위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive631

차단된 사용자:안데스썬더

이 사용자는 최근 기사에 대한 편집 전쟁으로 인해 차단되었다.얼마 전 그가 싸웠던 글에 IP가 추가했는데, 그가 자신의 블록을 회피한 것인지는 모르겠지만, 나는 그의 토크 페이지에 글을 올렸다.그는 그 후 격앙된 반응을 보였지만 스페인어 위키피디아에 글을 올려 자신이 편집하고 있던 문제에 대해 "도움을 요청했다"고 밝혔다.나는 스페인어를 할 줄 모르기 때문에, 그가 실제로 그들에게 무엇을 부탁했는지 모르지만, 관리자가 그의 토크 페이지를 볼 수 있다면, 관련 사항들과 관련된 링크가 거기에 있다.고마워 브리티쉬워처 (대화) 22:17, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 스페인어를 하니까 링크 주면 번역해줄게.Tbhotch^TalkC. 22:20, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

페이지를 찾았다.Tbhotch^Talk 22:27, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI와의 링크를 그의 토크 페이지에 올려줘서 고맙고, 그것을 하기 위해 그곳으로 돌아갈 준비를 하고 있었다.BritishWatcher (대화) 22:27, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

"En la Wikipedia en en en la wikipedia en into un articulo con ombre lateline of the Falkland Islands, donde estube tratando de interther dos histors: (His Information)" 이 말은, 제 서투명한 영어 실례를 용서하십시오.위키에는 포클랜드 제도의 역사에 대한 타임라인이라는 이름이 붙은 기사가 있는데, 내가 두 가지 역사적 사실, 즉 (그의 판)과 "Alguien podria tratar de poner esta informacion?"을 삽입하려고 한 것은, "누군가 이것을 되돌려 놓을 수 있을까?"라는 뜻이다.이것으로 그는 자신의 정보를 다시 추가하기 위해 영어를 사용하는 다른 사용자에게 물었다.제스테파리오(토크·컨트리뷰트)는 이에 대해 "아그레게 라 프리메라 프라스, 라 데 1940년 베아모스 시 두라"라는 글을 올렸다. 살루도스" ->>> 나는 첫 문장을 덧붙였는데, 1940년경, 이것이 아직도 남아 있는지 보자"라고 해서 블록 회피가 일어나지 않도록 했다.또한 IP 79.41.56.64(토크/컨설팅)는 이탈리아에서 온 반면, 사용자:안데스썬더는 아르헨티나 출신이다.Tbhotch^TalkC. 22:42, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

번역을 위한 탄키우.그는 다른 언어의 위키피디아에서 그와 같은 도움을 요청하기 위해 운동을 할 작정인가?그는 분명히 소원을 들어주었다.BritishWatcher (대화) 22:46, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 스페인어 위키백과에서 말하고 있던 사용자가 지금 도착하여 [1] 기사에 IP 추가에 대한 나의 복귀를 되돌렸다[BritishWatcher (대화) 22:43, 2010년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 사용자의 되돌리기를 되돌렸다.토크 페이지에 대한 논의와 명확한 합의가 진술하고 있듯이, 추가에 사용되는 참조는 중립적이지 않으며, 정보가 명백하게 POV라는 사실과 함께 신뢰할 수 없다.실버스렌^C 00:00, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

돌아봐줘서 고마워.BritishWatcher (대화) 01:10, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 나는 그 페이지가 정리될 때까지 지켜왔다.CBW에 들어가 소시지가 아닌 관객들의 박수를 기다린다.00:47, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

페이지를 지켜줘서 고마워.BritishWatcher (대화) 01:10, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:안데스천둥은 몇 시간 안에 차단되지 않을 것이다.스페인어 위키백과에서 그가 차단된 후에 도움을 요청하기 위해 경고나 어떤 것을 받을 것인가?꽤 심각한 것 같아.BritishWatcher (대화) 01:10, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

좋은 지적이야.탐문 조사를 위해 블록을 확장했다.펜스&윈도우즈 02:33, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그것이 관련이 있는지는 모르겠지만, 내 토크 페이지에서 그는 포클랜드 사람들이 모두 백인이고 당신은 백인에 대해 인종차별주의자가 될 수 없다는 논평을 통해 인종 차별주의자의 사용을 정당화했다.justintalk 10:00, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

내 생각에 너는 그들이 말한 것을 잘못 읽고 있는 것 같아.속어 "켈퍼스"는 어떤 사람들에게는 경멸적인 것으로 여겨질 수도 있지만, 포클랜드 사람들에 의해 그들 자신에 대한 애정 어린 별명으로 사용되는 것 같다. 예: [2][3] 참조.펜스&윈도우 16:03, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 속어 Kelpers는 아르헨티나 사람들이 사용할 때 굉장히 불쾌하다고 여겨져.보통 2등 시민을 유추하는 데 경멸적인 의미로 쓰인다.아프리카계 미국인들이 자신들 사이에 n***r을 사용할 수 있는 만큼 섬사람들이 n***r을 사용할 때는 불쾌하지 않지만, 요즘은 부정적인 함축 때문에 n***r을 많이 사용하지 않는다.이제 나는 그 의심의 혜택을 주고 그것이 불쾌하고 인종차별주의적인 것으로 간주된다고 설명했는데, 포클랜드 사람들은 백인이라 인종차별이 될 수 없다는 반응이었다.잘못 읽은 건 아닌데, 지금 무지를 핑계로 인종차별적 표현을 쓰는 걸 용인하는 건가?우리는 또한 그들이 백인들에게 이용되는 것을 용인하는가?나는 그렇게 생각하지 않는다. 그래서 나는 그것이 그렇게 가볍게 용서되는 것이 다소 불안하다고 생각한다.justintalk 19:35, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그가 아르헨티나와 포클랜더 둘 다 백인이라면 인종차별이 아니라고 주장하려고 했다고 생각한다.나는 당신이 주장하는 것처럼 켈퍼는 거의 불쾌하다고 생각하지 않는다. 주류 통신사들은 그것을 불쾌하다는 것을 전혀 언급하지 않은 은어라고 언급한다: "그리고 켈퍼들은 섬사람들에게 종종 알려져 있듯이, 그것을 바라지 말라."가디언, 2006년[4] 정말 터무니없다는 너의 주장은 나를 납득시키기에 충분하지 않다.펜스&윈도우즈 16:08, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

"아르헨티나인과 포클랜드인 둘 다 백인이라면 인종차별이 아니다." 여전히 BS이고 인종 차별에 대한 변명은 없다.나는 그것이 불쾌하게 여겨진다는 것을 알고 있다. 만약 당신이 아르헨티나를 동정하고 있는 가디언을 넘어서 좀 더 많은 연구를 한다면 당신은 스스로 증명할 수 있는 것이다.예를 들어 [5]를 예로 들면, 나는 당신이 단순히 페이스북의 언급으로 치부할 것이라고 확신하지만, 그래서 지금 우리는 당신이 일부 사람들이 불쾌하다고 생각하는 것을 선의로 받아들이지 않는다는 근거로 인종차별적 비장의 사용을 용서한다.다시 말하지만, 나는 사람들이 인종차별주의 용어 사용을 너무 쉽게 무시하는 핑계를 찾는 것 같다는 것을 다소 불안하게 생각하고 있다.저스틴 토크 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 18:21 (응답)

사용자:Cde000

Cde000(토크 · 기여)은 위키피디아에서 4개월동안 활동해 왔으며,보통 그는 그래서 당신은 Dance엘 수 있을 거 기여한다.그러나 두 가지 이름으로 된 같은 기사가 있다.

• 산네 니호프
• 마르시아 벙크

특히, 관리자들은 마르시아 벙크에서 산네 니호프(원제 기사 제목)에 이르는 원고를 오려 붙일 수 있을까.어프렌티스팬 16:22, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 설명할 수 없는 움직임을 되돌리고 이전 버전의 산네 니호프를 복원했다.Cde000 (토크·출고)은 가짜 기사에 대해 최종 경고를 했다.존CD (대화) 2010년 8월 8일 16시 40분 (UTC)[응답]

마르시아 번크는 진짜 모델이지만, 눈에 잘 띄지는 않는다.나는 그들이 그 페이지 이동으로 무엇을 하고 있었는지 전혀 모르겠다.펜스&윈도우즈 16:41, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자는 캐나다의 넥스트 탑 모델에서 완전히 가상의 사이클 4를 구성하는 톱 모델 경기의 결과를 변경하는데 있어 전문화 되어 보인다.JohnCD (대화) 17:03, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 편집한 내용은 5349개이며, 대화 공간은 2개뿐이며, 하나는 그가 "STOP BANDALIZ"라고 말하는 경우ING! 아니면 위키백과에서 너를 차단해야 해!!!"그 위에 조작 페이지를 만들었다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 13:09, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

샨토슈5000은 저작권을 반복적으로 무시한다.

Shantosh5000(토크 · 기여)은 이미지와 텍스트 업로드에 대한 수많은 경고를 허가 없이 무시해 왔다.자신의 페이지에 긴 연속된 OrphanBot 공지를 제외하고, 그는 또한 한 달 전에 저작권이 있는 인도 정부 출처인 인도 디아스포라에 관한 고등 위원회 보고서[6]의 텍스트를 위키피디아 기사로 복사하지 말라는 경고를 받았지만, 계속 그렇게 하고 있다(어제, 브라질에서 온 두 가지 예시 참조).talk page warning이 그에게 확실히 전달되지 않기 때문에, block이 순서대로 있을 수 있다.행정가의 판단에 맡긴다.고마워, 택시 (전화) 00:57, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 편집자는 몇 개의 기사 토크 페이지에 템플릿을 추가하는 것 외에 어떤 토크 공간에도 편집이 없다. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕 CaliforniaAliBaba.WP에서의 당신의 주장은:ANI#Shantosh5000이 저작권을 반복적으로 무시하는 것은 지난 4주 동안 이 편집자의 최근 저작권 위반에 대한 몇 가지 차이점을 가지고 그것을 증폭시킬 수 있다면 더 설득력이 있을 것이다.그의 토크 페이지에 있는 많은 게시물들은 오래되었다.우리가 확실히 아는 건 그가 말을 안 한다는 것뿐이에요.그것은 걱정거리지만, 저작권 문제가 완전히 문서화될 경우에만 그렇다.예를 들어, 당신은 diff를 제공할 수 있고, 자료를 가져간 장소의 페이지 번호를 줄 수 있다.브라질에 있는 인도계 아르헨티나인과 인도인 당신이 언급하는 기사를 확인해보려고 했지만, 그것들은 존재하지 않는다.에드존스턴 (토크) 04:04, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) (내 토크 페이지 택시에서 이동)(전화) 04:23, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 대한 응답:내 토크 페이지 [7]에서 위의 질문을 한 에드존스턴:나는 관리자가 아니므로 삭제된 diff를 볼 수 있는 권한이 없다.위에서 언급한 기사들은 명백한 저작권 침해로 빠르게 삭제되었기 때문에 더 이상 정확하게 존재하지 않는다.당신은 또한 샨토시5000의 또 다른 기사, 필리핀의 인도인[8]을 볼 수 있는데, 거의 전체적으로 얄팍하게 리워드되고, 매력적이지 않은 버전의 [9]로 구성되어 있다. 카피비오는 삭제되었고, 기사는 필리핀의 남아시아인들에게 합병을 위해 제안되었다. 택시 (통화) 04:23, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 살펴보았다.일부 기사는 카피비오(Moonedgirl)용으로 두 번 삭제되었다(Moonedgirl은 삭제된 관리자 중 한 명이라는 점에 유의한다).편집자는 3년이라는 기간 동안 어떤 경고에도 완전히 대응하지 못했다.나는 그를 무기한 차단하고 있다.이는 블록이 쉽게 해제될 수 있다는 것을 의미하며, 단지 Shantosh5000이 커뮤니케이션을 시작하고, 문제를 인식하고, 카피비오 기사를 만드는 것을 중단하는데 동의하면 된다는 것이다.더그웰러 (대화) 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 13:18, 응답

시간표를 보니 내가 먼저 대답할 시간을 몇 시간 주겠다.더그웰러 (대화) 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 13:19[응답]

음, 그의 호의로, ANI가 자신의 토크 페이지에 경고한 후, 그는 이전에 베네수엘라에서 인디언들에게 보냈던 카피비오의 한 부분을 삭제했다[10] 그래서 마침내 메시지가 그에게 전달될지도 모른다. 택시 (전화) 14:42, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

플로피 디스크의 컨텐츠 분쟁

93.48.33.105(토크)와 같은 아논 IP 편집기들은 비록 위키피디아가 디렉토리는 아니지만 USB 디스켓 드라이브 에뮬레이터의 목록을 계속 추가하고 있다.IP 편집자는 이 제품들을 DMOZ에 나열하는 대안을 제시받았지만 계속 복원하고 있다.여기의 편집 코멘트[11]는 약간의 행정적 입력이 유용할 것이라고 생각하게 만든다. --Wtshymanski (토크) 13:20, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

연결 고리를 막기 위해 전쟁을 편집해서는 안 되고, 너도 그것에 대해 토론해야 해.토크 페이지에는 노트가 하나도 안 보여.IP가 이것에 대해 논의하도록 하기 위해 일주일 동안 이것을 반비례했다.펜스&윈도우즈 14:02, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

누군가가 그것을 보호해 주었다.IP가 경고에 껑충 뛰어다니는 것은 그다지 도움이 되지 않을 것이지만, 토크 페이지와 보호에 대한 알림만으로도 충분할 것이다.S.G.^(GH)_ping! 14:03, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

미리 모든 편집을 토크 페이지에서 토론하는 것은 지루할 것이다; 만약 편집 코멘트의 설명이 충분하지 않다면, 토크 페이지에서 반복하는 것도 설득력이 없을 것이다. --Wtshymanski (토크) 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 14:30, 8월 9일 (화)[응답]

당신은 방금 전쟁 편집에 대해 '실례'를 했다.요약 편집은 '토론'이 아니다.일단 콘텐츠 분쟁이 시작되면 대화를 해야 한다."하지만 그들이 시작했다"고 말하는 것은 올바른 접근법이 아니다.2010년 8월 9일(UTC) 15:00[응답]

그가 한 말.S.G.^(GH) 15:02, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(갈등 편집 x 2) 토크 페이지에서 하나의 좋은 설명을 할 수 있고, 되돌릴 때 섹션을 링크할 수 있다.되돌릴 때마다 똑같은 짧은 설명을 반복할 필요는 없고, 그는 토론을 눈치채고 거기에 답할 수밖에 없다.나는 이 기술이 단순히 IP의 토크 페이지에 게시하는 것보다 더 유용하다는 것을 알게 되었다.(또한, Fence&Windows의 말) --Enric Navy (대화) 15:04, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

네, OP가 기사토크 페이지에 그의 주장을 다시 한 번 써보도록 합시다.그런 다음 다른 사람이 다시 시도하면 대화 페이지에 대한 참조로 실행을 취소하십시오.그렇게 하는 게 훨씬 쉬워.만약 그들이 계속 편집 전쟁을 한다면, 그것에 빨려들지 말고, 당국에 가져가라.base야구 벅스 당근→15:36, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

어쨌든 그것은 단순히 부적절하다, 우리는 기사 텍스트 안에 외부 링크의 디렉토리를 허용하지 않는다. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:39, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

남용: 공공 기물 파손에 대한 잘못된 비난

기사 스파이크(미사일)는 첫 줄에 "해군항공전센터에서 개발 중인 미제 경미사일에 대해서는 DRS 스파이크를 보라"는 문구가 적혀 있었다. DRS 스파이크는 존재하지 않는 기사와 빨간색 연결고리여서 나는 이 무의미하고 오해의 소지가 있는 문장을 삭제했다.사용자:Dave1185, 편집 요약본에 내 행동을 "반달리즘"이라고 표시했다.사용자:Dave1185는 이어서 내 토크 페이지에 강력한 단어가 적힌 경고를 표시하여, 나를 '무중단 편집'으로 고발했다.나는 나의 행동을 설명하면서 대응했지만, 내가 설명할 기회가 생기기도 전에 그는 이미 위키피디아에 갔다.공공 기물 파손 주의 게시판에 대한 관리자 개입은 내 행위를 기물 파손이라고 보고했고, 내 계정을 "기물 파손 전용 계정"으로 묘사했다.자신의 보고서를 살펴본 한 관리자는 내 편집이 모두 선의로 이루어졌으며, 내 계정을 반달리즘 계정이라고 부를 이유를 알 수 없다고 결론내렸지만, 사용자:데이브1185의 대응은 mt토크 페이지에 또 다른 경고를 올려 "막대기 받기 전에 끄라"고 경고하는 것이었다.hupHollandHup (대화) 15:52, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

넌 반란을 일으킨 게 아니었어, 근데 왜 왜곡된 공지를 없애려고 편집 전쟁을 한 거야?그건 말이 안 돼, 사람들이 두 사람을 헷갈릴 위험이 있으니까.아마도 {{confusion}}을(를) 대신 사용해야 할까?NAWC/DRS 미사일은 여기에 설명되어 있다.[12]Faces&Windows 16:13, 2010년 8월 8일(UTC)[응답]

내가 쓴 내용을 다시 읽어보십시오. 링크는 존재하지 않는 빨간색 링크에 대한 링크였습니다.사람들에게 뭔가 읽어보라고 하는 게 무슨 소용이야? 그게 기사를 써먹지 않는 데 말이야.심지어 문체의 매뉴얼에도 글과 연결되는 유일한 페이지가 글과 연결되는 유일한 페이지라면 글에 빨간색 링크를 달지 말아야 한다고 되어 있다.HupHollandHup (대화) 2010년 8월 8일 16:18, (UTC)[응답하라]

컨텐츠 분쟁에서 데이브의 롤백 특권을 제거했어.필나이트 (대화) 2010년 8월 8일 16시 20분 (UTC)[응답]

이 문제는 억지로 주장할 것이 아니라 논의해야 할 문제가 아닌가?빨간색 링크가 유용할 경우 MOS(WP:IAR. 울타리&Windows 16:22, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

존재하지 않는 기사에 대한 빨간색 링크는 어떻게 "유용한" 것인가?혼동을 방지하려면 'DRS Spike와 혼동하지 마십시오'(링크 없음)를 선택하십시오.기사토크페이지(BTW, 거기서 토론을 시작했다)에서 이 문제를 논의하게 되어 기쁘지만, 공공기물 파손이나 막대기로 위협받을 준비가 되어 있지 않다.다른 관리자가 Dave의 행동이 도구에 대한 액세스를 취소할 정도로 부적절하다고 판단한 것을 알게 되었으니, 당신의 의견이 엉뚱한 사람을 향하고 있음을 시사한다.HupHollandHup (토크) 2010년 8월 8일 16:26 (UTC)[응답하라]

MOS:DABRL은 해트노트가 아닌 해프닝 페이지에 있는 레드링크를 어떻게 해야 하는지를 가리키며, 링크만 삭제하는 것을 권고하지 않는다.당신이 찾고 있는 조언은 위키피디아 입니다.해트노트# 레드링크에 대한 해트노트를 배제하는 존재하지 않는 기사들, 비록 나는 여전히 (링크 없이) 같은 이름의 다른 미사일의 존재를 언급하는 노트가 독자들에게 도움이 되고 방해하지 않을 것이라고 생각한다.누가 잘못했는지에 대해서는, 아마 너희 둘 다 잘못되었을 것이다.울타리&윈도우즈 16:30, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

사실 난 네가 너와 데이브가 잘못된 사람이라는 걸 증명했다고 확신해 위키피디아처럼 말이야당신이 찾은 하트노트#존재하지 않는 기사 페이지에는 홉의 말대로 레드링크에 해트노트를 만들어서는 안 된다고 되어 있다.지침(그리고 상식) 내에서 행동할 때 홉을 때리는 것은 형편없다.그렇긴 하지만, 홉은 정말 요약 편집을 하는 습관을 들여야 한다.만약 그가 편집의 이유를 설명했다면 그것은 오해받을 가능성이 덜했다.퀘일 (토크) 2010년 8월 8일 21시 45분 (UTC)[응답]

이 논평은 (실수로) 삭제되었고, 나는 그것을 복구하고 있다.요점은 요약에 관한 것이며, 자료를 삭제할 때 더 잘 추가할 수 있도록 노력하겠다.HupHollandHup (토크) 23:16, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

GraemeLeggett(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그)은 [13]년 6월 29일에 적색연계 해체를 덧붙였고, 나는 그에게 이곳에 와서 그 문제를 좀 조명해 보라고 부탁했다.한편, 홉이 이 항목에 대한 편집-워링을 고집한 결과 불행하게도 데이브1185에서 롤백 프리뷰를 제거하게 되었다.데이브에게도 이리로 와서 체중을 실어나르라고 했다.』 『야구 벅스 당근→ 16:33, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 바로 짚고 넘어가자: 나는 내가 하는 것이 상식적으로 보이는 것처럼 무의미한 해트링크를 제거했다.밝혀진 바와 같이, 이것은 또한 우리의 정책이 우리가 해야 한다고 말하는 것이다 - 위키백과:해트노트#존재하지 않는 기사.편집한 내용이 명백하고, 뒷모습이 문제가 됐을 수도 있다고 생각했기 때문에 나는 처음에 설명하지 않았다.하지만 그것이 도전받았을 때, 나는 토크 페이지와 편집 요약본 그리고 공공 기물 파손 주의 게시판에 상세한 설명을 했다.그럼에도 불구하고, 데이브는 계속해서 자신의 버전을 기사로 편집했다. 그리고 롤백 도구를 부적절하게 사용한 것이 그의 편집 전쟁으로 인해 그 특권이 제거되었다.이런 "악마가 나를 그렇게 만들었어" 헛소리 하지 마. 사람들은 그들 자신의 행동에 결과가 있다는 것을 인식해야 해.HupHollandHup (토크) 2010년 8월 8일 16:44 (UTC)[응답하라]

이봐, 그건 그냥 모자이크야, 무의미하든 아니든 (논의할 만한 것)진정해요.펜스&윈도우즈 16:49, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

난 모자 따위는 신경 안 쓸 수 있어, 그건 여기서 문제가 아니야.이 문제는 선의의 편집으로 반복적으로 반달이라고 불리고 있다.HupHollandHup (대화) 2010년 8월 8일 16:53, (UTC)[응답]

• @HHHH, 이 ANI 문제에 대해 알려주지 않은 것에 대해 고맙게 생각하고, 소위 말하는 선의를 자네에게 보여 주러 가는 거지, 응?모든 사람이 볼 수 있도록 시간순으로 설명하겠다.

1. 초기 편집에서 편집 요약에 설명을 제공하지 않고 적절하게 소싱된 자료/내용을 삭제한 경우.
2. 그리고 나서 나는 당신의 설명할 수 없는 페이지 내용의 빈칸을 되돌리고 그 잘못된 행동에 대해 당신을 템플리트로 만들었다(모든 것은 TW를 사용하며, 지금까지 당신이 제공한 아주 작은 수정사항들로 인해 그것이 존재한다는 것을 알고 있다니 놀랍다), 나는 또한 당신이 이스라엘의 군사 장비에 대한 설명되지 않은 페이지 콘텐트의 빈칸화를 같은 묘기를 행했다는 것을 주목했다.또한 템플리트도 제공됨;
3. 나는 또한 이 에피소드에 대해 AIV에 대한 설명을 제공했지만, 내가 당신이나 응답 관리자로부터 답변을 받기 전에, 당신은 논평 관리자에 의해 제안된 그 기사의 토론 페이지 대신에 나를 ANI로 데려갔다.

이 작품의 끝부분에서 아쉽게도 내가 손을 떼게 된다.신참을 물어뜯는 꼴을 보고 싶지 않다.모두에게 평화롭고, 최고. --Dave 16:51, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

야구 벅스, 데이브의 토크 페이지에 대한 당신의 논평에 대해, 나는 롤백 특권을 삭제했다. 왜냐하면 롤백 특권을 콘텐츠 논쟁에 절대 사용해서는 안 되기 때문이다.기존의 편집자가 원본을 편집했는지 여부는 전혀 중요하지 않다.필나이트 (토크) 2010년 8월 8일 16:52 (UTC)[응답]

요점을 놓치셨군요.신참은 아무 설명도 없이 그저 무언가를 자르고 있는 것 같았다.그건 공공 기물 파손이야.롤백을 사용했을까?아마 아닐 것이다.그러나 데이브는 단지 새로운 사람이 온라인에 들어오기 전에 다른 사용자가 거기에 넣어둔 편집을 옹호하고 있을 뿐이었다.롤백 제거는 내가 보기에 과잉반응이었다.하지만 우리는 6주 전에 레드링크된 아이템을 올린 Graeme라는 남자로부터 꼭 들어야 한다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 17:18, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

HupHolland와 합의여기 편집이 끝났고, 나도 똑같이 했었어, 링크와 주제가 관련이 없기 때문에 레드 링크 정책이 이 경우에는 적용되지 않아.우리는 단지 외부 페이지로 연결되는 기사에 링크할 필요가 없다.나는 당신이 그의 롤백 특권의 제거를 검토해야 한다고 생각한다. (경고는 완전한 제거가 아닌 첫 번째 단계일 것이다.) 우리는 여기서 편집자들을 물지 않고 당신의 행동이 부당하다는 것을 설명하려고 노력한다.뜸(토크) 16:53, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

가이드라인에 대한 참고 사항: 해트노트가 레드링크로 가는 것을 금지하는 규정은 2년 반 전에 세 명의 편집자가 토론한 후 선동되었다. 위키백과 대화를 보라:해트노트/아카이브 1#red-linked 해트노트항상 복음 같은 안내를 받지 마라.펜스&윈도우즈 17:01, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

질문이 뭔지 잘 모르겠는데...그래서 당신은 해트노트가 독자들이 주제를 찾도록 돕고 그들이 기사를 만들 것이라는 희망에 놓이지 않기 때문에 그것이 만들어지길 바라는 희망에서 비흥분 페이지로 연결될 필요가 없다는 것에 동의하는가? ....그리고 한 번의 실수가 그의 특권 박탈을 보증하는 것이 아니라, 단순히 사용법 Moxy (talk) 17:07, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]의 경고에 불과하므로 우리는 그의 특권 박탈에 대해 말할 수 있을까?

WP도 살펴볼 경우:그러나 REDLINK는 다음과 같이 명시되어 있다.

• 다양한 {{About}, {{Otheruss}}개의 해트노트, {{Main}, {{Details}, {{Further}, {{Seeals}}}개의 노트 및 "See also" 섹션에 있는 링크는 항법 목적을 위해 사용된다.빨간색 링크는 이러한 맥락에서 무용지물이다; 가능하면 기능하는 링크로 교체하거나, 그렇지 않으면 제거해야 한다.

imo, 존재하지 않는 기사를 언급하는 것은 무의미하다. - Happysailor 17:11, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

제기랄, 난 그냥 기사를 쓸 거야.이용할 수 있는 원천은 얼마든지 있다.네이티브포머^Talk/_Contribs17:18, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

• 음, 나는 하단의 코멘트를 대체하기 위해 해트노트를 사용했었다.내 생각은 그것이 "위쪽"에 속한다고 생각했고, 해트노트 스타일은 이것들과 잘 어울린다.나는 글의 본문에 레드링크와 같은 선에 따라 생각하는 링크를 포함시켰다. 여기에 채워야 할 것이 있다.나는 (연결할) DRS를 찾거나 기사를 시작하기에 충분할 것으로 기대했다.어떤 일이 있어도 아무 일도 일어나지 않았고, 그것은 내 머릿속을 스쳐갔다.GraemeLegett (대화)20:28, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• 언제부터 참고문헌으로 해트노트를 만들기 시작했는가?데이브의 초기 복귀는 나에게 조금 방아쇠처럼 보였는데, 그 참고자료로 소싱된 내용은 하나도 없었고, 단지 해트 노트일 뿐이었다.우연히 마주쳤더라면 아마 내가 직접 제거했을 것이다.빨간색 링크 해트노트는 도움이 되지 않는다. 단지 하나의 파란색 링크와 6개의 빨간색 링크만으로 구성된 모호한 페이지일 뿐이다.그러나 나는 즉시 ANI에 문제를 제기하기 보다는 HupHolland가 해트노트의 제거를 설명하는 것이 더 낫다는 Dave의 의견에 동의한다.그런 일이 있었더라면 애초에 이 모든 드라마를 피할 수 있었을지도 모른다. -- 아타마 17:22, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]
• 설명하자면...사실 그 한 가지 상황에서, 내가 만약 이치에 맞고 옳게 보이는 방법으로 할 수 있다면, 나는 아마도 그 해트노트를 그냥 삭제하는 것보다는 참고문헌의 도움을 받아 다른 주제를 기사의 본문에 넣으려고 했을 것이다.하지만 빨간 링크가 있는 해트노트를 보면, 그건 나에게 즉각적인 삭제야.나는 "See also"의 빨간 링크처럼 일상적인 기사 정리 작업을 고려한다. -- 아타마 17:26, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 월요일 아침 쿼터백은 우리가 하는게 아니야.데이브는 홉이 실제로 자신을 속일 때 AIV 경고를 받으러 갔을 때 과민반응을 보였지만, 설명 없이 자신이 두 번 본 편집기에서 트윙클 롤백을 강화한 적이 있다.가장 큰 실수는 AIV 경고와 두 번째로 제공된 편집 요약이 있을 때 롤백을 사용한 것이다.
  페이지를 감시하고, 새로운 변경사항을 보고, 디프를 클릭하고, 제거를 보는 대부분의 사람들은 링크가 빨간색인지 파란색으로 표시되는지 전혀 알지 못한다. 레드링크가 적절한지 아닌지에 대한 논의는 롤백 문제와 무관하다.섀도잼 (대화) 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 18:42, 응답

• 데이브가 과민반응한 건 동의해, 아마 내가 확실히 몰랐을 수도 있어, 미안해.나 또한 데이브가 자신의 잘못을 인정하지 않았기 때문에, 그것은 다시 인정되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다. -- 아타마 21 21:20, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

베타코만드가 돌아와서 봇을 운영하고 있다.

최신 어바인22 양말

우리의 양말 농부가 이번에 사용자로 돌아왔다.오웨인 글린 스탕평소의 이름 변종, 평소의 집착.만약 누군가가 평상시처럼 할 수 있다면 감사할 것이다.고마워, 다이카레고스 (대화)20:11, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 마지막 사용자 이름 양말과 차별화하려는 다소 서투른 시도.막혔다.–MuZemike 20:20, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Pmanderson은 태그를 제거하고 3RR 규칙을 어긴다.

다른 사용자:마리오96 양말

여기가 마리오의 또 다른 꽥꽥거리는 양말인 User:huardUser를 보고하기에 가장 좋은 곳인가?이 다소 둔감한 편집기의 레인지블록 가능성에 대해 조사한 사람 있어? 69.181.249.92 (대화) 21:57, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:SPI는 일반적으로 그러한 보고를 하는 곳이다.이건 내가 처리했어.레인지블록은 부수적인 피해가 너무 클 것이다. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:04, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

등록되지 않은 편집자로서 SPI는 나에게 쓸모없는 것이다.페이지를 작성할 수 없다. 69.181.249.92 (대화) 22:09, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그건 분명 고통스러운 일이다.그럼 여기 있는 게 최선인 것 같아. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:41, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

총에 맞아 기쁘고 69.181이 위키프렌즈라는 점은 인정하지만 WP의 경우:DOOK 케이스는 ANI가 가장 좋은 장소라고 생각한다.SPI는 조사나 체크 유저가 필요한 경우에 더 적합하다.하지만... 69.181 - 내가 보기엔 SPI가 반보호되어 있지 않아 - 최근에 해봤어? 시간이 날 때 로그아웃해 볼게, 보호 로그에 따르면 괜찮을 겁니다.TFOWR 22:49, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

응, 하지만 SPI 건을 시작하려면 페이지를 만들어야 해. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:19, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

도! 난 알고 있었어...(미리!)69.181에게 계정을 만들라고 말하는 것을 피하려고 한다(성실한 IP들은 그것을 싫어한다...)물론 네 말이 맞아. 하지만 위키피디아는 항상 있어.SPI#Quick Checkuser 요청...TFOWR 23:25, 2010년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

양말 케이스가 아니라고 명시되어 있는...아, 그럼 여기가 제일 좋은 곳인가 보군. 69.181.249.92 (토크) 20:57, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

레오파드 캐피털

나는 도움을 구하고 있는데, 가장 좋은 방법을 모르겠어.나는 내가 매우 확고한 WP로 길을 건너는 것을 발견했다.여러 계정을 사용하는 SPA.그의 1차 인맥은 캄보디아에 투자하는 작은 사모펀드 레오파드 캐피털과 연결돼 있다.그 기사/주제는 독립적 보도가 거의 없는 거의 눈에 띄지 않는 회사다.처음에는 WP를 통해 기사를 내보내려 하지 않았다.AFD는 내가 포용주의자의 길을 좋아하기 때문이다.사용자는 또한 레오파드 캐피탈의 투자 포트폴리오와 관련된 기사 네트워크를 만들었다.이 회사들은 눈에 띄지 않는 것에서부터 거의 눈에 띄지 않는 것까지 다양하다.기사에 걸쳐 나의 주된 이슈는 WP에서 일반적으로 문제가 되는 기사의 내용이다.광고 및 WP:NPOV 관점.저자가 복수의 계정을 사용하고 있는 것을 감안하여, 나는 이 문제를 어떤 WP:AfD 논의 이전에 언급하여 빨갱이를 피하고자 했다.

내가 문제가 있다고 확인한 기사들은 레오파드 캐피털, ACLEDA 뱅크, 킹덤 브루어리, 노티스코 해산물, 캠GSM이다.

다음의 편집자들이 레오파드 캐피탈과 그것의 포트폴리오 회사에 대한 그들의 단일한 관심, 편집의 긴밀한 근접성/상호접점 등에 연관되어 있다는 것은 비교적 분명하다.

• 사용자:Rrwoodhull(에디트)
• 사용자:더글라스클레이턴(edits)
• 사용자:Smaghfur(편집)
• 사용자:Seepheap(편집)
• 사용자:Parkview85(편집)
• 사용자:Avatarworld(에디트)
• 사용자:캄부자(edits)
• 사용자:115.178.25.66(편집)
• 사용자:203.189.148.164(편집)
• 사용자:210.17.249.126(편집)
• 사용자:블루토푸(edits)
• 사용자:션.ACLEDA(에디트
• 사용자:피터브롱거(편집)

어떤 방법이 최선인지 모르겠다.나는 이미 많은 양말 인형 계정에 우호적인 메시지와 경고를 남기려고 노력했다.아마도 더 강하게 단어를 쓴 경고가 받아들여질 것이다. ► ϋananяeneΩaℓ • TALK ◄ 21:26, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과:Sockpuppet 조사는 저쪽에 있다.질문이 있으면 언제든지 물어보십시오.케빈 러더포드 (토크) 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 22:13[응답]

기사의 경우, 비록 은행의 자본금이 9억 달러에 불과하지만, 다른 캄보디아 은행 기사에 의해 판단되는 캄보디아에는 꽤 크다; 양조장은 좋은 리프를 가지고 있고; 텔레콤은 v. ecom 또는 그 지역도 큰 것 같다; 수산물 회사는 눈에 덜 띄지만, 제3자 리프는 있다.나는 그들이 모두 설 것이라고 생각한다.COI든 아니든, COI든 그 분야의 다른 사업적 관심사에 대해 똑같이 좋은 기사를 쓰는 사람들이 있었으면 좋겠다. DGG (토크 ) 05:36, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

장기 편집 전사는 지금 학대받고 있다.

톰 반 플랜더른에서 수개월간 전쟁을 편집해 온 아쿠바르(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 이제 토크 페이지에서 나에게 폭언과 적대감을 갖기로 했다.나는 그가 적절한 장소로 우려를 가져갈 것을 제안했지만, 그는 대신 길고 똑같이 주제에서 벗어난 소리를 내며 나의 토크 페이지 이력을 기사화했다.한 번 봐주십시오.팀 슈바 (대화) 03:07, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

토크 페이지에 공격을 개시하는 것은 그러한 것들을 제거하는 것을 감상하는 데 크게 실패하는 것과 결합된다.합법적으로 보이는데...;> Doc9871 (대화) 03:26, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 혼자서 전쟁을 편집할 수는 없지, 그렇지?넌 그와 싸워왔어.만약 그 링크가 그가 올린 최악의 상황을 보여준다면, 당신은 우리의 시간을 낭비하는거야, 왜냐하면 그곳에는 공격이 없기 때문이야.그것은 주제 밖의 소란이 아니다, 그는 당신이 기사의 주제에 대해 적대적이라고 (정확히) 주장하고 있다.아들이 독서를 하고 토크 페이지에 기여하고 있다는 것을 알면서도 당신은 그 주제에 대해 반복적으로 욕설을 퍼부어 왔다.그리고 당신은 다른 사람의 코멘트를 삭제했다, 현명한 행동이 될 수 있었던 것처럼 그것을 옮기는 대신에.[24] 울타리&Windows 15:25, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아이러니하게도 당신은 WP와 연결되었다.5일 전에 도움을 요청하십시오.A/I는 목록에 없다.자신의 조언을 듣고 분쟁 해결을 따르십시오.펜스&윈도우즈 15:30, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 난 전쟁을 편집한 적이 없는데, 이력을 확인해줘.상황은 완전히 익살스럽고 오랜 세월에 걸친 행동 문제로 인해 긍정적인 기사 전개에 도움이 되지 않는데, 나는 이것이 시스템스 개입 없이 사라질 것이라고 믿지 않는다.다른 관리자들 역시 남용, 소유권, 이해충돌의 정도를 찾지 못하며, 전쟁을 해결할 가치가 있는 것으로 편집하지 못한다면, 그 때는 괜찮다.팀 슈바 (토크) 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC) 16:14 [응답]

팀, 내가 너한테 욕한 게 뭐야?우리는 이 기사의 내용에 대해 전적으로 동의하지 않는다. 그것은 확실하다. 그리고 나와 피험자의 아들이 계속해서 당신의 협조를 요청해 왔다. 그리고 우리가 얻는 것이라곤 그 주제가 얼마나 끔찍한 사람인지에 대해 떠들어대는 것뿐입니다.당신이 토론 게시판에 당신의 비NPOV가 "아무 근거 없이 아쿠바르에 의해 발명된 소설"이라고 게시했을 때, 나는 내 진술을 변호하기 위해 당신의 비NPOV 논평을 올릴 수 있는 모든 권리가 있었다.그리고 위키 정책에 대해 다른 편집자의 토론 페이지 주석을 삭제한 것을 다른 편집자에게 지적하는 것은 개인적인 공격이 아니다.내가 어떻게 공격했는지는 모르겠지만, 사과할게. 하지만 난 그게 안 보여.내 생각에 그 주제에 대한 너의 논평 때문에 너는 그 페이지에서 완전히 빠져 나와야 할 것 같아.아쿠바르 (대화) 2010년 8월 9일 21:23 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 내가 그 페이지에서 "내 자신을 제거했다"고 말하면서 내가 토크 페이지에 게시할 "충격"이라고 주장했다.그것은 그야말로 거짓말이다.나는 마이크vf가 합리적이라는 것을 알게 되었고 그에게 그만큼 많은 것을 말해주었고, 내 토크 페이지에서 우리의 교환은 오히려 친절했다.체리 줍는 인용문들이 기사토크 페이지에서 나를 모욕하기 위해 그것들을 사용하는 것은 공격이다.물론 나는 톰 반 플랜더가 극도의 상대성 크랭킹이었다고 생각한다, 그래서?그렇다, 그것은 주류 전문가들 사이에서도 널리 퍼져있는 견해고, 기술적으로 유능한 사람들을 배제하는 것이 일반 대중들에게 프린지 클랩트랩을 밀어붙이는 데 중요하기 때문에, 기사에서 그러한 견해를 가진 모든 사람들을 금지시키는 것이 편리할 것이다.

어쨌든 위의 행정관의 메모는 분명하다.나는 전쟁을 편집하고 있다(내가 그 기사를 편집한 적이 단 세 번뿐인데, 모두 내가 재삽입하지 않고 몇 달 전 아쿠바르에 의해 즉시 번복되었다는 것은 신경쓰지 마라).나는 (수많은 전문가들이 공유하는 솔직한 의견을 말한 것에 대해) 적대적이고 학대적이다.그리고 내가 수개월 만에 처음 올린 글들을 토크 페이지에 가린 글들을 삭제한 것은 현명하지 못하다. (거짓말과 팡파르 없이, 제대로 게시될 수 없었던 것처럼)

그래서 네가 가지고 있는 거야.나는 벌을 받았다.이것은 내 기대를 넘어 대단한 오락거리였고, 이제 문을 닫아야 나 같은 경박한 매춘부들에게 시간을 낭비하지 않을 것이다.팀 슈바 (대화) 02:20, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 팀 슈바에 대한 다음 보정이 필요하다고 생각한다.

(i) 아쿠바는 당신이 제거했다고 말한 것이 아니라 "당신이 자신을 제거했다고 생각했다"고 말했다.네가 다시 편집하는 걸 보고 충격받았다고 말한 이유야.아마도 그는 당신의 자기 제거에 대해 잘못 알고 있었을지 모르지만 그는 이 일에 대해 거짓말을 하지 않았다. 왜냐하면 그는 그것이 그의 것이라는 것을 분명히 했기 때문이다.

(ii) 당신은 지금 TVF의 아들과 주고받는 것이 상당히 친절했다고 말하지만, 당신은 당신의 토크 페이지를 삭제했다.보관된 버전에서 우리는 당신이 지금 인용하는 것을 생략한 부분을 읽을 수 있다.이 링크에서 편집 중인 주제에 대해 비 NPOV를 표시하십시오.예를 들어, 이것은 당신의 삭제된 대화 페이지에서 추출한 것으로 당신의 의도를 보여준다.

무능하고 정직하지 못한 사기꾼 톰 반 플랜더런도 마찬가지다. 밴 플란데른에 대한 나의 주된 관심사와 그 기사의 전개는 개인적인 재미다.

(iii) 당신은 여러 군데에서 여러 편집자들이 눈치챈 것처럼 분명히 적대적이고 학대적이다.예를 들어, 제3의 편집자가 당신에게 다음과 같이 말했다.

당신은 탄탄한 이력서와 자격증을 가지고 정직하고 점잖고 열심히 일하는 사람을 모독하고 있다.

(iv) 몇 달 만에 한 "첫 번째 게시물을 가린 텍스트를 제거했다"고 주장하는 경우.다시 한번 이것은 거짓이다.기여에 추가된 텍스트를 삭제했으며 긴급 01의 마지막 기여에 추가된 텍스트도 삭제하셨습니다.이제 "문자 제거"를 주장하지만, 편집 요약에 작성한 기사의 편집 페이지에서 "제거된 정크"를 가지고 있다고 주장할 수 있다.당신이 쓰레기라고 부르는 것은 당신과 긴급 01에 의해 기사에서 잘못 인용되고 있는 다른 위키피디아 페이지의 발췌문일 뿐이다.예를 들어 긴급01은 아쿠바르에게 이렇게 말했다.

'중력연구재단상'에 대해서는 크랙팟 조직임을 알아야 한다.그것에 관한 위키백과 기사를 읽어라.루니 선율.크랙팟 조직으로부터 2등 상을 받는 것은 매우 의심스러운 "명예"이다.

그리고 나는 긴급01 편향적이고 부정확한 문구를 수정하는 다음의 위키백과 텍스트 바로 뒤에 추가했다.

매년 수여되는 에세이 상은 물리학자인 스티븐 호킹 박사가 여러 번 우승한 것을 포함하여 수천 달러에 한 발짝도 마다하지 않는 존경 받는 연구자들을 끌어 모았다[...].최근 수상자들로는 캘리포니아 천체물리학자 조지 F가 있다.이후 2006년 노벨 물리학상을 수상한 스무트.

당신은 그 정보를 정크라고 명명하고 페이지에서 삭제했으며, 몇몇 편집자들이 적절하게 지적한 기본 지침을 위반했다. JuanR (talk) 10:45, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[답답하다]

사용자 이미지 제거 문제

사용자가 반 헬싱(영화), 대중문화의 드라큘라, 드라큘라 백작 등 3개 기사에 관련 이미지를 삭제하는 데 문제가 있다.그 문제가 진정 무엇에 관한 것인지는 모르지만, 제거에 대한 그들의 변명은 헛된 것이었다.나는 자기 홍보에 관심이 없다. 나는 이 세 기사의 질을 더하기 위해 이미지를 공공영역에 공개하였다.이 익명의 유저에게 보호를 요청하고 싶은데, 밴 헬싱 기사의 다른 유저(마넷D)가 가입하는 것 같다.편집자182 (대화) 01:52, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그들은 위키백과 대화를 논의한 것 같다.위키프로젝트 필름스, 나는 거기서 코멘트를 했다.만약 그 이미지가 어떤 거짓된 이유로든 부적절하고 부적절하다고 여겨진다면, 나는 그것을 공유지에서 제거하기를 원할 것이다.편집자182 (대화) 02:01, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

밴 헬싱 페이지를 보고 난 후, 글에서 당신의 예술을 지키기 위해 전쟁을 편집하고 있는 것으로 보인다.나는 네가 선의의 표시로 이미지를 풀고 기사 토크 페이지에서 그 문제에 대해 토론하기를 제안한다.누가 3RR로 전화하지 않는 한 관리자 조치가 필요하지 않다.PhGustaf (대화) 02:07, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

PhGustaf와 함께 COncur.마넷디와 애논 IP로부터 "보호"를 원하십니까?미안하지만, 내가 보기에 필요한 보호책이 있다면, 그건 너에게 불리해.당신은 지난 2주 동안 당신의 사진을 기사에 싣기 위해 전쟁을 편집하는 데 시간을 보냈다.아무도 너에게 동의하지 않는 것 같아.WP도 살펴보십시오.BRD, 기사 토크 페이지에서 토론을 시작하십시오.아직 그런 일은 일어나지 않았다. --Hammersoft (대화) 02:12, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 이미지를 삭제한 편집자 중 한 명이기 때문에 나의 견해를 설명하겠다.

1. 팬아트야.나는 위키피디아에 팬아트가 있는 목적을 모르겠다.편집자가 그것을 설명하지 않았고 잠재적인 이해 상충이 없다고 해도, 나는 여전히 그것에 반대할 것이다.

2. 리차드 록스버그의 드라큘라 묘사는 더 큰 그림에 비추어 보면 도저히 눈에 띄지 않았다.그는 이후 실패작이라고 널리 여겨졌던 영화에서 드라큘라 역을 맡았고 영화가 개봉된 후 거의 토론을 받지 못했다.그를 벨라 루고시와 크리스토퍼 리와 함께 그곳에 올려놓는 것은 불합리하다.그가 드라큘라 백작과 같은 기사에 있을 만한 타당한 이유는 없다.--24.147.231.200 (대화) 03:05, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

지금은 구식이지만, 만약 내가 그때 이것을 보았다면 - 이 보석과 함께 여러 기사를 놓고 싸우는 편집자(Van Helsing에서 5번 반전을 세는 것) - 나는 분명히 Editor 182를 막았을 것이다.xe가 이것으로부터 배웠기를 바란다.블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 11:36, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

에릭 벨랜드

OTRS 티켓 2010081010008547은 사용자로부터 연결된 개인 웹사이트에 대한 우려를 제기한다.에리크 벨란드는 fFirefox에 의해 스팸/공격 사이트로 보이는 사이트와 연결돼 있는 것으로 보인다.나는 응답자에게 관리자 게시판에 공지할 것이며 http://erikveland.com/ 링크를 삭제한 사례가 있는지 그들이 결정할 수 있다고 말했다.아가씨들 따라와, 나는 기병대(토크) 13:35, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

내 Firefox에서는 이 사이트를 공격/스팸 사이트로 보지 않는다.링크를 제거할 필요가 없다고 본다. -atmoz (대화) 17:53, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자 웹사이트에서 링크된 cmpfilmtv.com.au은 앞서 그런 링크로 보여지고 있었다.[25] 여기서 걱정하기에는 좀 먼 것 같다. -- 즈즈즈 18:03, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

고위직 인사의 BLP 위반 가능성을 시정하기 위해 필요한 관리자 조치

사용자 Cumanche를 차단하십시오.

사용자:쿠만치씨는 내가 게니자로 기사에 대해 선의로 편집하지 않았다고 두 번이나 고발했다.관리 사용자:더그웰러는 첫 번째 사건 이후 그에게 자신의 발언을 삭제하거나 그것에 대해 상세히 설명하라고 경고했지만 그는 대답하지 않았다.그리고 나서 나는 쿠만치에게 만약 그가 그의 코멘트를 치거나 삭제하지 않으면 나는 그에게 인신공격에 대해 보고할 것이라고 경고했다.커만치는 거의 동일한 진술을 하는 것으로 응답한 다음, 그가 과거에 여러 번 했던 주장을 반복했다: 나는 이 기사를 편집하기에 충분한 지식이 없다는 것이다.주: 쿠만치의 두 번째 논평은 익명의 계정에서 나왔다.그러나 그 게시물의 어조와 주제가 커만치의 것으로 쉽게 식별할 수 있게 한다.다음은 차이점이다.

• 커만치의 첫 번째 혐의는 다음과 같다.나는 지니자로 페이지의 의미를 바꾸는 변경을 한 다음 페이지를 동결시켜 당신의 의도에 대해 질문이 있다.[26]

• 관리 사용자:더그웰러의 경고: [27]

• 내 경고: [28]

• 쿠만치의 두 번째 근거 없는 비난은 다음과 같이 말하고 있다. 나는 레코네로스의 의도에 대해 정당한 의문이 있다.[29]

레초네로 (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 16:44 (UTC)[응답]

인신공격 차단을 요청하려면 최소한 인신공격을 보여주는 차단을 포함해야 한다.당신의 의도를 의심하는 또 다른 편집자는 이 근처에서 우리가 요구하는 선의의 가정이 부족할 수도 있지만, 인신공격과는 거리가 멀다.더그의 '경고'는 당신이 해석한 것처럼 차단할 위협이 아니라 AGF에 더 많이 부합되게 하라는 요청이었다는 점을 덧붙이고 싶다.

쿠만치가 여기서 보여주는 태도가 모범적이라고 말하는 것은 아니지만 위에서 제공한 것으로는 블록 가치가 있는 것은 아니다. 프랭크 talk 16:48, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

이 항목을 삭제하십시오.

나는 어설프게 그것을 만들었다.미안하다

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Editing_User:FormerIP/MOMKre-arrange2

--이전IP (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 17:21 (UTC)[응답]

고마워. --이전IP (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 17:27 (UTC)[응답]

스트롱 워드 랑트

사용자 상자 문제?

MfD로 바로 이동하기 보다는 사용자:템플릿555/거짓말이 적절한가?나는 그것이 상당히 불쾌하다고 생각하므로, 분명히 나는 토론에서 자신을 빼먹고 있다.지역사회의 물을 시험해 보고 싶은데,이거 괜찮아요?아가씨들 따라와, 나는 기병대(토크) 18:25, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

꽤 괜찮은 것 같아.확실히 어떤 사람이나 사람들을 비판하기 위해 밖으로 끌어내는 것 같지는 않다.이것과 같은 것은 전혀 없다.우노미 (대화) 2010년 8월 9일 18:35 (UTC)[응답]

네 말이 맞아, 애초에 왜 그 말을 꺼냈는지 의문이 드는 그런 말과는 전혀 달라.쏘티원 19:16, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 나는 지금 까지 무신론과의 연결고리를 잡지 못했는데, 불가지론자로서 나는 나를 향해 아직 마음을 정하지 못하고 있다고밖에 말할 수 없다.우노미(토크) 18:37, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 몰라나도 우노미의 말을 읽기 전에는 무신론과의 연관성을 보지 못했다.링크가 없었다면 사용자 박스로 괜찮았을 텐데 링크가 있는 상황에서 무신론을 '거짓말'이라고 직접 부르고 있기 때문에 일종의 선동적인 것 같다.그것은 다소 무례한 것이고 나는 우리가 어떤 형태의 믿음을 거짓이라고 직접적으로 부르는 사용자 박스를 지원해야 할지 모르겠다.나는 네가 어떤 것을 믿는다고 말하는 것은 괜찮지만, 다른 믿음에 대해 경멸적인 진술을 하는 것은 정말로 허용되어서는 안 된다.실버스렌^C 18:53, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

MfD, 확실해.--사렉OfVulcan (대화) 18:55, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

위키피디아를 살펴본 적이 있다.사용자 상자/철학 및 사용자:UBX/Userbox/Collision for expective boxs and description for expective boxs and don't really founds.어떤 사람들은 그 페이지들에 많은 박스를 올려놓고 화를 내기도 하지만, 그들은 대부분 다른 사용자들에게 판단을 내리기 보다는 사용자 자신의 의견을 표현하는 것에 집착하는 것 같다.사용자:제프 딘/유저박스/무신론자도 같은 종류의 감정에 근접할 수 있다.그러나 사용자:Template555/거짓말은 신념 위치를 "myth"가 아닌 "거짓말"로 식별하기 때문에 다르다.IMO, 누군가 틀렸다고 주장하는 것과 그들이 거짓말을 하고 있다고 주장하는 것 사이에는 중요한 구분이 있다.개방성과 투명성을 위해 나는 내가 무신론자라는 것을 인정하겠지만, 만약 이 사용자 박스가 "너에게 [기독교]를 지키라"고 말했다면 내 대답은 같았을 것이다.

종교 페이지에는 종교가 해를 끼친다는 믿음을 선포하는 것과 같이 반대되는 관점을 가진 사람들을 괴롭힐 수 있는 몇 개의 다른 상자들이 있다.나는 또한 사람들이 FSM에 의해 괴롭힘을 당하는 것을 알고 있다. 왜냐하면 그들은 함축적으로 보여질 수 있기 때문이다.내가 독자에 대해 명시적으로 진술한 유일한 다른 것은 사용자였다.Template555/UserBibleStudy.「거짓말」과 같은 사람에 의해 만들어진 것이기 때문에 꺼내는 데 주저했고, 한 명의 특정 사용자를 괴롭히는 것처럼 보이고 싶지 않았지만, 다시 말하지만, 지명된 개인을 향하지 않더라도, 다른 기고자에 대해 이런 식의 전면적인 판단을 내리는 것은 적절치 않다고 생각한다.AJCham 18:58, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

템플릿555 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

• 이 계정은 누구의 소유인가?그것의 유일한 목적은 종교에 대한 사용자 상자로 보인다.–xeno^talk 19:04, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그 경치 편집은 좀... 아이러니하다.그게 기독교를 지향해야 하는 건지 궁금하네.실버스렌^C 19:06, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 관련 문제 없음:템플릿555/스케이프고트.–xeno^talk 19:11, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이 계정이 신고되지 않은 양말/롤 계정일 수 있는가?아가씨들 따라와, 나는 기병대(토크) 2010년 8월 9일 19시 31분(UTC)[응답하라]

나는 그것이 꽤 안전한 내기라고 생각한다.우노미(토크) 2010년 8월 9일(UTC) 19시 40분[응답]

나도 그렇게 궁금했지만, 어느 사용자도 자신의 모든 사용자 상자를 사용하지 않는다(그리고 사용되지 않는 사용자도 있다.–xeno^talk 19:40, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 사용자 박스를 사용하는 사람의 수가 그것이 나쁜 사용자 박스를 의미한다고 생각하지 않는다.내 userboxen 페이지에 사용하지 않는 커플이 하나 있는데, 나쁘다는 뜻이 아니라, 단지 사람들이 본 적이 없거나, 그들이 그곳에 있는지 모르거나, 또는 다른 여러 가지 이유를 의미한다. - 중립적인 호머 • 대화 • 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

내 말은, 만약 이것이 Userboxen(a la User:UBXeno), 당신은 소유자가 그것이 호스팅하고 있는 사용자 상자의 일부 또는 대부분을 사용하고 있다고 생각할 것이다.그것은 여기에 해당하지 않는 것으로 보여서 (대체인 경우) 계정의 소유자가 바로 눈에 띄지 않는다.–xeno^talk 20:04, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

지금 당장 MfD하지.아가씨들 따라와, 나는 기병대(토크) 20:22, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

위키백과 참조:삭제/사용자:템플릿555/거짓말.아가씨들 따라와, 나는 기병대(토크) 20:34, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 편집자의 사용자 상자들 중 일부는 다른 사용자 상자들 중 일부와 모순되는 신교, 무신론, 종교에 대한 견해를 표현한다.종교 중심의 사용자 상자를 채워야 할 공백이 있다고 느꼈을 것이다.문제가 된 박스가 특별히 선동적이라고는 생각하지 않지만, 모든 사용자 박스는 꽤 바보같으니 MfD를 해보는 게 어때?그리스왈도 (토크)20:36, 2010년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

테드 스티븐스

위키뉴스에는 다음과 같은 관련 뉴스가 있다. 테드 스티븐스 전 미국 상원의원과 숀 오키프 전 NASA 사무총장이 추락한 비행기에 탑승했다.

테드 스티븐스 기사에 안구가 필요할 것이다.전교조-TV는 그가 알래스카 딜링엄에서 비행기 사고로 사망했다고 보도했다.나는 그의 이름을 가족들이 확인한 후에야 '최근의 죽음'에 올릴 것이다. 지금은 단지 '가족 친구'일 뿐이다.Diff: 1. - 중립적 호머 • 대화 • 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

Ted Stephens는 완전히 보호받고 있고 그 가능성에 대한 코멘트가 있다. 그리고 그것이 공식적으로 보고될 때 그는 여기 저기서 추가될 수 있다. 그러나 그때까지.Off2riorob (대화) 16:39, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

오키 도키.나는 공식적으로 가족으로부터 아무것도 본 적이 없다. 아직 알래스카의 어느 뉴스 매체나 방송사로부터도, 단지 그것을 보도하는 이 "가족 친구"에게만. - 중립적인 호머 • 대화 • 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

비블브록스는 보호를 통해 "가족 친구" 정보를 추가했다.당분간은 완전히 빠져야 할 것 같아. 오전 내내 되돌아가지 않은 사람이라면 그걸 잡고 싶어할 거야, 아니면 집에 있을 수 있을 만큼 중립적이라고 생각해? --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 16:49, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라.

나는 "가족 친구"가 충분히 공식적인 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.공식 단어는 그의 사무실이나 그의 가족에게서 나와야 한다. "가족 친구"가 되어서는 안 된다.누구든 '가족 친구'가 될 수 있고, 4년 동안 보지 못한 이웃이 그 '가족 친구'일 수도 있고, 너무 막연하고, 너무 비공식적일 수도 있다.나는 단지 그 부분을 되돌리되 (그것이 알려졌기 때문에) 그가 충돌에 연루되었다는 것과 그의 "현재 상태를 알 수 없다"는 것을 내버려둘 것이다. - 중립적인 호머 • 대화 • 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

방금 CNN(KTVA 기자를 통해)에서 (주내에서) 애도가 진행되는 동안 스티븐스 가족은 그가 비행기에 타지 않았다고 말하는 반면, 다른 사람들은 그가 탔다고 말하고 있다고 들었다.그래서 나는 그가 기사로 죽었다는 것을 확실히 제거하고 상반된 보도를 하고, 그가 비행기에 탔을 수도 있고, "현재 상태를 알 수 없다"고 말할 것이다.현재 CNN, MSNBC/NBC뉴스, 폭스뉴스는 모두 비행 중 누구의 상태도 보도하지 않고 있다. - 중립호머 • 토크 • 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC) 17시 28분, 회신[응답]

그 보고서들은 상충되고 있다. 나는 그에 따라 편집했다.자세한 건...우리가 그들을 적절히 인용할 수 있을 때 프랭크 토크 17:35, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 2010년은 어떤 눈으로도 가능하다.방금 테드 스티븐스 부록을 돌려놨으니까 보호하기가 불편하지만 그건 내가 지나치게 조심하는 것 뿐인가?아무렴...2010년도의 mops/moves!TFOWR 17:10, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

  먼저 가서 반성을 했다. --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 17:18, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  많은 감사들, 지금 약간 바보같다고 느껴- 내가 그것을 했어야 했다.2010년도에도 분명히 있고...기사, 하지만 아직 거기선 활동이 없어나는 그것을 감시목록으로 가지고 있고 필요하다면 '올바른 일'을 할 것이다.TFOWR 17:38, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 2010년에 24시간 동안 반보호된 죽음이야모든 출처는 현재 확인되지 않았다.로드훌란데무 17:31, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아직 연결고리는 없지만, 현재 TV의 CNN은 테드 스티븐스가 비행기 추락으로 사망했다고 보도하고 있으니, 어서 업데이트해. - 중립호머 • 대화 • 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]
  • CNN.com은 방금 "전 상원의원님.테드 스티븐스는 알래스카 딜링엄 인근에서 비행기 추락으로 사망했다고 소식통이 확인했다." 그러나 속보로 대표되는 어떤 이야기와 연결되지 않는 것은 이야기를 쓰는 데 시간이 걸린다. - 중립적인 호머 • 토크 • 토크 • 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

지금 복수의 출처가 확실시되고 있다.도구 있는 사람이 기사 좀 고쳐줄래?--Jojhutton (대화) 18:35, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이제 다 된 것 같다(미안하지만, 별일 없다).TFOWR 19:07, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

업데이트: 현재 이 자료와 이 자료는 가족 대변인의 공식 확인에 대해 말하고 있다.Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:SexyKick

안녕, 거기.

사용자:Mega Drive 기사에 유효한 편집 내용을 지속적으로 되돌려서 편집 전쟁을 시작하는 SexyKick.자세한 내용은 이 기사의 토크 페이지에서 확인할 수 있다.

대화 페이지를 통해 이 사람과 접촉하려는 나의 시도는 결실을 보지 못했다.그는 계속 편집(관리자에 의한 편집도, 비자유 및 정리 태그를 제거함)을 반복해서 다음과 같이 되뇌었다.8월 10일 A, 8월 10일 B, 8월 8일, 그리고 나는 몇 배 더 확신해.

그 전에, 이 사람은 내가 편향, 추측, 족제비 말들의 전체 기사를 결국 사실에만 초점을 맞추겠다는 목표로 기사의 한 부분('콘솔 전쟁')의 몇 문장을 다시 쓰려 할 때 나를 공공 기물 파손 혐의로 고발하는 연락을 해 왔다.

여기 문제의 편집이 있다.내가 그 편집을 한 이후로 (6월 28일을 만들었고), 실질적으로 그 기사에 대한 모든 편집이 이 사람에 의해 뒤바뀌었다는 것을 나는 관찰했다.

나는 네가 도와줄 수 있기를 바란다.정말 이 녀석을 어떻게 해야 할지 모르겠어.DCEvoCE (대화) 21:01, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

Warring 편집을 보고하려면 관리자 편집 Warring 게시판을 참조하십시오.--SexyKick 21:04, 2010년 8월 10일(UTC)[응답]

스팸 메일 확산 가능성

나는 이전에 NPP에서 일하고 있었고 CSD A7로 Neelwafurat.com에 태그를 달았다.저자는 다음과 같은 링크[31]를 논쟁하여 토크 페이지에 올려놓아 공신력을 주장하려고 하였다.저자의 서투른 영어에서, 나는 이 웹사이트가 아마존과 비슷하다는 것을 알 수 있다.하지만 그의 링크가 나에게 보여준 것은 이 웹사이트가 정말로 그렇게 되어서는 안 될 때 위키피디아 전역에서 참고자료로 사용되고 있다는 것이다.내가 이해할 수 있는 어떤 참고자료를 찾을 수 있다면 나는 사실 기사를 개선하려고 노력할 것이지만, 나는 누군가가 그 링크들을 확인해야 한다고 생각한다.버펠슨 AFB (토크) 02:54, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

이것이 내가 생각하기에 언급되고 있는 링크(?)이다.믿을 수 없는 출처처럼 보인다.보고된 사용자에게 이 보고서를 통지했는데...Doc9871 (대화) 03:09, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그냥 메모:나는 이 글의 작성자가 링크를 반드시 스팸으로 발송했다고 생각하지 않는다.나 또한 그가 영어를 잘 이해하지 못하는 것 같아, 그래서 그가 여기 없을지도 몰라.나는 다른 많은 기사들이 이 웹사이트를 가리키는 참조란에 URL이 있다는 사실에 더 신경을 썼다. 이것은 마치 Amazon.com을 참조로 사용하는 것과 같다.현재 참고자료로 사용하는 기사가 7건인 것 같다.이런 링크들을 참고자료로 사용할 수 없도록 하는 봇이 있을까?버펠슨 AFB (대화) 03:14, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아는 항상 존재한다.추가사항을 적용하려면 스팸 블랙리스트.만약 웹사이트의 기사가 보관된다면, 당신은 홈페이지로의 연결이 여전히 작동하도록 블랙리스트에 올릴 사이트의 어떤 하위 도메인을 찾기를 원할 것이다.— Huntster (t @c) 04:06, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• neelwafurat.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost • WhosOnMyServer.com • Live 링크: http://www.neelwafurat.com

겉보기에는 별로 없지만 아랍어 위키백과에 문제가 있을 수 있다(위 템플릿의 COIBot 링크 참조).MER-C 13:32, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

별일 아닐지도 모른다.링크 요약에서 수동으로 삭제한 후 XLinkBot 요청을 제출하였다.엔위키에 널리 퍼지지 않고 메타 글로벌 블랙리스트에 어떻게 요청해야 할지 잘 모르기 때문에 국내 블랙리스트 요청은 아마 거부될 것이다(그리고 어차피 ICBM으로 칠면조를 쏘려고 하는 것일 수도 있다).버펠슨 AFB (토크) 23:18, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

매우 복잡한 삭스푸페트리 사례와 수년간 시스템 작동

사용자: 지정되지 않음, 여러 개의 익명 IP를 사용함.최근에 등록된 두 개의 계정을 사용하고 있는 것 같다. 사용자:Chipmunkdavis 및 사용자:초특급.

우선 이 사건을 읽고 있는 어떤 행정관이라도 이 사건에 관련된 사람은 이 제도를 잘 알고 있고 처벌을 피하는 방법을 알고 있기 때문에 이 사건은 매우 복잡하다는 것을 알아두었으면 한다.보통 그는 자신의 계정과 행동을 "역사에 기록"하려고 하지 않는 관리자로부터 이익을 얻는데, 문제는 추방된 계좌로 끝난다.그러나 이 사람은 항상 새로운 계정을 가지고 돌아오며, 가장 최근에 익명의 IP를 사용하여 블록을 피하고 쉽게 인식된다.그러나 항상 같은 변경사항을 추가하기 위해 돌아와 편집 전쟁을 일으키기 때문에 편집 패턴과 POV는 일치한다.매우 미개한 그는 요약 편집에도 불경한 표현을 쓴다.

이 문제는 4년째 지속되고 있다.관리자 EdJohnston은 이 사건에 대해 잘 알고 있으며, 최근 몇 달 동안 그의 익명 IP 편집을 개인적으로 처리해 왔다.

나는 그의 행동, 편집 패턴, 확인된 과거 계정, 그리고 내 토크 페이지에 있는 다른 증거들에 대한 잘 문서화된 가이드를 가지고 있다.일부 증거는 다른 연도의 것이며 때로는 다른 관리자와의 대화 형식으로 작성된다는 점에 유의하십시오.

마지막에 당신은 그가 지금 사용하고 있는 새로운 계정과 IP를 찾을 것이다.이 상황은 중단될 필요가 있다.어떻게 할 수 있을까?CheckUser가 등록된 계정을 차단하시겠습니까?그가 돌아올 것 같다.AlexCovarrubias 22:48, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

SPI를 찾고 있는 것 같군, 이런 식으로 말이야.그들은 아마 이것을 가장 잘 다룰 수 있을 것이다.북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 02:35, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

폐쇄 RAE 수정.

나는 단지 이 코멘트가 RAE가 폐쇄된 후 내 진술에 추가된 다른 코멘트들과 함께 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=378076864&oldid=378076239에서 삭제되었으면 한다.게다가 이 논평은 "괴롭기" 때문에 숨겨진 부분과 닫힌 부분의 일부를 인용한다.나는 RAE가 폐쇄된 후 내 진술에 코멘트를 덧붙였을지도 모르는 그 누구에게도 제재나 경고나 그런 것에는 관심이 없다.나는 단지 이 코멘트를 제거했으면 한다.에디스 시리우스 리(토크) 23:06, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 댓글을 추가한 사람은 나였다.나는 그들이 왜 제거되어야 하는지 확신할 수 없다. --Doc James (대화 · 기여 · 이메일) 23:39, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

대안은 내 진술에 [32]와 [33] 두 가지 차이를 추가하는 것이다.내 의견으로는, 내가 무슨 뜻이었는지가 분명하고 (다른 편집자의 말을 뒤틀었다는) 의사 제임스의 암시는 아무런 결과도 없을 것이다.에디스 시리우스 리 (대화) 00:13, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

아 나는 이것들을 수정하지 말라는 쪽지를 놓쳐서 나의 의견을 삭제했다.Doc James (대화 · 기여 · 이메일) 04:33, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

잘못된 편집

[수정]을 보아야 한다.우리는 그것을 주변에 두고 싶지 않을지도 모른다.새벽시커2000 02:03, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

감독관에게 이메일을 보냈어앞으로 위키백과를 사용하십시오.이런 종류의 일을 보고하는 것은 부주의한 일이다.여기에 연결하면 전혀 주목받지 못할 소재에 더 많은 관심을 갖게 된다.— 가비아 임머 (대화) 02:16, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

네, 감사합니다, 여러분.새벽시커2000 02:25, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 수정안을 감추고 감독관리가 그것을 볼 때까지 숨겼다.—DoRD (대화) 02:52, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 그것을 보자마자 감독관에게 이메일을 보냈어.지금쯤 처리되었을 테니 마킹은 해결되었다.버펠슨 AFB (대화) 03:36, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 또한 단순히 편집의 내용을 구글링하는 것만으로 이러한 동일한 편집사항들 중 몇 가지를 더 발견했지만, 감독자 명단에 있는 누군가가 이메일로 통보해 주는 것을 발견했다.도와줘서 고맙습니다.새벽시커2000 03:41, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

향후 참조를 위해 감독 요청은 oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org으로 직접 이메일로 전송할 수 있다.고마워 —DoRD (대화) 04:19, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그 짧은 시간 고마워.새벽시커2000 04:25, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

이렇게 스팸을 보내는 게 정상인가?

링크 추가에 대해 다시 한 번 질문이 있다.나는 여기서 오랜 역사를 가진 쿠미오코(토크 · 기여 · 삭제 · 카운트 · AfD · 로그 · 블록 로그 · 루 · 루 · rfc · rfc · spi)를 우연히 접하고 편집했다(그냥 고치고 있다).그러나 이것은 내가 이 링크를 가진 모든 바이오스를 알게 했고 나는 위키피디아에 있는 모든 죽은 사람들의 바이오에 Find a Gravit 링크를 추가할 필요성에 의문을 제기한다.링크된 페이지는 대부분 해당 기사보다 더 많은 정보를 제공하지 않는다.내가 보는 것은 단지 그 사이트로 가는 교통량을 발생시키기 위해 모든 죽은 사람들을 그 사이트로 연결하려는 집단이다.내가 말하고 있는 것은 그것은 단지 옳다고 느껴지지 않는다.나는 이것에 대한 코멘트를 찾고 있다.나는 그것이 대부분 해결책이라고 보지만 여전히 그렇다.뜸(토크) 15:15, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

지난해 '무덤 찾기' 페이지에는 비교적 트래픽이 적었고, 대화 페이지에는 거의 없는 것으로 나타났지만, 그 내용이 다소 드러나고 있다.나는 또한 무덤 찾기라는 용어가 단지 자신의 토크 페이지에서만 나온 것이 아니라 전에 나왔다는 막연한 기억이 있다 - 나는 스팸에 대한 우려가 있었다고 생각하는데, 그래서 너의 질문은 데자뷰다.무덤 찾기 문제는 IMDB와 같은 문제인데, 즉 정보에 대한 일관성 없는 소싱이 있다는 것이다.IMDB는 캐스팅 리스트에 대해 상당히 신뢰할 수 있는 것으로 간주되지만, 반드시 트라이비아에 대해서는 그렇지 않다.마찬가지로 무덤 찾기 역시 무덤에 믿을 만한 장소를 제공한다.그 나머지는 의심스럽다.←베이스볼 버그스카르티크^{What's up, Doc?}→15:32, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

이 편집자는 단순히 링크를 고치는 것 같아 이 모든 것을 덧붙이지는 않는다.난 그냥 Y가 모두 연관되어 있다는 걸 의심하고 있어...모든 바이오 특히 첫 번째 외부 링크에 묘지가 필요한지 확실하지 않다.내가 이 문제를 더 크게 보기 위해 이 문제를 제기해야 했는가?뜸(토크) 15:37, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 방어적이 되려고 하는 것이 아니라 나에 관한 것이기 때문에 나는 이번 기회에 나의 행동을 어느 정도 설명하고 싶다.나는 묘지 발굴에 매스 링크를 "추가"하지 않았다.사실 내가 이 링크를 "추가"하는 유일한 시간은 내가 만든 명예의 훈장 수상자 기사들에 대한 것이다.내 생각에 이 사용자도 언급하고 있는 것은 무덤 찾기 및 할로밸러 링크 일부를 정리하기 위해 내가 편집해 온 것이다.다른 편집자 몇 명의 도움을 받아(내가 관리자 권한을 가지고 있지 않기 때문에) 우리는 무덤 찾기 링크(저자, 날짜, 작업 및 액세스 날짜를 추가했기 때문에)의 구조에 약간의 변화를 주었고, 그래서 나는 그것들을 살펴보고 이러한 변화에 맞게 링크를 재구성해 왔다.나는 이러한 편집이 논란의 여지가 있다고 생각하지 않았지만, 만약 내가 이 연결고리들의 다소 흐트러진 상태를 떠나야 한다는 공감대가 형성되어 있다면, 나에게 알려줘.아래는 설명을 위해 링크에 변경 사항 몇 가지 입니다.궁금한 점이 있으면 나에게 알려줘.

• 작업 추가=명성에 클레임: 명예훈장 수여자에 대한 명예훈장 수여자(다른 그룹에도 허용)
• 교체 }} XXX 날짜에 액세스 날짜=XXX 날짜로 검색됨}
• 액세스 날짜가 없는 경우 액세스 날짜를 현재 날짜와 동일하게 추가
• 무덤 사이트 찾기로 기본 http 링크를 무덤 템플릿 찾기로 변환
• 묘지 찾기로 바꾸다.
• id=, grid= 또는 name=을 제거하다.
• 중대한 고리가 외부 링크(인용에 해당되지 않는 한) --쿠미오코(토크) 15:41, 2010년 8월 10일(UTC)[응답] 아래에 있는지 확인한다.

그리고 Yes Bally buggs your right, 사이트는 전에도 여러 차례 올라왔었다. --쿠미오코(토크) 15:41, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

미안 쿠미오코 나는 네가 그것들을 추가하는 것이 아닌 것을 알고 있기 때문에 위의 말을 다시 썼다...뜸(토크) 15:48, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

Moxy는 문제없어, 나는 단지 명확히 하고 싶었어. --쿠미오코(토크) 15:51, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

결론에 도달하지 못한 유용한 토론이 ELN에서 열렸다.조누니크 (대화) 07:34, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

물리적 폭력의 위협...

WP를 살펴보기:RFU, 난 이걸 우연히 발견했어.내가 제대로 하고 있다면 IP는 도버에서 비롯된다.영국 현지 당국에 전화 한 통 줄 수 있는 사람? --스매쉬빌^talk 21:14, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• ISP는 와이파이 제공자라서 영국 어디든 있을 것 같아.프로톤크 (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 21:31 (UTC)[응답]

• 목표로서, 나는 당국과 함께 이것을 따라가는 것은 의미가 없다고 생각한다; 그러나 현재의 12시간보다 더 긴 블록이 필요할지도 모른다.JohnCD(토크)

• 아마도 그럴 가치가 없을 것이다; 이 ISP는 공항, 호텔, 심지어 당신의 지역 스타벅스처럼 다양한 와이파이 장소에서 많이 작동한다; 그 특정한 동적 IP를 사용하던 사람은 블록이 만료되면 오래 전에 사라질 것이다.아직 거기에 있다고 해도 다시 로그인하면 새로운 IP주소를 얻게 될 겁니다.블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 21:37, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 역겨운 사용자는 2010년 8월 10일 (토크) 21:38, (UTC)[응답하라]를 보여줘야 한다고 생각한다.

검은 연이 맞아.그냥 내버려 둬.존CD (토크) 21:40, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

주: 나는 그들이 거기에 다른 어떤 것도 올릴 수 없도록 12시간 동안 대화 페이지를 반감했다.블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 21:43, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

뭘 보여줬어?문?그들 방식의 오류?자프루더 영화?맛있는 카르분클 (토크) 21:45, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

'저스틴에서 켈리까지'의 첫 30분은 적절한 처벌이 될 것 같다. --스매쉬빌^talk 21:49, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

아니면 제리 베일의 레코드를 영원히 듣도록 강요받거나.base야구 벅스 당근→ 22:30, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• Talk에서 삭제된 diff 기준:아동 포르노, 금지된 사용자:해미쉬 로스.그는 어제 사용자:94.116.191.194와 같은 일을 하고 있었다.우리는 실제로 이 사람의 실생활 정체성을 알고 있으니, 그가 또 그런 짓을 하면 내게 알려줘.나울린위키 (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 23시 10분 (UTC)[응답]

그냥 내 토크 페이지에 계속 봐, 그가 가장 좋아하는 타겟인 것 같아.... 으으으으으으으으으으으악!정말 정신 건강 조언!"데보와 척수탑(볼륨 11로 전환)이 갈라질 때까지 강제로 먹여야 해!WuhWuzDat 06:40, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자에 대한 인신공격

FunBob1986(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) - 이 기여를 참조한다.

이전의 유일한 상호작용은 ANI에 대한 그들의 논평이었는데 내가 복잡한 오리 실험의 차단되지 않은 요청을 조사하기로 동의했을 때였습니다.사용자와의 비공개 통신, 언블록-엔-l 등 해결하는데 3주 정도 걸렸지만, 사용자측에서 '양심자'가 아닌 '미봉자'라는 긍정적인 아이디로 해결돼, 일종의 남용에 대해 나를 탓하는 것 같아 혼란스럽기도 하고...

조지윌리엄허버트 (대화) 07:51, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답하라]

최소 48시간 블록 - 합의에 의해 선출된 관리자들을 원한다면, 우리는 그들을 존중하도록 노력해야 한다.여기 외설적이고 강한 문구가 있다...당신 자신의 토크페이지에...파괴하려는 의도가 분명해내가 보기엔 잘랐어.Jusdafax 09:24, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 끝났어.블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 09:45, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

내 입으로 화이트 메인 데오켈란스의 연필을 깎을 수 있다고?

사용자:White Main Dochellans는 Ingoloids와 Norgoloids의 행성에 대한 이론을 가지고 있는데, 이제는 내가 그의 연필을 내 입안에 갈 수 있다는 것을 포함하고 있다(완전한 여기서).츄우우우히:2010년 8월 11일(UTC) 09:59, 세브 아즈86556 (UTC)

나는 방금 위키피디아에 AIV 보고서를 제출했다.관리자_간섭_against_vandalism#사용자 신고 -보잉! 제베디(토크) 10:03, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

오 그래, 그것도:P Choyoowʼįhi:2010년 8월 11일(UTC) 8월 11일, 세브 아즈86556^{> haneʼ} 10:04[응답]

편집 방해, 특히 인신공격 때문에 무기한 차단했어.파보니아어 (토크) 2010년 8월 11일 10시 15분 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:헤리티지occerpro 및 사용자:좀비433

사용자를 보고하려는 경우 사용자:Heritiesoccerpro와 사용자:Zombie433.그들은 헤리티지 축구 에이전시와 관련된 축구 에이전트인 것 같다.그들은 잘못된 정보로 축구선수들에 대한 기사를 만들고 있다.그들이 인포박스에 삽입한 대부분의 통계는 가짜였고 비협조적이었다.나는 일부 기사에서 가짜와 포브 정보를 삭제하기 위해 두 시간을 보냈지만, 이 사용자:좀비433은 그가 편집한 대부분의 기사를 가짜로 만드는 것 같다.위키피디아는 부정행위자를 위한 장소가 아니니까 이 두 사람에 대해 어떻게 좀 해 줘.--Wrwr1 (토크) 23:30, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

좀비433[34]의 이 편집을 봐봐, 그는 2008년에 가짜 기사를 쓰기 시작했어, 그 이후로 그가 얼마나 많은 기사를 날조했는지 생각하고 싶지 않아.이 사용자가 기사에 가짜 정보를 게시하여 위키백과에 막대한 피해를 입혔으므로 영구히 차단하십시오.--Wrwr1 (토크) 00:34, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 뭐 놓친 거 있어?나는 그 편집에 대해 무엇이 가짜인지 모르겠다.버펠슨 AFB (토크) 00:45, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 이 편집에 잘못된 정보를 infobox에 삽입했다.안건이 U-17에서 치른 경기와 엔텐테 스포티브 드 빙거빌의 경기 수는 좀비433의 조작이다.그리고 편집하는 모든 기사에 똑같은 행동을 하고 있다.또한 젊음은 순전히 허구다.내 스페셜을 봐:기고/쓰기1, 몇 시간 전부터 나는 이보리아 축구선수들의 기사에 실린 그의 잘못된 정보를 되돌리고 있다.그러나 그는 수천 개의 기사에도 똑같은 짓을 했다.그가 했던 모든 성모들을 되돌리는 데는 수개월이 걸릴 것이다.--Wrwr1 (대화) 01:38, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 만든 이 신선한 기사를 봐라: 수마호로 존슨이다.그리고 이것은 위와 같은 가짜 편집이다.Stella Club D'Adjamé, Pol에서 청소년 시절은 가짜, 성냥, 골이다.안도라와 US Chantilly는 Côte d'Ivoire U-21에서뿐만 아니라 가짜다.그는 2년 전부터 모든 기사를 조작하고 있어, 영구 금지만이 그를 막을 수 있을 것 같아.--Wrrr1 (토크) 02:01, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나보다 축구에 대해 더 잘 아는 사람이 이걸 봐야 할 거야.버펠슨 AFB (대화) 03:38, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

Wikipedia_talk의 일부 배경:위키프로젝트_축구/아카이브_45#사용자:좀비433.올델파소 (대화) 08:13, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

간단히 말해, 좀비433은 현재 스팸으로 인해 8월 23일까지 차단되어 있다.MER-C 07:40, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

또 다른 요약 정보:Wrwr1, 당신이 누군가를 여기 보고할 때, 당신은 그들에게 그들이 논의되고 있다고 통지해야 한다.하지만 별일 아니야. 내가 널 위해서 그랬어. 살비오 11^{Let's talk 'bout it!}:03, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Douglast86

이 사용자는 관리자가 특정 경고를 준 경우를 포함하여 저작권이 있는 컨텐츠의 업로드를 중지하고 무료 라이센스를 부여하는 것을 중지하라는 경고를 여러 번 받은 것을 알 수 있다.사용자는 그 어떤 것도 신경쓰지 않았고, 가장 최근에 저작권이 공개되었다고 주장하는 사진을 올렸다.sysop이 시정 조치를 취하거나 사용자에게 마지막 경고를 할 수 있는가? (내 자신의 경고는 sysop보다 덜 의미하지만, 슬프게도)오그라드 마곡(토크) 08:14, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• WP에 실패한 모든 이미지들을 삭제했고 또 다른 경고를 남겼다.어쨌든 NFCC, 그의 업로드 중 하나는 어쨌든 PD였기 때문에 나는 그 근거를 고쳤다.블랙 카이트 (t)(c) 09:41, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그 이미지가 저작권 자격이 될 만큼 충분히 독창적인 이미지를 가질 자격이 없다고 확신하십니까?적어도 의문이다.오그라드 마곡(토크) 10:37, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 그것이 그렇지 않다고 거의 확신한다.그냥 문자 "P"가 비스듬히 뒤집혀 있고 문자 "G"가 위에 얹혀져 있을 뿐이다.나는 그것이 ToO에 맞는지 매우 의심스럽다.블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 13:56, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

논란이 있는 이동을 취소하려면 관리자 지원 필요

8월 1일 사용자:슈위츠는 포메라니아 주를 포메라니아 주(1815-1945)로 옮겼다[35].이 새로운 제목은 192개의 책.구글에서 히트를 쳤다. 이 책들 중 상당수는 거짓 긍정적이다(다른 지방이나 "포메라니아 지방"과 같은 것들이다.이전 제목인 "포메라니아 섬"은 4,200개의 히트곡을 낸다.

WP:BRD에 의하면, 나는 그 이동을 되돌리고, 사용자 Schwyz가 여전히 기사를 옮기고 싶다면 RM을 요청하게 할 작정이었다.불행히도, 옛 제목은 이제 dab 페이지로 리디렉션되어 소금에 절여졌다[36].

이러한 이유로 나는 스스로 이전을 지나칠 수 없기 때문에, 관리자도 이 조치를 취할 수 있다.

• 현재 리디렉션 페이지 포메라니아 주 및
• 포메라니아 주 (1815-1945)를 이전 이름인 포메라니아 주로 옮긴다.

감사합니다, 스카페뢰드 (대화) 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC) 12시 42분 [응답]

PS: 나는 이것을 순전히 기술적인 문제로 본다.기사의 이동에 대해 실제로 의논하고 싶은 사람이 있다면, 여기서 하지 말고, 페이지가 다시 이동되면 RM 요청을 제출하십시오.스카페뢰드 (대화) 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC) 12시 42분 [응답]

사용자에 의한 롤백, 편집 워링 오용:설뮤즈

Sulmues(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 최근 블록 이력이 로드된 사용자, 주제 금지 등이 롤백되었다.내가 예상한 대로, 그는 그것을 편집 전쟁[38]에 사용함으로써 그것을 잘못 사용하고 있다[38].그는 과거에도 그렇게 했다 [39] [40].특히 6월 말까지 ARBMAC 1R 제한을 받고 있었던 점을 고려하면, 애초에 왜 이러한 중단 이력이 있는 사용자가 롤백을 허용받았는지 이해할 수 없다.그가 복역 가석방이 만료된 직후에 편집-전쟁을 차단하지 않았다면, 그는 최소한 롤백의 옷을 벗어야 한다.아테네는 (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 18:08, (UTC)[응답]

만약 그가 편집 전쟁을 하고 있다면 그는 혼자서 전쟁을 편집하고 있는 것이 아니다.당신과 알렉시쿠아는 또한 그 주제에 대한 알바니아어 이름을 일반적인 편집 작업 중 하나에서 삭제하는데 큰 지장을 주었다.참고로 당신이 1RR[41]에 있기 때문에 그를 다시 되돌릴 수 없기 때문에, 당신이 통상적인 접근법에서 시작한 편집 전쟁을 계속하기 위해 알렉시쿠아(역시 1RR에 있었다)가 그에게 되돌아갔다는 것이다.한 명의 사용자가 편집 작업을 시작하거나 계속하는 것이 아니라 두 명 이상의 사용자가 편집 작업을 수행해야 한다.콘텐츠 분쟁 자체는 의미 없는 하나의 사람 이후 이름은 모국어 버전 이름과 Sulmues 실제로지만 Alexikoua 방금 그 글에서 실제로 그것을 향상시키기 위해 아무것도 하지 않는 이름을 계속 간직할 것 edit-warring 많은 방법으로 기사를 향상시켰다.--— ZjarriRrethues, 이야기 18:16 — 102010년 8월(CoordinatedUniversalTime)[ 받았다.사원리]

(갈등 편집) 이것도 덧붙이겠다.나는 또한 그에게 롤백 도구를 잘못 사용하는 것에 대해 이야기했지만 그는 분명히 듣지 않았다.롤백은 명백한 반달리즘을 되돌리기 위한 것일 뿐이다.경고를 받고도 선의의 편집을 연속적으로 되돌리는 것은 심각한 위법행위다.나는 그 때 그에게 그 의심의 혜택을 주려고 노력했지만, 분명히 이것은 더 악화되고 있다.닥터K.^{λogosπraxis} 18:22, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

롤백이 취소됨. PeterSymonds (대화) 2010년 8월 10일 18시 38분 (UTC)[응답]

그렇게 된 것은 유감스럽지만, 롤백을 논쟁 편집에 사용할 수는 없다.아마도 몇 달 안에 설뮤즈가 다시 신청할 수 있을 것이다.나는 그가 최고가 되기를 바란다.피터에게 알려줘서 고마워.K. 18:56, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 도구를 부적절하게 사용한 것에 대해 사과한다.실수로 두 번 사용했는데: 사용자 반대:지역 영웅과 나는 그것을 설명하기 위해 그의 토크 페이지로 달려갔다. User_talk:Local_hero#Sarande_can_you_say_your_opinion: 사실 그 사람으로부터 어떤 나쁜 감정도 받지 않고, 그 다음에 우리가 한 일은 DYK 공동공천이었다, 위의 실 밑을 보라, 그리고 어제 다시 실수로 알렉시쿠아와 함께: 그러나 나는 토크 페이지에 길게 글을 썼지만, 여전히 알렉시카우와 사과하고 싶다.나는 계속해서 반달리즘을 풀며, 도구를 되찾고 싶지만, 그것을 갖는데 시간이 좀 걸리더라도 문제가 없기를 원한다: 필요하다면 다시 신청할 것이다: 나는 단지 난장판이 있는 스포츠 페이지에 특히 내가 필요하다고 생각할 뿐이다.사용자에게도 다음과 같이 설명하고 싶다.그는 ARBMAC당 1RR을 경험했고 그보다 훨씬 더 긴 혼란의 이력이 있지만 롤백자의 지위는 취소되지 않았다.그리고 편집 전쟁에 관한 한, 그는 토크 페이지와 MOS:BIO에 있는 자신의 설명을 다시 요약하고 싶어할지도 모른다.그러나 일반적으로 콘텐츠 문제는 여기서 논의되지 않으며 롤백자 상태와 관련이 없다.그러나 그가 나나 나의 편집[43]을 "innine"이라고 부르는 것은 n번째 시간이고 그것은 부적절하다.나는 또한 그것을 위해 그의 토크 페이지에서 그에게 경고했다.해당 사용자에 대해 언급할 필요가 있는가?무신론자는 롤백[44]을 사용하여 내 경고를 반달리즘으로 되돌렸나?아니면 지금 그가 나를 바보라고 노골적으로 부른다는 것을 언급할 필요가 있을까?설뮤즈 15:16, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 또한 내가 그의 토크 페이지에 그가 잘못된 기사를 편집하고 있다고 여러 번 쓴 후에 Jali malsis로 되돌아갔다는 것을 설명하고 싶다(그의 토크 페이지 User_talk 참조:얄리_말레시스) 그리고 그는 듣지 않았다.Dmries 로의 롤백에 관해서, 나는 같은 날 스스로 해냈다[46].설뮤즈 15:26, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

보관된 토론에 대한 종료 요청

Hello - 나는 관리 검토 후 최근에 보관된 ANI 토론을 종결할 것을 요청한다(내가 보기에 여러 사용자와 관리자의 논의 하단에 입력된 내용에 따라 상당히 명확한 결과가 있다).지금까지 토론은 3번 자동 보관되어 있고 내가 2번 복원한 후 처음 두 번, 나는 행정관이 그 밑바닥에서 토론을 종결해 줄 것을 요청했지만 (속도가 느려 보이는 데다 행동 결정이 명백하게 명확하기 때문에) 소용이 없었다.그 결과, 나는 별도의 스레드를 열어 관리자가 적절하다고 판단되는 대로 닫아 줄 것을 요청하고 있다.참고로, 나는 (누군가가 반대하지 않는 한) 이 토론이 특정 사용자와 관련된 것이 아니라 토론 그 자체이기 때문에, 이 토론에 대해 누구에게도 통지하고 있다.고마워, ~SuperHamster Talk 기여 22:03, 2010년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

TK-CP를 블랙리스트에 추가했다너무 오래 기다려서 미안해, 슈퍼햄스터!올라프 데이비스 (대화) 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC) 10:25 [응답]

그건 문제 없어, 고마워.~SuperHamster Talk 기여 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

블록-Evading IP

여기가 잘못된 장소라면 사과하지만 Artsak에서 편집전쟁 블록을 피하기 위해 IP를 뛰어넘고 있는 미등록 편집자(75.51.166.54(토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)가 있다(원래 75.51.175.247(토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)).다솜87 (대화) 01:09, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

2주 동안 반비보호된 후 페이지가 자동으로 보호되지 않음.사용자 차단됨. -FASTY^(TALK) 03:12, 2010년 8월 11일(UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 중단 편집, 개인 공격 및 편집 충돌:건 파우더 마

사용자:건파우더마는 최근 수많은 인신공격과 파괴적 편집에 나서고 있다.여기 그의 행동을 보여주는 몇 가지 차이점이 있다.인신공격:

이 편집자는 집중적인 POV 밀기, 편집 전쟁, 포럼 쇼핑, 출처 오복기, 일반 POV 밀기 등을 통해 중국 역사 관련 기사들을 엄청나게 파괴해 왔다.그의 행동은 위키피디아에 엄청난 피해를 입혔고, 그가 최근 한 포럼에서 POV를 추진하기 위해 전쟁을 편집하고 있다는 것이 밝혀졌다.나는 즉시 그를 차단해 줄 것을 요청한다.틴투자자(토크)

'인신공격'과 관련해서, 어제 위키티켓 게시판에서 꺼내지 않은 것이 이 불만 속에 있는가.24시간 전에 관리자:토드스트1은 "과거 GPM과의 예의범절 문제를 본 적이 있지만 (그 결과 행정 조치를 취했다) 이러한 최근의 상황은 그다지 우려할 만한 문제가 아닌 것 같다"고 말했다.이 두 편집자가 서로 헐뜯는 것 외에, 서로 싸우는 편집자와 위키호잉을 하는 것(정말로 그만둘 필요가 있다)을 하는 것 외에, 나는 이러한 차이점에 근거한 지속적인 예의상 문제가 보이지 않는다." --Moonedgirl^(talk) 14:04, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

자신과 의견이 다른 관리자에 대한 공격, 위키티켓 보고서보다 인신공격 사례가 더 많다.틴투자자 (토크) 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC) 14:12 (응답)

나는 위와 같은 위키리크레이션 리스트에서 "포름 쇼핑"이라는 죄목에서 특별히 비웃음을 받았다. 정말 보복하는 것 같군 위키백과 참조:컨텍스트에 대한 의견/틴투자자 요청.발리 얼티밋 (토크) 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)

14

:16, 8월 11일 (회신) 이

스니핑과 포럼 쇼핑은 통제 불능이 되어 그만둬야

한다

.

나는 48시간 동안 틴투자자(토크·컴퍼니)를 차단하여 건파우더 마(토크·컴퍼니)를 계속 괴롭혔다.

토드스트1(토크) 14:20, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답] 여기서 본

것을 보면

,

내게는 좋은 전화

인 것

같다. :/

--문리디드걸

14:21, 2010년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

삭제된 편집 사항

Possible legal threat

I am involved in something of a content dispute with a representative of a US firm producing an electrical stimulation device. This editor claims my edits at electroanalgesia are in violation of US trademark law. On my user talk page, this editor has related the opinion of that company's IP law firm, and stated that they will "strongly defend" their trademark (diff). This is a thinly-veiled legal threat in my eyes, and certainly seems worded to strike fear into me. I replied, and stated that I would be bringing this to the greater community (diff). While I am not sure if a WP:NLT block is required at this point, I would like some additional eyes on this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a pretty clear WP:NLT situation to me. Also the edits seem clearly to be spamming for their product, and it seems just a legal threat to allow such spam. --Cyclopia^talk 00:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it looks to me like they want to spam an article about a medical condition to market their product and are edit warring to try and force their preferred promotional version. I say block them per WP:NLT and direct them to OTRS. There is nothing libelous or trademark violating in your edits. Trademark law doesn't enable marketers and other company representatives to force encyclopedias to accept their preferred promotional marketing lingo. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Block 'em, Dan-o. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for the legal threat. User cannot edit while the legal threat stands. –MuZemike 01:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, for the response! I'm going to review the page that prompted the threat in the next few days anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken6175 has retracted their legal threat on their Talk page and has asked to be unblocked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Tnxman307 went ahead and unblocked, which I support as well. –MuZemike 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this?

213.202.242.155 (talk · contribs) writes edit summaries such as "I'm User:Marco9673,FuturePerfectAtSunrise thou are too lazy to block my account-it is socked but not blocked,I restore my edits-if thou want me to not edit here logged,block User:Marco9673" "I'm from P.R.C, im both bloxd User:Marco3769 and FREE User:Marco9673 plz blox User:Marco9673 if u do not want me here,but consider long education in Laodong Gaizao if u bloxUser:Marco9673)", "Still not blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marco9673 even if blocked already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marco3769 ? CURIOUS!!!)"

Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fairly obvious block evasion. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, 108.1.128.128 (talk · contribs) is Moulton (talk · contribs). I know where WP:SPI is, but this should be quicker. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on block evasion or otherwise (and I 'spose it's possible they were trying to get another editor blocked) but their editing was disruptive, and I have blocked them for that. They were at their final vandalism warning too, but that didn't enter into my block consideration: I blocked purely for the repetitive edits claiming to be a sock. TFOWR 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked it as an open proxy. This is a banned vandal who's into their socks among other things - not entirely sure which banned vandal, but I don't think it matters much. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least they're helping out ;-) TFOWR 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive blanking of sources from editor Mikemikev at Race (classification of humans) while the Race and Intelligence arbcase is awaiting resolution

I would need some uninvolved admin (preferably somewhat familiar with the case, for the only reason is that it is a long and complex one) to take a look at Mikemikev's recent behaviour, including revert-warring and what I can only describe as tantamount to trolling. Can somebody help him cool his heels down for awhile please? I'm availableshould there be further questions about this issue. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been semi-actively patrolling this one for a while; the edits were clearly disruptive, they were right after the full protection timeout on the article expired, and after I explicitly warned the case parties on the Arbcom case proposed decision talk page that further disruption on either of the articles in question would result in blocks.

Pursuant to the prior warning, I have blocked Mikemikev for 72 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of a WP:SALTed redirect by User:Denelson83

Klaus Ebner: Wikicrossing, spam, conflict of interest and puppet users

Initial reports/feedback

After a problem in Galician wikipedia related with Klaus Ebner, I have found a complexe network of editors (probably fake or puppet editors) aiming to overpromote the name of the Austrian translator Klaus Ebner. These are some of the proofs:

• The article Klaus Ebner was created by the user Klaus Ebner.
• The article was also mainly edited by Torsten Wittmann, irina Walter, Sarrah Wham and Helmut Bihy. Also, there are on the list two more users: Litteralittera and Svartvicks.
  • Torsten Wittmann was created 22Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
  • irina Walter was created 20Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
  • Sarrah Wham was created 14Apr 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, two days after.
  • Helmut Bihy was created 25Apr 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
• Torsten Wittmann's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. He also removed the tag of Conflict of Interest and supported the removal quoting himself as a reference of the Ebner's relevance. He focused his other editions in the articles Austrian literature, Grazer Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher) and the novel Hominid (novel), by Ebner.
• irina Walter's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. She also supported the removal of the CoI tag quoting himself as a reference of the Ebner's relevance, the same day as she joined (en)Wikipedia. She focused her other editions in the articles Austrian literature, Grazer Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), and Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher). She showed a good acquitance with Ebner when edited the Ebner parent's date of birth and death. Also she asked for support for improving the English version of this article.
• Sarrah Wham's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. She focused her other editions in the article Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]].
• Helmut Bihy's only article is Klaus Ebner. He also nominated the article klaus Ebner as a good article.
• Klaus Ebner's main article is Klaus Ebner. He admitted the creation of this article about himself. He also edited the article List of Austrian writers for including his name, and Austrian literature.

An exploration: French Wikipedia

I will examine the French wikipedia

• The French article fr:Klaus Ebner was created by an anonymous IP on 20Dec 2007, the same day for the registration of the user Klaus Ebner (fr) and irina Walter (en). The first contribution of Klaus Ebner (fr) was the article fr:Klaus Ebner.
• This article was edited mainly by Linda Auerbach and Frodon le Grand.
  • Frodon le Grand has been created on 4May 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. He dedicated his other editions to the articles fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]] and the novel fr:Hominidé, the homonimy page of the novel by Ebner.
  • Linda Auerbach has been created on 23Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. She dedicated her other editions to the articles, fr:Grazer Autorinnen Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), fr:Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), the prize fr:Feldkircher Lyrikpreis, won by Ebner in 2005, fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher) and the novel Hominid (novel), by Ebner. Even more remarckably, she has edited the article fr:SetzeVents Editorial, about the Catalan publisher of Ebner and the userpage of Svartvicks, in order to state what's the Catalan skills of this user (!)
  • Svartvicks has been created on 4May 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. He dedicated his other editions to the articles fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]] and the novel fr:Hominidé, the homonimy page of the novel by Ebner.

Other Wikipedias

There is an article about Klaus Ebner in 78 different languages.

• The German article de:Klaus Ebner was created by an anonymous IP 62.47.142.232 on 17Dec 2007, one day before the registration of Klaus Ebner (de) on 18Dec 2007, the same day for the article's creation in the English wikipedia. The first contribution of Klaus Ebner (de) was the article de:Klaus Ebner.
• In Aragonese: created and edited mainly by an:User:Anne-Claudine on 22Feb 2009. Her only relevant contribution.
• In Asturian: created and edited mainly by as:User:Anne-Claudine on 22Feb 2009. Her only contribution.
• In Corsican: created by an IP and edited mainly by co:User:Marco Zitti on 9Mar 2008. Zitti's only contribution.
• In Welsh: created and edited mainly by cy:User:Litteralittera on 21Oct 2009. Litteralittera's only contribution.
• In Greek: created and edited mainly by el:User:Veronika (sic, on Roman alphabet) on 27Feb 2008. Veronika's only contribution.
• In Galician: created and edited mainly by gl:User:Ana Montez on 23Feb 2008. Ana Montez's only contribution.
• In Frisian: created and edited mainly by fy:User:Anne-Claudine on 28Feb 2009. Her only contribution.
• In Hungarian: created and edited by hu:User:Judit S on 12Mar 2008. Her only contribution. Also edited by hu:User:Szentgroti (his only contribution), hu:User:Vajdaoli (his only contribution) and hu:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution).
• In Creole Asiyen: created and edited mainly by ht:User:Anne-Claudine on 25Feb 2009. Her only contribution. Also edited by ht:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution) and hu:User:Irina Walter AT (her only contribution).
• In Latin: created and edited mainly by la:User:Ennius on 30Jun 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by la:User:Litteralittera who also edited the List of Austrian writers in order to add Ebner.
• In Occitan: created and edited mainly by oc:User:Claude on 7Mar 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by oc:User:Irina Walter AT (her only contribution), oc:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution) and oc:User:Anne-Claudine (her only contribution).
• In Portuguese: created and edited mainly by pt:User:Ana Montez on 26Feb 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by pt:User:Irina Walter AT (she also asked another User to translate into Portuguese the article about Hominide, the Ebner's novel) and pt:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution).
• In Tagalog: created by tl:User:Irina Walter on 14Nov 2008. Her only contribution. Also edited by tl:User:Irina Walter AT and tl:User:Francesca la Bola (her only contribution).

Puppet Users

I'll list here some users having editions in more than 3 Wikipedia projects and all of them Ebner related.

• Francesca la Bola: en, ca, nap, pl, scn, tl.
• Anne-Claudine: af, an, ast, en, fr, fy, ht, oc (it's remarkable that the author of the Ebner's Latin article thought that Klaus was the equivalent of Claudius, instead of Nicolaus)
• Ana Montez: ca, es, fr, gl, pt.
• Litteralittera: ca, commons, cy, da, de, en, es, fr, gl, hi, hu, it, ja, la, meta, ms, mt, mr, ro, ru. sl, sq, yo
• Littera: ca, de, en, ia.
• Torsten Wittmann: da, de, fi, is, jv, no, sk and Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe): en

--Xabier Cid (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, OK. On first read through, there is something worth digging into here, but it's not clear what's actually going on. You need to inform all those editors about this discussion: do that now I've done so. The good article reviews included several of those editors: Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA1, Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA2. Fences&Windows 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the en.wiki users you listed above, I have alerted the following single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA) which share names with those on other language Wikipedias: Litteralittera (talk·contribs), Littera (talk·contribs), Svartvicks (talk·contribs), Anne-Claudine (talk·contribs), Irina Walter AT (talk·contribs), Livia Plurabelle (talk·contribs), Francesca la Bola (talk·contribs), and D. Bogdan V. (talk·contribs). Fences&Windows 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of the biggest potential sock rings I've ever seen. And the fact that it's cross-wiki too may mean it's an ArbCom issue. (Speaking from no experience, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) In any case, it's definitely enough to merit a CheckUser, so I'd go for that. Sheesh. elektrikSHOOS 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, checkuser is needed, though many of the accounts may be stale. Fences&Windows 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support move to ARBCOM Elektrik Shoos, I disagree both TM and Scientology were much larger but this is a good idea to move to arbcom. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hence the phrase 'one of the biggest.' Keeps me from liability. :) elektrikSHOOS 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hold your horses, why does this need to go to Arbcom? It's only just been raised, there's no suggestion that the community can't handle this. Enough with the Arbcomania. Fences&Windows 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's cross-wiki surely it's beyond the scope of the enArbCom? MtD (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If and when we conclude that there is an issue here, we can contact the other language Wikipedias, or perhaps a Steward. But let's not put the cart before the horse: we've still got to assess the evidence and hear from the involved accounts (who have all been alerted of this thread). Fences&Windows 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that users with the names Irina Walter, Torsten Wittmann, Claudia Nittl, and Bogdan Dumic all posted positive reviews of one Ebner's books at Amazon.de around November-December 2007, around the same time that the Klaus Ebner article was created here and on the German and French Wikipedias. Looks like a coordinated promotion effort. ThemFromSpace 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In Galician Wikipedia has been admitted by gl:User:Fátima Rodríguez that Klaus Ebner and Litteralittera are the same human, and at the same time her translator, trying to promote her books (his translations). Also she was asked by Klaus Ebner to join Wikipedia and engage the discussion about the deletion of the article about her.--Xabier Cid (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello to all. I've just been informed on my discussion page about this discussion. To be frank, I am overwhelmed by this bulk of information and the many coincidences (and evidencies), although I am surprised that an engagement for a specific topic (this author in this particular case) is automatically damned and regarded as overpromotion or puppet activity. The date of the beginning of my editing activities on Wikipedia is not a coincidence because it was shortly after the publication of Ebner's first book. (My review on Amazon is mentioned above) Yes, of course, I like the books of this author. If not I wouldn't have collected information and written about him. My involvement does even look more as there had been discussions around the GA status where I heavily involved myself because I was angry about the argumentation. If it is not wanted (any more) to work on Ebner then I will concentrate on other authors. But they will always be from Austria or Germany. And if I misunderstood all the criticism above and it is not wanted that one person edits in several languages, then please put that clear. Greetings.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suspicion is sockpuppetry on a grand scale, i.e. one person using more than one account to give the false appearance of consensus, including to gain good article approval. The timing of the registration of the accounts strongly suggests coordination of these many single-purpose accounts. So - have you edited from any other accounts on Wikipedia? Fences&Windows 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hope this is the right secton for my comment. Thanks to user Fences&Windows to inform me about this. Im impressed by this thread, must have been 30 min or so to read through and to re-read some of the passages. I comment because I think two parties go against me. First, the base tenor of this thread, led by Xabier Cid. Second, the answer of Klaus Ebner that drags me in closely. Yes, it's true, I know Ebner. I met him the first time at a public reading back in 2007. I loved his funny stories and his ironic style to write. Bought his book and wrote a review for Amazon - oh yes, you already noted that. Then I began to do my edits in Wikipedia. Primarily Ebner's article, in the German Wikipedia. Then in the English Wikipedia. Thought it would be cool. I talked with Ebner at the reading, and again at another reading. So he knows who I am. Maybe we also talked about Wikipedia and about my activities here, I don't remember that. Xabier Cid says I am a Single Purpose Account (didn't know this expression before). I am contributing very little to Wikipedia, don't even have this Sichten-stuff on the German Wikipedia. And I am editing only authors I really like or where I found out something which isn't mentioned. That was primarily Klaus Ebner in the German Wikipedia. I wouldn't have written about someone I don't like. In the English one - I checked this after having read this thread - it is more Austrian literature in general I would say. So what does Single Purpose Account mean? Contributing only to one topic? Yes, this is definitely Austrian literature. I am Austrian. So this is a natural interest, isn't it? Even though our bookshops are drowned in translations of American novels, this is not the entire world. Ther is an Austrian literature, I love going to public readings and I love to discuss with the writers after the reading. This is absolutely normal in Vienna. I think I already know dozens of Austrian writers that way. But I only wrote about Ebner. Shame on me. In case of course it wasn't about Austrian literature in General. Ebner is only a tiny portion of it - oh, you noted that too. And oh yes, I am also living in Vienna. Like Ebner. Shame on me? Some say Vienna's population as already about two million or so. Hm. I understand that this is a severe case, and I understand that Ebner edited his own article and lied several instances. To the Wikipedia community, of which I am a member I think. But some arguments made me laugh. The Single Purpose Account is one of these. My somewhat obvious engagement for Ebner and the Austrian Literature make this plausible, ok. But did you really check the contributions of the main contributors? Someone named Torsten Wittmann a Single Purpose Account. Sorry, this makes me laugh. He's a German, and his "home" Wikipedia is the German one. Did you check his contributions there? Xabier Cid found out that his first contribution was to the article of Ebner, yes. As mine - wooo. Maybe Ebner shouldn't have written his books. But it looks to me that all these contributions are not known - and it's so easy to look them up in the German Wikipedia, even when you don't speak German. Or the "fake article". Maybe I'm too stupid to understnd what a fake article is. I thought it would be an article that describes somthing that is not real. But Ebner is real, and his books too, and the information in his article too. Of course I can only judge the German and the English Wikipedia articles, no idea what the French and the Catalans and whoever wrote about him. There are some other items don't seem right to me, but I don't want to write so long. But I'm really not happy about the allegations against me. I met the writer about who I contributed some times and spoke with him. So what? Who wants to forbid that? I am writing about Austrian literature. Of course this has something to do with Ebner too since he is Austrian. And if I write about the GAV or the PEN or the ÖSV then it also has to do something with Ebner. All Austrian writers are organized in one or two of these organizations, there is no other. Why did I contribute to GAV and not to PEN or the other way round? Because I read more books about it? Because the quarrels in the 70s were so interesting? Why do I have to justify that? Am I not allowed to contribute where I want? If I overreact now, because perhaps I misunderstand some of your sayings, then I beg your pardon. As Fences&Windows informed me about this I saw a finger pointing at me. What I don't like. --D. Bogdan V. (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bogdan, I would like just to clarify some points. First, I've never said that you were a single purpose account. Secondly, it is not importante whether you like Ebner or not, or whether you live in Vienna for that purpose. The only important thing is if you have edited the Ebner's article adviced, pushed or lobbied by Ebner himself. I have spend last minutes checking again the main editions of Klaus Ebner in many wikipedias between the 20th and the 23rd December. This is the result.

• 20Dec07: 20:48. Pressed by the claims of Conflict of Interest, User:Klaus Ebner did his last contribution on Klaus Ebner.
• 20Dec07: 22:16. de:User:Klaus Ebner did his last contribution on de:Klaus Ebner. At the same time (22:15 and 22:16) Ebner did his last contributions on fr:Klaus Ebner and ca:Klaus Ebner.
• 20Dec07: 22:49 to 22:54 User:Irina Walter, allegedly the Ebner's sister, has been created and has contributed on Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 13:15 de:User:Irina Walter has been created and has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 17:01 ca:User:Nuri has been created and has contributed on ca:Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 18:41 de:User:Irina Walter has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 21Dec07: 19:05 to 19:07 de:User:Torsten Wittmann has been created and has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner..
• 22Dec07: 11:45 to 12:14 User:Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) has been created and has contributed on Klaus Ebner.
• 22Dec07: 15:49 to 15:59 de:User:Torsten Wittmann has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 23Dec07: 14:04 to 14:13 User:Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) has contributed on Klaus Ebner
• 23Dec07: 16:25 to 16:59 User:D. Bogdan V. has been created and has contributed on Klaus Ebner.
• 23Dec07: 17:45 to 17:51 de:User:Irina Walter has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.
• 23Dec07: 19:07 fr:User:Linda Auerbach has been created and has contributed on.
• 23Dec07: 19:36 to 19:37 de:User:Irina Walter has contributed on de:Klaus Ebner.

I would say that it is an extraordinary coordination for acting five people on their own, editing in different wikipedias and never overlap. I am not trying to accuse anyone: my aim is to provide some data for everyone reach their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabier Cid (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what you mean. When you go to the Readings (Lesungen) page of Klaus Ebner's homepage, you will see that Ebner read in public on Nov. 30 and December 21 2007. The november reading was my first contact to him where we got acquainted. He mentioned the december reading thats why I went there. And this is me. There were about twenty or thirty people. I don't know more but this are facts. To what you say about "adviced, pushed": if someone pushed something than I pushed it because I found it a great idea to elaborate an article about him. He never told or asked me to do something specific, and our contact is so minor that there is little link (sorry, don't know how do say that in english). --D. Bogdan V. (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More evidences in cyrillic wikipedias

This is a message left by East of Borschov on my talk page:

• ru:Эбнер, Клаус created by ru:Участник:ЮрийВВ Dec-30-2007. This account edited only Klaus Ebner page and disappeared Jul-9-2008 (contributions). The account uses a Slavic name but is not a native Russian (or any other Eastern Slavic) speaker - improbable grammar mistakes (this has been noted on his page).
• uk:Клаус Ебнер created by an IP 80.123.42.139 from Vienna, Austria. Edited at length by another Austrian IP (62.47.128.133) and uk:Anna Kovac. All in summer of 2008. Anna Kovac, too, disappeared.
• be:Клаўс_Эбнер - IPs from UK and Austria
• bg:Клаус Ебнер - created by User:Bogdan.D in April 2008. User disappeared after five edits to Ebner's article and nothing else.

All articles were created by their authors as mere lists of works, no free-flowing text.

This is a meat grinder of editors. They just disappear one after another. Only User:Winertai of zh-wikipedia appears to be active (and "real"). Where's my conspiracy microscope? Cheeers, East of Borschov 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Xabier Cid (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

If anyone doesn't mind, I'm going to open a case at WP:SPI and request checkuser with a link to this discussion. elektrikSHOOS 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Klaus Ebner

Good morning. As the accused and in many (but not all) cases guilty I want to make my statement which I kindly ask you to read. During Fall 2007, Wikipedia was something totally new to me. I created my personal account with my own name and started to create articles about myself in German, English, French and Catalan - because there was none and I thought that would be ok. I had no ideas about the rules - and I was beaten for that very quickly by some people (maybe admins) of this English Wikipedia; they even had some difficulty explaining all this to me because in the beginning I didn't even understand what they were talking about. But of course I understood very quickly that it was not allowed to write an article about oneself. So I stepped back but I asked friends and colleagues if they could step in and continue, what they did, and shortly after some other people, whom I do not know, began to support the articles, too.

I did not see anything wrong to involve people who know me. But I have to admit that I did two things that were not correct: First my alter ego Littera/Litteralittera - I did not want to leave Wikipedia completely because I wanted to contribute, mostly concerning other writers, publishers, magazines and other literature related topics, but unfortunately I also contributed to "my own" article. The second thing is the account of Irina Walter - it is my sister who stands behind this account and we often worked together, sometimes even from the same computer.

I always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, especially to the German one, because Austrian literature has a hard stand there and there is much wrong information and bias, because it seems that some Germans are still dreaming of a "Greater Germany". E.g. to define Franz Kafka as "German writer" and Elias Canetti as "Bulgarian writer" is not only wrong but very offending. Sometimes I had the impression that some old "Nazi conceptions" were still defended in this area, and I wanted to help to get rid of this. Or another example: it is known from public speeches of the writer Franzobel, that much of the Wikipedia information about him is wrong - and I cannot understand why nobody feels responsible to fix that. I was very surprised and pleased about Torsten's contributions because I've never seen a German before who is so engaged in favor of Austrian literature.

You gave me the feeling that I am not allowed to create any article in Wikipedia simply due to the facts that I am, as a writer, part of Austrian literature and that there is one article about me. I did not want to accept that. In addition, I saw on the German Wikipedia that some of the rules, especially the criteria of relevance, were often not observed, even by administrators. I saw articles of writers with five and more books (not self-published!) be removed and on the other hand there was one case where a writer with only one book was kept, only because her father was a well-known author in Austria. So there was my impression that some long-term contributors and administrators are interpreting the rules as they like. Maybe this led me also to the conviction that it would not be so severe to contribute under a false account.

What certainly went wrong was my own engagement with the different Wiki languages. You know that I speak several foreign languages and that of course I liked them, and I was (and still am) fascinated by the multilingual possibilities, and with hindsight I believe that this became a kind of drug for me. Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say). When I found out the possibility to create an Inter-Wiki account on the French Wikipedia (which however does not work on Commons), I stopped creating new accounts. I think it was at the same time that we discovered the possibility to place a translation request, which eventually my sister used heavily. (Before we had even used automatic translators and then tried to improve the translation with the example of existing articles on writers).

There are several people I am acquainted with, either friends of mine or colleagues. I personally know Marco Zitti, Svartvicks, Bogdan, Anne-Claudine, Francesca la Bola, Linda Auerbach, Frodon, Drusio, and also Helmut Bihy - in these cases I still think that it should not be forbidden to involve acquaintances or friends (and I also believe that this is a usual practice at almost all articles about living persons).

In spite of my breaking the rules I want to urgently ask you to distinguish between my punishment and encyclopedical facts. The articles that I or my sister were involved in or have even been created (or by acquaintances who did so) have always been written following the rules of Wikipedia. We have tried to make them as neutral as possible and we always indicated all sources and only mentioned information accessible through these sources. Many of the authors in whose articles I or my sister were involved, don't even know that we wrote them (and I estimate that I know at most about 50% of them personally). I can even say that some of my friends whom I involved, learned through me how to write good Wikipedia articles.

Concerning the case of Fátima Rodríguez, I still cannot understand why this article must disappear. If I cannot contact a subject person, how should I get e.g. to a photo (which improves the article)? Of course I contacted her, I wanted to have a photo for my article (and who else but her should have a photo which can be released to Wikipedia?), I asked her to point me to some Internet links which I didn't find at once (e.g. the articles in a Galician newspaper) and finally I let her check the language of the Galician article, because I had to compose this one with an automatic translator and some corrections I could do on my own due to my knowledge of several other Romance languages. But I sticked to the rules - the article is neutral and all sources are indicated and there is no information which only she could know. BTW, I am NOT her translator - there must have been a misunderstanding. I only asked her if I could translate one or two of her poems to German for an Austrian literature magazine (for which I would not get any money, so this is not a "professional connection" in its usual sense) - so if this happens, it would only be the future (and this is not clear so far because her publisher didn't release the right to do so).

Of course I must accept all verdict over me and I feel that a kind of boycott of my name will arise, but please leave all the other articles intact that I or my sister (and especially my acquaintances when the wrote on other articles) were involved in. Deleting them would not improve Wikipedia but destroy a lot of (neutral!) information due to a kind of personal vendetta.

I did not want to do any advertising (Wikipedia is no advertising, not at all), I wanted to give information, even when it came to myself (I don't want to end up like Franzobel who has to explain publicly to journalists that his article in Wikipedia is garbage). And I never wanted to hurt someone. Now I have to apologize to all people who invested time to write on the articles on me, and I am sorry for the inconveniences that I have caused with my "over-involvement".
I guess this will be my (and my sister's, Irina Walter's) last statement on Wikipedia.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say)." Are you sure this will be your last statement (from you or "your sister") on WP? Disgusting: seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure. Because I don't want to have this shameful gauntlet run a second time. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Sock. If your edits didn't make it in the first time, creating sock accounts probably won't help get them in any more successfully. Work with the other editors here... Doc9871 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus, alternate accounts are prohibited on Wikipedia save for a few legitimate purposes, and even then only if they're clearly linked to the master account in question. The fact that you have edited articles under multiple accounts on your articles, on various wikis, to edit articles solely about yourself, is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppet and conflict of interest policies, two core ideas any Wikipedian editing for three years should have known. By doing this you have egregiously misrepresented yourself to the community. In addition, recruiting others to edit articles on your behalf - referred to as 'meatpuppetry' - is just as bad as editing it yourself. I have to be honest, with this admission you will likely be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. elektrikSHOOS 10:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. --188.22.167.199 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (Lost my login) --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actions being taken

Six-month block

Given the above, I'm proposing an indefinite block for the above user and all socks, for abusing multiple accounts and flagrant violation of WP:COI, and possibly a community ban if abuse continues (though that may not be immediately necessary). elektrikSHOOS 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose for now The editor has given an undertaking that he will not do so anymore. I'd give him the chance to break his word first. I do not think he will break the wiki if he does, and we can easily block him then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, ignore the above. However, given the editor did admit to using at least seven (!) socks, and encouraged others to write on his behalf, I find it difficult to just let him go with a slap on the wrist. Given this and his admission of guilt and subsequent apology, I'm proposing a 6-month block, after which the user agrees to no more sockpuppetry and can contribute again constructively to the community, as a pre-emptive WP:OFFER. elektrikSHOOS 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (retracted in favor of the below elektrikSHOOS 07:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Probation

Honestly, while I admit socking is bad, I also know that in my experience issuing blocks are easy. I propose an alternative.

1) Klaus Ebner (talk · contribs) is to be put on probation for a period of 6 months, and is restricted to one account. He is prohibited from editing from other accounts without the knowledge and consent of the Arbitration Committee, and is topic banned from any articles relating to himself, broadly defined. He may also be the subject of random checkusers, to ensure he complies with the restrictions of his probation. If it is found he is in violation of his probation, he may be blocked, for up to 1 year.

I haven't done any proposals like this for a while, but I think it works. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but with the addendum that he is topic-banned from editing any articles about himself for any reason during that probation, as this is the main reason for the sockpuppetry in the first place. elektrikSHOOS 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd probably take out the stuff on ArbCom. I'm pretty sure the only people who can make those decisions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee is the Arbitration Committee. As of right now this is all community-based. elektrikSHOOS
• Neutral - I'd lean towards "Oppose" considering this editor's socking and COI involvement as possibly "incorrigible". But... hey! If the community will watchdog him, leave him be, right? Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sounds OK, so long as we can bind the Arbitration Committee in that manner to pass judgment on his theoretical use of a sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Better than nothing, but I'd go for an indefinite topic ban (talk page editing allowed). After all, shouldn't one avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to oneself? MER-C 13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know how things work here (then, sorry if I say something totally wrong), but I think there is also a problem related with the fact that a translator has achieved articles about himself in 78 wikipedias, i.e., his work is already done. He was not working mainly in improving his article (only here and there) but in consolidating a network of references. Will those articles be removed from every wikipedia? --Xabier Cid (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should certainly be carefully examined, and checked for neutrality at the very least. Has anyone had a look at Klaus Ebner? I don't see any major problems but I know nothing of the subject. Rehevkor✉ 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is an author with 4 published books, none of them a best seller. Most of the article is about translations and paid stays in other countries. But he has more wikipedia articles than German Nobel Prize Günter Grass. --Xabier Cid (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very least we need to get a good article reassessment going at Klaus Ebner since the last one was tainted by socks. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A block would work as well, but if he is willing to work constructively away from his article we shouldn't prevent him from doing so. ThemFromSpace 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weary support: I've been peripherally involved in Ebner's article (and several others related) for the past two years. While Ebner's admitted sockpuppetry is regrettable, I feel I must point out that his actions (as well as those by editors affiliated with him) were seemingly well meant. Ebner's English Wikipedia article is not fantastic, but I feel it's a strong-enough GA. All comments, concerns and suggestions I've made over time have been taken into account, and I've found most editors involved (especially Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe), who has contacted me several times for help) to be dedicated to making sure the articles are not only well written, but that they fulfill the GA criteria. One such article, Hominid (novel), was just nominated at GAC after extensive work and a copyedit by the GOCE. Yes, I recognize that sockpuppets are bad news, but it's not like they're causing kerfuffles; procedures are being followed, and there is an obvious desire for the articles to be good, not just existent. Note, I'm only speaking of the English Wikipedia articles here; there was definitely a large push to include Ebner and his works on other Wikis, but is that a punishable offense if he's a notable figure? We're not talking about a MySpace band or something, after all; Ebner is an award-winning author. Obviously he shouldn't be editing his own article, and I support probation to ensure that doesn't happen anymore, but let's not punish other editors for their hard work. María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maria. I disagree with you in two little aspects. First, any kind of punishment or probation is addressed to User:Klaus Ebner, not to other editors; if someone made bona fide contributions to a fake article, the article would be removed, even if these are good editors, with large experience through the whole Wikipedia (and that is not the case; as you can agree, the Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe)'s is, at least, a WP:SPA). The second aspect is the aim of User:Klaus Ebner: to promote himself quite beyond his personal achievements. He has created articles about himself in 78 wikipedias, he has created articles about his only novel in 9 wikipedias, he has promoted or lobbied the creation of GAs at least in the English and the Catalan wikipedia (no wonders someone achieved it) and edited list of Austrian editors writers and other articles to include his name. But when it comes to achievements, there is only one novel and a couple of very local awards (not much more than a MySpace band, as you say). He has tried to overpromote himself using every method available and the result is that anyone reading his name's articles on many wikipedias would think that he is a very relevant writer. So, at the end of the day, he achieved his basic purpose. And bona fide editors, as much as the readers were cheated --Xabier Cid (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfuffles? One important procedure has very clearly not been followed. Can any editor please explain how any of these socks are legitimate? e.g.: User:Livia Plurabelle is an admitted and blatant SPA sock who hasn't edited for awhile: but is still free to add to this thread. I'm sure I am I missing something, again. I don't believe it's appropriate to downplay the level of possible misconduct with the socking, which is against one of WP's core policies for very good reason. A SPI is still open on this case[49]. If you combine sockpuppetry with a healthy conflict of interest, what do you have? (shudder) Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, consensus appears to be clear. Commenting again so the discussion doesn't get autoarchived. At this point we need an admin to close this discussion, and someone to take Klaus on for probation. elektrikSHOOS 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I have understood right...: What are you doing with the accounts with strange pattern of editions? What are you doing with the articles created about Ebner and his only novel in 78 and 9 wikipedias, respectively (and created by him or his accounts)?--Xabier Cid (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Though the above issue still appears to be tackled. In response to you... elektrikSHOOS 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Klaus Ebner + related articles

The existing articles on Klaus need to be triple-checked for neutrality, notability and verifiability concerns, given the admitted socking above. If anyone has a more specific proposal (deletion, et cetera) please say below. elektrikSHOOS 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Watchlist Notice Mistake

A watchlist notice just popped up on everyone's watchlists, but there is a slightly mistake about it. Here is the notice: "There will be a Wikipedia meetup in Pittsburgh on August 22 at 3:00 PM. We will meet near the University of Pittsburg campus. You're invited! See our meetup page for more information." The mistake is the second spelling of Pittsburgh, spelled "Pittsburg"...needs an "h" at the end. If someone could correct that, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Skomorokh 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth keeping an eye on

Middle 8's talk page comment

if you really want to - User:WLU

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sample.

I think administrative attention may be appropriate. This user has a tendency to leave and return.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have called someone an idiot on a talkpage and retired...what kind of Admin action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a variety of admin actions happen in these situations from nothing to warnings to bans. There's a bit more in the contributions boiling-over-wise and I just fear that people who leave Wikipedia in a huff sometimes return and do damage. Analysis by those who are not close to this situation is appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here, this user has gone through a number of identity switches and has been embroiled in controversy over acupuncture for some time now. This kind of activity makes me extremely uncomfortable, but unlike Off2riorob, I don't believe in WP:PUNITIVE. What I think might be appropriate is an administrative warning. If I give the warning, he'll just dismiss it as hounding. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speak as if for me, your report is rubbish. Utter rubbish and nothing more that reporting an opponent. You are edit warring to keep your worthless report open it is hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ScienceA, you cannot keep deleting two other editors' "resolved" notices from a thread which you started. Especially not with edit-summaries just as snippy as the material you are complaining about. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Should you, as one of the editors in question who is being snippy, be criticizing me for being snippy? When does the WP:KETTLE circle end? Will you please wait for an administrator to give an opinion? Sheesh. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You, ScienceApologist, complaining about someone else and WP:KETTLE? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day! You're whining about a single lapse on my part (me: never been blocked, never been sanctioned despite your frequent baiting and occasional, inadequate efforts), whereas you have something like 30 blocks, and are among the most disruptive editors still active on WP. I think you deserve to be sanctioned for just this sort of time-wasting hypocrisy. Wonder if any admins are up to it? --Middle 8 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two questions. 1) Can you please provide a diff of any comment I have made which has been "snippy" and/or impolite? 2) Can you please explain how deleting my comment because of its – alleged – grammatical irregularity is appropriate? Please note that I will take failure to answer these questions within a reasonable amount of time as an indication that you have no satisfactory response. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this satisfactory...middle 8 you naughty little boy, if you don't stop calling people idiots I will put you on the naughty step for five seconds. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't an administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but I am the next best thing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reporting your opponents

Users that make weak reports when they are in content disputes or opponents of users such as this should be blocked for wasting the communities time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this comment give a reason for why you've taken a peculiar interest in this thread? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, so what, its more rubbish, get over yourself, take five seconds on the naughty step yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to you asking for your own blocking, then, per the comment you made in this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can look forward to whatever you like, if this is a school project I have some stickers you can have. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love stickers! How do you want to get them to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice here. And this certainly looks like good reason for administrative action to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of Administrator action are you suggesting? Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought blocks of various lengths were traditional for such things. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a police state, it is a contributory website. Users should be aware that teacher and mummy have left the building and they should use adult type discussion in an attempt to work things out with their opponents. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, however, the current discussion is occurring, it seems, because such idealism has broken down. I was referring to the actions usually taken after the ideal is already broken. Further, the opposite of a "police state" is not anarchy or license. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i see nothing weak about this report, considering the diff provided. I do not necessarily recommend blocking, but just closing it as if there was nothing worthy here seems wrong to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and passed over. Calling someone an "idiot" and using the F word in the context that they did is a blatant break of civility. Silverseren^C 22:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A third-party warned him, so I think this is pretty good. He may never come back, in which case, no harm no foul. If he does come back and continues to be uncivil, well, then we have evidence that we at least went through some sort of due process. Thanks all! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin either, but in my opinion this belongs on WP:WQA and not here. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about that. It just occurred to me moments ago. We should make some sort of flowchart to keep these things straight. I just plumb forgot about WP:WQA. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the one called an idiot, I don't really care. M8 does make good faith suggestions that I think are misguided and incorrect, and it can be frustrating. He can leave and come back if he wants, so long as he honestly attempts to improve the wiki - which he does try to do. There's a lot of strong opinions on acupuncture, but overall there's little to suggest in my mind that M8 consistently engages in personal attacks to the detriment of pages. I've dropped more than a couple f-bombs in my time and had to deal with the consequences - usually the fact that my editing is more difficult. Personally, since I see no patter I see no reason to make a big deal of this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WLU -- it's true that I don't consistently engage in personal attacks. And we seem to have the same opinion of each others' edits, i.e. good-faith (I hope) but misguided and incorrect. I do apologize for calling you an idiot (which I didn't mean seriously) when I could have just said "O, ye whose edits are too often misguided and incorrect!" Still, in some cases there can't be two right answers; attribution of a well-known source is one (see below, hidden text).

WP:SOAP — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think any objective observer knows that there are double standards on Wikipedia in terms of editorial conduct. Because I don't edit like a hardline skeptic, there are editors watching me (and others of my ilk) like hawks, waiting for missteps so that they can run to WP:ANI, as ScienceApologist once again has done; meanwhile these same editors routinely engage in personal attacks, outings, and harassment, all in the name of standing up for "science", and all with the intention of causing editors they don't like to leave, since that's part of their jihad for improving the wiki, and is easier than engaging actual WP:DR. Some of the current divide on acupuncture reminds me of the divide between the right and the left in US politics. Large parts of the right (birthers and teabaggers) take positions that are simply not reality-based, and often are disingenuous in reporting the facts (see: Faux news). Similarly, I find it impossible to believe that certain recent edits or discussion at acupuncture can be both in good faith and reality-based. Since we like to AGF around here, I can only assume that a dearth of information was responsible for the examples that follow. The most amazing is one from WLU, who insisted (along with others; see ES in that diff) that the WHO report on acupuncture wasn't really by the WHO, despite every kind of evidence that it is. (My horrible, blameworthy response to WLU's stainless, wonderful edit is here.) Another good example is WLU's asserting that an article on a Quackwatch site is as strong or stronger, WP:WEIGHT-wise, than an NIH consensus panel consisting of a dozen researchers' collective review: WLU opines, "Quackwatch would be considered a reliable, third-party source that could adequately comment on the committee and its findings. The committee itself however, would be considered a primary source for its own motivations."[51] I think most scientists understand that the process of peer-review under the aegis of an organization like the NIH squashes Quackwatch like a bug. (But the ones who can't/don't grok it are disproportionately vocal, mirroring the situation on WP. It works the same way in politics.) What is happening, if you can't tell, is that a few editors are nitpicking even the most non-controversial evidence in favor of acupuncture, causing editors with opposing views to have to bring said evidence before a wider audience of editors. But that's a time sink that I can't engage, and neither can some other editors, e.g. the one who made this edit (the best edit the article has had in a long time); that editor contacted me offline expressing disgust with the hyper-skeptical, POV nitpicking. When editors of a certain mindset find even basic "water is wet"-type assumptions nit-picked at every turn, they get disgusted and leave, taking any chance at NPOV with them; only the skeptical jihadists remain (and yes, many of them are as tenaciously fanatical, in an online way, as any religious fundamentalist), wikiality reigns as a default. That's the kind of encyclopedia you've collectively chosen. Now, if I were a ScienceJihadist type editor complaining about pseudoscience, I'd be able to tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and maybe someone would leave a warning on my page which I'd remove, and a bunch of editors would cluck over how terrible it is for Defenders of Science to be under such pressure, and that we really need to be more gentle with him, poor thing. But I'm not going to engage in that kind of drama. So I'll leave you with the considered opinion that Wikipedia remains an unreliable source in large part because it self-selects for editors who have lots of time to push their agendas in ways that are ignorant, disingenuous or both. And some of you, I suppose, can freak out about what a horrible thing I just said. I do appreciate the recent performance-art from the hyperskeptics at acupuncture; it makes a great case study in why Wikipedia's approach isn't working. All it takes is persistence and you can get your way here. That's the wikiality way. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare is being hounded by a few editors

Take this elsewhere, please. Or nowhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Related ArbCom case User:Brews ohare has come back from a Physics topic ban (which was overturned after intervention by Jimbo Wales, who instructed ArbCom to pass a motion to let the sanction expire) and since then there have been a few problems that seem to be escalating. For sure, Brews has made a few mistakes, but I now see clear evidence that there is now a concerted effort to hound him away from Wikipedia. Since Admin Jehochman has now become involved here, issuing a threat to Brews, I think this merits discussion here. Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to simply point to a few diffs here, I need to explain the background a little before I can give some relevant diffs. The main issue with Brews is that he has difficulties with avoiding being caught up in long winded talk page discussions on issues that are far less relevant than he thinks they are. Especially when editing an article outside his expertise, like the speed of light, that can lead to problems. After coming back from his topic ban, an article ban for speed of light was imposed by Sandstein and this is now under discussion on the relevant ArbCom pages. On this issue, I've told Brews to be mindful of consensus, however frustrating that can be. Now, Brews expertise is mainly in topics such as classical mechanics and electical engineering (he is a retired engineering professor), and before his topic ban, he had conributed to a large number of physics articles on such topics. These articles mostly still exist with Brews contributions in them; so there is no issue with pseudoscience or very problematic conttent lke that in these artcles. Brews is now editing some of these articles and it is there that he is now being hounded. On the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) article, Brews' new edits are being opposed on OR grounds by a few editors (User:JohnBlackburne and User:DVdm), even though that very strict a reading of OR by them, where you can't even freely give examples, would make practically the whole article in violation of that interpretation of the OR policy. In the way it is written now, you can give general citations, but you cannot give citations to every babystep in the article. For sure, there are other more valid grounds on which his edits to this article can be opposed (like article bloating). But the particular way way OR is raised here, and the failure to then discuss this properly with Brews, leads to Brews being caugh up again in long winded discussions that go nowhere. I have a strong feeling that this is a deliberate attempt to provoke a problem and then let an Admin who is already critical of Brews (i.e. User:Jehochman ) to ban Brews on the remaining ArbCom sanction. This would then make it impossible for the issue to be reviewed by other Admins (as overturning an ArbCom related sanctions is not allowed). So if it is then later pointed out that actually Brews was not blame, it is too late as you need a very strong community consensus to overturn such a ban. In support of my allegations, let me point to the following facts: 1) User:JohnBlackburne decided to bring Brews before AE, mainly on the grounds that Brews had started too many discussions on the speed of light talkpage . But after Brews stopped editing there, some of his discussions and some new discussions have grown beyond all proportions judge for yourself here, but User:JohnBlackburne is nowhere to be seen there (I think he made one or two short comments there after Brews left). 2) Not discussing a perceived OR issue properly. E.g. when Brews raises the point that the whole article is already writen in this way, all that User:DVdm can do is warn Brews about WP:POINT, even though WP:POINT says that if there is a point to be raised, please raise that point, just don't act on it (and Brews was never going to delelete any sections of the article, as DVdm surely knows). 3) Then Admin Jehochman, who already at the recently initiated AE disussion by User:JohnBlackburne, asked for Brews to be permanently banned, exaggerating the real issues there (I can't find the diff right now), comes to Brew' talk page giving warnings to Brews based on merely taking note of the fact that an OR issue was raised at the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and that the discussion there is quite lengthy. Now, let me let me make it very clear that the issue I'm rasing here is not at all a content dispute. While I'm more in favor of Brews' edits than the other editors there, my opinion on the edits is that they can be shortened. Also, it is entirely legitimate for the other editors to rewrite the whole article, remove lengthy examples, or bring the whole article in line with a very strict interpretation of OR where even simple examples need to be taken almost verbatim from textbooks. What is not ok., however, is to follow Brews around and only raise objections to his edits, while turning a blind eye to other similar edits, even on the very same page, refusing to discuss Brews edits in the context of how the article is presently written, thereby provoking problems to erupt and then threaten ArbCom enforcement based on those problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to also point out that the normal has happened here, except one key factor. Brewsz supporters have been blamed previously for supporting brews, the reason we do is because people gang up on brews. my personal favorite is the pre-emptive warning Jehochman has placed on brews page [[52]], this doesn't sound like a nuetral admin nor does [[53]]. That doesn't sound nuetral or fair, sounds like a threat that at the thinnest excuse he will block brews. Don't we have rules preventing the admin from blocking someone they have a content dispute with? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Count Iblis, would you please supply a link or diff showing Jimbo Wales instructing ArbCom to pass a motion to let the sanction expire? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:TLDR. Please edit your posting to just the relevant points. I will also note that Count Iblis has been Brews habitual wingman, so it is not surprising that Count steps in to interfere with any attempt to limit Brews disruptive behavior. JehochmanTalk 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] what a awesome why to attack him Ad hominem and completely ignore your own bias. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Did you ever consider that if you are averse to reading, an online encyclopedia might not be your thing? Unomi (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Maybe the online encyclopedia is why some of us don't want to waste lots of time reading interminable dramaboard posts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would expect you to provide diffs to support your accusation that I am "hounding" Brews, not vague accusations. As for arbitration this is not the proper venue for appealing arbitration decisions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] On viewing this unfold, I think personally that the Centrifugal force "OR" argument is silly. Most Wikipedia articles and sections, on first draft, are written that way. In my skimming, I saw nothing wrong with what Brews wrote. We should instead use common sense and allow time for sources to be provided; any intro-level classical mech textbook should have a relevant page. DVdm's interpretation of WP:POINT is obviously incorrect, per Count Iblis, above, and my re-reading of the guideline. Internal consistency is necessary, and this is what makes it look like he/she is simply hounding Brews instead of enforcing policy. If DVdm were really interested in strictly, strictly enforcing WP:OR (which I think is overkill here), then all of that material would have to go. My greatest concern here is that Brews is starting to try to make contributions again, and is being stymied. The thing that is unfortunate is that, from looking at DVdm's contribs and talk, it seems that he/she is a good, helpful editor in general, as is Brews. Since they are both going for the same goal -- improving the encyclopedia -- there must be some way that this can be resolved. Awickert (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would like very much for the following: Brews stays away from speed of light and the definition of length of a meter. These are the areas where Brews has gotten into difficulties before. Brews recent return to this area, resulting in controversy and disruption is an ominous sign. When another editor requests citations for what Brews is adding to Wikipedia, Brews either provides acceptable citations and works towards agreement with other editors, or else removes the challenged content, stores it in sandbox, and goes and does something uncontroversial. I am very happy to leave Brews free to edit, and will encourage other editors to do same, so long as Brews abides by the spirit of 1 and 2 on this list. Hopefully this will help. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] So as long as he doesn't disagree with you he is fine? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am perfectly OK with Jehocohman's requests above, so long as in #2, that request for citations is applied in a common-sense way (which I would expect from any good Wikipedia editor). I would also like to note that when debates become heated, the best thing is to say "chao, buddy", and leave it for tomorrow when tempers are back down; very large comments usually just exacerbate heated discussions. Awickert (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Jehochman is a bit out of touch. At the behest of Blackburne, Sandstein has imposed a page ban that enforces my avoiding Speed of light. Whatever the merits of that action, it is clear. There has been no refusal to provide citations on my part. Rather, I did query Blackburne and DVdm as to what was to be established (never answered), as sources could not be found when their purpose was unclear. All attempts to get an answer were stonewalled, and as my requests were sharpened to specifically relate to particular text to evoke a response, becoming thus unavoidable, claims of disruption ensued rather than answers. The material appeared on the Talk page as an RfC, so there was no material to "remove". There was no "challenged content", only a challenged proposal for content. Jehochman is arguing about imagined events, and is unfamiliar with the real proceedings. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] EdChem, see here. Motion 3 was passed not long after this intervention by Jimbo. Reading the comments of the Arbitrators, it should be clear that this wasn't exactly something they decided to do all by themselves. Count Iblis (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Jehochman, I'm sorry about this long posting, but if I were to have limited to mentioning just the recent problems, then that would obviously have created the perception of me being "Brews' wingman". I'm not, there are issues with Brews as well and everything has to be placed in its proper context. About providing citations, I agree with AWickert that such requests be made with common sense. I would also ask Brews to be mindful that his vision of a perfect Wiki-article may not be shared by other people. Then, before spending a lot of time offline working on a figures etc., only to find out later that inclusion in an article is opposed, he should try to determine if his proposed edits fit in the article and if it would be welcomed in by the current editors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Count, if you are sorry about the long-winded (and short-evidenced) posting, fix it. Don't add to the length of the thread with more empty words. JehochmanTalk 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] So what would you be willing to read and respond to Jehochman? I'd be interested to know because all you are doing now is sidestepping the issues. Can you account for yourself? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am willing to read and respond to reasonably concise comments. Jehochman Talk 09:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Advocacy Forget I brought it up. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC) -- uncollapsed by Jehochman Talk 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week. (motion link)" Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions Has this motion been superseded? Protonk (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, see the motion below that one: Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare"). (motion link)". Since 4.2, as amended by amendment 3, expired at the end of June, that remedy is technically no longer in effect. Which, of course, does not preclude an administrator taking any action that they feel would be appropriate to maintain a proper editing environment. NW(Talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, right in front of me, thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Subsequent events show that relaxing this restriction has not been beneficial. It is virtually impossible for any administrator to even warn Brews ohare without his wingmen swooping in and starting a dogfight. I hereby propose that the community reinstate the above advocacy restriction. Jehochman Talk 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support as proposer. Jehochman Talk 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I find this extremely funny, you can't reply to arguments so you try to silence people. Typical behavior,I wouldn't expect anything less from you. {erhaps you can back up why this would be needed but i doubt it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I closed this for a reason. Dueling advocacy bans are a waste of everyone's time. My proposal is that everyone here who was party to (or listed in the final findings) of a giant arbcom case ought to take 10 steps back. Is this really a serious problem? Can discussion occur without sniping? Is there anything to be gained from admin attention. If this circus continues, I'm liable to prevent all parties from continuing to bicker over this. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I didn't realize you closed it. Sorry, I merely wanted the content to be visible; it was not my intention to revert a close. If you want to re-close could you leave this content uncollapsed? ArbCom is now considering the matter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion. The retaliatory proposal below is highly problematic because the other subjects of the proposed sanction were not notified, it is not workable to ban people from using arbitration (that will never be allowed), and, well, it's transparently retaliatory. Jehochman Talk 08:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Its ok. I'll comment there once I figure out where the salient place to do so is (the clarification or the appeal). As for the closing, I just wanted to put the brakes on what seemed to be a growing mess. Protonk (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Negative advocacy The community cannot revoke someone's ability to appeal to ArbCom. Perhaps ArbCom themselves could, but that's a matter for them. As such, this proposal is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Proposed editors John Blackburn, Jehochman and DVDm indefinitely restricted from harassing brews ohare or bringing Arb action unless uninvolved editors or administrators agree. Support as proposer.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Did you notify all the editors you are proposing to sanction? It seems unfair to not even tell them they are being discussed. Jehochman Talk 07:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] No but perhaps you can show me the notification you left myself or Iblis you were discussing sanctions on us. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support Agreed. From what I have gathered from this discussion, it really does seem to be bullying going on. SilverserenC 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support You should be ashamed of your behaviour in this case, Jechoman. Jtrainor (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose You should not, and cannot, ban people from using arbitration (or dispute resolution in general). As for harassment: all editors are already banned from harassing other editors. I agree never to harass Brews, and invite any editor to slap me silly if I ever do. Jehochman Talk 08:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Again if you want to accuse me of hounding, harassing or bullying you need to provide diffs. As for arbitration I could have been sanctioned then if my enforcement request were inappropriate, so that was the proper venue to challenge it. Throwing out vague and unfounded accusations now because you don't like the result of it is unlikely to achieve any result you desire.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your enforcement request was a approved, was it not? It is not "harassment" to make use of dispute resolution including arbitration and arbitration enforcement, especially when a request for enforcement is approved. Jehochman Talk 10:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Earlier today, Jehochman tried to prematurely close Brews ohare's appeal [54], and he removed the discussion where I raised concerns about his behavior [55]. I think users should be able to examine the appropriateness (of lack thereof) of Brew ohare's conduct without Jehochman's unhelpfully intimidating behavior which acts as a distraction [56]; it falls short of appropriate admin conduct. More light than heat is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Administrator Stifle closed the thread,[57] and you improperly reverted him.[58] I undid your interference.[59] Ncmvocalist, when you post a comment on this board, please give a complete, accurate description. Don't leave out important details. JehochmanTalk 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] When administrators like you are consistently bullying editors, the description is totally accurate. A legitimate appeal was made and both you and Stifle interfered - and that too, unnecessarily. Encouraging Stifle to misuse their tools, you clearly are unfit to be considered uninvolved, and the later edit does not excuse or justify your behavior. The bullying, along with your repeated disruptive advocacy in relation to this dispute needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ncmvocalist, I admire your enthusiasm, but you need to take a break. You're getting overwrought, throwing around accusations, calling people names, and generally lengthening this thread for no good purpose. Jehochman Talk 11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. This is a very poorly drafted proposal. As noted above, the first half of this proposal is completely superfluous, all editors are banned from harassment. The second half is very unclear - requests for enforcement are brought to WP:AE and enacted by uninvolved admins, so it also appears superfluous. If the intent was to say that Jehochman should be considered involved, that should have been clearly stated. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Question from a confused arbitrator Is there a reason that this issue is not capable of being resolved at WP:AE? Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ask Count Iblis. I am not sure AE would work, because various remedies from the case were terminated, apparently prematurely. JehochmanTalk 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Unless I'm terribly mistaken - which happens from time to time - all remedies providing for discretionary sanctions remain in effect. Discretionary sanctions seem to be what are being sought here. Steve Smith (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] So you mean I can just reimplement all the original sanctions, to remain in effect until the original expiry date of Oct 29, 2010? Seeing how Brews, Count and Hell IAB have all resumed exactly the same pattern behavior that lead to the sanctions, this would seem to be a fitting result. Comments from uninvolved editors please. Yes, I realize this discussion could be had at WP:AE, but the most convincing evidence is immediately above. I do not think there is a strong enough reason to move the conversation. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I haven't sanctioned anybody in the long history of this dispute. I'd rather not start now. (I'm also not a fan of discretionary sanctions - ArbCom should decide, not pass the buck.) How about Brews voluntarily avoids conflict on physics articles, and Count and HIAB voluntarily avoid getting involved in and Brews-related warning or sanction discussions. This would ease my concerns. Stay far away from the behavior patterns that lead to the arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd still like a question answered. How is our advocacy less valid because we agree with brews. You are putting us in a role that you have labeled us part of the problem but you have not answered any questions posed to you. How has Iblis or my own behavior violated policy? Face it your beef with us is disagreeing with you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The key difference is that we had an arbitration case. Brews and friends were sanctioned and told to stop the tendentious editing. (SeeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_and_disruptive_editing and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions #4.) It appears to me and to other editors that the same pattern which lead to arbitration sanctions has resumed. This thread clearly demonstrates the difficulties of even discussing the matter. I believe we'll be back at arbitration soon if things continue, and I doubt the arbitrators will be very impressed. How about you folks take my suggestions above that Brews avoid conflict on science articles, and you avoid interfering with any administrators who try to enforce policy. For my part, I am more than happy to go back to ignoring Brews, for the sake of peace on wiki. JehochmanTalk 07:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You are ignoring the point or missing it completely, no where in this discussion has Iblis or my own behaviors has our conduct been anywhere near tenditous other the the fact we disagree with you. I ask again that you submit proof this is hap[pening and the relevant policies we are breaking. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can't see how there can be an action at WP:AE when the arbitration sanctions have been lifted. There may well be a case for considering an ArbCom motion, as the behaviour that Jehochman is complaining about is very similar to the behaviour that lead to the orginal sanctions. Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments by uninvolved editors I think the clearest example of what is happening is given here (using link provided by dVdm below): Brews' RFC on TP. Let me attempt to summarize the responses of the various editors to this RfC. (I only mention the names of the editors who seem to be involved here.) First response is dVdm who raises two distinct objections. First, that the proposed change is OR, and second that it is in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Second response is John Blackburne who thinks that the sources provided do not support the proposed change, and therefore the change is OR. (Later he also adds the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK objection.) Third response does not think it is OR (or at least says it is "routine reasoning"), but does object to the verbosity. Fourth response does not address the OR issue, but does say that the proposed change violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Fifth response is Count Iblis who supports the inclusion and does not think it is OR or in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Sixth response thinks the proposed change violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and is generally too long and "article bloating." Seventh response objects to the section because s/he thinks it is wrong. There is more discussion, but this summarizes the views of all the editors who commented. I would point out the following. DVdm and John Blackburne are the only editors who argue against inclusion based on the OR complaint. In particular, there is no consensus amongst the editors who commented that this is OR. In my opinion the result of the RfC is a consensus that brew's proposed changes violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and should not be included as they are in that light. Therefore I would argue that DVdm's repeated removal of brew's content with comments citing OR is unreasonable and inappropriate. Now I think the problem stems from this. DVdm, and also John Blackburne, do not wish to discuss with Brews specific reasons why they would like to remove his content, but rather cite the OR policy without explaination when as shown by the analysis of the above RfC there is no real consensus that what Brews is adding is OR. This type of appeal to WP:OR leads, as pointed out by an editor in the RfC, to inappropriate sources being used to justify trivial comments, and significantly contributes to the "article bloating" effect. Seriously, it is absurd to claim that examples of classical mechanics that could be heard in lectures at any university and have been understood for hundreds of years are OR. That said the objection to the change on the basis of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK remains. IMO however, a large part of the preexisting article in question could be removed based on this same policy, and in fact also large parts of many existing articles on basic math and physics. Personally I don't think this policy is really so clear and relies essentially on a judgement call of whether content is provided to "inform" or "instruct." Given that this policy is somewhat vague and must really be interpreted on a case by case basis, the apparent consensus of editors in the RfC saying that the proposed change did violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK should have settled the matter. Brew's real problem is that he is unwilling to accept this. Holmansf (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments by involved editors My impression is that at AE you would take a very procedural approach and that would then also frame this issue very tightly to the Speed of Light case. But the issue I'm raising here is separate from this, although it may look similar at first sight. Here one can consider what is going on in the broader context of editing the articles in question. This AN/I page is being watched by many editors, so they can then give their opinion based on their editing experience on similar articles, as Awickert has done above. This sort of feedback is i.m.o. more useful than imposing sanctions on editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments by DVdm. Here's what happened in my view: 1-Aug-2010: WP:OR: Brews' edit on Redefinition of the metre in 1983. My removal. My informal OR-warning lvl 1 on user TP. My msg on article TP. Discussion on article TP. Brews' RFC on TP. Result: consensus to remove content. 6-Aug-2010: WP:OR: Brews' edit on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). My removal. My informal OR-warning lvl 2 on user TP. My msg on article TP. Discussion on article TP. Brews' RFC on TP. Result: consensus to remove content. 8-Aug-2010: WP:POINT: Brews' edit on Talk:Redefinition of the metre in 1983. Short discussion on article TP. Result: Nothing happens on article. 8-Aug-2010: WP:OR: Brews' edit on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). My removal. My formal OR-warning lvl 3 on user TP. My msg on article TP. Discussion on article TP. Result: content reinserted by Count Iblis (talk · contribs) In every OR-case in typical textbook/lecture notes style Brews inserts originally researched content of his own making, assembled from partly sourced or unsourced bits and pieces, and then insists on endlessly discussing on exactly what it is that needs sourcing and what kind of sources we want. The answer is of course trivial and can be found in the policy. No explanation by anyone seems to help, so, while we do our best to assume good faith, we have no other option than to assume that Brews has wp:NOCLUE about the basic wp:NOR policy. After the 3rd OR-case I really got bored with it, and I guess other contributors had a similar feeling, as nobody objected to the reinsertion of the material. I want to stress that I have nothing against Brews. I am not hounding anyone. I just try to keep some articles free of textbook formatted original research, in this case created by Brews. DVdm (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments by Brews_ohare I believe DVdm has a semblance of reality in observing that my procedure on the Centrifugal force article was to insert an example. Such an insertion is pretty commonplace in editing, I believe. It was promptly removed as WP:OR. I then requested on the Talk page an explanation for this classification, a very usual response, I'd say. The response by DVdm was that “If this is not OR, then it will be easy to provide one or more good sources for the entire section.” The subsequent brouhaha hinged upon this reply. What DVdm and Blackburne insisted upon was a source that actually presented the entire example. It was insufficient that every detail of the example was sourced, as pointed out later to Blackburne. It would have been helpful if the following discussion revolved about WP:SYN, which I now believe was the view of DVdm and Blackburne. However, I didn't grasp that, and thought the point was that something in the example needed to be sourced. Rather than point out their objective clearly as WP:SYN, these two simply beat on the drum that it was WP:OR and would not elaborate, no matter what questions were asked. I repeat, no matter what questions were asked. Although only a conjecture of mine based upon earlier behavior, IMO, the reason for this behavior was simply that these two editors did not want to argue the WP:SYN assessment, because it would go nowhere. Rather, they decided to create a furor and try to get myself banned for disturbing the Talk page, a strategy that worked very well for them on Talk:Speed of light. Why was resistance to this elementary example worthy of such extreme behavior? Why avoid a sensible argument and set up instead a political drama to avoid its insertion? Is that collaboration over content creation? Was all this drama really, as claimed, about avoiding insertion of an example, or was the example a vehicle for the drama? Brews ohare (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] As you can see here my first reply mentioned neither WP:SYN or WP:OR but did describe my concerns as well as I could. I got terser after that as I dislike repeating myself. I don't see how claiming it comes under synthesis rather than original research changes anything - they are both links to WP:No original research and so both come under that policy. The correct way to deal with synthesis/original research is to supply sources for it. And as for making a political drama of this it was you who raised an RfC, removed it 3 days later only to say you wanted another despite there being a clear consensus against you in the first one. And neither I nor DVdm raised it here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The only comment I have in reply to Brews' remarks is that I am not going to repeat myself again. There is nothing to explain beyond what is clearly and unambiguouly explained in WP:NOR (and thus in WP:SYN). DVdm (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Involved Admins are needed here I think a big issue in this particular case and more generally in case of disputes on some science articles, is the general rule that an Admin needs to be uninvolved. Here "uninvolved" means not being involved in editing the article. While for politics articles this is a good rule, for science articles this doesn't work at all. The reason is that the disputes on politics pages are often intimately related to the POVs of the editors and how aggresive they want to push their POV. An Admin obviously has more power and allowing the Adin to use his/her powers is obviously a recipe for disaster. On science articles, usually there are no POV issues. E.g. there is no POV issue about centrifugal force as there is about e.g. Sarah Palin. Editing disputes that then do arise on such science pages often have to do with issues that are not well visible from the outside. E.g. you can have an editor who does not understand the topic and that then causes irritation. I encountered such a problem last year on the entropy page. In this case, part of the dispute is that two editors are inappropriately invoking OR which casuses irritation. As should be clear, Jehochman did not understand what the source of the OR issue actually was. Otherwise he would not have threatened Brews with a site ban over the OR issue discussed here. He just made a judgement based on the warning Brews was given about OR from DVdm and the fact that Brews was the subject of an ArbCom case. Then, because I had said that Brews should ignore that OR warning and instead focus on the other complaints about his edits, I was found guilty by Jehochman of "advocating for Brews". Also, I see that on the ArbCom clarificaton page, Protonk, another uninvolved Admin, has supported Jehochman's "analysis". Another good example is the trouble on the climate science pages. When William Connolley was an involved Admin, there were some problems there, but not anything close to what we see today. Now, just imagine that in the early stages of Wikipedia we would have had only two editors on the Global Warming page, William and Scibaby, and Jehochman would have been the Admin. Then, it would have been entirely possible that Jehochman would have indefinitely blocked William for disruption :) . Of course, there may not always be an involved Admin present. In that case, I suggest that an Admin actually takes the time to involve him/herself in the relevant issues, before passing judgement. Commenting on the talk page and engaging with the editors there would certainly be a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm now satisfied that JohnBlackburne and DVdm did not intend to hound Brews Reading the comments by everyone, I now think that JohnBlackburne and DVdm were acting in good faith. It is plausible that checking the watchlist and looking at the diffs of the article, naturally leads one to focus only on newly added edits by Brews, which can be objected on the grounds of a very strict reading of OR, even if the whole article is already writen in this way. But I still maintain that the way JohnBlackburne and DVdm were arguing about OR did cause an effective hounding of Brews, albeit unintentional. Also the fact that Brews tends to argue for too long about not so relevant issues played a role here. As I tried to explain to him, if only two editors are raising the OR issue while most other are raising other, more easy to deal with objections, you should focus on those other issues to get the consensus you need. Jehochman's intervention in this case was not ok. We have Admins to solve problems not to create new problems or make existing problems worse. Count Iblis (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] WP:SOAP. This is not your soapbox. Please stop pestering and harassing me. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not pestering anyone. I just note that your intervention on the OR issue raised against Brews was not correct. I can also assume that you acted in good faith, i.e. to correct a problem that you thought was really there. But I think that an Admin should not rush to judgement and be more careful. Count Iblis (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's fine, but could you communicate more concisely? This thread has grown so long, few uninvolved editors will invest the time to read it and get all the background. How about we agree to close it, and go do something else. Everybody has had a chance to state their concerns. My concerns are satisfied. Jehochman Talk 03:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] "... the way JohnBlackburne and DVdm were arguing about OR did cause an effective hounding of Brews, albeit unintentional." => I cannot speak for JohnBlackburne, but as far as I am concerned, Count Iblis has it upside down. I did not argue about OR, but quite on the contrary, I intentionally refused to argue about OR, because there is nothing to argue about OR beyond the presence or the absence of sources. On the other hand, Brews has persistently (and i.m.o. disruptingly) attempted to argue over something inherently "inarguable". DVdm (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The reason I and other editors were drawn to the discussion was the RfC that Brews ohare posted inviting comments. In response to those Brews ohare and Count Iblis could have addressed my and DVdm's concerns, ignored them and tried to achieve consensus other ways, or accepted consensus was against them and moved on. To instead bring that debate here, justifying it by continuing to characterise our contributions as "hounding", is surprising even by their standards. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was seeing an escalation of that dispute that was heading toward Brews being permanently banned (because of an alleged OR issue), when the underlying issue was actually quite trivial. I, of course, agree that consensus can be achieved. I've been in similar disputes before, see e.g. here, where the underlying OR issue was far more severe. Count Iblis (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] PLEASE CLOSE THIS AS NOTHING USEFUL IS HAPPENING HERE The heading says it all. Jehochman Talk 03:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] All I want is that Brews be allowed to edit just like you, me and anyone else is. So, this edit made by me was never challeged on OR grounds, it is still in the article, the article has been translated to Spanish with this edit in there. It is clearly a useful edit made to the article. My concern is that had Brews made this particular edit instead of me, the edit would have been challenged by invoking OR in an unreasonable way, demanding citations specifically for the particular example given, when they can't be given, kicking of a dispute ending in Brews being booted out of Wikipedia (because he is on probation after the ArbCom case and is always assumed to be guilty until proven innocent). If you agree that it would be unreasonable for such a scenario to unfold, then I think the matter is settled. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would like Brews editing to be regularized, and I agree that he should not be subject to "headhunting". On the other hand, his history is a factor to be considered if new problems arise of the same nature as past problems. The two or three editors complaining in the current incident have no past interaction with Brews that I am aware of. Their complaints appear to be objective, not based on a vendetta. Good advice for Brews is to immediately listen to any complaints coming from such users, and do his best to accommodate them. As an expert in a different field (not physics), I can appreciate the challenge of responding to challenges from amateurs who ask for verification of something which seems obvious to me, but which might not be obvious to a non-expert. As a physics expert, Brews will have to overcome this challenge too. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

94.219.198.90 & 188.107.8.82

The IPs (which are used by the same person) are vandalizing topics by deleting sourced material (from reliable sources like government agencies and the UN), insulting other editors, using multiple IPs so the edits can't be tracked, using original research and POV.

• Talk:Logar Province - insulting in Persian language, "Kere Tajik da kusse nanet, KharKusszai.".
• Talk:Badghis_Province#Reverted_edits_by_94.219.198.90 - insulting in Persian language, "Kiram da kusse nane faishet".
• Talk:Badghis_Province#Reverted_edits_by_94.219.198.90 - Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation of Afghanistan (which has taken their data and stats from Central Statistics of Afghanistan and the United Nations) is used as a source, but the IP is using his/her own original research and ethnic POV. The user is not accepting the sources because he/she thinks the government is anti non-Pashtun, which is again POV.
• Logar - Four different sources have been used to support that Pashtuns are the predominant group in the province. 2 of the sources (USAID and Conflict in Afghanistan: a historical encyclopedia By Frank Clements) points out that Pashtuns make up the predominant/majority of the population and 1 of the source (MRRD/CSO/UN) clearly states that Pashto language, which is spoken by the Pashtuns, is spoken by 60% of the population. Understanding the War is another NGO, and it clearly states that Pashtuns make 60% of the population. All the arguments and sources have been presented in the talk page.
• Maidan Shar - The user removes the local name in Pashto language from the article, even though, the language is spoken by 85% of the population and the official name of the province is written in Pashto language. All explained at the discussion page, but the IP still ignores all the information and keeps up with his own ethnic POV. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have written more than enough for now. All some one has to do is go through the IP's contribution list and see it for himself (herself). The user is nothing but an IP vandal - using multiple IPs so he/she won't be tracked (84.19.173.195 , 94.219.198.90 , 188.107.8.82 are some of the IPs). (Ketabtoon (talk))

For any admin that wants to take a looks at this, Ketabtoon and these IPs have been apparently going at it for quite a while, reporting each other to AIV, etc. One of the IPs posted on my talk page that Ketabtoon is a "sock-puppet of banned User:Alishah, Khampalak, Afghan4Real and others", but I haven't made an effort to find out if this is the case. I would prefer not to be involved in this and have suggested dispute resolution to these two, but I am not surprised that it has ended up here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a member in here for over 2 years. Any admin who wants to go over a check user on my account, they are very welcome to do so. Along with Ed, I asked few admins to look at the IP's contributions and than decide. So far, it looks like no one has done so. Still waiting for some admins and wiki members to go over the IP's contribution.

So, I request an admin to do a user check on my account to clear my issue first. Once that is done, I hope they go over the IP's edits as well. Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ketabtoon, you are known by many loyal and good Wikipedians as a troll. You use sources that are not sources. You falsify articles by using every non-reliable source you can get and call it as reliable. You were vandalizing articles and gave contents of sources not as it was quoted. You just changed them to your own interpretation. Wikipedians like User:Tajik and many others, who are known for their good works are Wikipedia, have warned you many times. You remember when you vandalized in the article Ghurid Dynasty? You provided under different accounts poor sources that were not even half reliable you claimed and you estated that everyone, except you and your own-made sources, are wrong. When it came to the ethnical origine of Ghurids you were not able or you were able but you just changed the meaning and misleaded the original meaning of the sources. When Ghurids were used by 20th century scholars as Afghans than because they lived in the region that is known as Afghanistan since 1883, before that date known as Greater Khorasan. You did not want to accept scholaric and real reliable sources just they called the Ghurids as ethnical Tajiks/Persians. Your own nationlistic and ethnocentric POVs were demanded soon by three admins that warned you and you still do the same. You interprete or mislead the contents knowingly of sources for your ethno-POVs. Just let´s take a look on Badghis province as one of thousand proofs. In one source it is only spoken about the language that is mostly spoken by the people of Badghis, no matter to which nations and ethnicity they belong but when it came to the ethnical composition in the next source where Pashtuns make lesser than 30% but their language, as in the first source mentioned, is used by more than 50%, you mislead the meaning of the source and made it to 50% Pashtuns, due your ethno-POVs, while knowing that there are thousand of non-Pashtuns who speak Pashtu because of the large immigrations of Psahtun nomads who a small part of them settled there and are mostly surrounding non-Pashtuns and the Pashtunization movements of the past. http://www.nps.edu/Programs/CCS/Badghis/Badghis_Executive_Summary.pdf, http://www.mrrd.gov.af/nabdp/Provincial%20Profiles/Badghis%20PDP%20Provincial%20profile.pdf. The same goes for Laghman and Logar where Pashais, Tajik Barakis, Hazaras, Dardayals, Dewaris etc. are also forced to speak Pashtu, tough they could easily speak in their own native languages, but because of the surrounding by Psahtuns and large immigrations of them in their lands and cities. The rulers of the past were looking for nothing mre, except try to make out of all Pushtuns. These people, non-Pashtuns, but just they speak also Pashtu as their regional language, they are counted as Pashtu-speaker, while decreasing their ethnical number at the same time. For Wikipedia would be better and wikipedia would have a much better face when it would ban you from writing. You are a racist with strong Pashtun ultra-nationalistic views, you do not respect scholaric sources and withit the original meaning of Wikipedia and spit in the face of all Wikipedians and Wikipedia´s natural and original policy by falsifying articles, documents, using own POVs and sources and so on. Now, I see that you even write lies I´ve had insulted someone. You can not even speak Persian, how could you understand what I´ve written?? The admins should take a look on your´s and that of User toofan´s discussion page where you called all non-Pashtuns as bastards and gays in Pashtu. You think you can fool Wikipedians, but you can´t fool people who are related with Wikipedia and it´s policy. Dear admins, please forgive me that I am wasting space because this User above. Because all this writings are a bit childish. This Ketabtoon is 58 years old but behave like a child. Please forgive me I am engaged in it. Thank you --188.107.8.82 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake

This user has been blocked 3 times for adding absurd information of various kinds to the article, yet they just won't give up. They'll add unnecessary and occasionally libellious information on the subject, then edit war until they're temporarily blocked to keep it in the article.

If you look at the history of the page you'll see it's littered with reversions/undid edits of unsuitable content that the IP added.

A few specific diffs of questionable content:

• [60]
• [61]

There were also a few additions by this author to the article which have since been REVDELed for containing libellious content and I can't list them here for that reason.

This user needs a longer-term block and possibly a topic ban, as few of their additions to the article thus far have been encyclopedic. elektrikSHOOS 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for a fortnight. bibliomaniac15 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, they've gone from outright libel to just being a nuisance. I guess you could call that progress. Unblock request in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... Resolute 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

I'm also proposing a topic ban for the editor on Scott Oake and related articles, broadly construed. This would allow editors to bypass 3RR if they edit again on the page. (They have contributed positively elsewhere. But they've been blocked four six (nevermind, just four) times now for unhelpful edits to that article in particular.) elektrikSHOOS 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A simple solution to bypass 3RR. Enforcing a ban is just simpler than having to deal with disruption on individual events. Swarm^Talk 03:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It would be easier to enforce. (only been blocked 4 times. two of those log entries are me blocking talk page access for adding the libelous information back in through their unblock requests) -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clear message and comparatively easy enforcement. Favonian (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NCDane

I became aware of this editor’s contributions having seen this edit while watching recent changes. Noticing a spate of edits deleting cyrillic renderings of proper names with less than collegial edit summaries and that the user had received advice on the conventions surrounding inclusion of non-Roman characters in article mainspace, I warned them that continued disruption would result in a block. After NCDane resumed their removal I briefly blocked them with an explanation. Today in looking over the user’s contribs I find that they insist on applying their perspective of Wikipedia convention unilaterally. I am not arguing that we should should be thralls to the naming convention, but that NCDane should be discussing their differences of opinion in the proper venue and not in the article mainspace. My impetus for posting here is to discover if there are remedies available other than extended blocks or a ban. I'm not seeing any. Tiderolls 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the possibility of an editing restriction (that will be enforced through blocks, however), such as the requirement to discuss every edit on the article's talk page before making it or, finally, sort of a topic ban from removing those bits of info. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to remove this information after being informed about the naming conventions and being briefly blocked for continuing to do so constitutes blatant vandalism. Block 'em, Dano. (I know someone else used this earlier. Still good.) elektrikSHOOS 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yepp. block warranted... indef. This is the 2nd ANI thread, will be the 2nd block, and user insists on his "English only"-crusade. Hopeless case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to agree. He has few user talk page edits and they all say the same thing "I'm gonna keep doing what I want to do and screw you all". He also says that he will not stop until told to do so by official authority. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this here ought to be that authority. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we try an editing restriction? "User:NCDane is indefinitely topic banned from removing or replacing any non-English names (of people or otherwise) in any article. Any such edit will result in blocks of increasing length." Fences&Windows 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what remedies might be available, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

On one hand, I think NCDane's contributions have made some improvement over time: Starting with some quite nasty stuff, via [62], then removing dozens of non-English names, then (after warnings) a much smaller number of removals of non-English text.

On the other hand, NCDane's attitude is still a bit angry and confrontational.

In amongst this, I think NCDane has made some positive contributions too.

bobrayner (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fences and Windows; I think this situation would be better dealt with through an editing restriction, at the moment. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed for outing

Socks of blocked User:BarzanPDK18

• RedWhite100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• 64.110.203.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 207.47.163.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I reported these at WP:AIV, but there was a suggestion that I open an SPI case. I should think that WP:DUCK would apply. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I was the one who suggested the case at WP:SPI. If WP:DUCK applies here, then by all means, block away. No need for unnecessary bureaucracy. elektrikSHOOS 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Is anybody out there? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RonZ attacking and harassing?

Hi, user RonZ is posting aggressive items on my talk page. I don't understand his statements (they don't make sense) and being new, I don't know what to do, so I'm asking for help. I feel like he's harassing me within the guise of "discussion." What do I do? I've read the wikipedia guidelines very carefully and am trying to obey them. I've asked him for the specifics of where I've violated those guidelines, but instead he violates the guidelines, calling my work "nonsense" and calling me irrational and uncivil. Help? And how do I notify him that I'm asking for outside help? ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must notify any user you discuss. I have done this for you. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Non-admin view: Looks like the problem is you're trying to raise concerns about the page, and they (User:Ronz) Are shutting you down with "nonsense" or bluster techniques. My suggestion would be to appeal to the appropriate Wikiprojects and get them to weigh in on what appears to be a content dispute. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin too. In my opinion, Ronz is neither attacking you nor harassing you. He certainly could be kinder, but, the way I see it, there's nothing actionable there... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes, I could have been kinder and been quicker to ignore what appears to be baiting. These long-running disputes by WP:SPAs get old. At least the long-term partial-protection is keeping the ip's out of it. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. New editor, small number of edits, seems to have good knowledge of policies, cites WP:HAR, WP:BATTLE, WP:KEEPCOOL and talk page guidelines. Perhaps it might be possible that their knowledge of these policies came from having them cited to them in a previous existence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and painless resolution

• Calculator Tricks (AfD discussion)

There seems to be an obvious solution here, that one editor has boldly, albeit not strictly according to process, already enacted using ordinary editing tools. There's been some back-and-forth about early non-administrator closures. The outcome here is very probably uncontroversial, doesn't involve administrator tools to enact, and more time seems to be spent worrying over minutiae of non-admin-closure procedure than anything else. I've notified the holders of the remaining outstanding opinions, from before I pointed out the article that people now seem to be agreeing this should be a redirect to. (Perhaps this should be easier to find when starting from calculator.) Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been speedy redirect or even CSD - a no brainer as far as I see. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I did leave a sensible edit summary on the main article. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this, just because it seems obvious what the result would have been and because it's already been done. —fetch·comms 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chaser beat me by a few seconds :P —fetch·comms 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preciseaccuracy

User:Preciseaccuracy continues to attack other editors. The editor is relatively new and has been focused on including material on allegations of Israeli espionage at Art student scam. Things have not gone in their favor and the editor resorts to using multiple talk pages and noticeboards to accuse others of grouping together in scandalous manner. I had provided the editor with yet another reminder but the behavior continues.User talk:Preciseaccuracy#Reminder.

• [63] "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at their talk page
• [64] "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at AfD
• [65] New section titled "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
• [66] Refers to another editor's "phony drama" at the NPOV noticeboard
• [67] and [68] accusing others of diluting the discussion and making misleading comments at the NPOV noticeboad
• [69] and [70] Saying that Huey45 is a liar at Rschen7754's talk page
• [71] Saying that those at the AfD are only "politically motivated" at Fences and windows' talk page
• [72] A new section titled "Government Propaganda Organizations and Wikipedia" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
• [73] Says that it seemed that I "pretended to give in a little so that you could later recommend the deletion of almost the entire section at the article's talk page after I denied allegations of whitewashing and said that the editor needed to stop making such accusations.
• [74] An ANI titled "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli"
• [75] "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli" section at the article talk page
• [76] user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli at RomaC's talk page
• [77] Attempt to make Shuki look bad (pointing out the unrelated blocks) after Shuki removed potentially inappropriate talk page material[78] (a warning instead of removal would have sufficed, IMO)
• [79] Accusing Mbzi and others of "ganging up" to whitewash the article at Edit warring board.
• [80] Repeatedly calling Huey45 a liar at ANI
• [81] Saying Huey45 lied at article talk
• [82] Saying there was "politically motivated collusion" at the article talk page
• [83] Saying users are "colluding to sabotage article" at ANI
• [84] Section at ANI titled "User: Huey45 acting in “bad faith” and colluding with others to sabotage article “Art Student Scam” about the Suspected 2001 Israeli “art student” scam and spying"
• [85] and [86] Accusing editors of "ganging up" during an unblock request

I understand that the editor is new and actually think some pointed words are sometimes necessary. However, to continue to assume the worst of faith from other editors after being repeatedly asked not to is simply not acceptable. There is also behavior that borders on forum shopping with inquiries at several different noticeboards and talk pages. I understand that it can be hard for a new editor to take in all of the dispute resolution process but copy and pasting the same sources in at all of these noticeboards and talk pages is disrupting any chance that uninvolved editors will even look at what is going on. And they are certainly not worded as neutral requests for feedback.

It is my opinion that a block is necessary to encourage a rapid understanding that this cannot continue. A firm reminder from an admin might be a little less knee-jerk so that would be cool instead.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, User:Preciseaccuracy has posted his version of events to User talk:Jimbo Wales#Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested (say that three times fast!). I'd say forum shopping is a given. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else he should get a warning for his personal attacks on Huey45 (calling him a liar), a warning for canvassing on Jimbos talkpage, and a warning for disrupting wikipedia by repeatedly accusing anyone who disagrees with him of forming a cabal and being part of a conspiracy against him. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see on Preciseaccuracy's talk page that someone else seems to think Preciseaccuracy is a reincarnation of Factsontheground (talk·contribs) (who also edited as Factomancer (talk·contribs). Maybe a checkuser is in order? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? User:Factomancer isn't blocked or banned, and she hasn't been active for four months, so why should is a checkuser appropriate? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Evidently Factomancer is under an interaction ban with Mbz1 and Gilisa. Since Preciseaccuracy has interacted with Mbz1, perhaps a checkuser is appropriate to see whether Factomancer is evading her ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burpelson, should Huey45 also be warned, for this edit suggesting Preciseaccuracy is lying about being new to Wikipedia?

My Defense

Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. That is why I posted there. Before I began editing, an article about spying allegations in the U.S. had been twisted into being about a chinese tourist trap in China. This group of users is once again using the articlesfordeletionpage as a weapon to remove reliably sourced allegations and whitewash an article of references to Israel and the spying allegations. Below is a partial list of misleading tactics the group of users applies to the article "Art student Scam"

1. Continually Referring to allegations documented by reliable sources as myths and wingnut conspiracies.

2.Saying that the israelis were only typical israelis when they had military training that is far behond compulsory.

3. Saying that the allegations were completely dismissed when sources point to the allegations as inconclusive.

4. Saying that the Forward dismissed the spy ring when it was dismissing an entirely separate incident in Canada in 2004 while treating spying on the United States as inconclusive.

5. Users saying spying has been thouroughly debunked when only a one lone 12 sentence article claims to debunk it while later articles treat the allegations as inconclusive.

6. Saying art students are not Israeli.

7. Continuously attacking the reliability of the salon.com source while ignoring other reliables sources.

8.Forming polls in which friends of other users show up to leave three word or one or two sentence wp:idontlikeit comments as demonstrated on the talk page and more glaringly on both the first and second articlesfordeletion pages. Most glaringly on the first.

9.Users insulting me and linking to conspiracy websites on the talk page.

10.Users mistating information and then faking confusion.

It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins

The user above cptnono, at first pretends to be interested in adding reliably sourced material about the spying allegations to the article and then suddenly claims that the spying allegations portion should be cut down to only two sentences. Note: I only recently found out that meanwhile she had been attempting to get me topic banned.

Response to more of cptnono's links:

User huey 45 was directly lying

Huey45 says…

“I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. Huey 45 was repeatedly deliberately lying about the content of the sources, but my ai complaint didn't receive any attention due to friend of mbz1 gilisa showing up and diluting down the discussion declaring that most of the sources were unreliable. She was referring to haaretz, the Forward, the sunday herald, the newspaper creative loafing, Janes intellgence digest, salon.com, ect.

• With regards to mbz1, the comment about mbz1's "phony drama" was in reference to his above quote where he stated that I am making him sick with my additions to the article. Mbz1 is an editor whose block log goes off the page and has a history of harassing other editors, in some cases so much that they seem to have quit editing wikipedia and that mbz1 is banned from interacting with them. On my first day editing on wikipedia mbz1 goes out of his way to try to get me blocked, he completely deletes direct quotations, I even make concessions and agreed to leave out some of the direct reliably sourced quotations but mbz1 continued to revert. He said to address the issue on the talk page and stated that there had been some consensus, which as user:binksternet later pointed out, there was no consensus. I had carefully taken my time to read through the numerous sources in depth and had logically reasoned why the spy ring allegations don't fit the description of “urban myth” on the talk pages and the discussion board. Whereas mbz1's only response along with other users had been.

“I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)”

He then completely deleted a direct quote from a salon.com article. He didn't even bother to trim it down. Later mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring because he continued to remove the very same salon.com quote when user binksternet added it back in.

• With regards to my comment about shuki deleting my comment. My comment was about jiujitsuguy who suddenly showed up to vote without any previous involvement in the article and made a misleading statement that the salon.com quote was from a blog. I've done some digging since then and apparently jiujitsuguy is good friends with above user cptnono. I questioned why shuki is deleting my comments, apparently he is currently topic banned from editing articles about land and places in and around the country of Israel. He also seems to show up to make short agreement comments with mbz1.

My accusations of user broccoli colluding with mbz1 were justified as well. Only a few weeks before my accusation, on a completely unrelated article another editor had made these same accusations in detail.

With regards to the article "art student scam," Until brocolli nominated the article for deletion, his only two comments were 3 or 4 word votes stating his agreement with mbz1. Its interesting after months of no interaction with the article, brocolli suddenly showed up and stated his agreement with mbz1's proposal very shortly after mbz1 proposed it. Since then, the only other action that brocolli has taken is to nominate a reliably sourced article for deletion.

Once again, It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins. Jimbo's webpage is the most neutral place on wikipedia. Hence I made my appeal for external input into the articlesfordeletiong discussion there.00:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The pattern of personal attacks and forum shopping is indeed very worrying. Last warning for the user, then if personal attacks continue, I'd go with a short block. --Cyclopia^talk 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. — No. The most neutral pages would have been Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Village Pump. Jimbo's user talk page, in contrast, is often used by people who want to grandstand. It happens time and again. Uncle G (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: topic ban the user on Art students scam article

Last warning , short block? The user is a single article account. 99.99% of her edits are in one way or another connected to the article in question, and at least 80% of her contributions are either forum shopping, or personal attacks,or filing unwarranted AN/I reports or jumping to Jimbo talk page (today's post was not the first one), and so on, and so on, and so on. The user should be topic banned for that single article she spends so much time at. It is only for her own good because sometimes she takes only 4 hours break in 24 hours. On August 1 she was given the last warning by User:Fences and windows "I chose what I respond to, and when. You need to stop badgering people including me, and you need to stop forum shopping. If you do not voluntarily take a break from editing and discussing this article, then I will request a formal editing restriction to temporarily ban you from the page. The amount of time and energy you are spending on this single article is completely unhealthy, and you are becoming increasingly disruptive to collaborative editing".

So how many more "final warnings" the user should be given?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 month topic ban on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef topic ban, since it is clear to me that nothing will change. Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the users own good. Seems to have an unhealthy obsession--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more context on user mbz1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is relevant because...? Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preciseaccuracy, I have already told you once: stop counting my blocks. It is none of you business. Better count your positive contributions, if any. have you heard about WP:NOTTHEM?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow brocolli, your managed to comment only 11 minutes after mbz1 this time. I wonder...Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of wp:AGF?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm not sure what Precise's prior block history is if he/she ever used another account or IP address, but expect that bears little on the proposal. Seems like a red herring, given his response above. If someone agrees, I invite them to delete his comment and Broc's response ... and, as a sign of good faith, encourage him to do it himself. If Mbz were the subject of this proposal, I would of course have had a contrary view.--Epeefleche (talk)

Red Herring, that's the word for it, the allegations of spying were pushed to the bottom in favor of an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it is disappointing that PA has failed to acknowledge that the behavior may not be acceptable. Choosing to deflect is even worse. A short block might be a great idea but I might be overreacting. We should probably not restart the mudslinging and let some admins take a look.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And since it can be hard to AGF sometimes: No, I did not email anyone or ask for any assistance.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow mbz1's other friend/defender epeefleche stops in only a few minutes later. Just like this other time mbz1 was accused of collusion by another user....http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=372294357 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You edited at this discussion before I did. Are you suggesting that Mbz notified you, or that Broc did so? Or ... is this just a red herring, to deflect attention away from the focus of this thread?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I really don't think that's necessary at this point in time, especially when there does appear to be some sort of malignancy toward the article, of which i'm also noticing in the AfD. Silverseren^C 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"malignancy toward the article"? What in the world are you talking about? This is proposal about a disruptive user, not about the article. I find your comment completely offline.I do not hide my dislike of the article. That article should not have been written in the way it was. That article is a bunch of non confirmed conspiracy theories as it is clearly seen from this document see page 18. Please also notice the name of the document. It is how that article should have been named. And it was my last comment here.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the 9/11 link should probably be spun off into a separate article and have a link to it from the appropriate summarized section in Art student scam. But the rest of the article itself seems appropriate to me and doesn't appear to be unbalanced at all. From what I saw on the talk page, parts of the article were continually being picked at and dismantled and there were comments made, like yours, about deletion of the article. It is understandable for Preciseaccuracy, as a relatively new user, to worry and panic about the integrity of the article and I can easily see how s/he came to the conclusion that there is a "cabal" of users out there that are against the information proposed in the article. I think people on all sides need to tone things down and everyone should have a cup of tea, yourself included. Silverseren^C 04:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split. However, I do not agree with your assessment. The article was relativity stable until PA read the Salon piece and decided to change the scope. There was no evil shenanigans. I even attempted to expand the espionage bit but realized it was not possible to make the editor content and reversed my position. I received a little personal attack for that. So even if PA was right in feeling that editors were ganging up, it is not appropriate to handle it with personal attacks, filibustering, and forum shopping. PA's transgressions need to be looked at by themselves, but even if the perceived faults of others are considered it does not excuse the behavior.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations and not 9/11. You added an entire section about 9/11 to the article about spying allegations.

The adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york, once again your whole argument rests on one or 2 sources and ignores these.

• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/ Insight

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Salon.com
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html Janes Intelligence
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
• 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york" Oh, thank you so much for opening my eyes on that matter. How that "pro-israel lobby" could even think about campaigning against building a mosque at ground zero, where 3,000 innocent people got murdered by Islamic terrorists?! If I only new how sinister that adl really is, I would have never ever linked to it site.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you, Preciseaccuracy. Since it wasn't you that added in the 9/11 info, would you be fine with that info being removed and split off to its own article? Silverseren^C 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she would not mind to split, after all instead of one conspiracy theory there will be two. I assume you were so busy looking for "malignancy toward the article" in my edits that you have missed this very interesting exchange, and now I am really outtahere, and going to have a cap of tea before an admin offers something much stronger to me .☺--Mbz1 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better answered at the article's talk page?Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that a major part of PA's panic from what I can see, besides that about the AfD, is about the addition of material that makes it that much easier to say that the article is unreliable. Which the 9/11 info does. Silverseren^C 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the panic should not have lasted this long or been vented as it has been. We can discuss 9/11 at the talk page where sources correlating the two can be provided. Actually, the source was first presented by PA.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 9/11 was first referred to in march http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&oldid=347356423#September_11_allegations

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize. I was trying to say the 9/11 line I added was per the sources you presented. My bad if it looked like I was misrepresenting the article history. That is still better discussed on the talk page and not here. So do you have any other response to the diffs presented? If you think your actions were totally acceptable then it is time to see if an admin wants to give you another warning or a block. Not sure if either will happen but I think it is clear that at least one of those options is necessary.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was also already mentioned in the version of the article that existed right before I started editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I added this quote from Haaretz regarding the washington post article. It seems relevant to the Israeli espionage allegations. What do you think Silver seren?[reply]

" Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly."[7] " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1's 9/11 section has already been removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=376086286&oldid=376086173 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the haaretz quote was trimmed down to

" Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about this version

Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious.... According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad.." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you answer the question I had for you above? And Cptnono is right, this isn't the place for specific source discussion. Silverseren^C 06:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only part mentioning 9/11 is the haaretz quote. Someone also added a link to a 9/11 advance knowledge debate. I think that the link to the 9/11 advance knowledge debate should be deleted. I think some other user added that link when mbz1's 9/11 section was deleted.

I think the haaretz and forward quote that connects the alleged art student spying to alleged spying through a moving company in the same year seems relevant to the spying allegations and should be kept, but I'm willing to make concessions, that could be split off into a separate article about spying allegations through the company "urban moving."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Suggestion to PA - I can't remember precisely, and frankly I'm too distracted in other matters to look into this fully, and look up the specific guidelines or policies I cite, but from reading your posts here, 3 come into mind. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and most of all, WP:NPA. PA, nothing you do here is really winning you any points, but rather the opposite. You are showing the community that you are incapable of assuming good faith, and therefore your editing here falls in the category of disruptive. Therefore, I suggest you stop commenting here, and accusing of those who do of either being sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or some kind of cabal. I can assure you, that if you do not, you will likely end up as another user who I remember quite well; Frei Hans (talk · contribs). For any who do not know, this user started a disruptive tirade(I'm sorry if this word is uncivil, but I cannot think of a better verb) of bad-faith accusations against what some would call 'the community as a whole'. Simply, they accused everyone that tried to help them or inform them of the relevant policies and guidelines as either being a sock or meatpuppet of a user or users who previously did such. As was stated, they were banned... granted, this happened after they appeared as a sockpuppet and began doing the same thing again, after they were previously indef blocked for the behavior noted above.

Either way, to the point of this post, I suggest you stop posting here, and accusing people of things. Another one would be to listen what the experienced editors here have told you, and try to follow suit. Continuing to assume bad faith will likely end for you, how it did for Frei Hans.

Anyway, back to research. I likely won't comment here again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most users on wikipedia are acting benevolently. With regard to this article. This is unlikely the case. A reliably sourced article is being nominated for deletion due to a group of users wp:idontlikeit comments.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To someone who both thoroughly looks through the sources and then looks at the comments that that this group of users have made it should be obvious what has been going on. Just look at the diff. that was the result of the first nomination for the articlesfordeletion page. Once again, notice how the focus had shifted from being about spying allegations in the United States to being about an unrelated tourist trap in china. Also, notice how the inconclusive spying allegations are pushed to the bottom of the page and stated to be an urban myth despite the description of most sources both early and later of the spying allegations being at the very least inconclusive.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Topic/article bans that are initiated by and largely supported by opponents in said topic area are unlikely to be of any value. A user RfC where this user has an opportunity to receive feedback from uninvolved editors and (hopefully) be receptive to their input may be better here. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Note - I'm involved. Considering how editors are ganging up to try to get this article deleted, and the same editors are trying to get Preciseaccuracy topic banned, this is an appalling proposal. Not liking a topic and trying to get opponents banned is a terrible approach. I did say that Preciseaccuracy needed to stop forum shopping (and they do need to), and I even drafted an AN/I case myself last week, but I found that the case against them was remarkably weak and shelved it. The problem is that Mbz1 and others view their position of labelling this an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" as "The Truth" (the ADL says it, so it must be true), and thus they assume that anyone who wants to add details about the espionage allegations to Art student scam must be anti-semitic. Nice well poisoning. Fences&Windows 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think independent uninvolved editors should get involved with respect to improving (or deleting) the article in question and moving (or not) relevant and sourced information on the spying question to somewhere suitable. In the meantime, Preciseaccuracy's behavior issues are a separate question, and the forum shopping, single purpose editing, and general badgering needs to be addressed. As an uninvolved editor, a couple of things seem clear to me: first, if there is an "art student scam" that is possibly worth a separate article, though I doubt it, that's entirely separate from this particular incident. Second, the incident seems to be pretty unconfirmed and is likely evidence of general paranoia in the media after 9/11 than of anything else. But I've only read about half the sources - enough to suggest to me that Preciseaccuracy's summary of them is anything but precisely accurate - but not enough to give me a firm opinion as to where and how this information should be handled.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeReading more of the sources might leave a better understanding of the notability of the topic, and the AFD history indicates a general dislike of the article's subject rather than objections based on notability, on the part of some editors. The muzzling of the one editor in question seems a bit overdone in a topic dispute. We go from "IDONTLIKEIT" to "TOPICBANANYONEWHODISAGREESTOOLOUDLY." Edison (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, thank you for founding Wikipedia and thank you for your input in this matter. Could you please explain why you seem to believe that my characterization of the spying allegations as inconclusive is unfounded? The majority of the sources seem to be of this view and some of the original sources such as the guardian that reported it don't seem to have run corrections. Some of the sources are from several years later and most of the sources are from 2002. True there was paranoia around the time of 9/11, but the 60 pg. dea document and ncix bulletin were created months before 9/11. The focus of the article is the spying allegations. I strongly stand by the accusations I've made above about the group of users, and they are very valid.

Anyway, if independent uninvolved users stay with the article, I have no problem taking a break from defending it against deletion and editing it for a while. I felt there was no way for me alone to save a reliably sourced article from a group of users who wp:idontlikeit than to take my concern to your talk page. I didn't want to see a reliably sourced article I've spent a lot of time working on deleted. This isn't the first time that a group of wp:idontlikeit users have stopped by to overwhelm the article with there numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam and likely won't be the last.

The result of the firs articlesfordeletion discussion shifted an article about spying allegations into an article about an almost unnotable Chinese tourist trap.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Once again, my concerns about the above users are very valid. However, I will respect your wishes and will soon voluntarily take a break for at least several weeks from editing. The process of constantly defending this article and having to correct the constant misrepresentation of sources by a group of users has been somewhat draining. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, I do however think it would be a great injustice to topic ban me from the article. I have acted in good faith in pointing out the obvious fact that a malevolent group of users has been attacking this article because of their wp:idontlikeit views. If anyone should be sanctioned, they should be sanctioned a thousand times over before me.

You would be setting a very bad precedent topic banning me. Basically, you would be setting the precedent that groups of users acting in political coordination to delete reliable sources would have free reign over wikipedia to bully articles. These users when confronted with what they are doing by an individual user could then ban that individual user to in effect silence that user. Mbz1 and others may say assume good faith;however, in his case it would be utter foolishness to assume good faith with him and his friends. It is absolutely clear that their intent is push propaganda and delete reliably sourced inconclusive spying allegations that they find offensive.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if independent editors take over editing the article, I would feel releived to take a break from wikipedia for at least a few weeks. Not because of any accusations of wrongdoing against me, but because I've already spent so much time on wikipedia in recent weaks that I feel that I should take a healthy break soon.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time away regardless would serve you well, Preciseaccuracy. And when you return, editing quietly, respectfully and collegiately will serve you better. 86.159.91.201 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shining light on the issue of a group of users colluding to delete reliable sources from wikipedia. If I take a break before independent editors become involved, in a few weeks the article with either be deleted by this group of users, or the focus may once again shift from inconclusive spying allegations in the United States to an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. Or perhaps, they'll shift the focus to discussing paint brushes in England or some other topic that is not reasonably connected to the spying allegations.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break and worry about it when you come back. That's the point of taking a break. It's Wikipedia. Things that are done can be undone, or brought up for debate, etc. Take a step back for a while and relax. This is nothing worth getting so worked up over. Hazardous Matt (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per --Jiujitsuguy. The SPA (is that sockpuppet account or single purpose account?) one man crusade on this article is not real. I would not be surprised if this editor does 'take a break' from editing. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SPA - Single-purpose account. -- Atama頭 01:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above and per Mbz1. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the fact of the user only taking a 4 hour break out of 24 as mentioned at the top of this discussion and Fences' "final warning", this is definitely for the person's best interest to get perspective on life. As someone who knows alot about heated discussions I must say from experience that a forced break does do a good thing for your mental health. Regardless of what other editors may be doing and how they are "ganging up" on PA (or not) this is about PA's actions and their actions ONLY. This most definitely is not a place to rehash the discussion that led us to this point, AN/I is not dispute resolution; and more importantly this is not a thread on the other users. If you think they need "punishment" as well then bring a complaint about them separately, dont try to muddy the waters. Also as a sidenote supporting PA- going to Jimbo for his opinion is not forum shopping at all, it may sort of be canvassing however depending on whether the editor truly believed Jimbo would be on "their side" and it was the intent that he would come to the discussion to vote! in their support, if it had been worded more carefully simply asking Jimbo for his ideas, input, suggestions, personal beliefs, then it would not have been canvassing either.Camelbinky (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The editor has come across as somewhat aggressive no question about that, but he is mellowing and has always been more than ready to provide sources and participate on Talk. As noted here and at the AfD there has been a tendency for some to work seemingly in concert to dismiss this editor's contributions, and this may have fueled his frustration and sent him off looking for input from uninvolved editors. I don't see this as disruptive behavior per se, and I hope some of the uninvolved editors on this page and the AfD will look into Art student scam and offer their opinions. (I support splitting the article into 1) an article on the allegations of an espionage ring and 2) an article on the student paintings scam, and remain willing to work on this if other editors will help out). RomaC ^TALK 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the user post to Jimbo' talk page from yesterday: "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" . It is what you call "mellowing"? Really? --Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per --Jimbo. His assessment is pretty close to how I feel about it. [87] The response from the user after I unknowingly stepped into this minefield was very surprising to me and with that and all the identical long postings at so many locations is disruptive. This in addition to an apparent unwillingness to listen to a uninvolved opinion makes me doubtful that the user will have positive contributions to this topic. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is AliveFreeHappy's opinion

"This would NOT qualify it for it's own article"

"Most of the links that can be found that purport to substantiate this topic are obvious conspiracy sites"

He ignores that the majority of both earlier and later sources that treat the spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive. He ignores the later sources, The forward, haaretz, Insight, the sunday herald, salon.com, democracy now, Janes intelligence digest.

He stated that there was an "overwhelming body of evidence" dismissing the allegations. The only source to claim to dismiss the allegations was the 12 sentence washington post article that didn’t even bother to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document. He ignored the ncix warning.

I ask him to provide this “overwhelming body of evidence” that he claims refutes the notability of the spying allegations. He refuses and then he again refers to conspiracy theorists.

I highly recommend reading through the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_third_party_input_on_.22Art_Student_Scam.22_article_Split Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And above is a prime example of how the user behaves - this is exactly why I support the topic ban. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose-Whatever happened to WP:AGF and WP:NOTCENSORED?Smallman12q (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One leaves to wonder, if Smallman12q understands why the ban was proposed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the content the discussed user has added to the article. It is her entire disruptive behavior that started, when she came, and has never stopped, that prompted the request. I'd suggest the closing admin would ignore such votes as the one above. The user's vote clearly demonstrate they did not read the thread, and do not know what they are talking about. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm befuddled by the fact that my oppose vote has warranted such an uncivil response. First off, I'd like to point out that your red herring response is not only an appeal to ridicule, but it is also ad hominem. I would like to point out that you too have made several hostile attacks toward the user.

When the user had less than 30 edits, he made this post to your page:

Why did you delete my post. The article in your version has a strong bias and the quotes I inserted added extremely relevant information. The link to the DEA document was necessary. The salon quotes added a lot of depth. Salon is a very credible source. In 2002, the year the article was writtent Salon won numerous awards including 2002 "Best Print and Zine" Webby Awards "Best 50 Web Sites" Time Magazine "Best of the Web Book Clubs" Forbes "Outstanding Digital Journalism Overall Coverage" GLAAD

In response you made this hostile response in which you said:

I do not want to see you at my talk page ever again

I do not want to see you at my talk page ever again not under any circumstances. Is that clear? In a meantime I'd like to share with you my favorite quote by Oscar Wilde "There is no sin except stupidity". I hope you like it too.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the user's talk page at User_talk:Preciseaccuracy#Please_stop, you left a message "You are edit warring on the article, and you vandalized my talk page. I will revert you know, and if you reinstall your changes, I will report you. BTW I would not like to see you at my talk page."

Then at User_talk:Preciseaccuracy#Have_you_had_a_prior_account, when you question if the user had a previous account, the user responds in a civil manner stating:

Why are you attacking me? I don't know all of these rules. I thought that I was supposed to comment on your talk page. Is there a better way of communicating on wikipedia? I feel like your vandalizing my work. This is the first account I've ever created. I created it this morning. I was reading about the russian spy scandal and then looked up other ones. This article appeared to be missing a lot of facts so I'm trying to improve it. Your excuse for deleting my hard work was three letter pov. Hue deleted my work because he claimed that my source wasn't credible without even looking at it but it clearly is as it has won numerous awards including best website from time and awards for independent journalism.

The poor user who appears to be interested in balancing the article has been subjected to hostile harassment...despite the user's citation of reliable sources. The user has attempted to make use of multiple avenues in order to have their argument heard...I don't see how this can be considered an "unhealthy obsession"...(you're equally determined to shut the user down). You haven't explained what wrong with the fact the user is working on only one article...are SPA's prohibited? I'd also like to offer some praise to User:Preciseaccuracy for sticking around despite all the hostility they've had to endure.Smallman12q (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ha-ha-ha.Thanks for the good laugh--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since PreciseAccuracy has decided to take a break, can this be closed? Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could a user take a break and avoid the ban? I do not think so.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A topic ban is a last resort. Preciseaccuracy has been blocked only once, a month ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been following this since the last ANI discussion on this article. A topic ban should be for an absolute last resort. PA believes they have a valid opinion on the article and, yes, is being quite stubborn on the matter, but they're not the only one. The AFD is particularly heated. Let PA take a break, cool their head, the AFD can move forward, if the article survives consensus can take shape, and if PA's attitude doesn't change once they choose to return then restrictions should be discussed. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Preciseaccuracy appears to be upset and determined that people listen to his argument, however this is not surprising to me. It does appear as though he has a legitimate grievance regarding this article, and it does appear to me at least as though people are claiming synthesis when there is none. There has also been some evidence of "sabotage" of this article, so to speak, described further at the AfD. I do not think that Preciseaccuracy is the only player in this particular battleground, not by a long shot. He appears to have made a number of logical arguments that are being disputed, in some cases, with misdirections and smokescreens (whether this is deliberate or just a matter of narrow POV I do not know). I would be upset too. It is good that he has decided to take a break so that he won't become further upset and start becoming truly disruptive. I do not think he has been disruptive yet and does not warrant a topic ban. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been disruptive. A topic ban may be too rash but it dos need to be made clear that some changes are needed.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" is not the right word. If I did .25% of what she did, I would have been banned for good, but of course that user and that article finds lots of sympathy around Wikipedia that is very unfair, but not surpising at all. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of User:Mario96

I wish I knew why kids with fantasies of non-existent Disney Channel programming and other juvenile entertainment media always seem to have dynamic IPs. This particular individual has been popping up quite a bit as of late with hoax articles on imaginary TV series mixing plots and characters of current Disney Channel programming complete with taxoboxes and lists. He's fairly easy to spot, but he's been getting more active and disruptive as of late. In all the years I've edited this site, I've never proposed a ban before now; I hope this is the place to do it. If not, any admin may feel free to alert me or to move the proposal to its proper place. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is the place to do it. I'd support a community ban.

I should also point out that vandalizing Disney-related articles feels like the work of BambiFan. Does anyone else get this vibe? elektrikSHOOS^{(editing from a public terminal)} 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a couple of titles that Bambifan101 tends to vandalise, from a couple of accounts, but I suspect that if two individuals targeted the same subject (Disney Channel) then this would happen. I didn't see any non Disney subjects that Bambifan101 is inclined to "edit", so I don't think it passes WP:DUCK. As for Mario96 et al, I would support a ban - if only as a deterrence for the next Disney fixated potential vandal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is de-facto banned, and wouldn't argue with anyone that wanted to make it formal. He's not Bambifan though: he has a distinctive style.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 3

I expected closures by now. Only 3/12 are closed. Anything wrong? Reposts I missed? -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the administrators you are looking for. –xeno^talk 20:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't get this. I was expecting 42. Those admins. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, for serious, can someone give me a hint? -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're waiting for an administrator to stop by and close them. =) Technically, something like this belongs at WP:AN, because there's no incident, per se. There is some discussion as to whether there is a shortage of admins, if that helps. But a lag time of a couple days at TfD isn't too problematic. –xeno^talk 22:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, HAL. I'll look at it this way. I expected the keyboard-happy AfD-watchers. I put a close/fixed here now. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GORIZARD and image copyright problems

GORIZARD (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

User:GORIZARD has a talk page full of notices informing him that his image uploads do not adhere to our copyright and image policies. These are as recent as yesterday and go back to over a year. As he evidently cannot or will not understand, someone needs to have a word with him and block him if he continues. He also creates articles of questionable notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero usertalk contributions shows no interest in acknowledging the issue. I propose a short block if nothing else seems to work. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 21:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since GORIZARD only edits sporadically, any block would have to be long enough to get his attention no matter when he returns. I would suggest a one-month block in hopes of getting him to respond. The block could be lifted if the editor would join a discussion and agree to follow our policies. He has a Commons account and he was blocked for a week there. Apparently he did not discuss anything on Commons either. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 month; any admin can unblock if they convince you that they understand and will abide by image and copyright policy going forwards... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad image

How do we get an image listed as a bad image and restricted? File:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-female.jpg is being used to vandalize an unrelated article and a user page. It's exactly what it says it is, so there's no need to click if you're squeamish. I don't have time to sort this out myself (other than block the offender), so I'd appreciate a bit of help from another admin. Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link, chummer. :) —Jeremy^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the appropriate place is MediaWiki:Bad image list. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. Maybe we need to group them under First Aid, in the category, "Images to look for if you need to induce vomiting." ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, that one's not so horrible; just think of the gynecologists who have to deal with that sort of stuff every day. As someone who's seen a Latino man completely cyanotic (drowning victim), and seen a car crash victim bleeding to death on the road in front of me (those two within three weeks of each other, mind you) without flinching, I can say that one isn't too awful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

Well, yeah. As someone who has not ever seen either of those two things, let alone within three weeks of each other, I can see why it might be considered a shock image. The vandal in question apparently was using it as such, likely because tubgirl images would get deleted on sight. Şłџğģő 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tubgirl". Thanks for that mental image I had suppressed until now. Scarred for life... Doc9871 (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnj stevenson uploading copyrighted images after multiple warnings (relisting)

(relisting)

Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 6 copyrighted images for use at Susana Martinez, all of which he claimed as his own work even though they really came from professional sources such as the Associated Press. All images were speedily deleted. He has been warned (warning, warning, warning) but has again uploaded after these warnings. He also removes the deletion tags from his images without explanation, and has also been warned about this but persists in this behavior. How about a block on this user? Thanks. --75.211.134.137 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll try something different on this one. If he uploads another copyvio after this, then I would recommend a block. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs)'s more detailed warning against copyvio, Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded another copyvio image. Further he deleted the speedy deletion tag from this image at least three times, after being warned about this also. How about a block on this user? --75.211.245.115 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block imposed. Any administrator may unblock if Johnj stevenson indicates convincingly that they understand the policy and will abide by it in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block but lenient as they've never responded on their talk page or elsewhere. If they continue, I'd suggest an indefinite block, which, like the week block, can be unblocked just as quickly as they can convince an Admin about their good intentions in the future. Any block like this can generally be as short as the editor wants it to be, all they have to do is comply and communicate. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedia2007z

Pedia2007z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - persistent addition of controversial materials to the page of Andrew Li. Andrew Li is currently the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, and is accused by the user of lying and covering up the wrongdoing of fellow judges. No reliable sources are provided. His edits have been reverted a number of times, and despite multiple warnings, the user has persisted in adding the defamatory material. The user has done the same thing to the Chinese version of the page: [88]. Edit-warring.

Clean edit: [89]

User's edit: [90]

Can administrator intervention stop the user's disruptive editing on the Chinese page as well?Craddocktm (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

section removals

Move along, nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I just saw a section where an editor was just asking about the policies at WP:SOCK andwhether admins haveto follow them too and it just got removed without a resolution. I thought people were nicer than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.131.255 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It was resolved: with the exception of yourself every editor who commented agreed that the IP tagging an established editor as a sock puppet, without having the balls to do anything other than tagging, had acted inappropriately. I removed the section per WP:DENY. TFOWR 09:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin tools required to revert mass move

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

User:Schwyz has moved a very large number of Swiss and Austrian article names from titles such as "X (district)" to "X District". In most cases, the new titles ar incorrect per WP:AT, as these are not the most common name for the districts: in most cases the placename X alone is used in English writing, and the form X District is a Wikipedia-only invention.

Could some admin please return these articles to their original titles for now, pending a properly advertised and attended discussion in the spirit of WP:BRD? The moves in question are to be found here. Many thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specific than WP:AT is WP:NCGN. See Talk:District#Article_naming - "X (district)" is only used by German speaking countries. I strongly object that they get there own way of article naming. They can do so in de:WP, but not here. Schwyz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've received your information about this on my talk page - has there been any attempt to discuss this specific concern with Schwyz (talk · contribs)? And which articles exactly were moved? I can't immediately see them in the contribs. Sandstein 10:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, in view of the user's talk page as well as [91] and [92], it is clear that many users have voiced concerns about Schwyz's rapid mass page moves. I advise Schwyz to be receptive rather than dismissive to these concerns (even though i have no opinion about their merits) and to discuss mass page moves with relevant wikiprojects before making them. If Schwyz does not take that advice, I recommend opening a WP:RFC/U. Sandstein 10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you want to push your content dispute, and your German naming scheme by WP:RFC/U? Take care you are not blocked for these actions. This is near to harassment. You have good company with Dpmuk then. As for discussing with the relevant projects first: If no one discusses, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Austria#Districts - then what to do? Schwyz (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here it gets really funny: You were involved in Talk:Districts of Switzerland and didn't object to move away from "Something (district)" - And now you want to file RFC/U because they were moved away from that rare naming, mostly seen for Germany-related articles only? Schwyz (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Austrian districts you waited 17 minutes between posting your suggestion and starting to move the articles. That does not constitute a reasonable amount of time for discussion. Knepflerle (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention significant amounts of discussion on their talk page. I make it at least ten editors that have commented there now in one form or another. As mentioned at requested moves I'm minded to start an RfC/U if I can get someone else to certify it with me. I'll start working on a draft later today unless anyone beats me to it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harrasing me, you never contribute anything to article name discussion. The only thing you do, is when other people do not agree with some of my page moves, you pop up and request WP:SPI, WP:RFC/U etc. Schwyz (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No your right, I've not commented on any of your move discussions (at least in part because you've started so few) but I do regularly comment on move requests. The reason I haven't commented on any of your requests / moves is that for most of them I do not have a strong personal feeling. However being a reasonably regular contributor to requested move discussions I know a controversial move when I see one and in my opinion most of your moves are controversial and so should be discussed first. I've tried discussing my concerns with you but you've told me to stop posting to your talk page. As to my mind you still haven't addressed my concerns I've gone to the next step in the dispute resolution process. I fail to see how following that process is harassment, and indeed you've already been told in a previous ANI thread that it isn't, so please stop accusing me of it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the last moves of mine you have a problem with? And in the way, you do not engage in discussion, because you do not have a strong personal feeling others don't. With respect to the large clean up work I did only few people raised concerns with the changes. And often when I went to Project pages no one answered, e.g. e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Austria#Districts. Schwyz (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out above, 17 minutes on a single Wikiproject page is not sufficient for discussion. These proposals must go through WP:RM. Knepflerle (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as these are straightforward moves, with no additional edits on the redirect pages, you don't need to be an admin to move them back. Also, admins don't have any additional speedy-move tools. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Also, admins don't have any additional speedy-move tools." - ah, I believed otherwise and that was precisely why I asked here. I seemed to remember a tool for multiple moves akin to the normal rollback being mentioned once, but my memory must be deceiving me - apologies.

However, the lack of such a tool means there's all the more reason for mass moves like this to be taken through WP:RM first, so that they can be discussed properly. Knepflerle (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert2.js, but I think that's more designed for pagemove vandalism. –xeno^talk 15:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that while I've linked to a tool that can revert mass moves, I don't necessarily endorse mass reversion (at least without further discussion). The moves linked in the OP are from March 2010. At this point, it think it would be best to hold an WP:RM discussion to determine if there is consensus to go the other way. That being said, WP:RM is not an arduous process, and it should be engaged before undertaking a great number of moves in succession or moves that may be deemed controversial. –xeno^talk 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, that may be true in general, but in this particular case the user is making a huge amount of moves, a very large proportion of which are being challenged. We shouldn't need a team to watch one user's edits and challenge each individually through WP:RM if they aren't caught "quick enough". Knepflerle (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we're almost five months later. And no one commented at the WikiProject talk page section created by the mover to say "hey! why did this happen?" (so it doesn't appear there is great objection?) I'm not saying that I think moves like this should happen without the proper discussion, but at this late stage, similarly should they not be reversed without the formal WP:RM procedures being followed. –xeno^talk 12:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U started. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to this thread. Dpmuk (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some other input is needed here

Gwen Gale severely tutted! Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wm5200 says I need to be disciplined. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have directed Wm5200 to the WP:RSN as they appear to believe that Hugh Trevor-Roper isn't a reliable source regarding the death of Hitler. That suggestion is so ludicrous, however, that I appreciate you might have felt it a waste of RSN's time. There's no {{anchovy}}, and {{minnow}} seems a little too harsh. Perhaps Wm5200 would be happy a severe tutting? In which case: tut, tut, Gwen Gale. And, frankly, that's more than enough discipline for this non-incident. TFOWR 10:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I tried to be very respectful to Trevor-Ropers work. My only point was "did Hitler shoot himself in the mouth with a revolver?" or "did Trevor-Roper misunderstand Axmann?". I am trying hard to be polite.Wm5200 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR - Israel Shamir

OTRS ticket 2010081310003608 is an email that has come in from a member of the public about one of our articles and the conduct of RolandR (talk · contribs). I am an uninvolved administrator with centrist leanings who has in the past had one major dealing with RolandR, where I blocked another user for outing him. I, therefore, am aware of RolandR's identity, and will not post it here.

The email makes allegations of massive COI related to the article Israel Shamir and threats of violence made by people connected to RolandR. The email also makes reference to several libellous articles in extreme-left papers which he believes (with very good evidence) are are written by RolandR. The email states that RolandR is an accomplice of the publishers of these papers, and that while publishers of certain left-wing magazines do not go out to kill Mr Shamir, they publish details which would allow every not-too-experienced assassin to deal with him. A real Mossad assassin can kill Mr Shamir anytime, but RolandR (and Wikipedia) provide for him an alibi by making his whereabouts easily searchable. Our article used to include links to his passport (posted without his permission) as references, and almost all other references are from unreliable sources which are heavily biased against the subject.

I cannot post the full text of the email here, for obvious reasons, but in short, the email states: the article is currently libellous, and RolandR is part of a concerted campaign to disparage and harass Israel Shamir through both Wikipedia and through articles in Trotskyist/leftist magazines.

The respondent is of the firm belief - as, at a first glance, am I - that practically all contributions of RolandR on the article Israel Shamir are at the very least unfair. However, seeing as this extends to off-wiki threats, and what looks like a concerted attempt to turn the article into a biased work, I am notifying the community of the problem through this message, and asking for input - is this something that needs ArbCom involvement, given the link to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

I have notified RolandR of this discussion and temporarily stubbed and protected the article to prevent potential libel. Any administrator not involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict issue can revert me without a wheel war taking place, as I give permission for them to do so if they think it prudent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically reject the allegations in this complaint, which on the face of it appears itself to be libellous. I have never made, endorsed or contemplated any threat of violence against Mr Shamir, or any other person. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any other person "connected to" me. I am not part of any "concerted campaign" against Mr Shamir. The suggestion that I am linked to any hitmen or to the Mossad is absurd and defamatory; I would not even know how to go about establishing such a connection.

I have published just one article, under my own name, about Mr Shamir. This appeared in an American Trotskyist newspaper in 2004. I have never published any anonymous articles about him. Although I have cited articles from the anti-fascist magazines Monitor, Expo and Searchlight, I have never written for them and have no connection with them.

The information I have added to the article is certainly not libellous, and is well-established. It has all been published previously in reliable sources. In fact, there is nothing in the article which is not already easily available in the public domain.

This article has a long history of POV editing by Mr Shamir and his sockpuppets and meatpuppets. They have attempted to remove any information about his alternative identities, and about his alleged links with extreme right-wing groups and activists. This complaint is just the latest attempt by Mr Shamir to control the article; I do not think that there is any need for special action in response to what appears to be a frivolous and libellous OTRS complaint. RolandR (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has any of this been covered in mainstream media? The closest thing I saw in the old article was this reference [93] which says he is "an extreme leftist", not right-wing.

As to the complaint above, I don't think much can be done to resolve it onwiki. But perhaps you could explain why you restored the link to Shamir's passport ? The link is broken, but it seems somewhat unusual, and maybe there is some explanation that might clear the air. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that I've found the article in question, which although I will not link to for fear of outing RolandR, I will happily quote the first sentence, "Here is the background to my hostility towards Israel Shamir". The article published under your name also releases his home address and fax number and personal details about his son. If you did indeed write that piece, then I firmly believe you should be recusing yourself from editing anything related to Mr Shamir. It's such a large conflict of interest, it's almost comical. Almost. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well just link to the article if you're going to quote the entire first sentence. That sentence returns exactly four google hits... Dpmuk (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty hard to get my point across without quoting it, and it returns more than four when I searched, sorry! Nevertheless, if you've managed to find the article, do you think it's neutral? On another note, it's bloody difficult to not draw links between RolandR and his real life identity. RolandR, if you want me to redact anything please let me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I really object to in this thread is the title, which implicitly links me to threats of violence. The rest is comment. RolandR (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair comment, I just wanted to make you were aware in case you wasn't. I may be a bit more knowledgeable than some of how to get the result you want out of google but I suspect plenty of other people would know how to as well. I think the article tries to be evidence based and remain relatively neutral, however there are some sections of it that make me think that the author has not been entirely successful (especially the paragraph before reference 3). This is not an attack on the author as we all struggle to remain neutral about stuff we feel strongly about but I do think that, if they are the user in question here, it shows enough evidence of not being able to stay neutral that they should probably not edit anything to do with Shamir and instead asking for changes to be made on the relevant talk page. In an issue such as this I think it's important that wikipedia isn't seen to be biased and even if this user successfully remains neutral the appearance of bias will still be there. Caveat: I'm a reasonably experienced editor but I'm not an admin and don't have too much experience in areas such as this. Dpmuk (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that article is not at all difficult to find, given the first sentence. Nor is Roland's full name, considering the numerous references to it in Wikipedia discussions and Roland's contributions. Frankly, I'm surprised mentioning it is even considered "outing". -- tariqabjotu 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved with the entire area. I looked through the references from the previous version, and I agree they seem very problematic. There was a (broken) link claiming to be his passport. None of the references was to a mainstream English media source, and none of them was to any form of print media (e.g. biographies, journal articles, scholarly books, etc.) except possibly [94]. Starting from scratch using mainstream sources seems like a good idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding the article may be correct here, but I'm surprised that it is considered okay to receive an email making potentially libellous comments about an editor (including, it could be interpreted, the allegation that the editor may be knowingly assisting in a potential murder (!)) and just go ahead and post the contents here. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting about 5% of the email, heavily edited. I know my obligations under OTRS rules, don't worry :-). Regardless of the content of the mail, however, the problem is what's implied. It'd still be problematic even if I posted it completely reworded, and I apologise to RolandR if this has upset him - but it's either an offensive article, or an offensive email. Either way, I'd like to know which it is, and which we can close/delete. nevertheless, i've removed the direct quoted sections. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR has been the target of extremely egregious stalking and harassment here over the years from a particularly nasty sockmaster, and I would not be a bit surprised if this was not yet another chapter of that. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, a checkuser would help here. I suspect it isn't though, because of the content of the OTRS mail. I think it's honestly a person who honestly believes that the article about him is non-neutral. The Russian article at this address certainly looks a bit iffy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost certainly no connection between this OTRS and the wikistalker known as Runtshit. Runtshit appears to be an extreme right Zionist, probably a Kahanist. This complaint, whether from Shamir or a "member of the public", appears to come from the right-wing, near-antisemitic, fringe of anti-Zionism. The politics of the two are hardly compatible.

A few random thoughts (I don't consider myself involved, but for disclosure I'll state that my politics are to the left of RolandR's):

Are you sure? "According to the Political Compass this user is: Economic Left (-8.88) and Social Libertarian (-8.82)" RolandR (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100%, no, but I'd seen you identified yourself as a Trotskyist and I regard my Trotskyist comrades as being to my right ;-) TFOWR 14:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Update: -7.00 and -9.69, for what it's worth. I'm as sceptical now as I was when I last looked at it, however. TFOWR 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPOVN should probably get involved.
• At English Defence League we've used Searchlight etc as sources: I'm not convinced they're great for much beyond what Searchlight believe. I'd far rather see mainstream sources used for contentious topics, with left-wing/anti-fascist sources used sparingly, if at all. WP:RSN should possibly be consulted, but I suspect they'd agree that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, particularly where WP:BLPs are concerned.
• RolandR should probably back away from the article and let obviously neutral editors take over. I'd walk away from English Defence League if there were any doubts expressed about my neutrality there, whether I considered those doubts accurate or not.
• Address the above issues and, I suspect, the others will to some extent disappear. However, I'd add that I believe some of the claims apparently made in the OTRS email are ludicrous: Wikipedia repeating information already in the public domain does not make someone more of a target for vigilantes. We should follow our own policies with respect to editing, and not be unduly concerned that we're in some way "assisting Mossad". We publish information on nuclear weapon design without being concerned that it might be useful to terrorists (because the information is already available - we wouldn't publish it otherwise). This is no different, except that it involves a "glamorous" and mysterious intelligence service with a reputation for assassination.

TFOWR 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is (was) very seriously problematic, including with the use of unreliable sources, primary sources and apparent original research. In addition to TFOWR's proposals, I would suggest involving WP:BLPN. However, having looking at the evidence, it appears that RolandR, only started editing the article in December 2006,[95], at which point the article was already poor (including incidentally, the passport link), and very similar to today's version. As far as I can see, he has made only one substantial contribution to the article, sourced to Shamir's own website [96], and otherwise has mainly reverted including making housekeeping changes, removing vandalism, and incidentally deleting negative material about Shamir here, and unsourced material. I would argue, however, that some of his reverts were problematic because of what I and [others, apparently] regard as they reintroduced poorly sourced material into a BLP. On the other hand, there are some likely reliable sources making some of the controversial points[97][98][99][100] In summary, the article needs a lot of work, but the accusations against RolandR are indeed exagerated. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update and correction: I was confused by similar reference links. The link to the passport wasn't in the article in December 2006. It was added in January 2007, not by RolandR,[101], in response to RolandR adding a full of date of birth (unsourced).[102]--Slp1 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions

Right. Rough idea of a conclusion:

1. RolandR backs off slightly on editing the article (although he can still edit it), although it's accepted that he meant no harm and was just editing something he knew a lot about.
2. BLP noticeboard gets involved and a few people blitz the article, salvaging whatever they can and turning the article into something Mr Shamir can grudgingly accept; ie., neutral.
3. Kingfisher12 (the other party) is invited to suggest improvements and get involved in fixing things.
4. Any further problems go to dispute resolution. No sanctions need to get involved or anything silly like that.
5. We all drink lemonade. The End. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we also ask Kingfisher12 whether he is himself Israel Shamir, or has used any previous account. This is not intended to be punitive, but to clarify potential conflicts of interest. RolandR (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I sincerely don't think it's Shamir. However, i don think it's one of his supporters acting without his knowledge. Definitely a CoI. if you like, I could ask Shamir if he's got an account with us? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Israel shamirRolandR (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has aptly demonstrated why he should NOT be on OTRS duty and possibly why he should not be an admin - he is completely lacking in discretion and possibly lacking in judgement (or at least incredibly credulous) as well as lacking rudimentary investigative skills. Cavalry, you do not necessarily take OTRS complaints at their word and you definitely don't publicly repeat allegations made within them against editors without investigating them first - particularly if they are libellous and defamatory as in the case of the complaint against RolandR. As Slp1 shows above the passport that RolandR has been accused of including of posting in the article in some sort of attempt to have Israel Shamir assassinated was there before RolandR ever edited (did it not occur to you to check the article's history - the first thing any admin investigating a complaint should do?). You've made several other mistakes. 1) you've outed RolandR by posting enough information to allow anyone with the most basic knowledge of Google to find his real identity 2) you've scandalized him and poisoned the well by repeating uncorroborated and, frankly, completely insane allegations that RolandR is part of some sort of murder plot to kill Israel Shamer 3) you've done this without one scintilla of actual evidence that supports these allegations. Please post a single "threat of violence" RolandR has made against Shamir - just one. You can't because there aren't any. The problem is you've repeated a trumped up claim by a conspiracy theorist without actually applying any critical thinking to it. You should have dealt with this discreetly. You should have approached RolandR privately first. You should have talked to other admins privately first. Perhaps even consulted ArbComb. But no, instead you repeat sensational allegations and essentially smear a long time WP. Stating that you think there are BLP violations in the article is one thing, accusing a WP editor of trying to have someone killed is completely beyond the pale and irresponsible and frankly shows that you are completely out of your depth and should not be doing OTRS work and possibly not be an admin. I would suggest that, at a minimum, you cross out the more idiotic parts of your opening post. 70.52.217.3 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (A former WP contributor)[reply]

Wow. If you have concerns about my suitability for OTRSing, or for adminship, you know where to take them. no-one else has voiced concerns despite me doing this for several years, mentoring people in OTRS, and despite me dealing with OTRS respondents in person on a regular basis. You raise some good points, but I think that considering the threats being made, it's always best to take this straight to ANI rather than pussyfoot around while someone's life might be in danger. Have you even seen the OTRS ticket? Do you know what was mentioned in there? Do you know the proofs he gave, or the other campaigns of harassment? Did you note the fear in his words? Of course not. You came on here purely to throw mud at me from behind the anonymity of an IP address, no doubt because our paths have crossed in the past. I'd be interested to know which former contributor you are - I'm sure it'll reveal a lot about your intentions.

If anyone else has any problems or concerns, they know the correct process for this sort of thing, and I'm happy to submit to an RfC, as long as it doesn't turn into a mud-slinging competition. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that RolandR doesn't exactly make it difficult to find his real identity. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of his edits and Google can find out who he is. Same with me, to a point: it's quite obvious who I am, and not difficult to find my Twitter/myspace/facebook accounts, or photos of what I do - despite me trying to keep it under wraps. If RolandR wants me to redact anything, I've offered, and I've tried to give out as little info on him as I can. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me, you just retailed random allegations of threats of violence from people associated with another wikipedia editor & claims about that editor publishing libelous material, on our most visible drama-board. It is utterly irrelevant that you find the email credible, you simply should not be mouthing off as above & should have tried the steps suggested by the IP. The suggestion that you can save someones life by dramamongering at ANI is ludicrous. (The emailer, if they had such concerns should contact LEA themselves.) Your suitability for adminship and OTRS access is very definitely questionable, are you open to recal? Misarxist (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not open to recall at present. I am, however, open to having a sensible discussion about this on my talk page, where I'll happily explain my reasoning for doing what I did. Let's take this a step at a time, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the general suitability for OTRS or adminship but when I read this thread Chase Me claimed not to want to out RolandR, and then posted enough information for a Luddite like myself to not only find Roland's identity but to see a video of him on youtube within seconds. If outing wasn't really a concern then so be it, but if it was (as Chase me suggested) then Chase me did a piss poor job of not outing Roland above.Griswaldo (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That is bullshit, IMO. I see little merit to the claims made by the originator of the OTRS e-mail, but when the subject matter is a BLP issue then anyone handling it should err on the side of caution in case the claims of damage are genuine. There has been no wrongdoing with how this admin handled this. I also do not place the slightest value on ANI contributions from anonymous IPs; if someone has something to say then thy should have the balls to say it with their real account, but that is another tangent entirely. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has the possession of balls been a requirement for editing Wikipedia? RolandR (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the stubbing & protecting of the article. Good job on that. However, I have to admit I was a little flabergasted to see the full relating of potentialy libelous statements about an easily identifiable editor.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely a mistake. Posting libelous comments without checking into it further is definitely not appropriate, nor do I agree with releasing the exact wording of OTRS emails without extenuating circumstances which I don't believe were present here. It would have been far more appropriate to look into the situation a little more deeply and to ask the original emailer to back up his claims before taking action; which Chaseme may have done, it isn't entirely clear.

A quiet word with RolandR regarding the nature of his edits (rather than the death threat allegations) and the quality of the article appears to have been the best course of action. If RolandR had continued to edit disruptively the dispute could have been taken further. However, hindsight is 2020 and this appears to just be a case of Chaseme looking before he leaps. The libellous comments should be scrapped from the public record but I don't think lasting damage was done to RolandR as I could find him using only the information on his userpage. 81.159.222.203 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me: In response to my earlier comment, you refactored your post to be in your own words, but you didn't really remove the offending allegations or outing. It doen't really matter if there is another 95% you missed out.

Plus, there doesn't seem to be any constructive purpose to posting this. If you really believed the implausible idea that someone's life was being endangered by the edits in question, then I think you should have just hard deleted and informed arbcom, without posting any information that might be damaging to anyone anywhere. As a trained Mossad operative, I can tell you that we are highly skilled in the art of looking at page histories. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only joking. I am in fact a trained carpet-fitter. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account using Wiki as a testing site?

I happened to come across Paperwheel (talk · contribs) today while reviewing the edits of an Anon IP [103]. The Paperwheel account does not seem to have ever edited a live article or used a talk page, and has exclusively created and worked on a big list of subpages in his own userspace [104], [105]. The subpages are here [106]. They appear to be just copy-pasted bits and pieces of userboxes and help pages, plus some pages that are just utter nonsense. I'm probably going to submit the lot to MfD, but before I do I was wondering if this was familiar to anyone here, possibly familiar behavior of a blocked user? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Paperwheel of this thread. Basket of Puppies 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict)Thank you BoP. He hasn't edited in over a year so I guess I subconsciously didn't think to do it.Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have indeed edited articles: twice.. NativeForeigner^Talk/_Contribs 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, your eyes are better than mine are! Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, twice. What infraction is this? Just curious. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an infraction. However, it's not an especially productive use of Wikipedia, either. Accounts should be here to edit and contribute to the encyclopedia, not create catalogs of subpages full of userboxes and nonsense. That's venturing into WP:NOTMYSPACE territory, which is why I've sent the lot to MfD. I'm not here to "report" anyone, the behavior just seemed odd to me and I was asking if it was familiar to anyone. Sockmasters are known to do things like that. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nonproductive it would seem to be. It's a strange assortment of incomprehensible stuff. I wonder if it's computer-generated — by some kind of program? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic body music#futurepop

Dynamic IP socks of the same user (I wonder if a sockpuppetry case can be opened about him because seemingly, there has already been a case of him opened, in [107]) is CONSTANTLY, for years, continuing to disrupt and change the article as he finds it appealing to his eyes. Now what he is doing is removing the "Futurepop" section. I have requested this article to be protected and it has been protected for only one week. This isn't useful in my eyes, because immediately after the protection he has been writing in the talkpage of the protecting admin, see User_talk:Tcncv#Electronic_body_music, and "promised" to vandalize again in the future, as he has alredy been continuously doing a lot in the past, mostly in the talk page of EBM (see [108] for example where he makes this statement). You can see how disruptive he is also in the history [109]. I don't know what is appropriate here? A much longer protection, or maybe a sockpuppet investigation? I have many reasons to think it is a sock of User:Breathtaker. Maybe I'm wrong and it's someone else but the editing patterns are similar. Thanks. 89.139.161.224 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is generally applied in escalating length, and a week initially is reasonable. I agree that he'll probably come straight back after a week, but in that case we're clearly at the point where his activities are agreed as being unconstructive: the article will simply be re-protected for increasingly long periods. The idea being that eventually even the most dedicated unconstructive editor tends to get bored and stop trying: the only way to find out they've done so is for protection to be lifted. By all means ask me or any other admin to re-protect if he does come back after this one expires. ~ mazca^talk 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no reason to say "if". It's been years already and it's unlikely he will ever stop. But I understand your decision. I hope the EBM article is in your watchlist now.... 89.139.161.224 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A week initially is reasonable, if it was initial. See the log, the edit warring continued as soon as the previous one month protection wore off. O Fenian (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! IMHO, it should be semi-protected for more than one month, maybe three months. And that is simply because the one-month protection was done right before this one week protection. This 1 week protection is the exact opposite of what mazca said , "Protection is generally applied in escalating length."89.139.161.224 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I agree, you didn't mention the protection log to start with! :) Next protection should probably be a few months. ~ mazca ^talk 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin assistance to undo controversial page move

On 12 August, Schwyz (talk · contribs) moved Province of Pomerania to Province of Pomerania (1815-1945). Per WP:BRD, I want to undo that move. I contest its merits because per WP:PRIMARY, "Province of Pomerania" should be used and other articles should be linked from the dab page mentioned in the hatnote. If Schwyz or anyone else disagrees, they may use the WP:RM process.

I can not undo the move myself, since Schwyz salted the former title by turning it into a redirect page. Thus, I need admin assistance to

• delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania
• move the article Province of Pomerania (1815-1945) to Province of Pomerania

Thank you, Skäpperöd (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There has been a similar request of mine just a few days ago [110], and since I have seen similar requests by other users [111] [112] [113], I wonder if any admin may instruct Schwyz to make less use of WP:BOLD and more use of WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin responses

What you're requesting is identical to CSD G6, which is usually done by placing {{db-move}} on the page that you want deleted. Being a speedy deletion request, this is done when the move is uncontroversial. Since potentially controversial, this request belongs at WP:RM. A question, have you initiated a discussion on this yet? I couldn't find one. The important part of BRD is discuss, so maybe you should focus more on discussing the move and gaining consensus to solve the problem, and less on complaints to ANI. Swarm^Talk 07:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial move user Schwyz performed is controversial, so per WP:BRD it should be undone and discussed at WP:RM. Since when is one expected to start a WP:RM discussion to revert a controversial move? It's the other way around. The request is placed here because Schwyz salted the original title, which was stable for years, so I technically can not make use of my right to revert a controversial edit w/o admin assistance. Please can an admin clear the original title by deleting it, so the article can be moved back. If Schwyz insits on the title they moved it to this time (they had moved it to another title previously), they may file an RM and see if a consensus forms there supporting such a change, as it is standard procedure. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that User:Schwyz has around 1600 page moves (counting TP's) out of 4400 edits. Mauler90 _talk 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should have no effect on this specific incident at all, unless their moves are consistently problematic. Swarm^Talk 08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and they have yet to show any signs of heeding others good faith concerns about it. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the msg by Mauler, by that number I would have at more than 800 real moves, since some pages don't have a talk page. Out of 800 moves, some are controversial. For that specific one: I disambiguating between two entities called Pomerania Province or "Province of Pomerania" - for the former revert Skäpperöd did not mention he would thinnk the topic is WP:PT - so I didn't assume it would be controversial to introduce proper dab page again. Schwyz (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - the revert of the former did introduce false incoming links. There are other entities called Province of Pomerania, that's why "(1815-1945)" needs to be added. Also: the former revert that Skäpperöd asked for he motivated by "Pomerania Province" va "Province of Pomerania" he didn't mention WP:PT at all. Also it fails WP:PT, no numbers brought up to support WP:PT for specifically that province, the Prussian one. Schwyz (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue about the merits or dis-merits of your move. You should do it at Talk:Province of Pomerania. (I am sure many users would like to join you there.) This thread is about cleanup after your controversial action. I have stricken out your comment above as being unrelated to this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RM discussion, this is a technical request as the salting of the redirect prevents non-admins to properly follow WP:BRD. Once the article is moved back to its former title, you may file an RM and outline your rationale there. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than a tech request, you brought it to ANI, and in your original request you include things not related to the tech question. I really couldn't see that you prefer wrong incoming links to be introduced again and that you think disambiguation between entities named the same you wouldn't like. Your former request you did only motivate by naming of the base name, which I respected. Schwyz (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course PT was not mentioned when your last controversial move was undone, since it did not affect the title you moved it to that time. I referred to PT simply because I wanted to let the housekeeping admin taking care of this request know that there are arguments that I base my opposition on. There are more, eg the title you moved it to is utterly unstable because it does not contain the MOSsy mdash, and someone will "fix" that with another move soon, creating ample double+ redirects, if this problem is not taken care of. But really, let's discuss that in a WP:RM, not here. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course PT affected the former title. The year numbers were included. You didn't say anything about the year numbers in your former undo request. For the mdash - thing - no problem, redirects and bots can handle this. It is one more redirect, to call that "ample" is only putting ATTACK into the talk. Schwyz (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be put back to its original position, and an WP:RM filed with notices placed at relevant WikiProjects. Then we can collect suggestions about the best way to proceed. There's no rush, so let's sort this out properly with proper community input. Knepflerle (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To let users end up on the wrong topic is far worse than on a disambiguation page. Schwyz (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we can discuss the best ways to avoid this during the WP:RM discussion, and pick a solution so that this will not happen. Knepflerle (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to admins: why is this taking so long and so much talk? Skäpperöd asked a revert because he declared the speedy deletion was controversial. This very statement should be enough to revert (although he added good motivation). He also suggested someone talked to Schwyz explaining that any possible controversion in a move/delete prevents speedy housekeeping. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: Not an SD was controversial, but a move. I wonder why it does take so long, too. <sarcasm>Maybe I should go and call someone "little shit" to catch their attention.</sarcasm> Skäpperöd (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that would help. Apparently, there is no admin around here to even be insulted ;-). Move or SD: it's about the non-controversial, of course. Anyway, even the previous discussion about Schwyz behaviour here, (which does not have your name), did not solve it. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Schwyz asap

Retracting my block request since Schwyz declared their retirement [114][115][116][117], so there is no immediate action required preventing mass introduction of controversial links. I still want the page moved back though. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I award the Wikipedia administratior corps a huge pile of horse manure for not taking prompt action on a simple technical request and allowing this discussion to turn over into something that looks like a trollfest. Loosing Schwyz (talk·contribs) is a great loss to Wikipedia. Early and prompt action would have avoided this. (Award to the right. I don't know what right KoshVorlon has to call me a Schwanz, but the award is available here ) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this egregious derelict of duty, I hereby dock all Wikipedia admins one day's pay. –xeno^talk 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my plea on their talk page to stop, Schwyz is atm changing a multitude of wikilinks to link the controversial new title I requested to be reverted above. They treated my request as "harassment", which I take as an insult. I request that Schwyz is blocked asap, the page moved back, and Schwyz instructed to follow WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your WP:HAR!!! To ask for block, if a user does disambiguation work is nothing but WP:HAR.

See some of my link fixes, the links went to the wrong topic! The title Province of Pomerania is not unambiguous:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Awinouj%C5%9Bcie&diff=prev&oldid=378689141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farther_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=378690419
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher&diff=prev&oldid=378688385

This has nothing to do with were your personal favorite as PT is loacted. There can be a redirect later. Schwyz (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly linking your controversial title while this request, that your move be undone, is active, examples: [118][119][120][121][122]. This is by no means uncontroversial dab work, and to call my request harrassment is insulting. Before 10:00 UTC, you had the bonus of AGF, that is gone now. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I link the other name, to do the dab work. You don't get it: there can be a redirect to your personal favorite topic later. Your ultimatum style block request etc, shows clearly that you don't WP:AGF Schwyz (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U started. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to this thread. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Salting redirects after page moves is an indication of bad faith and in my view cause for administrative action, i.e. temporary block. It prevents the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle needed to handle this large number of page moves. Not all of Schwyz's moves are controversial – the ones that are have usually been immediately reverted and later discussed. See for example Talk:Governorate of Estonia and Talk:Governorate of Livonia. On the other hand I want to commend Schwyz for doing important work on historic provinces, he just needs firmer guidance. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. - The fact that the salting was done after a move war makes the bad faith even more obvious. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting worse, admin attention?

Please can an admin delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania so the artilce can be moved back (initial request in this thread). It's getting worse. A respected user, no fault on his part!!!!, has now moved Schwyz's title, which was inconsistent with MOS, to yet another title [123]. Schwyz had already started changing wikilinks as outlined above, and now we have multiple redirects pointing different ways... If no action is taken soon, more and more work will be needed to clean up the mess. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification of this discussion (it was I who replaced the hyphen with the dash). Now I've seen it, I strongly support Skapperod's plea for admins to act. We've had too much of this move warring tactics recently, where someone unilaterally renames a page and then insists that others get consensus at RM before it can be moved back. This is clearly not how it's supposed to work - I don't mind people being bold (and frequently am so myself), but as soon as someone makes a reasonable objection to such a bold move, the move should be undone and an RM request submitted to see if there is consensus for the move. Anyone who disrupts that process (by redoing the move, or continuing with other similar moves, or deliberately salting redirects to prevent non-admins moving the page back, etc.) is being disruptive and needs action taken to ensure that they stop and that the damage is repaired.--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is the RM Schwyz opened before they left, what should be done about this? Skäpperöd (talk)

Skapperod would you stop creating wikidrama? The water is not on fire. Dr. Loosmark 12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by User:Skäpperöd

(Moved by Moonriddengirl to subsection related thread)

I am doing disambiguation work an Skäpperöd is requesting a block for that, [124]. He clearly fails WP:AGF. . Before 10:00 UTC, you had the bonus of AGF - the redirects are valid redirect titles. So nothing to call for a block. Schwyz (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This all seems very familiar. I don't think it was necessary - or appropriate - to start a new thread. Particularly since a complaint in the previous thread was "a lack of admin attention". TFOWR 10:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have sysop rights, could you please take care of the initial request, and mark this one resolved? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action

I've reverted the controversial move to permit discussion. If consensus supports the move, it's a simple matter to move it again. Meanwhile, I hope that there is some resolution forthcoming about these moves (presuming the retirement to be temporary) so it can stop showing up at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:YumeChaser and Twinkle

I think the user needs a break from using Twinkle. He's showing a serious lack of maturity and is misusing it, even after being warned not to. This first came up when I saw a bit of a pile-on on a new user making good faith edits. Yumechaser, was displaying some bad faith by labeling their content dispute edits as vandalism [125] and making a comment that seemed like bad faith that fans of a particular singer couldn't be objective, when it was more his misunderstanding of the subject that lead him to think they were non-notable.[126]. I warned him on his talk page. His response was to question my eye-sight and make some other slightly uncivil and bad faith comments [127]. When I clearly spelled it out for him [128], he shut up, didn't take any responsibility for his bad faith comments and uncivil remarks, and didn't retract them either. I went on vacation almost immediately after that and when I returned, I thought I'd check if he took it to heart. he didn't [129]. He was repeating the same kind of bad faith labeling in content disputes yet again. I repeated the warning and told him to cut it out. After being caught with his hand in the cookie jar twice, his response was this [130]. It tells me that he doesn't have the maturity nor responsibility to be using this tool, and it tells me that he is going to continue misusing it. As such I think he should be blacklisted from using it, and since an admin is required to do that, here we are.--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified this user of this thread on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

They were already notified, I think its a further illustration of the problem by blanking the notice and not responding here. They'd rather continue the behaviour and pretend there is no problem rather than address it.[131].--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit shows me that they appear not to understand what rollback is and what it is for (even though that's a Twinkle rollback and not an "original" rollback). I think a stern warning should be enough; if they keep misusing the tool after that, then their permission can be revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my initial warning was pretty stern. After that warning, he did it again. Since he doesn't seem to understand, and wants to instead pretend nothing is wrong, I can't see how another stern warning is going to change the situation. if you think he doesn't understand rollbacks at all, perhaps all his tools should be taken away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about a warning from an admin (which I'm not), because sometimes editors respond more to them than to those issued by non-admins... And because, in general, I prefer to avoid restrictions (such as revoking Twinkle access) unless strictly necessary... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's assuming bad faith? 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous responses and the fact that you took the time to blank that notice (2 of them) rather than respond here) we don't assume good faith blindly. You've been quite uncivil and refused to respond with anything except bad faith accusations to this point. You had an opportunity to explain this previously but instead stopped communicating--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I did not know that "Rvv" meant revert vandalism. I use it all the time on plenty of edits and no one has ever told me that I was wrong for using that abbreviation as opposed to "rv" or just writing out "revert". So when Crossmr left that message on my talk, I responded in a harsh manner. And when he did point it out, I left the subject alone, because in my eyes it was over and done with. Now, the last edit did not even involve the use of Twinkle and it is a habit for me to type "rvv", I need to work on that now that I know. I told you to go away because I didn't want to deal with you. It's as simple as that. You are reading to much into it and you are overlooking the good that I have done with Twinkle with the bad, all of which is minor. 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YumeChaser, please read WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback is a tool that makes it easier to undo someone's edits, but only when there's no need to type an edit summary; that's why, usually, rollback is used only for vandalism (or to remove a lot of similar edits in rare cases). It implicitly assumes bad faith. If you're in doubt, you should always use the undo button or the good faith feature of Twinkle's rollback. And, at the same time, you should avoid using "rvv", unless you're reverting vandalism, because that too assumes bad faith. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that, but one minor point: The user has never had rollback rights. YumeChaser, I am assuming that this all boils down to misunderstandings on your part, but please consider this thread your warning about misusing Twinkle and mislabeling non-vandalism as vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I just miss the part where I misused Twinkle. I just pressed the rollback button and added a edit summary. I don't see how that was misusing the script. 夢追人^YumeChaser 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback, even the Twinkle version, should only be used for vandalism or other bad-faith edits. Use undo or rollback (AGF) for anything else. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle's rollback button should only be used for vandalism or other bad-faith edits, unless a descriptive edit summary is also used. Otherwise, use undo or rollback (AGF). —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's brought to light a greater issue which is your civility towards other users both in tone and bad faith accusations. Misusing RVV and rollback s but one issue. Your response to any opposition to what you were doing was extremely uncivil, especially after it was spelled out for you. Your bad faith assumption that fans couldn't be objective about a subject you thought wasn't notable when they clearly were is another indication of that.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks. Twinkle has three rollback buttons - one is AGF, one is vandalism, the other is - what? If anything that isn't vandalism should be rolled back with the AGF option, what's the middle option for? It clearly can't be only for vandalism, as there is a specific vandalism rollback. So come on, before admonishing people for using it incorrectly, how about we identify what it actually should be used for? I've never thought that the Twinkle "neutral" rollback automatically implies vandalism - am I wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The generic rollback button allows the use of a custom edit summary, so yes, it could be used on something other than vandalism, but "rv" as an edit summary isn't very useful, and "rvv" is just plain wrong. —DoRD (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "rv" is a pretty useless edit summary. We can see you revert...we want to know why you revert. --Smashville^talk 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "rv" or "rvv" in edit summaries is not what I'm talking about. You, DoRD, rebuked the editor for using the generic Twinkle rollback, saying "Rollback, even the Twinkle version, should only be used for vandalism or other bad-faith edits". If you are now agreeing that was incorrect, you should withdraw that specific rebuke, but if you still think you were correct, you should explain rather than obfuscate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions clarified (although I thought that, in context, the original version was clear). Is that better? —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is news to Yumechaser, this goes back about a year with me, and further with others. I pointed out here [132] that his characterization of good-faith edits ( [ [133], [134], [135]) as vandalism violated WP:CIVIL. His response was to revert my comment with the edit summary "Look at their history and leave me alone" [136]. (I reverted that ([137], bad move on my part, I concede, but I wanted a record of the warning, given the pattern of behavior); and he re-reverted with "My talk I can remove what I want." [138]). When I pointed out that "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." [139], his response was simply "Leave my talk alone" [140]. The conversation continued for a few more edits, with Yumechaser exhibiting a misunderstanding of talk pages and user pages, but I think you get the drift. My point is simply that Yumechaser has been warned about this behavior over and over, and continues to hide evidence of the warnings, only to appear to be surprised about it now. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly puts a different light on it. Do you know if he's specifically had RVV explained to him before? Civility seems to be an on-going issue with him though, and perhaps he needs a time-out since he shows no indication of changing that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block Request

I'm going to request an admin block Yumechaser to prevent further disruption. As TJRC has pointed out Yumechaser was previously warned not to assume bad faith and label non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Yumechaser has shown a propensity for incivility when opposed (edit summaries, insults in the few messages he's left, etc) This edit 2 months ago [141] and [142] show that he's still continuing that behaviour. His interactions on the article talk page Narsha still show that he's assuming bad faith as do his responses to my warning. Here is a more recent example [143]. He claims the IP is a sock as well but provides no evidence. [144], [145]. The list goes on with his assumptions of bad faith. Since he's been warned more than once and had this all explained to him and seems like he'd rather blank warnings than fix his behaviour, I believe a block is required to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the edits of User:EDDDDDDDI

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EDDDDDDDI (talk · contribs) is posting the names of a student who will be killing students at a school in a future date, and the names of the students who will be killed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Articles deleted, see also this explanation. I don't think any further action should be needed. Prodegotalk 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just because he says it's a joke now, doesn't mean it actually is.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe we have a policy on this. Someone needs to contact the police in the area and give them the info, I believe an admin with full access to the deleted pages will need to do it. I believe this is local station [146]. A checkuser might be needed to get his IP to pass on to the police in case the one posting it isn't one of the named parties.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Threats of mass murder are not a matter for the police, Prodego? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is a plausible explanation, but the main thing to remember is that if the police are contacted absolutely not to do that without the IP of EDDDDDDDI. Otherwise anyone writing X will kill Y on Wikipedia can try to get the police to show up at 'X's' house. Which would be very bad. Prodegotalk 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Simply dismissing it isn't the responsible thing to do either. Requesting a checkuser and forwarding it to the police and letting them make the call is.--Crossmr (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dismissing it is my first preference. It is out of pattern with the other edits, the explanation is very plausible and comes with an apology, it looks pretty clear to me. People make stupid joke edits all the time. But if a checkuser agrees to release the IP, so be it. Prodego talk 07:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Out of pattern? They've only made a couple of other edits. There is hardly enough edits there to establish a pattern.--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree, per WP:TOV ALL TOV are to be reported to the local police. I'll open a quick checkuser case if no one has done so already... Pilif12p : Yo 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please, get the IP, get the deleted revision and call the police right away. I would do both if I only had the access. Basket of Puppies 11:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I couldn't find an enwp CU on at this time. I was told to email functionaries-en, and I did, it is now awaiting their action. -- /DeltaQuad Notify Me\ 19:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Foundation was notified earlier today and has taken appropriate action. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it would be equally funny if he never posted here again, but then my humor tends to be a bit "different". HalfShadow 03:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for indef block review: Quigley

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

Quigley was recently indefinitely blocked by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for the following reason: "nothing but hardcore pov pushing". Quigley has not previously been blocked, apart from a block that was undone as a misunderstanding, and has received (as far as I can tell) no warning about the conduct that is supposed to be the basis of this block. Nor has YellowMonkey left a message explaining the reason for this block. As the admin reviewing Quigley's unblock request, I am therefore having great trouble understanding the basis for this block. On my request, YellowMonkey gave the following explanation:

"Well, if you look at his edits, it's rather obvious that he editing in the equivalent way of a Chinese Communist Party internet policeman, blanking anything negative to the CCP etc, and engaging in POV-pushing and synthesis/OR for said purpose, eg Buddhist terrorism and the AFD, Genocides in history and so forth...And yes he has been warned about POV pushing on his talk page before, by another user"

My request for diffs supporting these contentions remains unanswered. I therefore believe the block is severly mistaken and should be lifted. Even if it were true that Quigley has been POV-pushing, and I can't confirm that after a quick look at his contribs, an indef block on that basis alone is only acceptable as a last resort after all other means (discussion, RFC/U, shorter blocks) are exhausted, and certainly not in this offhand manner. But since I strongly dislike unilateral unblocks, I would like to invite others to comment about whether they think this block has any merit. Sandstein 19:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Admin Observation: To my understanding, we (editors and admins) are required to give escalating warnings about a "You shouldn't do that" event. From what I can tell there was a level 3 "Don't blank" warning after Quigley removed a blockquote and cleaned up some language on a contentious page. To jump from that to a Indef block seems like a overreaction.Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumping straight to indefinite block without even an attempt to discuss the concern with the user seems rather inappropriate –xeno^talk 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Xeno except for the use of the word "seems".--Cube lurker (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both and suggest to unblock as time served. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Time served" is an endorsement the original block: I'm not even sure that's appropriate. –xeno^talk 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, this editor seems to be editing disruptively ([147], [148][149]), that's why I think this block wasn't entirely inappropriate... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the topic, but these edits do not look prima facie disruptive to me. Sandstein 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a general overview, they seem attempts to push POV (for instance removing wikilinks to history of Tibet, human rights there, sinicisation of the region in an article about Tibet; removing wikilinks to a shooting, to various independent movements, the category "Tibetan independence movement" from an article about a shooting related thereto). I'm not saying I would have blocked (even if I could), but that there seems to be evidence of POV-pushing... Many of their edits seem to be pushing POV to me. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are not the people who added those links determined to promote the independence movement? I see nothing worth a block. At most , a suggestion to be more evenhanded. There is no basis for any block.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comments on this user's talk page, I don't think this editor engages in gratuitous POV pushing. He edits articles on Tibet, which is a very controversial topic, and it's unavoidable that some edits will be also controversial. To the extent that he has different biases than we are used to seeing around here, that's useful for working toward balance. Quigley makes a lot of quality edits. I agree with Wehwalt that there is no basis for any block. I do urge Quigley to be as evenhanded as possible.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the comments. There is consensus that the block was inappropriate and I'm lifting it. Sandstein 06:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sopher99

User:Sopher99 is removing {{New unreviewed article}} templates from new articles without actually doing the reviews properly, and is also repeatedly making the same CSD tagging errors. Judging by their Talk page, this appears to be a long-standing problem, but it looks like they're taking no notice of all the messages. Could an admin try to gain their attention somehow? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also removed a copyvio template from an article with text that was clearly copied from the source. See User_talk:Sopher99#Huh.3F. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a serious problem with this user; disclosure: I've contested some of their speedy nomination. My hope would be that they accept some kind of mentorship... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed another ineligible speedy to a prod. Needs a cluebat or a ban from dealing with new pages for a while. —fetch·comms 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have finally got some sort of response on the Talk page, even if it is only deleting a warning (for yet another incorrect CSD:A2 tagging). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one weak CSD tagging since the above, and that wasn't a bad one - went for A3 when it should really have been a G7. Despite the lack of actual replies, the editor might just be taking some notice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after another warning, there's finally an actual reply on the user's Talk page (and there's a now-deleted acknowledgment that the user has read this incident report - the deletion of which seems strange). But the user's behaviour has not changed much, and they're still removing "Unreviewed" templates without properly reviewing articles. I've made a suggestion, and have suggested mentorship, but I'm really not convinced this user is actually listening - perhaps a follow-up by an admin might help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick update, after my explanation of the user's most recent error and my suggestion as to how to proceed, they appear to have stopped removing Unreviewed tags etc, so I think it's probably OK to let this go now - I'll keep an eye on things and can come back here if I need any help in future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma wars resulting in copyvios

Dollareuro (talk · contribs) is moving article content by cut and paste

• from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people

and

• from Assyrian Genocide to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide

Losing the article history and so violating the license. In addition the lemma change may be in violation of a prior Requested Move consensus.

--Pjacobi (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author Dollareuro (talk · contribs) already mentioned the reason for redirection :" in order to inlude all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" btw these three groups consider themselves to be one ethnic group, therefore it will be a good thing to be under the one common name Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac.

Yadamavu (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the redirects. If there is consensus, then it needs to be moved properly. If there is not, it needs to be discussed or reverted as good faith mistakes. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also undone the one at Assyrian diaspora - the moves seem nonsensical and pointy at the moment, though made in good faith as far as I can see. The new titles aren't particularly practical. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to tidy this mess up. Two of the copy-and-paste moves are now back as speedy requests (it is my believe as clear copy violations this is one of the times re-adding a speedy is OK) and the third is now back as a redirect (although an admin may still wish to delete and recreate the redirect). An inappropriate AfD that was started speedy closed by me (NAC). Requested move started here. I'm now going off to try to collect all appropriate comments there. I'd appreciate if an admin could review my actions and make sure everything is in order. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's made a few more changes of Assyrian to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" - it's a horrible way to demonstrate a multi-faceted ethnic group, would it be prudent to ask him to desist until consensus is attained one way or the other? He doesn't seemt o be doing it at any hectic pace. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that part of it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for guidance. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 100110100 sockpuppets

100110100 was banned per this discussion. Here is a previous ANI discussion on the user.

Since then, the user has been using sockpuppets for a while, the most recent of which is User talk:199.126.224.156. Here are other ANI threads about this user's sockpuppets: [150] [151]

After other admins recognized the latest sockpuppet, it was blocked by User:NuclearWarfare on July 27. Since then the IP has been editing every 3 days, and I have been extending the block each time and rolling back the edits per WP:BAN.

I could use some other admin eyes here, particularly because I haven't been able to get through the to the editor that they are actually banned. Since this IP address seems pretty stable, would a longer block be in order? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a month long or three-month long block. It's quite obviously a static IP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. In fact, I would not actively oppose an even longer block (though such might be problematic/controversial at this stage). I'm going to extend the block to one month, which I think is a fairly obviously appropriate course of action here. Blood Red Sandman^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and if they start up on that same ip as soon as the block expires then a 3 month sanction should be applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is that they don't realize they're banned... the problem is they don't care. Hardblock the IP if it's static. If they come back, rangeblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that the user's talk page has been deleted as it make to most other editors as if this has come out of the blue. I was involved in some of the previous discussions about this editor and am willing to help enforce a block. Let me know on my talk page if there is anything I can do to help. -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything a non-administrator can do to help please also stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting oversight on gross slander

There's been an on-and-off issue with Wyvren (talk · contribs) editing a number of Scotland related articles. I just noticed he added a personal essay to Scottish dress, which I reverted and then warned him about. He (logged out as an IP) responded with [redacted] this rather offensive little bit of text. Can that edit be oversighted out, and maybe something done about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, seems to be a string of nonsense and I don't think such shite should be tolerated, personally. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Offensive, yes, but not applicable for revision deletion or oversight. FYI, the best way to request oversight is either via this link or by emailing oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than posting it at this, the most visible forum on the site. —DoRD (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my mistake. Thanks for dealing with this. — HelloAnnyong^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and blanked the insult and delinked it above so that it's not so visible. —DoRD (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The offensive and racist comment by Wyvren (which can easily be found, even without a link) is far from the first evidence of his disruptive and tendentious editing. There is a long thread at User talk:Brianann MacAmhlaidh#Steven L. Akins, in the course of which Wyvren describes himself as "a White Rights advocate and an anti Semitic Supremacy activist". Other editors there accuse him of fabricating sources, and note that he removed 21 references from an article about a white supremacist website. This is a disruptive and offensive editor, who we could do without. RolandR (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't really oversight material, but please note the giant red text at the top of the board instructing you that it is not in your best interests to ask for oversight on one of the most frequented boards on wikipedia. If you want something rev deleted ask an active admin. If you want something oversighted, email oversight. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I'm sorry for posting here about it. I guess I was looking more for the block than the revdel. As RolandR said above, it's been this sort of thing from this editor for quite some time, and I guess I was a little hasty in trying to find a solution. — HelloAnnyong^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Just be aware that bringing material to AN/I for oversight/revdel will have the opposite of its intended effect (usually). Protonk (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I feel kinda lame for it anyway. I've struck the oversight parts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see additional ANI request regarding Wyvren for related discussion. Minor4th 10:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.26.208.157

Found this individual on the AIV page. Multiple blocks, no interaction and lots and lots of unsourced, questionable edits re. "Alvin and the Chipmunks." I don't have Twinkle and I'll be here for a week trying to revert the edits one at a time. Would someone with Twinkle take a look atthis and roll back the edits? Thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be cleared up. TNXMan 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor using talk pages as forum, states he is here to educate readers on the facts

Colon-el-Nuevo (talk · contribs) who also edits as various IPs, eg 71.111.215.249 (talk · contribs) (I don't think for evasiond) and Colombo-o-novo (talk · contribs) (blocked as sock) and Colombo.bz (talk · contribs) has persistently used Christopher Columbus talk pages, particularly Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus to promote his research. I've warned him before, removed some stuff at times, but he persists. In response to a final warning today he both continued to post his OR and on his talk page wrote "I am discussing the HISTORY of Columbus something you know nothing and I am educating the readers on the facts, which you refuse to learn about. It is just a matter of time for things to change", which is pretty clear. I could use some assistance with this. If a block does end up being required, it should not be me blocking him. I doubt that a topic ban will work, he's an SPA. I also think the talk pages need clearing up, they are a dreadful example of what we don't want on talk pages (in my opinion, of course). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People like these tend to fall into the "Single-topic evangelist" category in my opinion (i.e. they believe their way is the absolute truth and no amount of meddling will convince them otherwise). In the case of SPAs being disruptive, blocks are usually meted out if there is no other recourse. —Jeremy^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he definitely fits that classification. I've notifed him (and that although I am pretty sure he is columbo.bz, I haven't verified it, but as there seem to be no overlapping edits...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking on his talk page now and seems to be admitting that he could do better, if anyone else wants to confirm what I'm saying (or tell him I'm wrong of course) we may get somewhere. He's got a bad case of TLDR also when he posts on talk pages.

Advice wanted on User:Wyvren

Before I make a specific proposal this time, I'd like advice. Wyvren (talk · contribs) has been blocked three times for edit-warring and personal attacks/harassment. He also edits as 97.82.45.48 (talk · contribs) although not during the times his account has been blocked. This IP has now been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, specifically [152] where he tells an editor to "Piss off you slant eyed-gook". I'll also point out Wyfren's edit here [153]. which I think is useful context. I'd like suggestions on how to deal with this, as I don't think the named account should be free to edit if the IP he's used has been blocked. Thanks. I'll notify Wyvren. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed WP:ANI#Requesting oversight on gross slander which is directly relevant to this. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and don't know what your proposal might be, but I have just spent some time reviewing this user's contributions and block logs. I would strongly support a site ban for the user and the related IP. Minor4th 07:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the user's edit summaries, particularly within the last month. My personal view is that if self-identified pedophiles are subject to ban on site (and I agree they should be), so also should be self-identified racists. Minor4th 07:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFS, please? This guy shouldn't be banned, but blocked when he's disruptive (and he is being disruptive "a little bit"). Just a cursory look shows a civility problem, and an overly "strong" interest in Akins and other select Scottish-related articles. The IP and Wyvren... quack. A topic ban on this article (at least)? It couldn't hurt. Sock case? Probably not necessary, but should be addressed... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this edit shows that the IP = Wyvren; he logged in and signed for comments he left as the IP. — HelloAnnyong^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the part where I eat my words. I have a feeling that commons:User:Ravenlaird is Wyvren. If you look at the history for Sporran, a bunch of images he uploaded to Commons were removed; fast forward six days to when Wyvren's IP readds links to new versions of the same images, only these were upped by Ravenlaird. Guess I'll start a thread up here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's evidence of illegal activity then that warrants an immediate ban and contacting the authorities. If there's any of that you should immediately contact someone with oversight, not post it here. If that's not what's occurred then you need to provide diffs and go through the normal channels. No matter how repugnant personal opinions about certain issues, ethnically rooted issues being near the top of the list, we go through normal channels. It's not the same as illegal material. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that hate speech should be treated as any other repugnant personal opinion. I think there should be zero tolerance for it -- irrespective of whether it's illegal or actionable. "Piss off you slant-eyed gook" is only representative, but it's bad enough and shouldn't be tolerated. I don't think Wiki has normal channels suitable for dealing with that kind of invective. I recall seeing Jimbo make a similar statement that seemed imbued with the aura of policy, but I don't have it handy and don't care to search for it. Doug asked for advice and I'm weighing in with my opinion. If the community will tolerate hate speech, I think that's unfortunate. It's not the Akins article or the Scottish dress articles that are the problem. Minor4th 10:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in your comment because it's somewhat ambiguous, but I will never support blocking an editor solely on the basis that their statement disagrees with my personal politics. More importantly, however repugnant an individuals' personal beliefs are to me personally, that is not a reason to block them. If they're disruptive, certainly if they're illegal, then block them, but I'm quite worried about the language you're using to support this kind of block. A free market of ideas requires ideas we don't like to be articulated from time to time. If you disagree explain why, but you can't simply appeal to authority to shut it down. Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Hate speech" crime in the U.S. absent a separate provable crime. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The "reference" to Jimbo's statement: I'm not seeing the diff; and you should always search for it. As far as "hate speech": the community doesn't tolerate it as a rule. The derogatory comment he made was bad, but it's not enough to ban him. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also this diff, where Wyvren describes himself as "a White Rights advocate and an anti Semitic Supremacy activist". A person with those views, who makes offensive racist attacks against another editor, and who edits an article on a white supremacist site to describe opposition to antisemitism as "support (for) Jewish supremac", is someone this project can afford to do without. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, Shadowjams. Can I now get away with calling you a moronic asshole because I am part of the Shadowjams-is-a-fucking-idiot-party, and that's my "personal politics"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me whatever you want, so long as it's your opinion and it doesn't make false factual claims about me. I certainly can't start a criminal investigation about it. If you really think I'm a moronic asshole, there's a procedure for that. If someone causes a bunch of trouble, and does it to try and piss people off, then let's block them, quickly. But because someone shows up and has an unpopular opinion, we don't get a short-cut to blocking them. 99% of the time these people give us an excuse as is. But if we make it a matter of principle, which I think I've done, do I really have to explain the next step? I feel like Noam Chomsky crossed with Rush Limbaugh here, neither of which I agree with, but I feel like I'm doing First Amendment 101 here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private website, the first amendment is a red-herring. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just gonna say, the first amendment doesn't apply; secondly, how about it'd be my politics that you should be strung to a tree, raped with an iron-rod, and subsequently be gassed, and I say so repeatedly on talk pages? Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ} 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult me. The 1st amendment has implications beyond application to private non-profits based out of Florida, although that's relevant to. I'm not going to have a legal discussion with you here. I might actually agree with your reasoning for block above. I just want to temper your lust for a defacto ban on political discussions that are unpalatable. It should go without saying that I also find the original political views disgustingly incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying you agreed with them. I was seriously trying to find out where you'd draw the line. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that we don't ban (or block) people for their "views" (what they think) - only for violations of standards and policy (what they do). People will believe what they want to believe: all of us included. If he (Wyvren was his name, right?) affects WP in a negative way from now on, it will most likely be noted and acted upon... Doc9871 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly -- somebody can be a closet-Nazi, Racist, Myca-g-... err--hmm "woman-hater" -- and we'll never know it, and that's fine. Once that someone posts rants and slurs onto pages, it's time for action. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the problem (as I see it) that his IP address is blocked but he's been left free to edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he's using a stable IP. :) But beyond that, if he does, it's block evasion. It usually results in a restart of the block countdown, at least. --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 16:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, I wasn't thinking! However, shouldn't it be part of his account's block record? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, if he logs in from a different IP he could still technically edit. I don't really know if it should be part of his block record. We're not supposed to use block logs for record keeping generally (per Wikipedia:Block#Recording in the block log), but this is an odd situation. There's a kind of precedent for user's who "vanish", per Wikipedia:Block#Recording in the block log after username change, but blocking is far from my usual tool use arena and this seems like a pretty grey area. Maybe this is a case for {{subst:IPsock username confirmed}}? If so, perhaps placing that on the IP and putting a note on the user's talk page indicating the connection and the block of the IP (with an appropriate edit summary) would suffice? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His latest post to his talk page: Fuck Wikipedia and fuck all the leftist, liberal, faggot-loving Jew Communists that run this fucked up piece of shit website! - is there still any question about whether or not he is going to be a worthwhile contributor to keep around? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revdeling that edit summary, Doug.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to explain to others, it was copy and paste of what Wyvren put on his talk page. I take your point though. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. "The Foundation will not practice or tolerate discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, family relationship, or economic or medical status. The Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination." Guidance for volunteers, they suggest. I'm guided. That kind of behavior does not foster such an environment. --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked for "conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere, interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia", copied almost verbatim from Wikipedia:Blocking policy under "disruption." --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. His edit was almost a request for that. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Moonriddengirl's indefinite block. While we do not by policy or precedent ban racists or other extremists from the project as a category, if they edit in a way which disrupts the encyclopedia or community or which brings the project into disrepute they are not contributing and not welcome. The block is entirely appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support an indef block. Clearly disruptive and uncivil. Not interested in contributing productively. Shadowjams (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Moonriddengirl's indefinite block of username Wyrven (Is his identified IP indef blocked as well?) Minor4th 22:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is known but, since we almost never indef block IPs, an existing 48h block was upped to 6 months. It can, of course, be renewed if there is more disruption from the IP after the block expires. —DoRD (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Minor4th 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need an admin's help here

LiteralKa applied SPA tags[154] to my name on this AFD, which does not apply to me, so I removed them and explained in my edit summary that those didn't apply to me. LiteralKa then put them back, and I removed them again advising that he really didn't understand those tags[155]. Since he has restored them (even going so far as to quote WP:VANDAL[156], which also doesn't apply), I am not going to edit war over this, rather I would ask for an admin intervention here to resolve this situation. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informing me that you had "MANY" edits outside of this topic, including on the IP, is a blatant lie. LiteralKa (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To most English-speaking people, many is more than 5. Anyone can see that I have had other edits OTHER than in this AFD, in which you claim I don't. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To most English-speaking people, many is relative, depending on the context. I claim nothing of the sort. I say that you have little, if any edits that are not "of this sort". LiteralKa (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his claims that he was "not going to edit war over this", Whose Your Guy has done exactly that. LiteralKa (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are both beyond 3RR and subject to arbitrary blocking. I suggest you both quit while you're ahead. This is overkill by any standards, btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To most English-speaking people, "Assume good faith" means not calling the other guy a blatant liar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cease assuming good faith when the other person is deliberately falsifying facts. This is an encyclopedia. LiteralKa (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what facts would I be falsifying? Diffs, please. And as I understand 3RR, its more than 3 reversions in 24hours unless reverting vandalism. In the context of the SPA tag, it doesn't apply to me so I didn't feel that I was (or did) violate 3RR. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period. A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. LiteralKa (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that he has done it again. LiteralKa (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm wrong by removing a wrongly placed tag? News to me. How do YOU define a single-purpose account, then, without "quoting the book"? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a lot of edits unrelated to RfAs. LiteralKa (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough. The SPA tag does not apply so stop edit warring to keep it in place. —DoRD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I came here - I knew I wouldn't get anywhere by discussing it with LiteralKa. So what can I do if he applies the tags again? BTW - my true contribs are --> [157]. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone's going to really answer that until you explain how you managed to fill in your userpage, talkpage, add VOA's monobook, and find AfD in your first seven edits. Have you edited using another account? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 20:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I edited with another account? Yes, I have. In the interests of privacy, I would ask that it go no further than that. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you didn't intend to link to WP:VANISH? TFOWR 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did intend just that, actually. I just never went through the formality of the right. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't vanish -- you're here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes, let's just say that I did. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, we'd just be wrong. :) Maybe you're thinking of WP:CLEANSTART? If so, it's strongly recommended that you inform Arbcomm of your previous identity. --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But according to that, I am under no obligation to reveal my previous account. It mirrors what you said about Arbcom, except the caveat is that I DON'T plan on gaining adminship or another similar position, so I can leave things as they are since my previous account is in good standing. Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked LiteralKa for 12 hrs for edit warring and what was functionally a set of personal attacks in this.

This is the sort of thing where finding an uninvolved administrator should always be step 2 (or at most 3) rather than step 10. By the time you keep pressing that far, you're in the wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request help with user(shortened)

That being said I need help with User:Martin IIIa(user is real he just doesn't have a user page). Our whole confrontation began from him mocking me repeatedly for posting obviously wrong information to which I responded by posting evidence that proved the info correct. He referred to them as lies, and when I responded he deleted my responses to him here, here after I reverted him, here again after I reverted him again, here again after I reverted him again, and here after User:Eagles247 reverted him and warned him not to delete other users' comments from the talk page. I posted an apology for my rude behavior at Talk:Gamecube on his talkpage(near the end of the arguments I referred to him as being smug, self righteous, and blatantly dishonest, which I realize didn't help the situation and was inappropiate) and used the situation to ask if he would either apologize for claiming I kept posting "misinformation" or correct one of the points I made. To which he responded that there was no need to correct my claims, that they were obviously wrong and that if I was not willing to look them up and see that they're wrong then there was no helping me. To which I responded that I had looked them up and posted information proving that they were correct and that he had just called them "lies" and asked if he could specifically point to one thing.(got no response but he went back to the talk age of Gamecube and deleted my responses there, then coming to my page and threatening to report me to admins if I restored them or continued my "string of destructive edits". He has threatened to report me to the admins on my talkpage(where he also said that I'm "obviously very young" in a string of condescension he has made to me) and as well as multiple times in his edit summaries on Talk:Gamecubes history page after saying I will likely be indefinitely blocked for my actions here and here.

You really only need to read the above segment and the final few sentences at the bottom, these condensed portions just give a detailed history of all our encounters.

That I am blindly unwilling to accept all my info on the Dreamcast is false

Background 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here I said this(with facts inserted in parentheses and italics): Also the Dreamcast was supported for quite a long time with new arcade ports being released for the Dreamcast in Japan up to 2007(surprisingly enough what I read was outdated and they even continued supporting the system to 2009 with these games released:Triggerheart Exelica released in 2007, Last Hope released in 2007, Radium released in 2007, Karous released in 2007,DUX released 2009,Rush Rush Rally Racing released in 2009), and let's be clear that Sega's last console, which is rated highly and remembered fondly(Rated higher then the Gamecube on polls that I've seen, also credited with introducing online gameplay to consoles and a string of creative titles and well as a particularly dedicated and loving fanbase all of which I could prove but I don't know where the sources are and if Martin really wants to contest this then I will be happy to find them then), is a significant one and that the difference in sales numbers between the Gamecube(22 million) and the Dreamcast(11 million) pale in comparison to the difference in numbers between the Gamecube(22 million) and PS2(140 million). This post Martin responded to here thus: By the way, lest anyone reading this thread fall prey to misinformation: Wikiposter 0123's above post is loaded with factual errors. You can find correct information on the Dreamcast and its games on most reliable gaming sites. As I think I've shown adequately above my post is not "loaded with factual errors". Martin thought the Dreamcast was only supported for a few years after its release and did not believe me when I said it was supported up to 2007(all the way up to 2009 it actually turns out), but when I posted the games released he brushed them off not referring to how he was wrong about the Dreamcast's long support life but instead focusing on one unrelated point I made then referring to the games I listed and other points I made as "other lies". I mention this only because our whole argument was started because he has stated routinely and continues to attack me for constantly posting false information without a single example ever given of something false that I have said in regards to the Dreamcast.

That I am edit warring/showing blatant disregard for the rules

Background 2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On July 26 I added this edit. A single sentence comparing the Dreamcast's sales to the Gamecubes(both part of the same console generation), so that the article noted that the PS2 sold 140 million, the Xbox 24 million, the Gamecue 22 million, and that Nintendo's previous rival Sega's current console only sold 11 million. I also added a reference to the comparison they had to the Gamecube's sales to the N64. On July 27 an IP removed the Dreamcast info saying "Outselling a console that was supported for only two years by a has-been console developer trying to minimize their losses is not notable."(just to state for those of you unaware, the Dreamcast was supported until 2009 and was supposed to be Sega's next big console. Stating they were trying to "minimize their losses" would've been a correct description of the Sega Saturn but not the Dreamcast.) I didn't feel like arguing for this because it was a fairly minor point so I did not revert the edit or go to the talk page, but later that day Alphathon reverted the IP's revert stating "Outselling the dreamcast is notable regardless of how long it was supported (it was a competitor after all). I'll add a note about how long it was on sale though)". The IP user then reverted Alphathon's revert of him stating "Removed non-notable info again. See discussion page". So the discussion began Talk:Nintendo GameCube#Dreamcast here with the IP stating some comparisons to the Dreamcast and some other consoles and politics and stating "Taking care to mention the short time the Dreamcast was supported makes it even worse," to which my post which began this whole argument began.(also Alphathon responded before me talking about why the Dream cast is notable and why political comparisons aren't accurate) Seeing as how the IP didn't respond, that I had just pointed out that his views on the Dreamcast being supported for a really short time were actually incorrect and that Martin was also for it's inclusion I decided to revert the IP's revert of Martin's revert here on July 28th believing that the IP probably didn't have the right to revert Alphathons's revert of his revert anyways and that my edit would be fine. Then Martin and I started "edit warring". He undid my edit stating "Edit warring simply demonstrates a lack of logical basis for one's position". I felt I had made a logical argument, pointed out the flaws in the IP's evidence who had just left and the only other editor Alphathon agreed with me, and nobody had challenged any of my arguments until Martin came and just started calling everything I said obviously wrong and lies. So largely out of offense to his comment that I was edit warring and had no logical basis for my position I reverted his edit explaining my edit stating "Edit warring? I undid an IP's revert based on consensus of the talkpage at the time". Which he reverted stating "No consensus had been reached; in fact, discussion had scarcely begun." After offering a compromise that was little different than my original edit, and after Alphathon and I agreeing to the compromise and the IP long gone I decided to insert the compromised text stating "per talkpage suggestion". Which he reverted saying "Talk page suggestion has not yet been agreed to by all involved editors." referring to the IP who had not posted since his initial comment who he then requested join the conversation and post. The IP then joined, said he thought it was an "open-and-shut case" and couldn't believe the discussion had gone on so long. The IP then added in the compromised text. Lastly Martin has been continually deleteing my responses to him and I restoring them, and this is the only other example of "edit warring". See User talk:Martin IIIa#August 2010 to understand what was going on there.

That I have made many lies

Background 3
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He has so far only actually brought up one "lie" that I made despite claiming that I have made many lies and there is some truth to that example he brought up(note this is not an admission that everything I have said is a lie like it may be tried to be construed as). I waited 4 hours for a response from the IP(I know I should probably wait longer than 4 hours, but I figured anyway that he had left the discussion entirely[which he did until coming back way later after being requested to return]). Four days later when mentioning that I waited for the IP to respond I just assumed (since I saw that it was 4 days since my last post) that I had probably waited 2 days before responding. I thought though that he would probably argue that 2 days was not long enough to wait, so I decided to stretch it to 4 days figuring in my mind 2 days and 4 days are both equally long enough to wait for a response and that the difference of 2 days would only matter to Martin, and that looking at to find the exact date would've been a waste of time because they're both a decent amount of time to wait. I did not realize that I had actually only waited a few hours before reverting and if I knew that I waited so little then I would'nt of mentioned how long I waited(knowing that Martin was going fixate on the any actual misinformation). Anyways so yes I did stretch the time from what I believed was 2 days to 4 days when in actuality I only waited to later that same day, but to use that as evidence that everything else I have said it a "lie" is a bit much.

I have asked for him to please just leave me alone, and I would like to just walk away from all of this, but I am afraid he is probably going to report me soon or something because I just reinserted my comments into the talkpage(which he gave me "one last warning" for or else he was going to report me). I really just want to pre-empt going through a block discussion led by Martin and am hoping just to get this out of the way and make my case now so that I can go on to editing other things, and not spend further time here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on any of this other than....holy shit!TL;DR. You Sir or Madam have probably won the award (not an actual award) for longest post typed by one person. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the whole thing. It's not that long, i've seen longer. Silverseren^C 22:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13,000+ characters according to the watchlist when it was posted. Yeah, that's pretty long. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to somewhat agree with Neutralhomer. If you really want anyone to take action on your report, it would help if you could condense it down to something like an executive summary. Many (most?) admins and other editors will simply ignore something this verbose. —DoRD (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you really only need the beginning and the last paragraph to understand what's going on. Those sum up the whole thing, I just went step by step to prove everything in the 3 sub sections that I had said. That being said I don't really need any action taken that I can think of, I just want this user to go away.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:Using a trick I saw at the Obama talkpage I have just condensed three sections, I have also removed another paragraph, and shortened another. Better?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with non-native-English-speaking editor

I'm engaged in dialog with User:Curvesall on article Racism in Israel, and I'm having a very difficult time. The editor doesn't seem to really understand how to properly edit, and they have introduced numerous style/grammar/formatting errors into the article in the past few days. Every time I try to fix them and explain, the editor reverts my changes. They do engage in talk on the Talk page, but it gets nowhere: I think we have agreement, then wham, they rever the change again.

Here is one example: A source in the article is an essay by person A, in a book by edited by person B. Person B is perhaps biased. User Curvesall keeps changing the text in the article to state that B wrote the essay (B did not: B was merely the editor). Here are three times I tried to indicate to Curvesall that B was not the author: [158], [159], [160] Yet, in spite of all that guidance, Curvesall insists on inserting text into the article that says B is the author (the line is "Nahla Abdo-Zubi, Ronit Lenṭin, critics of Zionists have described Israeli media as..." (Abdo and Lentin are editors, not authors). That is just one example of about 40 problems Curvseall has introduced into the article.

For what it's worth: this user is a single-article account ([161]) although I've seen no evidence of anything nefarious.

Any help would be appreciated. It is excruciatingly difficult trying to repair the damage Curvesall has done. If some editor could review the situation and give some input on the article Talk page, or Curvesall User page, maybe that will help. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "resolved" tag: if the inquiry does not belong here, please tell the editor where to bring it, don't just shut the door in his or her face with an unsigned "resolved" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Ken said: if it doesn't belong here, where does it belong? Or is this a "content issue" where someone should either be happy to beat their head against a wall or just give up and let someone else, well-meaning or not, ruin an article? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Some conversation is happening on the talk page. I warned Curvesall for 3RR, and he's been invited to join the ANI discussion. He seems like someone with prior Wikipedia experience. If Noleander thinks that Curvesall is not following our policies, he can make an update to this report, or file an edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I asked also noleander to come to consensus before editing, I just followed the advice of improving style, and his above comments were met and changed already.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I still need some guidance here. I am at my wits end. I've invested tons of time trying to repair this article, but it continues to get damaged. For each fix I implement, two mistakes are introduced. For example, user curvesall just made another irrational edit (putting a topic about Ethiopia within a section on India) [162]. I can't spend 40 hours per week for the rest of my life following this editor around and undoing mistakes (some of which, I concede, may simply be due to an honest misunderstanding of English). I suggest that Curvesall be temporarily banned from editing that article for a couple of days, to give me time to restore it to decent shape (grammar, spelling, formatting, logic) ... generally to make it encyclopedic. I'm willing to commit to not removing any content that Curveall has added to the article: merely re-formatting and cleaning-up. Then the ban can be lifted and we can start afresh. I understand the WP:Don't bite the newcomers policy, and I've tried to be collegial and helpful at every turn, but I'm not seeing much progress in Curvesall's behavior. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm begging some admin: Please, please ban this editor for a few days. Besides violating just about every WP policy and style guide, the way the editor makes changes to the article is: he has a personal copy of the article, and every time he wants to edit the article, he copies his entire personal copy into the WP article. If any other editor makes a change to the article between, it is lost. See Talk:Racism_in_Israel#Do_you_replace_the_entire_article_each_time.3F. If a ban is not palatable, at least a stern lecture? --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the editor is not engaging on the talkpage regarding his editing style, undoing all previous edits to make a small change is not acceptable, I don't know if he is oblivious to it or whether it is intentional - but he refuses to answer direct questions regarding it. The same style of editing has now been employed by 2 IPs. Unomi (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see these edits: [163], [164], [165], [166]. It should be noted that the edits by Noleander were discrete and could be undone and argued against individually. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new user is making similar edits to the article: User:Mostiessin. They might be the same editor - there are many similarities in style and content. I submitted a sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curvesall. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis-push culminating in possible legal threats

This is a long and protracted dispute. But I support brevity whenever possible and I will try to avoid anyone quoting WP:TLDR to me. The dispute involves Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who, starting last June, insisted on adding their personal analysis of a video into the Prahlad Jani article which was identified as synthesis and original research by myself and two other editors. In the span of about two months and after two RFCs and two reports at WP:ORN, the second report at ORN, at Wikipedia:ORN#Prahlad_Jani_redux, finally rendered opinions that the attempted edit was WP:OR. But although, initially, Nazar seemed to accept the opinion rendered at ORN, after a few days s/he came back at the Prahlad Jani article and added the Defamation of various entities through biased rendering section, where among other things s/he also accuses me and user McGeddon that By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. Since I want to keep this report brief I will not add more details but I would like to ask if anyone thinks that the "Defamation of various entities through biased rendering" section added by Nazar on the talk page of the Prahlad Jani article constitutes a legal threat and if anything needs to be done about it. I am also asking for an opinion about whether the editor should be advised about disruptive editing given their persistent refusal to accept the fact that the edits s/he attempted to insert into the article are synthesis. See also the Nazar revisited section on user Prodego's talkpage, the Prahlad Jani section on my talkpage,the RFCs section on my talkpage. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's already said "No legal threats...implied." which surely rules it out as a legal threat, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the legal term "defamation" and not retracting it goes against the words you just linked to. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a legal threat. Civility issues mayube, but nothing too serious.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I think that pushing synthesis for such a long time despite advice to the contrary by so many editors is at least disruptive. Let's not forget about the repeat and blatant ad-hominem arguments and personal attacks for which he was warned multiple times by myself and twice by user McGeddon. However it is good to have an opinion one way or the other. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point that Dr.K. has been trying to 'punish' me and constantly threatened me at any possible occasion with various Wiki Policies, Rules and other things, trying to imply that I severely violate all and any of them by my edits and my comments in disputes. He also often demanded that I ‘stop editing…’, ‘stop commenting…’, etc… This has been rather oppressive from my point of views and felt/feels like an attempt to intimidate an opponent in dispute by misusing the superior mastery of Wiki Policies which Dr.K. seems to boast. I was reluctant to report this anywhere as I do not claim my edits to be 100% perfect and do not possess a comparable command of Rules and Policies as that of Dr.K. But since the issue has been brought up here, and I feel rather 'pushed into the dead corner' by Dr.K's actions, I feel compelled to mention this now. I'm not requesting any 'punishment', 'official warning' or something of the kind for Dr.K. Just want to highlight my feelings and my experience in connection with the situation brought up here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You replied: constantly threatened me at any possible occasion with various Wiki Policies Can you provide a specific example? Can you also supply a diff where I "seem to boast" my knowledge of policy? And a few more diffs showing when I told you to "stop editing" and "stop commenting"? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say that Dr.K.'s reactions and involvement of Rules and Policies in reply to my comments in a dispute seem artificially exaggerated and imply a well-calculated regular over-reaction and provocation, probably aimed at pushing the situation to the point where he will have enough reasons to officially accuse me of some violations. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at your edits over the past two months as well as the diffs I provided above tell a different story. The single-minded synthesis-push of your personal video analysis speaks for itself. You even added a reply at ORN today still defending your personal synthetic analysis. You also say well-calculated regular over-reaction and provocation, probably aimed at pushing the situation to the point where he will have enough reasons to officially accuse me of some violations. Yet you take no responsibility for pushing this dead horse for approximately two months. People can tell you things once or maybe twice but if they tell you things many, many times as even user McGeddon told you, how can you accuse them of over-reaction, exaggeration and provocation? Dr.K.^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it's Dr.K. and not me who has been pushing a WP:Synthesis for months? And why should I spend hours looking for diffs and citations just to prove something personal to Dr.K.? I try to focus on article related issues and don't want to get into this pointless personal argument. I said above how I feel, that's all. If someone is interested, let them look into my edits in the context of the on-going dispute and make their own mind. I may add that I've been a bit too emotional at some points and I did say I'm sorry for that in appropriate places. That, however, does not change my view of Dr.K.'s attitude. I'd also like to add that it is my right to defend my own position in an argument, and if 2 or 4 or even more users are of a different view, that does not necessarily mean that I must change my own well-founded logic. I did my best to take into account all the Policies and did not try to edit-war against the Rules. Any further requests from Dr.K. to abandon my own logic seem like an obvious oppression and violation of my freedom of thought. Look at the updated discussion here. I believe my arguments to be very well founded. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said: Well, maybe it's Dr.K. and not me who has been pushing a WP:Synthesis for months?. Maybe so. But unfortunately for your theory you must add Users: Jonuniq, McGeddon, Escape orbit, Quoth 31 and Nuujinn, all of whom told you essentially the same things I told you. As far as not finding the diffs to support your claims against me, I leave it up to the other editors to judge. As far as your "new" arguments at the ORN, they are simply more of the same stuff justifying the synthesis you have been attempting to add to the article. Nothing new here. But since no admin seems willing to act in this case I have nothing more to add here. It is regrettable that such a huge effort was spent over months by so many editors for such an unambiguous case of WP:SYNTH and no admin has taken any action either for the synthesis, or the personal attacks and general incivility of this editor. It seems that only when Giano or Malleus are involved, civility rules become really sacrosanct. Nuff said. Goodbye. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case had further development, which made me call for help and advice of an experienced Wikipedian. I've addressed user Prodego on his talk page, since he was involved into the issue and offered help before. But if anyone could advise me more, I'd appreciate it very much, because Prodego hasn't been active for almost 2 days and the situation requires some reaction preferably without longer delays. The details are on Prodego’s talk page. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing the issue up here per advice of Chzz ► on my talk page. -- Nazar (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on Prodego's page since the discussion moved there. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Admin assistance with ITN/C

There are three stories (2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Death of Guido de Marco and AgBank has completed the largest ever IPO) that look like they could be ready for posting and the timer is now red. Can someone take a look? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look now. TFOWR 15:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done ...kind of. I agree with the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and the Death of Guido de Marco; AgBank needs some work on the blurb, but I've said I'll stick it up as soon as that's resolved. I've not updated the picture: a smarter admin than me (i.e. any of 'em...) should do that, as I'm fairly certain I'll break something. Probably in a way that results in BC/Delta trouting me... TFOWR 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone else around who is happy to finish off the job tonight and change the image over? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Agbank up and changed over the image. If anyone wants to crop the image, go for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sos.jpg

User Paulgg uploaded a new version of File:Sos.jpg that is completely different than the original file. Originally, the file was an diagram of a safety shutoff valve, but now it is a photograph of the village of Sos, Lot-et-Garonne in France. I have already notified the user with respect to this incident and this post. Would it be possible for someone to delete the existing version, reinstate the old version, and upload the picture of the village to a new file, perhaps File:Sos, Lot-et-Garonne.jpg? – Zntrip 05:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the original image. I have saved a copy of the other one but I am not to sure on the copyright (not typically my area) and so I have asked the original up-loader to resubmit it at a new name and fill out the info though I will try to figure it out :) Mauler90 _talk 06:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Olympics images for ITN

Because there is a recent lack of admin presence at WP:ITN/C, I just wanted to let it be known that there are now free images of the Youth Olympics opening ceremony (see here) if anyone think the ITN image should change at some point. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding and disruptive editing?

Crossposted to WP:VPM

I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [167] [168]

I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [169] (where they then also edit warred with others [170]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [171]

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [172] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [173] The case evidence I presented [174] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [175] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [176]

After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [177] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [178] [179] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [180] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [181] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [182] and JBsupreme. [183] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [184] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [185]

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [186] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [187] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [188] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [189] [190]

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [191] [192] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [193] [194] [195] [196]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [197] [198] [199]

Sigh.

I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. [200] I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcommafirst began.)

      Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients [201] just before initiating an AfD. [202] This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs [203] and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

      Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given this edit [204] I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, [205]Miami33139 made this comment [206] in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously. [207]

To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Wikipedia and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance"[208] are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tothwolf is not being paranoid in suggesting there is an attempt to hound him off Wikipedia, it's a reasonable perception of what is going on. See the comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placing {{[[wikipedia:Substitution subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice ANI-notice]]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)

But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".

Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was 6 months ago. That isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want for the rest of your wikicareer with impunity. Just because you weren't hounding him 6 months ago doesn't mean you aren't now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf seems to have taken great issue with you and you replied to his comment with "tl;dr" I asked you specifically how that could be seen any other way. If it isn't joking language, and it wasn't baiting and it wasn't hounding, what was it?--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how and why it was retracted. The retraction seems just as bad as the comment as his reasoning is quite poor and comes across as disingenuous. The appropriate response is to determine whether the user actually acknowledges the problem and if there is a likelihood the behaviour will continue. So far he seems to be attempting to excuse it away and deflect blame and not genuinely own up to it which is an indication that the behaviour may continue at a future date to me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice the section header Miami33139 used in this edit until Seth Kellerman linked to it: "==W<span style="background:white; color:white; ;">h</span>ine suggestion==" [209] This renders as "Whine suggestion" with the 'h' in white text on a white background. It seems to fit the same pattern of the other edit. [210] --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for transparency I want to mention here that someone posted this strange message on my talk page today: [211] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 2% of my editing since June overlaps with Tothwolf. I am tired of his accusations. I wish to ignore him. I'm sorry you think 5 characters an exasperated comment is capital crime on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 characters, your reference to him as paranoid, your inappropriate comment here[212], here [213] and then your disingenuous attempt to cover it all up. If you are saying you made all of those edits unintentionally then I think you should be blocked because it is quite apparent you are not in control of your actions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on - to block Miami33139?

There seems to be a fair amount of consensus among administrators and regular editors that Miami's actions warranted a block. As such, I would prefer this discussion not die with no action being taken.

Since one of Miami's collaborators, Theserialcomma, was blocked 5 days for baiting, I propose that Miami also be blocked for 5 days. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, Beyond My Ken made a statement on July 16th regarding Miami33139's wikihounding behaviours which I think will be of interest to the rest of the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an interaction ban including a ban on nominating articles or user pages for deletion that were created or significantly edited by Tothwolf would be a good idea, but events may be moving on regardless of the decision here, as Miami33139 may have chucked a WP:BOOMERANG: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf. Fences&Windows 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noted my concerns with a simple interaction ban in my reply to Carcharoth[214] on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed [in November 2009]. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas."

One example I noted in my statement [215] is {{IRC footer}}, which the edit history will probably explain far better than I could here. There were also events like these diffs document which I'm not sure a simple interaction ban as proposed would prevent: [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] There are also other examples such as Category:Internet Relay Chat games (CFD) and others which I did not note in my statement. I had been in the process of populating them when the wikihounding began and Miami33139 attempted to depopulate them in order to have them deleted via CFD. Sigh.

I really do wish Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme would stop the personal attacks though (calling me "paranoid", "delusional", etc and claiming WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the reviewing arbitrator is apparently waiting for further comments. [223] DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and at the same time they seem to think his conduct was inappropriate and personal attacks. Unless he's indicated that they're going to stop and we're buying it, then he should be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but arb com is actively considering sanctions, and if they want to do so, they have priority. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can carry on independently. If there is an open threat of disruption its an administrator's job to prevent that. A note can be made at the arbcom case, and they can visit his talk page or he can go through the appropriate steps to be unblocked if he wants to contribute further.--Crossmr (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBsupreme's current behaviour is also troubling. Comments such as "so non-notable its just laughable, but in a sad way"[224] as a prod reason are clearly inappropriate, even more so with this being a prod of a BLP article. Isn't this and a number of other similar actions [225][226] a direct violation of his edit restrictions? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd suggest an admin take a long hard look at his editing restriction and those two edits.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Maunus for incivility, unblock declined by Kingpin13. I don't know if either were aware of this ANI discussion but one of the difs Maunus cited as reason for blocking was the "Learn how to spell then cite a source" dif that Tothwolf noted. The other in which he wished, in ALLCAPS, for "all vandals to die a slow painful fiery death" (perhaps not verbatim but something along those lines). I was going to request arbitration enforcement but as his block seems to have stuck I don't believe it's necessary. Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the block that has been applied appropriate, and suggest we continue in the usual manner with increasing blocks if the behavior recurs (myself, I am too much involved with the parties for it to be appropriate for me to take admin action here, but I can still give my opinion.) More generally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that arb com are becoming unwilling or unable to solve disputes referred to them in a timely manner. I mention the Blablaaa arbitration request [227] where again we took appropriate action here which made the matter moot while they were still discussing whether or not they should do anything. This section is still open, as we (or they) have yet to decide how to deal with the other parties. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this an unfair depiction of the way arbitration works. Arbitration is necessarily slow and deliberative, and it also gets held up when other arbitrators don't have time to comment (the current request for amendment has stalled because I am waiting for other arbitrators to comment). This is in contrast to a noticeboard where the response times are quicker because more people are watching the situation, but noticeboards are sometimes less deliberative (people may not review to the same depth as happens in an arbitration motion or case). Also, people can be selective about what ANI threads they participate in, whereas arbitrators have less choice about what they decide to take on. In my view, ArbCom tries to do too much sometimes, but we do eventually get round to dealing with most things. In the case of this thread here, JBsupreme had been placed under a civility restriction by ArbCom, and the current block (although applied independently of the arbitration case) has been logged there (which is correct in my view). As far Miami33139 goes (the subject of this subsection), no block has been applied. I remain hopeful that when the rest of ArbCom have had time to look at this, something will get sorted out that doesn't require blocking. As far as the Blablaaa request goes (and this request is better discussed at the request page itself), if you read what was said, you will see that I was of the opinion that action should have been taken after the RfC and before the ArbCom request. I would also point out that a case was about to be accepted when the block of Blablaaa was applied, and a case may still end up accepted if the block is lifted (see his talk page). So the block has done nothing except prolong matters. Sometimes a swift and decisive admin block will resolve matters, sometimes not. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two autoarchived discussions need closing

Hi, two fairly high-key discussions were autoarchived on this board without closing. I'm posting here so some admin can, well, close them.

• [228]
• [229]

Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 04:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first of these: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#Klaus Ebner: Wikicrossing, spam, conflict of interest and puppet users, I perceive consensus for a six-month topic ban of Klaus Ebner:

Klaus Ebner is placed on probation for a period of 6 months, and is restricted to one account. He is topic banned from any articles relating to himself, broadly defined. He may also be the subject of random checkusers, to ensure he complies with the restrictions of his probation. If it is found he is in violation of his probation, he may be blocked, for up to 1 year.

If anyone believes this is not the correct result of the archived discussion, please comment here. This wording would be added as an editing restriction in WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP disruption on Macedonian language

I just stumbled across Macedonian language, an article I have made a few edits to in the past, and saw that it was being nominated for deletion and that there was apparently a crowd of IP's working together, repeatedly adding superfluous AfD templates to the article, more than a dozen of them, as here. I am aware of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2 and wanted to be extremely careful but I could find no other way to stop the disruption than to semi-protect the article. Since it had been done in the past and I could find nothing in the Arbcom page that prohibits protection I don't think that is a mistake, but if so I apologize and ask for someone to correct me. These edits and the AfD may be the creation of an already-banned user, but I can tell nothing from just the IP's. —Soap— 09:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple AfD templating is obvious and blatant vandalism, so your actions - even if you have edited the article previously - are fine, IMO. I shall check if anyone other than the ip's have commented at the AfD, and action it accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good protection. The multiple AfD nominations have even continued on the AfD page itself. This appears to be the work of a Greek blog (linked in the AfD). I foresee the AfD will be closed early. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 10:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I hope - and assume - you're right, I foresee the close being followed by a requested move to "FYROMian language"... Ah, the joys of POV! TFOWR 10:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted an AfD notice from Template: Macedonian language. Someone might want to keep an eye on this... The Rhymesmith (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Macedonian language and Template:Macedonian language are now semi'd. Past experience suggests that our friends will find new and creative ways to cause disruption, so I'd suggest we keep this open for now. TFOWR 11:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alpha-ZX, Labour Party (UK)

This article has been the target of slow edit warring for some time now, and I semi'd it a while back as a result. One of the "genre warriors" is Alpha-ZX (talk · contribs), and I've just reverted them and warned them. Their response was to blank their talkpage and restore their preferred "genres". Obviously I'm involved, so I (a) ask for review of my actions and (b) for review of Alpha-ZX's actions. TFOWR 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blanking the talk page definitely means they never got the warning and it's all good... I gave them another warning - they have already been reverted again - and told them to take it to the talk. I logged it in the edit summary so we shouldn't miss it again. We can do more if it becomes an edit war. There does seem to have been a lot of discussion illustrating a consensus against his edits. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This editor continues to add text that other editors have reverted, and does not discuss the matter on the talk pages. While not technically a violation of 3RR it is edit-warring and should be treated as such. TFD (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well he has had a final warning and can be blocked for further digressions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Buckshot06 re-prodded article and displayed incivility when challenged

Closing admin flogging per Bold and WP:Deadhorse....nothing to see here, really
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Buckshot06 has not followed policy concerning not re-prodding an article where a PROD has been contested; has treated me with incivility by falsely accusing me on my talk page of “harassing” other admins; and also repeatedly ignoring my request to not post messages on my talk page: As an Admin, Buckshot06 must know that it is against WP:CONTESTED policy to replace a removed PROD tag to an article, yet he does just that here. After I removed the improperly restored prod tag (and properly notified Buckshot06 here), Buckshot06 ignores the message at the top of my talk page to not post messages and, in violation of [WP:CIVIL]], posts the false accusation that I am harassing other Admins here. This is, at its best, a violation of WP:AGF, and at its worse it is an example of taunting or baiting. I responded to that post on his talk page (as stated I would on my own talk page) and told Buckshot06 directly that I did not want him to post any more messages on my talk page here and also here. Ignoring my request to stay off my talk page, Buckshot06 taunts me with this posting on my talk page, even though he could have more easily posted the same message at our discussion taking place on his talk page. I have become discouraged with Wikipedia precisely because some Admins seem to act as though policy does not apply to them; and then, when challenged or corrected, use their position/experience to bully. Even though Buckshot06 is an Admin (or perhaps because he is an Admin) I believe that he must abide by the same policy and rules of civility that is demanded of other editors. Inniverse (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Without taking sides, and having no idea the history behind any of this, other than what you linked here, I will just post my observations to what I see. 1. The fact that Buckshot06 is an admin seems to have no bearing on the readdition of the PROD. 2. He seems to have admitted his mistake on the PROD, and tried to tell you so on your talk page. 3. Why would he say that you are harrasing admins? 4. Why do you not like messages on your talk page. Isn't that the whole point of them? 5. I don't see how the last comment by Buckshot was taunting. And thats all I have to say about that.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] As for his claim that I harassing other admins, he appears to be upset that I have challenged the closing of two AfD's where the articles were deleted when it looks like no consensus to me. Following policy, the first step it to raise the issue with the closing admins, which I did here and here. To answer you next question - despite having an open discussion with me on his talk page, Buckshot06 ignored the top message and two direct requests to not post on my talk page. That is why I describe that last action as taunting. Inniverse (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You can do what you wish with your talk page, but I wouldn't expect a minor disregard for whatever rule you created to be construed as taunting or harassment. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You are confused. I have not accused Buckshot06 of harassment - he came to my talk page to make that accusation of me. Inniverse (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Taunting then. Either way. The article is now at AfD, the prod tag is removed. I would describe Buckshot's response as less than optimal, but I don't see a grave error. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, that is not less than optimal. That is completely wrong. This is a blatant [230] assumption of bad faith, and he was told to stay off his talk page and went to it. this is a clear violation of WP:HARASSMENT. We routinely enforce any situations where someone is told to stay off someone's talk page. This is extremely poor behaviour from an administrator and shows very bad judgment.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Completely agree with Crossmr. Was what Buckshot had to say really that important that it required communicating with Inniverse on his talk page? Was there not a common article they were working on that he could have posted his apology? The repeated returning to Innverse's talk page was a blatant disregard and stab at Inniverse basically saying "I will have the last word and you cant stop me from talking to you". A classic power play and attempt to demoralize an "opponent" (from Camelbinky's Art of War on Wikipedia). The fact that the admin hasnt come here to defend themselves is also troublesome and disconcerting. Is there an admin out there with the balls to say "I'll monitor this admin and if he continues to seem like he doesnt have the civility to be admin action will be done". Admins, step and show the regular editors you have the balls to police your own, including blocking and desysoping. Perfect opportunity.Camelbinky (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Protonk's right--saying "don't use my talk page as a talk page" is entirely unhelpful, and ignoring that directive is not per se harassment. If you don't want to have a talk page, edit as an IP. Setting up "rules" that themselves are at odds with community norms, and then expecting them to be adhered to by admins with whom one has started a conversation is certainly not working collaboratively on the project. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would definitely have to say that Buckshot's actions here were completely wrong. It would have been fine if he had just made a mistake in regards to the PROD, as everyone does every once in a while, but his comments to Inniverse after s/he told him that his actions did not follow policy were completely out of line. Also, Inniverse is certainly not the first person I have seen who has asked others not to have discussions on their talk page. Buckshot was already informed of this by Inniverse and has no reason to comment again on the said user's talk page. That would, most definitely, qualify as taunting. Buckshot could have just as easily responded on his own talk page, which he should have done. I do think there needs to be some action taken here and I echo Camelbinky's statement that an Admin should not be left off when they do something wrong. I have seen too many Admins let off on their actions by other Admins. The Administrative community needs to police their own members and, if they do not, they cannot blame the multitude of other users that refer to Admins as a "cabal". I have certainly thought the same at many points in time and have seen little to discourage the viewpoint. SilverserenC 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Jclemens initially that's fine, but he went there and specifically told him to stay off his talk page. That is blatant harassment and that very scenario has come up here time and time again and it is always upheld as harassment and inappropriate. This is disgusting behaviour for an admin and the fact that other admins would sit around here and try and excuse it is an even further disgust. Admins aren't above the polices and guidelines, they're only there to enforce them when people won't adhere to them.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] this edit is the only thing I've looked at, as it was described as "taunting" by the original complainant. It is objectively unreasonable, in my view, to call that edit taunting. It amounts to advice on collaboration with a reasonably friendly and conciliatory tone. If that is the worst administrative misbehavior the original complainant can come up with, then there's no actionable complaint here. If the circumstances had been different (less polite message, less clear encyclopedia-building reason for leaving a message, more objective reasonableness in the initial request to keep off of a talk page) the circumstances might be different, but the bottom line is that it is objectively reasonable in my view for an administrator, even one who's had a disagreement with a non-administrator, to post friendly advice on a talk page in this precise fashion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concur with Jclemens. --John (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, actually, this response is the one that is much more problematic. I wasn't clear on the fact that PROD tags created an illusory "consensus" when you add them to an article. I'll have to make sure to remember that one for my future activities, it's always useful to have imaginary consensus behind you when you're doing something. (Oh, and hello new member of the "cabal", welcome to the discussion). SilverserenC 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that's much more of a problematic edit, and suppose the OP has overplayed his hand and lost sympathy by complaining about the talk page edits, when the more problematic issue came before that. I'd be interested to hear Buckshot06's explanation. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] He hasn't responded so far in this discussion. What makes you think he will at all? SilverserenC 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that this rises to the level of something we need ANI for. Buckshot6 acknowleged the re-prodding was in error under policy and did the right AFD thing, and at least implicitly acknowledged the talk page posting was too confrontational when he refactored it himself to a much less problematic form. Inniverse is overreacting to the use of his talk page in normal manners - the request to not use it for discussion is unusual, and while people should take that into account, we don't have to slavishly follow his request as long as talk page posters adhere to other policy normally. If Buckshot6 were more confrontational it might have risen to harassment but it doesn't seem to have gone nearly that far to me. Admins making huge mistakes are certainly grounds for ANI threads. Admins making normal mistakes or getting into low-level arguments with people really isn't. Please keep perspective - we don't demand perfection of admins, what we do demand is that they work responsibly to improve situations, and de-escalate confrontations (both those they see, and those they are involved in). Inniverse may have seen it differently, but Buckshot6's behavior here stepped back after an initial minor overstep. I believe that both users perhaps deserve a {{minnow}} but nothing worth a long ANI thread about. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Apologies everyone for me showing up late. I've been busy IRL. Right, points in order; yes, I freely admit that I made a mistake reprodding the article - I lost track. Second, the consensus that I referred to was in relation to two deletion debates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). Third, I would repeat my suggestion that User:Inniverse says on his talkpage that he is watching or otherwise monitoring others' talkpages after he posts messages. I am not sure how people contact him in the first instance though. That's the substance of the dispute. On remedies, I said at my RfA that I was going to be an administrator open to recall. I do not believe, from reading the comments above, that this situation meets that standard, but anyone is free to start gathering votes to start off that process if they should wish. Regards to all from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06(talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think this is far short of anything deserving recall, personally. On a related note, Inniverse just substantially overhauled his talk page header, probably responding to some of the comments above, and notes that he'll follow your talk page and discuss things there with you if you leave a message on his. He notes that if he deletes comments that he's read and acknowledged them. This was a substantial improvement and a positive step to keep his goal (not have long discussions there) and still interface with other wikipedians as required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] A user specifically and directly told you to stay off his talk page. Are you incapable of respecting that? Do you think it was a good idea to go back to their talk page and post again?--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inniverse reacted in such a way because he was reacting to a bad faith insult from a user he didn't want posting on his talk page anymore. Users tell others to stay off their talk page all the time and we've enforced that plenty of time in the past with consequences for ignoring it. Why does that suddenly go away because an admin did it huh?--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because its all a conspiracy. Jesus.Protonk (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ssh. I don't use that name in public. If it isn't a conspiracy then why aren't we upholding the same principles against this user that we uphold against every other user that comes through here? if you can't give a reasonable answer for that then your little joke was probably a lot more insightful than you intended.--Crossmr (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] So what do you want then? A public flogging? If he hasn't already done so, just ask Buckshot to apologize for ignoring the request not to use Inniverse's talk page and move on. Resolute 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It would be appropriate for Buckshot06 to step down from his role as Admin. Policies have been established to help ensure that Wikipedia is an enjoyable community where its volunteer editors are encourage to be involved and to be bold. The incivility demonstrated by Buckshot06 shows that he is not ready to be an admin. We must remember that the Wikipedia project is manned by volunteers. If the volunteers loose faith in the Admins whose role it is to support policy (and thus support a positive experience for the volunteer editors) the Wikipedia project will de-evolve into a closed community of like-minded persons. That is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Admins must demonstrate that they are committed to the ideals of Wikipedia. Buckshot06 has demonstrated to me that he is not there yet. Inniverse (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Buckshot is open to recall as he has stated repeatedly. If you think this issue is one worthy of recalling him, you can start a discussion to do so. My suggestion is that you not, because such a discussion wouldn't result in him being recalled and would be (as this thread is) a waste of time for all concerned. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have also received Threats from User:Buckshot06 I believe that I have received a thinly veiled uncivil threat from Buckshot06 concerning material that i removed from the article in question. I originally added the material, and Buckshot06 removed it because of an error in Detail that i made, claiming that i was "twisting POV". When i readded it, i decided to remove it, as shown in the link above. The Fact, is, that after i saw the mistake, i did not go back to put the material back and now its not on the article anymore. not to mention the fact that not to mention the fact that Buckshot removed more than just that sentence. he removed "Racial slurs were allegedly used by the Chinese Muslim troops against Uighurs". the source does indeed show epithets that were used by Tungans (Chinese muslims) against Turkic muslims (Uighurs) [231] since the material is already gone from the article, this seems more of a very uncivil threat in trying to force me to apologize. He is also not assuming good faith, trying to tie the COPYVIO investigation against me into this POV accusation. the Fact is, since Copyvio means directly copying from the source, not adding my own material, and POV means i changed the material and twisted it to my own means, is that the allegations have nothing to do with each other. In his first comment on my talk page, he was very uncivil and did not assume good faith. I would like him to stay off my talk page unless he has a message concerning something that is currently on an article which concerns me.Дунгане (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Saying that someone is twisting POV or twisting sources does seem like a breach of WP:CIVIL, especially when there is no evidence presented that Дунгане is doing such a thing. SilverserenC 05:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Right. The context here was initially Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Дунгане, of which WP:MILHIST was alerted to by User:Moonriddengirl. On the associated AN/I thread, there were repeated concerns of racial POV being raised against Дунгане/Dungane. I'm a military formations specialist, so I took a look at the 36th Division article for the National Revolutionary Army, the Chinese army of 1911-192x. The issue was the User:Дунгане/Dungane was suspected of repeated copying of material inappropriately from sources. Thus I initially started my investigation thinking that unreasonably imported material might well need to be removed. When I started checking references, I found a section that seemed to twist the source. I'll replicate what I found in a moment, and I'd appreciate more eyes on it than mine. As of a couple of hours ago, I was going to leave the whole matter a couple of days and then seek a second opinion from a milhist coordinator. Bottom line: there are significant concerns with both copyright infringement and potentially POV in User:Дунгане's work, and I am acting in the interests of the encyclopaedia to investigate, as is the expectation I think among all admins. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] This was the message I left on Dungane's talkpage: Page 308 of Flemming says '..From the crowd of spectators watching the netball match an old Turki detached himself, darted forward, and grovelled weeping at the general's feet.' He's been wronged by one of his sons, he said. He was imploring the general to do something about it. He grovelled to gain the general's attention and to show respect, not because he had been forced. This was the material which you appear to have changed into 'Tungan general forced Turkis to grovell before him.' What is your explanation? Buckshot06 Dungane responded by saying he'd made a mistake in detail, and complaining that I'd removed more than the offending section, which he has since removed indeed. I removed that data because of copyright concerns - It seems to run too closely to the source. I do not have the inclination to go through every page of Dungane's transcription of the 36th Division information to see how many times he has twisted sources, so I advised him that I would reduce the article to a stub. As I saiid, as of a couple of hours ago, I was going to seek a second opinion, and thereafter act as the other coordinator (I was intending to approach User:EyeSerene, but the coordinators in general are a pretty solid group) suggested. Third opinions very welcome.. how should this matter, which forms one small part of the overall CCI issue, be dealt with? Buckshot06(talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I thought that username looked familiar. I apologize. I have been overly and needlessly suspicious of you. SilverserenC 06:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] (e-c)I see a pattern of incivility, and not a very good one, coming from someone who is an admin this is completely unacceptable. It is not acceptable to be rude or uncivil simply because another user has his/her own problems, two wrongs dont make a right (two wrights make an airplane however). An admin must be an example to all of us and be extra careful how he/she words things and their attitude. I call upon Buckshot, since he has said he is willing to be recalled, to simply willingly on his own give up his adminship. Once he no longer is an admin he can then go through the process again and see if the community agrees to let him have the "powers" again. His willingness to voluntarily give up the powers would, to me at least, show his contrition and maturity. It is one thing for him to say he's willing to go to a vote on losing his adminship (which those things usually never pass, so he's confident he'll keep his title) and another to give it up and then throw the dice on getting the adminship back. If he doesnt give up his adminship voluntarily I for one will be the first to yell "off with his head" and call for a recall.Camelbinky (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Camelbinky, thanks for your input. However I believe that my value to the encyclopaedia would be better measured by a discussion in the project I edit in, Milhist. I do not believe it's appropriate to step down on the call of one relatively uninvolved editor. Would you kindly please start a discussion on the Milhist talk page and see what the general feeling there is? Regards Buckshot06(talk) 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I forgot the exception to the civility policy- if you (and others) consider you an asset to your wikiproject you can be an ass to anyone you want that you and your friends think is "less important". The fact that I am uninvolved means my opinion has MORE weight than those who are your "friends". You have been rude. Admit it and atone. Yes, I admit that since I am an extremely important asset to the NYCD and NY wikiprojects that I have gotten away with a lot more than others who have done similar things as I have. Is that something that I am proud of? Hell yea, but that doesnt mean I'm going to let you get away with doing it. And where do you get off thinking you are soooo important to Wikipedia that anyone would rather you be an ass to people than lose you? Wow, I dont think your head can fit in my computer screen. And yes, I am a more important contributor to Wikipedia than you are if we are going to play that game I too can have a huge ego. Let's have a pissing contest while we are at it. If you can be rude to any editor you want as long as you are "more important to the encyclopedia" than the editor you are insulting then we should codify that in policy someplace and I can get away with calling you whatever I want I guess.Camelbinky (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've responded with a suggestion in response to your original suggestion, how else would you prefer I atone? Buckshot06(talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The discussion is happening here, suggesting a change of venue for something which, with any other user, would get discussed here, isn't an appropriate discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've told you, Buckshot, how you can atone- give up your adminship. If you are confident you have simply made a small mistake and have not been overly rude then you will receive it back if you choose to go through the process again. I have seen from you no apology regarding your tone in talking to people. An admin must be respectful, thoughtful, considerate, and extremely careful in their choice of words. I have not seen any of that from you in any discussion you have had with anyone. Nor have I shown any humility. I have seen the exact opposite of all that. I can proudly say I dont have any of those traits when it comes to Wikipedia, but of course I dont have any wish whatsoever to be an admin. For you it seems to be a power/status issue and you would probably do much better without the "fancy title". If you want to atone, begin with admission of guilt, apology to those you did wrong by being rude to, ask for forgiveness from the Community at large, and then show by example you have seen the error of your ways and that others should see your example and know they should not do the things you did before. I have not seen anything from you that leads me to believe that you understand that being rude and forcing yourself onto people's talk pages and talking down to them is wrong and unacceptable. Show me you wont do it again.Camelbinky (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not believe this is necessary. While I do think that Buckshot should have been reprimanded for his actions with the OP of the first section, that did not include de-sysopping and his actions with Дунгане certainly do not count, as this user is under a thorough investigation of adding copyrighted material, which has been done in most of their edits. I can completely understand Buckshot getting fed up with such a person and I do not think he said anything that was bad enough to warrant much of a warning and certainly nothing to de-sysop for. This is unwarranted, so please stop this "atonement" business. SilverserenC 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It would be appropriate for Buckshot06 to step down from his role as Admin. Policies have been established to help ensure that Wikipedia is an enjoyable community where its volunteer editors are encourage to be involved and to be bold. The incivility demonstrated by Buckshot06 shows that he is not ready to be an admin. We must remember that the Wikipedia project is manned by volunteers. If the volunteers loose faith in the Admins whose role it is to support policy (and thus support a positive experience for the volunteer editors) the Wikipedia project will de-evolve into a closed community of like-minded persons. That is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Admins must demonstrate that they are committed to the ideals of Wikipedia. Buckshot06 has demonstrated to me that he is not there yet. Inniverse (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that would be an overkill: I don't think Buckshot06's actions warrant a desysopping at this stage; however, if that's the way you want to go, perhaps, in my opinion, it would be better to start an RFC... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agree, I haven't seen any abuse of admin tools. looks more like a dispute between two editors rather than an admin abusing powers. Buckshot06 is allowed to disagree as much as he wants. A revocation of tools would be a bit much in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think this is pretty much exhausted, user seems to realize he was a bit rude and that replacing the prod was a mistake and I'm sure he will be a bit more careful in future. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Off2riorob's supportive belief towards Buckshot06 future attitude is commendable, and a good example of assuming good faith; but it I find it disturbing that Buckshot06 has yet to acknowledge to me that he understands how his actions were uncivil. Inniverse (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that its has already been dertemined that his comments were not uncivil, so an acknowledgment seems unwarranted. Although if it helps, I'm sorry that this happened to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Jojhutton, what thread are you reading? It has definitely been acknowledged that Buckshot was rude and uncivil, I'm a bit worried how you came to this discussion with that opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I will use the word atonement and any other such word I feel. As for Buckshot he does need to show the Community that he knows what he did was wrong regarding his tone and conduct. An admin is held to a higher standard. Just as a janitor cant go around screaming at children in a school hallway swearing and calling them names an admin cant go around being rude. This is an admin who thinks because he has that title that it is his job to police and control the actions of others. Other way around, admins ONLY carry out the decisions and consensus of the Community and do what WE want. This is an admin that needs to learn the way things are. Make an example now so the worst of the admins that are still out there will take notice. No admin should EVER lose control and/or be uncivil, if you cant be held to the highest standards possible then you shouldnt be an admin. I am sick of this "oh, yea, he went a bit overboard and was uncivil, but he's learned his lesson" crap, no he has not, he has yet to publicly apologize and admit that it is not ok to go to another's talk page when asked not to. Buckshot- apologize and admit that a talk page is not a place you can go willy-nilly anytime you want. That's all I've been waiting for this entire time. If you had apologized and admitted it was wrong I would have supported you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I strongly oppose this idea. All editors should only be sanctioned for what they've done and never for what someone else is doing or has done (to make an example of them would amount to that). Nobody should be used a scapegoat and quite frankly I think that such a proposal is offensive. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can't comment on Buckshot06's actions but from what I have seen from Дунгане so far, he is the wrong person to point the finger at someone else. Although barely a month registered on WP, he has left us with absurd notions on military history such as Chinese muslims armed with swords inflicted massive casualties on the Russian forces armed with machine guns, tanks, and planes trolled heavily at Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)/Archive 1#pray tell gun powder ma and maliciously tried to stir controversy about homosexuality at Roman Empire, now luckily removed (1) Given his additional habitual disregard for copyright, the loose use of which throws a bad light on Wikipedia anyway (we are the world's largest online repository on fair use rationale pics - how self-serving), I have to say that I am sympathetic to Buckshot06 who, as expert on military and copyright questions, has had to put up with a lot of stuff. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United States Senate: World Greatest Deliberative Body

I am referring this to the Admin notice board as the debate has got way out of hand and one user is continuing to engage in wikilawyering and personal attacks against myself. A third opinion was asked for in this case, which has resulted in the user expanding their personal attacks. Please can this be sorted out as this kind of behaviour towards myself is unacceptable and removed the ability to debate the issues at hand. I have though also made a claim that this user is acting as the article owner which I believe to be a true statement but may be taken as unhelpful. This is due to the nature and continued personal attacks and attempted character assassination of myself. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, presumably, the editor in question. If this is indeed the appropriate forum for LucyMarie to direct her concerns (my own opinions notwithstanding, a legitimate issue about personal attacks would presumably be better dealt with first on the user's talk page, and then at WQA, and then at an RfC on user conduct), and an administrator wishes to investigate this 'situation' (no death threats, racist attacks, or legal threats are involved), I advise them to read the talk page of the United States Senate article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Lucy-marie, I don't see it as a personal attack for one editor to say that another is completely misinterpreting policy. If we couldn't say another editor misunderstands policy, we'd have no way to conduct consensus building discussions. Furthermore, while I admit to skimming parts of that quite long debate, I didn't see either side "wikilawyering"--you were both looking closely at policy to solve a content dispute. Can you point to a specific diff which you think is a personal attack, that meets the definitions in WP:NPA? I do think the debate spiraled out of hand, but I am hard-pressed to say that the blame for that lies with The Rhymesmith. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments I take issue with are comments after towards the end of the third opinion which are in bold and are only there to attempt to create an impression of me a bad faith editor. Rhymesmith has trawled through my history and dug up some poor editing I did when I first started. The comments had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand and were only there to try and discredit me as an editor. If Ryhmesmith is allowed to get away that level of personal commenting which only designed to diminish another editor as opposed to actually commenting on the content of the article then no serious discussions’ purely on the issues can be had.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following are a selection of diffs which I consider to ammount to personal attacks diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 this diff states Rhymesmith is deliberatly not assuming good faith 6

Please take a look at the above as I consider the above to ammount to personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not mandated to assume good faith under circumstances where I have explicit grounds for not doing so. My grounds are articulated alongside the actual statement of not assuming good faith, and stem from Lucy Marie's behavior. Good grief. Now, from WP:NPA - a partial definition of a personal attack.

“

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

”

I am perfectly happy to defend each of my remarks, if requested, by showing how I am commenting on explicit instances of unhelpful behavior by LucyMarie in the course of the discussion, as opposed to merely my attempting to disparage her. My accusations of alogia, for example, are not intended to belittle her, but to simply establish that she has "repeatedly and unrepentantly refused to debate in a logical fashion", just as my remarks about her history of disruptive and POV editing are perfectly apposite to her approach to the US Senate article, and just as my remark about her either having no grasp of Wikipedia policy or deliberately "slinging bull" to support her viewpoint is something which can easily be established as true in the context of the debate. I don't see the need for a humiliating proof of this, but I will provide one, if necessary. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done

”

The above diffs I have provided are in my opinion attacks as they comment directly on me and not on the content being discussed. Also claiming you are going to provdide proof of something that will be for humilation only is again in my opinion a personal attack.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on you as a direct function of your conduct is not a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned, just as calling an actual vandal a vandal is not a personal attack (as Qwryxian has analogously pointed out, above). Nevertheless, I am not going to clog up this page with another extended "argument". If someone wishes to read the whole discussion at the Senate talk page and then wishes to do something, I will be happy to defend each of my remarks as a function of your behavior. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole purpose of having the no personal attacks policy has been blatantly missed. The nutshell clealy states.

“

Comment on the content, not on the contributor.

”

It appears as if you have inverted that by commenting on the contributor and not the content.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victim numbers mentioned in Soviet War in Afghanistan

Can someone have a look at these edits on the numbers of victims? Vandalism?

1. 15 aug 2010 15:26 Professor john enistein (Overleg bijdragen) (88.056 bytes)
2. 15 aug 2010 15:07 Professor john enistein (Overleg bijdragen) (87.970 bytes)

--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing cited figures with uncited ones? Seems pretty clear cut to me. I've reverted them. S.G.^(GH)_ping! 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And welcomed the user and told him/her that you raised this thread - don't forget you have to do that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks and sorry that I forgot that warning. The exact number of casualties is a topic that I would rather like to skip, if you don't mind--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Buckshot06 re-prodded article and displayed incivility when challenged

Closing admin flogging per Bold and WP:Deadhorse....nothing to see here, really
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Buckshot06 has not followed policy concerning not re-prodding an article where a PROD has been contested; has treated me with incivility by falsely accusing me on my talk page of “harassing” other admins; and also repeatedly ignoring my request to not post messages on my talk page: As an Admin, Buckshot06 must know that it is against WP:CONTESTED policy to replace a removed PROD tag to an article, yet he does just that here. After I removed the improperly restored prod tag (and properly notified Buckshot06 here), Buckshot06 ignores the message at the top of my talk page to not post messages and, in violation of [WP:CIVIL]], posts the false accusation that I am harassing other Admins here. This is, at its best, a violation of WP:AGF, and at its worse it is an example of taunting or baiting. I responded to that post on his talk page (as stated I would on my own talk page) and told Buckshot06 directly that I did not want him to post any more messages on my talk page here and also here. Ignoring my request to stay off my talk page, Buckshot06 taunts me with this posting on my talk page, even though he could have more easily posted the same message at our discussion taking place on his talk page. I have become discouraged with Wikipedia precisely because some Admins seem to act as though policy does not apply to them; and then, when challenged or corrected, use their position/experience to bully. Even though Buckshot06 is an Admin (or perhaps because he is an Admin) I believe that he must abide by the same policy and rules of civility that is demanded of other editors. Inniverse (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Without taking sides, and having no idea the history behind any of this, other than what you linked here, I will just post my observations to what I see. 1. The fact that Buckshot06 is an admin seems to have no bearing on the readdition of the PROD. 2. He seems to have admitted his mistake on the PROD, and tried to tell you so on your talk page. 3. Why would he say that you are harrasing admins? 4. Why do you not like messages on your talk page. Isn't that the whole point of them? 5. I don't see how the last comment by Buckshot was taunting. And thats all I have to say about that.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] As for his claim that I harassing other admins, he appears to be upset that I have challenged the closing of two AfD's where the articles were deleted when it looks like no consensus to me. Following policy, the first step it to raise the issue with the closing admins, which I did here and here. To answer you next question - despite having an open discussion with me on his talk page, Buckshot06 ignored the top message and two direct requests to not post on my talk page. That is why I describe that last action as taunting. Inniverse (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You can do what you wish with your talk page, but I wouldn't expect a minor disregard for whatever rule you created to be construed as taunting or harassment. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You are confused. I have not accused Buckshot06 of harassment - he came to my talk page to make that accusation of me. Inniverse (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Taunting then. Either way. The article is now at AfD, the prod tag is removed. I would describe Buckshot's response as less than optimal, but I don't see a grave error. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, that is not less than optimal. That is completely wrong. This is a blatant [232] assumption of bad faith, and he was told to stay off his talk page and went to it. this is a clear violation of WP:HARASSMENT. We routinely enforce any situations where someone is told to stay off someone's talk page. This is extremely poor behaviour from an administrator and shows very bad judgment.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Completely agree with Crossmr. Was what Buckshot had to say really that important that it required communicating with Inniverse on his talk page? Was there not a common article they were working on that he could have posted his apology? The repeated returning to Innverse's talk page was a blatant disregard and stab at Inniverse basically saying "I will have the last word and you cant stop me from talking to you". A classic power play and attempt to demoralize an "opponent" (from Camelbinky's Art of War on Wikipedia). The fact that the admin hasnt come here to defend themselves is also troublesome and disconcerting. Is there an admin out there with the balls to say "I'll monitor this admin and if he continues to seem like he doesnt have the civility to be admin action will be done". Admins, step and show the regular editors you have the balls to police your own, including blocking and desysoping. Perfect opportunity.Camelbinky (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Protonk's right--saying "don't use my talk page as a talk page" is entirely unhelpful, and ignoring that directive is not per se harassment. If you don't want to have a talk page, edit as an IP. Setting up "rules" that themselves are at odds with community norms, and then expecting them to be adhered to by admins with whom one has started a conversation is certainly not working collaboratively on the project. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would definitely have to say that Buckshot's actions here were completely wrong. It would have been fine if he had just made a mistake in regards to the PROD, as everyone does every once in a while, but his comments to Inniverse after s/he told him that his actions did not follow policy were completely out of line. Also, Inniverse is certainly not the first person I have seen who has asked others not to have discussions on their talk page. Buckshot was already informed of this by Inniverse and has no reason to comment again on the said user's talk page. That would, most definitely, qualify as taunting. Buckshot could have just as easily responded on his own talk page, which he should have done. I do think there needs to be some action taken here and I echo Camelbinky's statement that an Admin should not be left off when they do something wrong. I have seen too many Admins let off on their actions by other Admins. The Administrative community needs to police their own members and, if they do not, they cannot blame the multitude of other users that refer to Admins as a "cabal". I have certainly thought the same at many points in time and have seen little to discourage the viewpoint. SilverserenC 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Jclemens initially that's fine, but he went there and specifically told him to stay off his talk page. That is blatant harassment and that very scenario has come up here time and time again and it is always upheld as harassment and inappropriate. This is disgusting behaviour for an admin and the fact that other admins would sit around here and try and excuse it is an even further disgust. Admins aren't above the polices and guidelines, they're only there to enforce them when people won't adhere to them.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] this edit is the only thing I've looked at, as it was described as "taunting" by the original complainant. It is objectively unreasonable, in my view, to call that edit taunting. It amounts to advice on collaboration with a reasonably friendly and conciliatory tone. If that is the worst administrative misbehavior the original complainant can come up with, then there's no actionable complaint here. If the circumstances had been different (less polite message, less clear encyclopedia-building reason for leaving a message, more objective reasonableness in the initial request to keep off of a talk page) the circumstances might be different, but the bottom line is that it is objectively reasonable in my view for an administrator, even one who's had a disagreement with a non-administrator, to post friendly advice on a talk page in this precise fashion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concur with Jclemens. --John (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, actually, this response is the one that is much more problematic. I wasn't clear on the fact that PROD tags created an illusory "consensus" when you add them to an article. I'll have to make sure to remember that one for my future activities, it's always useful to have imaginary consensus behind you when you're doing something. (Oh, and hello new member of the "cabal", welcome to the discussion). SilverserenC 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree that's much more of a problematic edit, and suppose the OP has overplayed his hand and lost sympathy by complaining about the talk page edits, when the more problematic issue came before that. I'd be interested to hear Buckshot06's explanation. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] He hasn't responded so far in this discussion. What makes you think he will at all? SilverserenC 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that this rises to the level of something we need ANI for. Buckshot6 acknowleged the re-prodding was in error under policy and did the right AFD thing, and at least implicitly acknowledged the talk page posting was too confrontational when he refactored it himself to a much less problematic form. Inniverse is overreacting to the use of his talk page in normal manners - the request to not use it for discussion is unusual, and while people should take that into account, we don't have to slavishly follow his request as long as talk page posters adhere to other policy normally. If Buckshot6 were more confrontational it might have risen to harassment but it doesn't seem to have gone nearly that far to me. Admins making huge mistakes are certainly grounds for ANI threads. Admins making normal mistakes or getting into low-level arguments with people really isn't. Please keep perspective - we don't demand perfection of admins, what we do demand is that they work responsibly to improve situations, and de-escalate confrontations (both those they see, and those they are involved in). Inniverse may have seen it differently, but Buckshot6's behavior here stepped back after an initial minor overstep. I believe that both users perhaps deserve a {{minnow}} but nothing worth a long ANI thread about. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Apologies everyone for me showing up late. I've been busy IRL. Right, points in order; yes, I freely admit that I made a mistake reprodding the article - I lost track. Second, the consensus that I referred to was in relation to two deletion debates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). Third, I would repeat my suggestion that User:Inniverse says on his talkpage that he is watching or otherwise monitoring others' talkpages after he posts messages. I am not sure how people contact him in the first instance though. That's the substance of the dispute. On remedies, I said at my RfA that I was going to be an administrator open to recall. I do not believe, from reading the comments above, that this situation meets that standard, but anyone is free to start gathering votes to start off that process if they should wish. Regards to all from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06(talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think this is far short of anything deserving recall, personally. On a related note, Inniverse just substantially overhauled his talk page header, probably responding to some of the comments above, and notes that he'll follow your talk page and discuss things there with you if you leave a message on his. He notes that if he deletes comments that he's read and acknowledged them. This was a substantial improvement and a positive step to keep his goal (not have long discussions there) and still interface with other wikipedians as required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] A user specifically and directly told you to stay off his talk page. Are you incapable of respecting that? Do you think it was a good idea to go back to their talk page and post again?--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inniverse reacted in such a way because he was reacting to a bad faith insult from a user he didn't want posting on his talk page anymore. Users tell others to stay off their talk page all the time and we've enforced that plenty of time in the past with consequences for ignoring it. Why does that suddenly go away because an admin did it huh?--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because its all a conspiracy. Jesus.Protonk (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ssh. I don't use that name in public. If it isn't a conspiracy then why aren't we upholding the same principles against this user that we uphold against every other user that comes through here? if you can't give a reasonable answer for that then your little joke was probably a lot more insightful than you intended.--Crossmr (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] So what do you want then? A public flogging? If he hasn't already done so, just ask Buckshot to apologize for ignoring the request not to use Inniverse's talk page and move on. Resolute 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It would be appropriate for Buckshot06 to step down from his role as Admin. Policies have been established to help ensure that Wikipedia is an enjoyable community where its volunteer editors are encourage to be involved and to be bold. The incivility demonstrated by Buckshot06 shows that he is not ready to be an admin. We must remember that the Wikipedia project is manned by volunteers. If the volunteers loose faith in the Admins whose role it is to support policy (and thus support a positive experience for the volunteer editors) the Wikipedia project will de-evolve into a closed community of like-minded persons. That is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Admins must demonstrate that they are committed to the ideals of Wikipedia. Buckshot06 has demonstrated to me that he is not there yet. Inniverse (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Buckshot is open to recall as he has stated repeatedly. If you think this issue is one worthy of recalling him, you can start a discussion to do so. My suggestion is that you not, because such a discussion wouldn't result in him being recalled and would be (as this thread is) a waste of time for all concerned. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have also received Threats from User:Buckshot06 I believe that I have received a thinly veiled uncivil threat from Buckshot06 concerning material that i removed from the article in question. I originally added the material, and Buckshot06 removed it because of an error in Detail that i made, claiming that i was "twisting POV". When i readded it, i decided to remove it, as shown in the link above. The Fact, is, that after i saw the mistake, i did not go back to put the material back and now its not on the article anymore. not to mention the fact that not to mention the fact that Buckshot removed more than just that sentence. he removed "Racial slurs were allegedly used by the Chinese Muslim troops against Uighurs". the source does indeed show epithets that were used by Tungans (Chinese muslims) against Turkic muslims (Uighurs) [233] since the material is already gone from the article, this seems more of a very uncivil threat in trying to force me to apologize. He is also not assuming good faith, trying to tie the COPYVIO investigation against me into this POV accusation. the Fact is, since Copyvio means directly copying from the source, not adding my own material, and POV means i changed the material and twisted it to my own means, is that the allegations have nothing to do with each other. In his first comment on my talk page, he was very uncivil and did not assume good faith. I would like him to stay off my talk page unless he has a message concerning something that is currently on an article which concerns me.Дунгане (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Saying that someone is twisting POV or twisting sources does seem like a breach of WP:CIVIL, especially when there is no evidence presented that Дунгане is doing such a thing. SilverserenC 05:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Right. The context here was initially Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Дунгане, of which WP:MILHIST was alerted to by User:Moonriddengirl. On the associated AN/I thread, there were repeated concerns of racial POV being raised against Дунгане/Dungane. I'm a military formations specialist, so I took a look at the 36th Division article for the National Revolutionary Army, the Chinese army of 1911-192x. The issue was the User:Дунгане/Dungane was suspected of repeated copying of material inappropriately from sources. Thus I initially started my investigation thinking that unreasonably imported material might well need to be removed. When I started checking references, I found a section that seemed to twist the source. I'll replicate what I found in a moment, and I'd appreciate more eyes on it than mine. As of a couple of hours ago, I was going to leave the whole matter a couple of days and then seek a second opinion from a milhist coordinator. Bottom line: there are significant concerns with both copyright infringement and potentially POV in User:Дунгане's work, and I am acting in the interests of the encyclopaedia to investigate, as is the expectation I think among all admins. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] This was the message I left on Dungane's talkpage: Page 308 of Flemming says '..From the crowd of spectators watching the netball match an old Turki detached himself, darted forward, and grovelled weeping at the general's feet.' He's been wronged by one of his sons, he said. He was imploring the general to do something about it. He grovelled to gain the general's attention and to show respect, not because he had been forced. This was the material which you appear to have changed into 'Tungan general forced Turkis to grovell before him.' What is your explanation? Buckshot06 Dungane responded by saying he'd made a mistake in detail, and complaining that I'd removed more than the offending section, which he has since removed indeed. I removed that data because of copyright concerns - It seems to run too closely to the source. I do not have the inclination to go through every page of Dungane's transcription of the 36th Division information to see how many times he has twisted sources, so I advised him that I would reduce the article to a stub. As I saiid, as of a couple of hours ago, I was going to seek a second opinion, and thereafter act as the other coordinator (I was intending to approach User:EyeSerene, but the coordinators in general are a pretty solid group) suggested. Third opinions very welcome.. how should this matter, which forms one small part of the overall CCI issue, be dealt with? Buckshot06(talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I thought that username looked familiar. I apologize. I have been overly and needlessly suspicious of you. SilverserenC 06:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] (e-c)I see a pattern of incivility, and not a very good one, coming from someone who is an admin this is completely unacceptable. It is not acceptable to be rude or uncivil simply because another user has his/her own problems, two wrongs dont make a right (two wrights make an airplane however). An admin must be an example to all of us and be extra careful how he/she words things and their attitude. I call upon Buckshot, since he has said he is willing to be recalled, to simply willingly on his own give up his adminship. Once he no longer is an admin he can then go through the process again and see if the community agrees to let him have the "powers" again. His willingness to voluntarily give up the powers would, to me at least, show his contrition and maturity. It is one thing for him to say he's willing to go to a vote on losing his adminship (which those things usually never pass, so he's confident he'll keep his title) and another to give it up and then throw the dice on getting the adminship back. If he doesnt give up his adminship voluntarily I for one will be the first to yell "off with his head" and call for a recall.Camelbinky (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Camelbinky, thanks for your input. However I believe that my value to the encyclopaedia would be better measured by a discussion in the project I edit in, Milhist. I do not believe it's appropriate to step down on the call of one relatively uninvolved editor. Would you kindly please start a discussion on the Milhist talk page and see what the general feeling there is? Regards Buckshot06(talk) 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I forgot the exception to the civility policy- if you (and others) consider you an asset to your wikiproject you can be an ass to anyone you want that you and your friends think is "less important". The fact that I am uninvolved means my opinion has MORE weight than those who are your "friends". You have been rude. Admit it and atone. Yes, I admit that since I am an extremely important asset to the NYCD and NY wikiprojects that I have gotten away with a lot more than others who have done similar things as I have. Is that something that I am proud of? Hell yea, but that doesnt mean I'm going to let you get away with doing it. And where do you get off thinking you are soooo important to Wikipedia that anyone would rather you be an ass to people than lose you? Wow, I dont think your head can fit in my computer screen. And yes, I am a more important contributor to Wikipedia than you are if we are going to play that game I too can have a huge ego. Let's have a pissing contest while we are at it. If you can be rude to any editor you want as long as you are "more important to the encyclopedia" than the editor you are insulting then we should codify that in policy someplace and I can get away with calling you whatever I want I guess.Camelbinky (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've responded with a suggestion in response to your original suggestion, how else would you prefer I atone? Buckshot06(talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The discussion is happening here, suggesting a change of venue for something which, with any other user, would get discussed here, isn't an appropriate discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've told you, Buckshot, how you can atone- give up your adminship. If you are confident you have simply made a small mistake and have not been overly rude then you will receive it back if you choose to go through the process again. I have seen from you no apology regarding your tone in talking to people. An admin must be respectful, thoughtful, considerate, and extremely careful in their choice of words. I have not seen any of that from you in any discussion you have had with anyone. Nor have I shown any humility. I have seen the exact opposite of all that. I can proudly say I dont have any of those traits when it comes to Wikipedia, but of course I dont have any wish whatsoever to be an admin. For you it seems to be a power/status issue and you would probably do much better without the "fancy title". If you want to atone, begin with admission of guilt, apology to those you did wrong by being rude to, ask for forgiveness from the Community at large, and then show by example you have seen the error of your ways and that others should see your example and know they should not do the things you did before. I have not seen anything from you that leads me to believe that you understand that being rude and forcing yourself onto people's talk pages and talking down to them is wrong and unacceptable. Show me you wont do it again.Camelbinky (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I do not believe this is necessary. While I do think that Buckshot should have been reprimanded for his actions with the OP of the first section, that did not include de-sysopping and his actions with Дунгане certainly do not count, as this user is under a thorough investigation of adding copyrighted material, which has been done in most of their edits. I can completely understand Buckshot getting fed up with such a person and I do not think he said anything that was bad enough to warrant much of a warning and certainly nothing to de-sysop for. This is unwarranted, so please stop this "atonement" business. SilverserenC 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It would be appropriate for Buckshot06 to step down from his role as Admin. Policies have been established to help ensure that Wikipedia is an enjoyable community where its volunteer editors are encourage to be involved and to be bold. The incivility demonstrated by Buckshot06 shows that he is not ready to be an admin. We must remember that the Wikipedia project is manned by volunteers. If the volunteers loose faith in the Admins whose role it is to support policy (and thus support a positive experience for the volunteer editors) the Wikipedia project will de-evolve into a closed community of like-minded persons. That is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Admins must demonstrate that they are committed to the ideals of Wikipedia. Buckshot06 has demonstrated to me that he is not there yet. Inniverse (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that would be an overkill: I don't think Buckshot06's actions warrant a desysopping at this stage; however, if that's the way you want to go, perhaps, in my opinion, it would be better to start an RFC... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agree, I haven't seen any abuse of admin tools. looks more like a dispute between two editors rather than an admin abusing powers. Buckshot06 is allowed to disagree as much as he wants. A revocation of tools would be a bit much in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think this is pretty much exhausted, user seems to realize he was a bit rude and that replacing the prod was a mistake and I'm sure he will be a bit more careful in future. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Off2riorob's supportive belief towards Buckshot06 future attitude is commendable, and a good example of assuming good faith; but it I find it disturbing that Buckshot06 has yet to acknowledge to me that he understands how his actions were uncivil. Inniverse (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think that its has already been dertemined that his comments were not uncivil, so an acknowledgment seems unwarranted. Although if it helps, I'm sorry that this happened to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Jojhutton, what thread are you reading? It has definitely been acknowledged that Buckshot was rude and uncivil, I'm a bit worried how you came to this discussion with that opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I will use the word atonement and any other such word I feel. As for Buckshot he does need to show the Community that he knows what he did was wrong regarding his tone and conduct. An admin is held to a higher standard. Just as a janitor cant go around screaming at children in a school hallway swearing and calling them names an admin cant go around being rude. This is an admin who thinks because he has that title that it is his job to police and control the actions of others. Other way around, admins ONLY carry out the decisions and consensus of the Community and do what WE want. This is an admin that needs to learn the way things are. Make an example now so the worst of the admins that are still out there will take notice. No admin should EVER lose control and/or be uncivil, if you cant be held to the highest standards possible then you shouldnt be an admin. I am sick of this "oh, yea, he went a bit overboard and was uncivil, but he's learned his lesson" crap, no he has not, he has yet to publicly apologize and admit that it is not ok to go to another's talk page when asked not to. Buckshot- apologize and admit that a talk page is not a place you can go willy-nilly anytime you want. That's all I've been waiting for this entire time. If you had apologized and admitted it was wrong I would have supported you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I strongly oppose this idea. All editors should only be sanctioned for what they've done and never for what someone else is doing or has done (to make an example of them would amount to that). Nobody should be used a scapegoat and quite frankly I think that such a proposal is offensive. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can't comment on Buckshot06's actions but from what I have seen from Дунгане so far, he is the wrong person to point the finger at someone else. Although barely a month registered on WP, he has left us with absurd notions on military history such as Chinese muslims armed with swords inflicted massive casualties on the Russian forces armed with machine guns, tanks, and planes trolled heavily at Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)/Archive 1#pray tell gun powder ma and maliciously tried to stir controversy about homosexuality at Roman Empire, now luckily removed (1) Given his additional habitual disregard for copyright, the loose use of which throws a bad light on Wikipedia anyway (we are the world's largest online repository on fair use rationale pics - how self-serving), I have to say that I am sympathetic to Buckshot06 who, as expert on military and copyright questions, has had to put up with a lot of stuff. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]