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 HandThatFeeds (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 18 January 2009 (→Constant reverting without debate: Familiar sig?). 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


    Mudvayne

    Resolved
     – User:Ibaranoff24 blocked 24hours for violating 3RR on Mudvayne

    Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm bringing this here instead of WP:AN3 because the user has not technically violated the three revert rule, but is gaming 3RR. User:Ibaranoff24 repeatedly reverts my edits, plus another editor's based on the claim NME, The Rolling Stone, etc., are not reliable sources. See the history of the article for a clearer explanation, he has now resorted to personal attacks such as calling User:Prophaniti a liar and using uncivil edit summaries such as "rv idiocy." I have reverted my last edit so not to edit war myself. Any help would be much appreciated. Landon1980 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prophaniti started a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and they were said to definitely be reliable sources. The Rolling Stone and NME are widely used throughout wikipedia and are well-known to be reliable sources. I warned Ibaranoff24, he reverted the warning then reverted my edit. the last attempt to discuss the issue ended with a rude response on the talk page with the edit summary stop it, vandal. Landon1980 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ibarinoff's threat to ban Prophaniti is also problematic, and seen in the RS noticeboard section.ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the diff of Ibranoff24 threatening to ban Prophaniti. I can supply several more diffs of uncivil/rude commentary if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bluff or an attempt at intimidation. Ibaranoff24 is not an admin, and hence is in no position to ban or block anyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add my voice to it too. Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material. The sources have mostly been verified: Rolling Stone and NME are perfectly valid, popmatters and Metal Observer are not the best of sources, but they meet the criteria to be used in the professional review sections for albums: they have an editorial and writing staff. So I don't see a problem using them to back up the other sources we have. All my edits are doing is adding those sources. I'm not changing anything in the opening line, nor the genre section of the infobox. I'm literally just adding extra sources.

    Ibaranoff24 has taken a highly hostile, aggressive and even threatening tone. As Landon has said, he has repeatedly warned me I will be banned, and while this carries no real weight it's still hardly pleasant. He has repeatedly called my edits vandalism (how adding in sources is vandalism is beyond me), repeatedly said I am "strongarming my POV", and repeatedly accused me of lying, though about what I still do not know.

    He simply seems to refuse to accept reality: adding sources, whether valid or not, is not vandalism. The sources are valid. And he has even stated that I am removing sourced content, which I've not done at all. I'm at a loss as to what is to be done about it. Prophaniti (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem is that Prophaniti thinks that he owns the articles he edits, and has repeatedly attempting to enforce his own POV upon articles, including repeatedly removing sourced content. When confronted with these allegations, he denies them and moves the blame to another. The only edits I made were to fix Prophaniti's vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Adding reliable sources is not vandalism, and you repeatedly calling Prophaniti a liar and a vandal are personal attacks. Also, you do not own my talk page, Prophaniti is more than welcome to comment there. Stop reverting his edits. Your behavior is unacceptable, the personal attacks need to stop. What on Earth makes you think adding sources is vandalism? Landon1980 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Prophanti and yourself undid my clean-up and fixing of formatting. That's clear vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Also, Ibaranoff, please stop harassing Prophaniti at the reliable sources noticeboard. Landon1980 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely no harassment took place. Prophanti's edits were reverted because the genres do not need more citations, and "nu metal" is not considered to be the dominating style of the band. Stop twisting things to fit your own reality, the both of you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Once again, Prophaniti is allowed to talk to me about whatever he wants, stop reverting his edits to my talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I could go through and yet again explain all the incorrect statements you're making, Ibaranoff, but I know from experience that you would not listen, and I think any reasonable editor or admin who looks at this will see them quite clearly without me needing to explain them. And Landon is doing a fine job with it. So all I will say is thank you to Landon for his support, and that's he's quite correct: your behaviour is on all counts unnacceptable, and if he wishes to stop me talking on his page, he can. You do not own his talk page. Prophaniti (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit summaries are clearly over the line, I've posted a warning on the user's talk page not to do it again, and reminded him of the various civility policies. I'll leave the content matter for you to hopefully work out amicably, but if the user continues acting in this aggressive fashion, then a short block might be called for. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to leave him a warning, he has now reverted you just like always, not that it matters. This user has already received multiple warnings for edit warring, civility, etc., and the next step was bringing it here. He reverts anyone that touches the Mudvayne article the last few days, even nominated an article for deletion because Prophaniti was editing it. Oh well, I suppose he knew he could get away with it, he has done a good job of gaming 3RR. Landon1980 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Landon, I nominated The Metal Observer for deletion because it's not notable. It was even deleted before after a nomination! The new revision's only sources come from the website itself! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    It comes off as rude, but s/he is explicitly permitted to do that. The user's conduct has clearly been disruptive up until now, hopefully he'll get the hint, but just in case he doesn't, I'll keep an eye on the user. If they cross the line again I'll block them myself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I haven't done anything wrong. The only disruptive edits are being made by Prophaniti and, whether intentionally or not, by Landon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Ok thanks. I understand they are allowed to remove their warnings, my point was he has already received multiple warnings in multiple places. Hearing you say you will keep an eye out for future similar behavior is good enough for me. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lankiveil, Ibaranoff may be allowed to edit his own talk page in hostile ways, but he is NOT allowed to disruptively edit others' talk pages, as he does by deleting one editor's comments, then making a long series of edits to his own message. It obscures the fact that the editor whose talk page it is, was contacted by multiple editors. It's disruptive, and when done specifically to editors you're in a conflict with, incivil as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's allowed to remove messages from his own talkpage (in fact, I'm glad he's done it, because now he can't claim he didn't know), as he did to my message. He's not allowed to do the rest of that stuff you described, and he'll be blocked if he does it again. Sorry if anything I said above was unclear in that regard. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    He still will not quit messing with my talk page. I have asked him over and over to stop. Landon1980 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not allowed to remove any message that is not a personal attack or vandalism. I have never "messed" with your talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    I beg to differ. Users can remove whatever they like from their talk pages. Please cease edit warring over User talk:Landon1980 - if your post is removed again, do not revert or undo. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what is going on, he is removing another users edits, and has been warned repeatedly. I am not removing his posts, only when I undo his edits that he has also removed Prophaniti's edits within them. Ibaranoff is also still reverting everyone's edits on mudvayne. Ibaranoff removes everything that hits his talk page, it is shocking to see him say that. I suppose Lankiveil's warning was a personal attack/vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Landon1980, you fully well know that none of this is true. Everyone who looks at the edits can see that you are lying. So why do you continue like this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    I do not appreciate being called a liar, you have been warned repeatedly to stop with the personal attacks. I can supply several diffs of you removing Prophaniti's comments if you need me to. Landon1980 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I moved content directed toward me to my talk page. These were again, actual personal attacks and accusations, much as you have been directing towards me. I never made any personal attacks or accusations toward any editor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    The comment is not directed at you and I suggest you not remove it again. Vandal, liar, childish, and whatever else you have said are all personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the absolute truth that your edits in this issue have been disruptive, and yet you still deny this, and lie about being "harassed" when I bring the issue up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Will someone please put a full protection on my talk page for the duration of 36 hours? Ibaranoff has been warned over and over again, but reverts any edits I make, no matter where I make them. I cannot comment on my own talk, an article, or even on an AFD without him repeatedly reverting my edits. Landon1980 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I mean. You make posts like this after you get your talk page protected in order to make it seem as if there's an issue that isn't there. You/Prophaniti really are hopeless. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Ibaranoff24 seems to think that backing up another editor and agreeing that a deletion nomination is the result of an edit war is a personal attack (as he linked to above). Landon was perfectly justified and it was in no way a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a vandal for adding sourced content, that's a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a liar, that's a personal attack. Telling someone they'll be blocked if they don't stop "strongarming their POV" into an article by adding sources, that's a personal attack. Edit summaries like "rv idiocy", that's a personal attack. It should be painfully clear that if anyone has done wrong here, it's not Landon. Prophaniti (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Landon's comments absolutely were personal attacks. You/Landon were accusing me of nominating that article for deletion as the result of spite or whatever. Such accusations are considered personal attacks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Landon, I did not violate 3RR. I reverted the reinsertion of the unreliable Muze source. I am not doing any of the things that you or Prophaniti are accusing me of. It seems that you want me to send you messages, because you continue to make unwarranted attacks and accusations, and outright lie, as you have done in the past. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    The source is from NME, and you have been told countless times by countless people that it is reliable. You have received several warnings very recently for edit warring as well. Landon1980 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the bottom of the page. Read the copyright information. The content was created by Muze, which, as far as I know, is not a reliable source. YOU have received several warnings for edit warring -- but you deleted them so you wouldn't have to listen to reality. Secondly, 3RR is reverting to the same page more than three times within 24 hours, not making three completely different edits to the page in the span of 24 hours. Get your facts and policies straightened and stop making disruptive edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    You have violated 3RR whether you will admit it or not, there are 4 reversions within 24 hours and you know that. Also why are you deleting and moving my comments on this page. I'm getting really sick of you calling me a liar and a vandal? Landon1980 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Landon, there was clearly no revision of 3RR. He made three separate edits. 3RR is reverting to the same revision more than three times within the course of 24 hours. No matter how you slice it, you are lying. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Right, that's about enough of that. Both of you, stop your bickering. You have a few options:

    1. seek mediation at MEDCAB. I'm not terribly sanguine about the chances of that, given Ibaranoff's rejection of mediation the last time he was in one of these disputes.
    2. leave each other the hell alone
    3. Be forcibly kept apart. I'm about five seconds away from proposing that you all be topicbanned from music articles and restricted from interacting with each other to stop this ridiculous disruption. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a topicban will be largely supported.

    I'm off to class. I suggest the two of you disengage from this thread and from each other. //roux   18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibaranoff did start a mediation for this dispute. Landon and Prophaniti refused to participate. The last occurrence in which a MEDCAB was opened for one of Prophaniti's edit wars, Ibaranoff did participate. Prophaniti, as always, lied about the participation and acted as if Ibaranoff was being unreasonable, which he was not, then Prophaniti proceeded to contribute to the discussion without his username to make it seem as if Prophaniti had more support than he actually did. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    You have got to be joking. The only disruption is with Ibaranoff24, the rest of us get along just fine. Five seconds are up, if you truly feel that I disrupt all music related articles to the point of being banned from them start a thread on it. I don't feel I have been disruptive in the least. If you are correct I'm sure my topic ban will be unanimously supported so why not go for it. I will now add that if I have been disruptive I have not meant to be, but I'm fairly certain you are wrong about this. Landon1980 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not joking. It does take two to tango, and ending the disruption is the key point. You need to learn to disengage from him and not get sucked into these things. Either choose to learn it yourself, or the community will decide for you. //roux   00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread was started due to User:Ibaranoff24 edit warring on Mudvayne. He has now been blocked for violating 3RR. As far as I'm concerned the matter is over. I see no need for any further comments to be made. If you truly feel I deserve a topic ban from all music related articles start a different thread. So this can be archived as far as I'm concerned. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Landon, you've been busy! Ooh...looks like you forgot to think of a few things, namely that Ibaranoff made three separate edits to the page rather than reverting to the same revision four times as you claim. Oh well. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Ibaranoff, like I told you above. You do not have to revert to the "exact same version" to violate 3RR. It can be to a different version and just be reverts of others edits in general. However, in your case, all 4 times you removed the NME source. Which is reverting the same material. Landon1980 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ibaranoff24 and personal attacks

    Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Let us not forget that WP:NPA is a policy here at WP, and as far as I can tell after having reviewed this thread, the user in question has indeed broken it. As stated on the page of the policy in question, is is disruptive to the building of this encyclodpedia to have someone running around throwing insults. Yes, this user was blocked for 3RR, twice in fact. As a small side note, blocks usually esclate in time if the user fails to abide by policy. My point here is that the block, at least in regards to 3RR, should be more than 24 hours.

    Continuing on when what I was originally saying, this user has made quite a few personal attacks, he has been warned against doing such, and yet he has continued. More than that, he's denied having ever made any, in the face of hard evidence. To the point, the user has not said that he would stop making such attacks in the future, and in regard to his block history, and the above, I believe a longer block is justified. At the moment I do not see a constructive contributor.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is just how Ibaranoff is, this is just one of his flaws. We all have them I suppose. No matter what he does, if you call him out on it he says "NO, you are the one" Even when supplied with hard evidence of the allegation he will deny it to the bitter end. He does make some good edits though, he has many constructive contributions. As long as no one challenges any of his edits that is, and in that case be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors involved and brace yourself for some personal attacks. I completely agree with you and I'm in no way condoning his behavior (see above). I doubt anyone will be willing to extend the block. Even though I agree that as disruptive as he has been here recently, and with his previous block for edit warring the duration should have been longer. Landon1980 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that is not how it works on wikipedia. We do not just let someone go around insulting people just because that's the way they are. They can either learn to play by our rules, or they can leave. If this editor is not going to stop personally attacking people, then he needs to have his block lengthened to prevent further disruption.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, my point was I don't see it happening. Landon1980 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is where you are making your mistake. You should not be preparing to editwar with him. You revert once and gain consensus on the talkpage. If he keeps reverting against consensus you have someone uninvolved deal with it. You do not participate in the editwar. //roux   02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I am quite correct on this as well. When you have one editor edit warring with several editors it is more than appropriate for the "several" editors to revert the one disruptive editor. What you are suggesting is overkill in situations like that, a quick report to WP:AN3 works quite well. What do you not understand about not being in a position to tell me what to do? From the looks of your block log I believe I'll get my "edit warring" advice elsewhere. If you have nothing to say other than insulting my vocabulary, and making rude edit summaries such as "cluebat" there is no point in continuing. If you feel I have a problem with edit warring start a thread, this thread is not about me. Landon1980 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind the fact all I said was "be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors were involved" I never suggested I was going to be edit warring with him. Landon1980 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still missing the point, and your insults are becoming tiresome. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Roux, your 'patience forever' meme is naive nonsense. Landon1980 and others have been behaving perfectly, while one editor's being a continual provocation, and your response is to chastise everyone BUT the offender? You defended Ibaranoff's right to vandalize the comments of a second user on a third user's talk page on the grounds that 'anyone can edit' applies with impunity and without boundary, and now you assert that it's ok for the same provocateur to play other games to cause disruption? Here's a trout slap. ThuranX (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF are you on about? I defended nothing that Ibaranoff was doing. Try reading again what I've written. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ibaranoff never "vandalized" anything. Landon1980 and Prophaniti are the only users at fault here. Ibaranoff made absolutely no disruptive edits. These users repeatedly reverted Ibaranoff's clean-up and restoration of sourced material repeatedly deleted by Prophaniti, and then proceeded to lie about Ibaranoff's edits, make personal attacks toward Ibaranoff, and continue to vandalize the article as they pleased. Ibaranoff's edits were perfectly valid and within his rights. Ibaranoff never broke any of Wikipedia's rules. The evidence is in the edits. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Sock much, Ibanaroff? ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not Ibaranoff. And sock puppets make disruptive edits, not contributing to the discussion as I have done. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Socks do alot more than just disrupt, they also argue in favor the the blocked editor. You aren't fooling anyone, so why don't you just take off the mask before I gather evidence and submit a request for a checkuser. You realize that if you just admit to being a sock, that they might let you off easier for evading your block?— Dædαlus Contribs 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But then again, let us look at the evidence:
    • Your only edits, apart from the sandbox edit, are to this noticeboard, defending this editor.
    • You sign your posts the same way he does.
    True, there isn't much evidence, but the edits speak for themselves. Throw down the veil and stop hiding who you are, you aren't fooling anyone.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has now proceeded to claim that the other two users who were originally involved in this dispute are the same person, and, when asked to supply diffs in regard to this accusation, has completely blown me off.

    To put it simply, he baselessly accused User:Prophaniti and User:Landon1980 of being sockpuppets of one or the other/the same person/sock and master/master and sock.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So now Ibaranoff has evaded his block to further his disruption. I find it extremely unlikely this ip which is saying all the exact same things in the exact same way as Ibranoff is someone other than Ibaranoff. The edits to ANI are the IP's very first edits. One of the last things Ibaranoff said was the claim about not violating 3RR with the same wording the IP used. You are not fooling anyone, Ibaranoff, and I hope you had enough sense for that IP to be an open proxy. Landon1980 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WQA Link Just a quick note that a related issue arose Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive56#User:_Ibaranoff24 in WQA a very very short time ago... you'll be very interested in the discussion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has now been blocked as a sock of User:Ibaranoff24. Landon1980 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To BMW, there are valid points there, but editing while blocked is still not allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never disagreed with the fact that Ibaranoff was an issue, and the blocked-with-socks is very very very bad. I just wanted to provide some background information, and a link to a past attempt to resolve this dispute. Odd that such a minor article would elicit such major WP:DRAMA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Block evasion on just a 24-hour block? That's fairly desperate. And presumably the original block should be extended. Maybe to a week. And then the user could be renamed Ibaranoff24x7. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the checkuser case, if you want it. Although the IP has been blocked an obvious sock, we need hard evidence, as the user is denying all claims despite the obvious.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the block evasion should the duration of the original block be lengthened? If so to what?

    • support block lengthened to one week. Block would be very much preventative, not punitive. Ibaranoff24 continues to deny any wrongdoing whatsoever despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in regards to personal attacks, and violation of 3RR when you can clearly count 4 reversions. Landon1980 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with 24 hours, a total of 48 hours is what the original block should have been for the second block for edit warring. Have you not read over his talk page, have a look at all the "NO, YOU ARE WRONG NOT ME ACCEPT IT's" Evading such a short block is not a sign this user is here for constructive reasons. I thought a week was lenient considering the circumstances. He still denies violating 3RR and is still making personal attacks. He is accusing me of sock puppetry and refuses to give any evidence that supports his claim when asked. Landon1980 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but just a note of caution, because I extended the block for someone in similar circustances a while ago, and it turned out I had been wrong. The fact that the IP mimics Ibaranoff24 is good reason to block the IP, but you have to be careful of joe jobs. Absent a checkuser, or a history of socking from Ibaranoff, we know the IP is either a sock or someone out to frame Ibaranoff (so we block it either way), but we don't really know if Ibaranoff is a puppeteer or a victim of a frame. I am absolutely not a fan of Ibaranoff's conduct yesterday, and I could easily be wrong, and have nothing to back this up, but something feels wrong about this, and I'd be tempted to reduce the block on Ibaranoff back to the original, or at least I'd request a Checkuser. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser has already been requested. See his response here to an admin when told he was violating 3RR. This is a sign he just doesn't get it. Landon1980 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't notice that link above. I'll comment there. And again, to be clear, I'm not defending his behavior, I'm saying that we should be pretty damn positive before blocking for sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barneca, I know you commented on the RFCU, but I feel that you, and any other involved admins need to comment as well, as Coren has closed the case as not useful, despite the fact how it is noted in the case that such a finding would be useful. We need it confirmed by hard evidence, assumptions based on behavior, no matter how similar, cannot be taken into account, because, as said, someone could be framing this user.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To throw something in here: his behaviour was indeed brought up at the wikiquette alerts board. And the response I got there only served to lessen my faith in wiki proceedure. His behaviour since then is certainly worse, but even then he was breaking wikiquette guidelines. But no one seemed willing to actually do anything about it. I'm just glad that someone finally has acted on things, and that there seems to be some acknowledgement of his unnacceptable behaviour. My personal take on the issue as it stands: Like I say, I'm glad things have finally gone somewhere. I would support any further action taken regarding his behaviour, since this current block is because of the edit warring, not that. But at the same time, I acknowledge I'm a biased editor in the case, since I was on the receiving end of most of his attacks. But there it is anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is now a new IP in the same range taking over where Ibaranoff left off on the Mudvayne article. Also, see the latest string of personal attacks on this users talk page. A longer block is definitely called for to prevent further disruption, the personal attacks are getting worse instead of better. I'll supply diffs shortly. Landon1980 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] [2] [3] There are more of these if this is not enough to show a pattern. These are not borderline incivility breeches, they are blatant personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These are the two new IPs who have begun editing in favor of Ibaranoff's edits.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the IPs are picking right up and also harassing users on their talk pages, I've asked for protection on the Mudvayne page. It's time to end this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support a week, or more block total. Ibaranoff's socking and attacks on two editors are ridiculous. He brags of being nominated for adminship three times; I can see why those failed, and he's clearly ruined any future chances for himself. ThuranX (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    About that, I can only find one RFA in the archives. Which he nominated himself. Landon1980 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, then. Only makes him look worse. Start creating a proposal for a Community ban. Present all this as a flat, dry recitation of his actions, without editorializing. This looks headed for bigger consequences before he cools off. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the [4] personal attacks keep coming. His newest unblock request is a personal attack as well, I bet that will be successful. Landon1980 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be composing a summery of events, and a request for a lengthened block in regards with what has happened during the past week, in a bit. I need to switch computers from this old windows 98 operating system to my brother's ibook, which has firefox, and all those other nice toys like javascript.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The checkuser request now contains 12 IP socks all engaged in some sort of disruptive editing. However, I'm nearly certain we have missed one, two, three of them. Landon1980 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From my email, and I quote:

    I've had six featured articles and countless good articles. You do NOT tell me how to edit or accuse me of removing sourced content. My account should NOT be blocked. Prophaniti and Landon repeatedly removed sourced content, changed the article to fit their bias, and frequently vandalize Wikipedia with their nonsense. My edits were fully within my rights. If I were an administrator, I would ban your ass straight up, just for taking the side of these pieces of shit..

    For those who may not believe this text, I shall provide a screen capture:

    File:Hardevidence.png

    I shall be submitting an overview soon, I am currently distracted by socking from this user and others.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of events

    Initially Involved Users


    Users who became involved per this ANI thread


    Apparent IP socks of Ibaranoff24

    (as a note, these IPs are listed in order of appearance)


    The events started out with a simple edit war, with Ibaranoff24 reverting sourced material from the article Mudvayne, as seen here:[5], [6], [7], [8](also note the personal attack in the edit summery on this last one).

    The user Ibaranoff24 was then subsequently blocked for violating 3RR on the aforementioned article.

    Not long after Ibaranoff's block, the IP 65.10.86.155 somehow found this noticeboard, and proceeded to defend Ibaranoff's edits. The IP in question argued the same way Ibaranoff did, and signed his or her posts the same way as well, posting a ( before following through with the regular signature. As you are well aware, a ( is not present in the default signature.

    This IP was subsequently blocked as a quacking sockpuppet.

    A few days later, maybe one or two, I may have time wrong here, a massive amount of disruption was started by all the IPs below the first IP user listed. This disruption consisted of removing sourced information, in light of their own opinion, regarding two articles. The first article was Hed PE, while the second has already been mentioned in this case, but for those not willing to scroll up, it is Mudvayne(as a note, Hed is listed first as that is the first article the IP edited).

    For around an hour or less, at least maybe thirty minutes, the IPs noted above continued to delete sourced information on both articles, and when some of them posted messages to talk pages, or notice boards, the style of the messages bore traits in line with Ibaranoff's editing habits. To outline what I consider a significant trait, aside from the prose of the arguments, is that Ibaranoff began his posts with a bullet.

    Flashback for a moment, back to when Ibaranoff was blocked for violating 3RR:

    I had gone to the editor in question's talk page to see if I could help in solving the dispute. The discussion is still there, you can look, it was not removed, but, to continue on; The editor in question claimed several times that he had been attacked by the other two intially involved users, but, when asked to supply a diffs concerning several attacks, he did not, and instead supplied a single post where Landon thinks that an AFD by Ibaran was made out of spite. The second and third diffs are when Landon removes messages from Ibaran from his talk page(an action which is completely within policy), and when Landon accuses Ibaran of edit-warring.

    One thing that I have noticed, and many others have as well, is that even when presented with rock-solid evidence of his edits, he will deny it no matter what. This is as far as I've seen, at least.

    As noted far above, the user has also resorted to email-harassment. You can see the quote, and screen capture for yourself. He has emailed me several times calling me a lier, etc.

    So far, in regards to personal attacks, this editor has called others vandals, idiots(note the above diff) in edit summeries, liers, and sockpuppets. When asked to support his accusations of sockpuppetry with evidence, the best he can come up with is they don't agree with me(this isn't what he says exactly, it's just the general gist).

    As a small last note, this user has also stated that they have been nominated for adminship three times. This is hardly true. He or she nominated himself or herself the first time, which failed. The second two times are users suggesting he or she run for adminship, and are not nominations. He or she uses these three instances to state that they are above another user in a sense.

    Proposal

    Through all of this socking, personal attacks, email harrasment, and edit warring, not to mention complete denial that he did anything wrong, I do not see a constructive contributor. Aside from the fact that he had five FAs. Sure, it's nice to have articles of good quality, but it is not nice to work in a poisonous environment where one editor is right about everything despite the significant amount of facts presented contrary to what that editor is arguing. My point? Editing the encyclopedia in a constructive manner is as much creating a peaceful environment for others and editing in harmony, then it is getting articles to featured status.

    So what if he had five FAs, that is no exuse to treat others the way he has been.

    I propose an indefinate block of this user until he can learn to accept the facts and play nicely with others, not to mention learn to play by our rules(re: block evasion, a user is not allowed to edit whilst blocked).— Dædαlus Contribs 09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I probably don't need to say it, but it gets my support, certainly. The above sums up how it has been trying to deal with it all. One other point to note: you mention that the IPs have been editing both Mudvayne and Hed PE. Well this fits in perfectly: Hed PE was the first page I encountered Ibaranoff24 on, and it was much the same thing: I was attempting to add sources for nu metal as the band's genre, and he refused to allow it. In the end I gave up out of sheer frustration and since then he's defended the page rigorously against many other edits. Prophaniti (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Betacommand socks

    Betacommand (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on 29 December.[9] Before he was blocked, he removed an image from Grant Wood 8 times and was reverted each time.[10] He cited WP:NFCC#3,[11] and used an edit summary, "please read the non-free content polciy".[12] Today 72.69.113.237 (talk · contribs) made his first edit and removed the image with the edit summary, "please review the non-free content policy, this should not be placed in the infobox of a living person. also per WP:NFCC#3 it should only be used on the artilce about that painting".[13] and then again with the edit summary, "please review policy".[14]; then a third time, "image violates policy. dont use the image as visual reperenstive of the artist in question".[15] He removed a post from his talk page with the edit summary "revert vandalism".[16] As 3RR was reached on removing the image, another anon appeared immediately 24.233.147.149 (talk · contribs) with the first edit being to remove the image once more.[17] Ty 19:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Im a sock of a user I have never met because I disagreed with the placement of an image? 72.69.113.237 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    also the IP that appears to be Betacommand is an Earthlink IP address. I use Verizon. 72.69.113.237 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend opening an checkuser request. --MASEM 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be declined. The privacy policy does not allow for the disclosure of IP addresses apart from in very specific circumstances. --Deskana (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside the irony of a privacy policy protecting IP addresses on a website that displays thousands of IP addresses, I am curious why this case would be rejected. I don't think anyone is asking for BC's IP addresses, though obviously if these addresses were confirmed to be him they it would end up that way, but rather the confirmation that an indef blocked user is evading the block to edit war over the same article that got him blocked in the first place. Given that these IPs very obviously have a strong understanding of policy, including the focus on image policy, are edit warring in the same fashion as BC did and is using the same edit summaries as BC did, I don't think this would be a fishing expedition, but rather a credible accusation of block evasion. Resolute 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go read the privacy policy. It is very specific about when information that is derived from the checkuser policy can be revealed. Your comment above shows that you have either not read the privacy policy, or have a fundamental misunderstanding of it. --Deskana (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The check that would be asked for reads like a Code F, and comparing it to other Code F cases on RCU, seems pretty standard to check suspected IP addresses against a blocked user. This seems to be the types of exceptions the privacy policy allows for. --MASEM 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a code F, I've made these kinds of checkuser requests in the past and not had them turned down. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not claiming to have a great knowledge of how checkuser interacts with the privacy policy. Certainly nowhere close to your understanding. However, as Masem notes, the majority of requests currently at WP:RFCU include requests to check a registered user against an IP address. I see no reason why this case is any different than any of the fulfilled requests of the same type. Resolute 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He acts like BC, he sounds like BC, he behaves on the very same page in the very same way saying the very same thing as BC who got blocked there last month, just before this last block..Modernist (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the link you're looking for is WP:DUCK...GbT/c 20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm now your talkin and Since when does a newbie IP recite policy citing WP:NFCC#3...uh in the same way BC does...I think it might be a duck..yeah..Modernist (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably, this doesn't look like Betacommand. Betacommand (talk · contribs) edits to Grant Wood look like "14:03, 15 December 2008 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) (9,856 bytes) (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)" (Yes, the edit summaries really have "$1", etc. in there; obviously he's using some defective program or bot without adequate testing. Again. That got him indef blocked.) Edits to Grant Wood by 72.69.113.237 (talk · contribs) look like "# 18:53, 15 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Grant Wood ‎ (image violates policy. dont use the image as visual reperenstive of the artist in question.)", and are clearly manual. There's ongoing vandalism at Grant Wood which seems unrelated to Betacommand's usual issues. Incidentally, the Grant Wood article is weak; it doesn't mention any of his large mural work done for the WPA, like "Breaking the Prairie". Perhaps the disputants might be encouraged to spend more time on the history of his work. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But not a very good argument however. The earlier edit summaries I cited above are not like the ones you've quoted and are exactly like the anon edit summaries. There is petty uninformed vandalism from time to time at Grant Wood and is easily recognisable as such, as is an experienced user indef blocked and using a sock to continue to edit war. Please add the WPA mural work to the article. Ty 20:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's a good thing he changed some jargon and old language habits otherwise we might've thought he was BC, right away...It would be great if you would add a section on the large mural work done for the WPA, "Breaking the Prairie" I'd like to see that added too. Modernist (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't anon IPs unable to use Javascript tools? The technical details aren't really my area, but it seems like a minor distinction when the content of the objection is so similar. Lithoderm 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A check on Betacommand has shown that he has been evading his block. These are the accounts he has been using.

    The first has already been blocked by me as checkuser confirmed it was an unauthorised bot. What action is taken on the second account is up to the community. It is also important to note that Betacommand accused me of abusing checkuser and violating the privacy policy. I encouraged him to write a complaint on his talk page about it, so if you take action against the account, please do not protect the talk page. I have saved a copy of the log of my chat with him on IRC in the case that any accusation of abuse is raised. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Socking is a non starter. Indef it. I appreciate Betacommand's dedication to the project, but I would appreciate his desire to lay low more.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already indeffed by Viridae. On the basis that it's second edit was to add User:Maria Difranco to the list of huggle users (perhaps a mistake), an account which has no contributions, can we safely assume that it's a sleeper? GbT/c 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a reasonable assumption - want someone else to perform the block though when we get more opinions. ViridaeTalk 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That account is not registered. --Deskana (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, well made. A strange edit, in that case...GbT/c 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Maria account was renamed to the Canis account [18]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just had a quick look at the contributions of User:Canis Lupus. He's edited during June 3rd, 2008, while Betacommand was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. What a shocker. I'm pretty sure I could find more examples of block evasion if I'd look hard enough. --Conti|✉ 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban Betacommand?

    Please note that Betacommand is denying any liability as he was blocked, not banned. Perhaps extending his block to a ban would be prudent to avoid any further incidents. --Deskana (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the time has come...BC is out of control, and he is incapable of change. Modernist (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Subheadinfg added by me for the change of direction. Hope you don't mind Deskana. ViridaeTalk 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I tweaked the title a bit. --Deskana (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry from last year. MBisanz talk 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to think, just a few days ago I was actually proposing to unblock him. No wonder he didn't seem to care for the proposition, as the block wasn't even interrupting his editing anyway. I would support a ban at this juncture. --Cyde Weys 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought he already was - support! Certainly, a ban is appropriate. I have no confidence this will help, but at least it could be made explicitly clear. Friday (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for a ban; it's long needed. seicer | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I would have supported an unblock after a month of good behaviour while blocked. Not any more - I think a ban is the only option now. ViridaeTalk 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my... I would have strongly supported an unblock after a while, but now I dunno. It's a bit like Beta wants to be banned. =/ Ale_Jrbtalk 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban until we can be shown that he Gets It. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that Betacommand is denying any liability as he was blocked, not banned. - I need a bit more information - where is he saying this? What do you mean by "denying any liability" as in "it's not a ban, so socking no big deal"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't remember his exact words, but that was the impression I was getting off him. In my opinion his accusation of abuse of checkuser, then violation of privacy policy was him clutching at straws to get me to not reveal this. So him saying "I'm blocked, not banned, so I don't see the problem" is further clutching at straws. --Deskana (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of block evasion, or sockpuppetry (in fact, last time I am the one whom figured out the sock, etc). Half your argument asking us to ban this user revolves around him denying any liability as he was blocked, not banned... and, you can't recall exactly what, don't have a diff, et cetera? If it were anyone but beta, that wouldn't fly, and I'm surprised I haven't seen many question this yet. However, the socking needs to stop. I do fear that we are in the process of creating the next <insert random malicious vandal name here>. SQLQuery me! 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support ban I've supported a ban in the past, and will do so again. Majorly talk 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly support ban: It's a shame it has to come to this, but we've put up with BC for too long. He obviously doesn't want to reform, so why should we give him the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendodge (talk • contribs) 2009-01-15T21:26:15 (UTC)
    • Support ban - there are some people whose names, when they turn up in the title of a new section on WP:ANI in my watchlist, just make me groan inside. Beta has to be top of that list. I've never had anything to do with him, nor have I commented on any of the innumerable discussions that have taken place both here and elsewhere previously. Whatever benefits he and his bots may, in the past, have brought to Wikipedia are, however, clearly being outweighed by his inability to accept that his way of doing things is completely unacceptable, and his continued disruption, socking and worse still (in my view) his continued denial of any wrong-doing and mudslinging at those who are trying to stop him are clearly a massive net detriment to Wikipedia. My only regret is that if a ban does result from this discussion then in about three months' time my watchlist will undoubtedly show a new section entitled "Proposed unbanning of Betacommand", and the whole drama will just start again. GbT/c 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support the time has come...Modernist (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - While I have defended Beta's work with non-free images in the past, including questioning the most recent block, evading blocks with socks shows disregard to the WP community and process. --MASEM 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support... Just doesn't get it. Grandmasterka 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ban - Unbelievable...sad, and unbelievable. His absolute iron-clad determination to ignore everyone and everything that inconveniences him for the last year has been terrible to watch. I've said several times that he is on a personal crusade to stick his fork in the toaster, and nothing anyone can say or do to him will make him stop. It's like an overwhelming and irresistible compulsion for him that has alienated those who supported him and hoped he'd come around. I don't understand it--I never have--but socking (and botting) while indefblocked...well, there's no going back now. And it would have been SO DAMN EASY for him to just stop at any point. But like I said, he's determined. So are we. Sorry Beta. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Socking? Talk of "liability" as to being blocked/banned doesn't even rise to wikilawyering. I was standing by, waiting to see if there might be some hope. However, there is something clearly untowards about this account. Like Friday, I thought BC was already banned but perhaps this will help skirt any misunderstandings. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant, but very strong support - There is either an inability or a lack of want to reform, either way Betacommand is too disruptive to be allowed to continue. — neuro(talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was uneasy about the recent block. He does excellent work and only seems to get into arguments over copyrighted material that shouldn't be here in the first place. Oppose. --TS 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I thought he already was. If not, extending it to a ban is the same thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support He doesn't contribute to a collegiate environment. This behaviour wastes too much of everyone's time and energy. Ty 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very reluctantly, but I believe we need to send the strongest possible message to Betacommand that the community has and appears to continue to not want him to edit the project in any way, shape or form. I'm not opposed to revisiting the ban after a period of time, but only if there's absolutely no further socking and no further incidents. Nick (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, especially since he's been evading blocks all along apparently (not comment from Conti above). Block evasion during a time when he should be cooling off is highly inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This is very sad. If he had lain low, maybe cleaned up his act a bit, I would have supported an unblock in the near future. Now we know that the continuous blocks really are ineffective as he is using other accounts, although that's nothing new. The shocker is the fact he's using an unauthorised bot, which is the ultimate signal that he has no intention whatsoever of ever following those restrictions. He doesn't get it. He doesn't want to get it. Enough is enough. --.:Alex:. 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in this instance; Betacommand remains indef blocked, and will be for as long as there seems to be a problem, but by banning this account there is then no motivation for BC not to sock (or otherwise go to the bad). If a ban is placed, I would request that it be for 3 or 4 months only and should then be reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but last I checked, we weren't here to coddle betacommand and make sure he's happy at every turn. If we ban him and he feels that is motivation to sock then it is just further evidence of his disrespect for the community and further evidence he shouldn't be here. He shouldn't need any motivation not to sock if he truly wants to edit here and do what is best for the community. His socking now is yet mroe evidence that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks and will just carry on doing whatever he thinks is right. The community doesn't need that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support shows utter contempt for the community at every turn. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to point out, somewhat ironically, that he's right - as usual - about the non-free Grant Wood image that started the thread, as American Gothic already has its own article. Black Kite 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I respectfully disagree, and concur with Tyrenius and JMilburn..BC was completely off in his initial actions, although his point was taken in not using the infobox, otherwise I'd say he was out of line...Modernist (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditionally Oppose ban: I have long believed that Beta's problems under his Betacommand account stem from long held grudges as a result of the work he did on non-free images. The fact that he can run up 10,000+ edits on an alternate account without the same problems seems to support this theory (though, I am aware that having two accounts may have made this easier). I would strongly suggest that after an appropriate period of time off for socking while blocked (which is just disrespectful to the community), that Beta be allowed to come back on an account know only to ArbCom. If he can edit without trouble on this new account - that's the end of this long drama.. if not - then perhaps a ban might be in order. The one thing I am sure of is that the Betacommand account should never edit again - it is a drama magnet, if it did nothing other than revert blatant vandalism, people would still find a way to complain. --Versageek 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ECx5!!!) Yeah Versa, it's cuz we all hate Beta so much and love complaining. All dozens and dozens of us, many who have repeatedly stuck up for him in the past. If anything has drawn this painful process out as long as it has, it has been the apologists who demand nothing from Beta but excuses and dispense nothing but platitudes. Maybe you and Beta should share an account, since you have a similar persecution complex. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Not much left to say. Same insistence on making rapid-fire edits with automated tools (including a few mistakes I found), same insistence that he has the right to edit here, same lawyering evasiveness - we never said Betacommand and all his other registered or unregistered accounts, now and in future, in whole and in their several parts, whether by sea or by land.... Beta, did you tell anyone you were disappearing to a previously registered account? When you comment in the same discussions as yourself [19], it seems you invalidate your whole "wish to start over" anyway. I'd never thought it was too much & too late - until today. Franamax (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - block evasion is a non-starter. Throw away the key. -MBK004 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban, but keep indef blocked. Versageek said everything I was going to say. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban - Lessheard vanU's logic about a ban leaving BC with no motive not to use sockpuppets is good, although I agree with Versa that the Betacommand account has become a 'drama magnet'. My question is: if the Canis Lupus account was not related to Betacommand, would its edits alone warrant a block? The answer, no, although the fact that it was used to evade blocks weakens that argument considerably. Block evasion aside, the edit history of User:Canis Lupus shows that BC can edit constructively with comparatively little drama. I agree that the best idea would be for BC and all related accounts to disappear into the aether. If he wishes to resume productive editing his new account should be revealed to Arbcom for (what should be) obvious reasons. This solution would a) pour liquid nitrogen on the flaming drama that seems to surround Betacommand (by simply not allowing anyone to know his new account, providing BC had the common sense to avoid any strong ties to his past under his new name) and b) allow everyone to move on and shut the door on all this madness by providing at least some finality. Richard0612 22:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (EC × 9)—While his behaviour isn't exactly ideal, the work that he does for the encyclopedia is worth the fights over bots, images, et cetera. Black Kite's comment above underscores this point. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support This may be a case of the right thing done the wrong way. Regrettably, a pattern has emerged that I had hoped would not be repeated. Unfortunately, the user is to impetuous and repeatedly goes about things the wrong way. The value of his efforts are and have been outweighed episodes like this. Yes, his work has been incredible. But it just is not worth the disruption and drama. The opportunities to change have been presented, in reflection of his value. Bullseye has put it poignantly-- "And it would have been SO DAMN EASY for him to just stop at any point." Regrettably, he cannot or he would have by now. Dlohcierekim 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban, clearly doesn't get it. It could have been nice to work with him, but he doesn't seem to be willing to work in a collaborative environment (read: get along with others, and follow all of the rules, not just those that suit him). Kusma (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose amounts to kicking someone who is down.--Tznkai (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's not like Betacommand is leaving us much of a choice. Just a few days ago, people supporting an unblock were quoting this as a sincere apology on Betacommand's part. I can't see how anyone can continue to defend him now: it's now crystal clear that BC is unwilling to acknowledge any kind of responsibility for his actions, unwilling to accept any of the criticism as valid, unwilling to make the slightest effort to make up for his mistakes, unwilling to respect the rest of the Wikipedia community, unwilling to abide by even the most basic principles of civility and honesty. It's hard to believe that he won't continue to evade blocks (it's not like it's difficult) but for the record, he's not welcome here anymore. This is not about his controversial image work. Many, myself included, respect the work of editors who enforce NFCC. But most can do it without causing the drama that so often comes with BC's attitude toward those who disagree with him. I would note that, at the very least, the Canis Lupus account was in effect an unauthorized bot and was running AWB despite the fact that Betacommand had lost that privilege. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What exactly is a ban supposed to accomplish, that leaving the user indef. blocked, and, noting the continued sockpuppetry would not? I mean, other than a dramaful ANI discussion that will invariably leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths, arguments between users, and other such disruption. Given the user's history, I don't think a 'formal ban' will matter in the slightest. SQLQuery me! 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would (as Deskana noted at the start) make it clear to him that he is not welcome to edit under any account. ViridaeTalk 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'You are blocked' is plenty clear. In each instance, it has been crystal clear that the user was blocked. SQLQuery me! 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Crystalc lear to everyone except Betacommand apparently. ViridaeTalk 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was made clear to him before, too. I recall before (I'm not going to dig it up, but, I think it's on one of his talkpage archives), that he was told if he edited with the Betacommand2 account while blocked, it would be blocked too. And, he didn't. Therefore, it seems to me he understands. I still don't see the virtue in starting all this drama, when leaving him blocked, and, noting the sockpuppetry would have sufficed just as well, and, with less issues (I logged in in the first time in a while, intent on starting a new article, and, made the mistake of checking my watchlist... got sucked in here... And, that mistake is just about over.) SQLQuery me! 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are asking about what the distinction is between two things that are essentially the same, except by different names. Banning a person from the project results in effectively the same things happening as leaving the primary account blocked and blocking and reverting the sockpuppets that appear. Uncle G (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bingo! You got exactly what I was getting at. Same damn thing, there is no reason to have several pages of arguing about it. We've got enough to do, without these pointless debates. He was already blocked, he was unlikely to be unblocked, and, with the recent CU evidence, he's extremely unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. Absolutely no need to waste the community's time with more pages of this stuff. This is exactly why we have subpages and subpages on BC, because, every time he comes up on ANI, someone just cannot help themselves, and absolutely has to start a BAN BETACOMMANDS thread it seems. Don't you agree it would have been better for all involved, to simply leave him blocked (and, now is probably an appropriate time for the {{indefblocked}} template on the userpage, if any is), note on his (protected?) userpage, regarding the socks (tho here was sufficient too), and move the hell on? Did we need the full circus? Could we have all spent our time a lot more wisely? I know I could have. SQLQuery me! 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse ban - From what I can see, Beta deserved his indefinite block back in late December. He got it for repeatedly using automated tools when an Arbitration Committee ruling told him not to. When you evade such a block via sockpuppetry, there's only one road left, and it's not a good one to follow. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ban - Just more and more disrespect for the community out of him. The community needs to start being strong with these kinds of users.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Black Kite and Versageek. I would also note that throughout the period he's been blocked, he's been continually operating and improving his IRC reporting bot for the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel to help detect pagemove and other vandalism. Yes, that's a sure sign of someone out to damage the project. Mr.Z-man 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever: We choose whether or not to block an account based on its contributions, and nothing more. The person behind the account "MZMcBride" may or may not be the person behind the account in a year, or even tomorrow. That's simply the reality of the situation. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? The latter part of that doesn't make any sense. Yes, lots of things are possible, but in practice, it's the same person behind the account for the life of the account at least 99.9% of the time. So I'm not really sure what your point is. --Cyde Weys 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think there is no doubt that Betacommand's intentions are good, and that he wants to help the project. However, I also think there is no doubt that he has exhausted the community's patience with his continued disregard for Wikipedia policy and rules. He was ordered to shut down his bot, yet he apparently continues to operate it. If he thinks he is right, he will edit war to push his preferred version while refusing to listen to other editors. In short, he is completely unable to collaborate. And really, why should he obey any policy he doesn't like? Every time he's been called out, enough people have rushed to his defence that the discussion ends up a muddled mess. Many editors have been banned for less, and I think it is past time to give BC a vacation from this project. Resolute 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban for nowThe greater part of his problem is not communicating with users. He did a lot of good work but of course people are going to be upset by the loss of their fair use images and he almost never replies to questions in that respect. I wouldn't upload another fair use image if hell froze over due to him. I would not like to see him banned just yet though, but would like the indefinite block to remain. That offers an opportunity for him at some later date to prove that he can be trusted. Socking while blocked and possibly using a bot no matter how good the work, is not the way to prove that.--Sandahl (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Reluctant support - I know Beta can be helpful, but I think it is time we put this to rest. Tiptoety talk 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is ridiculous - he is blocked and he is banned already. !Voting on it isn't going to change things. He clearly doesn't think the rules apply to him and is no different from any other banned user who uses sock puppets to evade the ban. --B (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support or Oppose Yes his edits have been harmful, yes many hours have been wasted on tracking down socks and CUs and ANIs. I honestly think he's bright enough to get around anything we throw up at him. It's been made pretty clear that the project does not want his presence. Whatever will end all these lengthy, mostly unneeded discussions is where my vote stands. §hep • Talk 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unhappy support Because he's left no other avenue, and that status would make it non-controversially or ANI-worthy to block further. The whole situation is Stupid. rootology (C)(T) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant Support, I had hoped that BC could lay low for awhile and we could revisit this at a later date when the situation had cooled down. Using alt accounts while blocked to make the same sorts of edits he was blocked for pretty much closes the deal for me. I'm happy to reconsider the ban at some time down the track, but for now dealing with BC is just more trouble than its worth. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support In the previous discussions, I've tried to look at ways in which we can tweak the conditions that Betacommand is under, so that they are watertight. We all saw him pretending contrition, and assuring us that he would stick to his conditions if unblocked. Of course he would! He would stick to the conditions because he was going to do all the things he isn't allowed to do on sock accounts. Every time that we sanction Betacommand, he ignores that sanction, and when caught out he patiently explains to us why what he has done is entirely reasonable. His contempt for us is total. Yes, I fully expect him to sock again, because I don't believe he will ever learn, but are we to adopt a policy of not sanctioning editors who will ignore those sanctions. The game is over, the last chance was given, the really really really last chance was in prospect, but Betacommand couldn't even wait to be given that chance before he blew it. Mayalld (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Betacommand

    I was attempting to start over, people may or may not agree with the statement Im about to make, Ive been harassed, this has been going on for over 18 months now. I started to get sick of the harassment so I created a fresh account so that I could contribute without being harassed. under User:Canis Lupus I have 10,716 edits with no issue. I attempted to start over can anyone blame me for trying to get away from the drama? all I want to do is go back to doing what I do best, improving the encyclopedia, something i was doing quite well as Canis Lupus and before the whole non-free mess. βcommand 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Copied from his talk page by Deskana (talk)[reply]

    "fresh account" - wasn't one of those fresh accounts running a bot? Isn't that the very models of behaviour that keep this board lit up with BC threads? Fresh? sounds pretty stale to me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to that comment. ViridaeTalk 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still block evasion. You are not immune from the rules. — neuro(talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not been harassed; being reminded constantly to conduct yourself according to WP policy and practice, and being questioned over edits made by bots you have scripted and being complained of because you are not answering are problems of your own making. You really do have to understand that it is not WP, or a majority of its editors, a significant minority, or just a group of editors that have a problem in regard to your edits but you. If you can embrace the concept that it is you that needs to change, then there is the possibility of you being recognised as a useful contributor again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And of those 10,000 "edits with no issue", how many were made by an unauthorised bot? Or did Beta really sit at his computer for ten hours or so a day adding orphan tags to articles in alphabetical order...? GbT/c 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I could check in detail, but when I looked at a limited sample of his edits, I didn't see a lot with the characteristics of bot behaviour that checkuser shows. --Deskana (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it's absolutely blindingly obvious that Betacommand has been harrassed and hounded. That he has run up so many edits in a parallel account without problem is proof of that. I recommend to Betacommand that he quietly select a new account and continue editing. Wait a few weeks for the fuss to die down, though. --TS 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Not seeing "a lot" doesn't indicate that it isn't occuring - even on a small scale operating an unauthorised bot is a breach of policy. There is no such thing as a small policy breach in this case - he either did or he didn't, and he most certainly did. — neuro(talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the link in my comment above shows approximately 450 identical edits in alphabetical order, with no edits of a different nature intervening, and an identical edit summary each time - a series of edits from a date that I pretty much chose at random. If that's not a bot then I'm a banana...GbT/c 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally rely more on 'Is the process helping the project', than we do on 'Papers please'. A lot of times, an unauthorized bot (the case with several adminbots for years prior to having an easy way to approve them), if doing a needed, supported, useful task, without causing problems, is completely ignored. The first thing one should generally jump to instead of "OMG UNAUTHORIZED BOT", is "Is this user helping the project, or just causing problems?". However, the real issue in this case, is block evasion. The user in question was clearly told "You are not welcome here at this time", and chose to ignore this. I'm not quite clear on what a ban on the user in question is supposed to accomplish, given the history, but, however you guys choose to waste your time... SQLQuery me! 22:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes true and that approach works in most cases, but Beta was specifically told he was not allowed to run a bot in any form because he proved incapable of having that responsibility. That is the case when 'Papers please' is appropriate, because it was instiuted to prevent damage in the first place. ViridaeTalk 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, a lot of that was sort of generalized, and not entirely relevant to the case at hand. SQLQuery me! 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be a kind of groupthink, or witch hunt. His behavior isn't particularly bad, his work is good and he can work well if he's not harassed. Basically he should quietly vanish from sight and get on with the work he clearly loves. --TS 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Groupthink? Block evasion isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on getting a new account and quietly moving on, but, frankly at this point, blocked means blocked. Eventually, the community will figure it out, and, it will hurt his chances to ever legitimately return again. Continually evading blocks, is not the way to go about it, ever. Given the high degree of emotions and bias that seem to swirl around this user, I'm not exactly sure right now what to suggest even as a way to return. SQLQuery me! 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, it seems he can work well if he doesn't have to work with people who think he's wrong. As he is sometimes wrong, this means he can't work here, and that has nothing to do with harassment. Kusma (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the idea of letting the Beta moniker vanish quietly and then taking up a new account is that the type of edits (focusing on non-free images) will be rather obvious and if he runs into people that revert his correct edits (per NFC policy), the same problems may arise. --MASEM 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If Betacommand had started over with no issue, then this discussion would not be happening. The fact is that he is impossible to work with as a colleague, unless you are in total agreement with him. The only way this project succeeds is good will to find a way to resolve disagreements, and sometimes not get your own way. Betacommand lacks that will. Ty 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    10,000 edits without issue, eh? I'll give him credit for never getting blocked, that's a start but of course, he was doing his most controversial work with the Betacommand account, whereas Canis Lupus was mostly his unauthorized version of Betacommandbot. But you can still see ominous trends on the Canis Lupus account: dubious CSD tagging [20][21][22][23], dubious PROD tagging [24][25][26] including adding a PROD tag to an article that had already been tagged for speedy deletion by Betacommand [27] (declined) and then prodded by Betacommand [28] (also declined), a bit of revert warring [29], reverting messages on his talk page when users come to criticize his actions [30][31][32], biting newbies (e.g. User talk:Titanic14), using the sock account to defend Betacommand [33], using the sockpuppet account during not only under the current block but also under the previous three, screwing up with archiving [34]. This is not the new and improved Betacommand. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've seen another editor banned for a year, for a whole lot less than this guy...and then this guy just flaunts the rules again....and then this guy flaunts the rules again....and people debate? ....He's incorrigible because he got away with it - apparently for a long, long time...ban him here, he always seems to have another plan..What is this? Modernist (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrmm ... is it still worth correcting mistakes over flout/flaunt, or has it reached the point where the incorrect usage has become common usage? --Cyde Weys 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know I prefer flaunt, but if you prefer flout...well, I think the overall points been made...Modernist (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, flaunt and flout mean essentially the same thing. HalfShadow 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To flaunt is to show off, as in the old saying, "If you've got it, flaunt it." To flout is to defy. In this case, it could be a bit of both. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We have given indefinite blocks for much less, and we have banned for much less than what Betacommand has done. If you want to show the community that you are a responsible editor, or that you have improved and would like to show the community that, then by all means, sock away and create multiple accounts, edit with bot-like speed and accuracy, and then blame others when your accounts are revealed. Sorry, you still garner no sympathy. I guess I need my pitchfork and bib-overalls now. seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this harassment Betacommand speaks of? Many of the people arguing for his ban here in this discussion (including me) were once his most strident supporters. But he has steadily lost us over time by doing exactly the same things over and over again that led him into so much trouble. --Cyde Weys 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment does exist: some editors have wanted BC banned for a long time and he did periodically receive a bunch of insults on his talk page. However BC has redefined "harassment" as "any criticism of my actions" and his supporters have bought in to this paranoid image of BC as a victim. The proposed ban of BC is not the result of harassment and it's about time for his supporters to understand that. ArbCom asked him to stop running BCbot without BAG approval and he decided he'd solve that issue by running an unauthorized bot. ArbCom asked him to keep his cool and he collected block after block for incivility. ArbCom asked him to be more responsive to criticism and I don't think anyone can argue that he did that. But this is just harassment in the eyes of the BC cheerleading squad. BC evades blocks and they're basically saying "what's an editor to do when he's being harassed". To illustrate how absurd BC's paranoia has become, when I blocked BC a few weeks ago, he accused me of doing this because I disagreed with him on the issue of an image on Grant Wood when in fact I had supported his stance [35]. As I noted in earlier debates, the admins who've been most involved in the BC saga in the past few months are admins who were initially keen on finding ways to resolve the issues peacefully and certainly didn't have a "let's ban BC" agenda. Cyde recently tried to propose an unblock of BC but now that he supports a ban I'm pretty sure BC is thinking "I never thought Cyde would become part of this harassment campaign". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    3 month ban in which he will be randomly checkusered to check for sockpuppetry. When the ban expires he may return to an account made for him sometime in the intervening 3 months by a (logged out) arbcom member. He may edit with that account and only that account upon expiration of the three month ban. Only arbcom and checkusers are to be notified of the account's name. He may not use automated tools in any shape or form. Any repeating examples of gross incivility or edit warring or other violation of the terms of the agreement leads to the account name being revealed and the community can decide what to do about it. Any sockpuppetry during the ban times leads back to the community discussion again. Thoughts? ViridaeTalk 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Algebraist 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking for some middle ground. ViridaeTalk 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So how be we just get down to it and work out the terms for the next couple of times he breaks his parole/block/ban? You know, just have the conversation now so we don't have to go through all this wasted discussion. Seeing as how we're all here and everything. Wiggy! (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion would be to reset the ban and double it every time it is broken. But i dont think anyone has a taste for a half measure anyway. ViridaeTalk 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Why should the community give him any middle ground? Its just one disrespectful action after another with him. Whatever good faith he earned from doing image work here was burned long ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The community needs a rest from all this. If he keeps a clean record, then I dare say he will be allowed back eventually. A year would probably do the trick. But when he returns, he should be accountable. If he then works well with others, there will be no problem. This has happened with other users. Ty 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Seriously no - complete waste of time - he's never stuck to any of those promises before, why is he going to start now? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: We don't have the time nor resources to begin 'randomly checking people for sockpuppetry'. We have a backlog at WP:SSP as it is, and that is where our resources should go; not checking to see if Betacommand is socking today or not. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Beta's attitude at the best of times can be summarized as 'I'm right and fuck what everyone else thinks', and now it's 'Fuck your rules; I'll just log on my sock' as well. Everto quisquiliae. HalfShadow 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Been there, done that, tired of the drama. He's blocked, he's banned, and it should stay that way. The edits from Canis Lupus (talk · contribs) have some problems. This one # 00:22, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Football ‎ (robot Adding: af, als, an, ang, ar, ay, az, bar, bat-smg, be, be-x-old, bg, bn, br, bs, ca, ceb, cs, cv, cy, da, de, diq, el, eo, et, eu, fa, fi, fo, fr, frp, fur, fy, ga, gd, gl, gv, hak, he, hi, hr, ht, hu, ia, id, ig, io, is, it, iu, ja, ka, kk,) [36] seems to be by a 'bot. Many edits just represent stylistic changes that weren't really necessary. He's voted on some issues using this sock.[37]. Some edits are utterly bogus.20:07, 2 January 2009 Canis Lupus (Talk | contribs) m (2,826 bytes) (Reverted edits by 63.229.0.184 (talk) to last version by Julius Sahara) (undo). That one changed a valid link to point to a dead AOL Hometown link. AOL Hometown shut down in October. Looks like yet another buggy Betacommand automated process. --John Nagle (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's good to see attempted resolution. I also concur with the comments of Black Kite, Versageek and others. There is obviously no consensus on ban and this proposal may gain support. I also deplore the vendetta elements here and the groupthink comments of one user that he doesn't know much about BC but ... .Mccready (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vendetta? Names, diffs or any other evidence would be welcome. I'll gladly go to ArbCom if we can't agree on a ban: I'm not sure how supporters of BC can still argue that we should just reach out to an editor who systematically evaded blocks, ran an unauthorized bot on a sockpuppet account when his bot was shut down, used an alternate account after promising to stick to his main account [38], reneged every promise he made about his behaviour. Mccready, do you really find this even remotely acceptable? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose enough is enough! Betacommand is community banned, and I see no short term move from that position. If he keeps his nose clean for a full 12 months (no editing whatsoever, no self-appointed chances to make a fresh start, no socking, no nothing), then let him come back with a track record of actually respecting the decisions of the community, and ask for his ban to be lifted. Mayalld (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The community has lost patience completely with BC. That's the classic definition of a "bannable moment." Reducing it to three months is an invitation to drama. SDJ 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - He has already exhausted community trust. — neuro(talk) 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Although I like how you're trying to find a solution, I no longer see the point in coming up with these complicated, unenforcable measures. The community was prepared to give him a final chance, but he had to go and do this before we even gave it to him. It doesn't matter what we do, because he will just find another way to use his cyborg accounts. Judging by the comments above, he is no longer welcome on Wikipedia anymore, and it's at this point that there is simply no going back. --.:Alex:. 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Sockpuppeting to continue doing botwork and to stick up for the arguments made on his primary account [39] have to be the last straw. Somewhere along the way, this user stopped doing what was good for the project and started doing what was good for himself. Maybe a 12-month hiatus will help him rediscover the former. It is good to try to find compromise solutions, but it just does not seem to be worth it for this case. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is banned. The only virtue I can see in this proposal is the attempt to set up an eventual return. Frankly, I don't believe this editor would meet any conditions imposed, so I don't think this suggestion will work. No thanks. GRBerry 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. If he can observe this ban for 6 months & not resort to sock puppets, only then would I consider discussing giving him a strict parole period. There is just something unhealthy about his compulsion to fight against fair use/unfree images. I would describe this as a symptom of OCD, but I'm sure someone would interpret this as a personal attack on BC. -- llywrch (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Get out means get out, not sneak back in when you think no one's looking. Jtrainor (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why bother?

    I'm wondering why we are bothering with these ban and unblock polls on Betacommand. Back in July when I filed the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Betacommand, I was told several CUs had been run and referred to arbcom, but that the results would not be released to me. Now it turns out that this Canis Lupis account has been run since May of last year, including when Beta was blocked. If checkusers and arbs are going to help him evade the community ban on bot editing, the blocking policy on block evasion, and help by permitting admins to grant block evading userrights such as IPBE, when the checkusers know the individual is abusing multiple accounts, it is pretty meaningless for the community to keep having these discussions. Obviously the decision has been made to aid Betacommand in evading community restrictions, regardless of what the community thinks, so why are we even bothering to continue this debate? MBisanz talk 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting allegations but they sound pretty speculative. The question should just be asked directly to ArbCom. Call me naive but I don't think there's much reason for them to lie about all this now that the community has decided to put a stop to all this crap. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as this is the second time I've been involved with, with an entirely different set of checkusers, where results were reported in a misleading manner to protect a user from sanctions, I doubt it is a rare occurrence. And I also suspect filing and RFAR with the jist of "Why did you guys try and help Beta avoid sanctions imposed by the community by hiding CU results and misusing IPBE right grants?" would probably not elicit a useful response. MBisanz talk 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat by User:DePiep

    User:DePiep just threatened me by saying, "I wish you a white phosfor [sic."] He/she was referring to white phosphorus. --GHcool (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Wikipedia. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Wikipedia someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Wikipedia approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA issue

    I think it's unusual for reports to be made about RFA proceedings, but I think they should be more often. I believe the comment under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3, by Husond, is a violation of WP:NPA, and should be removed. I should note, I don't know either of the parties in question, have not participated in the RFA, and have no opinion on the candidate's suitability. But I believe participants in RFAs need to be as accountable to WP:NPA as they are anywhere else in the project. I think the problem is compounded by the fact that the commenter is an administrator; I would hold an administrator to a higher standard of behavior than others in a community decision, as they often set the tone. I submit this here, in the hopes that others not involved in the RFA will be able to make a considered judgment on the matter. -Pete (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Husond is basically begging to be de-sysopped. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't abused his tools, so far as I'm aware, so this will lead nowhere. In a perfect world administrators would act as models for us plebs, but this isn't a perfect world. There's a curious anomaly that behaviour which would result in a block, or rule an editor out of ever getting through an RfA, becomes a mere trifling matter if exhibited by an administrator, but that's the way things work around here. Fair? No, just the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a tool issue, it's WP:NPA. 15 editors have pointed this out to him and made a very simple request: Please provide at least one diff to back yourself up. Over on my Talk page, Husond said he'll provide diffs for his attack when he wants, if he wants. This is egregious for an admin to be acting this way, especially at the Request for Adminship. 15 editors. Yet Husond basically is telling everyone to sod off. No wonder nobody wants to run for admin, we're losing admins, and the RfA process is a cruel travesty. Husond's defense, and his two supporters, appear to be arguing that WP:NPA doesn't apply at RfA. --David Shankbone 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really isn't about the attack, as much as Huson's pig-headed refusal to back up what he says. With diffs, it's not an attack. Without diffs, it's an attack. And nobody seems to be able to produce these diffs. But hey, we have the admins now saying WP:NPA doesn't apply anymore - that'll make quite a few people happy; or, at the very least, admins are immune to it. Maybe these rationale should be brought up for at the Village Pump. --David Shankbone 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this insistence that the comments would go from inappropriate to alright, just because diffs are added. Diffs are unlikely to be persuasive in this case. Husond's comments is very harshly critical, but RFA is the place where people give their opinions on the candidate. What exactly is being suggested? That people complain at Husond? That's already been done. Do you want him blocked or something? I don't see how this would help. Friday (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eventually, the community is going to institute a desysop process similar to the RfA if this kind of stuff is going to go on and be pooh-poohed. It makes perfect sense. I could call you a baby raper, Friday, and that would be a personal attack. But if I call you a baby raper and provide a link to your police record, it becomes a fact. Get it? At this point, an official admin "You keep this up, you will be blocked" warning is warranted. He sees nothing wrong with the attack. But there's more editors than there are admins, and if a class system is going to be cemented like this, it's going to cause more problems for this site than you all may want. Editors leaving, deteriorating behavior, blah blah blah. This isn't a fine line. The only defense, as seen by Friday, is that personal attacks are allowed at the RfA - yet he has no ability to back that up in any guideline or policy. --David Shankbone 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I have said that personal attacks are allowed at RFA - I certainly don't think they are. We have different notions of what makes a personal attack. Calling someone a "poopie-head" is pretty mild, but it's a personal attack and is inappropriate. Accusing someone of a (frankly disturbing- could you not think of a less offensive example?) crime and linking to their police record certainly is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, whether or not the allegations are true. Being civil is about keeping your arguments relevant, rather than just name-calling or saying bad things about your opponents. It doesn't mean you're never allowed to say anything negative. Husond has a negative opinion of the character of an RFA candidate, and he said so at RFA. On-topic criticism, even when harshly worded, should be allowed. Friday (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it was over the top, and I think justified. You've had 15 editors telling you that you're wrong, and you've basically told them you'll do whatever the hell you want. Second, it's my Talk page, not an RfA. Third, if the shoe fits... I'd give up on the pipe dream of becoming a Bureaucrat, Husond, and you're welcome to supply that diff in my RfA (d'oh! You don't supply diffs, and I don't want to be an admin!). Husond - you were the one who ratcheted this up. When you have 15 people from all stripes telling you something, it's clear you don't understand the collaborative, community-oriented nature of this project. That you're bringing it up is "absurd and obnoxious". --David Shankbone 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A few things... 1. People are quite capable of making their own decisions, so I doubt the RfA will be too adversely affected.
    2. Husond should not have posted his oppose without having diffs in it to back it up, in the first edit. However...
    3. As Friday said, harsh but on-topic criticism is quite allowable, and some of the stuff that's been posted against Husond is quite silly and over-the-top to me. Grandmasterka 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Matter resolved ass-backwards, as the candidate withdrew their third attempt at RfA and retired. I think we (and Husond, to be quite blunt) dodged a bullet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I think it would do Husond a great amount of good to provide those diffs anyway, so that it doesn't look like he was totally full of it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with EV here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the diffs will be helpful. In all likelihood, the diffs will make the candidate look really bad and it is far better to let matters rest. That the diffs (or off-wiki correspondence) exists is almost a given. Husond is fairly honest (if brash) and doesn't make stuff up and it is fairly obvious from re-reading Husond's RFB that there was something not so nice that happened between them. No. IMO, best to just drop the whole thing and move on. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has Husond been involved in anything like this before? DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I honestly thing a desysopping would set a great precedent. Behavior like that is unacceptable. However, very few people have voluntary recall, so it can't ever be addressed. Its probably about time to remove the "voluntary" aspect. Admin is based around trust. People who abuse policies and guidelines like that cannot be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Further discssion below at #Real life stalking by Ecoleetage... — Scientizzle 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, Husond, you did go about things the wrong way. When asked for diffs, as you were (and which is a quite reasonable request), you should have supplied them, rather than kept editing the discussion with nothing more than promises that diffs would be forthcoming at some indefinite point in the future.

    I actually have some relevant diffs, and this was one of the very few requests for adminship where I have actually had strong objections to entrusting the person with administrative tools — objections strong enough that I was going to actually enter the discussion. I held off my contribution to the RFA until today because I simply haven't had the time to devote to Wikipedia during the week. Of course, the discussion is closed, now. But supplying the diffs/links along with your rationale, or at least holding off further discussion contribution until you could come back with the diffs/links, would have saved you a lot of discussion. It was going to be my approach.

    The people who criticized you in such a vile manner, however, also deserve censure. They could have wholly disagreed with you in every way without crossing the line into gross incivility, as (most disappointingly) several of them did. I'm glad that some of them have already apologized.

    And for EVula I provide this (since I'm almost sure to be asked, although I don't want to reignite the closed RFA discussion): My opinion was based upon spending almost a whole day patiently trying to explain AFD discussions, and how not to accuse obviously good faith nominators of bad faith, to this person on my talk page at User talk:Uncle G#Non-admin closure and upon observing xyr subsequent mischaracterization both of what I said and of how many incidents of this nature there had been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#AfD needs reopening? (a mischaracterization that I note xe perpetuated in the RFA). And it was going to be that xe was currently unsuitable for administratorship because xe was still making no attempts to learn from xyr mistakes, or to learn from others here the very good reasons that we do some things in the ways that we do, based upon the past experiences that we've had doing them in other ways. There hadn't been enough subsequent AFD closures done by this person to indicate that xe had listened and learned, and there was plenty of evidence in the answers to the questions to the candidate that xe was continuing as before, blithely dismissing any and all attempts to point out errors as "insults".

    I cannot confirm Husond's assessment of this person's nature. There are many interpretations that can be placed upon User talk:Uncle G#Best wishes for the holiday, especially now, after the fact. At the time I simply assumed good faith and went back to AFD patrol and to pushing articles upwards from the dank and dingy depths of deletion discussions. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Gather around little piggies and I will tell you a secret: On Wikipedia, all editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others.
    RE:But hey, we have the admins now saying WP:NPA doesn't apply anymore - that'll make quite a few people happy; or, at the very least, admins are immune to it. Maybe these rationale should be brought up for at the Village Pump. --David Shankbone 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reality check Mr. David: admins and veteran editors with powerful connections are already immune to Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks travb (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    travb (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26

    The IP 192.45.72.26] and user:Icsunonove are the same person (Icsunonove is living "in the city of Los Angeles and an aerospace engineer by occupation (most recently working on projects for NASA)" and the IP is registered to "TRW Space and Defense Sector" a division of Northrop Grumman based in Redondo Beach). Both edit heavily in topics about South Tyrol, mostly to eradicate the name South Tyrol from wikipedia (Icsunonove: 1 2 3 4 5 6 and dozens more)- (IP: 1 2 3 4). For me, being from South Tyrol this is very annoying especially as it follows in the steps of Mussolinis Italianization campaign. But the real issue here is incivility and POV sourcing.
    Lately the aforementioned individual has discovered the article Steinerner Steg (english: Stone bridge) - a little but beautiful bridge in the city of Merano, which the fascist authorities renamed "Ponte Romano" (eng. Roman Bridge) on December 2nd, 1927. Now this had two aims: first to link the old Roman Empire with the beautiful bridge and thus enhance the mythical connection that fascism is a new "Rome" and also to further the fascist claim that South Tyrol has always been a Roman/Italian area (strangely though 90% of the population were German and all locations had only German names, and it was all Austrian until 1919 - and to this day over 67% of the people are German). This renaming of the bridge (revoked in 1943 - since 1945 both names are used equally) has led to the following line in a book about Roman bridges: "Meran lies further east, on the western approach of the Brenner Pass to Austria. A medieval bridge here retains the name, the Ponte Romano sul Passirio (Gazzola, 1963b, no. 281)." But the city says otherwise (the full text would be to long); therefore in short: "bridge built in 1616/1617 by architect Andrä Tanner from Brixen; from this time on all official documents referred to bridge only as “Steinerner Steg”; during the Italianization in the 20ties to be exact on December 2nd, 1927 the name “Ponte Romano” was introduced."the whole pdf document (in Italian) published by the city (point 20). So on one side one line by a Cambridge scholar on the other side the city itself - in my opinion the city (and I hail from there and know the story of bridge) is right, but try to tell that to Icsunonove... [40]. this would be a content dispute if the other party was ready to discuss, alas he isn't... He was warned two days ago to stop insulting other editors by administrator user:John [41] for saying things like:

    he said he had learned his lesson, but it was all my fault ([42]) now to today, as he still can't editwar his POV through he gets more agitated by the minute:

    in short: he demanded sources, I and User:Gun Powder Ma brought sources, he didn't like them he refuses to discuss, he insults and I'm fed up. I request a 7 day block for user:Icsunonove for continuing grave incivility. --noclador (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why specifically that number? — neuro(talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So that he has time to cool down. --noclador (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be checked whether the anonymous IP and the user are identical. Is this technically possible? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not even going to bother arguing with these two, and this will be my only reply. These are the type of individuals that go around being ultra aggressive to editors that disrupt their domain and then blame said editors for finally getting pissed off. If there was any sense of maturity in these two, they would also be men enough to point out the things that they were doing (if they can admit to that). I lost my cool, but it is sure hard not to do so with people like this, who will make this long diatribe above accusing editors of making a new Rome. @_@ I am not going to waste my time to go and pull up the evidence of what they've done and the things they've said. I was trying my best to make some neutral edits to a page about a freakin' bridge (Steinerner Steg), and you can see clearly all the criticism I get and the reverts with a blind of vandalism or pushing a political point of view. I'd like for once to see an Admin go and outright ban uses like Noclador and Gun Powder Ma for just flat out making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to work, and also playing this childish "I'm reporting you" game, whenever they get their pants up in a knot. I asked many times what I could do to make my new edits better, and they simply treat this like a military campaign. I'm going to take my own break, regardless, because as I said -- these sort of people simply ruin Wikipedia for others. Noclador accusing me of an Italianization campaign is about the most insulting thing I've ever read on WIkipedia. I have been at the forefront of trying to record all the languages used in this province. I've NEVER tried to remove any language, much less German. If this individual has deep down insecurities because (as he states) he lives in this province, that is something he must deal with. But calling me a fascist (i.e. equivalent to a nazi), should have him permanently banned. Someone simply look at how he was blindly reverting any edit I tried to make in good faith to Steinerner Steg, and you'll see the behavior. I'd love for an Admin to simply do that, because the edits are there in stone. I think the last version I came up with was quite good, and again.. revert.. vandalism. What is this? He simply categorizes me as "the enemy" and tries to accuse me with every edit I make. I couldn't care less about this idiotic proxy battle of Italian versus German. My history shows VERY WELL, I've always pushed for the neutral, multilingual stance. That I can lose my cool with people who turn Wikipedia into a political joke, well, I think many others would agree with this disgust. Icsunonove (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    for the insults of just the last hour please see: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Icsunonove --noclador (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to the "so that he has time to cool down" comment, please see WP:CDB. What you are asking for is against policy when presented by itself. — neuro(talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems these two have a bit of a history, judging by Icsunonove's removal today of a barnstar awarded to him by noclador over a year ago. Icsunonove is certainly bringing incivility to new and exciting heights here, but this seems like one of those "it takes two to tango" situations. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    @ neuro: It is absolutely justified as Icsunonove fulfills truly all of the Signs of disruptive an editor and in such cases "an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."
    @ Tarc: ah, nope I must correct you on that - you will not find a single insult directed by me towards Icsunonove, but tons of them against me, User:Gun Powder Ma, who wrote the original article that led to all this and many more against other users that tried to edit articles about South Tyrol (i.e. user:PhJ, user:Gryffindor and many more) --noclador (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say you insulted him in he same manner, but you're obviously had a long association with this user, and are currently embroiled in edit wars with him. Reverting with edit summaries of "vandalism" is not helpful, and using WP:TWINKLE in edit wars is, I believe, severely frowned upon. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No Tarc - I did not have "a long association with this user" The barnstar I gave out to the people who finally agreed on a naming convention for the communes of South Tyrol and since than I did not have any dealings with this user! My last reverts did I label vandalism - AFTER Icsunonove ignored attempts to discuss and find consensus on the talkpage and continued editing against all other editors the article with his POV.--noclador (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have been proven wrong by the history of the edits on the article and the page. Your behavior was that which was against Wikipedia policy. But, I guess to come on here and try to accuse me first is your brilliant idea? You can't back down and admit what you were doing was wrong. You never insulted me? See what you even just write at the beginning of this section? There is nothing more insulting than your accusations of italianization and mussolini behavior. Would you like if I say you are conducting Germanization and that you are linked genetically with Hitler?! Think about it. Icsunonove (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noclador, you are a an excellent fit partnering with editors like PhJ and Gryffidor, THIS IS FOR SURE!! :) You didn't insult me??? Look at what you accuse me of above. You really must be flat out clueless. I can't waste my life arguing with people such as you Noclador. I thank you for teaching me this. And disruptive editor? Look at what you are doing on that bridge page, reverting any edit I make and calling it fascism or vandalism. Look at what you do all over the place and now on the Provincial page. Good riddens dude. Icsunonove (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I broke my promise and am making one last reply before I sign out permanently. If I'm bringing incivility to a new level by removing this guy's name from my user page, so be it. After what he wrote about me above, I have the right to hope not to see his name again. I actually had no problem with Noclador and respected him as an editor in the past. But he apparently has taken a turn into the more divisive ways of one-sided politics. He has a good new partner in Gun Ma, looking at his "free tibet" flags on his user page. *roll eyes* I've noticed they are going wild now also on Province of Bolzano-Bozen; so expect them to cause an edit war there too. These two accusing me of Italianization and fascism and making a new Rome is just the last draw. You can read above that because Noclador lives in this province, he is actually taking this very personally. I've said it again, I've been at the forefront for including ALL names in these provinces. It is a grave insult what he accuses me of, and you better believe it pisses me off. This will indeed be my last post, I do not plan to work on Wikipedia any longer. As well, I hope an Admin goes and see what Noclador and Gun Ma are and were doing. Reverting edits calling them vandalism; labeling people as fascists and pushing Italianization. Then think if you wouldn't also be angry. I sincerely hope people like Noclador GROW UP. He should be utterly ashamed at falling into this ethnic POV trap. Have fun you all... Icsunonove (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The following is a post I made here which I believe should be included in this noticeboard as well: ":::I don't want you to misunderstand me, I am not saying his conduct is flawless by any means. However, looking at the actual sequence of events that led up to this, it seems he had some provocation. I am not trying to turn this on you and say it is your fault, but you should not declare someone's edits as vandalism when they are in fact a content dispute, even if they are editing after you contest the edit on the talk page. I reviewed Talk:Steinerner Steg and see Iscunonove trying to engage in collaboration in a very civil manner. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Now you claim a certain IP is this user, but without a check user we cannot say that for certain or treat them as identical, unless you have a diff where one or the other says that is the case. Based on the diffs above it seems Iscunonove was trying to collaborate and work in good faith, but statements such as these [49] [50] [51] [52] upset him. He was trying to work on the article and was actively participating in the discussion on the talk page, and did not become uncivil until the diffs above. It seems his behavior was not entirely unprovoked, and if some users had handled it differently, it would not have come to name calling, demanding bans and resignations from Wikipedia. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)" Theseeker4 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgot this provocative diff [53]. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After Icsunonove called Gun Powder Ma this; Gun Powder Ma responded. --noclador (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone, who is this IP? Special:Contributions/96.251.10.234
    Please have a look on the history of this user talk page (very interesting): User talk:Moroderen
    PhJ (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the feeling, increasing numbers of Icsunonove's/Taalo's former friends are turning their backs to him. 3 years ago, (at least I had the impression) Rarelibra and Noclador were still friends with him, but obviously they have come to the conclusion that his behaviour is kind of crazy.
    I know Noclador by his contributions on the English and German Wikipedia, and he is by no means "nationalist" nor has he fallen into an "ethnic POV trap", quite the opposite: He is very critical towards German conservative positions including some of my contributions. Therefore his statements on this page are very trustworthy.
    Regarding the so-called "Ponte Romano" or Steinerner Steg, I think it should be no problem to find reliable sources to prove the the bridge's origin in the 16th century (I mean, historical research). Noclador, just find them ;) -- PhJ (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be ashamed of yourself PhJ. You of all people calling others' behavior crazy? That is a personal attack, and your statement that I've had an "increasing number of ... former friends turn their back" is completely false, and you know it. I parted ways with Rarelibra, but that is the only case on here ever. Or, do you have proof that friends turned their back on me, and in (these laughable) increasing numbers? Why don't you back up your words? I'd be pretty embarrassed with myself to make such grand statements in public and not be able to prove them. But, then again, I am capable of shame. What you are insinuating is for your own disgusting purposes, and I think you do not realize how much that says about you. You also prove yourself ignorant in this discussion, because I had no problem what-so-ever with this bridge being from the 16th century. In fact I was attempting to cite the references as accurately (and in a neutral fashion) as possible. Why don't you take some time to see how I was trying to edit that page, without throwing out your slander? That is, if you can. But then again, that is not your purpose coming to this discussion, now is it? It doesn't surprise me that the editors who have shocked me most (you and Gryffindor) come in here to throw stones. You guys know I dislike you, and it is so petty you have to come on here like this, but then it kinda fits you guys, doesn't it? The only thing I agree with you is that Noclador (and he was never a friend) WAS relatively critical and fair in the past. But as Theseeker4 points out very clearly above, it was ridiculous how he came to attack me under some pre-conceived conclusion that I'm on a project to "Italianize". I was being accused of trying to discredit the mayor because I cited references with "according to". I'm sorry, but that is how we cite references in academia and in encyclopedias. Alas, sorry PhJ, but the facts are against you, as usual. I'll always remember you though as the "live and let live" person, one of the greatest hypocritical statements ever made on here. Icsunonove (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A check should be done in that case. If the user has been using his an I.P. and his account to disrupt discussions or barrage users, that would of course not be acceptable and amounts to sockpuppetry. Gryffindor (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure, this from an Administrator who never should of been given such privileges in the first place. I have never witnessed an Admin who has so callously abused their powers as much as you Gryffindor. You have been warned so many times by fellow Admins it is indeed impressive. You are another one I bid a fond good riddance to. Hopefully you will be content, and you can try and go back and make pages as you forced them before. You remember, only Trentino-South Tyrol, South Tyrol, and I believe even the Adige River as simply Eisack. I will not forget how you made Wikipedia a hell with regard to this region. It was people such as myself that brought forth the current multi-lingual compromises that brought relative peace and balance to those pages. It is so glaringly obvious how that affects (drives you mad?) people like you and PhJ. You know what? That is your issue and I truly feel sorry for you. I will always be content to know that I worked to bring about sharing. You instead? Icsunonove (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned for personal attacks. — neuro(talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, you are not aware of Gryffindor's intentions and the history of what went down with regard to articles about this province. Note that he is coming into this discussion for no other reason than to make a personal attack, as did PhJ above. I sincerely hope you warn PhJ and Noclador as well. Thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your issue is, but leave me out of it ok? Gryffindor (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    note to administrative staff

    Again, I would appreciate it if a few Admins can first go and look again at the edit history at Steinerner Steg, as was done by one user already above (Theseaker). I would like to know what I was doing wrong, besides finally getting pissed off at how those users were reverting edits (blindly as vandalism) and making gross accusations of guerilla warfare' (statement by Gun Powder Ma) to Mussolini-Fascist-style "Italianize" articles. @_@ That is outright slander, and I'd like to see the proof. Note that ironically these two are now going all over and adding in all these grand POV statements about this province. Just wait and see the edit wars they will instigate. You can see it coming on Province of Bolzano-Bozen, etc. Second, I'd hope for a clarification towards Noclador about making such horrid personal attacks as he made at the beginning of this post. I thought there were policies against essentially calling people nazis/hitler? I don't think fascist/mussolini is any different. If he has ingrained issues because he lives in this province, that does not need to spill into this encyclopedia. Finally, it would be interesting if some Admin would also focus on the behavior of users (that I admittedly dislike) such as PhJ and Gryffindor popping in to use the Administrator's noticeboard as a soapbox to bash. Is that the purpose of this noticeboard? It would just be refreshing for once to see the slander of above actually be addressed. Ok, a dream of mine has always been for a formal and thorough investigation of the behavior by Gryffindor since he received Adminship. But, that is just asking for a little icing, I admit. :) Icsunonove (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • and in a further grand display of wikistalking :) [54] Noclador is obviously to the point of obsession now. With all the reverts he did on the bridge article, he should of been banned. For making this long diatribe about accusing people of italianization and being like mussolini, he should of been banned. Now, spending hours upon hours of his time trying to justify what he did by trying to dig up past history, again.. he shows his true intent. It looks simply as if Noclador is trying to do a broader attack against an editor, now that his initial "incident" has been proven to been instigated by him and Gun Powder Ma. I can only ask Noclador this: Do you feel somewhat guilty for the slanderous accusations you made above? Do you feel guilty of how you were reverting the article again and again and calling it vandalism, when it has been shown to everyone here that it clearly was not? Is that why you want to try and drive all the accusations towards me, and even though I'm never going to edit on this encyclopedia again, you seem to not even want me to post on here to defend myself against attacks from PhJ/Gryffindor, or notify others what you are doing? That is pretty incredible... Icsunonove (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AND RIGHT ON CUE: [55] Just as I said. =) Another vindication of the type of behavior we've seen from users like PhJ and Gryffindor for years already, the type of stuff that Noclador has moved towards doing, and his new buddy Gun Powder Ma newly signing up. LOL Also a good reminder of why I need to finally take myself out as an editor here. Wikipedia, I wish you the greatest of luck with such people, who use this encyclopedia as a way to push their own political agendas. I personally feel it is the very worst of human behavior that these editors show us. That they have no shame, is the part that is truly scary. Icsunonove (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had enough Noclador, please read the message left on your page. Just to note, I could make 30 alerts on someone, and then they would have "30x unresolved Wikiquette alerts". :-) Also, am I getting more ludicrous by the minute by stating that the history of that bridge article does show rather dubious actions by you an Gun Powder Ma? Just, relax, be self-critical for a second, and think about it. :-) I'm not trying to insult you, please realize that, I'm trying to make you think a bit here. Now, I'm tired of this, enough is enough, ok? If you really think I'm out to remove German from BZ, that is really unfortunate -- because you simply couldn't be more wrong. Icsunonove (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And we've had enough, too; for God's sake stick a cork in it. HalfShadow 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the nice personal attack HalfShadow. I believe in karma, and I certainly hope when someone in your life makes such horrible accusations as I went through above, that you get the same "put a cork in it" treatment. Very thoughtful, very civil. This was a horrible experience for me, I appreciate your concern. I know all my text must have been difficult for you. Icsunonove (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ciao

    Can only try [56], but just as my edits on the bridge article, this is also vandalism. I hope this wonderful new friend of mine also is given maybe more rights and respect on here someday. [57]. I give up.. Icsunonove (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cali567 (talk · contribs)

    I previously requested the protection of Demographics of Argentina nonetheless it was declined and the administrator claimed that this user should be report to block. Cali567 created an edit-warring in Argentina, Demographics of Argentina, White Argentine and Argentine American. Even though a consensus was previously reached user cali567 continues to make disruptive edits. This user was warned several times always for the same reason.

    --Fercho85 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave him a last warning for claiming a consensus here. There wasn't a discussion on the talk page like I told him to and I don't see anything more than a single statement by him. Is there some central discussion going on or is it just a case of shifting article after article in rotation? If not, at least post a section on each talk page so that admins know that it's been discussed and consensus is against him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to make it clear to everyone that consensus can change. However, I cannot find a centralized attempt actually discussing this issue in plain English. I see part single monologues from multiple users as to one or the other view but no real attempt at compromise. I saw one from months ago, but it's a mess. Would everyone be willing to agree to an WP:RFC, allowing for larger input? Pick a central location and follow the steps. Go to the other talk pages and provide a link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block

    I have blocked User:Cali567. He has repeated inserted the same text and refuses to engage in talk page discussion (no, saying "here is what I added" is not discussion) or further use of dispute resolution. I am not a fan of User:Fercho85's conduct either but I'm not sure if blocking him is necessary. Outside review please, and I would suggest protection at Demographics of Argentina until the warring calms down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon further review, I was too harsh and reversed the block. I apologized to Cali567 and will try to work things out a bit. However, I think User:Fercho85 needs to be spoken to, since he doesn't seem to ever use the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems fine for me, I am not interested if this user is blocked or not, the only think that I claimed firstly was to stop the usual edit warring at Demographics of Argentina.

    Cheers, --Fercho85 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you then comment at Talk:Demographics of Argentina? We can discuss the images as well, preferably each one independently in its own section first and then as a whole. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tales23 off block, right back in with weird behavior

    Not exactly sure what's going on here, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Tales23 (talk · contribs) is fresh off of a block for edit warring. His talk page was locked because while he was blocked, he spent most of the time compiling cases and arguments against editors who had disagreed with him. Since his return, he's gone back to his old pages and old edits. He's also posted four separate reports at the edit warring board among two editors who've had contact with him before here [58] [59][60] [61] including one against Rick Norwood, who had only edited the article once in the previous 48 hours.

    I tried to ask on the edit war page if he actually intended to report an editor who wasn't edit warring, and his responses were a bit confusing to say the least. It seems like an edit warrior returning to file pointy claims against his opponents to me, but I figured an admin would be better able to sort it out. He doesn't seem to get it, as we say. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello There, to understand the subject which i tried to explain to Daywalker(This is my first contact to Daywalker, i dindt spoke with him before.) here read my explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Rick_Norwood_reported_by_Tales23_.28Result:_.29 --Tales23 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That link doesn't work, so I will point you toward WP:Consensus instead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The link now should be this. — neuro(talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cerejota

    Discuss at the talk page, other wise, you are a vandal. :D--Cerejota (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    All I'm asking is a warning to this user who sent me this kind message minutes after being asked to read WP:VAN and WP:NPA.
    NOTE: I answered him on the talk page of the article 20 minutes before he sent the above message. Squash Racket (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warn him if you want and then report him to WP:AIV. If you are being ridiculous, you could get blocked though. I don't see what's the issue, since I am not in the mood to try to guess the underlying fight at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or wherever. I'm guessing it's over his removal of your subheading which doesn't seem like an issue to me (if you are responding to his section, why create a new section?). How about you actually discuss it at the talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, I was notified by Ricky here, not by Squash Racket: extremely bad form to forum fish without informing people. The history of my talk, Squash Racket talk and the article is all there. *yawn*--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I was here, Squash left me another gift: [62]. Ricky (or someone), can you block him for 24 to calm down? Its stalky. Thanks.--Cerejota (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He is revert warring while editing my comment which is also NOT allowed here as far as I know.
    I guess "forum fishing" means posting on many forums. where else did I report you? False accusation?
    He called me a "vandal" with zero reason (per WP:VAN) and added a smilie right after being warned. If that's a non-issue, forget it. Squash Racket (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As ricky said, you should have replied in the existing thread - refracting is not vandalism as anyone will tell you. Nor is doing a bunch of consecutive ocnsensus edits for MoS 3RR or edit warring. Nor is consolidating tags reversion. Forum shopping means stead of talking it out with me or on the talk page, you come here to try and get me banned. And the consensus is that edits such as yours are vandalism. --Cerejota (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If we have a small debate over the proper tag, that's fine. I did answer you on the talk page. The problem arised when you called me a vandal and added a smilie on my talk (please don't tell me that is totally acceptable on Wikipedia).
    "get me banned" - I asked for a warning here, please read my comment and stop misrepresenting it. You added a section title on the talk page (with my name highlighted) that made it seem like I changed a tag on the article without discussion. No. Fact is, someone else changed the tag that originally I inserted. Squash Racket (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Squash, I'm going to tell you right now. Drop it and go discuss the real issue at the talk page. I don't care about this distraction and if you keep bringing it up, I'm going to block you. Cerejota, don't call people vandals, until they are actually vandalizing. You should have stopped refactoring after he reverted it. One time, fine. He reverts because he disagrees, fine. Both of you, leave it alone. Leave it for someone else if they think it should be refactored. Two minor issues and everyone just keep escalating for the fun of WP:DRAMA, it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Its on my watch list since leik 2005. ;) Yeah I agree I should have dropped the refract and let someone else do it. But I was channeling consensus from the talk page when I called him a vandal (there was another user doing the same tag thing). Ok, I go to my room now... :D--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The other user removed it, because "who's to say what is a dispute" and didn't add anything instead.
    I drop the issue, the tag may remain, just stop the personal attacks and the arrogant edit summaries despite the warning on your talk page. That's all I was asking here. Squash Racket (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then say so, in the talk page. No need to "escalate". --Cerejota (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I DID say so in your talk page, I received an attack despite that a few minutes later. Squash Racket (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You both need a block of 24 hours to calm down — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User|Tales23 again

    Tales23 (talk · contribs)

    If you look at this diff [63] for Euclid's Elements, you will see that Tales23 has taken part of an edit by NittyG (talk · contribs) and created an article from it, Uclides. NittyG has asked Tales23 to delete it (see Tales23's talk page), but of course he can't. At the moment Tales23 is a few hours into a 12 hour block, his second this week. Looking at some of his comments here, 3RR, the Logic talk page, etc., he needs a bit of a clue. dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I am wrong, but how can anything posted in an article on Wikipedia be plagerized? How can it be plagerism to take part of another article and make a new one? I am not commenting on the value of the article, whether it is accurate or should remain, but only NittyG's comment about plagerism. I was under the assumption that there was essentially no such thing as plagerism in using things posted on Wikipedia in other parts of Wikipedia, since no one owns what they contribute, and by contributing you waive all rights to the work as your own. Am I missing something? Theseeker4 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't allowed, but for the different reason that cutting and pasting other people's work between articles violates the GFDL since the author isn't attributed in the edit history. (see help page). If he'd added a link to the source article that would not be a problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, TS4, but none of what you have just said is correct at all. People are still credited for their contributions, and must receive attribution. — neuro(talk) 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on thar. Since when do individual editors retain any kind of "ownership" or "copyright" or "credit" for their work here? As an example, an article about a baseball club might be getting a bit long, and the history portion might be spun off into a separate article and the main article correspondingly shortened. There's no "credit" connected with any of that. Once you write something here, it belongs to everyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update EdJohnston proposed a deletion of the Uclides wiki, stateing its a fork of Euclid wiki. Well as ther eis currently no mentioning of Uclides i wait for further discussions. Also i cite the reference and i will improve the wiki if nessassary. Or what i think would be best if we can sort this out in the Euclid or more Euclids Elements - there is already a discussion going on for some time about the wiki name, basicly it should be just Elements - is the minor suggestion as far i can tell. --Tales23 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion is going on above, too. — neuro(talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A note to Baseball Bugs - people do retain attributive rights for their work. — neuro(talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Something I think most editors do not understand. There is a lot of copy and paste from one article to another with no attribution, is there a way we can make clearer what we expect? dougweller (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be fair, we bend the rules all the time, like when we use the subst function. There is a different between what is an ideal actuality and what actually occurs. — neuro(talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Once someone posts some text, it is subject to change by anyone else. There is no practical way for any one editor to retain any "rights" of any kind to what was written. In fact, I've been on here 4 years and this is the first time I've ever heard this cockamamie notion. I would very much like to see what specific policy is being cited in support of this idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template loop

    Resolved
     – Second template deleted, appears to be done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to edit (i.e., try to salvage) Template:Infobox choir, which is currently unused, but there's some kind of conflict (loop) with Template:Choir infobox, which can be deleted. Any help appreciated...thank you! --Eustress (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Infobox choir}} currently uses {{Infobox choir}} :). I have deleted the other template since it is unused. I'm guessing you need to use {{infobox}} in your template. Have a look at the documentation and Template:Infobox Person for an example. Good luck! ;) -- lucasbfr talk 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.34.145.54; possible sockpuppet

    Resolved
     – Seems ok so far. — neuro(talk) 14:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to report User:78.34.145.54 who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been banned indefinitely. My assertion is based on a note the user left on his talk page which states "Thanks, but I'm obviously not new to Wikipedia, what with making an edit like this one. Just (currently peacefully) evading an indef block here. Anyway, cheers." Diff for quote: [64]. Terrakyte (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, though kind of a sticking point- an indef block is technically different from a ban, though in practice it frequently isn't. While the IP's admitted to block evasion, it isn't doing anything particularly bad. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would leave this IP alone and watch them closely. They aren't doing anything wrong as of right now. When they start. Hit em with a block. Rgoodermote  15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Real life stalking by Ecoleetage

    Resolved
     – Ecoleetage/Eco2 blocked indefinitely for off-Wikipedia harassment of another user SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a matter of grave importance. Ecoleetage (after I opposed his failed RfA) has contacted the principal of my school, warning him that I am not a fit teacher, and that I've been "playing computer games" on school computers. Eco also claimed that I was stalking him. My principal was very confused, but also very supportive and said he was worried about me. As I make no secret of my identity, it concerns me that Eco is not very stable it seems, and is attempting to hurt me in real life. I am a big boy, and can take care of myself, but I teach many minor children, and their safety is uppermost in my mind. I will no longer be editing the project regularly at all, and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe (Eco's real name, from what I gather) in real life. He needs to be nowhere near myself, my family, or my students. This is a very disconcerting situation, and something needs done straightaway. I think a permaban on Ecoleetage and any account shown to be a sockpuppet of such is a good first step from the project's perspective. This is an absolute first for me. SDJ 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Errr, wow. No comment on the real-life stuff, but as far as Wikipedia goes.. if/when you feel the urge to edit again, you could always retire this account, start up a new one, and tell nobody who you are. Friday (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who supported Eco through his RfA I am incredibly disappointed. Eco's userpage revealed that that is indeed his real name, so I'll affirm that part. I'm only sorry it took this kind of behavior to show me what lies underneath the mask. Agree with permaban and sockpuppet ban; right to vanish/return can sod off. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe. That is not within Wikipedia's discretion. If you feel you need such a thing you should be taking legal advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eco's already retired, so there's no real reason to block his account, though I suppose if we get consensus here, we can consider him de facto banned. Unfortunately, there's no real way to confirm SDJ's statement here. GlassCobra 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, GC?!? I just got out of a meeting with my principal, Mr. Brad Storie, where he spoke with me about this issue. While he was supportive, my own concern, for my minor students especially, led me to post here. Why would I make this up? At what point during the RfA did I do anything to deserve this? SDJ 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense was intended, SDJ, but the need for caution and deliberation is especially great in a situation like this. Hasty actions just exascerbate the situation. GlassCobra 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm restoring the talk page Ecoleetage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for reference. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've informed Ecoleetage about this on his now restored talkpage. I note that he has e-mail activated, so someone should probably send him an e-mail informing him of this discussion as well. D.M.N. (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SDJ, can you explain this? I quote: "I have to request that a crat come in immediately, as per the unacceptable level of drama in this discussion involving SDJ's repeated demands to post off-Wiki material and this posting, with SDJ entertaining a request from Arcayne to send off-Wiki communication" On a side note, this RFA is also being discussed above. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a lie. I asked for permission to post the chats that proved how he acted about WP stuff in chat. He denied that permission. It's as simple as that. Arcayne asked for the logs, and I told him I'd email him explaining the context, but wasn't comfortable posting them. SDJ 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SDJ - is there a way we can get independent confirmation of this incident? Perhaps have Principle Storie e-mail OTRS with explicit permission to share and/or confirm the caller's identity on this thread? I believe you, but its best to have our ducks in a row.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, I recommend wiping and requesting oversight on any personal details you have on-wiki for the time being. Better safe than sorry - the safety of family and students first.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As others have said this is not the appropriate place to discuss off-wiki sanctions. Please have your lawyer or your school's representative contact Wikimedia's office. This kind of thing is best handled privately and with the advice of legal counsel. As for on-wiki sanctions, they are fair game for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon some sort of confirmation, I am more than willing to ban and request a CU of Ecoleetage - this kind of crap doesn't fly and pre-empting any sort of transition to on-wiki harassment is more than fair in a significant incident. That is however, all we can from this end.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a need to verify comments from people (like the principal) or email correspondence, don't overlook OTRS, which may be a useful tool. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As of right now, the last edits by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) were related to his retiring from Wikipedia, so, unless he comes back, there's nothing to do here on Wikipedia. Letting this cool off for a few days seems indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't Eco be indef blocked, "retired" or not? Grsz11 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because blocks are preventative, not punative? Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ecx4 Because while as damning as this appears, we only have hearsay... do I believe the allegations? Yes. Can we prove them? Not without the actual email/communications, which past precident says we don't have access to unless both sides agree.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please e-mail OTRS to verify the comments, as others have indicated. We can move forward once we receive more in-depth information. SJ, do you want your userpage to be deleted for the time being? Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon the statemement by Rgoodermote, I believe that blocking Ecoloeetage, and checkusering his account to identify any potential socks is justified. Be aware Rgoodermote, that if you've share any personal info with him, he will find you. I spent the last half hour talking to an assistant administrator here, but Mr. Storie had already left for the day, as has his secretary who took the initial call, and was concerned about it as well. We have a long weekend, so email confirmation would take until Tuesday at least. Perhaps Rgoodermote's note above can serve as enough confirmation, at least for now? I'm very concerned now, both for my privacy, but also for my safety. SDJ 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, since someone complained about you in real life, that justifies criticizing them on Wikipedia, running them through CU, etc, even though your initial entry violates NLT? NLT was created so that off line problems stay off wikipedia. It should not be dragged back onto it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, Ottava? He didn't like that I opposed his RfA, so he tries to get me fired, and you're okay with that? As for NLT, I was basically asking for advice on how to procede to make certain myself, my family, and my minor students were safe. You have no idea how much this has escalated. SDJ 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was a judge at your hearing for whatever you would want to press against him, sure, I would probably grant you it. However, Wikipedia is not a legal recourse. If there is an issue about legal matters, OTRS is the only thing that is acceptable. NLT was designed for just this kind of thing, and you are lucky that there is enough sympathy about (or, just no really really gutsy admin about) that you aren't indeffed until it is settled as per the letter of NLT. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be daft. No way would any admin that wanted to keep their bit block under NLT in these circumstances. tsk. Spartaz Humbug! 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No shit. Ottava, when you wonder why people don't like you and have supported bans against you, this is the shit that causes it. Ecoleetage has admitted what he did, so what further proof is needed? Get a clue about things. When your Wikirage leads to real world harrassment, and calling to complain to a person's boss and put their career in jeopardy with who knows what sort of allegations, you have given up all rights to ever edit wikipedia with community acceptance ever again. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous, Ottava. We've had an editor rightfully stunned by a real-world attack on him (that's been admitted by the other party), and your response is to threaten him on legal grounds? Is that how wikipedia protects its editors? Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "threaten him on legal grounds". Clearly, NLT stands for "no legal threats". Your comments appear as absurd as ThuranX's above, and it seems to suggest that you did not actually read what I stated.Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what I stated, Spartaz, you would see that I made it clear that no admin -would- block, but that the actions were completely wrong and ANI is not the place for such thing. We have OTRS specifically for dealing with such things if anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also supported Eco and his RfA bid. Of course, all I was able to judge him on were his efforts and contributions to the project, and am saddened by the controversy and scandle. In the hopes for a peace to come out of this, I wish the best to all involved... the supporters, the opposers, the neutrals... and everyone who reads this discussion in future archives. What a shame. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Eco - more evidence of the broken RfA process

    I apologized to Husond on his talk page earnestly, but to me, this is more evidence of the broken RfA system, where accusations are made that nobody else can verify, but that surely would have had a baring on my dogged support of Eco (who confirmed to me privately he did what he is accused of). But seriously - when the hell are we going to fix this system so that people don't over-oppose, and when they have valid strong opposes, the rest of us can judge them? Nobody has come out of this episode smelling great, and I personally feel hurt and betrayed. Stupid RfA process - how can we have a website of super smart people who are so dumb in how they elect the people to run it? --David Shankbone 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please sorry to see Ecoleetage great contributor one of the few from Mozambique and actually his RFA had not failed it was clearly in the discretion area at worst when he withdraw due to the drama rather than it failing as the tally was in his side 119/28/3 sad to good contributor leave due to conflicts and it would extremely harsh to block Ecoleetage a noted contributor without any prior block without getting his version of the events .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eco already confirmed to me in an e-mail he called the employer. How would you like your employer contacted because you opposed someone's RfA? --David Shankbone 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you somehow verify these allegations? From personal experience, I can totally understand if you are unwilling to share real world stalking issues on-wiki, but are you willing to off-wiki present evidence to any trusted admins who can vouche for you on wiki? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eco here as an intentional sock, because David got the message wrong. I contacted SDJ's principal, only to complain of harassment that I was receiving from him via Wiki. I am NOT stalking him, nor do I have any desire to be in touch with him again. Please delete/protect/block/ban whatever -- I am not returning. Eco2 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't block editors at their own request. Sorry. The X button at the top of your broswer is they way forward, at least for the moment. Bad times. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But we do block editors who harass other users off-Wikipedia, and then sock to come back and argue about it. Blocked this sock, and will block the main account as soon as I stop edit conflicting. SirFozzie (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SirFozzie. What's most upsetting is his sock's rationale - if he was being stalked on-wiki, he should have come here. This was just disgusting revenge. --David Shankbone 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block I recommend SDJ escalates this issue to the appropriate authorities.--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    :::: until we have some form of confirmation - I'll take a confession from a sock who could be anyone as holding very little value. If those sorts of statements come from the main account (which he still have access to?).. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Cameron. Can a checkuser confirm that the sock account is actually Eco and not someone impersonating him, which has of course happened in the past? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA-specific discussion more properly belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Friday (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • To David (Shankbone). I'm confused by your post: are you saying that it's no wonder that Ecoleetage's frustration about his RfA led him to this and that a smoother RfA process would have prevented it?!? I for one am relieved that RfA filters out madmen. If there's any lesson about RfA, it's that people aren't participating responsibly. There was a lot of evidence that Ecoleetage was prone to destructive outbursts but he was very good at making friends (in particular off-wiki) and that was enough for him to quickly garner over a hundred supports despite past incidents that should have disqualified him. What just happened to SDJ is tragic and unacceptable but I hope that those who supported Ecoleetage's RfA will reflect on the fact that they almost made that guy an admin by ignoring all the red flags. (And just for safety I'll sign that comment with an alternate account. Can't be too careful...) Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pichpich: No, my point was that this spiraled out of control because people wanted evidence for allegations that were not obvious to on-wiki, and had that evidence been presented (I eventually asked for just one diff), it could have helped all of us make a better decision. Against this backdrop is an RfA community that finds one momentary lapse in judgment a reason to pile on the opposes. Some of us see that, so we start to react in the other direction, defending editors against unsupported and strong allegations with no supporting evidence (such as here). Many of us feel the RfA system is broken for one reason or another. A strange confluence of events created this horrible situation, but most to blame is the system itself, and that we appear to be unwilling to fix (go figure). If you'd like another user's eloquent statement of the problem, here's a diff. --David Shankbone 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. Nevertheless, I think it's important to realize that not all lapses in judgement are created equal. Forget allegations, the documented past incidents should have been enough for everybody to take pause. We're not talking about a botched CSD nomination or a crappy rationale for a non-free image. The encounters with AniMate and SDJ should have been a deal-breaker for everyone and yet those diffs were met by "out of his thousands of edits, he had 13 bad ones". The biggest problem with RfA is not its structure, it's its participants: people make friends, give each other barnstars (see e.g. this, kid around on irc and then decide that, hey, why should threatening to derail an RfA be a problem? I don't want to single you out David, actually, you seem genuinely interested in understanding how we can avoid such fuck-ups. But I wish people would stop whining about how disappointed they are by Eco and start thinking about why the disturbing incidents didn't stop them from giving him enthusiastic support. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Permanent community ban on Ecoleetage. He's acquiesced to this already, but in order to prevent a 'wait wait i was mad' apology and some puddingheaded admin letting him in again, we need to ban him. This sort of episode cannot be allowed a chance for repetition. this sort of behavior constitutes a clear and present danger to the core community structure of the project, and there can be zero tolerance for attempts to escalate such behaviors to the real world, ever. No slipper slopes of 'it was only call' to ' it was only shouting at him in person' to 'it was only thrown at his feet'. No harassment, of any sort, ever. ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations of real-world harassment

    Please forward evidence and details concerning any acts of grave real world-harassment, such as communications with employers, to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. In general, it is not helpful to have extensive discussion of such matters take place on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • How do I do this, Brad? I can forward you logs from the previous time I opposed his RfA, as well as those from what led up to me opposing from last night. I'm just not sure what steps to take. And as I said above, Mr. Storie had already left for the day when I went up to the front office, so I can't get official email confirmation of the meeting he and I had regarding Eco's accusations until Tuesday at the earliest. SDJ 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already asked a member of the Arbitration Committee to have a CheckUser done to confirm this. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy crap this change's the way I feel about eco now, Just to think I got blocked for kind of sticking up for him just shows how stupid I am. I now believe the outcome of his RfA is totally justified now. To be honest I have thought of Eco as a loose cannon but gave him the benefit of the doubt. I could have opposed for the Animate saga (I played a part in that) but like to see the good side of people. The problem is Wikipedia user's are just as anonymous as IP's because no really knows who anyone is. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this until we find out.intraining Jack In - (posting from an IP cause im blocked) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.13 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed User:Eco2 is who he says he is. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering Eco/Eco2 has been indeffed, we can wait until Tuesday or later for evidence to come forward. It's not like we're disarming a nuclear weapon at the planet's core here- with apologies to SDJ, is there any point to further discussion right now? Even if that evidence is never submitted, it seems pretty likely that Eco is now and will remain de facto banned- i.e., no admin would be willing to unblock. I further recommend that everyone involved here take a moment to resume their calm. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion and potential oversight of my userpage

    I'm considering disappearing this account, but in the meantime I think the least that should happen is that I should have my userpage deleted and oversighted, and my username changed to the less identifiable "SDJ", which I've been signing as lately anyway. The reason I have not dealt with this is in the last several hours is twofold: 1) I was really freaked out, and took some time away fromt he keyboard to chill with some friends and watch a movie; and 2) my connection at the house is completely shot now. I'm at a friend's house, and will be leaving shortly, which is why I'm leaving the request for deletion/oversight here instead of going through the formal channels. I authorize any admin to request oversight of my userpage for me. Someone please just get it done very quickly. I will make a decision within twenty four hours if I wish to disappear this account, and start with a new one, which I would identify to the appropriate channels. Thanks to all who have helped me at various points through this debacle. I have never been through something this disconcerting to my real life based upon totally non-real life activities. Regards, SDJ 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just my .02 (shared with a couple people as well, and they said it sounded reasonable). I don't see any problem with deleting talk and user pages for privacy reasons, but oversighting the whole page is probably a non starter for technical and proceedural reasons. Wikipedia cannot be responsible for stuffing the genie of freely revealed information back into the lamp, and the sheer # of revs needed for oversight is probably a bad idea as well. I am cognizant of the privacy issues, however and encourage SDJ to start a new account away from the existing one. It's probably best to let one or more of the Arbitration Commitee members know the new account. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to say I'm sorry to SDJ. This is a terrible situation, and one I potentially could have and in hindsight probably should have prevented. Eco's explanation about the threat he left on my talk page in regards to my then upcoming RfA was clearly false. I knew it and chose to accept it for political reasons. Since Eco had been so supportive of my RfA, I also chose to remain silent on his, though I haven't been very active because of work and an upcoming move. Seeing an unfit candidate passing RfA, SDJ posted something I not only considered posting, but had actually typed up and decided to think about some more. I dropped the ball on this, and hope you don't have any more harassment from this clearly unstable user. I'm taking this situation as a lesson in speaking my mind, especially when what I say won't be popular. Sorry.AniMatetalk 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SDJ-you'll probably have to task a trusted admin to dig through your history and e-mail oversight exactly which revs you need oversighted, or have an OS you trust do it directly. Sorry we can't do more, I'll bug I 'crat about the name change if I see one.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After private discussion with SDJ, all of the relevant issues here have been addressed. For the record, the pages involved were not oversighted, as they do not meet the criteria for oversight and, once the reasons were explained, SDJ understood that. He has asked me to express his appreciation for the support from so many members of the community. I have extended to him best wishes for the future and assured him that, should he wish, the door will be open to him to return to the project under a username of his choosing. He has agreed to let a member of the Arbitration Committee know of any new username he selects to smooth the path for a return. Risker (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ←In my previous, more hostile confrontations with Felipe, as noted in his RfA support, he placed effort into finding out details about me, and trying to talk over the phone which I did not feel comfortable with. In recent times I truly believed he had left this behaviour behind, as we were on good terms, but sadly it seems this is not the case. The case detailed above is extremely serious, and it's clear that SDJ isn't making it up. I don't know if the OTRS has been done yet, but if not, I fully endorse a community-wide ban of Felipe. I'm saddened, however, that it's come to this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask (general question I guess) if Ecoleetage was "trying to find out details about others" off-Wiki before this incident, why wasn't he blocked indefinitely earlier? D.M.N. (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because simply requesting details is not an offence, on or off wiki. As a one-off, I did not view his behavior as worrying, merely confusing; and, like so many others, when he apologised after realising what it would do to his RfA, I took that apology and tried to make a fresh start. It is only when you bring all of these cases together that the worrying nature of Felipe's behavior truly becomes noticable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally concur. In my case I may have been lucky enough to be a Scorpio, whom they say do not forget neither the good nor the evil actions of others. I too accepted his apologies and started fresh once, but from the moment he backstabbed me he could be rest assured I would never believe him again. His attempts to bring me back to his pool of supporters were futile, but at least I got some of my stubs expanded. Húsönd 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum-type chat on article talk pages.

    In accordance with point 4 of WP:FORUM and {{notaforum}}, I twice removed clearly inappropriate discussion Talk:US Airways Flight 1549. Was I right to do so? BillCJ (talk · contribs) has twice reverted me, as discussed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is my understanding that non-admins can only remove outright vandalism, trolling, and such from article talk pages, or extreme cases of forum talk. The items that were removed were relevant to the ariticle, including a question about where the plane would be taken and if it would go back in service, and some examples of when accident planes were restored to service. Also, the animal righters have been making noise in some news outlets about the animals being left in the plane, so that is legitimate too, if nothing else to determine whetther it should be covered in the aritcle or not. Yes, they do stray off-topic a bit, but these were all removed whole, not that any peace-meal removal should have taken place either. The no-forum tag is there to keep the fan-people from going too far astray, which was not the case here. My apologies for being snippy on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins' rights and responsibilities are no different to other editors in this (and many other) regard. None of the edits I removed discussed changes to the article. Apologies accepted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sections in question were not related to improving the article. They were mostly speculation and opinion. Andy's removals were appropriate - being current headline news, the article and the talk page are receiving a lot of attention right now, and I think he exercised great restraint in that many more comments could be removed for the same reasons, although those two sections were the worst offenders. There's no special editing privileges that only admins have, except editing fully protected pages, and this one is not protected in that way. – jaksmata 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The two discussions deleted and reverted do have some relevance to article and apart from a few daft comments probably not bad enough to be deleted, probably more appropriate just to archive with Template:Discussion top and Discussion bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that is type speculation is relevant. If you find a WP:RS for what you are thinking add the thought and cite to the article. No need to use the talk page as a forum. 16x9 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ←This partisan comment is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally speaking, if someone asks a question about a topic (rather than the article) on the talk page, it's more polite to move it to the Reference desk and leave a link. Frequently I see people answer questions and follow up with something to the effect of "but I answered just this once, please use the reference desk in the future." I also sometimes leave OR on the talk page for a while just in case it turns out some other editor is familiar with it and it's not OR after all. Dcoetzee 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I see it, the initial questions 'Were pets lost in the hold?' and 'How will the plane be recovered?' are legitimate questions, prodding editors to review news sources for information. The responses, however, seem mostly of the forumish variety, except for a few about cranes and costs. I think that everything after the initial pet question could've been cut, replaced with a reminder that this is not a forum, and you haven't seen any news mention, but if someone finds it, please add it. With the other, you could have steered the conversation back on track by asking if anyone had found sources that any of the mentioned methods would be used. I think you went too far, but I could AGF the problem, and hope both sides do. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs and admins have precisely the same rights as non-admin editors to remove offtopic talk page discussions. It is just not usually worth the arguing that always happens when discussions are removed (there will almost always be someone complaining about censorship) unless the offtopic discussions make it difficult to use the talk page for its intended purpose of discussing article improvement. In the case at hand, this doesn't seem to be a fight worth fighting. Kusma (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needless drama. One question should be directed to the ref desk, and one is just plain silly and can be archived manually. Neither helps develop the article, so neither has any need to be on the current talk page at all. Adding the "not a forum" tag is clearly perfectly reasonable, it can be added to any talk page uncontroversially as it is descriptive of the consensus regarding talk pages and is not specific to any one page. There is, as noted above, no restriction on who may and may not handle such matters, though in general it's best for uninvolved parties to do it. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When in doubt, don't remove the discussion - as people have said above, just steer it in the right direction, or archive it after a few days if it's dead. No harm done; can't run out of paper on discussion pages... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and meatpuppetry on g-force

    Can I get some help with HDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and with Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has been abundant discussion on Talk:G-force where the facts of the matter have been overwhelming proven regarding two points of fact (regarding how a unit symbol is written in the real world, and regarding how gravity is an acceleration that accelerometers respond to). Other editors have weighted in to point this out. Yet Wolfkeeper continues to ignore and edit against consensus and slap {fact} tags on points that have been clearly proven. He is in violation of WP:POINT. The end result is to have assertions of fact that simply don’t match the real world nor fundamental physics.

    Further, the other editor,HDP, only recently jumped in with the very same edits and has made only a minimal, facade of an effort to discuss issues on the talk page. The end result appears to be a concerted effort to employ a meatpuppet in order to circumvent 3RR violations.

    Further, Wolfkeeper has long been *citing* a Canadian government manual of style for justifying what he is doing. When another editor pointed out (by using Google Book) that the manual of style seems to say no such thing, Wolfkeeper conveniently ignores this inconvenient truth. We’ve repeatedly asked that he cite just where in that manual it supposedly says what he says is there, but he refuses to do so. Based on our searches in the Google Book view, and our utter inability to find anything in the book that says what Wolfkeeper asserts it allegedly says, we can only conclude that the citation is an error or a fabrication. But his refusal to address the subject leads us to conclude that he perceives no need whatsoever to demonstrate that citations actually say what he says they do. This citation is fundamental to his position since it would be the only leg he has to stand on since the evidence regarding the real-world practice is overwhelming.

    There also appears to be a troubling pattern here with this editor. He has ignored this advise on his talk page regarding editwarring, and there is this recent complaint about editing against consensus without discussion on yet another article.

    I ask that both editors be advised on these matters, as well pointing out that circumventing expected conduct via a meat puppet is also not allowed. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In fact you have only flimsy facts! Fact is that g in physics books for university grade prove that g should wrote italic (lowerchase) to avoid confusion. --HDP (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg_L's called me over to that article and has been attacking me, assuming bad faith, and ridiculing me more or less like this ever since, and he has been systematically removing citation flags. That's it really. Maybe he should try decaff or something, I don't know/care.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of you seem to be addressing my points about POV-pushing without citations, and meatpuppetry to engage in tendentious editing. You seem to be trying to justify your violation of rules by citing fictitious references. So…

      Fine, let’s briefly talk facts. You will now note my references here (references 1, 2, and 3). They are indisputable and highly authoritative. I have cited the SI-using European Space Agency, the BIPM (the people behind the SI), NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a world-wide manufacturer of accelerometers, a Australian distributor of accelerometers, and others. If you would like me to take an extra moment or two, I can also cite the world-wide, preeminent weekly periodical, Aviation Week & Space Technology, which has advertisements for missile systems and fighter planes and is directed to governments and industry leaders throughout the world. The practice of Av-Week too, is lowercase, roman g, as in “a 9 g turn.” How do I know this? I subscribe to it (really really—not like your “Canadian government manual of style” reference).

      Now, what does any of this have to do with tendentious editing and breaking rules of conduct here??? Just because you think you are right (but can’t prove your point with a single, authoritative, verifiable citation; particularly since the one you had cited all this time didn’t say what you alleged it to have said all these years), is no justification for breaking rules. As I noted above, you seem to be making this sort of behavior a standard practice on other articles lately and ticking off other editors—including the part where you bypass the requirement of explaining yourself on article talk pages. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider your position to be actually untrue on all major points here, and I did in fact give a major reference to a well regarded textbook (Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton) and this has been verified by other users, and is still a valid reference that is contrary to your position. I also challenge, and I continue to deny that your ESA reference is valid in this context for technical reasons, but the other 2 you give are certainly valid. One reference to a Canadian style guide that was used in good faith over a period of time that was suggested by another user, when we were able to check it did not seem to support this particular usage as a reference, but this cannot really be considered truly 'fictitious', and its removal is certainly fair enough. I do find your abrasive, insulting, and intemperate disposition and incredible bad faith is to be deeply regretted in an editor of the wikipedia and to be, in every way, not conducive to a pleasant or productive atmosphere, and this ANI is part of this pattern of behaviour you exhibit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also add this evidence of Wolfkeeper’s tendentious editing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: [65]. He now deleted an important reference he apparently found *inconvenient*. If admins really want to get into content issues to see what is underlying this, see ESA: GOCE, Basic Measurement Units, Gravity, g. The citation is absolutely clear and the European Space Agency is indisputably authoritative and is an SI-using entity. The citation speaks straight to the heart of the issue. Yet Wolfkeeper deleted the citation after earlier complaining about a lack of citations. This is inexcusable and makes improving articles an exasperating experience no one should have to tolerate. I request an immediate block for tendentious editing and disruption. Greg L (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but removal of challenged references is a normal part of the wikipedia, you simply reinserting it and claiming, ranting really, that you're right and everyone else is inherently wrong is not productive or useful either. There was another reference that also supported that fact, and was not challenged or removed, so it's unclear why you really care about this one particular reference to the degree you apparently do- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    * I think you can mark this as resolved—at least with regard to Wolfkeeper. Although he wasn’t exactly *contrite*, and while inviting me to do something that isn’t generally considered to be physically possible, he indicated (∆ here) that he is “gone”, which I take to mean that he won’t be causing any more problems. Greg L (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is worth pointing out that comments about Wolfkeeper's behaviour have also been made by different users on a different subject at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Glider edit abuse and 3rr avoidance JMcC (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO probably not, as that was raised by me to do with your behaviour Jmcc150.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And calling him a pest is civil… how? Short version: knock it off, both of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eva Peron, again

    The issue of reference to the musical Evita in the lede of Eva Peron, which has already been to ANI once, and which involves breaches of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and especially WP:OWN, is still not resolved. I have attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but the other editor involved, Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) now apparently editing as an anon (140.211.64.148 (talk · contribs), 140.211.112.230 (talk · contribs)), keeps reverting me, without using the talk page - indeed, without even using edit sumamries (though that's probably an improvement over his use of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned" as the sum total of a comment there). Further dispute resolution attempts therefore seem futile. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you should stop deleting referenced information that seems perfectly suited to be in the lede. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you might read the talk page discussion? I've explained why I think that text should be removed; invited discussion; and waited for days at a time for a response. The other editor simply reverts, almost immediately, with no comments. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read your argument, and do not find it compelling, but I agree that the IP editor should discuss it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ← The disputed section has been reverted, twice, with an edit summary apparently in Spanish. The second revert came after the reverting editor was asked in an edit summary to refer to the talk page, where they have as yet made no comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the person who reverted twice without discussion, and will do so to anyone else who reverts without discussion. I've had enough. --barneca (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I been a jerk?

    Resolved
     – Discussion moved to WP:AN#Have I been a jerk?. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I recently came into some conflict with an Admin (and Member of the Mediation Committee), User:Tariqabjotu, over the inclusion of a picture of a 5 month old very badly burned dead Palestinian girl on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Tariq said that the photo was sensationalist and should have been removed for that reason. [67] [68] I pressed him on the issue on his talk page asking for a specific policy.[69] His response that that "mere words were incomprehensible to [me]" took me somewhat by surprise. [70] I believe his comment was in reference to an argument I had made before that the photo should be kept. In that argument I used three capitalized words followed by exclamation marks: "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" [71] Tariqabjotu responded that I was being a "jerk". [72]. He then accused me of "making up your own comment and then responding to that". [73] He also made a comment that I found somewhat insulting to User:Sean.hoyland who had agreed with me on the matter.[74] I asked for an apology but so far have not received one. [75] (1) Am I being a jerk? (Possibly by making a big thing out of this by bringing it to Admin noticeboard?) (2) Was my comment defending the photo out of line? (3) Has Tariqabjotu crossed the line? Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Really unnecessary. If you want some personal feedback, start an editor review. If you want to continue the dispute, that's happening on the talk page. If you want to advance the dispute to another step, there's dispute resolution. Either way, there's no reason for admin intervention here. -- tariqabjotu 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see. An apology would be nice though.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AN and not AN/I is the appropriate place to place such concerns about Admin behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll move this discussion there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing‎ and Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing‎

    I was advised to bring this situation here after posting it to WP:EAR:

    Oh, the ironing of it all!
    Background

    In WP:TE, editor Colonel Warden made a revert (18:36, 13 January 2009), undoing my own edit 04:21, 10 January 2009 and a new shortcut added by Inclusionist. Colonel Warden's edit summary indicated he objected to the new shortcut.

    I reverted Colonel Warden's edit 19:00, 13 January 2009 , requesing that he join the discussions on the talk page.

    His response was to start a new discussion 20:12, 13 January 2009 without addressing the actual discussion on the edits he was reverting here or the related discussion here.

    I found his response to be a personal attack that did not actually address the merits of the information he restored, so removed the attack and left an uw-npa1 note on his talk page 20:30, 13 January 2009 .

    At issue

    Since then, two WP:SPA ip's have begun editing Wikipedia. Their sole edits to date are identical other than the edit summaries, and consist of restoring Colonel Warden's edits to both the article and the talk page. I've reverted these edits, and warned both ip's about our WP:NPA policy.

    Since I requested for help on this at WP:EAR, another ip address has reverted (22:21, 16 January 2009) WP:TE, this time without an edit summary, while still another ip has reverted (of 22:26, 16 January 2009) the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (God, I love irony...) HalfShadow 22:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I'm not going to add, "Uses sockpuppetry to edit war and harass other editors" to WP:TE, if that's what you're thinking ;^) --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I meant; you have someone edit-warring at a page about edit-warring. HalfShadow 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the IP's in question are Tor nodes, and have been blocked as such. Given that there's clearly an attempt to sway the article using IP socks, I've gone ahead and semiprotected it for 3 days, which should make things more manageable. MastCell Talk 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being disgusted by Ronz's behaviour in removing my talk page comment, I walked away from the article but made reference to the matter here. As Casliber has many correspondents, it may be that other editors have taken an interest in the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did someone mention irony? --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    93.81.182.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another tor node that has reverted the talk page--Ronz (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Threw it towards an overeager Heavy. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, but look, isn't this sweet? No only did those nasty anonymous IPs revert the removal of Colonel Warden's edits without his permission and knowledge, now we have an anonymous IP that is one minute kindly requesting Colonel Warden's help and the next minute kindly archiving Colonel Warden's talk page([76][77][78][79]). The amount of unsolicited help that Colonel Warden gets from these completely independent anonymous editors is unbelievable in every sense of the word, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass move of films with Spanish titles

    Resolved
     – (I think - see comment below.) Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NWill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be mass-moving articles on films with Spanish titles to their English title. This came to my attention when he or she moved Michael Powell's Luna de Miel – a film made in Spain, with Spanish funding, and released there first – to its UK-release name Honeymoon (ignoring its American-release name The Lovers of Turuel). Whether the other films he or she has moved are being moved to translations of the Spanish name or to actual release names, I don't know, but all these moves are being done without discussion, and as far as I can tell without consensus.

    In the case of Luna de Miel, it's been requested that the article be moved back, but it's been pointed out to me that the editor has been here since 2005, has made 25,000+ edits, and yet has never posted to a user talk page, including his or her own – so I'm not optimistic about getting a response. Also, the editor's talk page is full of notices about orphaned images and AfDs, which gives me pause.

    Can someone look into this and determine if this editor's actions and unwillingness to communicate are beneficial to the project, and if their moves need to be reverted? I've notified WikiProject Films and its Spanish Cinema task force, but I think this is going to need adminstrator action. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What a mess. I hate it when people do stuff like this with no explanation before, and none to come after. These need moved back, and I'll probably start a few now. Grsz11 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My lack of knowledge of romance languages is showing: at least some of the films have Italian titles, not Spanish. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It worse than that - a quick glance reveals that many of the films he is moving, (as far as I can tell)were never released overseas, so he'd translating the title and moving the article to that title - but that's original research and misleading because the film was never released under that name. If he persists and will not communicate, he should be blocked - his actions are actively damaging the reliability of articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned the user that they need to discuss before acting further. A lack of communication is not helpful at all and creating a ton of work for others is really not appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's times like these when we need a tool less strong than a block, like limiting edits to 1 every minute or two or moves to a few an hour or a few a day. Throttling people who are making unintentionally-disruptive edits will get their attention yet still allow them to contribute. Should I throw this idea out at WP:PUMP or is it unnecessary? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through the move log of User:NWill, it seems as if they've made a fair number of questionable moves in the past. The editor seems rather obsessed with awards, and has moved the titles of a number of awards, changing "TV" in a title, for instance into "Television", or changing an award name from "...Television Series (hyphen) Drama" to "... (hyphen) Television Series Drama". I don't see any particular system behind the changes, nor do I know if the editor was moving things into compliance with policy or out of it. I do know that they've moved these awards away from their actual real-world title into something different. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't look extensively, although now I suspect I should have, as I've recently come across some awards links that suddenly go to a redirect. He moved Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role - Motion Picture to "Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Female Actor - Motion Picture" with no explanation. The problem was, the first title is the correct name of the award, not the one to which he moved it. I fixed this one, but I haven't ventured in any further because it gives me a headache just thinking about doing it. This is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) He did the same with a German film and a series of French films. Gwen has reverted most of these. Dr.K. logos 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope this unilateral campaign stops. Thanks Gwen. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    I'm new to this issue, but it's an area that interests me so I'll be following this user's edits. They seem to have stopped the foreign language moves (at least temporarily). -AKeen (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots more in the history. I've fixed everything back to 15 April 2008 (Sobreviviré) so far, but I'm going out for a while now. Anyone feels like fixing anything before that, be my guest. Note that you probably won't have to fix fair-use rationales in infoboxes, because NWill didn't change them. However, I have removed spurious non-free images where I found them (i.e. two different DVD covers, screencaps from the film that are there for decoration, etc). Black Kite 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh and if you do have a go at this, remember to fix the leads! NWill changed them from "Foreignlanguagefilmtitle (English: Englishtitle)" to the opposite. The article's lead in should always match its title. Black Kite 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he seems to have changed all the leads. I fixed a few but not all. How odd, I dare say how very careless, he moved these articles to his own, straight (or "literal") title translations (this almost always being the wrong thing to do, since title translations are more often than not heavily tweaked, or given other names altogether, following what is thought to be most fit for a given market), while the true UK/US/English release title was already in the lead. This is where the paths of utter heedlessness and vandalism/disruption meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the English "translations" were clearly wrong as well. I'm going to try and clear any remaining ones up now. Black Kite 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If there were some that he redirected to an English title, despite the film never being released in English, then the redirects from the made-up English title to the article need deleted. Grsz11 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK. I think I've reverted everything that needed to be, and I've deleted all the spurious redirects. I've left them in place where there were multiple incoming links, though. I think we can mark this resolved? (I will also keep an eye on the editor from now on). Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is resolved. Good work Black Kite finalising this. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    On the issue of fixing the leads, wouldn't it be simpler to just restore the pages to the states they were in before they were moved? You would need to check that there had been no subsequent good-faith edits to the pages, but as far as I can tell that was the case.
    —David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Grsz11, Gwen Gale and Black Kite for their work on getting this mess cleaned up -- what an odd editor! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    strange IP edits

    Please see the recent changes to User_talk:24.180.23.135, and note the early deleted revs. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I politely asked what he was doing, and was quickly reverted. Seems like it will eventually be pointy. Dayewalker (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Funky. I've notified the IP of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the IP has removed the notice. But that's its only edit in about 10 hours. Awfully weird behavior. I'm not entirely sure what the IP's user talk is supposed to be- it looks kinda like WP:RFPP but I don't think any of those protections ever took place. And I'm not sure what Dungcamed, an indeffed user, has to do with all this, but a link to his talkpage is on every line. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still at it. Not sure what he's doing, but he's not building an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User page wandered into mainspace

    Resolved
     – Pages moved back. — neuro(talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Looking at Eugene Krabs contributions, it is apparent that he has stranded his userpage in mainspace, and us lowly non-admin types can't fix it for him. Seems to be a newbie playing with the move tools.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like all his inappropriate moves have been reverted. An admin has move-protected his User talk. I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked that all his moves were undone and cleaned up (deleted) redirects left in mainspace. I figure move protection of his user pages is pretty benign as only 'crats can officially do renames. I have no problems with removing the move protection if others think it inappropriate. --NrDg 06:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I saw this discussion I thought it referred to Limbu182, which is a user page that was moved into article namespace.[80] This seems a strange coincidence. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That page needs to be moved back to User talk:Bigen182 and probably histmerged with what's currently there, since said user has gotten messages since the move out to mainspace. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong has handled the Bigben situation and move-protected the user talk page. Is there much else we need to do here? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, I don't appreciate being called a vandal by NrDg. How can someone vandalize their own page!?
    Second, what's so bad about wanting to move your page to a cool name (User:Mr. Krabs' page of money, User talk: Mr. Krabs' talk of money)? I don't see anything wrong with that. The full name moves I did I understand what the wrong part was, but with me wanting to move my user page over to a cool name, I am not seeing the wrong part.
    - Thanks,
    Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted them to be a "cool name" then you should have created a "cool userid". Moving your personal userpage into article space turns it into an actual article - and since it isn't an article, it could be considered as vandalism. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about being cool, it's about creating an Encyclopedia. Around here, coolness is earned. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see the wrong part. Thanks for clearing it up. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since creating his account on 30 December, this editor has made 29 moves. In spite of his conciliatory comment just above, he has since made some further dubious moves. I've left him a final warning, though he's removed it from his Talk page. If he undertakes any more moves without consultation he should probably receive a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war going on, and on

    Resolved
     – Wrong venue. — neuro(talk) 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a case at WP:EW, but it's been up for over an hour without anyone going over it and these guys don't appear to be slowing down. RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs) and Simon Dodd (talk · contribs) are arguing over the Clarence Thomas article. Both appear to be somewhere near 7RR by now on the article. Since this is clearly over the line, I thought I should bring it here to slow down the edit war, at least. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you meant to say that the case is at WP:ANEW. Deor (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the correction. What the Hell is WP:EW? Was I accidentally sending people to Wikipedia:Entertainment Weekly? Sorry about that. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, WP:EW is a redir to the edit-war diagnosis page. At least it isn't a lupus erythmatosus diagnosis page. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected the page and am reviewing the WP:ANEW request -- Samir 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Samir, I appreciate your acting, in effect, on my request to protect the page,[81] but the upshot is that the page has been locked in the state preferred by the other party to the dispute.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dayewalker, with respect, I don't think that I've violated 3rr, let alone 7rr. I was under the impression that the difference between a change and a revert was that the text be new: for example, several of RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)'s reverts returned the text to the same thing he had had before I amended it, and in each of the changes I made, I proposed different wording from that which he or I had previously used.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dodd has repeatedly broken the letter and the spirit of 3RR, as anyone can easily see.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed different wording; you insisted on returning it to your preferred wording. I proposed another different wording; you insisted on returning it again to your preferred wording. This is the difference between reverting and editing; I had not thought it so unclear. A review of the edit history from this evening will make very clear that you have demonstrated inflexibility, bad faith, ownership, and have casually violated 3rr.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough please. Report is on WP:ANEW -- Samir 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP socks a'plenty

    Would some admin please slap a semi-pro on Hed PE and Mudvayne. There are IP socks (from another discussion on this page here [82]) reverting nearly constantly. In addition to the first ANI report, I've filed a request at RFPP but it's been over an hour and a half and no admin has checked the page yet. The IP appears to be trying to get responsible editors into edit wars, and is then filing reports on them. Can we please get an admin to semi the pages? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sprotected both for 24 hours, removed requests at WP:ANEW -- Samir 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    None of these editors are socks. Dayewalker, Landon1980 and Daedalus969 have been repeatedly removing sourced information and warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.200.221 (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And you are baiting them. Blocked 31 hours for edit-warring and trying to game the system. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New user violating BLP through sock...not sure what to do about it

    Resolved
     – Blocked IP, sorted at least for now. — neuro(talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Supasexy55 (talk · contribs) has been violating BLP at JC Chasez by repeatedly inserting information about this individual "coming out" and giving a ref that says nothing about that; I warned the user several times, after which the user started editing from 128.12.119.98, making the same kinds of edits. I'm sure a block is warranted by now, but I figured this is too complicated to bring up at AIV. Politizer talk/contribs 09:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the IP and left the account a note, which I imagine takes care of things for now, pending any further developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant reverting without debate

    At Aspartame controversy editor Verbal doesn't tolerate critical statements, even though fully sourced and valid within Wikipedia's guidelines. Verbal reverts many times my edits immediately, and to avoid the 3-revert rule, as you can see on the history page within 2 minutes another person at 16:47, 13 January 2009, Tom Harrison came who otherwise is not an active editor of the article and reverted my edit, which I suspect Verbal had contacted. Verbal seldom participates in discussions on the Talk Page but is against anything being critical of aspartame. I suspect wikipedia:COI which Verbal hasn't responded to. When I recently removed a clearly false statement from a sourced study, Verbal reverted it immediately, claiming for extra time to investigate it. Next day I removed the false statement again, which was reverted immediately. Verbal doesn't engage in a discussion about it. Since the article is a valid controversy, it means there are at least two sides. Verbal tries to ridicule one side and promotes his side as the only valid one. Critical edits are constantly very much scrutinized, even though fully correct within Wikipedia's guidelines, while incorrect pro statements are not allowed by me to be removed. This scares off anyone who wants to join editing the article for a better balance, as you quickly grow tired of it. When I concluded that a majority of editors agreed on an edit and the rest is silent, that a consensus has been reached after waiting more than 20 days since the last edit in a particular discussion, Verbal immediately reverts such an edit, claiming that consensus suddenly hasn't been reached, which puts me back where I started and I have to start discussing with the other editors again. Can anyone do something about this? (Immortale (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    I was only able to follow the discussion on that talk page up to Dec 21st or so, and it seems Immortale is making a nuisance of himself, on the anti-Aspartame barricades. Verbal might be a more blazee editor and whatnot -- which I understand can be frustrating. But Immortale forgets to mention Scientizzle's active involvement on the talk page; Scientizzle is an administrator, and up to Dec 21st at least has been a very accommodating (if dismissive) discussion partner for Immortale. I will continue the investigation and follow up on this. --Gutza T T+ 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, done reviewing: no administrative action is needed, and if any, it should probably be directed solely against Immortale.
    Context: As hinted above, Immortale has indeed been pushing for an anti-aspartame POV throughout his involvement in that article. Moreover, he has been wikilawyering (the so-called consensus he's still pleading for above) and revisiting the same questionable topics over and over. The other editors have probably had enough of it and stopped responding to his repeated pounding, although they did seem pretty malleable at first -- all in all, the interactions are the natural results of human nature and I was unable to find proof of any COI, genuine malice or bad faith on either side.
    Current state: Regarding the current revert war, there are two aspects to consider: who's edit warring, and who's right:
    • Who's edit warring: both sides, but if anything, I highly suspect Immortale of sockpuppettry via User:78.70.36.35 and User:Eraserhead123 (single-purpose account). Given that I found no proof of bad faith on Immortale's part so far I will do him a favor and not ask a checkuser to look into that. However, that can be done at any time by anyone based on these findings.
    • Who's right: I have to start by stating explicitly that "who's right" is an editorial matter and administrators such as myself have no place to make any definitive decision. However, since I have looked into the matter I want to include my findings (subjective as they may be) in this report. Having said that, I believe the current edit war is waged around an iffy topic and that neither side is clearly right. Personally I side with Immortale on that one, in that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to volunteer conclusions not explicitly drawn by the authors of the study itself (disputed diff vs. presumably supporting study for that diff). I do want to emphasize again however that this is just one opinion as anybody else's, I am no expert on any related topic and my quality as an admin here is totally irrelevant.
    Findings on the involved parties:
    • User:Verbal does indeed seem to be a more cynical, less talkative contributor, although he did get involved in constructive discussions. Although his nature might aggravate Immortale on a personal level, there is nothing inherently wrong with his approach, he has certainly not violated any Wikipedia rule and the allegations of any presumed COI on his part are utterly nonsense as far as I was able to tell.
    • User:Immortale obviously puts a lot of heart into the anti-aspartame position for some reason -- I was unable to determine whether that's a position he strongly held personally prior to getting involved into this debate on Wikipedia or whether this is a result of his interactions here, but it's obvious that he's currently genuinely convinced he is right, everybody else is wrong and so on. I strongly believe that is a good faith reaction on his part, whatever his reasons, and that even if he didn't come to ANI with clean hands he shouldn't be reprimanded -- I strongly hope this incident report was his last resort and that these findings will make him reconsider if not his position on the subject matter, then at least his position towards his fellow editors on that article. Failing that, administrative action is needed in order to protect Wikipedia.
    • User:Scientizzle hasn't been nominated here explicitly, but since he's a Wikipedia administrator who has been constantly involved in that article's talk page, Immortale's lack of disposition to defer to his judgment might be considered as a tacit way of questioning his conduct, so I'll volunteer my findings on his conduct in this matter. In my opinion Scientizzle has made some tactical errors between December 4th-5th 2008, but overall his conduct has been way beyond reproach: he has tried to discuss all topical matters extensively, constructively and from a balanced POV with Immortale, and he has never even hinted at abusing his position as an administrator in editorial matters; he has explained his actions, has explained the policies and has interpreted them correctly. All in all, chapeau, Sir.
    Given all of the above, I consider the matter resolved, and I think any persistence from Immortable is likely to blow up in his face. --Gutza T T+ 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Immortale signs with a ( in front of his name. Didn't we have someone who recently got blocked with the same sig style... and then socked as IPs with the same style sig? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Underfist: Halloween Bash

    An IP keeps on adding this which looks like vandalism or the editor's point of view. User:J'onn J'onzz (most likely the same person as the IP) reverted one my reverts and called it vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He may have been attempting to revert what you reverted, but reverted you instead. HalfShadow 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for edit warring. If you're curious about J'onn J'onzz's motivations, you could ask him, I suppose. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of free speech

    Resolved
     – Not ANI issue Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a new user, but I am nevertheless outraged that the "List of unusual personal names" page was deleted. There is no reason this page needed to be deleted, a humor banner at the top would have fixed it. This article needs to be reinstated or wikipedia will risk losing its whole reason for existence: an alternative to britannica. Nameless9123 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia doesn't exits to humor its readers. Grsz11 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination), you could ask for a deletion review. It was close. Among logged-in editors, I counted 6 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 10 deletes. If you add in the non-logged-in editors, it's 8 keeps, 2 weak keeps, and 10 deletes. Since rough consensus is supposed to be a lot somewhat more than 51%, this might be subject to review. Depending on how you count, it was between 50-62% for deletion. But beyond rough consensus, AFD is not completely about headcount, it's about the strength of arguments. I found the arguments on both sides to be valid. I didn't see the article but there are POV issues, but as someone else said, that's true of "Beauty, Terrorism, Pornography, or Christianity." Others suggested it was unencyclopedic and one user said it would make a good user-page. Several editors said the term was undefined or undefinable. One editor called it unencyclopedic. Arguments to keep included that at least part of the article was sourced and the rest could be addressed by editing, that the article had been around for years, which I assume was him implying a historical consensus to keep, that you can define "unusual name" by relying on reliable sources to define the term for you, and that there really isn't a lot of disagreement over whether a name is or is not unusual. Had I closed this, I would have closed it "no consensus" or kept it open/relisted it as there was discussion and a "listing on" announcement in the last 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing admin has added his reasons for deleting the article. Nameless, if this resolves the issue please add {{y}} '''Resolved''' explained and a blank line to the top of this section. If it doesn't resolve the issue, say so and ask for help so this can be resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, without a list of strange names, Wikipedia is certainly doomed to fade into obscurity. I bet the Britannica editors are already compiling their own list, so we better act fast! We're nothing without this page! Mr.Z-man 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the free speech thing: see this. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 04:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=264806393"