Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PartyJoe (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 11 April 2010 (→Do these redirects need deletion and/or oversight?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Disruptive Editing by User:Vexorg

    This user is engaging in the kind of disruption is virtually impossible to deal with. Reverting without consensus or references, disruption on the talk pages, and even canvassing to get his WP:POINT into the article. For the record, this is not the first time I have brought this editor to this board, but report is in reference to this article only. The defense will be a loud accusatory finger (sorry about the mixed metaphor) pointed at me and any of his other accusers. Please strip off the histrionics and look directly at the diffs. I hope I have not got any of the diffs wrong. I have tried to be careful but mistakes happen and I will correct any asap. Thanks

    Disruptive editing at Rothschild family

    The following are recent reversions (the last three days)

    Disruption on the Talk page

    Verorg started a section about another editor he titled 'Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits

    Examples of Vexorg's dialogue on the talk page:

    • [10] "this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge..."
    • [11] acknowledging that he is restoring material on the basis of his own argument without consensus or references
    • [12] continues to restore debated material based on his own arguments rather than consensus or references
    • [13] asking another editor if he is editing as an IP and threatening to do a checkuser
    • [14] again threatening this user with checkuser
    • [15] accusing another editor of "untruths" and "smelling a Pov here"
    • [16] more personal attacks, expresses his desire to reinsert the same material "after a reasonable time has elapsed"
    • [17] Accusing other editors of having a "problem" - again expressing his intention to reinsert his material despite the lack of consensus for such a change
    • [18] demanding of another editor once again if he is a particular IP
    • [19] "It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. "

    Canvassing

    User:NickCT's comment after being canvassed by Vexorg here [22]

    Thanks for your consideration. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment by Stellarkid

    I have fixed the edits above to reflect the correct date. I misread 3-4, or 3-5 got it backwards or something like that. My intention was not to indicate 3RR violations since if that were the intention I would have gone to the appropriate board. My intention here is to show that there is disruption and that Vexrog is not using the talk page constructively to make his case. He is not getting RS or listening to the concerns of others and trying to address them. He seems to believe that he has the truth and so the right to put his edit in despite lack of consensus and challenges by others. Stellarkid (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Where's the beef? What are you trying to do here? Surely you don't think that's enough to get Vexorg banned. In fact if this is all you could dig up on him it's a credit to Vexorg. Factomancer (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI has nothing to do with me. I will strongly request that you refrain from mentioning my name again unless you intend on filing a report against me. Otherwise, keep me the hell out of this because I am not involved. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned. Those of us merely trying to write articles and improve the encyclopedia should be left alone and not punished for other people's misbehaviour. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that you can be banned just because people mention your name a lot. And who are you to suggest that I am banned? How many articles have you written lately? Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned your name in the above comment, I merely said "The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned". It's interesting that you immediately interpreted that as meaning yourself. Freudian slip? Factomancer (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Those first diffs on the Rothschild article are from early March, not early April. However, I completely agree that Vexorg's discussion on Talk:Rothschild is uncivil. There's a ginormous debate on that page over what looks to me like a relatively minor section heading issue, complete with canvassing and tons of personal attacks about the "political agendas" of other editors involved. I tried earlier today leaving the editor a note about civility 1 because I thought all of the conspiracy accusations against other editors were pretty irritating, unfortunately s/he found it "patronizing" and told me so on my talk page. The editor is certainly willing to engage in discussion, but their incessant conspiracy theorizing about editors who disagree with them on issues related to Israel/Zionism being part of a "Lobby" just seems to me to be really unhelpful in terms of keeping editing in this area calm and civil. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First and Final Comment by Vexorg - This clearly obsessive and bad faith attempt to get me blocked/banned by Stellarkid doesn't even warrant a millisecond's response. It really speaks for itself as a continuation of the disruptive derailment that has no doubt annoyed all the admin who have had to wade through this nonsense over the last few weeks. This latest piece of partisan melodrama is not something I wish to be associated with and I sympathize with any administrators who have to deal with this incessant and childish guff. And for the record the 'rant' left at my talk page by CordeliaNaismith was extremely patronising and that is why I swiftly removed it. I won't be spoken to like that in real life or on Wikipedia. This whole debacle is getting beyond ridiculous. I'll leave you all to it. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Vrubel's Demons - having been at the receiving end of Vexorgs incivility, I was thinking of reporting him myself, but apparently someone else did that. I do not know and do not care about any prior quarrels this editor had with other editors, but I do care that he derailed a discussion about content by attacking other editors and by canvassing what he perceived as like-minded editors (though let me emphasize that one of those canvassed did not respond, and the editor responded added to the discussion about the content). He also filed a bad faith sockpuppet report about an editor who disagreed with him, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Off2riorob/Archive. When warned at his talk page about his incivility and edit warring, he accused me of hounding him [23]. It this behavior which makes any discussions about content impossible, and drives away those editors who actually want to improve the content of the article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by NickCT This is another example or "drop-of-the-hat" arbitration. If you read the Rothchild talk page, you'll see that this issue is being taken care of, and the tone of the debate is simmering down. @Stellar - By filing these ANI you only serve to inflame. Verxog may be loud, but he hasn't done anything egregious. When he does, I'll report him myself. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I don't really care who it starts with, but something's got to give or this will go on forever -- so why not start right here and now, since general warnings have been given already. My suggestion is that both of these editors should be blocked for a reasonable short period of time, say a week, and when they return it should be under a topic ban which requires them to deal with their disputes with each other only on the relevant article talk pages or in legitimate dispute resolution. Any posts to AN, AN/I, RSN, COIN, SPI regarding each other would be grounds for another block. The third time, block indef. Then, when some other member of either of the two battling groups cames here with another dispute, start the process over with them.

    Until they are forced to deal with each other, there's no real reason for them to come to any accomodation or compromise as long as they think they can come running here (and elsewhere) to continue the fight and run the string out even further. Channel them into dispute resolution, and if they don't want to go there, indef them.

    Anyway, I'm feeling bloodthirsty tonight and that's my suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose If Vexorg did something to earn admonishment or a block then Stellarkid was justified in bringing this report. I don't want to get too involved in this since I know the admins are losing their patience but this proposal seems a little far reaching and based on frustration instead of a decent review of the complaint. If it is found that both CordeliaNaismith and Stellar are wrong in their perceptions then there might be reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that this is basically a problem between Stellarkid and Vexorg, Vexorg directed personal attacks at other editors on Talk:Rothschild family also. It also looks like 2 other editors have discussed campaigning or personal attacks with Vexorg on his talk page: 1, 2. Given that, within the last day, Vexorg has started a Wikiquette thread regarding a comment on another editor's talk page and opened a sockpuppet investigation which was rejected as fishing, it looks to me that this editor is making significant contributions to the drama. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken, I have nothing in principle against your affection for radical solutions. However, we have enough action already and I have good reasons to believe that you solution will only increase the stream in this bloodbath (so blood-thirsty or not-you may not like the outcome). I see it as a complex problem that need the intervention of expert surgeon-maybe involvment of other admins, new in this I-P but experineced with solving complex long lasting conflicts, and with the close supoervison of bureaucrats-could lead to cease fire. Nothing would be less benificial for WP than mass "executions" of user accounts. It will only result with less articles on this topic, with articles that are biased and so forth. This conflict involved, generally, with more than 30 editors-it seem just to suggest special policy in regard to editing in I-P related articles.P.s. I agree with Breein 1007, this random name dropping you did is improper and destructive.--Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Further discussion

    Comment: Any reviewing administrator should be advised that User:Vexorg was recently given a strong warning (final warning?) about such behavior. Vexorg has also been previously blocked for a type of behavior that somewhat resembles what's shown in this report. FYI. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment #2 – The edits that Vexorg made to Stellarkid's comments are also concerning, and, I believe, actionable in of themselves. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I apparently made an error in my dates. Will try to fix that later in the day. The point was not to show that Vexrog had violated 3RR. I don't know if he did or not, probably he didn't as he was conscious of violating it and made a note of giving it a proper amount of time before reinserting the material. My point was just that he was edit -warring and disruptively inserting information against consensus and without references to back up his assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply by Vexorg - "Will try to fix that later in the day." - if there is good faith why not fix it now? It would take 5 seconds? Vexorg (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Stellarkid It is very difficult to believe that you accidentally dated edits made on the 5th of March as being from 3rd of April.
    I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:
    • here where you selectively quote for effect.
    • here where you misrepresent the provenance and quality of a source: Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information,.
    • Which I asked you to correct here
    • Yet you continued on with the misrepresentation here - The root source was of course http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, this is apparent when one visits the link that I gave when adding the cats in question, which is why it is troubling that you chose not to reproduce it in full.
    I think it is understandable that one wants to offer a strong case but it is troubling when an editor does so by proffering half-truths and fabrications, as I believe to have demonstrated that you have. Unomi (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further reply to Unomi.this is not a misrepresentation nor a selective quote. It is what the words say. It was not quoted "for effect" but to clarify why people might find it offensive. The tacked-on disclaimer is a bit meaningless if you know Carlos Latuff's work and the fact that he came in 2nd at the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest
    • Your third and forth diffs are directly related to the second which I answered above, and are not in the slightest misrepresentations of your source which you yourself listed--please see the second point above. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is intellectual honesty 101 stuff, please stop trying to defend the indefensible. I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talkpage if you have further concerns. Unomi (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a looks like bad faith comment, I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [25] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction of misrepresentation by Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons above by Vexorg - because I don't want to clutter up this ANI with a battlefield, I made a comment about a misrepresentation of me by user:Off2riorob on my talk page. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons has now misrepresented me by claiming this is 'showing little insight into the inappropriateness of [my]behavior.' There is nothing inappropriate about commenting on misrepresentations made about myself on my talk page however many times you say it is. It is my right of reply to comment on such and as long as people continue to misrepresent me I shall continue to comment on that. And the repetition of your arguments at this ANI are starting to make it seem untenable that you are acting on good faith. 'extensive block log of this account' - hyperbole. Vexorg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by George

    Going through the presented case:

    • I don't see a case of disruptive editing, and I view Stellarkid's list of Vexorg's edits as misleading. You've listed eight edits over two months. Of those, three were made in a row, and only two were reverts. If the implication is that Vexorg was edit warring by reverting twice, I would note that Vexorg wasn't the only one who reverted to his version, and it would appear that Off2riorob reverted two editors three times in total (assuming that they are IP address 173.120.203.243, something that might warrant a CheckUser), making them more guilty of edit warring than Vexorg.
    • Regarding Vexorg's commentary on Mbz1 on the talk page, I find it odd that you would be reporting this a month after he wrote the comments. Vexorg is clearly commenting on the contributor in addition to the content, which should be avoided, but at the same time I don't view anything particularly outlandish in their statement. Mbz1 has since been topic banned, which adds some weight in Vexorg's defense of his comments.
    • Vexorg's comments on the talk page constitute minor incivility, when he says things like "lack of knowledge" and "untruths". Stellarkid's synopsis of those edits, and extensive list, is, however, somewhat exaggerated. Most of those diffs don't show anything other than a content dispute.
    • Vexorg's comments to Unomi and NickCT were pretty clearly canvassing.

    All-in-all, Vexorg's minor incivility and canvassing should be punished. Maybe a short term (1-3 month?) topic ban would be in order. However, I would also address Stellarkid's own actions:

    • Stellarkid's list of infractions is exaggerated and misleading. Many of the diffs listed are not a violation of anything, and strike me as someone throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what sticks.
    • Stellarkid reported Vexorg and three other editors on these very boards not even a week ago. In that discussion, several administrators slammed both sides for using Wikipedia (and these boards in particular) as a battleground. I view this report, rife with exaggeration, and coming less than a week after Stellarkid's previous on the same user, as little more than a continued attempt to exploit these boards as a weapon. Editors need to stop using these boards as a tool to get editors they're in a content dispute with banned.
    • If Vexorg is guilty of canvassing, which I believe he is, then Stellarkid is likely guilty as well: [26][27] Notifying users you discuss on ANI doesn't mean you cram a report full of meaningless diffs so you can then notify those editors who were in disagreement with Vexorg on the article in question. Surgically notifying editors who are diametrically opposed to the editor being reported, while at the same time not notifying other editors who agreed with Vexorg's viewpoint in those same talk page discussions with Vexorg is clearly canvassing.

    I would suggest a similar, short (1-3 month?) topic ban a warning for Stellarkid, for canvassing and attempting to use these boards as a battleground tool (in contrast to building consensus via dispute resolution), and per the warnings of Georgewilliamherbert, Sandstein, and Malik Shabazz in Stellarkid's previous AN/I report. ← George talk 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to George -- Just to reply to your last paragraph. The two notifications apart from Vexorg were entirely appropriate since I used their diffs in my presentation. That was a courtesy to let them know that I had used them and if they thought I had used them in error or against their wishes they could respond. While other people were involved on the talk page, I did not use diffs related to them (I think) and thus did not "notify" anyone else. I probably should have notified NickCT since I did use a diff of his and apologize for that as it was late and I simply forgot about it until you characterized my notification as "canvassing." As for the battleground accusation, that was what my earlier characterization of Vexrog in the previous ANI with respect to his accusations of a local Zionist lobby--[28][29] and now you are trying to turn it on its head and accuse the accuser. I don't think you will find a similar diff from me, accusing people of an anti-Zionist cabal or some such. I understand this as it has worked in the past, where administrators throw up their arms and ban people indiscriminately. I realize that these accusations are tiresome for administrators, but I still hope that they will find the time to separate the wheat from the chaff here (meaning the issues, not the people), because this is the place where they need to be brought up, and if I am banned as well for bringing what I believe to be disruption forward for examination at the appropriate venue, then so be it. I will at least have been true to my principles. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but the whole think stinks to me. When filing AN/I, editors are supposed to notify editors they're discussing - you never discussed either Off2riorob or No More Mr Nice Guy, the two editors you notified. You only linked to diffs in which Vexorg was in a content dispute with them (among others), and the fact that you only notified editors supporting one side of the dispute is highly suspicious.
    The issue isn't that you reported Vexorg, the issue is the context of that report. You listed eight diffs as "disruptive editing". The first three occurred over a month ago, and you claimed that the misdating was accidental. Looking at the article's edit history, it seems unlikely to me that one would confuse March (at the very bottom of the page) with April (at the top). Of the remaining five edits, three were made one after another - effectively counting as one edit - and two were reverts. So your disruptive editing accusation leveled at Vexorg equates to one edit, and two reverts - I don't see the disruption. You listed Vexorg's comments on Mbz1, a user since topic banned, as talk page "disruption". I see minor incivility, but nothing that I would consider disruptive editing in that diff. You then list ten diffs of Vexorg's commentary on the talk page (the second and third of which are duplicates, by the way). Of those, I see a couple instances of minor incivility (e.g., "your lack of knowledge", "untruths", commenting on contributors instead of content; attributing motives), but most of the diffs are just filler. In a couple diffs, Vexorg is asking if an editor is the same person as an IP editor (I consider it a valid question, if that editor may have been edit warring or violating 3RR using their IP address), and in another, Vexorg sounds frustrated at being the only one discussing the issue, and says he'll take a break from reverting. Any real problems (the minor incivility, and canvassing) are buried in diffs that are relatively meaningless. What makes you think that this requires administrative intervention? Essentially this looks like two problems you've compounded - incivility, which probably belongs at WP:WQA, and a content dispute involving you, Vexorg, and a few others editors, which should be resolved via WP:DR, not AN/I. ← George talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry George, but you are maximizing my perceived sins and minimizing the extent of the problematic behavior of this editor. I believe that letting the editors know that I am pointing to them in a ANI is appropriate for the reasons I gave above. I did not ask anyone to comment, unlike Vexorg, whom you defend: [30]- [31] Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've made it clear that I think Vexorg's actions warrant a topic ban as well (and probably a stiffer one that yourself). My concerns with how and where you chose to bring the issue up, however, are irrespective of how noble your cause might be. ← George talk 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Comment on Vexorg. In the articles Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel - Labour Friends of Israel and Northern Ireland Friends of Israel Vexorg has been adding the categories [Category:Zionism in the United Kingdom] and [Category:Zionist organization]. There is already a [Category:Israel friendship associations]. These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations.[32][33][34] His rationale on one or two of the edit summaries was that he was reverting a known sockpuppet. Another is that "Israel is the Zionist State." I don't feel it is right to push your POV across articles like this and against consensus. Not sure what the relevant Wikipedia policy on that might be, but it surely seems disruptive on the face of it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexorg wants to help Stellarkid - Carry on Stellarkid. Any unbiased and uninvolved admin ( and unbiased editors like George) can see your seeming obsession with searching for just anything to denigrate me with. Let's see, I've made 3.944 edits to date. I'm sure there's plenty of non-crimes in there for you to bring up in your personal campaign. Would you like me to help you? There's also real crimes that could help your campaign. How far do you want to go back in time? See, I've got a block history, because in the distant past I stupidly got embroiled in edit wars and didn't stop to think about the consequences of such at the time. Never mind that these events have already been dealt with and I've served my time already for the punishments given out for the crimes, I'm sure they could add weight to your current obsessive and seemingly relentless campaign against me. Anyway, get in touch with me at my talk page and let's see if we can collaborate in developing a real solid case against this demon who goes by the name of Vexorg. I really want to help as you are clearly really struggling in this AN/I and I guess if you are going to be successful in your agenda to get me banned, instead of self-destructively getting yourself banned for wasting admin time, I figured you could use all the help you can get. I've got some real incriminating stuff on myself which I would be happy to divulge if you care to get in touch. This is a genuine offer. Look forward to hearing from you Stellarkid. Vexorg (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would submit that the above is an egregious violation of WP:BAIT and should, even not taking anything else in this discussion into account, be actionable. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would submit that the above is failing to see a little bit of WP:HUMOR in what is becoming an increasingly unenjoyable pastime in editing wikipedia. I would WP:RESPECTfully suggest that some editors WP:SMILE and have a nice WP:DAY. :) :) Vexorg (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stellarkid, regarding "These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations", I think it's more accurate to say that the categorization was reverted because WP:V compliance requirements were not met in their view rather than editors having an opinion about the categorization itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that would have been more a better wording. I would just note however that on March 25 with the first diff [35] the category was reverted with the following edit summary: ("Reverted 1 edit by Vexorg; Uncited and unsupported in the text".) Apparently that lesson was not learned by April 5th when he put up this edit or a minute later when he put up this one. All three have been reverted with the note that it is not sourced. For an editor who has made almost 4000 edits to the project as he notes above, he should know by now that you do not push arguably controversial material into an article(s) without providing a reference. Stellarkid (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexorg

    Leaving the issue of Stellarkid aside or to the section above (with George reasoning convincing imho), the other issue is Vexorg. There seems to be a rough consensus that Vexorg was incivil, filed a bad faith sockpuppet report, edit warred and inappropriately canvassed other editors. There is also a history of edit warring as the block log shows, was given a strong or final warning just a few days ago. The user shows no insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior as is evidenced his replies here at ANI and on his talk page. Given the past history some admin action is needed in order to protect those who actually want to discuss and improve content in collaboration, and not in confrontion. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just another note: Apparently, in addition to the above, Vexorg has agreed to stop edit-warring. It was several months ago, but might be relevant to this case, because there's no reason for anyone to edit-war, especially someone who has been warned about it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dragging up old issues that were done and dusted in the distant past in an ANI that has already run it's course??? Firstly it's worth noting that I am not actually edit warring. I am actually engaged in a civilised discussion at Rothschild family. Secondly that ancient report was made without even bothering to notify me. Fourthly this report wasn't actually filed about edit warring, but disruptive editing. It might be worth reading the comments by George above who instead of just dragging up old issues to pile on me has actually taken the time to analyse this report in a reasonable and unbiased manner and has shown that I have not been disruptively editing. George is someone who would make a good Wikipedia Administrator IMO Vexorg (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you are missing the point. Either you agreed to stop edit-warring to get out of the previous case without a sanction, or you agreed to stop edit-warring in good faith, in which case you shouldn't be edit-warring again now or ever. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vrubel's Demons

    If I can give you some well meant advice, many of us have moved on from this now, I suggest you do too. There has been a lot of civil and good discussion over at the Rothschild family article recently and we are getting somewhere ow we've left the bickering behind. You however, for some reason, insist in keeping this going, and it's worth noting that you are not doing your credibility of commenting in good faith by repeating your comments arguments FOUR TIMES now.

    From what I've seen over the last few weeks and not just on ANI Disruptive reports against myself, but also against others is that some editors go beyond any reasonable comment on the situation but insist of going on and on and on and on and on to the point of ad nausuem. In your third commentary you've said almost word for word exactly the same thing in your 2nd commentary. [eta] and now for the 4th time. We all heard you the first time.

    Look, things got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago, yes I made some comments questioning the motivations of some other editors ( not unfounded IMO, but that's by the by ), my sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question, as George above has agreed ( note Off2riorob still refuses to answer this reasonable question ), but we're all discussing the article now in a civilised manner. I would also say it's worth noting the civility isn't just restricted to the choice of words one uses. Anyway, I'm off to do something more positive. :) Vexorg (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago", "sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question" - thanks for proving my point about you showing little insight into the inappropriateness of your behavior. And your recent comments on the talk page such as "Unomi it feels like we are coming against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Vexorg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2010" are not showing that you are discussing the content in a civilised manner. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess one needs a thicker skin than I have to survive on Wikipedia. So much for Wikipedia being about collaboration, and one of the pillars being "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner". Great job Vexorg, the last reply with the section header Vrubels demon was truly your masterpiece. I will leave the field to tendentious editors such as Vexorg (and Stellarkid and others). Eventually, very eventually they might be topic banned or blocked, but in the meantime they have free reign to drive away productive editors. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that Vrubel's Demons, who as far as I know does not edit I/P dispute articles, had no way of knowing the implications when the Rothschild article (where this argument started) became a focus of interest for some opposing I/P editors. As is well known on AN/I, the editing between partisans in the I/P articles is so polarized, and so mean spirited, that few editors can take the stress of editing those articles - and the non I/P editors become like deer in the headlights and tend to wind up as wiki road kill. It would be nice if a solution the larger problem could be found. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reiteration

    I dunno, I think my proposal's looking better and better all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I once again encourage uninvolved administrators to take stronger action in enforcing the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The ARBPIA sanctions are being used to encourage some very poor editors (of which Stellarkid is just one) to drive away good editors with accusations of antisemitism. It's no wonder so many of the articles are a laughing stock while this is allowed to continue. 81.111.91.170 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    81.111.91.170 (talk) has posted all of 2 comments on WP. One on my talk page and now this one. However, it appears that this is the same person as User:Urbane23(Special:Contributions/Urbane23) who has made all of 6 edits on the 10th of April, and I think I can safety say, appears to be "stalking" me, as his edits are all at places that I have recently edited. I haven't looked, but I will bet 10 bucks that those edits are all directed at me as well. Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is continuing to harassing me at user talk page. [36] Stellarkid (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Urbane23's edit summary for his post here claims that "Picture of monument for terrorists in userpage" which is absolutely false. I have never had a picture on my userpage. His accusations that I am accusing other editors of antisemitism is unaccompanied also unaccompanied by any diffs because he cannot point to this. Although he is apparently a very new user, he certainly knows how to harrass other users, reverting and using ANI templates that I have no idea of how to use! Perhaps it is just a coincidence that he is here at this time and bringing in Protocols of the Elders of Zion in such at other article pages.[37] Stellarkid (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, I will continue to oppose any unconstructive suggestion. I can't see how you suggestion, which you push eagerly, would make the articles on the I-P more balanced and more neutral. And oh, there is severe problem of neutrality on so many of the I-P articles (even on articles that are not namely related to the I-P subject) largely because there is not systematic treatment and because many times admin don't have the time and/or the will to dig it to the roots. I can't see how what you wrote, to block automatically and base on nothing, will make it any better. It's just an order to shoot anything that moves, great idea, indeed it will solve all problems when one side will lose all of its "soldiers" first. There will remain no one to complain (or that the on who will remain could speak only in the fashion your suggestion allow).--Gilisa (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether my suggestion is "constructive" or not can only be determined by putting it into action and seeing what effect it has. I certainly intended it to be constructive, bearing in mind that I base "constructiveness" on what's best for the project and not what the editors in these two groups would prefer to have happen to them. As for my supposed "eagerness" to "push" this proprosal - balderdash. I posted it, I waited for some days while the situation worsened, then I mentioned it again here, and once at AE. My only eagerness is stop the disruption of the project by two warring groups of editors, broadly construed, who seem more interested in their own ideologies than in the good of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote "..Whether my suggestion is "constructive" or not can only be determined by putting it into action and seeing what effect it has...". Sorry, but there are many things you can know only by taking them into action-for example, what will be the results of nuclear attack on place X, or what will happen if the temperature will rise in 2 degrees. I'm against this kind experiments in wikipedia. And after you have posted your proposal twice, I would say that you are pretty eager about it.--Gilisa (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So Nothing?

    No uninvolved administrator will take a look at these edits that so many of us have found offensive and even give a 24 hour block? This will be allowed to scroll off the page despite numerous editors who have found Vexorg's edits problematic , and no action will be taken and this behavior will be permitted to continue with not a word? I am appalled. I thought WP had standards. Stellarkid (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear

    Well, I've just been a total tool and installed twinkle for the first time. Basically, I've messed up big time with it. I firstly started deleting everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 March 2010 with it - that might not be the end of the world, but it's worth a review. The major problem is that I attempted to delete the category here, but Instead I deleted the three articles in the category and unlinked anything that was linking to the category. I'm going to bed shortly, so I won't have time to fix my mistakes now - I'll do it in the morning, but if anyone has time it would be much appreciated. Apologies for causing such a mess. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    well the Circular bidirectional bus routes thing has been fixed but the prods are still an outstanding issue.©Geni 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why. There were more than 400 pages in that category thanks to the new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books). I myself deleted a couple hundred of them, but doing those deletions one at a time was taking hours. -- Atama頭 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully you've now learned that drinking and twinkling don't mix. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe jor you, & for Rqan, but I find phat I eventuallu need to twinkle after drinking" No matter what the fluid is. (Oops, you weren't talking about that kind of twinkle, were you?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisP2K5

    This user has been engaging in long-term trolling and edit warring on the Kasumi Ninja page.

    On December 5, 2009 I opened a topic on Talk: Kasumi Ninja suggesting that comments from a certain source should be removed since they were obviously not made in earnest(said source is an online comedy show) and requesting opinions. There were no responses, so on December 7 I went ahead and deleted the comments: [38]

    ChrisP2K5 promptly reverted my edit, with no justification: [39] I restored the edit and directed him to the discussion page: [40] He again reverted my edit without justification, claiming that he didn't need rationale for the revert since my reasoning was "flawed": [41]

    At the same time, he began at last responding to my post on Talk: Kasumi Ninja, but I use "responding" in the loosest sense of the word, since he never addressed or even alluded to the reason for my edit. Instead, he claimed I was using rationale that doesn't even remotely resemble any of my actual statements, accused me of being in violation of Wikipedia rules that he made up(some of which are directly contrary to actual Wikipedia rules), launched personal attacks, and responded to attempts to discuss the matter rationally by calling me "a sore loser". His trolling posts continued even after I had explicitly stated that I had no intention of wasting my time with the matter any further.

    On March 18, another editor, 24.60.220.148 voiced his agreement with the edit on the discussion page and restored the edit: [42]

    On March 29, ChrisP2K5 not only defied the majority consensus by reverting the edit again([43]), he dropped another trolling post on the discussion page and upped the ante by threatening 24.60.220.148 on his talk page, claiming to have the authority to ban WP editors at his sole discretion. 24.60.220.148 has since restored the edit and informed ChrisP2K5 that he is violating WP rules, but I don't expect that to stop him.

    What really bothers me is that a quick look at ChrisP2K5's talk page and contribution lists reveals that this is almost routine behavior for him: make an edit that falls just short of vandalism, wait for someone to oppose it, and then try to engage whoever does in a flame war. If I understand what's written on his talk page, he's actually been warned by administrators in the past, yet no action has been taken to prevent his harassing other editors.

    I will notify ChrisP2K5 and 24.60.220.148 immediately after posting this. However, I ask to be excused from monitoring this page, as I can't guarantee that I will remain civil if I am forced to interact further with ChrisP2K5. Lies and personal attacks immediately make my blood boil, and since that is invariably all that ChrisP2K5's posts consist of... you can guess where that would lead. If it is necessary for me to comment further on this matter, please notify me via my talk page. It might be a good idea to monitor my talk page, too, as I would hardly be surprised if ChrisP2K5 were to send threatening notes to me there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    --I refuse to partake in this. The user in question is misconstruing my words, as he has done before. Please do not waste the Wiki's time in dealing with this and remove it from the page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisP2K5 is blocked indefinitely - a review of the talkpage archives indicate that this is a long standing attitude problem; criticism is not tolerated and the editor becomes confrontational very readily. If they indicate that they will attempt to moderate their demeanour then unblock might be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MisterWiki unblock discussion

    MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has requested a username change here (original request posted by Rdsmith), apparently to match the username changes he's making across other wikis. We do not normally entertain rename requests from blocked editors, and based on the discussion there, we think it would be best to address the block first to see if there is a consensus to unblock the account. Here's a little history:

    So, I'm bringing this here for review again. Is the community willing to unblock MisterWiki? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The first item, should be "but there was insufficient evidence at the time" rather than "but there was sufficient evidence at the time" right?  f o x  19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My first question, and I think the most important one, is what does MisterWiki have to say that would lead us to believe that, if unblocked, his behavior would be different? He was blocked for reasons, and what statements has he made recently that will convince the rest of us that those reasons no longer exist? Time served isn't really a valid reason for unblocking, and neither is making SUL convenient for him. If he wants to be let back into the fold, lets hear from him explain why it would be better for Wikipedia if he were... --Jayron32 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a note on his talk page and requested that he post any comments there. I will then copy them over here for convenience. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that his new account (Diego Grez) is currently blocked on Commons. His old account (MisterWiki) is blocked on eswiki in addition to here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was renamed on Commons about an hour ago while still being blocked. [44] I don't post here too much and never really encountered MW until he was approved at WP:ACC and some people started screaming their opposition in the IRC channel but the more i look into this the less convinced i am that his recent activity on Simple is signs of improvement. Nihonjoe's list of community grievances against MW et al. is longer than i thought it to be, and he didn't even list everything. I don't object to the rename if Dan still wants to do it but having read the links Joe posted and what links are contained in those links i do not agree with unblocking at this time. He has been relatively good on Simple; let's see how that goes over a longer term. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Oppose of Unblock He's done nothing to prove that he can come back here and be trusted, he's already blocked on commons and eswiki as well why would we let him back?--SKATER Speak. 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do not unblock for a significant length of time. MisterWiki is a giant time sink. If a 'crat wants to spend time doing an indefblocked editor a favor, I don't care, but don't unblock, and let's not have another unblock discussion for at least, say, 1 year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per this edit, calling the ani thread "a joke". I don't see any point why this comment should be removed, it's not a personal attack or anything like that. Minimac (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this thread anything other than more of his usual time-wasting nonsense? Fair play to Nihonjoe for AGF but I think our chain is being yanked. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support of unblock. I was a participant in many of the threads over the last few months that lead to his latest block and I started the most recent review of his block where the re was some, albeit limited, support for lifting it. I have been in email contact with MisterWiki and I've been following what he does on Wikinews, where he's genuinely trying to be useful. I think he needs a mentor- someone to say "no! that's not a good idea!" and just to help him out and for him to bounce ideas off. I think that with such a mentor, he could become a very useful contributor because, unlike the many, many trolls we have wandering around WP making a nuisance of themselves, he genuinely wants to help. As evidence of this- I cite the article rewrite that he is drafting on his user page. If the community were to allow him back on a trial basis, I would be more than happy to fill that role. Why not let him back for a week, then review that and if it's not working, we can reblock him. Essentially, my question to the community is if you don't trust MisterWiki, trust me. If you want to look upon it as a waste of time, nobody's time will be wasted but my own and I genuinely believe some good can come from this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm the one who gave him the idea to improve the article. After trying to sort out coördinates i told him i thought it should be merged or else i might make my first PROD tagging. He pleaded with me and I showed him the article for my neighbourhood in Calgary and told him that if he wanted it kept it should be at least as useful and referenced. I do agree that his contributions of late on SimpleWP and ENWN do show a noticeable improvement however there is a long series of issues here on ENWP (and Commons). He has had trial unblocks before but i don't know if he has had a mentor to guide him, though he has had other users monitoring him. If you really think you can be a successful mentor on a cross-project level and he is agreeable to it then a trial run of it might be ok. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. From what I see, he's making himself useful on WN and has actually built up good relations with Blood Red Sandman, who blocked him here. I've spoken to him by email and he seems agreeable to mentorship. Like I say, someone to both help him out and keep an eye on him could be a real benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a few months, and then unblock It appears the user in question is trying to be apologetic and is assuming good faith now, as it appears he wants to revamp some articles. Maybe later he could be unblocked. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Much, much too soon, considering that his current indef block was originally intended to be a ten-year block, on the assumption that the passage of time might see some increase in maturity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Personally I think it's premature to be unblocking at this time, and I am not convinced that he will not continue the kind of behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I'd say give it a bit longer, until December 2010 at the very least, before we start considering unblocking. On a vaguely related note, why isn't MisterWiki's sockpuppet (talk · contribs) blocked yet? Or MisterBot (talk · contribs), Mister Wiki (talk · contribs), SignoreWiki (talk · contribs), MistressWiki (talk · contribs), MisterioWiki (talk · contribs), Bodoque57 (talk · contribs) and MisteryWiki (talk · contribs)? All legitimate alternative accounts for sure, but still alternative accounts of a blocked user. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Spitfire, with the greatest respect, that edit summary was 3 months ago. Though I won't claim that excuses it in the slightest, I think MisterWiki has seen the error of his ways and I think we should allow him back on a provisional basis. After all, he's not a troll, he just wants to be useful. I understand why you don;t want to give him a chance, but give me a chance. I will take personal responsibility for both the rewards and the piss-offs of any unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake: I had already removed the comment regarding the edit summary, mainly due to the timestamp, which of course, I should have checked before bringing it up. I wouldn't be entirely against an unblock in about a month or two, so long as a suitable mentor could be found, and so long as it was with the understanding that even the smallest infringement of policy would result in an immediate block (and of course, so long as suitable support for such an unblock was gathered). Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support of Unblock I'm really going against my gut feeling on this one, but I trust HJ Mitchell and believe that he could make him into a god editor. However, I only agree if it's mentorship for Much more than a week, it should be on the span of months or days.--SKATER Speak. 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No way. MW played us all for fools, or at least attempted to do so, in previous bouts of drama-infused discussion. I am a fan of AGF, but I am not willing to extend it beyond its own bounds - I am simply unwilling to be played for a fool again so soon. His work on other wikis to date is not exactly a confidence builder. Please, let's not let this get dragged out into another MW fueled timesink and stuff this back under the rug until some date much more comfortably separated from his last shenanigans. Shereth 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we're falling for it again. Maybe I was just born AGF-impaired or something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're both claiming this is a waste of time, but, if you read my proposal below, it actually wastes less of everyone else's time. If he isn't unblocked, this won't be the last thread on the issue. Whereas, if we unblock him on the terms I list below, the only person whose time is taken up is my own and, if he acts up, he can just be reblocked without discussion, making this the last thread on him for quite some time. You don't have to trust him, but I'm asking you to trust me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think it's admirable of you to be willing to mentor him, but your analysis of the probable course of this seems out of whack with what's happened in the past. From that record, I would say it's more likely that he'll go off again, he'll be blocked, and then X months down the line we'll be right back here, having the same discussion we're having right now. If he's unblocked, I hope that I'm wrong and that your mentorship is successful, but I do not in any way buy the idea that doing that now changes anything about what may happen in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're threatening to waste everyone's time more if we don't unblock him? No. I don't think so. It is easy to make this the last thread on him ever as well. For the next 10 years any threads on him will be auto-closed.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Statements from MisterWiki's talk page

    Nihonjoe said he would move over any statements that MisterWiki has. As there are 4 of them so far i thought i would expedite it and move them over. [45] [46] [47] [48] delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Dear Wikipedians, my block was my very own fault. I'll tell you my history from my point of view. I started editing here, I don't remember why, adding false information about me on Diego Grez. I admit I liked Hannah Montana at the time, but I don't know why that spamming thing. I was 11 and after some time, I decided to back for good, doing good things and trying to fulfill my past. I left the wiki for a year and some, until I've got my own Internet connection on my home. I thought that my case was forgotten and even I tried to appeal my unblock on es.wiki. (Regarding the comment of someone at ANI, I was blocked previously on these wikis and I wanted to request here and so on). I've emailed an steward that gave me an opportunity (an unblock request at the village pump over there). It lasted in the third week of December because no admin unblocked me. The things went fine until my rollback was removed because of misuse, something I admit. I tried to expand the most I would Pichilemu, because I wanted it to get (at least to) GA, as it is one of my most-known topics before the History of Chile and Modern Talking. Piss-on-elmo and calling the admins nazis was the thing that caused this block, and I thought it was going to be shorter, and it was my fault. Since that, I tried to do the things better, on Wikinews (where I am accredited reporter) and on Simple Wiki, in addition to the Spanish Wikinews, the Latin Wikipedia, English Wiktionary and the Chamoru Wikipedia, a wiki that is almost forgotten. Additionally, I saw that my other account, Bodoque57, was not blocked on Commons, and I requested block on IRC. On Wikinews, my contributions about the recent Chile earthquake have been very appreciated and the community has been very, hmm, good. As it is not Wikinews, Wikinoticias, Wiktionary or Vicipaedia, I come here to ask you, Wikipedians, to unblock me, I want to show you that I have matured through all this time and I don't want to get in troubles anymore. The earthquake thing has helped me to mature more than I thought and you'll forget this very, very soon. I won't let you down, I promise as a good boy. --MW talk contribs 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • PD. I don't have bad feelings against those people that blocked me or helped to do this, I know it was for good for Wikipedia and for myself too. --MW talk contribs 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgot that on IRC, I've got a bot running as Pitsilemu, for Wikinews, if that can be considered of help. --MW talk contribs 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you let me come back, I will be editing Pichilemu and related articles to make 'em (at least Pichilemu) good articles. You won't see me trolling again. ;-) --MW talk contribs 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    End of copy of first four messages from MW's talk page. ☯ I fixed links to other projects as the way MW originally wrote them did not work on preview here but were displayed and functional on his talk page. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocks are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for moving those over, Deliriousandlost. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A compromise

    As I've said above, I'm more than happy to mentor MisterWiki for as long as is deemed necessary and MW has previously assured me by email that he will abide by any restrictions the community decides are required. I'm suggesting that he be unblocked and given "probation". He would have to agree that the slightest infringement of the conditions of his probation would result in an immediate, indefinite block and such a block may be made by any admin and discussion would not be required. As I said above, I will take personal responsibility for his actions. If he were unblocked on those conditions, the only time wasted, should it not work out, is my own.
    Would anybody support that or possibly suggest appropriate restrictions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have any huge concerns with this. MisterWiki has obviously agreed to behave and assume good faith. Hopefully there won't be any more Piss-on-elmos. Afterall, we also have to assume good faith. If after this unblock MisterWiki acts up again, I'm fine with him receiving an instant indef-block. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to vouch for the fact that MW does seem to be genuinely trying to improve, based on his contributions to enwikinews and simplewiki. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to leave a message here. I regularly interact with MisterWiki (he's Diego Grez there) on en.wikinews, where I'm a sysop. I think MisterWiki is mature enough now and on en.wikinews he is always trying to improve at editing and article writing. I vouch for MisterWiki and support a probationary unblock. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't have great faith in the mentoring ability of someone whose argument revolves around "unblock him now or we'll just have to spend more time on this later".--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I'm an arbcom member and bureaucrat at en.wikinews, a wiki where MisterWiki [contribs is active]. I'm not going to vote in this, as I don't feel I'm an established user here, but would just like to say I'm willing to vouch that he's been doing a really great job at Wikinews, and has been very helpful to the project. Certainly not in any way disruptive. I'm of the opinion that he's genuinely trying to redeem himself, and wants to do only good for Wikimedia. He's definitely matured, I don't see any problem with unblocking him and giving him a mentor to provide pointers. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite willing to believe your evaluation of his behavior on Wikinews, but find it difficult to accept that "he has matured." I think that particular judgment still remains to be made, and cannot yet be determined on the basis of such a short period of time. After all, he had his periods of relative usefulness here as well.

    One of the reasons that he has been such a time sink in the past, is that there's always been someone going to bat for him, for one more chance, or whatever. Given his history, I find these efforts to be mistaken, and because they have been, I personally, would need considerably more evidence of MW's chnage of heart before I felt comfortable about his being unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    -shrugs- Well, it's certainly up to you to decide whether or not MW should be unbanned, just thought I'd chime in as this is somewhat-relevant to me. I'm not aware of how many "second chances" he has received in the past, but I still believe he has quite genuinely reformed, although I understand you'd want some more time to make sure. If it makes any difference, he has been recently made an an accredited reporter at en.wn, a position that requires a fair amount of trust and experience. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempodivalse, your insights are most certainly welcome. Indeed, it may be a situation where Wikinews is simply his niche, and that should be encouraged. There seems to be no real ability to do self-promotion there, since the site structure is so very different, which may prevent the behaviour that was witnessed here. I have no opinion one way or another regarding his ban being lifted, but just because he does well at Wikinews should not necessarily point to him doing well here, especially given that so little time has passed. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm Still looking closely at this edit. if he does get unblocked, then I wouldn't allow him to remove notices and warnings from is talk page. Does anyone agree? Minimac (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a firm believer that no one should really be removing anything from their talk page that isn't vandalism and that it should be archived in a way that is actually conducive to an operating community. I don't see overwhelming support for his unblock at this point so unless that changes I don't think it is a concern. If he is unblocked it would need to be with a series of restrictions that should probably include that.--Crossmr (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinions seem somewhat divided; what about a provisional unblock where the first month would be strictly working with HJMitchell; MisterWiki would not be permitted to edit outside his or HJ's user and subspace unless the edit was reviewed and approved by his mentor? –xenotalk 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This from MW's talk page([49]):

    Please think well, I'm really trying to change. I just want to comeback, to go by the right way here. Please give me the last chance, I'll accept any condition. --MW talk contribs 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

    I take from that that MW would be willing to abide by any restriction. I definitely believe that some restrictions would be required- to keep him on a "tight leash" so to speak, and forbidding removal of content from his talk page seems reasonable to me. If my suggestion above is implemented, then one breach of the restrictions and he goes back to being indef'd. I also think a 1RR and a commitment to edit from one account (with regular checkusers if the CUs will oblige) would be reasonable restrictions. I also think Xeno's above suggestion is sensible and workable. Any thoughts from anyone? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given I once blocked MW for vandalism and as I tried to hint above, taking this thread altogether, I see no harm in trying an unblock within some tight bounds that might last a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • IF HJ really, really wants to give MisterWiki a third (possibly fourth, I've lost track) "last chance", I guess you can ignore my comment above when determining consensus. But I don't ever want to see his name on an admin board. He's used up eight lives, and if it ever looks like he's testing the limits to see what he can get away with, I'll block him myself, mentor or no mentor, whether or not a I would block another editor for the same thing. Frankly, I still think this is a hopeless gamble; people don't "mature" in two months. If HJ wants to spend his time on it, more power to him, but MW needs to make sure he doesn't waste anyone else's time. At least put as many restrictions on him as necessary to ensure that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed restrictions

    I'd like to request that MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be unblocked provisionally based on the following restrictions, any breach of which would result in an immediate reblock:

    • MisterWiki is to agree to mentoring from HJ Mitchell for as long as is necessary
    • MisterWiki is to commit to editing from one account only and (assuming the CUs agree) to regular checkusers
    • MisterWiki is expressly forbidden from removing any comments from other editors from his talk page except for routine archiving
    • MisterWiki is to only to edit in his own or in my userspace where you can draft things and where I and others can keep an eye on you
    • MisterWiki is to seek approval for any edit outside of his own or HJ Mitchell's userspace
    • MisterWiki is to be subject to a One Revert Rule (1 revert per article per day- not including blatant vandalism)
    • MisterWiki is to abide by all other policies and guidelines
    • MisterWiki is to agree that any violation of the above will result in an immediate, indefinite block without discussion and that such a block will almost certainly be permanent.
    • These restrictions will be available for view on MisterWiki's user page and at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

    MisterWiki may request review of these restrictions after no less than 45 days from the unblock and only with the approval of his mentor. Such a request should be made at the Administrators' Noticeboard.

    Do those restrictions seem reasonable? It allows him to start regaining trust little by little while keeping him on a short enough leash that he can't do anything disruptive. Any further suggestions are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirmation MistwerWiki has read and agreed to the above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the proposal by HJ. Perhaps this will end this once and for all.--White Shadows you're breaking up 19:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, as above. There's little consensus to lift the current block. Jack Merridew 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support though quite weakly. MisterWiki has the potential to be a black hole of editor time. He also has the potential to be a decent contributor here. He needs to know he has one chance here- he either contributes productively or is blocked and it will be years before an unblock is seriously considered. At his age, maturity can come rapidly, though, so I can at least support HJ Mitchell's efforts. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support There really is little consensus above to lift the block, but if anyone can make a potentially good editor out of him, it's HJ.--SKATER Speak. 20:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support One thing- If MW finds blatant vandalism in the article-space, he should be able to remove himself. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect toward those who have put forth this proposal, it is simply too soon to be discussing lifting the block. I must oppose. Shereth 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand where you're coming from, an d thank you for your consideration in your comment. I will say, though, that, although I'm asking for the technical restriction to be lifted, most of the de facto ban that went with it will remain, since he'll be almost entirely limited to his own or my userspace, per Xeno's suggestion above. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you would like for me to elaborate on specifically why I feel this is a bad idea, I can do so, but I'll try to summarize. MisterWiki has disrupted the project in the past due to either a willful intent to misbehave or an inability to understand why what he was doing was wrong. I am happy to believe that someone can reform/grow up and become a productive contributor but I do not believe this is something that can happen over a period as short as a few months. I don't think it's sending the right message to MisterWiki to truncate the terms of his block simply because he asks nice and makes promises; I fear it will only encourage either the willful malice or the immaturity that drove him to do what he did previously. Shereth 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support To be honest, if this was me, I'd rather stay blocked than agree to such a frustratingly binding series of restrictions, particularly not being able to make even one edit in mainspace without prior approval from his mentor(s). But if he's up for it, I don't see any problems. I don't think there should be any gray areas though; if we're saying he can't edit mainspace, he shouldn't be editing mainspace, even to make clearly productive edits, because there is no defining line between what is productive and what isn't, and the lack of clarity could be used by anyone opposing the unblock to show that he's violating the terms of his unban; in other words, it could potentially hurt him more than it would help. —Soap— 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • modest support and in agreement with Soap. These are restrictive conditions but they are to allow him to prove himself. Let's not give him the rope right now so that he can hang himself. There is generally enough vandal patrolling that MW doesn't need this loophole in his restrictions. If there is recurring vandalism on something he is involved with then his mentor can deal with it, if someone else doesn't get it first. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. You cannot claim "vandalism" as a reason to bypass the restrictions. In order to appease the opposers, how about MR cannot request a review of these restrictions after no less than 2-3 months from the unblock and only with the approval of his mentor. Such a request should be made at the Administrators' Noticeboard instead of 45 days? That sould be long enough IMHO.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for disrupting the thread here, but I'll try to keep it as clear as I can. @Shereth, again, I can understand where you're coming from but (call me a fool if you will) I see a genuine desire to help from MisterWiki and, in light of his positive contributions to other WMF projects, particularly what I've seen of him on enWikinews, where I'm semi-active myself, I don't think there's any malice there. The reason I suggested the mentoring and why I'm fighting so hard for this is because I believe that, with help from someone willing to to work with him rather than write him off, he can become a genuine asset to the encyclopaedia. @Delirious and Soap, I'll strike the vandalism caveat- I should be able to deal with anything he encounters. @White Shadows, that can work if it has to, but 45 days (~a month and a half) seemed a reasonable time period to me. No such request will be forthcoming unless I'm totally satisfied and I will not simply rubber stamp it. Would you be averse to trusting my judgement on that?
    General clarification: the "seeking approval to edit outside mine or his userspace" clause is intended to allow him to work on articles in that space and copy or move them to mainspace and to allow him to edit Pichilemu (closely supervised) which I believe he has intentions to revamp. Essentially, I'm saying cut him just enough slack, and if he finds a way to hang himself with the little rope we're allowing him, he can just be reblocked and I'll shut the f**k up (which would probably make everyone happy!). I'd like to extend my thanks to everybody in this thread, for putting up with me if for no other reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarification when you say you are in agreement with Soap do you mean you also agree that his staying blocked is preferred?--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My stance has eased up a little as HJM has laid out this proposal. If you look at the beginning of this thread, a just after Nihonjoe's series of posts you find my first one, in which i was not in favour of a free-for-all unblocking. When HHJM first raised the idea of himself being a mentor for MW i said that a trial run might be ok. Having seen the proposed conditions of the unblocking and mentor role that HJM is willing to take on i find myself a little more agreeable to unblocking on those conditions. From my brief interactions with him on IRC and in reviewing his recent contributions on a cross-project level as i gathered diffs for my note on his CHU request (which is what brought this entire discussion here) i didn't see anything that would cause me to believe MW is trying to deceive. I am cautious. These are some fairly limiting restrictions and i do see that depending on his real maturity level they could be more harmful than helpful. That being said his actions on other, smaller projects have been better than what got him blocked here. If he has honestly matured then this is a good way for him to show that he can work with a larger group of fellow editors and the more diverse opinions and perspectives that we have. If he has not matured then as HJM says this will blow up in his face and MW will be back to serving out his 10 year block. I see it as granting early parole with a diligent parole officer, kind of like the show White Collar. (Yes i realise you struck your question but in the version on my screen when i clicked [Edit] it was not struck, so i thought to answer it anyway.) delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • completely 100% oppose You're basically section shopping at this point. You have no consensus for an unblock above, so proposing restrictions as if he is going to be unblocked is premature. I really have to wonder what your motivation is for pushing this so hard especially when you've ignored concerns about your own logic above. Misterwiki isn't ready for an unblock and frankly you're not ready to mentor anyone. You told us above that if we didn't unblock him now we'd just have to keep talking about it. is that your strategy now? Are you going to keep making proposals on his behalf until we just cave in?--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstood my above comment. Please assume good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
        • Which when asked about it twice, you failed to clarify. I don't assume good faith blindly. That's not a shield for you trying to shop for a way to unblock. Yet again you still haven't addressed at least a couple people who have pointed out that you have no consensus for unblock above. What are you doing even proposing restrictions when you have no consensus for an unblock?--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Assuming good faith keeps the project running smoothly, especially in a thread where many people have strong opinions. For example, I automatically assume that you misunderstood me rather than trying to be difficult. I'm proposing the restrictions so that people have a better idea of what they're supporting or opposing- I myself would not support an unblock with no restrictions given MW's history. Thus, I'm trying to establish a consensus rather than trying to force something through unduly- to do the latter would be contemptuous. As to my point above, I meant that, at some point or another, someone else will likely propose an unblock again so it would be good to give him a final chance- many previously problematic editors have gone on to be upstanding members of the community. To my motivation, having spoken with him and followed his efforts on enWikinews, I feel he has a genuine desire to be useful- to the extent that he has agreed, should he be unblocked, to work within such restrictive conditions. If you want to look at it from a cynical point of view, if he blows this chance, his next block (if he's unblocked this time) will almost certainly be his last. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Unblock he has done some great editing on WikiNews, he will be a great asset here on wikipediaIrunongames • play 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per restrictions and mentoring proposed above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose pretty much per Shereth. He willfully misbehaved, attacked admins without real provocation, and received a 10 year block with strong backing. Although I looked over his contribs at wikinews, and they are in fact promising, there are major differences in how the two sites work. He lived in Chile when the earthquake occurred, and this put him in a good situation to get attention which ultimately was the conclusion of a few editors during the various discussions. Although he should be allowed back at some point, it's frustrating to have an editor be imposed with a 10 year turned infinite block, and come back in just a few months. If he is doing well on Wikinews (Which he is) then he can continue there where he will be productive. Another point I have against the restrictions is it is very difficult for any editor to do much productive under said restrictions, so I don't see any real reason to go to editing restrictions. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 16:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this is very soon after the imposition of the block and I believe I may even have supported the block when it was imposed or in one of the multiple threads on this board. However, the point of the mentoring is to deal with the immaturity and to force him to think before he says or does something and if he wilfully acts out, he can go back to his ten year block with no argument from me whatsoever. As for the usefulness of the restrictions, the idea (or my idea in proposing them, at least) is to allow MW to prove his usefulness by drafting articles in userspace (his or mine, I've no preference) and, closely supervised, making improvements after moving them to mainspace, though without letting him into the project space or anywhere else that he would have chance to be disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock at this time. And I do hope oppose votes in the above section will be considered despite this new section HJM has created. Auntie E. (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they will be and that is exactly why I created this as a subsection of the above rather than a new section. Would you care to elaborate on why you don't find these restrictions acceptable, since this is a discussion, rather than a vote? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent deletions by User:DragonflySixtyseven

    DragonflySixtyseven has apparently gone on a unilateral deletion spree, deleting many article talk pages and other pages. No CSD reasons are being given, and requests for restoration are being refused on his talk page. (Log: [50]) Some of these are heading for overturn in DRV. I question the value of deleting an article talk page because it has "homework questions" or "forum-like" contents. Such content can simply be removed without using deletion. Gigs (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Amanda Freitag I didn't understand so I recreated it. In the future the user can just remove/flag the forum content, but leave the talk. A number of the userpage deletions seem valid regarding spam and promotion. Have you attempted to make contact with the user other than notifying of the ANI? SGGH ping! 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of the blocks seem to make liberal use of the "talk page editing block", hopefully the user can explain their justification further here. SGGH ping! 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I remove talkpage access for spammers, and for people who've created content that defames others. And what would be the point in removing inappropriate content from a page and then leaving it blank? Process is important, but it's not all-important. Go write an article, go review an article, go fix an article, go help a newbie. Don't waste your time with this crap. DS (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because if you delete it, non-administrators can't see the removed content to decide whether your action was reasonable or not, leading to stuff like this thread and the DRVs, which are indeed a waste of time. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What boggles my mind is that the removal of irrelevant/inappropriate discussion is not only being contested but is generating new DRV entries because it did not technically follow process. Some would argue that process is important and stepping around it too often weakens the project; I would argue that a slavish obedience to process when it is creating roadblocks to sensible solutions is equally deleterious to the project. Shereth 22:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My only concern was the restriction of talk page access so I wished to hear the reasoning. So long as DS follows policy that is fine. It is there for a reason, all the blustering about "crap" put to one side. SGGH ping! 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Earwig has pointed out to me that 'homework' is not a particularly helpful rationale when I could instead be pointing to WP:HOMEWORK. I shall use that one instead. Similarly, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM is more informative than "not a forum". DS (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HOMEWORK and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM are not speedy deletion rationales either. And considering the developing consensus at this DRV and this one it doesn't look as though your judgment on what constitutes a homework question is particularly sound; consensus seems to be that the questions you deleted were relevant to the articles and useful towards the improvement of them. And your response when challenged on your mass deletions is "Stop wasting time. Run along. Nothing to see here." I find that deeply worrying. Reyk YO! 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They're rational. And what do you expect me to say when you're wasting your time and mine? Why don't you go patrol the backlogged newpages in the lesser namespaces, so as to remove inappropriate material? I seem to be the only one who does that; if you have a problem with how I do it, you're welcome to help out. DS (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Protesting an administrator's abuse of tools is never a waste of time. Reyk YO! 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be an imbecile. These are uniformly garbage pages. If you want to hoard them, I will copy the content of each and every one onto your userpage. (NOTE: That's an offer, not a threat. You can have them if you want them.) DS (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks, if you haven't noticed by now that I think the articles' talk pages is the proper place for them you haven't been paying a lot of attention. Perhaps many of them are garbage pages, but the DRVs make it pretty clear you've made a few mistakes as well. And please don't call me names- I am not being stupid. My opinion is backed by policy and consensus. Reyk YO! 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In all these instances, why would Dragonfly67 or any other editor not prefer to post a short note ON THE PAGE explaining why (in that editor's view) the comment was inappropriate. That would have meant that the original poster would be far more likely to see the comment (as opposed to the deletion log, which a newcomer will probably not know to look for nor how to find) and perhaps be educated in how to used wikipedia. And other editors could also see the response and perhaps be educated. And if other experienced editors saw the response and disagreed, a short and simple discussion on the talk page or on someone's user talk page could occur, and who knows, someone might learn something from that, one way or the other. Placing such a response would probably be easier and quicker -- surely note significantly harder or lonnger, than deleting the page. DES (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, WP:CSD says plainly that "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination." True, this is not mandatory (although i once supported a proposal to make in mandatory) but it is now the almost invariable practice, and failing to follow it is in such cases a violation of WP:BITE, IMO. DES (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moreover WP:CSD#Non-criteria says "The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion....Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain....Reasons based on essays. Wikipedia:Listcruft, Wikipedia:Obscure topics, Wikipedia:Deny recognition etc. are not valid reasons for speedy deletion....An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English." Note that DF67 suggest above deleting based on the Essay WP:HOMEWORK. Several deletions of talk pages with non-English comments have had the logged reason "wrong language". It seems to me the DF67 is acting as if WP:CSD#Non-criteria does not exist, and as if admins have carte blanche to delete any page they may deem "not helpful to the project" Not so, deletion is to be by consensus, either discussed or pre-formed in the narrow cases of the CSDs. DES (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DESiegel, you are an articulate man who clearly cares about what is best for the project. I envy you both your copious free time to spend arguing about this, and your bureaucratic dedication to procedure that prevents you from restoring pages that you feel should exist. If you genuinely feel that any one of those pages should exist, then by all means restore it. I won't wheel-war with you over it if you genuinely feel it is an asset to the project. And you are correct -- deletion rationales are a crucial part of the project; that's why they exist. Mine will be better now. DS (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am glad that your rationales will be better in future. What I would really like -- what would be far more important to me than the fate of these specific pages -- would be if when you (and i hope other admins also) see such a page in future, you would do something other than simply delete it, under any rationale. I really think the best thing in cases such as the ones now open at DRV would be to add a simple response to the talk page, rather than pushing the delete button. If you really feel that such pages must be deleted, then please open an MFD page. If you use one of the various scripts available it wouldn't take that much longer, and would make things ever so much more transparent. If you are correct that such pages are widely felt to be of no value, they will be fairly quickly deleted at an MfD -- 2 or 3 once sentence comments, and a one-word close. If you are incorrect, that will soon be obvious also. If i had thought this was a one-time event i would have simply restored -- I believe that any admin is by policy allowed to restore an improper speedy. My concern is for all the other pages where I don't check your deletion log, and neither does anyone else. My dedication to procedure here is not, in intent, "bureaucratic" -- my concern is that in not following procedure you wind up ignoring consensus, and hurting the project, mostly by driving off potentially good contributors. my use of procedure here is intended as much to bring the issue to more general attention as it is to restore the specific pages in question. If you indicate that your approach to deletion -- that is, your choice of whether to delete and not just of what reason to cite (although clear log reasons are important too) -- will change in future, I'll be happy to stop arguing. DES (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DES that the rationales are not the issue, it's the deletions. Perfectly harmless content, and, as argued at the DRVs, not irrelevant to the article--the two there seem to represent complaints that the articles did not give enough information, and both complaints seem correct. DF has never explained why he thinks them homework, but if they are, for someone to come here to seek information for homework is a proper use of the encyclopedia, and for them to say that they came here for that purpose and did not find what they were reasonably looking for is a criticism we should remedy,not remove. The situation is not solved by DF giving admins permission to revert his deletions if they object. The deletions by themselves serve to discourage prospective newcomers. The need to attract, not repel potential newcomers, is essential to the survival of WP , for there is no other way to replace those who inevitably leave. Of all the issue facing us, the need for more contributors is the most important, because without them, we cannot solve the other problems. These edits did not really need to be removed. The attitude that one should look for any faults one can find in newcomers is inappropriate and remove their edits if they look doubtful is wrong --one should not be too hasty to conclude their edits are errors, and if they are, one should correct their errors, but along with encouraging them. Almost equally wrong is an approach that if an edit needs to be removed, the entire page should be deleted. Deletion is the last resort--a frequently needed last resort, and not to be used unnecessarily when there is so much that really does need it. DF above blames DES of bothering with unimportant matters, such as complaining about his deletions--but the unimportant and unnecessary work was his own, deleting these pages in the first place. And that admins follow the rules is not unimportant. There are many unjustified complaints here about arbitrary admin action -- we have enough to deal without without admins overusing the buttons and giving rise to actually justified complaints. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride the following were among the ArbCom's expressed "Principles":
    • "...Additionally, when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why."
    • "The policy pages for Deletion policy, Undeletion policy, and Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages, including pages in userspace. Administrators are expected to use their deletion and undeletion abilities consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, such as Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion, or apply a Proposed deletion tag. This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons."
    • "Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. Deletion can easily discourage editors, especially new editors, so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. When the deletion is of a page in userspace, the affected editor may be particularly dismayed. Even though users do not "own" such pages, reasonable leeway is accorded to userspace content. Therefore, a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided."
    These seem to me relevant here. DES (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This does sound like the drama surrounding MZMcbride's bot rampage of a year or so ago, deleting IP address user and talk pages without prior consensus, one of the issues leading to the first of his two desysoppings if I remember properly. Our usual approach to removing talkpage clutter has generally been to archive it or (in some situations) blank it, not delete the page and make it inaccessible to users through the page history. The exceptions are issues like libel that must be deleted to protect the project, and pages that meet narrow conditions described at WP:CSD. "Homework" and "Forum" aren't sufficient conditions for deletion, and anyway such a categorization isn't up to any one person's whims. And as for "unhelpful to the project", we have a longstanding view that making user contribs (including unhelpful ones) accessible to everyone is desirable for accountabilty purposes; deleting those pages out-of-process removes accountability from the people who created them. Take the pages to MfD if you must, but it's easier and more traditional to just archive them. Or, open an appropriate policy discussion if you think the existing procedure should change. Simply going on a unilateral deletion spree is not the way to do it.

    Stepping back a level, if an ongoing sequence of actions is getting resistance from other users (as this is), those actions should stop until a discussion has taken place. So I hope the deletions have stopped. They don't sound urgent, so pre-empting discussion by continuing them in the face of so much opposition is very bad admin conduct, deserving of an RFCU and desysopping if necessary. See the "fait accompli" principles in several arb cases, e.g. from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Fait_accompli, "Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the above was from the response to the drama around MZMcbride's bot-assisted deletion of large numbers of "secret" pages, which i think led to his resigning as an admin about a year ago -- technically he was not desysoped as i understand it. But the principles are IMO relevant here. DES (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the problem?

    He's been doing deletions like these for a few years. Is there an actual objection to the specific deletions? If so, can someone clearly lay out what those objections are?

    Looking at DS' deletion log, is anyone disputing that spam, copyright violations, and test pages fall outside speedy deletion criteria?

    Seriously, what's the point of this thread. Someone's volunteering to clean the place up and you're upset because.... --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    first, cleaning up in such a way as to discourage potential new contributors is a threat to the project-- a serious long term documented threat. second, admins acting outside their mandate is a serious short-term threat, because once they think it proper to act in a way not accepted by the community, there is no telling how much harm they might do. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone can show me that one of my deletions has been in error, I will restore it. This is not braggadocio; I acknowledge that I make mistakes, and I correct them. I also apologize to individuals whose pages I have deleted by mistake. How often do you apologize to people? DS (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, i think, shown that at least four of your deletions were in error. One related set has already been reversed at DRV, as has one single earlier deletion. Two more look to be on the road to being overturned at DRV. That, IMO pretty clearly establishes that the community did not agree with them, which makes them "wrong" in this context, without anything more. I have also elaborated on the specific reasons why i think the specific deletions were wrong. Moreover the entire concept of "I'll delete what i please, limited only by my own judgment, but will restore if someone can convince me I'm wrong." is IMO wrongheaded. Note that I asked DF67 to restore in each of the cases now pending at DRV, and DF67 decliend. But even if DF67 would automatically restore on any good-faith request, it would still be wrong headed. No one but an admin can check to see if a logged reason matches the actuality of the deleted page. In one pending case the logged reason was "test page" but DF67 admitted on his own talk page that that was not a correct description of the page in question. A number of pages were deleted with the logged reasons "wrong language", "Forum" and "Silliness": is anyone claiming those are, in general, valid reasons to delete pages? Many are deleted with the logged reason "Inappropriate use of user page" and many of those turn out to be spam, but others do not, and there is no way for a non-admin to tell, and no quick and easy way for even an admin to tell. Deletion should not be, except in very unusual cases, conducted except by consensus, either found via a discussion or pre-agreed via the speedy deletion criteria. Anything else is IMO abusing the trust of the community that comes with the admin bit. Admins are empowered to carry out the will of the community, not to impose their own wills. DES (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MZMcBride, it is somewhat ironic that you make the statements you do, as roughly a year ago you "cleaned up" by mass-deleting many user pages, resulting in an ArbCom case (which is quoted and linked to above) in which, as i understand it, the ArbCom disapproved of such deletions. And in thes cases in point, there is not general agreement that the deletions complained of constitut4ed "cleaning up". I for one don't think they did, and I gather that several others at DRV don't think so either. "Cleaning up" by deleting pages without or against consensus is not, IMO, helpful to the project. DES (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MZMcBride, are you claiming that the pages described more fully on DRV are "spam, copyright violations, and test pages"? If so, i disagree strongly. If all the pages involved were that this thread would not have happened. DES (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes users tend to be too bureaucratic and end up spending time on useless debates. Does an admin have to go through the whole process of deletion, when cases are obvious? If he spotted pages that are unconstructive/disruptive and according to the policy they should be deleted then why shouldn't he make use of the admin tools? Of course we can't check them, but admins can check them and none of them have restored any of those pages and as he said he wouldn't oppose any page restoration.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In these specific cases, since several people have disagreed with the deletions, the cases weren't obvious. In general, I think few cases outside the agreed Speedy criteria are all that obvious. And putting a prod tag on or even starting an AfD or MfD discussion takes perhaps a minute. There is no requirement for the nom to follow the debate and keep commenting, although many do. These pages are, IMO, neither nonconstructive nor against policy, and i think that had an MfD been started the result would have been keep, though i can't be sure of that. That is why such a debate might well not have been useless. DES (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Failed mediation on Race and intelligence

    On the talk page of the mediation page for this article, a version of the lede was decided by a consensus of multiple editors. Ludwigs2 had also put in place a faulty procedure for redrafting the article in mainspace. This permitted David.Kane (talk · contribs), an inexperienced wikipedia editor, to push his extreme personal point of view in the lede, giving WP:UNDUE support for a minoritarian point of view. The editor used almost no secondary sources. What he put into the lede was a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which contradicts almost all secondary sources. Ludwigs2 was well aware that David.Kane had a WP:POV and that he had very little editing experience in mainspace articles. I have reverted the lede to the previous lede decided by consensus. Allowing a single inepxerienced editor to reek havoc with a notoriously controversial article of this kind was extremely ill-advised and has wrecked the article.

    It is not advisable to discuss 3RR when David.Kane was given carte blanche to make whatever edits pleased him. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to restore his POV-pushing edits to the article. The article is disgraceful. it does not in any way whatsover reflect any secondary sources. It reveals David.Kane's personal point of view and possibly that of the other WP:SPA's active in mediation. Ludwigs2 has condoned David.Kane's foolhardy edits. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors other than MathSci would like me to give my side of the story, I would be happy to do so. Short version: 1) Throughout this mediation, I have abided by all the decisions/suggestions made by the various mediators. (We have had three so far.) 2) I think that the mediation has been very successful. Compare the version of the article we have now [51] with the version that we started with [52]. 3) I like to think/hope that I have contributed to the success of the effort but, not being an experienced editor, I would leave that judgment to my fellow mediation participants, at least half a dozen of whom have explicitly thanked me. David.Kane (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it needs to be pointed out that this is the third time Mathsci has brought up this same issue here in the past three weeks. The previous two times were here and here. Both of these threads were started by other users, but Mathsci redirected them into complaints about Ludwigs2’s handling of the mediation case for this article, and the admins eventually declined to take action against Ludwig. Doesn’t Wikipedia have a rule against this sort of forum shopping? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If a party to the mediation is dissatisfied, that shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I think it would be best to close the mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the current lede (and article), [53] are the result of the mediation, then I would say that the mediation is in practice a success. I'd support protecting it for a while DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes DGG, Ludwigs2 stepped in and restored the lede decided by consensus, removing David.Kane's radical rewrite. We now have to look at David.Kane's rewriting of the rest of the article, which seems to have the same problems, perhaps worse. Captain Occam is wrong about my posts to ANI. This is the first time I've initiated a post for a while. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    “Captain Occam is wrong about my posts to ANI. This is the first time I've initiated a post for a while.”
    Everyone: just look at the two threads that I linked to, and read at least half of them. Everything I’ve described is there if you do. Mathsci hasn’t actually initiated a post here about this topic recently, but he’s turned two posts about other topics into discussions about this one, so much so that the original discussions were completely abandoned and his own complaints ended up being the only thing that the admins responded to. Now is the first time he’s initiated a post about this recently, but it is not the first time he’s brought it up here, and had the admins look at his complaint and decline to take action about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Captain Occam, it's not a great idea for a WP:SPA to challenge an experienced mainstream editor like me. Edit some ordinary articles and perhaps then you might be taken seriously. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2 more days. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My thoughts exactly. Incidentally, [54] shows the rewrite. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club‎ being edited, again

    70.43.101.226 (talk · contribs) is still trying to somehow get Ladue Yacht Club (a hoax) into Wikipedia. The article went to AfD, and was deleted, but this anon keeps editing the closed AfD, now that their last block expired. (There is a Lake Ladue. It's a pond in a subdivision, and is about 500' across.) Minor nuisance, but I think we have a wannabe long term vandal. --John Nagle (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the edit to the closed AfD and left a warniong about creating hoaxes on the IPs talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also semi-protected the AfD--and I'm thisclose to blocking that IP again. I noticed he came right back after a block to start this up again. Methinks he needs another timeout. Blueboy96 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on their talk asking them to please stop. Dlohcierekim 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hogwash eliminator

    Resolved
     – User is now discussing things on the talk page, no obvious action necessary at this time

    Hogwash eliminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user started out by posting their opinion in the article text, of the article text. They were reverted by an admin and told to take it to the talk page. They reverted, saying 'no one reads the talk page'. I reverted them here, and gave them a second warning concerning such.

    They have since taken it to the talk page, only instead of discussing improvements to the article in a civil manner, they have decided to instead speak in an insulting manner about those who made the article, essentially calling them idiots(acting like they thought 2 + 2 = 5).

    This is of course, after I tried to politely tell them what they needed to do to fix the article, mainly telling them of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR.

    I have tried to tell them to cool it with the incivility and apparent(at least to me) personal attacks, saying it was a quick way to get blocked, but all they do is continue.

    I would like more eyes on the matter, and perhaps some help dealing with them. They have been notified of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a new and apparently knowledgeable editor with a bit of an abrasive style, who took issue with some errors in the article, and ended up having some unpleasant exchanges with Sandstein and Daedalus. I left messages at talk:nutrition and user talk:Hogwash eliminator to try to calm things down a little. This is another incident where talkpage warning templates and the like just get the person madder, so it's better to avoid using templates and just write in English. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice username :-) Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey GUY thanks for noticing. I am new here. Do you know how to stick your tongue out at someone with the appropriate abbreviation, template or what ever?? There is an entity within these ones and zeros that needs it.

    Hogwash eliminator (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose there's always :-P Dlohcierekim 20:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) There is also " ( [[Image:Misc-tpvgames.gif|20px]] ) ", though I suppose neither improves the quality of the discussion at hand :{ Dlohcierekim 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prenigmamann

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

    I don't know what this user's game is. They were reverted once, it seems, by Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs), and has since been following them around reverting them in what appears to be spite. In my mind, this appears to be a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

    More eyes would be appreciated. The user has been notified of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging from his last revert it looks like you might have become a target too?--SKATER Speak. 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. They appear to be doing this to multiple users as well. That is how I found out about them, I thought they were a sock of a past editor who made the same edit, but now I don't think so.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what much I can do...I'll keep an eye on him though.--SKATER Speak. 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If he becomes active again and starts following around users, then re-report him and notify an admin asap.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    Yesterday I warned Pookzta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez) to cease his disruptive campaigning over the deletion of Judy Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has instead chosen to carry on the campaign on multiple pages. This is a disruptive single-purpose account pressing a Truther agenda, and his discussions take the form of endless repetition of the same assertions without modification or concession to the points made. The obsessive use of doctoral titles is usually indicative of an agenda being pressed, and that does seem to be the case here. I don't think he's here to pursue the goals of Wikipedia, I think he's here to pursue an agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block. He is here with an agenda, his case has been rejected all the way to DRV, but he is unable to drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the block...Pookzta repeatedly spammed a number of pages with the cut & paste notability claims and undeletion arguments, broadly accused editors here of working for some nefarious purposes, and ignored repeated attempts to offer advice that would have helped. Pookzta's aggressive, agenda-driven editing was tendentious and not appropriate. — Scientizzle 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block. If they could at some point offer assurances of dropping that stick and moving on, then an unblock might be considered at that time, with them being banned from picking it up again or further tendentiousness. Dlohcierekim 14:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Apparently even the conspiracy theorists rejected his arguments. What does that tell you about its notability? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I lean toward giving him another chance, provided he restricts his rants to the appropriate page, probably Talk:9/11 Truth Movement. His arguments are faulty, but only the spamming makes it disruptive. (I am not willing to act as a mentor, if such is required.) However, his claim that it's the only Truther argument that the Supreme Court has ruled on might be evidence of notability of the argument, if it were, pardon the expression, true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you could take him up on his offer to add you to his e-mail list. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, he's posted his thesis on his talk page. This reminds me of some of the other conspiracy theories (I won't say which ones, since I don't want him to branch out) in which the conspiracy theorist decides what the evidence should look like, observes that the actual evidence doesn't square with his expectations, and therefore concludes that something's fishy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you. Kudos to Arthur for some patient work there. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: unblock request declined. Tan | 39 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After three unblock requests and a bit of edit warring, I removed Pookzta's access to his talk page. Any admin can feel free to reverse this at any point. Tan | 39 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I have removed some soapboxing from his talk page. Feel free to revert my edits if I was out of line. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper deletion of talk

    User:Automaton deleted a portion of a comment I wrote on a talk page. What i wrote was a civil response to a question, asking for clarification. Another editor (to my knowledge, not an admin.) informed me of this, and provided a link to the edit dif:

    [55]

    I don't want to get into an argument with this editor. I also do not want a big RfC, this is one single incident. But I have always considered it taboo to change someon'e talk, unless the talk violated WP policy; I think this principle is essential to the functioning of the community.

    I just would like an independent theird-party to communicate with Automaton - I trust any admin. is familiar enough with WP policy that s/he can explain to this editor why this is serious and should not be done again. If just one person would be willing to address this I would appreciate it and consider the matter resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you bring this up to the other user or try to discuss it with him? Have you let him know of your concern, and btw notified him of this thread here? All are considered Good Things.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Automaton may have encountered an edit conflict and accidentally removed your comment...I've done it on accident before. Stuff happens...just restore the comment, and if they remove it again, THEN you have problems worth discussing with the other editor as suggested above. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I will follow your suggestions, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of Channel 3 (Thailand) and Myanmar Radio and Television by IP range

    There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing on Channel 3 (Thailand) (history), Myanmar Radio and Television (history) and MRTV-4 (history) (and minor changes to other related pages as well) by a range of IP editors and one registered editor. The user and said IPs are, but perhaps not limited to:

    Although claiming to be at least three different people, said IPs share a common pattern of disruptive editing, which is radically changing said articles to that discussing an almost entirely different entity, and page moves performed by the registered user. Reversions by other editors are constantly reverted back, at least twice in violation of 3RR, and which have resulted in the temporary protection of Channel 3 (Thailand) and Myanmar Radio and Television.

    The IPs claim that Channel 3 is actually something known as "National Broadcasting Network" and Myanmar Radio and Television "Midnight Radio and Television", claims of which no where in the Internet (as far as Google's reach is, at least) could any evidence be found to support. When pressed for sources, both in edit summaries and on talk pages, the IPs simply "promise" to provide those sources "later", while continuing to restore their (unsourced and almost blatantly hoax) edits.

    The IPs have also accused another editor (me) of vandalism, which I consider to be a personal attack. Although the IPs' manner of editing don't appear to constitute classical vandalism, and they do appear to have some constructive contributions, it is my belief that it would be futile to any further assume good faith, as it is clear that the intention of this editor/these editors is/are to insert falsified information into Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Midnight Radio and Television was copied-and-pasted in order to split the IPs' edits to Myanmar Radio and Television into a new article, and is currently at AfD. (Note though that the IPs continue to insist that it is the original article which should be renamed. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I will check if any is me.
    My IPs in this example are:
    • Can you show any points of all being the same?
    • There is only two, i think, only me and him/her. The points are:
    1. Both edited Myanmar articles
    2. Both said that they're from Thailand
    3. Same IP range (I am also same, but I am different people)
    4. I have checked MRTV's talkpage, and he/she said that he/she never edited Channel 3 (Thailand) article, and NBN4 isn't called Earth.
    For registered (Tw3435), isn't me, wait until someone confirm.
    How can I leap the problem of others using same IP range and confuse with me?
    --118.174.84.134 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well a rangeblock would knock out over 50,000 IPs, so WP:AIV would be your best bet as long as you have warned them properly first. Then again, I could be wrong so you might want to seek a second opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as the involved parties appear to be willing to discuss the issue, and that there is still the possibility that I am actually mistaken, I didn't think that AIV was the proper venue. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But can you please show me a points of being the same person?--118.174.84.134 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, we can't definitively prove that since none of you have used registered names. But having gone through all the incremental changes that these addresses made to Myanmar Radio and Television (MRTV), Myanmar International, Myanmar Television and Television in Burma articles, I can say that the writing styles are very similar, if not the same. (And it's not just because of the edits' less-than-perfect English grammar, which they all share.) I see that the changes were made incrementally at first to stay under the radar, so to speak. The changes themselves look innocuous enough; E.g., in the Myanmar Television article, the hoaxer(s) put in Burmese television was founded in 1969, (it's 1979) and even put in elaborate program schedules from 1969 from on! If that's not a proof of a hoax, I don't know what is! The casual reviewer of these articles couldn't have known that a hoax was going on. I personally didn't notice these changes until MRTV was moved to Midnight Radio and Television. At least with the Burmese TV articles, it's clear the editor has put on an elaborate hoax, and acted in bad faith. Hybernator (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am 125.25.41.162, so I will no longer help my friend with the same IP range? I do not know either that TV in Burma started in 69 or 79. Because I was born in 1998 (I'm 12 years old) and I'm from Thailand. And Paul_012 makes me don't want to create account, or I will get blocked for making sock-puppets while it's the different! I have found two users discuss about thought that they're socks on Thai Wikipedia but I didn't help or join the problem. Can you block Paul_012 because he always said that I am another IP user. I see one of these talkpages and I see that Paul said that Boing! said Zebedee assuming good faith.
    PS:Is Paul_012 a sysop? If yes please unpromote him. Let him read the rules first.--125.25.237.103 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating an account will help solve the problem of being confused with other editors; I don't know what else there is to recommend. I don't see why (any of) you should fear being blocked for sockpuppetry if you are not engaged in the activity. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you won't be blocked for sockpuppetry if you stop editing from an IP address and only edit from your new account - people move from using dynamic IPs to registered accounts every day with no such problems -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by User: Boing! said Zebedee

    I don't think any admin intervention is actually required at the moment. Since several of us have been getting involved, reverting bad changes, teaching these IP editors about WP:RS and asking them to provide sources to back up their claims, they have stopped editing (other than on Talk pages, which is fine), and the relevant articles have been quiet (other than the excellent work of Hybernator, reverting old bad changes). Midnight TV and Radio has also now been deleted via WP:AfD. What I see here is the Community working the way it should, and a couple of kids who have hopefully learned something about how Wikipedia works. I have all the pages watched (as I expect the others do too), and will soon spot any new attempts at subversion - and we can ask for admin help if it really becomes necessary. But for now, I'd say things look cool. Also, I'd strongly oppose an IP range block, as it is a very large range used in Bangkok by TOT, one of Thailand's major ISPs. If any action should be needed in the future, I think semi-protection would be the way to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: Sorry, the above was all about the Myanmar TV articles, and I meant to also speak of Channel 3 (Thailand). It does appear to still have a problem, but it looks like a separate issue to the IP changes discussed above, in that a new editor has recently tried to reinstate a move to the article without discussing it first, and the article has now been semi-protected. We do have a registered user here too, but we can deal with them via the usual warnings/block route -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm new to Wikipedia, sorry if I placed my comment the wrong place.
    Not fair to make it an AFD if Boing! said Zebedee already said that I can take 24 hours, or 24 weeks, or 24 years on editing Midnight Radio TV article, if I continue editing without leaving more than 7 days.
    My former IPs listed above are:118.172.189.233, 125.25.235.62, 125.25.76.202.
    Who are the "couple of kids"? (I assume you mean the boy claimed to be 12 and that American boy, not me) But not me, I'm an adult. Sorry if that American boy is not a kid
    I don't want to help that American, it's too hard to do, let someone help him later, I'm 99.99% sure that he will ask to unprotect it since it is protect for sysop and it is forever.
    I remember that I went to Sweden or Germany or Poland (i can't remember what country) (its part of my work) on 26 Mar. 2010 and came back on 29 Mar. (As they see there's OK already, but they planned to go back on 24 Apr.). And on TV have about 20000 channels, including free TVs of Thailand and Myanmar and Laos and Cambodia (I selected "Asia" so I can see many Asian channels). And then I see MRTV, which I watch it at home everyday, but it is said that it is in Burma in the channel info. So when I come back to Thailand and I checked Wikipedia if it is Burmese or Thai, and I do good faith edits. As I see the station ID "MIDNIGHT RADIO AND TELEVISION - MRTV" everyday, but remember, the signal I got was weak, while the 6 other channels are strong, its probably a DX (But I'm not a DX-er. I maybe get the Myanmar one.--180.180.108.170 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, as I know Tw3435 is a move bot created by YouTube user fun17092008, but I can't remember really, maybe the wrong person.
    Tw3435's scripts is in fun17092008's computer, not Wikipedia so if the computer is formatted then Tw3435 can't move anymore.
    They also did on other languages Wikipedia, about 10 languages but now its all ceased and only English is remaining for Tw3435
    I confirm only 70% on this, because I got this information from my friend, so he maybe told the lie. But I haven't seen Tw3435 do more than moving after 2009 (But before that Tw3435 also editing).--180.180.108.170 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I didn't mean to suggest everyone involved is a kid, so sorry if it came across that way. I really just meant the one who says he's 12, and possibly User:Tw3435 who has some stuff on their Talk page that suggests they might be young. Regarding Midnight TV and Radio, that has now been deleted as being unsourceable. Something that I think might be causing some confusion here is satellite TV channel designations - satellite broadcasters, which carry TV from a number of different countries, often adopt their own designations in order to disambiguate between similarly-named national channels (re the TV3/NBN3 confusion), but these are often not the official names of the channels in their counties of origin. Anyway, as we have discussed (and, as I hope, we are all now clear on), Wikipedia requires verifiable sources and cannot accept "I've seen it" or "my friend tells me" as sources for article content-- Boing! said Zebedee 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IDK about who is Tw3435 but fun17092008 on YouTube is 20 years old and is from Burma, now I know that internet isn't illegal in Burma. But for NBN3, I don't know because I can't watch NBN1 and NBN2, but people call it Chhòng Sám or in Thai ช่องสาม. In Europe that I went, the satellite was about 2000 channels and only my room have it. I remember it was fun to look at foreign channels and I see that MRTV is also in Burma, and I remember the logo was yellow, not white. And I remember that it close almost all the day. At home in Thailand I don't have satellite or cable, so I have to watch only free TVs, but I have 8 channels, the two more channels are MRTV and some channel I can't remember (Its no longer available)--180.180.108.170 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And "Chhòng Sám (ช่องสาม)" means "Channel 3", not "NBN3" -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, after this whole pile of unsourced additions today (some of which are blatantly false - I've commented on the Talk page), I've changed my mind, and I think some Admin action probably is needed - possibly semi-protection of all relevant articles? -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chhòng Sám means channel 3. I know that. I'm Thai.
    What is more reliable between personal blog and Thai Wikipedia article? If personal blog, I will have to wait until anightoffun posts one about this. PS:Can you upload Thailand TV3 clock from Thai Wikipedia?
    Also please DO NOT LOCK ARTICLE OF NBN!!!--180.180.108.170 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that it's going up, From 32nd setion to know 17th section, and I see older ones going to be deleted, and where will this located after it's reached 1st?--180.180.108.170 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "What is more reliable between personal blog and Thai Wikipedia article?" - NEITHER! (sorry for shouting, but sometimes there actually is no alternative) -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a couple of deletions restored

    Could another admin restore my last two deletions (the OlYeller21 stuff)? The editor tagged it with a csd-u1, but it looks like they just wanted most of the history deleted, not the actual page itself. I could probably try to stumble my way through restoring it, but would rather not muck up the situation more than I already have. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. SGGH ping! 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks again. AlexiusHoratius 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented out the first speedy tag but couldn't find where the second one was coming from! SGGH ping! 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darius Dhlomo

    I'll be honest, User:Darius Dhlomo has been bugging me a lot lately. I used to give him barnstars and praise his work, but it has gone out of hand now. He edits at an extreme speed, and hence it's hopeless to track his changes to articles. But through article history I've come across a number of problematic changes to articles. The most grave is deleting prose text and replacing it with tables. I've tried to explain before that an encyclopedia should be about text, but to no avail. Lately he has begun inserting ugly and pointless tables with one entry. Often these are wrong contradictory to the existing article text, see for instance this: the text says correctly that the athlete did not reach the final, but the table claims that he finished tenth in the final. He certainly uses references very seldomly as far as I have seen (as I said this person has over 100,000 edits, so it's hopeless to check). The last thing to happen is that he deleted medal boxes, which are perfectly fine and contested by no-one — and replaced them with the table. I'll admit that my talk page messages to the user have been not-so-patient and cool-headed lately, but it's because he ignores every piece of advice and comes up with new, annoying ideas (such as removing medal boxes). This user does more harm than good to the encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, his last talk page edit was years ago (excluding the page moves). User talk pages are similar, and I don't know if there's a wikiproject discussing article formatting but I don't like the wholesale changes to articles without edit summaries like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a Range Block

    There is a persistent vandal changing dates in India related articles. (see discussion here). This has been going on since February. He is using a Dynamic IP connection from the Indian ISP BSNL. The IP range he uses is between 117.204.112.0 and 117.204.127.255. An abuse report was filed sometime back but nothing has come out of it. A 48 Hour rangeblock stopped him for sometime but he is back to doing what he does. I request a range block for IPs 117.204.112.0 - 117.204.127.255 for a period of two or three weeks. Only 4096 possible IPs will be affected and the contributions from that range indicate apart from the vandal, very few users fall in that range. I feel a range block's advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, as the damage he does is subtle and takes time to revert. Right now a few Indian editors are keeping watch for him, but we cannot go on forever. Please help up blocking the range for longer periods.--Sodabottle (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    117.204.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 1 month. Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!!--Sodabottle (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Intervention needed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

    This may not be the best place, but could an admin or other non-involved individual take a look at the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, an editor made a bold addition to the policy (good), a discussion began (by me) at the talk, two or three others agreed with me, one of which reverted the addition, the bold, revert, discuss cycle... however instead of agreeing to discuss, convince, and form a concensus the original editor has reinstated without the discussion finishing (which I promptly reverted), and another (who has not commented at all in the discussion) has reinstated it again with the edit summary "a large majority is needed to overide this" even though it is a recent addition that was never subject to a consensus of its own on being added. Given a similar 3RR warning regarding additions/retractions on policy pages given to one of the editors I thought it best to bring this to here and hope that intervention leading to a true consensus one way or the other can be brought about instead of what I consider to be bullying.Camelbinky (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You could also add this to WP:RFC to get more responses.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading Information in an article about Al-Qaeda

    The Wikipedia article regarding Al-Qaeda contains misleading and incomplete information. The article's first paragraph states that Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group. This implies a connection to the religion Islam. However, this is not the case - Al-Qaeda does not follow Islamic fundamentals as Islam does not promote killing of other human beings in any way or for any reason whatsoever. I want this to be communicated to the reader: Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group but does not follow the fundamentals of the Islamic religion.

    Without such clarification, the author and his/her article is portraying a negative image of Islam, which is unacceptable, harmful to the religion's reputation, misleading, and incomplete. I request that the statement, "Al-Qaeda does not follow the fundamentals of the Islamic religion" be added to the first paragraph of the article, which can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

    Let me assure you that I am very serious about this issue, and will be watching closely for the changes to be made, or at least a strong and valid response.


    ____________________________________


    EDIT: I apologize if you misunderstood by what I meant. Here is a link to a journal published by the Middle East Policy Council that justifies my request. The link is: http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol10/0306_wiktorowiczkaltner.asp

    I have posted this, as you suggested, on the article's talk page, so this edit is just for your acknowledgement. Thanks for your support and time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.251.56 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Citations for that point would be needed. Our personal opinions on the matter do not figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) This belongs on Talk:Al-Qaeda, not here, but be aware that any such statement will have to be backed up by some pretty darn good sources, considering that Al-Qaeda is widely accepted as an Islamist group, and that attempts to add the statement without sources will almost certainly be reverted by users in the regular course of their editing. Further, statements that "I am very serious" and "[I] will be watching" are counter-productive on Wikipedia, which operates in a collegial and cooperative manner where decisions are made by consensus. If the consensus of editors finds that your statement is not adequately supported by citations from reliable sources, then it will not be allowed into the article, no matter how serious you are or how much you watch. The best thing you can do now is to dig up some reliable citations to support your contention, and post them to the article's talk page (linked above) to be discussed by other editors -- no one is going to add them for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you go and have that discussion, I suggest you read up on the difference between Islamic and Islamist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And indeed the difference between WP:TRUTH and WP:Verifiability. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, the consensus seems clear that User:Newman Luke should be topic-banned from Judaism-related articles. Are there any objections? -- Avi (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that a topic ban is appropriate. Newman Luke's plan for reform of Judaism articles first came to my attention in this 3RR report filed on 15 February about Forbidden relationships in Judaism. The report was closed with protection of Forbidden relationships in Judaism, and my suggestion that both parties work for consensus. What followed was not any good-faith attempt at discussion from Newman's side, but an ongoing campaign of article reversion. He thinks the current content of these articles is mostly wrong, and needs an extensive rewrite. Perusal of the above RFC/U may be able to convince you that Newman Luke has practically no support from other editors for his views. He has harshly criticized his editorial opponents and and accused them of article ownership. You'll see a lot of mention of 'vandalism' in his edit summaries. He does not seem willing to use regular discussion to bring about change. The past admin warnings to Newman Luke seem to have had no effect on his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    articles on Jewish subject have suffered from OWNership attempts from various positions. I don't think highly of the slant he's been trying to take, which does seem like an effort to find areas which some observers might find some few traditional attitudes curious or quaint or misguided--a very POV approach. Some of the other approaches I think almost equally slanted, and often he is the only one challenging them. I agree it's a nuisance to have to deal with him, but I am reluctant to chase away what is often the only voice calling for re-examination. At least, ban only from article space, not talk space or WP space DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.94.77.100 making what appears to be vandalistic edits

    75.94.77.100 (talk · contribs) has, for several weeks now, been changing articles on academic scoring systems in various countries to different numbers and grade naming, with no edit summaries, and no sources. I asked them several days ago to source their edits, but they continue their problematic edits. I've been reverting every one of their edits, since they aren't making any attempts at communication, I'm concerned that they're just making things up. Some of their edits go back to January, asnd several editors have edited over those changes since then, so it's going to be pretty hard to extract their suspect edits from those of other users. I do note that one IP editor reverted their suspicious edits back in January, but this IP just continues. Woogee (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV Backlog

    AIV is in backlog. Could an admin take a look? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resetting Username and Password

    Resolved

    I recently entered a Username "BStaples" and 10 password. When I try to enter it, I get a response that it is invalid. My email address is "bob@ Please reset my password . Thank you, (removed name, ph# and e-mail) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.228.78 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    click on "send new password". you'll receive an email. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't his phone number be Oversighted...? That just doesn't seem like something I'd want on wiki.--SKATER Speak. 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not seem to be any User:BStaples on this wiki. Make sure you input the user name exactly as created. Your personal info has been removed from this very public board. An admin can remove it from the History as well if you so desire Diannaa TALK 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User exists since 2006. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    October 26, to be exact, and with exactly one edit: BStaples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
    ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah so desu. Diannaa TALK 05:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for help regarding banned users

    Hello, a banned user, Fraberj (talk · contribs) keeps coming back, and back, and back, with sockpuppets. Mostly IP socks, but socks nonetheless.

    Check out this category for all his IP and normal socks, to try and determine the rangeblock yourself, since I am not very knowledgeable in the subject. Otherwise, I'm going to attempt to use the rangeblock calculator to try and determine the range at which this banned user can be blocked for a time of 3 months minimum. Maximum, I hope longer, maybe in the 'year' or 'indefinite' category. The continued personal attacks and legal threats are getting tiresome, not to mention the ban evasion.

    Here is the range I gleamed using the calculator:

    71.112.0.0/12


    ... Unfortunately, the calculator also warns me that 1048576 users would be blocked... so that seems like a no-go.


    Instead, I request that Self-replicating machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be semi-protected indefinitely, as this banned user keeps coming back. I also request the same regarding the talk page.

    I realize this isn't RFPP, but I think this matter is slightly different. Enough to warrant a thread on a different forum.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If the article is semi-protected, the talk page must remain free. Other IP editors need to be able to suggest improvements if they are unable to edit the article themselves. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I posted this in the wrong place. I meant to post it at AN.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. In extreme measures, the talk page can be semi-protected as well. See Talk:Jim Bell (log). –MuZemike 06:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Large amount of blanks and redirects without apparent consensus.

    I noticed that Aocduio has been blanking and redirecting a large amount of historical stub article's related to Korea to more general-purpose article's. I cannot see any consensus for doing so, and the large amount and speed at which this is done concerns me a bit. I left a note on the users talk page requesting if he or she could provide some more detail, but im tacking a note here as well to get some more eyes on this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Korean Wikipedia, Hwandan Gogi contents just the rise of korean nationalism. Ruler of Buyeo article also redirects into Buyeo article in Korean Wikipedia. By the same token, I'm just to follow the historical regulations.---Aocduio (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What other Wikipedias do does not necessarily have to be followed here. I'd say redirects are inappropriate in any situation where 1) the information blanked is not present in the main article and 2) the stub passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ironholds. Why remove information from the encyclopedia? If it is not covered in the redirect target, it should be left as a stub. Dlohcierekim 14:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From my fairly limited knowledge of the workings of Korean Wikipedia they don't have nearly as many articles as we do. Hence, there are going to be more redirects that could be articles. We don't need to do what korean wikipedia is doing. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible unauthorised bot

    Starzynka (talk · contribs) has created a large number of pages in a very short amount of time. Looks like an unauthorised bot. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No it isn't. I don't get much time on wikipedia, and when I do I try to create missing articles.Starzynka (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Something needs to be done here, it's a similar case to Tratra22395768 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very rude. I try to help wikipedia with articles. My stubs have official government reference and interwiki links and just need expansion. Over 5 other wikis already have these articles. I am not using bot, but I have spent my own time contributing. It is disgusting the way you treat people in english wiki.Starzynka (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tratra22395768's page creation reached a maximum rate of at least 19 in a single minute. As far as I can tell Starzynka's highest has been 7 in a minute. Given the fact that the articles' contents are basically identical (using PAGENAME for the name), a human editor creating a page every 9 seconds doesn't seem too surprising to me.
    With Tratra22395768 there were also concerns about the notability of the stubs being created. I'm not really up to date on the consensus on notability of villages, which is what Starzynka's creating. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles like this which need put into english. I will ask WP:Hungary to try to help translate and fill out the recent stubs. But please WP:AGF. We are volunteers here. My stubs like Hammam Dhalaa have 34,000 people living in them. Stop wasting my time and report real problems here instead.Starzynka (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the subject matter, and, as I understand it, both villages and species (Trantra created articles about sea-snails) are generally considered notable. I don't have any concerns about the articles themselves, but I believe there is cause for reasonable suspicion for bot or script activity, which is why I thought it should be brought to the attention of administrators (see WP:Bot policy#Dealing with issues). Anyway, if I'm mistaken or reported it to quick, I apologise and will gladly accept a trout. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am on the white list so you don't even have to patrol my stubs.Starzynka (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Citylane

    Not sure yet if this poses a problem but it follows on from all the trouble we have had at WP:CRIC with the banned User:Richard Daft and his latest banned reincarnation as User:Rosebank2.

    Could you please read this diff which was improperly placed on WT:CRIC and immediately removed by one of the members there? It followed this post on my user page which I could take exception to, but I have instead decided to reply as per these posts on Citylane's own talk page. Note that I had already replied to his post on my page before I saw the one on WT:CRIC.

    It is puzzling that he was apparently being very reasonable and offering help when he wrote to Talk:Lamb's Conduit Field and earlier his edits to this page.

    Can someone please give me some advice about what to do given his threats? The ACS that he refers to has this article about it. Despite his tone, it has no official status re the subject in question and I presume it has no influence here.

    Incidentally, I do not believe this person is the same as Daft/Rosebank. ----Jack | talk page 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Having looked at the post again and compared it with a recent one by Rosebank, I have changed my mind and have reported this to SPI. Please close and archive this item. Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Unomi Wikistalking

    Wrong venue. Please move to WP:DR
     – NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has followed me around and wikistalked me on this page [56] United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. He never edited here before and didn't use the talk page. I asked him to justify reverting a page knowing nothing on the subject, without participating in the talk page, and never having edited the article. His rv justification was completely false too. Is he a sockpuppet of someone? Was he informed about this page? or is he wikistalking - either way a block is in place. Amoruso (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This appears to be a content dispute between yourself and other editors. Three different editors have restored the content that you are removing. I would suggest that trying to get them blocked because they don't agree with you is not only pointless but disruptive in itself. Dispute resolution is thataway. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that both users came from nowhere and appear to be sockpuppets, and did not engage in any discussion. that's a very big problem. not the content dispute itself. Amoruso (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to engage you on talk, that is the whole point of WP:BRD, at the moment though you seem to be ignoring Harlans arguments on the talkpage, much as you have ignored Off2riorobs on BLP/N, mine and nableezys on Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria. This is indeed a content dispute and I would be open to inviting mediation on the matter. Unomi (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dannyboybaby1234

    Dannyboybaby1234 (talk · contribs) is showcasing disruptive ownership issues that are damaging the Aaron Livesy article. Despite being told of WP:MOSHEAD, several times today (s)he has capitalised words in section headers that ought not to be capitalised because "I feel like Capitals are NEEDED, as i DID START THE PAGE". On their last edit, (s)he logged and used thier IP: 80.235.145.247 (talk · contribs). On the talkpage of the article, (s)he states that because they created the page, all changes should "be discussed through me". Pyrrhus16 15:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got this.--Chaser (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now reverted a separate editor with their IP after receiving a message from Chaser. Pyrrhus16 16:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it typical to have articles like this? Almost an episode to episode description of what happens to a character in Emerdale? Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User:88.111.62.210?

    On 31 March, 88.111.62.210 was blocked for disruptive editing. This was a culmination in a campaign that had been going on for some time by a user taking advantage of dynamic IP addresses. The same person has been active in the same sort of disruption (i.e, edit warring and removing sources) since 31 March using:

    Is there any possibility of blocking the 88.111 range for a reasonable period?

    Failing that, could you please place protection on his latest target articles which are Lamb's Conduit Field and Bromley Common? Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Range is 88.111.32.0/19. Only ~8000 IPs, but I'm not sure the level of disruption warrants a block yet. I've protected the first page you brought up; I'll watch the second and protect if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. It is actually several days since he attacked the Bromley page. ----Jack | talk page 08:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've resurrected this today. The IP user has again attacked Bromley Common and is currently active in this topic using first 88.111.52.108 and then 88.111.47.144. Actually, I don't object to his question about licensing as I am interested in understanding that and complying with it. But I do object to his blatant attempt to twist an honest question by a member and ignore a more recent conclusion by that member on the same subject.

    I think this has gone on long enough and I formally request that a range block be put in place to ban this person, who is undeniably a WP:TROLL and a stalker, from using the site. ----Jack | talk page 15:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BlackJack was warned two weeks ago about civility and name calling and here he is calling me a troll and stalker with what evidence? removing a link from a page? does that warrant insults? does that warrant blocking? --88.111.47.144 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he has answered his own questions with his extremely childish action on Talk:William Bedle where he is seeking to remind me that a GA nomination of mine failed. As if I care nearly 18 months on. This is what I mean by wikistalking. Can we please have an immediate ban? ----Jack | talk page 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeking to remind you of anything. When article's pass or fail GAN the information should be stored on the articles talk page, I was merely correcting a mistake you had made, am I not allowed to do that anymore? --88.111.47.144 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do these redirects need deletion and/or oversight?

    On March 29, PartyJoe (talk · contribs) created six redirects, from the names of teenagers facing serious criminal charges, to the article South Hadley High School (see his contributions for that date, as I'm not going to link the names here). The names of these students have appeared in news reports, such as the last two references in the school's article, but they appear nowhere in that article itself. This is a bit outside my usual editing area; nevertheless, it seems to me that the redirects may need to disappear, even though, I suppose, they're not technically BLP violations because the names have appeared in reliable sources. Would someone more versed than I in such matters take a look at this? Deor (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt that speedy or oversight would be appropriate since they're redirecting to an article on a school, rather than on a criminal act. Having said that, though, it is common to redirect the names of perpetrators to articles on their crimes where one is notable but the other not. However, if the redirects are being used to some way imply culpability for something, G10 may be appropriate. could you elaborate on the facts a little for those unfamiliar with the circumstances? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They were listed in the article when I created the redirects. There may be issues with 4 of them being minors. It may be best to delete those now, and maybe wait for a admin to rule on the 2 charged as adults. PartyJoe (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=355385651"