 것을 고려해 본 적이 있는가?페이지 보호 요청?IP는 반회전된 페이지를 편집할 수 없으며, 이 경우 범위 블록보다 세미(Semi)가 더 바람직하다. -Jeremy^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:58, 2009년 9월 10일(UTC)

시도해봤자, 그냥 기다리거나 보호장치를 우회할 계정을 만들 거야테일러 카라스 (대화) 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC) 15:43

장기간의 업무 중단은 무기한 보호를 보장하며(금지된 편집자가 활성 상태를 유지하는 한), 생성된 계정은 노출과 Checkuser가 노출하기 너무 쉽다.어쨌든, 내가 말했듯이 보호가 레인지블록보다 낫다.단, 레인지 블록에 정통한 관리자가 레인지 블록의 작동 여부를 판단할 수 있도록 그가 사용한 IP를 게시할 수 있는가? -Jeremy^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:07, 2009년 9월 10일(UTC)

여기 그가 사용한 IP의 목록이 있다.그가 사용하는 IP에 대해 24시간 블록을 말하는 이유는 그가 24시간이나 하루 후 IP가 바뀌는 동적 IP를 사용하고 있기 때문에 무고한 사용자들이 계정을 만들 수 없다고 불평하는 문제를 피할 수 있기 때문이다.나는 보호에 대해 잘 모르겠어, 그가 지루해지면 효과가 있을지도 몰라, 아니면 그가 매우 끈질기면 효과가 없을지도 몰라.어쨌든, 이것에 대해 뭔가 조치를 취하길 바래. --Taylor Karras (토크) 23:09, 2009년 9월 10일 (UTC)

동적인 경우, 단일 IP 주소의 블록은 비효율적이며, 범위 블록(무고한 사용자를 공격할 가능성이 높은 경우) 또는 반프로텍션(등록을 강요하는 경우)만 작동한다.WP로 이동:RPP와 보호를 요청하기 시작한다. 우리가 말하는 범위들에 대해 묻고 있다.-제레미^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:40, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

WP 공략을 시작하는 것이 좋다.RPP, 테일러한 가지 예외로 범위가 너무 바빠 차단할 수 없고, 우리가 차단할 수 있는 것도 오래 차단할 수 없다. -제레미^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:19, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

좋아, 내가 연락해서 그들이 몇몇 기사들을 보호해 줄 수 있지만 그가 최근에 파괴적인 활동을 하지 않아서 파손된 모든 기사들은 보호해 줄 수는 없어.내가 할 수 있는 건 당분간 그의 편집 내용을 계속 되돌리는 것뿐인가 봐.테일러 카라스 (대화) 05:42, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

만약 그가 반복해서 돌아온다면, 다시 보호를 요청하라.WP에 기사가 뜨는 것을 막는 것은 아무것도 없다.RPP는 두 번 이상이다.-제레미 19:40, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

잔다르

샨다르의 위키백과 논쟁:이름 지정 충돌(이전에는 여기에 보고되었으며 현재 위키백과에 보관됨:관리자들의 _noticeboard/IncidentArchiv561#Xandar)가 주요 명명 규칙 페이지로 넘어가면서 그는 다른 분쟁에서 자신의 입장을 약화시킨다고 느끼는 합의된 변화를 반복적으로 되돌리고 있다.

잔다르는 이제 3일 남짓 동안 9번의 반전을 수행했다.마지막 4건은 공개적이고 폐쇄적인 3RR 위반 사례일 것이다. 단, 이 시리즈의 첫 번째 시리즈는, 내가 재촉한 대로, 타협을 시도한 것이었다는 점을 제외하면 말이다.다른 사람들에 의해 거부된 그 타협은 그가 다시 전쟁을 편집하기 위해 돌아왔다.

23:21, 2009년 9월 7일 (→일반 원칙: 다른 논쟁에 잘못된 영향을 미치기 위해 이 정책에 대한 중요한 변경사항 복원 [56]

10:29, 2009년 9월 7일 (→일반 원칙: 합의 없이 삭제된 예외에 대한 중요 문구를 복원) [57]

23:08, 2009년 9월 7일 (→개요: 이 페이지에 대한 합의에 의해 거부된 관행을 암시하는 비동의 문장 제거) [58]

2009년 9월 9일, 11:06, (→가장 쉽게 인정받는 이름 사용: 합의 없이 코티스키가 삭제한 주요 표현을 다시 복원) [59]

20:09, 2009년 9월 9일 (→공통 이름 사용: 합의되지 않은 정책 변경 복원) [60]

01:16, 2009년 9월 10일 (→개요: 좋아. 이런 맥락에서 해보자.)[61]

16:27, 2009년 9월 10일 (복원된 발기부전 원칙, 변화에 대한 합의와 함께 다시 제거)[62]

20:34, 2009년 9월 10일 (합의 없이 정책의 중요한 부분을 다시 삭제) [63]

00:34, 2009년 9월 11일 (이 원칙, PMA를 삭제하는 것에 대한 합의는 없다.) [64]

WT의 편집자:NC는 최근 도입부 문구를 전면 개편해 사실상 어느 정도 성과를 거두고 있으며, 대부분 연대적인 분위기를 유지하고 있다.이는 잔다르의 플라이인 플라이 아웃 반전으로 거듭되고 있다.이 문제에 대한 도움을 좀 받을 수 있을까?

헤스페리안 01:25, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

내 생각에 이것은 24시간 동안 회전의 수가 3을 초과하든 말든 간에, 이것은 전쟁과 차단 가능한 편집이다.하지만, 나는 근본적인 논쟁에서 내 의견을 말해왔기 때문에 경고나 다른 제재를 할 만큼 편견이 없다고 생각하지 않을 것이다.카라낙스 (대화) 01:32, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

불과 몇 주 전만 해도 네이밍 협약 정책 토크 페이지에 대한 여론조사에서 재확인된 관련 오랜 정책에는 합의된 변화가 없다.위키백과에 관한 관련 편집 분쟁과 같이:분쟁 안내 페이지를 명명하면서, 특정 편집자 집단은 합의에 반하여 오랜 지침을 일방적으로 변경하기로 결정하여, 자기 식별 주체에 대한 규약을 뒤집었다.이 편집자들은 PMANDerson, Kotniski, Philip B Sheerer 등을 포함했다.그들 중 다수는 영향을 받은 명명 분쟁에 연루되었다.네이밍 분쟁에서 그들이 변경한 내용에 대해 상당한 반대가 있었고, 그 변경은 되돌렸다.그러나 그 단체는 협상과 합의 도출의 확립된 과정을 따르기를 거부했지만, 계속하여 편집전에서 그 지침에 대한 합의되지 않은 실질적인 변경을 복원했다.그들은 또한 포럼 쇼핑을 하고, 모든 참가자들에게 알리지 않고 투표를 하고, 그들을 반대하는 사람들에게 야만적이고 괴롭히는 언어를 사용했다.그들이 시작한 편집 전쟁은 그 페이지를 지금까지 두 번이나 잠그는 결과를 낳았다.

WPNaming 충돌을 변경하고자 하는 사람들은 WP:Naming Convention과의 모순을 그들이 원하는 실질적인 변경을 하는 주된 이유로 들었다.그러나 WP:Naming 규약이 특히 그러한 주장을 부인한다는 점이 그들에게 지적되었다.

놀랍게도, PMANDerson과 그의 동맹국들이 정책 페이지에서 삭제하기를 원하는 것을 결정한 것은 이름 변경에 대한 그들의 주장을 좌절시키는 WP:Naming 협약의 바로 그 부분이다.이는 가이드라인 페이지에서 사용된 것과 동일한 방법으로 "다른 승인된 위키백과 명명 규칙이 다르게 나타내는 경우는 제외한다"라는 논란의 여지가 있고 중요한 구절을 삭제했다." 공동체의 합의 없이 이 정책을 변경해서는 안 된다는 것이 그들에게 설명되었음에도 불구하고, 그들은 반복적이고 비환경적으로 해 왔다.대부분의 범죄자들은 의견 일치를 보려는 시도를 거부했고, 그들이 원하는 대로 될 것 같은 헥터, 괴롭힘 어조, 그리고 위협적인 편집 전쟁 정책을 채택했다.이것은 한국에서 또 다른 반대자들을 억압하기 위한 시도로 제기되는 이 문제로 절정을 이루었다.

위키백과 정책과 지침은 안정성이 있어야 하며, 특정 집단이 원하는 것에 따라 달라져서는 안 된다.이러한 정책의 변경은 향상된 수준의 합의와 지역사회 차원의 지원이 필요하다.정책 WP:GUIDE는 내용 변경사항에서 다음을 명확히 기술한다.

토크 페이지 토론은 일반적으로 정책에 대한 실질적인 변경에 선행하지만 반드시 선행되지는 않는다.이의가 없거나 논의 결과 변경에 대한 합의가 있는 것으로 나타난 경우 변경이 이루어질 수 있다.정책 및 지침 페이지의 대담한 편집자는 WP:1RR 또는 WP:0RR 표준을 따를 것을 강력히 권장한다.형식, 문법 및 명확성을 개선하기 위한 사소한 편집은 언제든지 할 수 있다.

논의 결과가 불분명할 경우 제안 과정과 같이 관리자 또는 다른 독립 편집자가 평가해야 한다.주요 변경사항은 지역사회에 전반적으로 공개되어야 한다. 제안 과정과 유사한 발표가 적절할 수 있다.

활발한 토론에서 자신의 주장을 뒷받침하는 정책을 편집하는 것은 시스템을 게임하는 것으로 보일 수 있다. 특히 당신이 편집을 할 때 논쟁에 대한 당신의 관여를 밝히지 않는 경우.

나는 PMANDerson, Kotniski와 이 그룹의 다른 회원들은 정책의 변화와 관련하여 이러한 기준의 정신과 서한을 어겼다고 믿는다.그들은 WP:1RR을 사용하지 않고, 변화에 대한 공감대를 얻고 더 넓은 공동체를 참여시키는 대신에 편집-경고하고 앞으로 나아가고 있는 그들의 길을 괴롭혔으며, 그들은 다양한 명명 분쟁에 영향을 미치는 한 정책을 다른 정책으로 바꾸면서 이 시스템을 게임화하는 것처럼 보인다.관련 정책의 안정적인 형태가 보존되어야 하며, 중요한 정책변화가 이루어지기 전에 모든 이해당사자와 관련된 사안의 적절한 조율이 이루어져야 한다고 생각한다.잔다르 02:14, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

위의 요약본은 "WP에 대한 광범위한 합의 변경:NC는 사실 결정적인 형량을 없애기 위한 음모의 일부여서 내가 이미 어떤 식으로든 지고 있다는 관계없는 주장을 놓치게 된다.따라서 공모자들을 거듭 회유하는 것은 좋은 일이고, 앞으로도 그럴 생각이라고 말했다.헤스페리안 02:27, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

실질적인 문제는 Wikipedia_talk에서 논의된다.이름 지정_conventions#예외, 코멘트를 환영한다.2009년 9월 11일(UTC) PMAnderson 01:44

잔다르가 편집한 전쟁도 괜찮다. 왜냐하면 그는 반달리즘을 정책 페이지로 되돌리고 있기 때문이다."나는 잔다르가 자신의 행동을 전적으로 지지하고 그것을 계속하려고 한다고 가정해도 무방하다고 생각한다.헤스페리안 02:09, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

당신은 정책에 대한 실질적인 비협조적인 변화를 편집-전쟁함으로써 위키백과 정책을 위반하는 사람들이다.잔다르 02:14, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

자, 여러분: "나는 동의하지 않는다; 그러므로 공감대가 없다; 그러므로 그것은 공공 기물 파손이다; 그러므로 나는 내가 원하는 만큼 되돌릴 수 있다"는 오래된 속임수들이 있다.지금 그걸 몇 번이나 들으셨어요?

이 일에 대해 어떤 조치를 취할 사람인가, 아니면 그냥 허풍을 떨며 위키피디아를 움직여야 할까?Xandar의 사용자 하위 공간에 규칙을 명명하시겠습니까?

헤스페리안

이것은 이 집단이 행하는 일종의 "분열"의 전형이다.지브스와 잘못된 표현.헤스페리안 자신이 내가 한 변화를 제안했다.지금 그는 내가 그것을 만들었다고 신고하고 있다.우리에게 필요한 것은 이 중요한 정책 성명이 작은 집단에 의해 긴급히 제거된 까닭이다.잔다르 02:30, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 사람들에게 잔다르 지위의 장점을 가지고 논쟁하는 데 말려들지 말 것을 촉구한다.이 문제는 행동의 하나로서, 현재 토론 페이지에서 활동 중인 다른 모든 편집자들 사이의 합의에 전적으로 반대하여, 3일 동안 9번 되돌아간다.헤스페리안 02:39, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

이 문제는 분명히 행동의 하나로서, 그것은 비협조적인 변경을 하는 전술로 정책에 상당한 변화를 주고, 그리고 계속해서 그들의 새로운 정책으로 되돌아감으로써 그들을 통과시키려 하는 편집자들로 구성된 태그팀이다.이는 그러한 변화에는 폭넓은 논쟁과 합의가 필요하다는 분명한 위키백과 원칙에 어긋난다.그리고 나서 그들은 자신을 막으려는 누군가를 학대하고 금지에 대한 호소로 위협하려 한다."한 번 되돌리고 토론"을 깨는 사람들은 이러한 변화를 추진하는 사람들이다.잔다르 02:53, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

순서는 다음과 같다.토론, 편집하기 위한 합의, 편집하기 위한 편집, Xandar가 컨센서스를 거부함, 편집하기 위한 합의, 편집하기 위한 합의, 편집하기 위한 합의, 편집하기 위한 합의, 편집하기 위한 합의, Xandar가 컨센서스를 거부함, 편집하기 위한 합의, 편집하기 위한 합의, Xandar가 컨센서스를 거부함, 더 많은 토론이 존재함을 거부함; 합의s 편집, 편집, Xandar 되돌리기, 컨센서스 거부, 더 많은 토론, 편집, 편집, Xandar 되돌리기, 더 많은 토론, 편집, 편집, 컨센서스 거부, 더 많은 토론, 편집, Xandar 되돌리기, 더 많은 컨센서스, 더 많은 토론, 편집, 더 많은 컨센서스 거부, XAndar는 되돌리고, 합의의 존재를 부정한다.

그 결과: 잔다르는 토론 페이지에서 현재 활동하고 있는 다른 모든 편집자들 사이의 합의에 전적으로 반대하여 3일 동안 9번의 재회전을 했다.

헤스페리안 02:58, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

만약 내가 그 문제에 더 많은 시간을 할애할 수 있다면 나는 Xandar의 이름 지정 정책을 보호하기 위한 그의 노력을 돕게 될 것이다.나는 오래 서 있는 정책을 바꾸려는 노력은 좋지 않다고 생각한다.잔다르만 논리에 점잖은 논리가 있으니 막히지 않았으면 좋겠다.어쩌면 우리는 3RR 규칙을 위키백과의 개선 이외의 의제로 가끔 있는 늑대 무리들을 막아내도록 남겨진 건전한 논리로 편집자들을 면제해 주는 것으로 바꿔야 할지도 모른다.낸시 헤이즈 ^talk 03:00, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사실, 정책에는 변화가 없다; 잔다르는 정책을 거스르는 지침을 허용하는 새로운 언어를 도입하려고 시도하고 있다.위의 링크를 참조하십시오.

안녕, 낸시.잔다르로부터 다음과 같은 메시지를 받았구나.

나는 다시 한번 그들의 Naming convention 정책에 대한 중대한 변화가 Naming conflict 페이지에 대한 공격을 뒷받침하는 것에 대해 반대하는 것에 대해 그 집단으로부터 표적이 되고 있다.

나는 위키피디아에서 "편집 전쟁"으로 보고받았다.관리자_공지판/사고 #Xandar.이것은 내가 합의 없이 정책을 바꾸는 것을 멈추는 것을 막기 위한 괴롭힘 정책의 일부다.다시 지원이 필요할 수도 있어

누군가가 WP에 대한 우리의 정책을 그에게 상기시켜 주어야 한다.Campause; 그들은 전에 그에게 언급된 적이 있다; 하지만, 이번에는, 그가 단지 이런 스타일의 두 편집자와 접촉한 적이 있다 - 지금까지.PMAnderson 03:34, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

이것은 들여다보는 사람들에게는 재미있는 상황이다; 최악은 주전자를 검은색으로 부르는 냄비일 뿐이고 기껏해야 잔다르는 자신의 입장을 제외한 모든 입장을 무시하기로 결심한 극소수의 편집자들의 관심을 끈 오랜 정책의 본문을 지지하고 있다.주제 기사에 참여한 적이 있다는 점에 유의해야겠지만, 매일매일 관심을 기울일 시간이 없다.이러한 편집자들에 의해 잔다르에 대항하여 사용되어 온 하이징크의 횟수와 다른 방식을 고려할 때, 나는 편집자의 하위집단에 의한 괴롭힘이라고 딱지를 붙이는 것이 상당히 실현 가능하다고 생각한다.그들은 자신의 행동을 방해할 모든 정책을 무시하지만, 그런 다음 잰더에게 가장 높은 기준을 시행하자고 제안한다.나는 이 행동을 지금 몇 주째 계속되고 있는 괴롭힘의 질과 더 같은 것으로 본다. --RiderStorm 03:30, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

응? 난 "주제 기사"가 뭔지도 몰라; 아마도 나는 그것을 편집하지 않았을 거야.그리고 내가 아는 한 나는 위키피디아를 편집하지 않았다.이름 지정 충돌 또는 위키백과 대화:이 논쟁은 언제 끝날지 모르는 분쟁이다.잔다르는 이 논쟁에서 9번의 반전을 가지고 있다; 나는 하나를 가지고 있다.위에 있는 진흙을 증명해 보라고 권한다.그거 아니면 철수.헤스페리안 03:35, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

스톰라이더는 중립적인 언볼루션 파티와는 거리가 멀다.자세한 내용은 아래 절을 참조하십시오.Knepflerle (대화) 15:03, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

Storm Rider는 같은 메시지의 다른 수신인이다.패혈성PMAnderson 03:38, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

나는 여기서 잔다르와 동의한다; 항상 WP에 예외가 있다는 것은 사실이다.CN, 그리고 Born2cycle을 제외하고, 존재해야 한다는 합의가 있다.그 효과에 대한 몇 가지 문구가 필요해 보인다.— Arthur Rubin (대화) 06:28, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

그것이 다시 쓰기의 전체 요점이다: 일반 규약이 특정 규약이 따라야 하거나 저주 받아야 하는 구속력 있는 규칙 집합이 아니라는 사실을 보다 정확하게 반영하는 것이다.잔다르를 설득하려는 나의 헛된 시도를 보라.하지만 잔다르의 의견이 그의 편집 전쟁을 정당화한다고 생각하지 않는 한 이 모든 것은 무관하다.헤스페리안 12:23, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

첫째, 공시:나는 WP:Naming 분쟁의 논의에는 관여하고 있지만 [[WP:Name]의 토론이나 편집전쟁에는 관여하지 않는다.

여기엔 두개의 분리된 문제가 있다...1) 이슈에서의 변화는 좋은 정책인가 나쁜 정책인가정책 토크 페이지, RFC, VPP 게시물 등을 통해 해결되어야 한다.여기서는 아니다.2) 한 편집자가 "오랜 스탠딩 컨센서스"라는 명목의 정책 페이지로의 변경을 반복해서 되돌릴 수 있을까?만약 이것에 대한 대답이 예스라면, 잰더는 아무 잘못도 하지 않았다.만약 이것에 대한 대답이 '아니오'라면, 그는 뭔가 잘못한 것이다.블루보어 (토크) 14:35, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

추가 행동 문제

잔다르의 WP 편집 워링:NC만이 문제행동이 아니다.지금까지 논의와 관련하여 WP:NCON은 다음과 같이 처리했다.

• 캠페인 ([66], 8월 4일, 16일/17일, 8월 20일 참조) - "나는 나의 세 번의 반전을 이용했으니까, 너도 할 수 있어, 아니면 다른 누군가가 나에게 페이지를 마지막 버전으로 되돌릴 수 있어")
• 공공 기물 파손에 대한 잘못된 주장([67] [68])
• 노골적인 거짓말을 되풀이하는 것(Xandar:"당신 자신이 가톨릭 교회 논쟁에 영향을 미치기 위해 지침을 변경하려는 분명한 의도를 가지고 크네펠레에 의해 이 곳에서 탐문 조사를 받았다."나는 명백한 거짓을 지적했다. - 나는 내 글을 읽는 모든 사람이 볼 수 있듯이, 가톨릭 교회 기사를 전혀 언급하지 않았다. 하지만 잔다르는 계속해서 이런 거짓을 반복한다: "당신이 가톨릭 교회 기사를 인용하여 PMANDerson을 이 논쟁에 끌어들였다는 것은 부인할 수 없다."
• 다른 사람들이 "합의점을 찾으려 하지 않았다"는 주장과 동시에 자신들의 입장을 "불가능하고 실행 불가능한 헛소리"라고 불렀다.

그러나 스톰라이더는 잔다르에 의해 여론 조사를 받으면서 토론에 많은 부분을 차지했다.지금까지 그는 다음과 같이 했다.

• 태그팀 되돌리기에 참여함(Xandar: "내 세 번의 되돌리기를 사용했으므로, 너 또는 다른 사람이 나에게 마지막 버전으로 페이지를 되돌릴 수 있어" - 스톰라이더가 12분 후에 되돌릴 수 있음)
• 반복적으로 사용자:Pmanderson을 해당 토론에서 "Septic"([69] [70] [71])
• Pmanderson의 기고문에서 "당신의 마지막 진술은 순전히 횡설수설일 뿐이며, 제대로 된 교육이나 전문지식이 없는 사람들이 그들의 급여 등급[72]을 분명히 상회하는 대화에 들어갈 수 있도록 허락할 때 존재하는 어리석음을 대표한다"고 언급하면서, 다른 것을 "트롤의 일[73]"이라고 칭했다.

관련된 페이지의 환경은 독성이 있어서 정리가 필요하다.스톰라이더와 잔다르가 지속적으로 패거리와 동맹에 대해 언급하는 것은 지지할 수 없고 파괴적이다.소위 "clike"라고 불리는 이 책은 현재 두 개의 토론 페이지에 걸쳐 거의 12명이 넘는 편집자들이 있으며, 그들 대부분은 서로 직접적으로 소통한 적이 없다.그들의 유일한 공통점은 편집에 대한 잔다르의 입장이나 그의 행동에 동의하지 않았다는 것이다.그의 편집에 반대하는 의견의 일치를 보이는 어떤 그룹도 "패밀리에서"라는 딱지가 붙을 것이라는 강한 느낌이 있다. 왜냐하면 그것은 현재 나를 포함한 것처럼 보인다. Pmanderson, GTBacchus, Philip Baird Shearer, Kotniski, M, Blueboar, Ohm's Law...

나는 위의 모든 것에 대해 차이점을 제공하는데 주의를 기울였다 - 이 페이지들이 반복적으로 제기하는 "토론"의 주제 중 하나는 부정확한 수많은, 지지되지 않는 (그리고 종종 참을 수 없는) 주장과 편집자들에게의 단어와 신념의 설명이었다. 그리고 나는 편집자들이 그 주장을 받아들이기보다는 그들 스스로 확인하도록 권장한다.m 액면가로

전반적으로, 이것은 내가 en.wp에 있을 때 겪은 최악의 행동들 중 하나이다.일부 관리자는 위키백과의 대화를 적극적으로 감시하도록 돕는다.이름 지정 충돌 및 위키백과:명명규칙이 시급히 필요하다.Knepflerle (대화) 15:03, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

크네페를.당신은 PMANDerson을 포함한 사람들을 조사하여 분쟁에 참여시키고, 그 페이지에 있는 장기간의 합의에 대항하여 끝없는 편집전쟁을 지원했다.나는 내일 Naming:conflict 페이지에 그 블록이 해제될 때, 크냅펠과 그의 나머지 친구들의 시도가 계속될 것이라는 데 의심의 여지가 없다 - 그것과 다른 정책 페이지들을 그들 자신의 의제를 위해 전복시키기 위한 시도들.Love Monkey의 웃기는 "decison"은 명백한 야만적이고 수치스러운 것이다. 왜냐하면 Naming Conventions 페이지를 근본적으로 변경하기 위한 명확한 합의가 없기 때문이다.'러브몽키'의 친구만이 컨센서스에 대한 와이키피디아 정책을 완전히 무시하고 원하는 것을 얻을 때까지 되돌리고 되돌리고 거짓말을 하고 거짓말을 할 수 있는 것으로 보인다.아니, 그들은 러브몬키의 편파적인 행동에 의해 강화되어 그들의 캠페인을 계속하고 있다.

위키백과 이름 지정 충돌 관련.그 문제는 전에 여기서 제기된 적이 있다.크네페를 포함한 밀접하게 연결된 소수의 편집자들은 장기적인 합의와 많은 수의 다른 관련 편집자들을 무시하고 그 관례를 근본적으로 바꾸기로 결정했다.그들이 사용하는 정책은

1. 지침을 근본적으로 변경한다.

2. 만약 그것들이 되돌아온다면, 페이지의 작은 grou p 안에서라도 분별 있게 토론하거나 합의를 얻으려고 노력하지 말라.되돌아가기 - 변경에 대한 정책의 명백한 모순으로 트로의 지도와 남용 그리고 동의하지 않는 사람들을 위협한다.

3 거의 방문하지 않은 페이지에 있는 한 사람이 반대하면, 그들은 그를 무시하고 소수라고 부른다. 만약 그가 페이지를 되돌린다면, 그들은 그를 이곳으로 데려와서 순진하거나 친절한 관리자가 그들이 하는 일을 무시하기를 바란다 - 그리고 상대방을 막는다.

4 상대가 변경에 대해 유효한 관심사를 가진 다른 편집자에게 연락하면, 그들은 그를 "캔버싱"이라고 비난하고 편집 전쟁을 계속한다!

이 행동은 하위 정책이며 반드시 중단되어야 한다! 212.140.128.142 (대화) 15:29, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

여기서 일어나고 있는 일은

탈옥은 멋지지 않아(참고: Xandar는 현재 차단되어 있으며, 이 IP는 이전에 여기서 Xandar에 의해 사용되었을 것으로 의심된다는 점에 유의하십시오.)

"이혼한 사람들" - 사람들?한 사람에게 중립적인 통보 한 번.지지할 수 없는 또 다른 거짓.

"끝없는 편집-전쟁으로 그들을 지원했다" - 또 다른 완전한 조작 - 전에도 지적된 바 있다.나는 누구나 가서 확인할 수 있는 대로 그 페이지를 두 번 편집했다[74] [75].그것은 전쟁을 편집하는 것이 아니다.제발, 이거 읽는 사람 있으면 가서 확인해봐.

"밀접하게 연결된 작은 편집자 그룹" - 밀접하게 연결되어 있는가?이걸 증명할 순 없지?그건 사실이 아닐 뿐이야.

네가 말하는 것은 어떤 면밀한 조사에도 부합되지 않는다.거짓말인 것처럼 보이는 말을 많이 하면 할수록 너무 자주 "늑대!"를 외쳤던 소년이 된다는 사실을 깨닫지 못하셨나요?Knepflerle (대화) 15:45, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

IP 주소를 차단하고 잔다르 계정의 블록을 다시 시작했어.이제 이 문제가 해결되었으니, 모든 사람들은 앞으로 나아가야 한다; 토론은 이슈에 초점을 맞추고 적절한 정책 토론 페이지에서 이루어져야 한다.카라낙스 (대화) 16:16, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

크네페렐이 실제로 나에게 부탁한 것은 다음과 같았다.

당신은 명명 규칙과 그 개발의 더 큰 그림을 알고 있다. 만약 당신이 대화 페이지나 가이드라인 텍스트의 부정확한 부분을 수정할 수 있다면 그것은 감사할 것이다.

이것은 내가 보기엔 WP와 완벽하게 일치하는 것 같다:세 번째 의견; 내가 상황을 살펴봤을 때, 부정확한 점이 있었고, 크네페렐레가 그것을 만들었다고 말하는 것은 자유롭다 - 내가 그것을 한 적이 있는 경우가 있다.이것과 잔다르의 메시지, 위의 차이는 말해주고 있다.2009년 9월 11일(UTC) PMAnderson 19:25

사용자:LAKSJD1

LAKSJD1 (토크·기여) - 그는 과거에 사용되었던 많은 다양한 계정의 양말 인형이며(너무 많이 언급할 수 없음) 현재 3개의 다른 계정(다른 두 계정은 Mrpontiac1 (토크·기여)과 Pakkid101 (토크·기여)을 동시에 사용하여 식품 관련 기사에서 파키스탄의 모든 언급을 삭제함으로써 기사를 파괴하고 있다.서로 다른 기사에 대한 전쟁을 편집한다.어제 현재 그의 IP는 123.237.179.179.101 (토크 · 기여)이며, 여기서 그는 동일한 편집을 한다.그는 자신의 토크 페이지에서 계속 경고를 삭제한다.Shahid • 2009년 9월 11일 11시 32분(UTC)

계좌를 사용하셨나요?만약 그렇지 않다면, 나는 강력한 증거를 얻기 위해 그렇게 하는 것을 제안할 것이다.Ironholds (대화) 12:34, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

CU는 강력한 증거를 얻기 위해 필요하지 않다.이 같은 강력한 증거는 편집 내용이 모두 동일하다는 사실에서 나온 것이다.지난 며칠 동안 모든 계정이 생성되었고, 모두 동일한 페이지를 편집하고, 동일한 편집을 수행하고, 동일한 편집을 되돌렸다.게다가 그의 편집은 명백히 교활한 공공 기물 파괴 행위다.그는 또한 3RR 등을 위반했다(인도 세기 참조).나는 이 사람과 매우 친숙하다.그는 많은 계좌를 차단해 왔다.Shahid • 2009년 9월 11일 12시 57분(UTC)

WP를 제출하십시오.SSP 요청. 이 경우 심층 검토가 필요할 수 있음. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:03, 2009년 9월 11일(UTC)

그가 하는 편집은 어떤가?무시하는 게 좋을까?Shahid • 15:38, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

편집에 대해 걱정하면, SSP를 작성한 후 관리자가 SSP에 대해 걱정하도록 하십시오.너는 항상 원인을 치료하고, 그 다음 증상을 치료한다.당신은 다른 모든 사람들과 같은 편집 권한을 가지고 있다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

동의해, SSP 빨리 제출하고, 검사원한테 가서 확인하라고 하면 끝장이야편집은 언제나 되돌릴 수 있다.Ironholds (대화) 22:26, 2009년 9월 11일 (UTC)

사용자 로즈마크

User:Drawn Some and his wikistalking to punish me for opposing him in AFD nominations

User:Drawn Some continues to nominate almost every entry I create. I opposed his AFDs in several cases months ago, and he is using the AFD process to attempt to punish me. Almost two dozen articles that I have started have been nominated for deletion, and have been voted to keep, many as speedy keeps. Several editors warned him to desist, but he continues. He had nominated another six articles today. Almost every entry today is against me. Please see here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See below: #Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton III. Skomorokh 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed at British Isles

There is currently a 1RR in force at British Isles , it is currently being broken by an IP and possibly others. We need an admin to take a look please, but becareful to check the different edits before taking any action because not all are breaking the rules. I have reverted one thing which has now been reverted again by the IP in question in violation of the 1RR, there is a separate edit war taking place over another matter.. see the talk page there for more details. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin has semiprotected page now, although some of the content added in violation of the rule remains but that can be cleaned up later. No longer needs attention thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., DJ Pusspuss,and an editor who shall remain nameless

I was hoping to prevent anyone from being blocked, not to hasten a blocking and provoke spurious accusations of sockpuppets under every bed, but it's par for the course. NuclearWarfare seems to have removed Craftyminion's comments now, as well as this one, which seems over the top. I would restore it myself, but I don't want to wade into this mess any further. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an accident there; didn't actually mean to remove that comment, only the three below it. I have restored the comment by Simon Speed; anyone is free to reverse my re-addition of that comment. NW (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Note that I have re-blocked Crafty indefinitely. While I stand by many of the points I made here in this thread, I am forced to admit that this editor had an agenda, and was poised to follow it relentlessly. Tan39 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to read up more on the blocking but I'm concerned about the larger picture here, we have a potential CoI and our pseudonymity policy seems to be preventing coming to grips with it. That seems not good. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz^talk 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think policy SHOULD make some better allowance (than it does now) for the idea that there are things you could do, that if you do them, you waive your anonymity. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting proposal, and there are obvious deficiencies with our current norms that have been highlighted in this case. Offering lenience in certain instances of outing could very readily be open to abuse by the ill-intended, but existing norms seem also to offer too much protection to miscreants. I encourage you to further this discussion after putting some more thought towards it, MBisanz. Skomorokh 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland flap of a couple of years ago is a case in point of what can happen when COI issues get shoved under the rug out of insistence on maintaining an absolute policy against "outing". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if here is the right place to ask, but why is it an issue if someone edits an article on his or herself? Don't the subjects of articles usually know more about themselves and sources about themselves than we do about them? I suppose the subject of an article is less likely to be neutral, but I would find it odd if an article existed on me (I can say with all confidence and honesty that I am not significant enough of a person at this time to have an article on myself, maybe down the road if things go as planned...) and I would not even be allowed to add neutral and objective information or more importantly to challenge potentially libelous information. Anyway, again, if this question should be moved somewhere else, okay, but it was just one thing I am not getting here. Thanks and Happy Labor Day! --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we rely on third party sourcing for reliability, it would seem silly to not rely on third party editors to ensure neutrality and reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people writing about themselves may have a tendency to inflate their own importance or distort aspects of their lives in ways that are not readily apparent to outside eyes. Note, for example, that if Xxx Xxxxxx is allowed to write two autobiographies about different persona, then we can hardly object when Yyy Yyyyyy edits his entry to remove reliably sourced information that he was once convicted of lewd offenses with young boys. It also happens that editors with strong conflicts of interest get into behavioral problems over "their" articles, and there are allegations of that here (improper archiving, misrepresenting discussions, and so on). Best practice is to declare the conflict and rely on the views of outside editors. Thatcher 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:COI violation will also be a violation of some other policy, such as WP:NPOV. I view WP:COI as a guideline that helps conflicted editors stay out of trouble. When they get into trouble, it's a good idea to reference the other policies that they are violating. We can enforce our policies without outing people. Outing is a bad idea because it can be used maliciously or abusively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation but it is still not dealing with the right now, right here issue - how are we managing *this* COI - even a quick look suggests at least one other article that needs care examination for NPOV and COI issues. Are we going to carry on with this completely pointless "this editor" nonsense or are we going to get on with business and deal with the problems? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to go through articles affected by the COI one article at a time. There is no solution that I know of that would remove all of an editor's edits all at once, and I don't think anybody would want such a solution. There is a wish among some editors, it appears to me, to declare some other editors totally beyond the pale, banned, blocked, and blown up, in order to avoid a repeat. I don't think such a declaration will happen here, but I don't think here there's any chance of a repeat, for some editors. BTW, do we have any precedent of what to do if an editor writes three autobiographies? Smallbones (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is completely pointless at this stage to pretend that we are not discussing Benjiboi and I have started a conflict of interest discussion over at COI to co-ordinate article checking. Their first edits were promotional/COI so there is potention that we have three years worth of edits that have COI/promotional material hidden within and overlooked because they were a respected and trusted member of this community. Pretending this identity is not out there is a complete denial of reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the hysteria seems to have died down a bit, can Craftyminion's indef block might be reduced now, back to the 48 hours it was originally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Crafty hasn't requested an unblock, I don't see the need to go down that road. If/when he requests an unblock, then it would be up for discussion. MBisanz^talk 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that no has blocked Cameron Scott for saying the same thing -- and I'm not suggesting that they do -- it looks like one editor has been singled out for special treatment. The block for disruption may have been warranted, but the indef block was overly harsh then and even more so now. Why expect an editor to plead for an unblock to correct a mistake may in the heat of the moment, which has now cooled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of indef block made by AWOL admin

Craftyminion (talk · contribs) was initially blocked for 48 hours for "persistent violation of WP:OUTING and POINTy editing". Before the initial block has lapsed, the block was extended to indef, presumably based on Craftyminion's lack of contrition since the message posted to their talk page was "Sorry, but if you repeatedly state your intent to continue the disruption, the only solution is an indefinite block". The "outing" relates to an editor whose identity is now being openly discussed both on- and off-wiki, so the blocking rationale seems to no longer apply. The blocking admin, Tantalus39, has declared that they are on a wiki-break until 2010. Can someone please look at reducing this block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Has the user in question requested an unblock since the extension? Just for the full picture Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't, and indeed this was already asked by DC on ANI, and denied for the same reason. Forumshopping, anyone? → ROUX₪ 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping indeed. — neuro^(talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't this ANI? I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2Cand_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless. You know what is being talked about. — neuro^(talk) 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it might be helpful to separate this issue from the other one, which appears to be somewhat of a hot potato. I would simply approach the blocking admin but he is on a wiki-break of several months. I believe the indef block to be understandable based on the circumstances at that time, but overly harsh now that the circumstances have changed. Therefore, I'm asking for a block review. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that the editor was disruptive, and the block should still stand. Just my two pence. — neuro^(talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're not going to unblock them, then? Oh wait, you're not an admin, are you? Perhaps Roux will do it? Oh... Well, I'll take your comments for what they are worth then. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's edits and with comments like "You silly boy. They are actually right over at WR, aren't they? You really are just a shaved ape.", I see no reason to reduce the length of the block. If the user would like to post a well-written unblock request, we can go from there, but I see no reason to act before then. TNXMan 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am unaware of a rule that requires editors to be admins before posting on ANI. Regarding Craftyminion, I'm not sure how edits such as this would result in anything other than an indefinite block; if an editor is blocked for something, and then pledges to continue that something once unblocked, then the extended block is preventative. As a reviewing editor noted here, an agreement to stop the disruptive editing would probably go a long way to a successful unblock request. We don't have an unblock request at all, at the moment, so any action is premature.(ec) UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes comments by non-admins are helpful, but in cases where an action is requested that can only be carried out by an admin, I find that more often than not they merely add to the noise level. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you 100% on that. Admins and non-admins have equal weight in these discussions; while any actions carried out require an admin to "flip the switch", admins opinions are NOT more valuable than non-admins here. These discussions are open to anyone who has a constructive comment to make. Admins are not granted special status except in the actual execution of their tools. This is a discussion, and all discussions are open to all users at all times. --Jayron32 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree 1000% - non admin input is crucial to determine what the consensus is in a given situation, and admins should act on consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Delicious carbuncle, it's unfortunate that your comments here seem to fuel drama rather than reduce it. I don't think your comments are justified, but rather, are in response to the fact that others don't agree with your views in other more specific matters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments are based on long time observation of ANI, not on any one specific incident or viewpoint. I fail to see how my opinion that fewer and more well-thought out comments can possibly be considered to be fuelling drama. Petty little squabbles like these seem to be all about winning something or making some kind of brownie points. They aren't necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was alone in my interpretation of your comments. What I am trying to say is this: if you were more tactful in your postings, the issue that arose here (and on your talk page) would not exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, you are right. Perhaps I was annoyed by the ridiculous accusation of "forum-shopping" and my words were poorly chosen. I will offer an apology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really disagree. I wasn't suggesting closing the discussion to non-admins. I stand by my observation that the comments made by non-admins in regard to issues which they are necessarily less familiar than admins are often unhelpful. I know that I'm not the only person who would prefer to see requests to admins handled by admins without the obligatory comments and bad jokes by those non-admins who seem to frequent ANI. I believe if certain editors were less quick to weigh in with their opinions, the drama here would be reduced markedly, and I think the occasional reminder of that is helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Tnxman307 and Ultraexactzz. A reasonable unblock request by the user would be openly considered; but as his last statements basically commit to continuing his disruption I think that an indefinite block is entirely appropriate at this time, and see no reason to lift it. ~ mazca^talk 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, consider this resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the outing concerns have been addressed since the block, the user was behaving poorly at the time of the block; and after their initial 48 hour block, expressed clear intent to continue disrupting. Given that clear intent, and the lack of a clear believable statement from the blocked user that would give admins a reason to believe that his prior committment to be a disruption no longer apply, I don't think unblocking at this time would be wise. --Jayron32 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

An apology to the non-admins who frequent ANI

Arrrgh! Durova³¹⁴ 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• 

  Official flag of the ex-admin corps.

• 

  Official flag of the current-admin corps.

• 

  Official flag of the wannabe-admin corps.

My earlier comments were tactless and perhaps bordered on incivility. I hope no one's feeling were too badly hurt. Although I think that ANI would be much less drama-filled if non-admins thought twice about how helpful their actions might be before deciding to post a bad pun, or prematurely archiving or closing a discussion, or biting a newcomer, I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools. I offer this sincere apology to all who commented here, but especially to Roux, Neurolysis, and Ncmvocalist. I'd also like to apologise specifically to Baseball Bugs, NeutralHomer, and any other members of the ANI regulars who may have thought my comments were directed at them. I'm sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything directed at me, but I don't always read everything here. You'll need to point it out, so that I can feel properly infuriated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools." Jeez, you really need to get out more. --MalleusFatuorum 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find that the less time I spend sober, the less heavy seems the burden. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy. Durova³¹⁴ 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Avast! Or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• avast!? </me grins and leaves> — Ched * ? 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Avast.Protonk (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ummmm...Arg?Abce2 TalkSign 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They do say, my hearties, that dead men tell no tales. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid, witch-hunts, Wikipedia review and general moral panic

I have been baited and harassed here before so have learned that taking a break was often smarter than other options. Despite assertions that would suggest otherwise people are not supposed to be harassed here. Call it what you will, I feel that is exactly what is going on here. For all who have sent me emails, I very much appreciate the kind words and support.
Starting on the heels of the first ever community-wide RfC on "Paid editing", WP:Paid was started up 20 June 2009 and you'll note from day one stated clearly Note: This page is not normative policy, but is intended to be a summary of existing policy related to paid editing. A small group of editors who felt that some form of policy should be enacted, or had been enacted from the WP:Jimbo statement on the matter, kept working to instill the concept that paid editing in various forms was a blockable offense, forbidden, against policy, guidelines, immoral, etc etc. but were essentially halted n their tracks from enacting these changes because ... there was a lack of policies, guidelines and community consensus to make the changes they sought. Naturally they accused me of being a paid editor and continuously hinted and harassed over the point and like a true thorn I refused to confirm nor deny that I was a paid editor. Well, that just seemed to work the nerves but lost in those very discussions was my point that any proposed anything had to take into account that unless paid editors reveal they are paid editors, we likely wouldn't know ergo our page should reflect the real issues is the content and user conduct. From everything I've read on the matter, we don't block or ban someone for being paid, we do so for other reasons because their cases are brought to attention for violating other policies.

On 14 August 2009 a rather pointy proposal to force disclosure of paid editors was put forward but didn't succeed nor did several veiled threats of dispute resolution which other editors besides myself agreed likely would not resolve any differences of opinion. Offline I was sent am email that hinted how uncomfortable material about me (ostensibly proving I was a paid editor) could appear and cases like mine - assuming I was a paid editor - received the wrath of the community. I responded here; no proof - likely because there is none - was ever presented. A week or so later, a ANI report was filed on 24 August and when that didn't seem to get me stopped, a RfC on me on 26 August. Certainly I may lack objectivity on this but it seems to have been done solely to harass or subdue me (see Point 5). It was pretty clear that given wider community input the response was a generalized focus on the content not the contributor.

About one week later (5 September) a Wikipedia Review posting asserting my identity and COI was posted. No, I haven't read a word of any of it so I'll leave it to those who wish to do so to see what actually is there. Hours later banned user User:Peter Damian, who I've rarely dealt with, nommed one of the two articles DJ Pusspuss for AfD. The next day Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. was also nommed. So first I offer mea culpa - several years ago I wrote two newby malformed articles utilizing a completely promotional tone. As far as I know every statement was factual and I had no reason to believe otherwise, I still don't. The DJ article likely should be removed for now because the independent radio interviews are simply not available. They would just inch it over the notability threshold, frankly there may be enough other sources to do it but I'm not in the mood to try to re-research it and re-write it with all the hostility. The Sister article is another matter, it seems vindictive to me to nom it as there is a multitude of sources. Hopefully the AfD will work out on that one. Injected onto each AfD, and likely parroted from Wikipedia Review, was piles of bad faith and original research. I agree this wasn't helped by my refusal to confirm or deny my identity; sorry but given the adversarial conduct, online and offline harassment I'm at odds to know who exactly I can trust and to what degree. I keep my private information ... private as a general rule and have never gone out of my way to correct people when they assume my name, gender or sexuality - I just don't feel it helps to get into it no matter what someone believes, friend or foe. I've been accused of being quite a few of the subjects or employed by some companies I've written about. Frankly even when it's meant to be quite personal I've tried to not take it as such. Instead I see those charges as a call to improve the articles as they are likely glowing where they should be showing instead.

As for WP:Paid? You'll notice that it's been now switched to their preferred version. A doomed policy proposal unfortunately no matter how well-intended the efforts. I think I can recover the damage there but think that other perspectives on this whole affair is warranted. Be mad at me for poor judgment but please don't compromise consensus building and what was a good guideline page in process by assuming that Wikipedia:The Truth as told to us by Wikipedia Review should enable some very poor behaviours. Do I have proof that these events are more than coincidence? Not as of yet, but I'll let others decide what seems to add up to what; hopefully those eager to extend me bad faith will reconsider. Through this all I've been a bit surprised at some editors and really quite proud of others. Hopefully the project will be a bit better for all of this - I can't say I'm delighted with how things have happened but I do welcome more eyes on the whole situation. I think a good outcome would be that we have a paid proposed guideline and a paid proposed policy, not sure if those whose efforts I've detailed above would be open to that but at least both pages could be in common sense places. Sorry for the long ramble, I hope it makes a bit of sense of things or at least where I'm coming from. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, it's everyone else - you didn't create promotional articles about yourself, you didn't vote keep in AFDs about yourself, you didn't add photos of yourself to articles - it wikipedia review, other editors. This is just an attempt to poison the well and make yourself hard done-by, I've looked into the history of those articles and you have systematically tried to shut down debate or any suggestion there is a conflict of interest. You should be ashamed to come here and try and suggest that anyone that has happened is not the direct result of your attempts to promote yourself, warp articles that you are connected to and then being caught out. At best, you are disingenuous, at worst you are a liar - it's a bit early to be saying "trust me".

So if you want truth, let's get some straight answers

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors

2) are you working as a paid editor (a question that has been asked by a number of editors and avoided over at WP:PAID - a debate I have had no part in)?

You want some trust, you need to show some reasons why you should be trusted because as far as I can see, in-between a lot of very good contributions (and some very very poor one where you puff out pisspoor articles with terrible sources to keep them on-wiki), you have been working for your own interests for a long time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring further baiting and character assassinations ... I will point out your "smoking gun" diff there doesn't show I "systematically shut down" anything. I archived a thread that was stale several months. I didn't see it helping anything but if you want to beat a dead horse in several forums I won't stop you. -- Banjeboi 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have participated in the drafting of WP:PAID and I don't recall a lot of consensus building by Benjiboi. Rather, I kept seeing him revert edits by other editors and acting as if he owned the policy. He was so adament about not not allowing any limits on paid editing that it led to inevitable questions about his own involvement in it. Rather than deny or explain, he became offended and refused to discuss it. That seems to be the way he's responded to the COI issues as well. Will Beback talk 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For those missing the reading between the lines, this is one of the three editors who has systematically tried to ban/block me off WP:PAID and the one who sent me the veiled threat to my email. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The note I sent to Benjiboi on August 12 was not a threat, veiled or otherwise. I wrote that some things are better handled off-Wiki and asked him if he had in fact engaged in paid editing. I wrote "If you do not wish to disclose [paid editing] then I can't force you. ... When it comes to disclosures, I think we've both been around Wikipedia long enough to know that many undisclosed conflicts have been revealed, and it hasn't gone well for those who've acted deceptively." Benjiboi never responded, even after being prompted on his talk page.[88] Finally, I asked him the same question on his talk page.[89] The complete thread is here: User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_54#Paid_editing. Before this week I had no knowledge of the allegation of COI biography writing, nor of any other specific problem with Benjiboi's editing other than his ownership of WP:PAID. I've had no involvement in investigating the COI bio issue and haven't communicated with anyone about it, on or off Wiki. Will Beback talk 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept your explanation. I felt is was more than a coincidence and I actually did respond to your question but did not give you the answer you wanted. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then. I didn't really finish reading the diatribe posted above, but I think I got the general point. You're asserting that there's some sort of cabal of people who are deleting (or trying to delete) your contributions because of your opposition to their view of WP:PAID. I don't know jack about what's been going on over there, so I defer judgement to someone who particularly cares. But from my view from the outside, there is no conspiracy. Damian or whoever instigated this business might have beef against you for all I know. But I think perfectly well-intentioned editors have simply followed the trail to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes. The result is that you have evaded WP:COI issues, likely used socks to protect your articles and canvass for support, and followed up with a persecution complex. Complaining of unfounded attacks from Wikipedia Review seems rather suspect considering you allege you haven't actually read what's posted there (how would you know what spurious attacks were funneled from there, then?) I'm not sure how in the wrong other parties are in this, but you, Benji, sure as hell aren't coming out smelling like a rose, and with good reason. So next time just apologize and take steps to rectify the situation, don't try and shift blame. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m very surprised that User:Benjiboi has decided to return to Wikipedia after being warned of the consequences of multiple COI edits. User:Cool Hand Luke quietly suggested that Benjiboi drop the use of his account if he didn’t want to address what appeared to be flagrant conflicts of interest in editing ([90] following CHL’s question on conflicts of interest [91] ).

The flagrant conflicts of interest are writing 2+ apparent autobiographies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) (a persona)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. (a persona) and

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (a small group bio)

and other closely related articles ( see, e.g. bottom of page)

It’s of course fairly difficult to discuss an editor who writes 2+ autobiographies without getting close to outing. Benjiboi says that he was outed by Wikireview on Sept. 5. It looks to me that he was apparently outed by his supporters and fellow community members on Sept. 5. [92] (and following at the same AfD)

The same material also appeared much earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss

I don’t think that it’s necessary to discuss this as “outing” – it’s clear that the “3 people” involved are quite close, know each other very well, and work together. All we need to talk about is the obvious COI.

It‘s clear that Benjiboi has been engaging in COI edits right from the beginning, when he was essentially an SPA. [93]

Everything he has been doing recently has become controversial and disruptive. For example, see this discussion of his plagiarism [94]

Also see the edit war he was involved in today starting at [95] He spent considerable time above arguing about WP:PAID, where I have edited a bit, and I take his remarks as being aimed at me. Please notice that nobody else has mentioned this topic in this thread until he did. My complaint about Benjiboi has only been that he constantly reverted every edit I made at WP:PAID. It is summarized here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Benjiboi#Sorry_if_this_wasn.27t_clear

When he put forth the bizarre position that Paid editors did not have a conflict of interest editing a proposed policy on paid editing. User:Will Beback and User:TeaDrinker asked point blank whether he had a COI by being a paid editor. Benjiboi refused to even accept the relevance of the question. Just today, he finally admitted that he is a paid editor. [96]

So what to do about an editor who blatantly disregards WP:COI and other Wikipedia rules like WP:POV and WP:RS and is disruptive with every edit? I think he has offered ANI a choice by returning to edit Wikipedia – either you accept his editing as OK, or you block or ban him.

I don’t think the larger community will accept his editing as being OK. This topic will come up again with every controversial edit that he makes.

Can he be blocked? Well, you folks know the rules better than I do, but certainly other editors must have been blocked for offenses less serious than writing 2+ apparent autobiographies and !voting at the AfDs of those apparent autobiographies. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is an ongoing RFCU. So I would strongly prefer that we take issues of editor conduct there and hash them out rather than blocking/banning/etc. That RfC deserves wider attention from editors who are not on either pole of the issue. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. That said, whether answered here or there, Cameron Scott's questions Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors? strike me as astoundingly germane, and I don't think the community should take a brushoff about them, but rather, insist on answers. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lar - while asking an editor to disclose Conflicts of Interest may at times be a sign of lacking good faith by the inquisitive editor, at other times it is a sensible request in a situation where there is reasonable doubt about an editors possible conflicts of interest. It seems that in this case user:benjiboi/banjeboi themself has contributed to creating reasonable doubt and hence the questions are relevant and require clarification.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What I find most astonishing about this is that while we are unable to get any answers about the COI or indeed if they will agree to refrain from editing articles that they have a possible COI with, that they still editing and edit-warring over an article they may have a COI with. Now people are going to go "oh but it's an IP and it's going to be a troll and..." but that does not matter, the IP is entirely right that those who have a COI should a) declare it and b) present sources on the talk page for neutral editors to examine. there is at least the question of COI, it has been raised by multiple long term editors and deserves an answer. Above there is a mention of a RFCU but that's a slow process - how can we claim to try and enforce our COI policies with IPs and new editors when we are unwilling or able to do it with long-term editors? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support imposing a temporary topic ban of Benjiboi regarding the articles on which they may have a COI untill such a time that they clarify whether and how they will approach any possible COI's.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, yes. I'd support same until the matter was clearly sorted out. I've warned Benjiboi and the IP about the spate of edit warring at Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P. and hope that will be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a anon edit-warring to remove sourcing based solely on me and not the content. David Fuchs, please don't accuse of me of socking, if you have any evidence, which I can guarantee you don't, please present it. Smallbones, you're apparently misreading statements and mischaracterizing me, again. Your hostility and rehashing of previously posted bits to antagonize me is disappointing but demonstrates your continued harassment as the main edit-warrior at WP:Paid. This is also the core issue, do we want to support harassing editors and assuming bad faith or do we push for better content. I admit I wrote some very promotionally-toned content three years ago. The baiting, harassment and personal attacks violate civility policies, it would be nice to actually address these policy violation as seen here rather than give it all a pass because, you know, an editor may be COI and deserves abuse. It's your community, how do you wish to treat each other. I contend that pushing editors underground isn't helping, past discussions going back at least two years on paid editing have also stated this. Piling on to accuse, harass and then kick someone when they're down seems like a really bad civility proposal. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointers to relevant pages

Please note the existence of, and participate in:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi — a user conduct RFC
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward — discussion of any potentional conflict of interest issues

Please also note:

• The "Are you a paid editor, Benjiboi?" question was answered two years ago. People aren't doing their research.
• There are actually productive, content-related, things to do, here.
• Talk:Hot House Entertainment#Sources press release is a content issue that requires attention.

Uncle G (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could help us all by giving a link to the 2 year old answer? Also... Thing is, while the question may have been answered 2 years ago, the answer may have changed since then... ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The link is already there in the COI discussion. Once again, please note the existence of, and participate in, that discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Second request for you to post the link here (with a note of thanks for Will Beback's guess at what you meant, it doesn't suffice to back up your assertion unless it's said by you that it's what was meant). And once again please note that things can change in two years. People change employers, enter into new business relationships, terminate old ones, and the like. The question about CoI is relevant to now based on activities now, regardless of whatever answer may have been given two years ago. Please let me know if I need to make that point clearer. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • What you needed to do is what you've finally done, after repeated clear requests: go to the COI noticeboard and read and partipate in the discussion there, where the link, and indeed Benjiboi's subsequent comments, already are. There's a COI discussion, on the correct noticeboard for such COI discussions, that's been pointed to and where Benjiboi is actively participating. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not finding your approach very helpful here. Rather than berating people, just provide the link, THEN suggest that discussion be moved. Asking people to trawl a big discussion from 2 years ago to find something that you already know the location of may not be the most effective way to get your point across. AND, sometimes discussion does need to happen in more than one place. It happens. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Then you're the only one. The rest of us, from NuclearWarfare to Durova, have been defusing an incident that was achieving very little except one editor being blocked and acrimony, with archiving, with humour, and by picking up the ball and running with it when one of the participants goes to the COI noticeboard and starts a proper COI discussion with a view to finding whatever specific content issues may exist and doing something about them. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've answered the Hot House press release content at the COI board. In short I didn't add it but did try to fix it. IMHO it may be wisest to simply get a OTRS permission for use of the material. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Another approach, in my view far better, since it removes the puffery, is to stub the article back down to a bare mention of the existance of the firm, and let interested parties carefully and thoroughly rebuild it from reliable mainstream sources (rather than the company site and various blogs). That's a content issue though, so I guess I should suggest it at the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Uncle G is referring to this thread: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#R Family Vacations. Benjiboi wrote "For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part." I'm not sure what "pretty much" means in that context, but it otherwise appears to be a general denial. Will Beback talk 03:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, I had forgotten that but oh well. I'd rather default to that I will neither confirm nor deny as that, IMHO, is the core issue with any policy-building on paid editing issues. Unless someone reveals they are a paid editor we generally can only assume and it's likely better to focus on editing behaviours and content rather than inject assumptions on motivations. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are looking at behavior. Will Beback talk 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • • • Actually that's not a denial, is it? It's what they call a non-denial denial. I hope Benjiboi will give a simple direct answer to this question: Have you ever accepted money, or a similar inducement, to write or edit articles on Wikipedia? You might as well specifically address the porno website mentioned above where Sister Roma works. Smallbones (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Cameron Scott, Will Beback, et al. certainly feel they're doing the right thing, but this is becoming hounding of Benjiboi, including by a banned user, Peter Damian, and some suspect IP editors such as 24.22.141.252, who is probably a sockpuppet. Will, if you have evidence that he is a paid editor, kindly put up or shut up. As for the COI issue, under WP:COI it doesn't say "harass the editor until they leave Wikipedia", it actually says this. Benjiboi has acknowledged that creating articles on DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst was probably a mistake. It was done years ago when he was a n00b, it is being resolved at AfD, and it does not require the levels of drama involved here. Fences&Windows 09:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I simply clarified what my note to him said, since he said that I'd threatened him. I didn't raise the issue - he did. Will Beback talk 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I accepted Will Beback's explanation. The rest of the editors' conduct has been abysmal but if the community supports the harassment they will have to live with it. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • But he *still* edits them, that is *not* a matter for AFD, and he and refuses to acknowledge or even discuss a COI, that *is* an AN/I matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And it's a mistake to think this is about three articles - this is completely unsourced and guess who is credited with giving the organisation leadership (unsourced of course). How do we know what else is out there without checking? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not actually true. He has participated in the COIN discussion and addressed the issue directly. The ball is in your court but you have failed to follow through in the discussion that you yourself began. And as noted by others there, if you want COI issues checked the onus is partly on you to pull your finger out and check for yourself, or at the very least participate in a collaborative checking process. For the latter case, I've even quickly skimmed Benjiboi's contributions and the disputed articles' edit histories and started you off with pointers to two specific things, which can be supplemented by other editors who care to join in, to review for conflict of interest. Why are you back here not doing so? You had the right idea of going to the right noticeboard. Please, continue with it! Continued discussion here is mis-placed and unproductive, especially if that continued discussion is about a false issue of Benjiboi not participating in a COI discussion that xe clearly has participated in — on the correct noticeboard even. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leandro da Silva (footballer born 1989)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I'm pretty sure nominations can't be withdrawn if there are unstruck 'Delete' !votes, right? Because this AfD has had a non-admin closure after the nominator said "I'm withdrawing", even though I had previously !voted Delete...GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both the nominator and the closer of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

correct. this question should be moved to WP:AFDIkip (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Where abouts on that page? GiantSnowman 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss really, just undo the closure and inform the non-admin as to why. I have taken care of both steps now. I am sure it was merely a simple misunderstanding on Joe Chill's part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Thaddeus! GiantSnowman 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the delete which is why I closed it as withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notice the only vote in the discussion?!?! GiantSnowman 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You had to bring this to ANI?!?! You think that people are always perfect!?!?Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All the standard four warnings to a repeat vandal not enough any more?

Discussion posted from AIV

• New Nothing (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - vandalism after final warning, actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Constant disruptive editing, even after final warning. Mostly screwing about with section headers, but it also constantly adding and removing a CSD tag from Paul Haygood.. — neuro^(talk) 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Admins, look at edits leading up to this report -- user appears to making some attempt to divert attention from their disruptive editing. — neuro^(talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, did you try explaining it to the less that a day old user? Or did you bite?Abce2TalkSign 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you did not. You did not explain it to the user, insted you placed warnings on his/her talk page. How is that helpful? All I see is a user who is so new that they don't know everything yet.Abce2TalkSign 04:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • (Replying to first message) You've got to be kidding me. I used to be accused of being one of the members of civility clique, now I find myself being in the strange position of having to ask you to stop asking me a silly question. I left standard, community approved messages for the user. The user continued to make disruptive edits. So in response to your obviously rhetorical question, no, I didn't, and your ridiculous implication is nothing short of grossly offensive. This is bloody ridiculous. — neuro^(talk) 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • WHAT?! They got four warnings, including a final warning, what more do they need? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Quite. If that makes me a biter, you might want to bring it up at WP:UW, because it looks like most of us here are. — neuro^(talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm just saying, the user tried to contact you, but you deleted them. Abce2TalkSign 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
            • They left a message on my talk after performing two disruptive edits. They could have done it before the final warning, or after I gave them the first warning. They continued to make disruptive edits. The edits on my talk are nothing but a distraction, and if you can't see that and suggest that me removing them is biting, of all the bloody things to accuse me of, then that is your problem, not mine. — neuro^(talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
              • My judgement is shit, okay? Abce2TalkSign 04:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Forgive me for being blunt, but if you yourself are aware that "[your] judgement is shit", it would be my suggestion that you don't go around accusing editors of biting the newbies when nothing has occurred to even suggest such an event. — neuro^(talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Discussion moved from AIV. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Please see this discussion. Now even the standard four warnings leading up to a final warning are no longer enough? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say to look at the reason for those warnings. Abce2TalkSign 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are assuming too much good faith of the one-day-old account you are wanting to coddle, and prefer to bite the editor who has been here a while and has a good track record. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And this edit is curious. Just where is this editor attempting to communicate, other than to try to rearrange headers on neuro's Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how he knew to come to this page after just a few edits, and mess around with a heading a little bit? Rather unlikely to be a "new" user. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break, my judgement has become shit. Abce2TalkSign 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A good nap should help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone that has been accused of being in the "civility cabal" a good few times before, I find myself in the strange position of wondering what the bloody hell is going on. Stop handing accusations of biting out when there is absolutely no biting going on. Sheesh. — neuro^(talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two week long nap for my shitty judgement. Abce2TalkSign 04:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a good night's rest. No need to go Rip van Winkle on us. :) Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's just that I've seen an escalting pattern of this shitty judgement from myself. Abce2TalkSign 04:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Going to try to stay off the whole break. Probaly won't though, (3 days tops :) ) feel free to trout me if I come back early Bugs. Abce2 TalkSign 04:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User New Nothing blocked for disruptive editing. Dreadstar ☥ 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that Paul Haygood might actually be a hoax? Try a Google search on this influential theorist and see what you get. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, we have some recursion. — neuro^(talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's usually how hoaxes work. See the contribs of the person who added that. Look at the contribs of the article's creator. Look at the Google book serach results more closely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for talking down to me. For the record, I am aware of how hoaxes tend to work. — neuro^(talk) 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being so thin-skinned and taking everything as some kind of personal insult. It takes up a lot of unnecessary bandwidth. There's nothing to win here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be some sort of lesson in getting a 'thick skin', I assure you. — neuro^(talk) 05:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, I get called a nerd enough already.Abce2This isnot a test 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[97] = probably not a hoax, but also maybe fails WP:NOTE... Cirt (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

@Abce - I was actually talking about me. :) — neuro^(talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just so used to being called that. Abce2This isnot a test 05:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They call you a hoax? That would be unnerving. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, all the time. I really don't even exist. :) Oh, wait, aren't I on a Wikibreak? Crud. Abce2This isnot a test 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the Urban Spaceman. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Wait, what do Urban Spacemen eat? What do hoaxes eat? Abce2This isnot a test 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At least for the former, they don't. They already have everything they need. — neuro^(talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Haygood. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And for the latter, 'oaxmeal for breakfast. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 12:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How many newbies use templates within 4 minutes of their first edit? Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think this user is a sock, I agree with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket at UMiami article

• Previously at archived thread

Racepacket (talk · contribs) continues to edit war over the wording of the lead paragraph of University of Miami. This is either due to the use of the word "commonly", or the use of the alias "The U", which he contested and had removed from the article in one of his earliest edits to the page that sparked this edit war between him, myself, and MiamiDolphins3. I understand that he is trying to improve the article, but he continually changes the lead which is clearly contested on the talk page, WT:UNI, and in the old thread (even though I have been the most vocal member of the discussions).

The last thread devolved into another forum to discuss the dispute. There was some outside input regarding the fact that edit warring happened and is bad. Every day there has been an edit to either completely change the wording or the meaning of the lead paragraph. When I removed what he considered a weasel word, that didn't change anything. All I know is that I am tired of having to go through WP:BRD on a daily basis because he just seems to make another bold change without discussing anything useful. I don't want this thread to become another argument with Racepacket. I just want something useful done about the disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week in an attempt to slow the edit warring. At this time, I have no opinion on the dispute/behaviour itself. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot seem to satisfy Racepacket in a compromise. And now because I have moved the thread on the talk page so it is not in the middle of the article tacked onto a barely related section, he has been edit warring with me over its placement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By way of explanation, User:Ryulong is exceedingly difficult to deal with and has a record for repeatedly running to ANI, and has brought editorial differences here before. I started to revise the University of Miami article on Sept 2. He would revert my changes without comment, and I would then explain the changes on the talk page, with him further reverting the changes. Finally on Sept 5, he responded. We have talked through the issue and I tried to involve other experienced editors from Wikiproject: Universities. I have also provided examples of a number of lead sentences from other university articles. What is evident is emotional ownership of this article and a related article Iron Arrow Honor Society. On the Iron Arrow article, I repeatedly placed a {{notability}} tag because the lack of independent sources, to have them repeatedly removed without adding sources. That article is now in AfD.

On the University of Miami article, I have offered various formulations based on the comments of other editors and the lead paragraphs of the University of Virginia and Universityof Wyoming. He engaged in indiscriminate reverting of my edits and incivility and are pushing Boosterism and emotional ownership of the article beyond what many would consider acceptable. After things settled down, we had made extensive progress, and Ryulong agreed to drop a number of footnotes which really didn't support the article text. He also agreed to drop the word "commonly" which I objected to on the grounds of being a vauge and misleading weasel word. However, after we came very close to closure, an hour later he unilaterally added "commonly" back in without talk page comment. A day later (and after many days of my objecting to "commonly") he writes, "I can tell your problem is not with "commonly" but rather with "The U", which is what you originally had removed from the article. It does not freaking matter that the name is not universally related to this one institution."

He then starts to break up the thread on the talk page and [98] and [99] distorting the context of the discussion and creating update conflicts when I am trying to post a response to his remarks. These actions make working on the article difficult. I had thought we had reached the point of it being a Good Article and had submitted a nomination, but I will put the matter aside until the protection is lifted. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to turn this into another forum to argue with you, Racepacket, but my movement of threads on the talk page is in no way disruptive and in fact makes the talk page easier to read. The thread that Racepacket had added to was resolved two years ago, with a single comment in that time added by an uninvolved user. His concerns about the subject are new and need not have been part of the initial discussion from 2007. The only thing my refactoring of the talk page would do is change some internal links to the talk page, should any of them actually exist.

I have tried to look at the various suggestions to changing the lead, but every time it changes the entire meaning of the lead, including false assumptions about the content of the references put forward to support the claims that Racepacket has disputed. I brought this issue here before because Racepacket has had a habit of suggesting a possible change, then going forward with the change without any input from myself or any other users on the talk page. He is constantly skirting around the fact that the changes he is making are opposed in some way, but he continues to make them. Other users have pointed out the minority position and its constant pressing as bothersome but he appears to have ignored Do go be man's statement throughout the entire argument on the talk page. This whole dispute is getting wildly out of hand, especially due to Racepacket's verbosity, and my verbosity in reply.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that I ignored this talk page comment because it was inserted in the middle of the discussion and not at the end, so I never saw it. Ironically, Ryulong complains, "The last thread devolved into another forum to discuss the dispute." and then proceeds to do it again. We can discuss the merits on the Talk:University of Miami page (assuming that the discussion there isn't shifted around and split up so that you can't find it. However, that leaves this issue of Ryulong's mistaken belief that the article is his personal property and he is the sole aribiter of what may or may not be posted on it. For example, we reached agreement on the deletion of the word "commonly" and then, without seeking consensus he added it back without seeking comment. I don't understand why he needs to bully people. The basic dynamic is "If you don't agree with me, I will file a complaint against you on ANI." I tried to slow down the cycle of revision to give other people a chance to comment and revise, and I have offered many different possible formulations and suggested repeatedly that we have a mediator. I think that if everyone lists what are the boundaries of what would be an acceptable solution, something that satisfies everyone could be found. It is time to check egos at the door and get to work. Racepacket (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't normally butt in on an AN/I thread—the two of you look like you're having so much fun!—but I've received a talk page note asking me to give you another opinion, so, here goes:

  1) I understand why one might feel it's unnecessary or even unhelpful to say a University is commonly called "The U" (it's a bit like saying buses in London are commonly red, or that people posting on AN/I are commonly involved in drama), but we do have a specific policy of stating the obvious (which is WP:OBVIOUS).

  2) The winner, in these things, isn't the person who gets the wording they want. It's the first one to be the bigger guy. Or girl, as the case may be.

  Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the issue here. There are references to support the said fact about "The U". Racepacket has just constantly changed the lead paragraph to completely change the meaning of the statement regarding "The U" and the other two aliases, stating that they are only used by the geographic locality and its alumni, which is not the fact, or saying that the name solely refers to the school's (American) football team because of the nature of the references used. This is my issue with the suggested changes, which I thought I had made clear elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• And indeed, I'm agreeing with you, Ryulong, although in a slightly roundabout way. That's why there's a "but" in limb 1 of my reply.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal of Templates

McJakeqcool - back again

See here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool for previous report at the end of July. Since then, McJakeqcool has, despite advice from numerous people, continued to make inappropriate edits to list articles [101] [102][103](1 of 2 edits)[104][105](1 of 5 edits)[106](1 of over 30 edits)[107](1 of 12 edits)...and so it goes. Now, having got tired of that, he has gone back to creating stub articles about non notable computer games [108][109], something he has previously been asked many times not to do. It is impossible to find sources for these games, and he has been continuously advised not to create stubs but to gather them up into one article which might have some chance of notability. He has announced on his userpage [110] that this is his new project - could someone stop him before he once again generates 20 or so stub articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made mistakes. So has everyone with an advanced career on Wikipedia. However, making mistakes is one thing. Ignoring first advice and then practically orders to change one's ways is very much another thing entirely. The best word I can use to describe this user, who I tried to help under my previous name of Otumba, is oblivious. I have seen no satisfactory acknowledgement of the community's concerns. I do not believe the editor is engaging in disruptive activities out of negative feelings. I do truly believe his heart is in the right place, and I do believe he thinks what he is doing is for the good of Wikipedia. But, as Elen described, what he is doing is disruptive. A block is probably the best thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional: user was blocked for 31 hours a relatively short while ago for disruption. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked as a result of the previous ANI. Someone has whizzed the two stubs, not sure who. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of many of his comments give me pause. This user has been here a along time but seems to have a truly poor grasp of editing articles, among other things. I think an admin or two needs to take a serious look at what is going on with this user.--Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the previous ANI discussion (see Elen of the Road's comments above for the link). To put it shortly, Mcjakeqcool has been given kind advice and suggestions, offers of being adopted, and many warnings on constructive ways to improve Wikipedia. He has ignored all of this and continues to do his own thing. I'm sure it grows tiring for the people who keep an eye on him. Something more permanent needs to be done about this editor. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted! The 2 articles from my new project, console launch titles are anything but unnotable, they have vastly more infomation then articles from my previous wikiproject and in my opinion and for the long term wikipedia's opinion my last wikiproject was also a sucsess, however I would have thought that even the people who were against my last project would see a white flag with my new articles, THEY ARE COMPLETELY NOTABLE! I sweare oath that my new articles are notable, and I also sweare oath my new wikiproject is and will be a sucsess. Please explain what is not notable, C'MON, MY ARTICLES ARE 5 LINES LONG FOR PETE'S SAKE! Please see reason, I can think of many worse articles then my 2 most resent articles, Atlantis (Intellivision game) perhaps? WHY OH WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO SEPRATE ARTICLES FOR THE SAME GAME? C'mon, there's notbality then there's logic. Need I make any more statements? mcjakeqcool 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They have no references. They make no assertion of notability. You still don't know what a {{stub}} template is or does. You still can't format your signature post to meet the guidelines and actually link to your user page. And, in case you haven't noticed, nearly every one of your last 100 or so edits in article space have been reverted Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (just in case anyone with the tools wants to look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And again [111]. There isn't a speedy category this fits in - shall I PROD it? Lest the user feel unloved, I have posted what I hope and intend to be a helpful entry on Mcjakeqcool's talk page, explaining what the problems with this last article were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked the article and put a {{prod-2}} tag on it. But Elen, your deletion rationale strikes me as quite weak. In PRODding and AfD, we assess the potential of the article, because there is no deadline. We do not delete every unsourced or badly written article; if there is a problem, be bold and fix it. Except in CSD G5 and (arguably) G11 cases, we normally do not consider the author's identity to be a substantial factor in the deletion analysis. I agree that the topic is nonnotable; but it would be more useful, both to PROD patrollers and admins, to explain why exactly the subject is nonnotable when the reason is not blindingly obvious (by which I mean CSD-ably obvious). Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the deletion reason, it doesn't change what is going on here. There is a user who is disruptive in that he is creating more work for others than he himself is doing (last 100 edits virtually all undone) Many attempts have been made to help him, but he has rejected all of it. Even after a short block he's come back to continue the previous problem behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Song, I would normally have said more, but the fact that someone (still haven't figured who) simply doused the last two a short time after Ironholds PRODded them (you can see his tag notifications on Mcj's talk page) probably made me sloppy. I didn't fix up his bad markup as - in this one case - I think it would be of value to Mcj to come back and do it himself. If you read thru Mcjakeqcool news on his talkpage, he has a wonderful entry on "how to wikify", which shows that he actually doesn't understand at all, and I'm a firm believer that practice makes perfect. I didn't realise there was an article on the designer, else I probably would have contemplating redirecting to that article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see them. And I agree with your assessment of this particular situation. In general, however, a rationale that is keyed to the deletion policy is useful to the PROD patrollers, reviewing admins, as well as other people who are contemplating AfD'ing the article. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Tim Song (talk)06:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I will collaborate with user Elen of the Roads. I am also attempting to collaborate with user Guyinblack25. mcjakeqcool 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could start by explaining this [112] strange comment on my talkpage. What do you mean by the line "I still maintain the aspect that my last wikiproject was a commercial sucsess"? Anyone would think you were being paid to disrupt wikipedia. Oh and please correct your sig so it links to your userpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any sign of Mcjakeqcool offering to work with other editors should be welcomed. Thank you, Mcjakeqcool, for offering. However, the offer should be viewed in context. Mcjakeqcool's previous collaborations were viewed by Mcjakeqcool as a collaboration of equals. I say this having collaborated with him on Assault (1983 video game). Before, during, after my collaboration I saw no indication that he really fully realized he does not know how to operate on Wikipedia, and my collaboration was reduced to me, to put it bluntly, cleaning up the mess. Therefore, the community should not automatically view his offer as an acceptance that he realizes he does not know how to be a proper Wikipedian. As I said, I do not believe he is being deliberately disruptive, so a block in my mind is a last resort. I want Mcjakeqcool to learn how to be a successful Wikipedian. My solution to this problem is this:
(a) He must state that he realizes he does not know how to be operate Wikipedia properly.
(b) He must accept to be under the tutelage of an experienced Wikipedian. Mcjakeqcool must follow all instructions by said Wikipedian, which will include creating proposed articles in sandbox for approval before posting to mainspace, and following lessons by the experienced Wikipedian aimed at teaching him how to operate successfully.
(c) If and when the experienced Wikipedian is satisfied Mcjakeqcool has learnt what to do, said Wikipedian should ask the community in an appropriate venue (here?) to also assess whether Mcjakeqcool has learnt what to do. If consensus agrees Mcjakeqcool has developed successfully, Mcjakeqcool should be released from the stipulations just stated, and be allowed to edit Wikipedia with no stain on his record.

If Mcjakeqcool does not accept these stipulations, and he carries on with the same behaviour he has been reported for, I cannot think what else we can do save for a block. Any thoughts? HonouraryMix (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to instruct him in how to use markup and sources, and am pleased he has suggested collaboration, but I'd like to know what he means by collaboration. He previously turned down an offer from Guyinblack25 to mentor him, and so far he's resisted all advice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

while I agree, I think we're going out of our way here to ignore the elephant in the room...--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. A bit more of WP:AGF would not hurt. I'll also be happy to help out here, as well. Tim Song (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would be more then happy, no wait overjoyed to collbarate with any wikipedian who is willing to collbarate with myself. And I will more then happly take any advice from fellow wikipeidans. mcjakeqcool 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for offering to help. Crossmr, whilst I agree the problem surrounding Mcjakeqcool is rather large, I still think it can be solved. Tim, thank you also for offering to help. As for "A bit more of WP:AGF would not hurt", I am the first person to argue for WP:AGF, but prior dealings with Mcjakeqcool have lead me not to view any offer by him for collaboration at face value.

Mcjakeqcool, thank you for agreeing to a collaboration. However, I am concerned you do not appreciate what the rest of us here view as an appropriate collaboration. Your record suggests you view collaborations as you carrying on with your projects, and expecting others to clean up the problems. You must view such an collaboration as an experienced Wikipedian tacking you under his or her wing, teaching you, and you must follow what that Wikipedian tells you, including following orders to stop creating articles. Do you accept this? Plus, you must not view what said Wikipedian says as advice. You have been offered lots of advice, and time and time again you failed to follow. You must view what an experienced Wikipedian tells you as gospel. If we here say stop creating the articles people have complained about, you must stop. It is the only way I can see that a block can be prevented from being implemented upon you. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians. mcjakeqcool 11:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You can start by fixing your signature so it is a proper link like everyone else's.--Crossmr (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I agree that he needs some close monitoring. And I view the proposal to be consistent with my understanding of AGF. I'm not saying that we should soften it more. Tim Song (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Noise at Talk:Holocaust denial

Could we get some disinterested assistance? It seems to me that one editor is being rather tendentious at Talk:Holocaust denial; I'm staying out of the fray, but perhaps some new eyes would help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty clearly to be a heavily stacked dispute with some participants becoming frustrated. One option would be to hand it off to outsiders at one of the content noticeboards (WP:NPOVN/WP:RSN/WP:CNB), and if there is little value seen in minority position there, that the matter be dropped. Skomorokh 19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to look like a debate which would require some patience. I think Skomorokh is moving it in the right direction. Have you informed the editor on the 'other' side of the debate about this thread? Protonk (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I'm ignoring him completely; seems sanest. That's why I asked for help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I left him a note. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having engaged with the editor in question and asking them straightforward questions to no avail, I agree with the original assessment that the behaviour is tendentious, and recommend the discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial be archived in place and the editor encouraged to direct their efforts elsewhere. Skomorokh 21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Protonk. As far the engagement between Skomorokh and I, I have yet to receive a reply to my straightforward question here. Note also he's trying to make a behavioural assessment, which is always a slippery slope. Note for example that he's mentioned nothing about others' "behavior" - only mine. Jpgordon and Sokomorokh both came into the discussion with little more than a threat and some vague references to RS and NOR, all of which was dealt with. I'm also certain that by the context of soliciting some administrator muscle, Sokomorokh means something less than gentle by his recommendation to "encourage[] ["the editor"] to direct their efforts elsewhere." -Stevertigo 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Its a rare day when I read an argument and find myself agreeing with...Jayjg. Holocaust denial is specific to Jews. You have no wiggle room here Steve, drop the song and dance. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure. Tarc has been a partisan in a couple other issues where I am also a party (see WP:DRV/SV/ONS), and his comments, *invariably, are both highly critical of me, personally, and likewise highly mistaken in their very premise. In this case he mis-states the material issue as one of 'specificity.' WP:LEDE makes it clear that *context is a requirement in article lead sections, and this is particularly true for articles about concepts that themselves rest on other concepts. In fact, I can't think of one that doesn't: For any article, any other related "concepts" are the "context." Thank you Tarc, once again. -Stevertigo 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Context" here means, the context of a proposition within the source, and contextual information about a source. Once Stevertigo slips in the word "concept" what he accomplishes is to justify using his own thoughts as context as opposed to any research involving verifiable sources. Perhaps we can now expect ten numered points parsing the logic of my sentence ... just another indicator of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein Talk 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Hm. Noting the substantial improvement in your conceptualizations here, let's break your comments down so I can deal with them one-by-one:
2. SLR: "Context" here means, the context of a proposition within the source, and contextual information about a source." - It has nothing to do with "propositions" - only objectively and materially relevant concepts. We can't discuss pottery without discussing clay. (..We can't talk about cigars without mentioning tobacco. We can't talk about space travel without talking about space craft. We can't talk about poetry without talking about writing. We can't talk about laughter without talking about emotion and facial expression...) It's not an issue of relating "pottery" to "pot (slang)," which is how you and others have tried to misrepresent my comments.
3. SLR: "Once Stevertigo slips in the word "concept" what he accomplishes is to justify using his own thoughts as context as opposed to any research involving verifiable sources." - Is this not just a slippery way of saying that I don't ever use the word "concept" in accord with its actual meaning? That I "accomplish[]" something just by using a word? That by "concepts" I mean merely 'my own concepts are the context?' Suspect inferences all - particularly so when I take care to break down each concept and discuss them with you point-by-point. At each point you are free to interject your own concepts.
4. SLR "Perhaps we can now expect ten numered points parsing the logic of my sentence" - Logic is only one of the dimensions in language that I deal with. There is also reason, along with apparent comprehension, and conceptual facility (such that can deal with my concepts as I express them - and not color them in various disruptive ways).
5. SLR: "... just another indicator of disruptive editing." - Discussion is not "editing," and comments are not "edits." "Disruptive" is subjective and I ask you to show where I have been in any objective way "disruptive." If you can't deal with the arguments as they are presented, don't pretend that you have. It's quite unscholarly to kick over the board when your queen is pinned. -Stevertigo 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Apologies for the chess analogy. It won't happen again (maybe).

Steve, it is not necessary to take every piece of a person's comment and treat it in isolation. In doing so you strip said piece of its context, and without context most become meaningless. It does not help you prove whatever point you have, and it would probably help massively if you stopped it. lifebaka++ 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Lifebaka wrote: "Steve" - Yep, that's my given name. I have others though.
2. Lifebaka wrote: "it is not necessary" - What is "not necessary?"
3. Lifebaka wrote: "to take" - Oh I agree. Sometimes its better to give.
4. Lifebaka wrote: "every piece of a person's comment and treat it in isolation." - Wait. Oh. I see: "take every piece... isolation." Got it. I.. uh.. don't do that.
5. Lifebaka wrote: "In doing so you strip said piece of its context - and without context most become meaningless." - This doesn't even make sense. If I don't strip every "said piece of its context," how then do I make the comments "meaningless?" I don't think anyway I'm quite as talented in that department as others I've dealt with are, and in fact my experience is that I succeed quite admirably in proving such thus said meaninglessness-ness was already in the original! "Stripping" only accentuated its attributes.
6. Lifebaka wrote: "It does not help you prove whatever point you have, and it would probably help massively if you stopped it." - I take it you don't like the way I take things apart, study them, and restate them using more accurate terms and in more lucid context, such that it demonstrate, by reflection, abstraction, connection, conviction, constriction, description, prescription, and absuridit..ion.. the validity, or lack thereof of your discrete, tangible arguments? I don't know. Do you have a source for that? -Stevertigo 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that, by anyone's definition, is a dick reply. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the mantime, we have a disruptive editor who is dominating the talk page and sidetracking us from any actually constructive discussion. Can some uninolved admins consider a course of action? Slrubenstein Talk 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat (2nd nomination)‎

This AfD was relisted by DRV due to socking concerns. Now we have an huge influx of SPAs and likely socks again making all sorts of personal attacks on the page. Just so the relist does not get derailed again, can someone take a look and semi the page? Also, please check out the latest IP comment. Tim Song (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They're making terrible arguments, so I personally wouldn't worry about it. I've warned the IP who left those comments, but likely the person behind them has moved on by now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by user Alexikoua

Above mentioned user User:Alexikoua is canvassing regarding the voting on this issue: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_6#Template:Northern_Epirus

Here are the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factuarius&diff=prev&oldid=312330642 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megistias&diff=prev&oldid=312345802

--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, is Alexikoua accusing a long standing Admin of being a sock in the first diff there? Canterbury Tailtalk 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Notified both J Milburn and Alexikoua. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua accuses not only admins of many things, but many other users of wiki of many other things.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• This canvassing is also going on off-wiki. See this thread, but be aware that it may be deleted shortly (seems it is the second thread, the first one having been deleted). A checkuser would probably be useful. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note the post "Me and I group of friends have tried to secure the article but they we need your contribution", suggesting that there is already an element of meatpuppetry going on... J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

About this off-wiki [[113]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[114]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[115]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he -I_Pakapshem- proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. I really regret, since situation is a bit out of control, but reasonably thinking, why should I add such kind of information off wiki? Sorry for the capitals and really sorry for involving J Milburn (the sentence proves that I'm not refering to him) but I really feel sad when being involved in that kind of activity which does not represent me and what I beliefs.

My contribution history proves that I'm not involved on the kind of activity which makes me sickAlexikoua (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, another one bad-faith report by user:I_Pakapshem, ([[116]] he already has a record of fruitless report in past). It sounds erroneous that someone accuses 'canvassing' while the same time launching irc activity in order to pick up supporters. What's really wierd is that the results of his initiative were sometimes controversial for him ([[117]], Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today. +an 'Incan name' reference seems to be also a result of these attempts).

His contibution, which is, for the first time he appeared in wiki untill now, limited to specific nationalist topics, just full of reverts and empty argument:

• after breaking a block record: 6 times in 43 days (June 9-July 21), due to endless wp:3rr, wp:npa, wp:civility isues, seems that this was not enough, he continued to show a dangerous pattern of continual battleground behavior [[118]] until he received a 1 revert limit.
• characteristically, when last blocked, and being insistent that the block was totally 'unfair', his talk page was locked too, [[119]].
• Why such a user should be trusted? It's more than obvious that this pattern of activity is still in full motion. I wouldn't be surprused if it was he that made up this childish bait job, according to his knowledge of Greek as well as his endless efforts to promote a nationalistic agenda [[120]] according to his contribution history.Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have 3 contributors who said delete and may be possible socks, and 6 contributors who said keep are 90% socks/meats. Let's focus on that. And we have a possible canvassing case.
• There was later found also this [121]. I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning is obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this [122]. I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious.--Alarichus (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Until now, all 5/6 new or ip contributors who voted "keep", have been to found to be located in the same area except one. All of them are located in Greece. I cannot give any information about the last one(guidelines) but you can guess I believe. Regarding the 3 ip or new users who said "delete", one of them is located in Kosovo and one in Macedonia. --Alarichus (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Alarichus:This thread says, in an extreme propagandistic style:

'Can I not write the text in Greek letters? Some Albanians in wikipedia want to delete part of Greek Epirus, but we have to keep it. Until now some guys I know helped us. When we manage to gather in great numbers I will tell you what to do. (noone knows who's watching).'

Hope this one will be soon checked. Since the baid style mentality is more than obvious. I_Pakashem's ghost activity seems to be his only solution lately.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• That probably explains the arrival of 5-6 ip users from Greece with no previous contributions(I'll do some more checks, and hopefully I'll find more). I did some investigation regarding this [123]. It seems that no user mentioned the TfD, in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help and no user with the username I Pakapshem joined the channels between -10:00, 00:00, until 19:46 when this message was posted. That enhances the possibilities of finding the one who caused all these issues. However, again let's not blame anyone for anything yet. I'll see if I can find more on this. Unfortunately I cannot check the irc logs to get more detailed info. But what I could find is good enough. --Alarichus (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• So although Pakapshem did not join irc, in the dates mentioned, someone thought he did and caused this. The question is WHO?.

I prefer writing good articles, than playing hide and seek in ANI, so hopefully we'll get to the end of this soon. There are 4 possibilities. I will elaborate on them later. --Alarichus (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to check with a similar nick? Since he has a past record I dont believe he is too innocent in that kind of activity. All posibilites may be possible, joined with similar nick or irrelevant nick. Who knows what he discusses in private conversations right? (any i.p. check in irc possible?). Even a diferrent channel in freenode sounds likely since he was of great need for 'delete' votes. His level of activity is obvious in attepting to wp:gaming the system in every opportunity. Did he became suddenly innocent recently? I dont think so.

The off-wiki childish camvassing attempt, which is obviously a rediculous bait style is for sure for lauphing. Hope that irc-topix ghost will be checked and revealed soon.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am a telecommunications student, and know how to search for such things. I am 100% sure he did not join with any nick, or canvass in irc. Most logs are public so you can check for yourself. Alexikoua, according to the evidence so far you are the only one who may have done it(canvassing, meatpuppeting), maybe with some involvement from Factuarius. Chris G and I, told you yesterday that those 2 messages you sent may be easily regarded as canvassing. And once I told you that I Pakapshem was the one initially concerned about the template, you started thinking that he would be canvassing on irc for votes. Then lots of ips(most with no edits at all) show up, backing you up. All from Greece. And one saying that I Pakapshem was canvassing in irc, but as I told you, he didnt even join the irc. But you thought that he did, and so did the ip. Then we have this skolixx in topix saying that he had been helped by some friends earlier[124](dates match with the 5-6 ips from Greece, and especially Athens), asking for more help. And I don't buy the fact his english was "poor", some of his sentences have been deliberately distorted to seem "poor". Afterwards there was found that he wrote also in greek. To me it would seem normal for someone who was warned about canvassing on-wiki, to stop and continue canvassing off-wiki. All hours match against you. There is definitely no involvement from Cplakidas, Aigest, Athenean, Michael IX the White. There is some involvement (regarding on-wiki canvassing) from Megistias, Factuarius. When your case is over, I will check if those 2 ips from Kosovo and Macedonia are related to I Pakapshem. --Alarichus (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that 2 notices cannot be considered canvassing. Usually (if not always), canvassing exceedes two people and is mass notification. Also, there is 0 proof that that "skolixx" is Alexikoua, and we can't accuse him of being just because there is a suspected "case"! Can you please bring forward as evidence in this the way that you found out that forum? --Michael X the White (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The definite point(except on-wiki canvassing) is that the ip contributor said that I Pakapshem had been trying to convince him to vote delete yesterday. But I Pakapshem didn't login with this nickname or another, and no one even mentioned such an issue(!!). So the ip contributor was lying. Alexikoua thought from the beginning of this that I Pakapshem was trying to convince us all to back him up by using irc. So we have a new ip contributor trying to back up the belief of Alexikoua by lying. It's clear that they are definitely connected. Combine that with "skolixx", and you get canvassing and meatpuppeting. On the bright side of this issue, most of you weren't involved. --Alarichus (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suppose he is not such an idiot to join in with his real name. What kind of argument is this Alarichus? You are accusing me as a member of an extremist organization without a single evidence... should I say thank you?Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you. No one said you are member of any organisation. But I cannot oversee the facts. You canvassed , and then an ip lied to back up your belief. And 5 others came simultaneously to "save" the template, and we have the off-wiki canvassing to gather support for the template. --Alarichus (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand well what Alarichus and I Pakapshem are thinking, Alexikoua first went to a chat room asking for help in 7/9, then next day 8/9 after J Milburn already had connected Alexikoua with Skolixx, put his photo in the chat room making him the leader of the most (in)famous racist political group in Greece and then posted an IP vote backing “his lies” in the discussion. To me no person could be so idiot to do that. The vote was just another attempt to victimize Alexikoua for canvassing and meatpuppeting and the person or persons who did that must be ashamed. As for for the rest of us before hurrying to extract easy conclusions we must consider the possibility to be the next victim of such a machination. --Factuarius (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius don't connect me with anyone of you. Seriously. And seriously did you even read what I wrote? You didn't even understand what I said, did you? And what is this political organisation you are referring to all the time? None of the ones involved in this connected you to anything. --Alarichus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All the time? This was my first post in the discussion. You are not understand anything of what happened. With the start of the voting, someone created a skolixx account in a chat room asking for support. In the very same day someone informed J Milburn for Alexikoua's canvassing giving him the ref about skolixx msg in the chat room. Then, when J Milburn informed the others about Alexikoua's activity as skolixx, they put a foto of the person-signed-skolixx which was the photo of the leader of the most (in)famous racist organization in Greece (see N. Michaloliakos (N. Μιχαλολιάκος) & Chrisi Avgi (Χρυσή Αυγή)). Simple wording: they created a account, they connected it with Alexikoua, then they put the leader's photo "revealing" who "Alexikoua" really is. If Alexikoua didn't -at the last minute- realised it, how he could save himself, if today a message with a link from internet with a Michaloliakos photo and a link to the skolixx messages would posted here? That is what happened, and that is what I mean that what happened now with Alexikoua could happen to ANYONE. Is it now clear? Consider that. --Factuarius (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have really messed it all up, haven't you? And why are you telling me this? I don't really care who Michaloliakos is or anything else. All I know is that Alexikoua was canvassing, he was warned, and then six ips from Greece with no previous contributions, came and backed him and up, and then this post was found. Even if I erase that, still..., don't you think? --Alarichus (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are not. You don't even care to -ever- mention the "Albanian" IP votes, don't you? On the contrary after the last Albanian IP vote posted, you rushed to count the votes ("Upadate:10 delete, 7 keep"), after saying "I can prove nothing, and disprove anything". The next time you will mention here or elsewhere my name for canvassing or meatpuppeting I am going to report you. --Factuarius (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned them. It is not my fault if you cannot see that. And now you are threatening me? This is disappointing... --Alarichus (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot, because I never canvassing or meatpuppeting and I am going to report you for accusing me on that. --Factuarius (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius actually has made some good points. And allow me to expand further. Why would Alexikoua call IPs for backup when we had already started a discussion supporting that IPs and few-edit users would not be counted in in reaching consensus? Why would anyone do that when IPs and few-edit users are (usually) not counted in such procedures? I do not doubt that some of these IPs really were Greeks that came from that forum and I have found the link given to them by skolixx that leads directly to the Template discussion. But still, why call them in when they are not to be counted? Another question I have is why count "votes" when this is about consensus and not a democracy. I'd also like J Milburn to tell us how he found that adress. I am more than interested.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I have answered below, just read. Actually there were 2 links, one found by J_Milburn, one by me. After talking with a checkuser, there was decided to search for off-wiki patterns which could explain this sudden inlfux of ips. I found 1, and then JMilburn found an earlier post. --Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakapshem's sick attempt

I'm really pissed off since this continuous reverter made up this sick attempt against me. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix). Who could really sign with such a name? So Pakashem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic? What else have I to say? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active in off-wiki too, but not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That skolixx said: "Some Albanians in wikipedia are trying to delete a piece about greek epirus, but we can reverse this if we gather in great numbers." ( loipon sth wikipedia kati albanoi pane na diagrapsoun ena kommati gia thn ellhnikh hpeiro, alla mporoume na to antistrepsoume an mazeytoume arketoi) Well, if this is not a non-Greek who wrote this, my curiosity is too great to wait to know what kind of a Greek could use the phrase "about Greek Epirus", where Greek is used to make the ditinction, as if the rest of Epirus was not Greek. It is an extremely strange way to describe Northern Epirus and it is the first time I meet it. I really do not think Alexikoua wrote this. I mean, this hardly sounds Greek.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are on the border of incivility. Take it easy. There are even companies which have that name [125] and as I saw even greek nationalists use it for themselves. Seriously, guys I have seen a LOT on non-english wikipedias(de). This kind of behaviour is just worsening the situation. Michael I really cannot understand your argument. If you think a part of another country belongs to you, you do use your own national denonym for it, don't you? --Alarichus (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just relax. --Alarichus (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, it would be useful to make some web-search about this if you're going to involve yourself in this. But it is my mistake that this was not clear. Epirus ia a region spanning both countries. To differentiate the part that is situated in the Hellenic Republic to the one that is in the Republic of Albania, the political (coming from the Autonomous State) and geographical term Northern Epirus. It would be normal (but extremely unlikely) for the term "Greek Epirus" to be used for the part that is in Greece itself, but the part in Albania alone would surely be never referred to as "Greek Epirus". Even if the term was used to describe all of Epirus, greek would still not be used because it is taken for granted. But here we already know that it is used ofr Northern Epirus only.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Comment

The accused user(Alexikoua) canvassed on wiki, and may have canvassed off-wiki. Additionally there is battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting, possible sockpuppeting. Hopefully, there will be an appropriate solution to all this. I will probably avoid any further conversation regarding this issue. End of story.--Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize for my first reaction, but I see nothing more than just cheap, bad faith, unexplained and without evidence accusations, compined with continous exaggerated assumptions and weird support to I_Pakapshem.Alexikoua (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated with the issue, but I found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user and I believe a research is more than justified about him. --Factuarius (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely disgusting that people join Wikipedia already knowing a little about the Internet, and already knowing what an encyclopedia article looks like. I propose we ban anyone who doesn't spend at least a year getting their contributions reverted and deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Many users have edited as IPs for some time previously, others have edited on other wikis, on noticeboards, have their own livejournal/myspace/facebook/bebo account....etc. We're not talking about somebody who pops up and immediately starts wikilawyering, throwing allegations around at ANI, and showing total familiarity with the internal Wikipedia machinery that probably just indeffed them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: I never wikilawyering (this is the first time I ever wrote here being 8 months in WP) and I would had never interfered in the matter if Alarichus didn't "throw allegations around at ANI (against me), showing total familiarity with the internal Wikipedia machinery" although officially a 2-months user. To me it's a logical thought to question his thorough knowledge on the "internal Wikipedia machinery" because of the time being around. So it's not me who wikilawyering here. To me what is mattering is J Milburn's opinion about and thus I am stopping the discussion here. --Factuarius (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? I didn't say you were wikilawyering. I think you misread my post. I said the other guy wasn't wikilawyering. What he knows a lot about is tracing people on the internet - given what he says he has a qualification in, this is perhaps not so surprising, and not evidence that he is a sockpuppet, which is what I presume you were implying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: Ι am afraid you have missed some episodes of the story which has a long tail, and I am afraid that I indeed misread your post which in general, as I now understand, was in entirely good faith. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and if you are really a lady please doubled them. --Factuarius (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thank you for accepting my good faith. I think it would be better if I refrained from further comment - as you say, this does seem to have a lengthy tale to it, with which I have not been involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is, however, one thing justified by Alarichus' short presence here: he does not know enough about WP consensus or discussion. Myself I see bad faith from Alarichus, and pointless accusations. "Possible sockpuppeting"?? Why should that be Alexikoua and not me or Factuarius or anyone else around? The other part about "battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting" I think is pointless because it is just how a heated discussion of the Greek-Albanian matters would look like from someone uninvolved and uninformed about it. This case, however, is about canvassing. It is about two friendly notices in none of which is there any "call to arms" of the well-known "come and help quickly"/"come vote!"/"You're needed" kind. These were two notices to people who had been involved with the matter and Northern Epirus-related articles and are currently active on Wikipedia. Alexikoua can be accused of canvassing on and off-wiki as much as any other user of Wikipedia. I mean, can you even check people's phones or e-mails?--Michael X the White (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael IX, I'll explain thoroughly why I believe that Factuarius is possibly involved in sockpuppetry. His ip is approximately the same as the ip of one of the ip users who had no further contributions. He also has the same ISP as him. Aprroximately same ip, same isp, involvement in same topics to support same argument. As I found his isp provides a dynamic ip address in a limited range. That would perfectly justify the almost same ip of the ip user with the ip of Factuarius. Michael, were you me wouldn't you also consider possible sockpuppetry? And I did nothing "out of the ordinary" to discover this particular amount of data. Any telecommunications & networks student can do it without breaking any privacy law. This is my last comment, so I would appreciate it if you didn't ask me anything. To Factuarius:Do you understand that I am not accusing you of anything by speculating? These are the factual indications, and anyone else would think similarly. And please stop creating conspiracy theories regarding me, it would be much better to spend your time by improving the project. --Alarichus (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you violate wp:privacy policy, as per wp:Personal security practices. Peeking on registered users private information (such i.p.s) without having authority and without even initiating sockpuppet investigation. Alexikoua (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that I did not violate any part of the guidelines. Factuarius actually revealed his ip accidentally,[126]. --Alarichus (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Really Alarichus? Did you forget something? That during all the voting (both of user's and IP's), my computer and thus my IP was all the time present with active sessions in multiple pages. did I? My ISP is HOL, having a limited number of customers in Athens and the similarities in IP is because of that natural as you know. Also you "forget" something more significant, that my computer is a Linux-based one and in particular Fedora and that is evident since every single of my 2,350 edits I have made for 8 months in WP had be done with this very computer. I am never using windows-based software due to my dislike of Microsoft and this is evident in my history in WP. Thus I am almost sure that no user active ((both of user's and IP's) in the voting had such a computer due to the rarity of that operating system. Every checkuser can inform you about these, and in fact I am sure that had indeed informed you, because otherwise I would had been ended up banned days before when you had asked the checusering, so I am hearing what you say now as another try to disregard my efforts as a clean and rational voice here just because you dislike what I say. I never sockppupeted in my entire "life" in WP. NEVER. Try to imagine that. Is it so difficult for you? Why "Alarichus"? ----Factuarius (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't even understand what I'm saying. And no checkusers are allowed to inform users about other users' personal data. So no comment, and don't include me in your speculations any longer. The End. --Alarichus (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so could you be kind enough to inform all of us how you knew my IP? I mean what you really doing as "a telecommunications & networks student without breaking any privacy law" Alarichus? --Factuarius (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you do not read my comments. I already wrote before that you showed us your ip [127]. You made it public by yourself. Now please, respect the fact that I don't want to comment any longer. ok?--Alarichus (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask a checkuser to investigate your account for possible sockpuppeting and especially in connection to the Sarandioti account a known Albanian user multiple banned spa. End of story for the time being. --Factuarius (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would really like to see you justify your speculation. --Alarichus (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk play

MLS Cup Templates

Following this discussion, JPG-GR (talk · contribs) concluded that said templates should be deleted. However, two days after the discussion was closed, the templates remain undeleted. JPG-GR appears to have gone on a wiki-break, so I am posting here in the hope that another admin will be able to delete the templates in his/her stead. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

He was probably waiting to have all the links to them removed, which has now been done. I've deleted them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 16:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jimintheatl Incivility and other behaviors.

At the beggining of this week I was involved in a sockpuppet investigation where I wrongly named 2 people in a string of sockpuppets as a sockpuppet. I tried to calmly and politely explained my rationale in the nominations. [[135]][[136]]. I've had nothing but personal attacks and incivility since then from this user. He has been counseled by others his behaviors are inappropriate. He continues to make abusive edit summaries and attacks on not only my page but others as well.User talk:Evans1982. It would appear that he is also exhibiting edit warring behavior so we might as well knock out two birds with one stone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a look in the mirror might find the problem here, rushing aroung again templating at random and tossing accusation around willy nilly. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. If the accusing user had acted civilly in the first place, or followed WP:SOCKDONTASSUME, he could have avoided irritating several users, not just me. Jimintheatl (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Are you a new user? that is what that article is about. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't a case where I did something wrong. May I ask why every post you've made to me or egarding me has been negative? Have I been rude to you or offended you in some way? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am cool with you, I have been following the edits regarding this issue and thought you could have handled the issue a bit smoother. I have informed user Evans 1982 of the thread here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be the first to admit that I need smoothing in places. Maybe you can help me out so I can understand how I could have handled this differently. I tried to use the guiding policies in Sockpuppets and had narrowed down a sock farm that had 3 articles in common. I made the nominations and several were proven to be confirmed socks. Jim and Evans were not. Both were a little iritated buy the nomination and I did try to explain why I did so and apolagized. Evans eventually dropped it. I tried to admonish Jim by removing his further attacking comments and finally moved from a revert, to vandal revert and finally a warning for refactoring my talk page and an attacking edit summary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Smoothing? You and me both, brother...As for refactoring your talk page? I wanted to be done with whatever it was that drew me into your field of vision and you asked me to leave your talk page (by the way, the troll accusation was not very civil), so I removed my comments from your talk page. Again, I'm done with you; but you don't seem to want to drop "it," whatever "it" is and for whatever reasons.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also left a message to inform Jimintheat of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look right above yours he was notified by me per the requirements here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it now, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess one of my main questions is where in the Don't assume a Sock article allows personal attacks or gives justification to act like the world is ending. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand why Jimintheatl was annoyed by Hell in a Bucket's accusation. I was absolutely annoyed myself; especially that my userpage was marked. But seriously Jimintheatl, let it go! Hell in a Bucket made a mistake. He/she doesn't deserve to be badgered over the issue. -- Evans1982 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on the annoyed part, but I'm more than willing to forgive and forget. And I want to be done with it So we are here for....what exactly?Jimintheatl (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue was enlarged and continued and brought here by Hellinabucket reporting jimintheat1 not the other way around. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

MAybe you should read through the comments on all pages again. That is so off the wall it's not even funny. Go back look at my page history. My last comment on this was I had nothing left to discuss and then didn't other to revert he further attacks and oedit summaries. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is fine that you want to be done with it. I do and have since I left the note that there was nothing left to discuss.

"I guess you should read more about the policy regrding civility then because nothing in my actions were uncivil. If you can't accept a simple explanation you are lost and there is no further point to this dialogue. Sorry you chose to act like a little kid. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC) " You persisted 3 times after that with attacks in either your edits or your summaries. Also the talk page is a record of our discussion. You aren't permitted to remove your own comments on others page after they are left. You can feel free to strike but removing them is not allowed per policy. If you want to end this, I 'm one hundred percent fine with that, I nominated you in error within policy. I'm sorry if that offended you but this is not a personal thing for me I used the guiding principals in declaring my suspicions, you aren't a sock puppet. Would you be willing to drop this with me now? I am one hundred percent ready and willing to on my side if you are. We can both come away from the table with a lesson learned. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm sorry I got as pissed and acted as pissy as I did. Is this the part where we sing Kumbaya .....Jimintheatl (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's cool man, I have a temper too but have to majorly control it on Wikipedia. I dunno the words to Kumbaya but we can roll a spliff and listen to a Dead song would work just as well. Thank you for resolving this with me and I'm sorry it progressed as far as it did from my part as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, from 94, a year before Jerry moved on So many roads Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Angsc09

Moved from WP:AN, Woody (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to report this user for repeated vandalism and going against consensus, repeatedly having edit wars and starting article by bypassing redirecting by adding a extra capital to article name.

Angsc09 (talk · contribs)

The article in question is Monster Buster Club the article they have bypassed is List of Monster Buster Club characters they made a article List of Monster Buster Club Characters they add in fan made stuff into the article even when presented with sources that show they are wrong. They consistently mess up the above article either as user or ip address and it getting quite hard to undo the work now and i having to revert back to older version to undo it. The above extra page i have now redirected as well but i suspect they will remove the redirection. not sure what can be done but if someone can do something i be grateful. I have leave friendly message in the past asking to stop it or to provide sources they ignored it and i think i have left a few warnings recently but they still ignore it.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post contained 21 spelling errors -- I have fixed them to make it more readable. Please use a spell-checker when you post again. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read my userpage you will fidn i am dsylexic and spell checker are useless, because how i spell is how it seems to me. i understadn what you are saying it makes it easier for people to read but i cant do much about it.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 and 75.186.104.169

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.186.104.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one slipped under the radar somehow, but there's a good chance that 75.186.104.169 is the indefinitely blocked user Axmann8. The reason I think this is (1) similar interests; (2) similar attitude (removing warnings from talk page, removing others' comments from talk pages, etc.); (3) both are from Indiana; and (4) 75.186.104.169 updating a comment Axmann8 made back in March, which was missed at the time somehow.[137] Kind of an odd thing to do, unless it's the same guy. We known Axmann8 is still lurking, as he tried to file another unblock recently,[138] his first edit under his registered name since he was indef'd in late March. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the IP was blocked just an hour ago, but only for 24. Methinks this requires more discussion. Axmann8 is stale, except for the one edit on September 6th (just a few minutes after the IP's edits on that day) which might be usable by a checkuser. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Axmann8 did self-identify as being from Indiana (why someone would admit that is beyond me) so the IP does match to the general area. nableezy - 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the IP geolocates to Indiana. And the IP looks like an Obama-hater. So there ya are. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Axmann have a mosquito? -Jeremy^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What, as a pet or something? Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As in an impersonator who tries to get him in hotter water. -Jeremy^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Either way, he should be blocked for greater length than 24, but I'm not an admin, just a lowly peon, so all I can do is make recommendations. :) Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

With my usual tactful approach, I've asked the IP on his page if he's Axmann8. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

He is only editing sporadically, at least at that IP. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 22:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone might wanna compare the IP to Disruptive user name (talk · contribs). If it pongs, the IP isn't Axmann. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor continuing to add many bad refs to physics articles after repeated warnings and RFCU

On June 28 I filed this ANI report about an editor who was using many socks to add irrelevant (or at least very questionable) refs to physics articles, and not editing in any other way. The editor had already been the subject of this RFCU. The ANI report produced no response whatsoever, and the editing pattern has continued, although not the socking -- as far as I know, all the recent edits have been made as Casimir9999 (talk · contribs). I won't give diffs because a glance at the contribs should be enough to show what is happening. I am not going to give any more warnings because I don't have any confidence that anything would be done, but I will notify Casimir9999 of this section. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There was also a later sterile ANI thread which for some reason I can't find in the archives, but here is a link to it in its final state, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block, then. He's had multiple chances to get it right and doesn't seem interested. We've got enough of a problem with unreferenced information, we don't need incorrectly referenced stuff as well. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Casimir999 makes controversial edits but never communicates. He does not leave any messages on Talk. The only reason not to act immediately is that he has not edited since being warned of this ANI. If he returns to edit more articles without responding here (or anywhere else) I propose a 24 hour block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 216.125.91.130

I've blocked 216.125.91.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and reverted the last few vandal edits. If someone wants to go back and check further back, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As this doesn't require admin action, I thought it better on WP:AN as a description of what I did, rather than WP:ANI. Whatever… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Three overlapping RM and merge discussions, one malfunctioning bot

• There is an open RM at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II.
• There is an open mass RM at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion, affecting the above. The purpose is a mass rename from the descriptive title of a lot of articles to a prescriptive title that is yet uncertain (and in my view violates policy, and I have a lot of other issues with this proposal)
• There is a merge proposal at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion, affecting both of the above.
• RfCbot appears to be malfunctioning, the moveheader removal bug this time did this [139]. I have not restored because I don't want to edit war with a bot.

I ask administrators to maintain the move and merge proposals:

• I ask to close the RM at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II once the bot's edit is reverted, because the other RM superseded this RM and several editors who participated in this vote now voted en-bloc for something different on Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion.
• I also ask to put on hold the merge proposals as long as the interflicting RM is open, or the other way around.
• I further ask to monitor the RM at Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion
• And I ask someone to repair the RfCbot

Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. The supervision of an outside administrator would be helpful. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: RfCbot has removed all moveheaders to the affected articles of the mass RM, that were added manually by Labattblueboy. An IP has reverted RfCbots wholesale deletion of the talkpage (diff above), RfCbot has not yet reverted again. All other problems still stand as listed above, help appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help with rollbacks

68.116.43.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have spammed numerous articles with a "criticism" section regarding the benefits of alcohol consumption. Example. I could use help cleaning this up. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it's all done. Mass rollback only reverted two edits. Regards, Javért^Talk 19:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I got impatient. Thanks for helping! Katr67 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Regards, Javért ^Talk 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Return of abusive SPS violating ArbCom sanctions

User:FalunGongDisciple was previously blocked indefinitely by me for vandalism to articles under ArbCom sanctions and a possibly offensive username. Today, User:FalunDafaDisciple showed up doing much the same thing, including removing the block on the previously blocked FalunGongDisciple. Unfortunately, he at least previously edited from a school's IP, which would make blockiing that IP problematic. Do we have grounds to block the new obvious sockpuppet for vandalism and sockpuppetry? John Carter (talk)

• Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm Defense Satalite

The page creator has made legal threats in the article mainspace. The article has been tagged for speedy deletion, so this post may be moot. Thanks Tiderolls 12:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's SaulDaedalusAI007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who reacted to the impending speedy deletion of his nonsense article with: "Deleting this page will result in Direct Prosecution of a Maximum Penalty fee. UNDER THE COPYWRITE, DESIGNS & PATENTS ACT 1988 LAW THIS PROFILE IS PROTECTED AGAINST UNORTHARISED PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO DELETE THIS TEXT.©" One could conceivably indef-block him per WP:NLT, but the threat is probably a bit too silly to be taken remotely seriously. Sandstein 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987

I have recently discovered and publicized that Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been falsely claiming to have referenced an article for DYK. This is the last of many such problems with his DYKs - info that does not check out, sources that are cited with what they do not say, hooks cited with primary sources etc. I've opened a debate about this on the DYK page, and left the same message on his talk page. I also happened to note that this user is on editor review aiming for an RfA after being caught sockpuppeteering, and uses the DYKs and other edits to improve his image. This when most users are not in a position to review his superficial or misleading editing in such articles, and when he puts these up at an impressive rate. This I believe is tantamount to disrupting wikipedia for an ulterior goal.

I will also note that this is not the first time I have directly challenged Mario to explain himself after pointing out major problems with his hooks (which would have otherwise gone unnoticed) - in the past, he has accused me of being biased against him, and has for no reason whatsoever invoked my Bucharest origin against me in disparaging (but not especially insulting) terms. It would take me too much to find these diffs, since the comments were produced on the T:TDYK, which is updated but not archived (and most be one of the most edited pages around). However, what follows includes his repeated accusations on such grounds.

Now, to the core of the matter here. This is Mario's reply to my message. He again claims that I'm out to get him (without replying to the issue I brought up in his article), and states: "I say to you not to worry because everything you say against me or my contributions means absolutely nothing for me and sadly my oppinion of you just dropped to a level even lower than hell." At the bottom, there is a message in Romanian: "Si separat, fara suparare, sa sti ca pe la noi pe aici prin zona Maramuresului este o vorba cum ca voi astia de dupa arcul carpatic sunteti niste tigani. Nu am vrut sa cred asta dar vad ca cel care a spus vorba asta nu a gresit cu nimic." this translates as: "And, as a side note, no offense, you should know that people out here in Maramureş area argue that you people outside the Carpathian Arch are Gypsies. I did not want to believe that, but I see that the man who came up with that saying was not at all wrong." Please don't take my word for it, ask other Romanian speakers how they would translate the message.

I replied, letting Mario know that I consider such messages very problematic, and that, given the projected RfA: "you leave me with a choice of reporting you now or holding the message for future reference." He replied about his interpretation of the attacks: "And about the "lower than hell" comment i urge you to read again because it's nothing offensing about that. I just tried to say that my oppinion of you just dropped to a level 'lower than hell' with the sense of lowest possible. And the message in Romanian wasn't a racist attack it was just a remark present in the region from where i am from. You consider us stupid and slow we consider you gypsies and you know that is right." This shows that he has no problem repeating the insults, and feels that they somehow equate something I supposedly did. Which is not even funny. (Please note in addition that I have never ever stated any prejudice against "his people", and do not in fact hold any such prejudice - this entrenched mentality is entirely his projection.) Dahn (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all you shouldn't keep pushing the sockpuppet problem i had in front because that's all in my past. I did a bit of research on your and found out that you also have been blocked due to edit warring so were not entirely that different. The attempted RfA that i had was unsuccesfull and i received this message from editors that incouraged me even if i didn't pass. When i asked him if he hates things outside Bucharest he replied with this message. I saw that you wrote and has for no reason whatsoever invoked my Bucharest origin against me in disparaging but you have on your userpage This user is a Mitică, monşer userbox don't you? And related to the gypsi thing i know it was a bit over the line but i just pointed out a thing that involves people from the region where i live and their oppinion about other people in another region. These are considered cliches in Romania, that people from the Muntenia region including Bucharest are considered Mitici or gypsies, and people from Transilvania and Maramures are considered a bit slow minded and physically slow. Mario1987 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am mentioning your "sockpuppet problem" because it is apparent to me that you are trying to move from that to becoming an admin, and I believe that your edits primarily serve that purpose.

I am a Bucharester, that much is true, and I am also relaxed when it comes to self-defining myself as a Mitică (which, btw, is self-ironic). That I would invite you to produce any disparaging remarks against me (as you persist in doing just above), that I would in any way imply I am a "Gypsy" (which carries negative connotations even when referring to a Rom, not just when transferring its supposed negative connotations to a non-Rom), is ridiculous. The rest is an attempt at equivocation, and I trust administrators will see through the thin veneer. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, with the above comment, Mario has confirmed my translation. Dahn (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

From what i understand you think if i would become an admin the end of the world will come. If you must know that was my first and last attempt to become an admin. If you read the RfA message that i received you will see that i have to take admin coaching in order to become one. And BTW i didn't imply that YOU are a gypsi. Please show me the personal attack in this "And, as a side note, no offense, you should know that people out here in Maramureş area argue that you people outside the Carpathian Arch are Gypsies." It's very ambiguous. Mario1987 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am concerned that you are being deceptive in your editing. This, admittedly, is a concern we should all share. I am also concerned that you appear to be using that deception to improve your status in the community, regardless of the consequences this has on the quality of information provided by wikipedia. I am especially concerned since these contributions, as dubious as they are, get exposure on the first page, and I'm concerned that you have repeatedly shown this does not trouble you (judging by the feedback you received on T:TDYK, other editors too share at the very least this concern).

I obviously do not trust you to read and interpret your own comments, otherwise I would not be bringing this up for admin scrutiny. This is what you originally said: "And, as a side note, no offense, you should know that people out here in Maramureş area argue that you people outside the Carpathian Arch are Gypsies. I did not want to believe that, but I see that the man who came up with that saying was not at all wrong." The italicized part is what you did not include in your equivocation about what is "ambiguous". This is the second time on this page where you misquote me on purpose.

Anyway, I don't want to carry on forever in a debate with you. I believe the evidence I presented so far warrants at the very least serious scrutiny. I'll comment if administrators request from me to answer to/elaborate on specific issues, but I see no point in following up on your sophisms, Mario. Dahn (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The veiled racist attack (if the translation is correct) is very problematic, especially for a user who had an indefinite block for sockpuppetry lifted with the comment "last chance". Dahn, are there any diffs and/or other evidence to substantiate your charge that Mario1987 has been falsifying references? That would be a very serious problem as well. If people who can read Romanian can verify either charge, I would support an indefinite block. Sandstein 14:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what references i've falsified. Mario1987 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sandstein. It's not a question of diffs, it's more a question of an entire article that was not sourced with the source he claimed to have used. The article in question is Max Auschnitt, and the version I'm referring to is this one (the current one, as I'm writing this). I have stated the case on his talk page (the message I linked to above) and my original message concerning the Auschnitt hook on T:TDYK. See [here and the entry on Auschnitt here. The diffs I used show that the article was largely copied from Romanian wiki, where the reference (Enciclopedia României aka Enciclopedia Cugetarea) was mentioned but not cited, and that Mario added citations randomly to the English version, for facts that could not possibly be verified by the reference. Note that he also failed to cite the publication data properly by indicating the wrong publisher for the date (exactly like the Romanian page he must have copied it from), which is impossible or at least highly unlikely for someone who claims to have verified the reference. Dahn (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: please take a look at what Mario's sockpuppets were created for. At the time, Mario was using them in an attempt to promote as many pictures at once to featured status (all of them has since been moved to commons and they appear to have since been deleted). What just happened, I suspect, is the same attempt at receiving quick recognition for questionable contributions, also through a disruptive and deceptive process, and this evidences that the only lesson he has picked up from the previous block is to try the same tactic in other fields. Dahn (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. That's not fair. Using past problems to resolve present ones. And you keep telling the misleading reference story all the time. How many DYK articles i nominated that had real issues? I'm curious of what you're going to say. Mario1987 17:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using the past problems to show that you have done the same in Auschnitt's case. "And you keep telling the misleading reference story all the time." - let's see you prove, say, how you could cite a 1940 source on 1948 events. As for your DYK's: I never counted them, nor kept a file on you; I also said that it is hard for me to review your entire DYK history, when T:TDYK does not keep an archive. But admins can verify your history there as well. For one, they have User:Materialscientist agreeing that: "[Mario1987's] nominations, including this one, are written too quickly and would clearly benefit from better research and judgment on what is worth putting on WP pages" (see the T:TDYK link above). Also, if challenged, I am willing to take time from my editing etc. and go through the DYK proposals that I've had to correct: for instance, the one where you claimed that a church held one one of the oldest books in Romania (when it was not even one of the oldest printed books); where you claimed that two singers produced a huge number of singles in an entry that was about unreleased songs; where you created a hook (which is still on T:TDYK) which conflated a city and a county; where you sourced your hooks with primary source press releases.

Incidentally, I believe this is beyond the scope of this discussion, and I only replied to your points so you don't get another chance to blur the facts. The facts, the main but not the only facts, are that: a) you added false citations to an article; b) you produced personal attacks with racist content. And I ca only agree with Sandstein's assessment that any of these should warrant sanction. If you also want to discuss the rest, we can start another thread. Dahn (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation for the racist comments, and have yet to provide proof for the sources you claim in the DYK hook. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where i attacked him as a person in the comments i posted on his talk page. Regarding the reference in the DYK hook I recognise that my inspiration was the same article in the Romanian Wikipedia and that i didn't research the relevant article. Mario1987 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out the relevant fact here, because it may otherwise get lost in the comments: "Regarding the reference in the DYK hook I recognise that my inspiration was the same article in the Romanian Wikipedia and that i didn't research the relevant article." Yet you added false citations to the source (which were not present in the Romanian version) and submitted the hook. This knowing full well that the article was not going to get picked for DYK without citations. This is called a hoax, and admins now have your admission. Further above, they have your confirmation that my translation of your talk page message is correct. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a link to the sockpuppet matter, and the case of Mario1987 being given a "last chance"? I am concerned that there does seem to be a case made by Dhan that Mario1987 is not acting appropriately in attempting to garner accolades, which was also the perceived intent in the socking. I would note that Mario1987 has indicated that their research in respect of the example given was not valid, and this does raise concerns regarding their lack of discipline when submitting content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the link to Mario's sockpuppets. I was not aware of the "last chance" remark until Sandstein mentioned it, but then picked it up from his block log. Dahn (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Richboyliang

This editor has added impersonating an RfA candidate at different RfA discussion to his vandalism and creation of a User talk page for a non-existent account. The RFA deception is a major red flag that this will not be a productive editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor nitpick: the Dr joehigashi account does exist; he just signed up today. He hasn't yet made any edits though. -- Soap^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Richboyliang probably spotted that account creation and may have created the User talk page with a garbled welcome message in the edit summary, thinking that was the right thing to do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the new user doesn't know how to "sign" comments and was simply basing his comment on the RfA on that of another editor. It is unlikely, however, particularly since newbies finding RFA at the start is rare. Suggest keeping an eye on him. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching his Talk page and will check his contributions periodically.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This kind of disruptive editing, coupled with obvious vandalism from earlier in his editing history[140], suggests to me that he is not here to contribute productively. I have blocked him indefinitely. NW (Talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion for User:I cant think of a name 994

I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) was initially blocked for vandalism and for repeatedly inserting text into Blackout Ripper. They then created another account, Albsol88t (talk · contribs), which was subsequently blocked for ban evasion. The article was protected for a week, but after it wore off, the following accounts have shown up on the page and have been readding the same text:

• Noname8600 (talk · contribs)
• Bigone2 (talk · contribs)
• Howto8008 (talk · contribs)
• HAHAhahaooooooo (talk · contribs)

Per WP:DUCK, they are almost certainly all the same user. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The original indef blocks were also for harassment and personal attacks. The new accounts are repeating that same behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just added another username to the list, per this edit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an even earlier indef blocked account I never heard of was linked to all these by checkuser and all accounts have been blocked, with the article semi-protected to prevent more new accounts popping up to continue the disruptive edits. Thanks to everyone who looked into it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Treviso

It appears that Abdul Qayyum Ahmad (talk · contribs) has copied the article Treviso F.B.C. 1993, pasted the content in the new article A.S.D. Treviso 2009 and turned the former into a redirect to the latter. As a result, the full editing history is not visible, which doesn't comply with GFDL, IIRC. I don't know which is more appropriate: deleting the new article and moving the old article to the new name, or deleting the new article and starting a move request on the talk page.94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the relevant WikiProject of this discussion. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Alefbe reverted the cut and paste move. Abdul ought to be notified of this discussion and of how to (request to) move articles. Skomorokh 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In compliance with all other Italian football club articles, I have moved the entire article under the entirely new club denomination of A.S.D. Treviso 2009. History is now preserved, since it is a proper move, and not a mere copy-and-paste of it. In any case, I am unsure this is a kind of issue to be worth of being notified at WP:AN/I; a notification on the Football WikiProject would have probably been quite enough (but this is only my opinion). --Angelo (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Aggtown

• It appears that User:Cunard, a non-admin without closure rights, took it upon his/herself to relist a closed AfD. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It was never closed, unless I am looking at the wrong AfD. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It's now closed (by User:GlassCobra) , so the issue is moot. Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone can relist an article if there hasn't been enough talk after a certain period of time, not just admins.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User Njirlu

Persistent fringe-POV pushing over the past few days in Aromanian language, Template:Aromanians and Aromanians. Reverted by several users, who explained in his talk page why his edits were unacceptable, and called upon him to produce reliable sources for them or at least discuss changes first. He did not, and was already blocked once for his persistence, but continued in the same pattern after being unblocked. He was again warned repeatedly of the consequences of his continued reverts (breaking WP:3RR many times) and especially yesterday in very clear terms by User:Dahn, but today he continues in the same pattern. Constantine ✍ 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I obviously endorse Constantine's (Cplakidas's) assessment. Njirlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already received a temporary block for his edits, but continues unabashed (depsite repeated claims to have reformed himself). The first problem anyone notices with him is that he can barely speak English. The second is that he adds the same fringe theory to countless related articles, basically inventing an ethnic terminology unattested in English, and which is misspelled even in Aromanian. He does the same on several project, regardless of whether he speaks the language in question or not. In addition, he has recently behgun adding political symbolism he thinks should represent the Aromanians to various pages, even those were no political symbolism is required or desirable. If you read his justification for this behavior on the talk page, all you'll encounter is a nationalist manifesto which seems not to be interested at all in wikipedia rules - no matter how many times he is advised to read the policies and guidelines.

By now, Njirlu has been no excuse for claiming he is uninformed about how wikipedia works, and he has already been blocked once for his disruptive editing on September 8 (note his fruitless appeal to the block is justified as "in the name of the truth"). This is POV warring and disruption at its most basic level. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a 48 h block for edit warring. If this pattern of conduct continues, it can be reported to WP:EWN for escalating blocks or to WP:AE if a more general sanction under WP:ARBMAC is required. Sandstein 04:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

English Defence League

English Defence League (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) is in the news a bit at the moment, leading to the usual problems. They are a far-right group who have been involved in multiple demonstrations against Muslims. Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been discussed on the noticeboards before, he is an English nationalist. Recent edits include unsourced POV by JzG - note that the material removed was all sourced from BBC News and The Guardian, which are usually regarded as reliable sources on matters of British political reporting. Oh, and we also have a competition between English Defence League and English Defense League as the article title - obviously the British English spelling is correct as this is an English group. EDL come from the football hooligan community and even the [British National Party]] distances itself from them, but of course there will be attempts at airbrushing out insignificant and trivial things like the fact that a Minister of the British Government likened them to Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. Obviously we can't have that, can we, especially when reported by the BBC - that is "unsourced POV" apparently. Unless you happen to look at the front page of the BBC News website which prominently links "Denham condemns right-wing groups". Looks to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs. WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Guy. The editing is not so heated as to need protection, and no-one is acting so disruptively as to merit a block as far as I can see. Unless there's specific admin action you're looking for, I suggest you take it to WP:NPOVN or the content noticeboard. Skomorokh 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are, in my opinion, long-term issues with Yorkshirian's activist editing, and I am not here much at present. This is a call for more eyes on an article that's likely to see significant traffic. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Er what? Do you have any claim for your personal attack and lack of good faith, to claim I am a "nationalist" of any stripe? I do not support any political creed which come from the French Revolution, just to keep note. On Wikipedia, the WP:NPOV policy is central to the project, this extends to all articles, that includes ones on subjects which British communists are rabidly opposed to. Wikipedia isn't a podium for the far-left, its a neutral project. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That means that edits like this, in which you suggest that the UAF "opposed the group with riots against the police" and that "The Muslims and the far-left rioted" (neither claim being supported by the references provided) shouldn't be repeated. Stick to what the sources say and you'll be fine, but this edit seems to have at best WP:OR, and even some serious WP:POV, creeping in. I'm also unclear why the Communities Secretary needs to be described as "left wing", or the SWP need to be labelled as Trotskyite. Just because something's true (and I seriously dispute that Denham is left-wing, but that's subjective...) doesn't make it encyclopaedic or notable. Readers who need to know about the SWP (poor souls...) can click the link, but the Trotskyite label is irrelevant in the context of the Stop the Islamification of Europe and English Defence League articles. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Though some of these edits are of concern, I agree with Skomorokh that this specific content dispute is not suited for discussion here at ANI. Any longterm issues are perhaps best discussed at WP:RFC/U or in another dispute resolution forum. Sandstein 04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpupetry by Sarandioti-Alarichus

I have made some research, considering the highly suspicious initiative by User:Alarichus on a recent Greek-Albanian dispute. A series of evidence can not be considered just coincidence and points that he is a possible sockpupet of User:Sarandioti .

Evidence

• Sarandioti contributed from May 26 to July 21 [[141]], with an addition of 4 minor edits in a last appearance in August 21. His contribution was considered highly disruptive with wp:npa, civility, 3rr [[142]] [[143]], reaching 6 blocks[[144]], with his last one in July 21, plus an one revert limit.

• Alarichus started to contribute to Wikipedia from July 20 [[145]], 23 hours before Sarandioti’s last ban. Although complaining in such cases and always making unblock requests, Sarandioti all of the sudden disappeared (just a brief appearance in August 21).

• The time pattern while both accounts were actively contributing: from July 20, 02:36 to July 21 01:27, (23 hours) is very clear that there were not simultaneous contributions from both accounts.

• Both users share the same isp with approximately the same i.p.: a series of reverts by Sarandioti in June 4, while intentionally unlogged in order to evade 3rr in his edit-wars revealed his i.p.: [[146]], as well as Alarichus’ ‘whois’ information in irc simply proves that. As I know their isp provides a dynamic ip address in a limited range, and that’s obvious since Alarichus joins irc:wikipedia-en, with a slightly different ip almost each day.

• A weird evidence of inconsistency is that Alarichus asked for the translation of an off-wiki text from Greek to English (with Latin characters), pretending that he doesn’t know Greek [[147]] . However, his whois info in irc clearly shows that he lives in Greece (Athens). Considering that he joins the irc channel more than a month, with his whois info always pointing to Athens, something is really weird with this situation. By the way Sarandioti spoke Greek very well [[148]] [[149]] and was active in irc too [[150]].

• Alarichus, from 20 July, has a good contribution for a rookie in minor edits in non Greek-Albanian topics. This contribution was not always without being massively reverted [[151]] [[152]], with the reason that his conts were unexplained.

• After becoming a ca. 45 day experienced user he decided to initiate as a ‘third part’ user, a Greek-Albanian dispute in the deletion of the template:Northern Epirus. However, in the process he decided to leave his neutrality and take the part of the one side. Moreover, accused the Greek side for launching a sock-meatpupetry concert. Quite wierd behavior for a determined newcomer in wiki to make such moves.

• In the following wp:ani, he didn’t hesitate to accuse me as a member of an extremist organization that posted a thread off-wiki, being based on a sequence of exaggerated assumptions [[153]] [[154]]. Paradoxically, the same time he carefully avoided any comment against I_Pakapshem, no matter his block history and disruptive contributions. It is sure that a real third part user, would deal with such a situation in a more critical way taking into account history records of both sides. I Pakapshem and Sarandioti were good friends in tag-teaming in the past by the way. Moreover, Sarandioti was used on making empty accusation and reporting users from the first days of his appearance.

• Alarichus made adjustments after ‘being asked from irc’, in template:Northern Epirus, still without explaining a real reason. Most of the template’s articles he deleted were of highly importance for Sarandioti too [[155]], [[156]], [[157]]

• Last but not least both userpages are of similar inspiration: infant A. Hitler and anarchism , satanic eschatological stuff, with a variety of revolutionary extremist style quotes.

I believe, as per User:Factuarius pointed, that these two accounts are used by the same person. It's really hard to believe the opposite, but everyone can extract his own results and opinion.Alexikoua (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Um, WP:SPI is that way......Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Osapkaopjdisaj

Osapkaopjdisaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given a final warning about copyright problems a week ago. Judging from his behaviour since, the concept didn't sink in at all.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours--I was thisclose to blocking him indef, but some of his uploads have been within policy. Next time it'll be indef ... I'm about to leave an additional warning on his talk page. Blueboy96 03:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Esnupi

Esnupi (talk · contribs)

Yet another strange case, I fear. This is an instance of an apparenly well-meaning individual with a limited grasp of English who is posting machine translated Brazilian place substubs en masse from what I assume is the Brazilian Wikipedia. Some of these appear to be from other sources as well. He's finally stopped after a few requests from other users, but the fact remains that we have in excess of one hundred nearly incomprehensible and/or subminiature stubs. I'm about to invoke WP:BOLD and use the mass delete to just blow these out, but I wanted to get some opinions first. My opinion is they should go; they look awful, they took no effort to create and aren't even suitable for a starting place on a proper article. Any suggestions? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd go with that. I've taken a look, they are dreadful and unless someone wants to wipe the text and replace it with real English, go for mass delete. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Actually it's the Portuguese Wikipedia. (We divide by language of article prose.) And yes, for one case, São Sebastião (satellite city) is definitely a machine translation of pt:São Sebastião (Distrito Federal) — even down to the retention of the Portuguese abbreviations such as "DF" and the spurious HTML that caused ==History== to not parse as a heading (which I've just corrected). Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• FYI - He is starting to create articles again, an article about every 3 minutes. Clubmarx (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest ones are essentially just massive walls of text. There may be something coherent in there, but I'm not diving in to find it. Also, unless I'm reading it wrong this seems to be a personal attack. HalfShadow 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor must be blocked until they acknowledge the problem, and all edits deleted, unless someone wants to take the time to fix those messes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles could be worthwhile if we turn them into basic stubs, "<Name of town> is a town/city in the state of <name of state>, Brazil", with the geographic stub tags. I'm willing to do a few dozen of them. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nicer if we could just get him to at least stop or at the very least format his text. He has to understand that every time he tosses one of those...things...up, someone has to clean it up. HalfShadow 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. But how could he learn this on the English WP site when his responses have been barely understandable? He should be blocked. Clubmarx (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

er?Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a Brazilian editor and I saw the notice of this issue at WP:BR's talk page. I was taking a look at his talk page, and I could deduce "go to be fuck" was a machine translation of "vai se fuder", which means "fuck you". In other words, that was a personal attack. Also, with "of the one tesao to type these archives", I believe he meant "I'm having a real good time typing these articles", in a quite bad faith sense. Would you guys like me to try a friendly Portuguese language approach? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you, Victão. I just looked at some of his latest "creations" and they are even more incomprehensible than ever. That machine-translated "fuck you" is going to earn him a timeout and I'll go ahead and do a mass delete right now. These are just getting out of hand. Thanks to all of you for the advice. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this approach. Sandstein 04:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections. I cleaned up somewhat one of the early posts (which I now took the liberty to restore) but it it didn't help to set a good example rather to the contrary.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker

Inurhead has continued a months long edit warring and incivility at The Hurt Locker, continuously reverting all edits to the article to his preferred version, sometimes bit a time, sometimes wholescale. He has displayed extreme bias regarding the film, attacking anything he perceives as negative about it. Attempts at discussions have filled the talk page and clearly show that consensus is against him, but he ignores it and continues his disruptive edits and accuses anyone who comes to the discussion as being either a meat puppet, a sockpuppet, or a canvassed votes when the harassed editors trying to work on the articles came to the Films project (per dispute resolution) for additional views.

He has already been left numerous warnings, and been reported to 3RR twice and to ANI twice. First ANI, in July, [158] he got a warning. First 3RR happened August 6th and he was again warned.[159] Next 3RR, August 14th, resulted in his being blocked 31 hours.[160] Soon as he was unblocked, he continued. At this point, the situation had escalated from a disagreement between 3 to Inurhead ignoring the comments, suggestions, warnings, and actions of half a dozen editors or more. I myself reported him here August 16th[161] and he was blocked 72 hours. Block expired, he went right back to the same stuff all over again.

Administrative review and help seriously needed. His actions continue to hamper the legitimate improvement work being done by some 5-6 editors. I have left notices at the talk pages of who I believe to be the major editors involved in the conflict informing them of this discussion, in addition to Inurhead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, the problem edits go back to mid-2008, when Inurhead first began editing articles such as Hurt Locker and related pages such as Jeremy Renner. The edits reflect a pattern of non-encyclopedic rewrites to focus on only positive comments; a lack of willingness to collaborate when consensus turns against his preferred version; and a tendency to use personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him. I've spent the better part of a year having to watchlist the Hurt Locker article to keep abreast of the frequent changes; now that regulars from Wikiproject Film are involved there, Inurhead has expanding his pattern of attack to include unfounded criticisms of some of the most established contributors from that project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. There is a gang of hostile editors that have recently taken ownership of the page and have tag teamed to revert every one of my contributions and/or changes. I made a suggested change tonight by one of them and yet I'm still being attacked by the above hostile editor. They have tried to lure me into 3RR several times by tag team reverting my contributions. Tonight I did not fall for their trap. Collectonian above, lists several times that I have been "warned". But there were only two times. She or he makes it sound like it was more. Again, this is being warned by contributors who were obviously canvassed to come and edit war and revert things I had contributed. I ask that User:AnmaFinotera and User:Ckatz and User:Erik and SoSaysChappy be blocked for tag teaming and trying to islolate and attack this contributor, in an attempt to try to provoke, harass, hound and irritate me, with the goal of discouraging my contributions and/or trying to block me permanently. This is totally unacceptible, as I am a good contributor to Wikipedia, not a vandal. Strict scrutiny must always be applied when blocking people and it hasn't been, in my case. Again, I am not a vandal and was contributing to this page long before this group of hostile minority-majority editors came and overtook the page. Wikipedia is not an "elitist" club for hostile demi-administrators and bureaucrats. Every person should feel welcome to contribute without being isolated, attacked and having all of their contributions constantly deleted. Inurhead (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every person should feel welcome to contribute, but equally, if they edit articles in the way that you're doing (removing criticism and starting the reception section with "The Hurt Locker has been very universally acclaimed among critics", copying and pasting, moving the plot into the lede section, and using unreliable sources), then they should not be surprised if their edits are reversed. You are not being tag-teamed; your edits are being reverted because they are wrong. If you keep disrupting the article, then it is only going to lead to another block or a topic ban. I'd strongly suggest discussing all your changes on the talkpage before making them. Black Kite 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that it would be fair to block AnmaFinotera for making false reports and for mischaracterizing the situation. I did not commit 3RR tonight and Collectonian is clearly trying to make it look like I did, when I didn't. He or she did not cite any disruptions from the past 24 hours and the ones he or she does cite are weeks old, and were again, when I was tricked into 3RR by their tag teaming. Mischaracterizing an editor as having made "bad faith" edits and making threats and false reports is disruptive to Wikipedia and must be punished. The minority-majority group which have taken ownership of The Hurt Locker page has been attempting to use policy to "muddy" the water and to get their way. Collectonian has used policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that this editor is editing in bad faith. Again, strict scrutiny must be used when "whipping" editors with warnings and blocking them. This should be reserved to prevent vandalism, not to prevent good contributions! Misrepresenting these events and being hostile to editors to isolate them is harmful to the Wikipedia environment in that it chases good contributors away. If you want to keep chasing people away, then by all means listen to the "Collectonians". Collectonian is the one that is at war. Her comrades, Erik and his cohorts use pettifogging and wikilawyering to try to drive contributors away. Believe me, any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times. None of my contributions to articles has been vandalism. All of it has been factual and backed up by sources and by what I understood was Wiki policy. They seem to be inventing new policy and policies-within-policies-within-policies to try to thwart new users from contributing and/or so that they can control every film article. It's insanity. Truly. Thanks. - Inurhead (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one is getting blocked here. Seriously, think about it - if "any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times" - and by a number of different editors - could it possibly be that it's your edits that are the problem? Black Kite 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I've reported on here before that I was being hounded and/or wikistalked by one of them who has admitted as much on the talk page of the article. He's the one who solicted them to attack and isolate me. By the way, I didn't "invent" that the film was "universally acclaimed." It is. Check Metacritic. Check Rotten Tomatoes. It is not "wrong" to state a fact. Facts are stubborn things. All laboriously documented. And the moving of a synopsis into the LEAD section was suggested by one of them! I was merely doing what had already been suggested, which several of them agreed about. Yet, that sends Collectonian into a tailspin! Go figure. They were just looking for another excuse to revert everything I did tonight. And you are letting them get away with it. What they are doing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. They are also doing it to try to distract me away from the article, to waste my time responding to these false attacks. THAT is also against Wiki etiquette. - Inurhead (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few things to report from my personal experiences with this editor...

• Says that I more or less don't deserve to make contributions to the article because my first edit to the article was only a month ago. Was also referred to as "SoSaysCrabby" (ho ho). [162].
• Borderline personal attack: Accused me of being a member of the film's production crew when there is zero evidence of any such conflict of interest.
• Since incivility seems to be a concern here...Calls my edits "boring" (I'm not trying to write the next great spy novel).
• Individually and collectively accused of being a sock puppet (apparently, my creating this User ID in April of 2008 is somehow strong evidence of this, and from what I can tell this user has a chronic habit of hounding users with puppetry accusations without going through the proper channels at WP:SPI.
• Simple childish engagement of mind games: Here is my my message to him about why I reverted to a 600-word (within guideline word limits) from his edit which expanded it to over 1100 words. He promptly deleted the post. Lo and behold, a few days later, he leaves this post explaining why the 600-word summary should be reverted to on his original one-paragraph pre-release synopsis. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inurhead, have you heard of WP:AGF? You seem to be thinking that anyone saying a word against your edits are involved in an evil plot to remove your contributions. From your comments above, I'm afraid you seem to have taken ownership of the article, and your comments at the article's talk page further strengthen that impression:

• you tell several editors not to revert because they are new to the article
• you say you're going to revert because they made a change when you told them not to
• you tell an editor to go work on some other article when he tries to make a change, and restores to your preferred version
• you dismissed an explanation for an edit saying "too much explaining for what is obviously a revert". I don't see how you can say that when you simply revert others' edits without any discussion at all.

The former 3 are somewhat old, and the 4th is very recent. There are plently of similar edits in between in the edit history if anyone is interested. And just today:

• you removed several comments made by other editors. For what reason, I cannot understand.

As Black Kite said, it looks to me that your editing is creating the problem here. Please discuss on the article talk page (and I mean discuss, not fighting to preserve your version) so that a you people can come up with a balanced version that is agreeable to everyone. If you continue like this, you're practically asking to be blocked and this time it's likely to be indef. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite the problems, Inurhead started a couple of reasonable discussions at Talk:The Hurt Locker, to which I've responded. I think that when so much time is particularly devoted to one article, it's hard to move on. I personally diversify my editing so if for some reason I don't agree with consensus somewhere, I can move on. With the editor's contributions mainly on that one article, though, it is somewhat understandable to take offense at the editors that have swooped in. Still does not excuse the false accusations, which does not help for collaboration. Erik (talk contribs wt:film) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Inurhead also has repeated his personal attacks on my talk page, including the stuff noted above about wanting me blocked for bringing the issue up here again.[163] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To echo some of the thoughts expressed above, my opinion of Inurhead is mixed. Like everyone else, we've clashed with Inurhead on The Hurt Locker. When I first got involved, he was very much asserting ownership of the article. ANY changes other than his were reverted without discussion and often disparraging [164] or hostile [165] remarks. Even once you got him on a discussion page, it was less than pleasant to deal with Inurhead. He characterizes those that disagree with him as trolls and/or socks. As he's done with Collectonian, he's left less then pleasant messages on my talk page. Eventually, some others from the Film project (Erik, SoSaysChappy and others) got involved with the article. I do not like dealing with Inurhead and his hostility, so with others involved, I've stopped doing anything on the article. It wasn't worth the aggravation, and seemed that others had it under control.

The Hurt Locker has gone from reading like a Hollywood press-release to a pretty respectable article. Much of the informaation has come from Inurhead (nearly all of his edits are directly related to the film, cast or crew), but have needed significant work to shift from press-release to article. Once you can convince Inurhead to actually talk about things, and discuss them rather than attack, he seems to be tolerable to deal with. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived as Inurhead appears to have just waited for this thread to archive, before once again starting back up with trying to revert The Hurt Locker to his preferred version, continuing to use false edit summaries while trying to remove any criticism of the film[166]. When he was reverted, he left his usual ranting message claiming no one has the "authority" to revert his edits and that he will "report" me for reverting his inappropriate changes that have no consensus[167] and claiming that no one else is disagreeing with him anymore (obviously false from above and the fact that its, oh, 3:30 am so unlikely most others are even awake). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week; this is their third block for the same thing. Clearly Inurhead has taken nothing of the above conversation in, not to mention the warnings on their talk page. Sadly, if editors are determined not to Get The Point^TM, then there's not a lot we can do except stop them from editing. No doubt an unblock request will be along shortly. Black Kite 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Being completely uninvolved in this, I decided to go look at the talk page, this really bad faith comment by Inurhead really sealed my opinion:

"That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons."[168]

Ikip (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海

Can someone examine the recent mainspace and talkpage edits by 虞海 (talk · contribs) which appear to be clueless, POV pushing or intentional trolling. Here is a summary of events:

1. user adds a false and POV disclaimer to India and Kashmir articles. (the disclaimer is false since the disputed territories are already properly marked in the maps)
2. When his edits are reverted by User:Sandeepsp4u, he explains to Sandeepsp4u that he made the edit because, "See what you did on Page Medog: Is this neutral??". Sandeepsp4u has never edited the page Mêdog County!
3. User 虞海 then readds the false disclaimer to India page, which I revert, with edit-summary, "revert false and pointy disclaimer". I also leave him a note on his talkpage. To this he replies, "I'll do what you did to me to others"
4. He then follows up by removing comments from some 20 odd Chinese/Tibet county pages, copying my edit summary (from point 3) "revert false and pointy disclaimer", which is not applicable to his edits. (sample links [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], ...)
5. User:Croquant questions 虞海 about one of the edits and edit summary (from point 4).
6. At this point 虞海 leaves a message on my talk page which copies verbatim parts of, (1) the message I left for him (point 3) and (2) Croquant's message to him (point 5)

I know this patently bizarre behavior may be hard to follow. Can anyone make sense of all this, and wave either the clue- or block-bat ? Abecedare (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like another case of Disruptive editing to me. Also, note that I've left a warning on his talk page for not assuming good faith for his edits on the article page of India and I'm now sifting through his contribution/edit history to see if he has made any other malicious edits or editing trend that's worth keeping an eye out for. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remember the three strike rule, I've just issued the second warning for his addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of Mongolia, now you guys just watch out for the third time he conducts another disruptive editing and report here immediately for the Admins to take the appropriate action. Also, you may report to WP:AIV if any of his subsequent edit(s) are/is deemed to be a vandalism edit, this will surely get himself BLOCKED faster than we can say anything here. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added after archival

Just fyi, that Mengwu Shiwei-related stuff Yu Hai added to the History of Mongolia is actually quite notable because it is the first mention of a tribal name that sounds similar to "Mongol". While it is apparently not very clear whether those Mengwu and the later Mongols are one and the same group or not, it is at least a well-known hypothesis. See for example Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, 1993, p. 7. So while the style and overall quality of Yu Hai's addition may be debatable, it is certainly far from vandalism. Yaan (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

In the following unsourced, uncited edit to the Henry Ndifor Abi Enonchong article, User:Abanie29(talk)(contribs) threatened "ANY PERSON HOW EDITS THIS PAGE WITH FALSE INFORMATION WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION AND LIEBEL". I reverted the edit, and given the legal threat thought I should post it here. For background, the article was created by a single purpose account with no citations or references, and edited by an anon ip. I came across the article later and rather then put it up for wp:afd, I rewrote it using all online references I could find. It was then overwritten by another single purpose. I reverted those edits.--Work permit (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block and CheckUser Abanie29--Sky AttackerHere comes the bird! 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that-a-way. MuZemike 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All right captain! Let's go!--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give a break to editors who just learned English yesterday, by reducing the lengths of their indefinite blocks by a day or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

...and infinity minus two would be what? ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That just means they get the last two days before the heat death of the universe to edit. --Jayron32 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. You're onto it. Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that they will be still be around two days before the Heat death of the universe...--Sky AttackerHere comes the bird! 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that some form of Darwinin belief?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the writing style and similar promotional interest in that guy, it's a good bet that Tracey29 [174] (another one-shot editor, who created the article) is the same as the guy we just blocked. Admin discretion as to whether to block that user also. But he only made the one edit under that user ID. Possibly likewise with user Dbtmamfe, who flooded the article with minutia, and soon after being reverted is when the legal threat popped up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bf20204 Personal Attacks after blocking And new editor account for block evasion?

Bf20204 (talk · contribs) Ba20204 (talk · contribs)

Hi all - after a 72 hour blocking for outing, BF20204 has returned with some pointed personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and other interesting points here here and here. Also, he has done some similar edits to an archived discussion from this page here here and a couple of other times. For the record, he used personal knowledge of who I am rather than an internet search - I figured out his identity on my own and he is a former co-worker who saw where I have edited from (countries) to figure out who I am. Does a neutral party want to take a look and see if he has crossed the line again? Bevinbell 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that my links were not working - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Foreign_Service&oldid=313348292 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_Foreign_Service&diff=313350537&oldid=313348432 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive562&oldid=312964573 and related editing by the editor after his ban. Bevinbell 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed he has a new account - Ba20204 but signing with his old user name! Is this block evasion/sock puppet/or weird new user account creation? Bevinbell 14:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's notable to look at the Special:Contributions/Ba20204 as he was actually editing the archives, and admits to having created a new account "First, this is Bf20204. I did not create another account to circumvent the system. I created an account to respond to the accusations leveled against me." I have left the archives untouched so y'all can see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edits to the archive, lest it go stale and undo become impossible. I wonder if it would be possible to set up an edit filter to prevent that sort of thing? Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the two accounts are the same person - as admitted by them.

• They received a 72hr block on Sept 8 (User:Bf20204)
• They created a new account on the 10th (inside the block time) and editing the archived ANI discussion (User:Ba20204)
• On the 12 (outside of the 3 day block) they used the new account to continue the same negative activities
• As of today, they're back on the original account, although they appear to have "given up the fight"

So, we have Block Evasion and further disruption, but it may have stopped. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - well, he has professed that he is moving on, but he has done some unfortunate things. I left a response on the article talk page as I did not want his comments just hanging there for folks not privy to the history. Given the discussion on ANI over his ban for outing, there was a call for an indef ban (which I do not think is warranted) based upon his OR and POV edits and outing attempt. I hope an admin would take his block evasion and new account creation seriously (I don't know what to think about editing an archived ANI discussion) as well as his picking up the negative activities again - whats the point of blocks if they are evaded? Maybe some additional ban and/or warning on multiple account editing and block evasion? Thanks Bevinbell 14:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton III

Dear admins, an issue brought here a couple of times before still seems unresolved. It was first noted by User:Alansohn at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some and again by User:Benjiboi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. The self-appointed policing by Drawn Some of Richard Arthur Norton seems to be constinuing as elaborated on per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind (he calls the later "non-notable" despite being covered in The New York Times as "JULIA A. BERWIND, A SOGIETY FIGURE; Leader Here and in Newport" in an article. I would think given that two separate editors had identified a pattern of what looks like wikihounding in the past Drawn Some would lay off, but as with today has these mass spurts of efforts to be rid of articles Richard works on even to the point of today renominting for deletion an article that closed as regular keep (not no consensus) a mere week ago. Moreover, when another editor (User:Ikip) politely requested Drawn Some consider redirecting per WP:BEFORE and WP:BRD, Drawn Some dismissed him as "I don't have time to battle the editors who think notability is unimportant". In any event as in the two AfDs exampled above, Drawn Some said to bring my concerns here and so I am doing so. For more of their interactions, please see here (I suspect their or more in the way of deleted contribs). Now, it would be one thing if these copy and paste nominations were unanimously supported, but again, we are talking about everything from a renomination a week later to dismissing royalty as "non-notable." And a whole series of them from an editor for whom he was twice discussed on ANI previously? I don't know it, it just doesn't feel right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • If you're going to quote me don't lift choice bits out of context. My reply to ikip was:

No, they need to go to AFD. I could have redirected them but it would just be undone without some consensus. I don't have time to battle the editors who think notability is unimportant and everything should be included in the encyclopedia. You see A. Nobody is already making irrelevant smokescreen !votes. Drawn Some (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not seeing how that is much better. What is with you and Richard? Why are you so fixated on nominating articles he works on or arguing to delete those he wants kept? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• It is interesting that you don't attempt to justify or explain your behaviour in any way. With the best will in the world it is hard to see how your actions can be considered acceptable. Ben MacDui 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a final warning to both to avoid each other, or next step would be a formal topic ban or even escalating blocks? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• The behavior that is inappropriate is mass-creation of articles on non-notable topics. Nominating them for deletion is highly appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Like Henry Clay Ide (AfD discussion) that you nominated for deletion today for being a non-notable Governor-General of the Philippines? There is a point where the claimed non-notability explanation beggars belief, and the more plausible explanation that you nominate articles not out of policy concerns but simply because Richard Arthur Norton was the last editor to touch them starts to make the more sense. This is especially so when it turns out that Richard Arthur Norton wasn't even the creator of the supposed "mass-created non-notable topic" article. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Drawn Some's fixation with RAN is unacceptable. The various afd's are clearly motivated by animosity and should be speedily closed. Occuli (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the goal of this ANI, isn't it? To keep articles that are clearly on non-notable topics. That would be inappropriate as well. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Drawn Some is having these conflicts with Ikip, with RAN, with A Nobody. (I don't think the main conflict is with A.N., though he was the one to bring it here this time) , Does everybody need to avoid him, or is it the other way around, that he needs a long rest from AfD. The problem is not the conflict, but the wikistalking. I think the example Uncle G brought shows it the most clearly. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a might big lie you're telling, DGG. Please back up your accusations about conflicts with facts. It is unacceptable libel to make statements like that. It is against Wikipedia standards of conduct to do that. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I wonder if a user conduct RFC would be of benefit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't even know who this person is, so if we had conflicts in the past, they must have been minor because I forgot. Can you provide some edit diffs A Nobody? I always have to ask you to provide edit diffs. I asked Drawn to redirect, but I didn't mention anything about Before. That was the total of my involvment with this person. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add here that Drawn Some does not seem to be acting in good fate. He nominates numerous historical biographies that have only just been created. Now i ask, is Drawn Some a historian? What basis does he have in determining that a person is not notable just because he does not know anything about the subject? Wikipedia is not complete. There is still alot that needs to be added. Now, wikipedia has thousands, if not thens of thousands of articles about minor historical figures such as these. There are countless of pages about minor nobility etc. And there are countless more missing. These pages add to wikipedia and should not be deleted. Drawnsome is actively working against good editors by preventing new articles from being created. Again: Wikipedia is far from complete. Furthermore Drawn Some nominates these articles almost as soon as they are created. Thereby he prevents anyone else from finding the article and adding to it. Alot of articles start off small, and become bigger. By constantly immediatly nominating anything created about minor historical figures, Drawn some is preventing this. I would also like to note that Drawnsome's entire contribution list is filled with these deletion efforts. There are no edits on articles that add anything to the articles. Drawn Some does not add anything to Wikipedia. He only removes. And drawnsome does seem focussed on RAN alot. Omegastar (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will add my voice to those above and say that Drawn is clearly stalking RAN, This behavior is unacceptable and must stop. The fact that two ANI threads failed to correct the problem makes it clear enough that there is no "good faith" cause for these actions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible topic ban if this continues

This seems pretty clear cut. User:Drawn Some. You have two basic options. You can continue down this path of nominating obviously notable articles for whatever reason you may have or you can accept that you may not be a very good judge of notability vis as vis these articles. The first path will result in your being topic banned from AfD, that is to say if you continue I will start a discussion here to reach some community consensus to ban you from starting AfDs or participating at AfD. The second path, which basically involves you reducing the volume of AfD discussions you start and immediately improving your batting average (As it were) is the lowest impact path because it does not require some more heavy handed community participation. Among the recent nominations of yours that I have reviewed (on this list, about 40% have been speedily kept or look to be on that road and <40% appear to be approaching no consensus (That is, 40% is the upper limit for your success rate, even including no consensus closes). .400 is a good average in baseball but not for AfD. It is doubly disturbing that you appear to be following a specific editor and nominating their articles for deletion. If you want to continue to nominate articles, please endeavor to exhaust all options before deletion, write a full and convincing nomination statement (ensuring that it is accurate) and refrain from nominating a string of articles made by a particular contributor. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded, with the note that I will support any topic ban proposal if you fail to adhere to the second path. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to merge, delete and redirect articles on unimportant members of the peerage - heck, I tried to change WP:POLITICIAN to exclude the lords - but this goes over the line, particularly the apparent "stalking" of one particular editor. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo the words of Ironholds.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --Jayron32 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ironholds. Targeting a particular editor and wikilawyering are totally unacceptable. Salih (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've snow-closed the offending AfD, because the drama it was creating is unnecessary. However, I am concerned that Protonk's and Ironholds' admonishing remarks addressed to Drawn Some are more strongly-worded than strictly necessary in this case. I do not always agree with Drawn Some, but he is a good-faith editor motivated by a genuine desire to improve the encyclopaedia; I tend to think of Drawn Some as a deletionist counterpart to A Nobody or Ikip. I think that what is needed here is guidance and encouragement, not a kick in the arse, and I specifically think Drawn Some should not be topic-banned from AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But look at the point that Uncle G provided. There, RAN made a few minor additions to Henry Clay Ide, a governor general of the philipppines and diplomat; an obviously notable person. Immediatly after Drawnsome nominated the article for deletion. This article was not even created by RAN( the article is 5 years old!). It was only edited by RAN. But as soon as RAN made the edit, Drawnsome appeared to nominate the article for deletion. Omegastar (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

One comment that I found particularly disturbing is "Yeah, I was on vacation and I was talking about this guy to some friends and they agreed he probably has issues he can't help and that he's not actually hurting anybody. I will still try to clean up after him some when I have time." I have had some fierce run-ins with some, mostly now indefinitely blocked, editors, but have never been so fixated on anyone that I needed to discuss them with real-world off-wiki friends and certainly not while on vacation, not to mention borderline personally attacking him by suggesting on wiki that anyone "has issues". Then, to outright declare after the previous two ANI threads that he "will still try to clean up after him some when I have time" is an outright admission of intent to follow the editor around. On Wikipedia we might occasionally have arbcom appointed mentors or voluntarily join the adopt-a-user program, and yes, we all are vigilant against vandalism and problematic editing in general, but to be a self-appointed janitor with regards to a specific editor and especially to assert that you will continue to do so in the face of two different editors who thought it problematic enough to start admin board threads just ain't right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban, per above. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand this concern but remain of the opinion that the line presently being taken with Drawn Some is too strong, too early. There is a behaviour pattern to address, but I do think there are better ways to deal with a good-faith editor than this. For example, one might propose a mentorship arrangement, or simply take the matter to his talk page.

  I do agree that RAN, who is a good-faith editor too, should be able to edit without being wikistalked and I understand the Article Rescue Squadron's desire to protect him, but I think a topic-ban would be punitive rather than preventative at this stage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns and wrestled with them when posting this. My view is that we shouldn't topic ban him now but should he keep this up the face of what is very obviously strong disapproval, we should topic ban him. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is how I read Protonk's comments: Protonk is just warning Drawn now. Ikip (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I realise that. I'm merely advocating a lighter touch in this matter in future, because I think the line presently being taken is a bit stronger than strictly necessary. Drawn Some's quite bright, and I think he'll get the message loud and clear without any further drama.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I too support Protonk's position on this. My concern is that, notwithstanding S Marshall's hopes, as yet I see no sign at all that Drawn Some has understood that his actions are beyond the pale. I fear we may be back here again soon. Ben MacDui 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

another opinion - Drawnsome has repeatedly deleted without discussion all across Wikipedia. He/she really gets on my case about a valid potential COI on the only subjects i am interested in (Majora Carter/South Bronx), but always goes way over-board (obsessive), is really self-righteous about it (mean), and can't seem to collaborate, just fight to the point of scouring WP for the purpose of diminishing references to Majora Carter that I had nothing to do with. People usually get "Drawsome fatigue" and leave articles behind - for which they suffer. It's not a creative or productive relationship for readers, writers, or editors. --believe me (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose editor who is the husband of the subject of the article who actually inserted a photo of her kindergarten class. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• My rate of successful nominations for AfD is probably higher than the average. Any talk of a topic ban is just posturing by people who believe that there should be no standards of notability and that anything verifiable should be included in Wikipedia. I find this witch hunt highly offensive and any further threats need to be backed up with facts. Drawn Some (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, it is perfectly acceptable to go through a user's edit list to look for problems. I have not "wikistalked" anyone. The repeated misapplication of that term and such accusations need to be backed up with facts or else it is a personal attack against me. If someone wants to accuse me of wikilawyering for asking that accusations be backed up with facts and that lies are not thrown at me, so be it. Without truth to accusations the accusers run a risk of having it backfire. Drawn Some (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Ezekiel Emanuel

I am not sure if the is the right spot, but I didn't see anywhere else to post it. The primary editor of this page had been (probably still is) doing a large amount of original research and synthesis of material. Some of this I have removed, but it appears that he primary solution is to include huge sections of blockquoting that appear that they may violate copyright issues. I don't know the explicit rules regarding taking lage quotes from articles so I thought I would get an answer here. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to link the editor to the relevant guidelines/policies instead of just 'giving up' so easily.--Otterathome (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this editor, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a false statement on the copyvio. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Request block for 74.93.128.121

User talk:74.93.128.121 was given a last warning 4 May 2009 (UTC), but has continued to vandalize, as shown by the recent edit at Irresistible grace.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle.HalfShadow 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Halfshadow, but Luigi has come to rescue her this time.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to report vandals. I have moved this request to WP:AIV. Intelligentsium 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a school IP. Block. End of story.--Sky AttackerHere comes the bird! 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It should have been reported to AIV, chummer; that's what HalfShadow and Intelligentsium are getting at. -Jeremy^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never reported anything like this before. Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reticent and vandalizing IP

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

Problems with blanking articles and reticent edit warring.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

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

IP has constantly introduced incorrect information and has been warned several times.BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the IP at WP:AIV. In future, you can cut out the middle-man and go straight to WP:AIV - after warning the vandal first, of course. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...and they're blocked. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:220.233.113.184‎

Warned on uncited, with 2 diffs after report for Socialist Alternative (Australia), blanked their entry at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism threetwo times. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours for disruptive editing. Rodhullandemu 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 88.233.4.217

This user insists on adding Turkish alphabet to irrelevant pages (like cities of Ukraine, Greece, Iran, Macedonia,...) and deleting referenced to Kurds in Kurdish-related articles. In recent days, it has done the same thing by using other IPs (including 88.233.168.53 and 88.233.68.134), so, semi-protection of those pages might be a good idea [175]. Alefbe (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody there? Check also recent edits by user:88.233.1.84. Alefbe (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest placing a warning on the page of the most recent editor; I don't see any warnings to date. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please block 124.253.115.133

See their user acct. Its only two edits took huge chunks out of memory hierarchy. I'm reverting them. CpiralCpiral 04:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the use if those are its only two edits at the mo? -Jeremy^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This request doesn't make sense - why hasn't this anon been warned like any other account that does the same thing? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's takes four warnings, and then the vandal has to vandalize again. Besides, this should have been at AIV, not here.Abce2This isnot a test 05:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I put a welcome template on the IP (maybe a waste but hey), and one warning template for removal of content.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone place a "resolved" tag?Abce2This isnot a test 06:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Kay!CpiralCpiral 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) — hard-core PoV-pushing anon

See Special:Contributions/71.241.218.107. See also the extreme incivility at User talk:71.241.218.107. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...a quick look at said talkpage had me lose count of the fuck, fucking, and fuck you's on that page. User knows one synonym, though: shitChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

......actually, there are only seven "fuck"s and one "shit". Tim Song (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you people doing counting expletives? Don't you have any better shit to do? Narrow minded horror at "naughty words" aside, what is the general feel for his article edits, are the POV pushing, or is this a content dispute masquerading as a policy issue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little from column A (content dispute), a little from column B. Shitty behaviour, for sure, but does it deserve scrutiny here? Fuck, no. Seriously, I'd suggest forwarding this to WP:WQA. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to infer bad faith, could you at least provide some evidence of where I've been struggling with 71.241.218.107 over content? —12.72.73.42 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the deadly (but small) dog, but for my part I didn't see you as necessarily being in a content dispute - I saw 71.241.218.107 as being in multiple content disputes (and responding to some by denouncing other editors as "neo-nazis" - hence my belief that civility is an issue). Hope that clarifies, and I'll leave it to KC to clarify further if they, in fact, believe that 12.72.73.42 is also involved. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He or she isn't simply in content disputes, but is pushing articles in a particular direction, in defiance of established consensus. For example, there is repeated conflict over what to call the award that the Bank of Sweden added to the Nobels, but established consensus has been that it's to be called “the Nobel [Memorial] Prize in Economics”. User:71.241.218.107 71.241.218.107 has participated in discussion at “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences”, so he's aware of where practice stands. But, after that participation, he or she has repeatedly edited articles to name the Prize as he wishes, and in some or all cases is now edit-warring about it.

There's plainly no masquerade here, even if one somehow doesn't agree with my assessment. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the point still stands that this isn't an WP:ANI matter. If they're edit warring, take it to WP:AN3 - which is the appropriate forum for reporting edit warring. I'd also suggest that this is pertinent to WP:WQA, too.

(Incidentally, it's always helpful to provide WP:DIFFs demonstrating actionable behaviour - I based my assessment on the user's talk page, and a quick scan through their edits. I'd have been able to steer you towards WP:AN3 earlier if you'd been more specific, and provided diffs, earlier. In the absence of specific things to look at ANI reports often degenerate into chit-chat about counting expletives ;-) )

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the appropriate set of diffs to determine whether he or she is (as I say) engaging in hard-core PoV-pushing would essentially be all of the edits in his or her edit history. as to taking the matter eslewhere, het, I feel that I've done my part as it is. If admins won't act, that's not on my head. And (sincerely) you have a good day. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not admins will act - but I reckon there's more chance they'll react if you alert the relevant forum. The admins who hang out at WP:AN3 tend to be more familiar with edit warring, just as the admins who hang out at WP:WQA tend to be more familiar with civility, and the admins who hang out here tend to be more familiar with incidents. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's an "incident" and when did AN/I become "administrative notice board for instructing editors to take it to another notice board"? The editor is clearly out to lunch on both content and behavior. I first noticed this odd piece of vandalism[176] and this battleground approach.[177] Pigeonholing specific behavioral outbursts as vandalism, incivility, edit warring, etc., is just a labeling exercise and does not clarify anything here. This is a slightly unusual case, a static IP editor promoting what looks to be an extreme anti-capitalist beliefs,[178][179][180] and a genre-hopping range of vituperative reactions to any who try to reign that in, from accusations of bad faith and personal attacks to dogmatic anarchist screeds to simple cursing. I admonished the editor to cool it and was told to fuck off, in so many words. Do we really want to be the type of encyclopedia that tolerates that, or that puts bureaucratic obstacles in front of simple requests for help dealing with obviously inappropriate behavior? This report won't fit better on any other board, and an RfC or some other silliness to determine the obvious just wastes people's time. It would take five minutes to review the editor's last week of diffs and decide whether a block or a warning is in order. The incivility, obviously, cannot continue unless we've just given up on civility. Wikidemon (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back to serious-land. Scanned the IP's edits. Disruptive, IMO. Esp. the pointy redirect of Capitalism and the totally inappropriate responses on the user talk page, as well as the repeated recent edits against apparent consensus and the pointy edit summaries. Tim Song (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An incident is something requiring urgent administrative attention, and this board became what you bemoan sometime ago - there's a large section at the top of the page instructing editors where to go and why ;-) This report wasn't gaining any traction here - the best I could do was direct the reporter to a board where they were more likely to get a response. And I still believe that WP:AN3 and/or WP:WQA are more appropriate forums for addressing edit warring and civility issues. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Flag is correct; we frequently suggest better venues. I note your vandalism example is more POINT than blatant; the vulgarity which you loudly declaim we cannot put up with is confined SFAICT to the editor's talk page, and is largely of the language choice type, which as we all know is largely a background and preference item; and most damningly, I fail to see anyone making any significant attempt to engage this editor at this time. Since I posted on his page, no one else has, and s/he has not posted anywhere. I suggest this is not an emergency, and the world will not end if we wait to see if the editor in question responds either here or on the editor talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Mostly pointy edits. Disruptive? Sure. Blockable? Probably not. Wait and see. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, leaving a "welcome" template is a nice touch.[181] Other than that, this is exactly the response I was complaining about, giving the legit editors the run-around (and some chiding to boot for daring to come here, apparently) instead of dealing with what looks like WP:BADHAND account of an experienced editor (their ninth edit, on their first day of editing, was to remove another editor's talk page comment, citing WP:NOTAFORUM).[182] An increasing number of reports go down that way. Maybe the admins who hang out on noticeboards enjoy chatting whereas the ones who actually deal with things are elsewhere? If you've been to WQA lately they don't do anything, they generally send editors back here with instructions to file an RfC or Arbcom case if that doesn't work, claiming that their noticeboard is for mediating good faith disputes among willing editors regarding whether conduct is uncivil, not intervening in case of recalcitrance clear incivility. The edit warring board intervenes only in case of active recent (as in, the past few hours) edit wars and tends to reject as stale or "no violation" slower, longer-term tendentiousness that don't cross 3RR. AIV is only for active blatant vandalism. Don't you see the contradiction in saying nobody is making a serious attempt to engage the editor, and justifying as a "language choice" preference the editor's telling those who have visited their talk page "are you fucking mad",[183] "your hypocrisy as an editor",[184] "fuck you",[185] "fuck off",[186] "fuck off" and "piss off",[187] "I sure hope you don't have kids",[188] "stay the fuck off my talk page", "you quivering sack of shit", "seek mental health counseling", and "neo-Nazis".[189] I would say I tried to engage the editor, although I was stern, as stern as an admin should be in saying that blanking the article on capitalism was not acceptable. The response, Please read WP:AGF, and then fuck off with your unwelcome and accusatory interjections. Go defend hypocrisy elsewhere[190] does not suggest any likelihood of constructive discussion so thank you but I'm done interacting with this editor. I think it's a fair call that the complaint is stale and unblockable at this point, in which case... I hate to tell y'all how to do your volunteer job here, but a reasonable response instead of telling concerned editors to go to a different board where their request will also be ignored, to leave a warning as an administrator on the offender's talk page that their behavior is not allowed and they will be blocked if it happens again, and ideally, to be ready to back that up. Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"leav[ing] a warning as an administrator on the offender's talk page that their behavior is not allowed and they will be blocked if it happens again, and ideally, to be ready to back that up." - all outside my ability, I'm afraid. Best little ol' me can do is assist with procedure. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? This has to be the most fucking ironic "discussion" I have ever seen. And I've been accused of incivility??? Fuck that!

I am fucking sick to my stomach over the fucking lying hypocrites which includes the mainstream media and the POV cover-ups of the Left. This is why Wikipedia is the mess it is. It's a democracy where majority rules on arbitration votes. NO! Wikipedia operates on consensus. NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T!!! Look at what happened in Washington D.C. on 9/12. What? You only read the Washington Post or the New York Times? Then I suppose you wouldn't know that reports of almost 2 MILLION fiscally Conservative Americans marched on the Capitol yesterday. WHERE IS THE OFFICIAL PARK POLICE COUNT?? Suppressed by Obama? I was there, pictures don't lie, as much as the Left would like them to: http://michellemalkin.com/

So I hope someone fucking reports me for this post, especially since I am a "newbie" poster to this discussion. I happen to think TFWOR is probably a pretty cool dude (although somewhat politically confused). If I want the Truth, I know Wikipedia is not the place to look for it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Shinerunner(talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I could be in error, here, but I believe that was intended as Humor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot reach agreement on what it IS, you will never reach agreement on what it is NOT. A negative cannot be proven because if something is absent, it would not be there to prove its absence. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Think of the time wasted here that you could be improving this collaborative (is it, still?) encycopedia.

This boils down to a bunch of market fundamentalists getting ticked off because I dared to declare that the emperor has no clothes. There's no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics. The prize in question has a name. I'm not interested in whatever names the market fundamentalist editors want to invent for it, to lend significance to their economic feudalist heroes.

Your supposed "consensus" collapses the instant someone comes along to challenge it. You don't get to declare an article frozen and demand justification for future edits. In the future, when "consensus" has supposedly been reached that "capitalism" should be renamed "freedomism," I'll challenge that, too. (When, not if; the systemic bias in favor of market fundamentalism at WP is astonishing. Probably because the emperor here is a Randroid, and nobody wants to tell him he's naked.)

Now comes the part where you declare me a POV-pusher for challenging your POV-pushing. Begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like there is a content dispute between a hostile editor who doesn't sign his posts, regarding (among other things) the common name of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and a hostile but less foul mouthed editor who tried to frame this as POV pushing. I'm ready to close this, unless there is a significant dif from the complainant. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care whether the award is called a “Nobel” by Wikipedia. I care that, with various things having been (for the time Being) decided by consensus, we have an editor who is changing articles in violation of that consensus, and in order to advance a PoV. Now, please stop levelling this accusation about my motives; I asked you before to at least produce evidence. Since you didn't even try, it's completely unfair for you to repeat the charge. —12.72.73.40 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd block this user for consistantly attacking users. See his talk. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The uncredited essay on the IP's talk page is a copyvio from here. It's from an essay by Fredy Perlman, "The Reproduction of Daily Life", published in 1969. --John Nagle (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't you be on the horn to the pigs? John Gray isn't Fredy Perlman, either, so you might want to have him thrown in a cage as well. While you're reading essays, I suggest this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs)

Removed.[191] I hope we can all agree that WP:COPYVIO is enforceable. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, users - even IPs - get a certain amount of latitude on their "own" talk pages. If this behaviour continues elsewhere I'd certainly agree, however. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that 71.* isn't here to work constructively. What would I know, though - I'm just a puppet of the evil Rand conspiracy. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you're a comrade who's been playing too close to power and should probably stop aiding and abetting in their purges. When you're "rapidly coming to the conclusion" that their POV is accurate and that comrades who challenge it are not "here to work constructively," then you do begin to appear rather puppet-like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs)

I've no idea about their POV or your POV. I just think you're a WP:DICK, and that the project would be better off without you - comrade. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised that the comment had been re-added - I thought I'd rolled back immediately after making it. I've struck the comment as it's less than civil. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we're just being had. It's hard to imagine anyone sincerely meaning all that. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating what I've been saying. WP has a systemic bias in favor of market fundamentalism. The response to anyone who challenges it is disbelief. Surely "capitalism" is a synonym for "freedom," right? Well, no, actually, that's wrong. But like a fish who "cannot comprehend the existence of water" because he is "too deeply immersed in it" (attribution!), you cannot comprehend systemic bias when it comports with your own worldview. You are incredulous when it is pointed out to you, and assume that those who try to correct it are the ones pushing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's worth thinking about. Marxist analysis has its uses, especially when capitalism breaks down. But for Wikipedia, it has to be cited to reliable sources who use it about the specific subjects of the articles being edited. Editors have to avoid doing their own Marxist analysis. Can you find some good sources? --John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's some form of pseudo-anarchism. "Anarchism" appeals to some people; anarchism appeals to others. It's moot, anyway, the IP has been blocked by Gamaliel, thus confirming that we're all part of the conspiracy and working for The Man. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was part of the left-wing conspiracy, not the right-wing conspiracy. Oh, I can never keep track of all the conspiracies I'm participating in. Well, as long as the checks keep rolling in, it doesn't matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio again and issued a warning to the user. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they're blocked for now... Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this user does not respond well to criticism, to say the least, I've blocked him/her. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Dear administrators, while cleaning the article Goce Delčev of POV, one user called Jingiby called me with nationalistic names, calling me Macedonian nationalist and publicly wants to damage my authority as user. Please react since I cannot edit with such nonwiki behaviour. See here. He has been blocked several (15) times for his behaviour and I think he did not learn the lesson. Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: moved from WP:AN by Mifter (talk·contribs). Best Mifter (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final decision (point #1) - failing to adhere to the policies of expected behavior. A recent view of contributions show a disturbing level of personal attacks and a clear violation of revert parole. The complaining user is not dealing with these issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever check the comlaining user's activity on Macedonian Question? The complaining User is extreme active with disruptive, vandalizing, non-referenced edits on it. This is checkable. I am not under revert-parole yet. Thank you.Jingby (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, why should we have? At any rate, his conduct is not relevant to the question of whether or not your conduct, which is at issue here, is proper. You, too, should address your conduct here. Sandstein 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has about 12 entries in WP:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans and a very long topically relevant block log (although his revert restriction does seem to be expired by now). The edit at issue does contain an insulting edit summary, and a sanction seems to be required. What do other admins think? (For future reference, WP:AE is the dedicated noticeboard for such cases.) Sandstein 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonist is a scientific term, not an insult. The term has been used to describe persons, which behavior is in concordance with the Republic of Macedonia's dominant official state doctrine, which is now current. The term is also used in an apologetic sense by some Macedonian authors.Jingby (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you often use endearing terms in conjunction with absolute vandal? And is clown meant to be positive. At this point, I would like to hope for redemption, but the lack of taking responsibility is worrisome to say the least given your many opportunities before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Our article defines the term as "a political term used in a polemic sense to refer to a set of ideas perceived as characteristic of aggressive Macedonian nationalism", so I can see why it can be perceived as insulting, but yes, it is not a serious insult by the standards of the topic area. Sandstein 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremly rear. This is also checkable. Also absolute vandalism and absolute vandal are equal, I think. Jingby (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Sandstein 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. User:MacedonianBoy has indeed a history of toying with articles falling within the scope of ARBMAC and a quite sufficient number of personal attacks ([192]) Due links will be provided if issued. He has a history of harassing other contributors on another project, where he happens to be an admin. All this has made even admins refer to him as a nationalist, which is in no way uncivil in this case (especially since he has acted in such a way). Macedonist is, as Jingiby noted, a scientific term, referring to ethnic Macedonian nationalists. In this particular case he has failed to provide any adequate reason for his actions and has clearly acted only in order to get Jingiby a block (which excuses Jingiby in no way for falling right for it).--Laveol ^T 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A user that uses insults such as: extreme nationalist, clown, vandal and other things should be blocked immediately. I expect a block for him since that behaviour is far away from a normal one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to explain the term Macedonist that Jingiby uses. That term in the world is known as a term for a person that study the Macedonian language (Македонист / Makedonist on Macedonian), but unfortunately in Bulgaria it is an insult for the ethnic Macedonians, since the Bulgarians do not want to confess that Macedonian nation exist. Jingiby obviously did not use the word in linguistic annotation, since i did not study Macedonian, but English. The insult is the right meaning of the term.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot this, if you see his contributions, you can see that all contributions are related with Macedonia. He and his friends do not allow to the Macedonian users to contribute and they Bulgarize the articles i.e. the articles are according to their will. They represent the Macedonians as nationalists and we cannot do anything here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, aside from pretty much what I had to say in my comment, you did not even take the interest of reading what wikipedia has to say on the term. Do you seriously suggest that it is so pejorative? --Laveol ^T 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment were not as responses to yours, but in general. I cannot imagine a user to edit freely if he characterizes other users with extreme nationalist, Macedonist, vandal and imagine clown. How pathetic. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You for instance have used tons of racist slurs towards me and a number of other editors and, yet, you are still editing. Any suggestions? --Laveol ^T 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I communicated with you during a period of one year? Yes. Have I said something bad? No. Leave the old things from two years ago and focus on your pall.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Immediately and vorever, maybe? Jingby (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why this is achieved eve though it is not solved?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rain City Blues, reposted from WQA

I originally brought this up at WQA, but was advised to take it here instead. Having been blocked twice in the past two weeks for edit warring on George H. W. Bush, Rain City Blues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to harassing the admin who performed the most recent block, User:FisherQueen, accusing her of a conservative bias referring to her repeatedly as "Mary Cheny" (FisherQueen identifies as liberal and LGBTQ on her userpage). See this talkpage section. Some choice comments: "Mary, you started this, and I'm the one that's going to end it."[193] "As a concerned Wiki user, for the good of the community, I'm afraid I will have to politely remind you of your incompetence and inability to properly execute the duties associated with your position until you back off. I intend to perform my duty as long as necessary, until you resign or cease your behaviour."[194] (note the charming edit summary) Perhaps the most troubling: "More like a schoolayard bully than a teacher, and as well all know, the best way to deal with bullies is to make their lives hell until they stop."[195] Rain City Blues has been given multiple warnings about making personal attacks (check the talk page history, as they've all been blanked). This user is clearly aware that s/he is being disruptive and intends to continue. I'd block myself but I was involved in the original discussion on Talk:George H. W. Bush. Also, I hate to post and run, but I'm going to be unavoidably offline for two-ish hours and won't be available to comment (unless I can get my blackberry to cooperate, but why would it start now?) -- Vary (Talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most charming. I've issued a two week block for violating WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA with the "bullies" comment and with "the polite way to tell someone where to place their head in relation to their anus" ([196] in edit summary). This is an escalation of the most recent block, which was set to last a week. Sandstein 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So, as his threats increase, on the theory of making another editor's life hell on earth, so do the length of his blocks. I detect a trend. What we need is for Dr. Phil to go to his page and say, "How's that workin' out for ya?" Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My life, by the way, is not hell. I'm actually doing okay. Thanks to all who followed up on the incivility problem with User:Rain City Blues while I was at church. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your life not being a living hell is further evidence of how well things are working out for that blocked editor. I'm seeing a scene from Airplane!, in which a radio station DJ is shouting "[call letters] where Disco lives forever!" a split second before the plane hits the tower and knocks them off the air. That's what sometimes happens with editors who scream and yell about what they're going to do, right up to the moment when they go "off the air", and ol' man wikipedia just keeps rolling along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

Would an administrator stop Citation bot[197] until its operator is once more monitoring it? There is an iassue about ISSN's being discussed now, at Template talk:cite journal[198], and I've asked BAG members and other Bot owners to look into the number of bugs the bot has recently and the apparently low response and resolution rate by its owner. I've notified the Bot owner of the request at Bot owners noticeboard[199][200] and will post a link to this also.

At this point, the operator needs to respond to and deal with the bugs, which he does not appear to be doing on a regular and routine basis, and BAG is not responding to my notice, and another user is also concerned that the bot is running and performing a task that is being discussed right now, without any action by its owner to stop the bot and gain community consensus for the task. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you post diffs of obvious errors made by this bot that would warrant immediate administrative intervention? Just having bugs does not warrant a block - every computer program has bugs. Sandstein 06:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly immediate, either my request, or the response, and what I said is what I said, supported by the diffs provided. The bot is running, currently unattended by its operator, who is not dealing with the existing bugs. An editor pointed out that the bot is adding ISSNs when it should not be (up to debate), this being discussed at the link I provided. Meanwhile, the bot operator is unresponsive. This is a bot operator who had a bot running without his knowledge before, and, really, there's no harm in stopping a bot for a time, when the operator is not paying attention to its bugs, not responding to user concerns. In fact, this operator became an administrator for the sole purpose, according to his RFA, of being able to restart his bots at his convenience, so there's also no inconvenience to him to stopping it while he's unresponsive, as he can, and will simply restart it. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We (or I, at any rate) will not block bots unless we have diffs showing that the bot is doing obvious damage, or unless there is consensus that the bot is doing something that it should not. Sandstein 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what is now being discussed, whether or not the bot should be doing what it is doing. This operator has had prior problems with bots, running them without approval, running them while issues were being discussed. I personally worked very hard to clean up over 5000 bad articles created by this operator's AnyBot. I think erring a bit on the side of caution when it comes to irresponsible operators and a board full of ignored, unrepaired bugs, and questions about whether the bot should be doing something in the first place.

And, as the bot operator's tendency is to do whatever he wants regardless of consensus, that leaves others out of the loop of deciding consensus. In fact, if you work on that theory, that the consensus is for not doing something, then you are authorizing a bot to do unauthorized work. Whatever. You can't be bothered to read my original note, and I can't be bothered to discuss your side arguments. Why don't you clean up the last few hundred anybot articles remaining? Others did the first 6000, created under the "if there isn't consensus to not do it" theory of creating crap. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: admin clearly unwilling to look at anything posted, when vague reasons for not looking can be supplied.-69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this and feel I should add a little explanation because of the history (another bot by the same author resulted in a decision to delete around 5000 articles created by the bot). It's quite likely that the IP reporting the current issue is the user who was previously thanked by many people for assistance in relation to the previous disaster.

A quick look makes me believe that there are no knock-out examples of bugs with Citation bot, but there is an ongoing debate about some of the edits it is making, with several editors expressing a view that certain changes should not occur (while others like the changes). It should be noted that Citation bot is agreed to be extremely useful in general; I think the issue is that some recent additions to what it does are disputed, and that the bot owner is not available to react.

In this comment, Eubulides says "Citation bot has been running for several days now, with no apparent oversight, and has added a lot of ISSNs and months that many editors oppose. Who's going to undo all this mess?" (I will notify Eubulides of this discussion). I don't know if the bot has bursts of activity, but at the moment it is not editing often, so waiting another 24 hours would appear to not be a particular problem. However, if no one speaks up in favor of leaving the bot running soon, I think stopping it pending discussion would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Recent problems with the Citation bot below. Eubulides (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent problems with the Citation bot

Recently the Citation bot has been having several problems, in two categories. First, editors have different preferences about citation formatting, and the bot is supposed to make changes only when there's a reasonable consensus that these changes are improvements, but recently two changes to the bot were installed without that consensus, and the bot has been running for several days now and has installed what must be hundreds of changes without the consensus. Second, there seem to be bugs (not just preference-disputes) which aren't getting fixed. The changes I've noted recently are:

Adding ISSNs

There have been multiple independent complaints that the bot is adding ISSNs against editorial preference (e.g., my complaint, Headbomb's). The bot operator Smith609 (talk · contribs) replied that he thought there was consensus for it, pointed me to a May discussion that he thought established that consensus, and invited me to restart the discussion. I read the May discussion: it never mentions the idea of the bot automatically adding ISSNs (what it does, is reject the idea of automatically removing them, which is a different matter). I restarted the discussion, and if you look at the resulting thread you'll see that adding ISSNs is highly controversial, with no consensus that the citation bot should be adding them. In controversial areas like this the Citation bot should leave things alone.

Adding months to dates

Again there are again multiple complaints (mine, Headbomb's). When I asked earlier this year that the month not be added (in response to an earlier problem like this), the bot operator replied that the problem was fixed. This time, however, the operator merely replied "Is there a guideline for when a month is appropriate?" with an edit summary "Month is sometimes (always?) useful" and has not followed up to my response of four days ago. This isn't a good enough response to reports of a malfunctioning bot, and indicates a worrisome desire to have the bot add material despite a clear lack of consensus to add it.

Messing with author format

I reported the problem six days ago, the bot operator quickly replied that he patched the bug but said he might undo the patch when he completes a module, I quickly responded that that the bug is not fixed and gave an example, with no response yet from the bot operator. As far as I know the bot is still chugging away installing these changes (I've disabled it for some articles I help maintain, so they're immune for now). In this case, there does not seem to be any dispute that it's a bug in the bot.

Adding unwanted URLs to wrong places

This was reported a couple of days ago by Literaturegeek. It's a serious error and apparently has been going on for some time. No response yet.

Given all these problems, about 30 hours ago I raised the possibility of shutting off the bot for now. No response yet from the bot operator, who has not edited Wikipedia for four days. Given all the above, the bot should be shut off for now, and I'm afraid its changes over the past few days may need to be undone (a task that's beyond me). The bot is very useful when it's working, don't get me wrong! But it's not working now. Eubulides (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To add something, the bot only runs on manual mode. I don't know if it's appropriate to block that bot, given it's not going to do anything unless triggered by meat with eyes. I know I still find the bot useful given all it's current flaws. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, why does User:Citation bot #User interaction have a huge red Emergency shutoff button saying "Administrators: Use this button if the bot is malfunctioning."? Surely that button was put there just for the purpose we're discussing now. (Or are you saying that that big red button does nothing if an administrator presses it, and it's placed there only to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling? :-) Even if the bot is run purely manually (whatever that means), surely we shouldn't be encouraging users to run it if it's malfunctioning sufficiently badly. Eubulides (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To stop it for when it's in fully automated mode. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's odd. If you look at Special:Contributions/Citation bot, the behavior isn't consistent with a human-triggered bot. It's creating lots of pages, such as Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.pcl.2007.01.008; it's never created pages for me when I triggered it by hand. And its most recent edit to an article, which was soon (rightly) reverted by Materialscientist with the edit summary "useless", doesn't have the feel of a user-triggered bot; instead, it has the feel of an editor who's reverting a bot gone haywire. (Previous comment struck because perhaps Materialscientist tried to use the alt bot.) And anyway, even if this stuff is really human-triggered, that still raises the question: why are we encouraging the use of a bot that has serious bugs right now?
• Let's put it another way. The last time someone reported the bot malfunctioning here, it was with a simple report "Citation bot is incorrectly formatting authors, and User:Smith609, the operator, does not appear to be online." (something that sounds very much like the current situation). Then, the bot was blocked right away. That seems like the right thing to do. What's different this time?

Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

These templates are the results of {{cite doi}}, you probably are using {{cite journal}} and {{cite books}}. As for what's different, I don't know. I'm not saying the bot shouldn't be blocked, I don't know what's standard procedures with a case like this. I'm just giving context and explanations of what is actually going on. I'll let an admin with bot-related experience decide wheter or not this warrants a block. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days, hence my absence. The bot is currently only editing mainspace pages when requested to do so by a user. The user who activates the bot is expected to check the output of the bot. Regarding Cite Doi subpages, the bot is correcting systemic bugs introduced under earlier revisions of its code; on the whole its improvement rate should be better than its bug rate, and as I have time to develop the code its success rate will improve further, with existing bugs being corrected.

If you are willing to discuss actions that need to cease immediately, I can either stop said action occurring until I have time to fix it, or disable entirely the script that is making that class of edit. Without concrete examples, it is impossible for me to know which scripts need disabling and (when I have time) fixing, and which can continue to operate in safety.

Hope that helps; I may have a couple of free hours over the next day or two, and a message on my talk page is the best way to get my attention. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sambokim Link spamming, again

see previous here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_etc
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#User:Sambokim_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_yet_again._Suggesting_topic_ban_and_block
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_yet_again.

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) The editor has twice been blocked for repeated insertion of copyvios. He's also been told before not to insert links over and over. The problem is the editor doesn't communicate, and keeps making edits over and over until blocked. His job for the hockey team is english promotion and scouting. Anytime an NHL.com article mentions the ALH or his team he makes sure to run to all the articles and add it as a source,even though there has been no content taken from it. He also edits as an IP, 220.88.45.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Its a long term IP and often redoes some of his undone edits, or does them first, then he redoes them with his user account. Once again an NHL article was about the ALH and he ran through several articles as his IP and put them in. I undid it, and he came back with his user account to not only put that back in as a reference, but to go to a few other pages and do his normal link spam. This player for example is a new acquisition by his team this year [201]. He indiscriminately just fires links onto the article without considering if they have any place. For example, the last link in that bunch doesn't even talk about the player, it is an old article about the team, he likes to try and add it to every single page he can to help promote the team. This user has a clear conflict of interest and through two blocks he still won't communicate and just continues to be disruptive with his editing and tries to use wikipedia for promotion--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be the conduct for which he was previously blocked (creating copyvios). What he's doing now is inserting an external link, http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=497976, which may indeed be inappropriate per WP:EL, into several hockey player articles. Have you tried discussing this particular issue with him? Sandstein 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"He's also been told before not to insert links over and over. The problem is the editor doesn't communicate,..." It seems he has tried discussing. There are a few of these accounts rolling around lately, inserting spam links, creating copy and paste copyvio articles, ignoring all attempts to communicate. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Several attempts have been made to communicate with him. Several sections have been started on talk pages, edit summaries have been used. The user wasn't blocked for linking spamming, but he's been linking spamming for at least a year. Its been reverted so many times. The user is Samuel H. Kim. He was blocked for inserting copyvios, but the reason he was inserting the copyvios was promotional in nature, the same as what he's using these links for. Here you can see as far back as last december he was trying to randomly insert links into the article [202] He does make some helpful edits, like updating the roster, but the majority of the rest of his contributions generally consist of link spam and copyvios. He's being paid to promote the team and he can't seem to help himself. In july his edits to the ALH article itself were solely to promote Halla and then insert a few random sites into the references section [203], sources which were written 2-3 years prior to any of the events he detailed in the article body. I'm also going to privately e-mail you the same e-mail exchange I sent to another administrator. I also had brought up the link spamming in the first complaint. He ended up blocked for copyvios but the linkspamming has been known about since then.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though the e-mail seems to have no particular relevance to his conduct here. I don't believe admin action is required at this time - his contributions do not seem to be very useful, consisting mainly of adding links and copyvios, but the latter occurred some months ago. I recommend giving him a warning about not adding useless links to articles, since per his talk page nobody seems to have talked to him yet about that aspect of our editing practices. Sandstein 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of the e-mail is to show his level of communication ability, which is relevant since he never responds to anything on here. As you can see from the e-mail he completely misinterpreted something very simple which shows that he has a big problem communicating in English. The latter also occurred 1 month ago, not "some months ago". His block hadn't even finished a month ago when he was link spamming. Per his talk page, he was given several warnings about copyvios, AN/I threads were started, and he neither responded nor changed his behaviour until blocked. Even that didn't change his behaviour as he had to be blocked twice.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris

Once again, I'd like to draw attention to this problem. A problem that is NOT going away. Frankly, I'm frustrated at how long this persistent disruption is being ignored. This User has manged to make a joke out of every article or template he has gotten himself involved with. This user is NOT a contributor, all his activities on Wikipedia revolve around revert-warring and the many disputes he has started because of his extreme Croatian nationalist views. The User arrives at an article, and does not stop revert-warring and arguing until the other side finally gives-up - regardless of sources, regardless of any mediation efforts, and regardless of the amount of time necessary for him to wear down the guys that are trying to make him see sense. For example

• on Talk:Independent State of Croatia, I have presented university publications specifically supporting my edits. I have been prevented from including the information by User:Imbris. First he demanded the publication's primary source, when I pointed it out he simply raised the bar on evidence and so on.
• on Talk:Hey, Slavs, the argument involving no less than four users (User:No such user, User:Hxseek, User:Ivan Štambuk, and myself) trying to prevent User:Imbris' and his edits (which he constantly revert-warred to push) had lasted for an incredible five continuous months. User:Imbris had simply kepts changing his argument in perpetuity until every single other User simply gave-up. I can't even remember how many times the article got protected because of this farce.
• on Talk:Hey, Slavs again, User:Dottydotdot had (heroically :) gotten involved in an effort to mediate the dispute. Having heard all the arguments she reached a decision that was not to User:Imbris' liking. She recommended this version as "the most neutral & least POV" [204]. User:Imbris simply decided to ignore the results and continue on his merry way with the edit-warring. The excuses, now that the result was against him, were that the mediation had taken "only seven days"(!?) and that "not every single step" had been taken before requesting mediation. :P
• Template:History of Croatia had been made into a husk by User:Imbris' edits. All my efforts to improve it and widen its scope were simply reverted, and I simply do not know what to do? Do I discuss? What's the point? The user's revert is ridiculous and obviously detrimental to the quality of the template, and yet there is no way he will ever budge on this issue.

This user is now revert-warring on no less than six articles and templates (Hey, Slavs, Maltese (dog), Independent State of Croatia, Socialist Republic of Croatia, Template:History of Croatia, and Template:Infobox SFRY). Discussion is utterly and completely pointless, since even if there were a way to present 1st class sources against User:Imbris, it wouldn't change a single thing. When User:Imbris joins in one might as well give-up.

As a "little girl that complains admins all the time", I'm calling again for repercussions against this sort of widespread disruption, or at least mediation that would end the ridiculous conflicts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Imbris about this thread. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or am I getting the cold shoulder again? Its so nice Imbris has been notified, now he can see first hand how his reliance on admin disinterest in this problem is still working just fine. He's a clever one, just ignores all reports and they neatly go away... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

First of all, I must say that I detest the accusatory tone of my fellow Wikipedian User:DIREKTOR. (1) Opening lines – In his opening line he complains about a problem. What is the problem? Perhaps I am a problem?! For this alone Mr. DIREKTOR should be warned not to make such hidden commentaries about a fellow Wikipedian. Then he continues to bicker his personal view on my style of editing, complains about not alleged not enough contribution level, speaks about revert-warring and even makes ridiculous claims of extreme nationalist agenda. All of his personal views on my person are null and void, and should be taken in context. (2) I have contributed on the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia, the Flag of Serbia, the Province of Ljubljana, ZAVNOH, AVNOJ, National Front of Yugoslavia, several Montenegrin articles, and in a number of fields where additional information was necessary. We all know how fixing false or unreferenced material can get difficult and very exhausting. Recently I have started a minor attempt at correcting some false information and stumbled upon a group of people that are not happy with my editing. (3) That group of people could be considered Yugoslav nationalist that consider former Yugoslavia as the best framework for the states that comprised it (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (with Vojvodina), and Slovenia). They consider that naming the languages of Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, and also Serbs is highest and extreme nationalist agenda, and that those nations should speak only Serbo-Croatian language. Maybe some of them really believe in such agendas, maybe some of them think that a new Yugoslavia in the fashion or formula with Albania, without Slovenia should resurrect, I cannot say with certainty. But I can say that some of them still believe in Yugoslavia, its agenda, its facts (and myths), they declare as Europeans and do not hold Communism or Socialism in high regard; but advocate that Yugoslavia was simply the best, which advocating places them in the logical error, where they simply must defend the entire socio-political system of Yugoslavia. DIREKTOR made several defamatory messages about me to User:Dottydotdot (I did not sneak anything), User:AniMate, and involves himself into every issue where he can make his input on my person.

• On the Independent State of Croatia article, the DIREKTOR retrieved a source that is highly biased by the fact that it was written by a Tito' supporter, who wrote at least two biographies of Tito and several other books on Yugoslav partisan guerrilla fighters, Battle of Neretva, etc. He was also an agent of the Intelligence community for the UK. I mention those facts as a contextualization attempt to show Mr. DIREKTOR the fallacies of his primary source. (a) The book by Maclean could not be considered as a primary source, he did not wrote the book as an autobiography, he did not write in the form of diary (with dates, names of persons, etc.), he did not portray the written paragraph (that I contested) as an eyewitness account, etc. (b) The contested paragraph clearly indicates that eyes were sent for inspection by the Poglavnik (Leader) with explicit remark that it was to be done cyclically, when enough were collected. (c) The Maclean book was issued in 1957, and the original oft-told story of dubious authenticity (which dubious was portrayed in the university publication as well) was published in a fiction novel Kaputt in 1946 (first edition in English language was in 1946, while the author himself wrote that he finished the novel by December 1943). (d) I have contested the Maclean story by three diff sources. (e) Maclean did form his negative opinion rightfully, but exaggerated rhetoric is a conjecture in direct link with the Kaputt : the novel written by Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi) (f) The Kaputt story is not only about the basket of eyes, but on the inspection of those alleged packets by the Leader, and for that matter regularly. (g) Something is not a 1st class source if it is taken out of context, if there are other reliable sources to contradict, and if the secondary source quotes from also a secondary source. To conclude: DIREKTOR will write everything as long as it supports his POV, despite the controversial, biased and defamatory "truths", he was involved in the DALMATIA DISPUTE that landed a 1 year restriction.
• On Hey, Slavs. DIREKTOR had canvassed Ivan Štambuk to the discussion on the anthem with the words settling this thing once and for allUser:Dottydotdot started the informal mediation without 3O and without RfC. User:Rave92 was not called by the initiator of that mediation, nor by the mediator. The entire mediation failed because the initiator of the mediation did not portray all the issues, he limited himself to some issues but raised other within the process. User:Zocky agreed with User:No such user that there should be minimum number of lyrics in the article, also using some kind of reference able material, such as official sources, etc. Both DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk agreed to minimize the number of lyrics and then suddenly changed their perspective by forcing removal of the list of all Slavic languages (to make it less Pan-Slavic) while at the same time inserting Bosnian language version of lyrics and also Montenegrin language version of lyrics which cannot be sourced by a reliable source.
  • Users User:Rave92, User:Ex13, User:No such user and myself supported the inclusion of Croato-Serbian as an appellation (at least twice, in the article). User:Zocky considered the quarrel/discussion not important enough to join in it.
  • In this topic/issue it is impossible to find a solution because Ivan Štambuk falsely presented on his user page that he consider himself a native speaker of the Croatian language. He said that he believes only in the Croatian variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. The entire time Mr. DIREKTOR insisted in bringing the issue on the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language to include his trusted companion (who is sharing the belief system). I do not want the matter resolved on that talk page because of the minor dispute (dispute originated in the Mr. DIREKTOR's unwillingness to compromise) and because this would lead the supporters of the idea of there is only a Serbo-Croatian language.

• On the informal mediation by Dottydotdot
  • Dottydotdot did not recommend any version as the informal mediation had failed. Mr. DIREKTOR and Mr. Ivan Štambuk wouldn't allow the insertion of the term Croato-Serbian twice, which was supported by Rave92, No such user and me.
  • Because of the imprecise notion for the informal mediation, this was made out of procedure by Mr DIREKTOR; the users that discussed did not know precisely what languages are in plan for removal. It was during the discussion, crystallised that Mr DIREKTOR and Mr Ivan Štambuk wanted to delete Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and also Serbian lyrics (because of their shared POV), by this they would leave only Serbo-Croatian (without stating it is also Croato-Serbian).
  • Dottydotdot should advise Mr DIREKTOR to WP:DR in the order that it is ordained on that guideline. Dottydotdot should have read the discussions led previously, had the mediator read it thoroughly – the mediator would use the proper name of the Croatian language, and not call it differently. Dottydotdot should have insisted on sources, Dottydotdot did not insist on those, did not look at the sources I presented, etc.
  • No decision was made, it was informal. Dottydotdot did not call Rave92 to list his opinion, and he said his opinion at the discussion about the Montenegrin language being included.

• Template:History of Croatia: Was not made into husk. The issue is partially solved by the effort of User:Spellcast. DIREKTOR wanted his POV more visible by including articles that are specifically Yugoslav, and in the same time not yet specifically pertaining Croatian history. He was against a division of Modern History/Contemporary History. I support the latest editing by Spellcast, where he included the article Croatia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
• Socialist Republic of Croatia: Where DIREKTOR insist on false information, consider self-proclaimed and not-internationally recognized (not recognized even by neighbouring countries) entities, successors of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, he insisted on Coat of arms of the Federal State of Croatia, which proved to be false, he listed data pertaining to certain happenings in Bosnia and Herzegovina with that article, etc, etc.

I have tried to show Mr DIREKTOR fallacy of his approach of POV-pushing without caring for reliable sources, referencing, gathering different views and contributing without the final judgements and final conclusions or finality of anything. Everything is and should be changeable with sources and with editing for the benefit of the reader (not the fraction of writers). I cannot say that edit-warring is a solution, or that it would ever be one.

I have successfully edited the Maltese (dog) article with User:Mangojuice and also several Olympics related articles with User:Andrwsc, so the remarks that DIREKTOR makes are purely ideological, he simply cannot understand that someone can cherish the good stuff about ZAVNOH, and in the same time do not support his theories of illegality of certain historical entities (+ the defamation campaign on everything pertaining to that entities).

• The Template:Infobox SFRY issue is all about Mr DIREKTOR's POV, whereby a nominally socialist state, which implores certain aspects of free trade, and for that matter capitalism should be only regarded by its up to 1948/1950 legal system. Mr DIREKTOR will not stop at WP:OR, he would do anything to further his view, quote sources which are opposed, use schemes to entrapment, accuse everyone and anything of nationalism, accuse of stalking, drop out of discussions, gather support by canvassing, etc.

As for the "little girl" remark; that remark was a joke and is followed by a smiley (+ not aimed at Mr. DIREKTOR personally or directly). I was subjected to a whole range of ridiculing by Mr. DIREKTOR, who spoke about me questioning a Serbian zombie without eyes (plucked out by Ustaše. Mr. DIREKTOR usually starts any comment he makes by "LoL" or similar gesture of bad faith. He ridicules any opinion other than his own; it is very difficult to stay "professional" when subjected to such behaviour, etc.

As for the conclusion of all of the above, there is no mediation necessary, not if WP:DR rules are met, no singular administrator should enforce a solution. Mr DIREKTOR is very hopeful that some users inclined positive towards his attitudes would be placed in the mediators position and judge once for all (as he very often knows to say), by joining ranks, choosing sides, and similar, all this instead of reliable sources (and much of them), without the proper referencing and with as much as pushing his blatant POV around.

The normal editor, who wish to quote reliable sources, as many of them necessary to solve issues, like the issue on Maltese (dog), should not be subjected to such harassment, defamation, and false accusations as it has been done in this case. DIREKTOR is just mad because someone else is playing in his turf (figuratively speaking, naturally). In all of those articles I have edited before Mr DIREKTOR and I get discussing.

All of this started at Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, I mean not for me, but for Mr DIREKTOR.

Imbris (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm glad to see something is being done about this individual. Less sophistic nonsense, more real editors! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What a post! Perhaps a bit more detail would've helped? :) WP:TLDR, and rather confusing as well. Moving on...

Unfortunately, Notpietru, little is being done as yet. Do not assume that the length of this MASSIVE post is indicative of a response to the widespread disruption you, I, and about five other users have been forced to deal with as best we can. :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really prepared to get involved in this mess; just voicing an opinion. Hopefully things will be suitably resolved soon. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of File:1917 Darband, SIR GEORGE ROOSE KEPPEL, SAHIBAZADA SIR ABDUL QAYUM.jpg by ImageTagBot

I have uploaded some very unique pictures to wikipedia page on Amb (princely state). ImageTagBot attached speedy deletionm tag to one of these images; although I have edited te summary of the Image and mentioned that the picture is from my personal collection and is not available on any other book opr website and has no copy rights issues attached. I informed the Bot operator Sam Korn of the problem but he does not seem to be available at the moment on wikipedia. So kindly check this issue and remove the Tag before the image is deleted, as it was nominated on 8th September. The following is my correpondence with Sam Korn on this issue. "Hi, you have nominated File:1917 Darband, SIR GEORGE ROOSE KEPPEL, SAHIBAZADA SIR ABDUL QAYUM.jpg for speedy deletion. This speedy deletion nomination does not satisfy any of the wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion; if so do let me know. This pic. is of great significance to the Amb (princely state) page and belongs to my personal collection; and I have edited to mention this in file page. So kindly take back this speedy deletion nomination.Wikitanoli (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You havent as yet removed the nomination for deletion template your bot noted, from the above mentioned file.Wikitanoli (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Korn"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitanoli (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Wikitanoli (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Wikitanoli. As you've made an effort to provide a source, I have removed the deletion tag. If a human editor has a problem with it, we can review the matter. Regards, Skomorokh 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Skomorokh! Wikitanoli (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just checked on the Amb (princely state) page; the image still is captioned under the details as nominated for speedy deletion. Can you remove that aswell, Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the tag. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou TFOWR! Wikitanoli (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Beck

An uncited rumour was added to this talk page, which I removed citing WP:BLP concerns. I initiated a discussion with the editor who added it, who seems quite happy to address BLP concerns (and, indeed, has done so and has added a new comment that addresses BLP).

I've also requested oversight for the first set of edits.

Other editors, however, are now re-adding the comment. I've requested oversight once, but I suspect that this could go on for a while.

Could someone take a look and (a) let me know if I'm being overly paranoid, and (b) take action if needed?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NB. Since I've requested oversight, I've not posted diffs. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the parody web site? That isn't even a real rumor; it's a critique of Beck's style of accusations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue may be that the original poster continually calls it a rumour. I've left a note on the talk page clarifying the issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So I gather. My real concern is the uncited suggestion on the talk page that there are credible rumours that Beck did quite unpleasant things. In the later (bowdlerised) section the fact that this all stems from satire has been addressed; it's the earlier section I'm concerned about. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: why have I spent today on ANI defending the right and applying policy to the left? Life just ain't fair! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because in such situations it is the correct thing to do? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoil-sport - getting in the way of good grumble ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyhoo... Morphh has refactored so it's clear it's satire. I'm happy, everyone else too? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Blake Davenport, or User:User:Vlchristianlv

User:Vlchristianlv created a page about himself (?) which was speedy deleted. He has a subpage with the exact same page User:Vlchristianlv/Christian Blake Davenport, complete with an invisible page move semi-pp lock, and has also recreated the page as his user page. I blanked the user page and left a warning, but I'm guessing he's not here to do anything other than promote himself. As there is nothing in mainspace I'm not sure that it qualifies for COI or BLP, but I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I can tell you that creating an autobiography in article format in one's userspace is generally considered acceptable (see WP:UP). You probably were wrong to blank the userpage, but you might have a case at COIN if he creates the page again in the articlespace. Intelligentsium 00:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vlchristianlv notified about this thread. Come on people. Exxolon (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

75.5.232.53

• 75.5.232.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism-only account. All edits consist of removing content from Emmy-nominated entertainment pople, such as [205]. The destruction he's caused today will require massive cleanup. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

picking a few edits at random, seems to me their edits aren't vandalism at all, rather general fixes, tidying, and removal of OR, [206], this edit for example was clearly an improvement to the article--Jac16888^Talk 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But you may want to take a look at my contribs; I've been cleanup up his mess for the past hour or so. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit you linked to is apparently part of a wikiprojects cleanup attempt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#On-going projects/to do lists. By reverting it you're probably going against whatever consensus they have there--Jac16888^Talk 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted my reversions and removed the warnings from his talk page. Captain Infinity (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trump Soho

Someone moved Trump International Hotel and Tower (SoHo) to Trump Soho without moving the page history correctly. Could you make sure the histories and the talk histories are all moved correctly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bash at it. Have a look, Tony, and let us know if anything is out of place. Cheers, Skomorokh 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems messed up. I am getting redirected to a redirect and unable to see any article.--TonyTheTiger(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be at your last revision now. Skomorokh 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the article should be at Trump SoHo and not Trump Soho.--TonyTheTiger(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to move it there; Trump SoHo is empty. Cheers, Skomorokh 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check...moved and changed the redirects and 2 links. - Sinneed (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Check. All history present at Trump SoHo. Skomorokh 05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie O et al.

Kyle & Jackie O & Jackie O, G and Danni Show are being redirected to each other by users Martin451 and 114.76.21.137. As far as I can tell they are different shows and neither of the redirects were talked about on article talk pages. I left a notice on each of the users talk pages but there have since been more reverts so I decided to contact an admin. _Met^ty 02:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Officalbehindbigbrotheraustralia created a new copy and paste article Jackie O, G and Danni Show‎ with BLP issues, and redirected Kyle & Jackie O to it. I reverted the change and warned the user about BLP, and Cut and paste. Then User:114.76.21.137 tried undoing my changes. As I was attempting this user:MetricSuperstar started undoing my changes and requested admin intervention. Martin451 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia search hit for "Van Jones" on Google

I wanted to alert the administrators that as of 9:20 PM EST when you search for "Van Jones" (recently resigned special advisor to the White House Council on environmental equality) in Google the following appears under the line to the Wikipedia entry:

Anthony "Van" Jones (born September 20, 1968) is a racist, anti-American environmental advocate, civil rights activist, attorney, and author who served from ...

The actual Wikipedia article on Van Jones contains no errors, but someone has somehow edited the search results in an attempt to slander him. I am not sure whether this is a problem that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia or Google but I wanted to bring it to your attention so that a correction can be made immediately.

Van Jones is a talented and dedicated public servant and an African-American and in the midst of the controversy (and increased internet traffic) surrounding his resignation I do not think Wikipedia wants to be seen as endorsing this viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.226.240 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We had this problem before when a vandalized version of Barack Obama was "cached" by Google. There is nothing that we can do on our end to fix this problem, unfortunately; one would have to contact Google and have them purge their cache. If that isn't done, I think it will take about three weeks for Google to update their cache. NW (Talk) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite a common issue. Another one that I was recently made aware of is google:yeoman. There is a way to contact Google to have them fix this (as was done during the Obama issue) but I don't have the link. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it usually goes faster than that. Highly trafficked articles seem to be updated by Google every few days or so, sometimes every day. -- Soap^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Even so, we don't want it left up there for two days. How do you contact them? A little insignificant (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Google result has changed back to a good one now (I assume the Resolved sticker up at the top already indicates that, but just to be double-sure, I checked.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, here is the link. [207] I've reported this specific issue already, however. They should retrawl soon, I hope. --Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For further future reference, Hersfold has created the guide WP:GOOGLEPURGE for dealing with such issues. Skomorokh 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GeorgeSRocks

This user page was recently vandalized, but when I went to revert to a good version I found there isn't a single version of this page that isn't a violation of Wikipedia policy. Even the original account user's versions are either attack pages or threat pages. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move closure

Requesting an admin close Talk:Republic_of_China#Proposing_Article_Title_Change one way or the other. Discussion has gone on for 10 days, it's effectively a Proposed Move, it's edging towards incivility. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on Pineapple Express (film)

Here. Not particularly serious, but a legal threat nonetheless. Based on the talk page, probably doesn't bring much value to Wikipedia. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt that user would carry-though with that threat. MuZemike 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously not legitimate. It's trolling...considering Michael Jackson is dead, he obviously wouldn't be editing that article... --Smashville^talk 14:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, to quote that duet with Paul McCartney "I thought I told you Paul, I'm a lover, not a Wikipedia editor" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, doesn't matter, now. IP blocked for the legal threat. MuZemike 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cody7777777 and disruptive Byzantine Empire FA additions

Cody7777777 (talk · contribs) has been continually adding undue weight to the lead of Byzantine Empire (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views).

• Reversions: 1st: [208], 2nd: [209], 3rd: [210]

And that's just today, it's been going on a while with no sign of stopping. Cody continues to revert to his version, usually saying "per talk" after firing off a post and not letting anyone respond, and has asserted that because it's sourced, he should be allowed to put it in,[211] despite the disagreement of me and another user. He has also apparently not heeded the talk page notice that suggests nomenclature issues first read the archives, where the present form of the lead was hashed out. I'm at a loss as to what to do. —Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how the admins can help you with this just now. Perhaps wp:conflict resolution would help? While that can lead here, I don't think the time is yet. This isn't really an edit war, as both sides seem to be making reasonable cases for their view, though the reverts are speeding up and Cody is the only one reverting against the wp:UNDUE argument...and I would encourage Cody to stop and try to be more convincing. wp:edit warring against multiple established editors, even if one's position is right, works poorly.
• Looking at the recent (lonnnnng) talk posts, I see reasonable arguments for both sides. I don't see clear consensus. wp:UNDUE is very much a judgement call... it is going to need consensus.
• For what to do next, wp:conflict resolution. As I read it there are 4 editors, 1 not very vocal, 2 arguing that it is ok, 2 that it is wp:UNDUE weight. I could easily have missed a sig, that is a lot of stuff! Also as I read it, I think the "It is undue" position might be a bit more compelling, but I wasn't blown away by any feeling of "OBVIOUSLY that is undue weight."

All just the opinion of one ordinary editor. Hope it helps. - Sinneed (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also notified User:Cody7777777 of this section. - Sinneed (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I also placed a non-template edit warring note at User talk:Cody7777777, no wp:3rr, but a pattern of reverting against multiple editors will probably not work and may well be seen as edit warring. Hopefully a caution from an ordinary, uninvolved editor will help. - Sinneed (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. There are a considerable number of books shown in the talk page there (some which were also published by the Cambridge University), which support the fact that the name "Romania" for that empire is not a minority view or fringe theory, I have not seen yet any evidence that it is a controversial or incorrect translation. Also, after watching through the previous versions of the article, it appears that the mention of "Romania" was added by user:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ nearly two years ago. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

gu1dry is Vandalizing my User page and Trying to Trick me into Thinking that I'm Blocked

gu1dry (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is vandalizing my user page and attempting to trick me into thinking that I'm blocked: [212], [213]. Then, he removed my warnings from his talk page: [214].--Validbanks 34 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't trick you into anything. I have not vandalized your talk page. You were the one vandalizing, abusing & in general, harassing. You were edit warring, I asked you move the discussion & you continued to edit war & starting personally attacking via the edit comments. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended but it does appear that you put a false block notice on his userpage. Regardless of the history that isn't entirely kosher.Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a warning. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, a "blocked template" doesn't look like a warning to us. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Both have been reported to 3RR noticeboard here--Terrillja _talk 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid per vandalism & abuse. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 19:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You undid the removal of your false block notices as "vandalism"? Not only is removal of messages permitted by WP:TPG, but how the ... does removal of a false block notice count as vandalism? Do enlighten me. Tim Song (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It still does not excuse your action. I also suggest that you read WP:VAND. Having a different viewpoint is not vandalism. Purposely adding erroneous information or altering the article in a malicious manner is. I do not see the edits as vandalism, rather as a content dispute.--Terrillja _talk 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a content dispute and some minor, if well-intended, misunderstanding and sniping from otherwise helpful and reasonable people. Blocks are probably overkill if the edit warring stops, but I'd really like to see people talking to each other like adults. Throwing around templates and reverting with edit summaries decrying edit warring are a little too comically Wikipedian for comfort. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the question now is regardless of whatever his intention maybe, but rather, it is his action that speaks volume of his personal standing when the two of them lost their cool conducting edits on the article page of Mac OS X, and ended up edit warring between themselves. However, the temporary block template which User:gu1dry had placed on User:Validbanks 34's talk page is in itself a wilful act of imposting as an Administrator of Wikipedia to give the Validbanks 34 a wrong impression and that in itself is liable for immediate Block per disruptive editing. You do not do something on Wikipedia just to prove a point to a fellow editor, no matter what your viewpoint is! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from this comment, Gu1dry is claiming that was a misunderstanding; do we have some reason not to take that claim at face value? Frustrated people aren't generally renowned for their comprehension skills, remember. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a troll magnet and when I say that (obviously I have sifted through his edit history), I know how this guy operates... read WP:DE#How disruptive editors evade detection. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please avoid personal attacks. I see no reason not to believe Gu1dry is reasonably frusterated over an edit warrior and unaware of how the warn-warn-warn-block progression works. Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The two of them were both warned for edit warring and what have you? --Dave1185 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave, this is becoming disruptive. I suggest you stop. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm tired of this shit. Validbanks 34 gets away with this shit, & yet I get a finger pointed at me, because I reported his ass somewhere else. Wikipedia is fucking bullshit, all political games. I will now ask for this discussion to end & I will not be responding to this discussion any more. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, that template was meant for use by any Administrator (except you!), you can reckon them to be "gods" or responsible people with vested powers in them, whereas you are not. What is so political about that? How long you want to take a break now is entirely up to you, it's your call! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave1185 - adminstrators are nothing but users with extra buttons. There is very little chance that Gu1dry will be blocked here. Please try not to bite the newcomers. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Right, by your definition of newcomer... I should be newer than him! According to his edit log, Gu1dry started editing on 2007-09-26. Come on, get your facts right first. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave, Gu1dry has never been involved in dealing with revert wars or disruptive editors. You have. "Newcomer" is not about days, it's about knowledge. Secondly, he has no substantive edits before March 2009, and few before May. Please at least try to familiarize yourself with the users you are defaming. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note WP:DNFT. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, Hipocrite is right in that the user is not experienced in dealing with these types of disputes (as far as I can tell). Please stop, and whilst you're at it see WP:DICK. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And WP:DRAMA. Because that looks like what we're trying to start here. --Smashville^talk 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Robbieejoness

Robbieejoness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated a copyright violation as his first edit since the block against him for serial copyright violation expired a few months ago. Where has he been, you ask? Obviously editing as 90.203.235.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To get the copyright violating image installed, the anon added the link to the article, and then Robbieejoness uploaded it. With that sequence, coincidence isn't even a possibility. Since then, Robbieejoness has been uploading more copyright violations. Blocks needed all around, I think.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Account blocked, and the IP will be autoblocked by default for 24 hours. Keep an eye on it and tell me on my talk if this starts up again under a new account. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 'revoking' permission to use AWB & threatening block - IP abuse on User talk:Marek69

See User talk:Marek69 where 93.97.167.197 (talk · contribs) and 85.94.186.91 (talk · contribs) are telling Marek69 he can't use AWB. In March IP 93.97.167.197 has a long series of edits warning other users, but no other edits. Those users had two things in common -- they were all IPs, and many had been given warnings by Marek69. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IP abuse on User talk:Marek69 – IPs pretending to have admin rights or similar. Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also got an impersonator here who could use a block (they attempted to get "the real" Marek69's AWB rights removed) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Impersonator hardblocked. Will be 'interesting' to see if one of those ips suddenly cannot edit from the autoblock. Syrthiss (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And I rolledback 93.97's edits as vandalism, and 85.94 has been warned by another editor. Syrthiss (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time 93.97.167.197 has been a problem going after Marek69; after some checkusering, I've blocked that IP for a year. On the whole, 85.94.186.91 looks to be a productive user. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what IP 93.97.167.19 was trying to achive, or their motivation.

However, I think IP 85.94.186.91 was genuinely expressing their opinion and trying to give good advice. As a subscriber to freedom of expression myself, I have answered IP 85.94's messages and attempted to address the issues raised. Marek.69 ^talk 01:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with user Bandurist

In the recent past I have experienced civility and other problems such as edit warring[[215]] with user Bandurist (talk) who in my opinion is not only rude but also impossible to work with. He reverts without explanation and then deletes any attempts of communication with him from his talk page for example replacing them with the smiley face.[[216]][[217]] Here are just examples of his unexplained reverts, moving pages around etc. from last few days and today, all without any explanation: [[218]][[219]][[220]][[221]][[222]]. Today again my edit was reverted by him without any explanation[[223]] and my attempts of communicating with him, asking for good faith first then warning him that such behavior is inappropriate were immediately ignored and deleted from his talk page[[224]] Could somebody please examine his edit history [[225]] and at least warn him regarding such behavior since any attempts done by me are immediately deleted. Thank you. I left a message on users talk page[[226]] informing him about this complaint. Hope this one will not be deleted.--Jacurek (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey

I wish a formal enquiry/investigation into User:YellowMonkey's, (I consider,) improper administrative action in blocking me for two days without issuing a warning for allegedly "revert-editing against strong consensus" on WP:Naming Conventions.

1.) The action was one-sided, with only one party of an edit-war sanctioned, even though the other participants were at least as culpable. 2.) The action did not end the edit-war since the other side felt endorsed in their activities by YellowMonkey's actions, and emboldened to keep on reverting remaining opposition to their changes to policy. 3.) It was clear from representations from myself and other editors on this page that the situation was complex, and the complainants against me were accused of harrassment, edit-warring, incivility, tag-teaming, serious breach of proper practice in editing policy, and other breaches of WP:Rules. It appears these charges were not looked in to, and totally ignored by Yellow Monkey, while hasty, one-sided action was taken against me alone. 4.) It is clear that no proper investigation of the history and circumstances of the events took place - as it should have done. A proper investigation would have found there was no "strong consensus" for the change, as alleged, that I had not actually engaged in a plain revert war, and that the change Hesperian complained of me for, was actually suggested by him. 5.) I was sanctioned without proper warning, against policy on blocks. 6.) I was blocked for two days, instead of the 24 hours laid down for this "offense". YellowMonkey was therefore either acting improperly in favour of one side in a dispute, or else a hasty and improper manner, sanctioning individuals without properly learning the facts of the case.

If this is not the right place to raise this matter, kindly direct me to the appropriate forum. I believe this is important since arbitrary or one-sided abuse of admin sanctions should take place on Wikipedia. Xandar 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked, I don't see any cause here to investigate Yellow monkey. What I would suggest, is that you drop this, and move your actual content dispute from this page. You should look into dispute resolution and use the tools there. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't see a cause to investigate these accusations, perhaps you ought to think about stepping down as an admin - because these are pretty serious charges for which there is plenty of evidence. Nor is this a content dispute - it's a dispute about one-sided and biased adminship, and ignoring actual breach of practice by certain editors, or else it is a bout an admin who sanctions editors improperly without doing the basic job of investigating the incident concerned. That is something that needs to be gone into. I'm not interested in cover-ups - or people who think ordinary editors are some sort of lesser breed, who can be subject to arbitrary sanction without the person doing so being held to account. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of how this was allowed to happen. If this is not the forum where that can be done, and we can find out WHY this admin abused the proper procedures, I would like to be directed to the correct forum for this. Xandar 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any differences to back up your comments? It's hard to look if there are no links provided by you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NonvocalScream is not an admin. Mike R (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's at WP:NC. At a glance it appears to be a valid block, and there was discussion on Xander's talk page prior to the block, although not a formal template warning that I can see. I don't see anything here to do, WP:RFC/U is >> that way though. — Ched : ? 23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This needs more than "at a glance", I feel. As far as diffs are concerned, I added these in an unblock request: My last four edits were certainly not "edit-warring" at all, but attempts to find a form of wording that would gain acceptance from PManderson and others. However my words were reverted out with new forms of wording each time, and I adapted to the new wording. In fact Hesperian, on my talk page, first suggested, then congratulated me on the new wording, before turning volte face when PMA and PBS continued to revert it. User_talk:Xandar#Consensus_wording_at_NC.3F

B) If I have been blocked for "edit-warring" Why am I the only one? It takes 2 parties to edit war. Looking at the diffs on this subject we see NINE REVERTS to the controversial new wording over just TWO DAYS by the supporters of the new "policy". These include FIVE in two days by PMAnderson, against both me and Arthur Rubin: 10 Sep Against Rubin

and 10 Sep 2nd Against Rubin

and 10 Sep 3rd against Xandar and 11 Sep Against Xandar and 11 sep 2nd Against Xandar How is this different from what I am alleged to have done? What is being done to penalize this? There are also an additional TWO reverts over the same period by Philip Beard Shearer [11 Sept Against Rubin] and 10 Sep against Xandar Plus two more reverts by another of the same view, Born2Cycle 10 Sep against Rubin and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions&diff=313030327&oldid=313022285 10 sep against Xandar]

Again like my edits, this is not strictly 3RR, but the same purpose is being achieved by what looks like tag-teaming. Yet this not been sanctioned by admins in an even-handed manner. The reverting also continued against Arthur Rubin after my blocking for the same "crime". Nothing has been done about this.

C) With two editors against the new wording suddenly introduced to policy, how is this the "strong consensus" given as a reason for the block on my editing? Wikipedia policy on editing guidelines requires considerable community consensus for substantive policy changes. There was not even real consensus among the handful of editors on the page at the time, let alone the wider consensus required. reference the extensive poll on this issue only weeks ago. Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_13#Strengthen_COMMONNAME. The fact is there is no strong consensus for this policy.

D)Why have I been blocked for two days - when this is not even technically a 3RR "offense"? -

E) No warning was issued to any party before the block was imposed - as per the guidance. see. Wikipedia:EVADE#Education_and_warnings}} Xandar 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The original thread is archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Xandar.

Obviously I can't contribute much here, as an involved party. For what it's worth, though, I think YellowMonkey acted appropriately.

One error cannot be allowed to stand, howover: "the change Hesperian complained of me for, was actually suggested by him". My complaint was not about one edit; it was about nine reverts. As I acknowledged in my report, the sixth of them was an attempt at compromise, at my urging. That compromise having been rejected by others, the reverting continued unabated. To twist this into the narrative that I suggested he edit war, then reported him for it, is going too far. Hesperian 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You suggested I make the change, said it was a good one, then when it was reverted out with different new wording each time, and I tried to adapt to the new wording, you then decided to complain about my edits to ANI, whwere YellowMonkey, who has not so far dared defend his actions, leapt in one-sidedly. However you did not complain about PMA constantly reverting me and Arthur Rubin, or the mass of reverts on that side of the argument, (only some of which are diffed above.) That seems very suspect to me. Xandar 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my username is KhatriNYC (I cannot log in with that name since its blocked), and I would like to second this investigation into YellowMonkey. He seems to be power tripping with the blocks he throws out without even discussing or giving the user (in this case me) the opportunity to discuss the reason. I made a change on the Khatri page and forgot to log in with my username, and he accused me of sock puppetry. I explained to another admin William M. Connolley, and he said would look into why YellowMonkey blocked my access and requested YellowMonkey to give me an explanation. I have yet to receive that explanation. This YellowMonkey is seriously reckless and just throwing out blocks as he pleases. I urge please to look into his reasoning and perhaps revoke his admin rights. Thanks - KhatriNYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.7.178 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to IP sockpuppetry in order to defend against accusations of IP sockpuppetry? Hesperian 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor at User talk:98.116.7.178/User:KhatriNYC seems not able to understand: continues to edit anon when blocked for sockpupetry, asking why blocked for sockpuppetry... continues to restore Khatri to a point in time the editor wp:LIKEs immediately after a block for repeatedly doing the same thing. - Sinneed (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that reported User:KhatriNYC. His last 250 contributions show that almost all his edits are reverting everyone else on Khatri including regular editors, admins, bots and IPs; reverts also include removing image tags, dab link corrections, typo and language fixes, content addition/deletion. Edit summaries and talk page comments are also abusive and he owns the article. He was blocked for 3RR by User:William M. Connolley‎, around the end of his block, he came back as an IP and did a mass revert which I reverted, and soon after the end of his block, he reverted once more, two reverts in less than an hour of his block expiring. I contacted YellowMonkey to check if the IP and the editor were the same, turned out they were, and the block was issued. Hope that explains it. My talk page is also an area where he likes to discuss. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

His contribution record is pretty startling. Take a look at just his mainspace contributions, the vast majority of it is reversions at two articles. Almost no original contributions -- just reversions. This isn't how Wikipedia articles should be maintained. How has this managed to go for this long? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Doesntworkciscoworks appears to be an obvious block-evasion account

It seems obvious that the User:Doesntworkciscoworks account was used by the same person who had used the now-indef-blocked User:Osicwcrocks account. Both accounts were used solely to vandalize the CiscoWorks article in the exact same way; compare this edit and this edit by User:Osicwcrocks with this edit by User:Doesntworkciscoworks. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, indef block? Maybe account creation block, too? A little insignificant (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked indef (account creation blocked) by Zzuuzz (talk·contribs·logs). ~ mazca^talk 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't some of these go to places like AVI?Abce2This isnot a test 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This one should've been an SPI case. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Joseph A. Spadaro

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was indef'd by User:Jclemens a few months ago. He's returned as 64.252.72.160 (talk · contribs), among other IPs - see，for instance, this and this AN thread. I've rolled back the IP's most recent comments (largely repetitive attacks on "deletionists" with no substantive content), which no one's responded to, and struck his previous comment on this AfD. Can someone take a look? Tim Song (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

There seems to be a backlog. I wonder what could have contributed to this? Verbal chat 05:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and problematic edits by User:Miami33139

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miami33139 has decided to wikistalk me after I added WP:COMP's {{WikiProject Computing}} banner template to a number of articles that Miami33139 prodded as part of a mass-prod of software articles. I noticed Miami33139 was again mass-prodding articles as I monitor the article alerts notification page for WikiProject Computing. I added templates to a handful of articles that they prodded as part of their mass-prod in hopes that some of the other editors who monitor the article alerts page could help improve some of these articles.

• Reverted my removal of an invalid CSD R2 template here [227]
• Edited a userfied article here [228] that was userfied in an AfD I participated in.
• AfD'd an article I just reverted vandalism on. [229]
• Added a false !vote to the Davfs2 AfD [230] where I had participated.
• Went on to mass prod and AfD other filesystem articles such as UMSDOS prod, AfD (This one in particular shows that they are not even trying to find sources before prod/AfD as UMSDOS has been covered in great detail in an enormous amount of published works and other reliable sources), and others [231] [232] [233] [234] [235]

In keeping with their typical pattern with these sort of disruptive edits, they then went on to make a ton of minor edits elsewhere in an attempt to bury these edits in their edit history. [236]
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid much? Looking at user contributions is not stalking.

Cross namespace redirects are regularly deleted. It is now at RfD.

Userspace articles do not belong in mainspace categories, I have removed hundreds of instances of these in my history. Following a deletion discussion to a recently deleted/userfied article is a quick way to remove these pages from mainspace categories.

Mass proding of a category of articles which are almost all poorly sourced is fairly typical. That's why the process exists. Note my edit history is quite extensive and regular (except for ones which were deleted).

Calling my part of an AfD discussion false, when it is very much a part of my long established rationale for deleting non-notable and poorly referenced software is bad faith.

I've been making minor edits all night long before and after looking at a few of the same things you did. Get a grip on reality. Miami33139 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert D'Onston Stephenson article / User:DreamGuy

The Robert D'Onston Stephenson article is a minor article related to the 'Jack the Ripper' murders. I started it about a year and a half ago. Yesterday a major portion of the article was removed by User:DreamGuy, in spite of the fact that five months ago a consensus was reached, after my request for an 'outside view'. I have tried to revert user DreamGuy's mangling of the article, but to no avail. As it seems his behaviour is much the same as five months ago, I see no other option than to ask for an outside view once again, and, if any such thing is possible, for a general investigation into user DreamGuy's behaviour. (This user has, from what I understand, been blocked on several other occasions.) I'm reposting my request of 2 April this year, as DreamGuy's act does seem to represent a 'repeat offense' - first removing the whole, or major parts of the article without any explanation, and then, when confronted, acting as some sort of "arbiter of expertise". That is not, from what I've been led to understand, how this project is supposed to work.

From my request of 2 April:

A week ago [the Robert D'Onston Stephenson article] was redirected by User:DreamGuy, with the claim that parts of the article was slanted, and that a very short section in the Jack the Ripper suspects article was better. I added some material to make the Stephenson article more objective and reinstated it. A large part of the material that has been there since last year was then removed. I added some more material and reinstated the article again. And then the same user redirected it again. I have reinstated the article again, with some changes, attempting to reach a consensus. But I expect it will be to no avail. I know this user quite well from the 'Jack the Ripper' article and noticed last year that he was trying to redirect another article related to the same subject, at least 11 times (Whitechapel murders), though I did not take part in that discussion. It seems to me that "DreamGuy" has been redirecting the Stephenson article to enforce his new version. Which surely cannot be right ? He also seems to have this habit of talking on behalf of "experts" without any referencing, and pointing at wiki policies without actually providing any arguments. And he has an abusive style, that makes it seem quite impossible to argue with him in a rational way. Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at that article ? Thank you. ΑΩ (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ΑΩ (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy notified. I'm getting tired of having to notify users about threads. If you're going to raise a complaint here about someone, you are REQUIRED to notify them. Exxolon (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware. When I filed my first complaint here five months ago noone told me about this requirement. I can see, though, that making ones adversary aware of the complaint is also a matter of common courtesy. Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So instead of filing a WP:3O, User:ΑΩ comes running here to talk about some supposed "consensus" that was actually about the redirect and not the section in question? This is one of a handful of editors I've dealt with who unfortunately immediately jumps to making over the top complaints and giving extremely biased accounts of old conflicts as a way to try to prevail in any disagreement he has with me. In this case he acts like he WP:OWNs the article in question and never shows any intent to enter into any discussion or compromise; I've given up on redirecting the article, but weeding out some of the major WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problems still present is long overdue. The content in dispute is not covered at all in most 400+ page books on the topic, largely because it is both trivial and has been shown to be wrong more than a century ago, something he apparently doesn't want anyone to know based upon his edits there. I hope that ΑΩ eventually learns that he can't pull stunts like this as a way to try to get what he wants, especially as the editors he learned this behavior from have largely either moved on or been permanently blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are the users I'm supposed to have "learned this behaviour from" ? And how would this slanderous allegation be proven ? It is, of course, unprovable. And so, it is slander. As opposed to DreamGuy and whatever other users he might be referring to, I never have been blocked.

And the content in question is more than mentioned in Evans' and Skinner's 'Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook', one of the most widely acknowledged reference works on the case. Six pages in all on Stephenson as a 'contemporary suspect', and most of it about the theory he presented to the police at the time. The quality or validity of Stephenson's theory hardly matters. Parts of it or the whole of it might have been disproven or found to be irrelevant to our present understanding. It doesn't matter. If it had not been for Stephenson's letters to the police about his theory, and the article in the Pall Mall Gazette about the same theory, he never would have become known as a 'contemporary suspect' (however minor, and unfounded) and several books about him as a suspect never would have been written. So, it seems the real issue here is not whether Stephenson's theory should be presented in some way, but how much weight it should be given in the article about him, and how it should be presented. This is also why I made this complaint "immediately". The relevant section was removed in its entirety, without any attempt to improve it, and with no prior explanation on the Talk page. And that is, in fact, very much the same procedure as five months ago.

And thank you for making me aware of the WP:3O. If I had been aware of it, I might have made my complaint there instead, even though it does say that "The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute." In my experience you're not a very civil person, as proven by your attempt here to smear me by some unprovable association. In view of this 'repeat action', I'm asking for an outside view. ΑΩ (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect this to get you anywhere, ΑΩ, just to let you know. This noticeboard is for problems that require immediate administrator attention. All you want to do is "ask for an outside view". Have you ever read dispute resolution? Those are the steps you should take when you disagree with another editor regarding what should go into an article and have had problems discussing it with them directly. I suggest you use that as a guideline. Asking for a 3rd opinion, as DreamGuy suggested above, is typically your first step. If you're declining to even try dispute resolution then you're just living up to DreamGuy's accusations which I'm sure is the last thing you want to do. So I suggest you give it a try and see what happens. -- Atama頭 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)