Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive561

User:Literaturegeek

Resolved

 – Neurofish indef block as sockpuppet of Mwalla Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This user placed a template on my talk page that does not apply to me. I view this as an unpovoked attack. I do not know this user nor has he ever contacted me directly. I would like this user to be blocked from editing my user page. Neurofish (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

It is funny a brand new member knows all about administration noticeboard and the wiki projects. Some admmins will here will recall another episode where I accused a sock puppet of mwalla, a permanently banned user they created an admin noticeboard notification. Please see this page, User_talk:Tiptoety#Mwalla_is_back_on_3_socks_in_as_many_days and also this page.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you know what other editors know? I guess you are the judge. Neurofish (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

I know what quacks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well. That was quick and painless. (For us, anyway) So, the first thing sockpuppets do now is commit suicide? I think I like it. It's pointless, but I like it. HalfShadow 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Two in a row...the section above was another PLAXICO (does that have a wikipage yet?). It's so convenient when they come straight here to be dealt with... Auntie E. 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it does. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is resolved

Unresolved

Thanks Toddstq for blocking. There are two other accounts. User:Abcdohrayme and User:Punctuallylate If you review the ip address blocks Tiptoey only blocked them for 3 months so mwalla is now back mass producing sockpuppets again now that the 3 month ip block has expired. See bottom of Mwalla sock investigation archive. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive Toddstq, did you just block the username or the ip addresses as well? It might be worth reinstating blocks on the ip addresses in the Mwalla archive. But will leave the decision up to you. Thanks. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would feel a little more comfortable if somebody would run a CU on the Neurofish account. I usually turn out to be wrong about these things, but there are enough differences from the usual behavior that this doesn't quite quack for me. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser would be great Looie, I have requested one on WP:SPI. Maybe Looie it is this edit, where one sockpuppet reverted another sockpuppet,[1], this was done only after I had added templates to all 3 accounts accusing them of being sockpuppets, so they were just trying to divert suspicion in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An SPI has been filed by myself here.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did I access?

I was trying to get to Lupin III, but found myself redirected to Lupine for some reason and a very jumbled mess of a page. Anyone can figure out what just happened, if anyone can humor me?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III does not redirect to Lupine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But it did for me. So I wanna know is, what the hell did I just access?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it didn't for you.

It doesn't.

You must have made a typing error, or something. And what you just accessed was our page on Lupine.

What's complicated? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 08:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I typed in Lupin III, and "something/someone/some link" redirected me to Lupine and the mess of the page instead. No Mistyping as TreasuryTag has wrongfully assumed. TreasuryTag, Wikipedia:Assume good faith please.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Click on the Lupin III link that you just created, and it takes you to the right page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinking someone made a typo is ABF??? Anyway, Lupin III has never been a redirect to Lupine as far as I can see from the page history. You can check for yourself. Did you follow a link from another article? If so, the problem may be with that link. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lupine article is meant to be a disambig, but recently someone copied the contents of an article about lupin the plant to it. There was some confusion about what was meant to be there, but I've reverted it back to being a disambig again. The page was definitely a mess. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bret Hart

Dear All,

I would like to bring to your attention the page of wrestler Bret Hart. Over the last few days (and indeed the same incidents occured months earlier, through posters who are now banned - using the exact same language) the accepted, and time tested page has been edited to hide / buffer certain incidents. The editors in question are content in leaving the page to look like a fan page for this wrestler.

The Bloodstained Memoirs section seems to be the focal editing point. Although the facts originaly listed are accurate, and cited, (and can be looked up independently) they are constantly trying to be changed to infactual accounts, or altered to be "pro Hart".

The same goes for the Greg Oliver incident. I cited evidence which paints the incident in a far more unbiased fasion, and this was labbled "vandilism" by the trouble editors. I also took down uneccasary and very one sided information from the article lead to the same response.

The entire article is written in a "Bret hart Favoured" tint which is obviously against Wiki policy, and the majority of the information does not even contain cites for what is stated. Its all very one sided.

The editors in question are constantly being foul in discussion, and reverting things to name calling, and trolling etc. The article has gone untested for far too long, dispite myself, and others giving multiple warnings for this to stop. It seems they have no regard for the policies here, and are content for things to go around in circles. I even tried to compromise with this editor, but they wanted it all their way, and again reverted my edits to his/her version of events.

I would appreciate immediate action, from somebody who is unbiased, and not even into wrestling, to see things as they are for Wiki policy.

Thank You. Commoncase (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be worth noting, that a long standing "controversy" section was removed, and its content fit into other sections of the article. This was nothing more than a clever way to phase sections out as "not fitting under the new heading", and these claims are now starting to take on effect. Commoncase (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this was transferred here after originally being posted to WP:AIV [2]. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days due to edit warring. Tan | 39 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the situation on the article, it appears that the problem editor involved is very much Commoncase - the one who reported this. Commoncase has...

• Logged in and out of his IP address to edit [3]
• Engaged in POV-pushing
  • Adds negative info [4]
  • Removes positive info [5] [6]
• General incivility [7] [8]
• Accusing another editor of being "Bret's manager" [9] [10] [11]
• There's more tendentiousness if you go back a few months further, but Wikipedia is very slow for me and I'm tired of diff-hunting.

Furthermore, a glance at his contribution history seems to show that Commoncase is probably involved with the documentary Bloodstained Memoirs. He has become a borderline Single Purpose Account since the film was released, has an obvious negative view of Hart, and claims familiarity with Hart's manager, "Marcy Engelstein".

Suggesting that scrutiny be directed towards Commoncase. McJEFF ^(talk) 03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Commoncase's problem simply stems from the fact that his pro-Bloodstained Memoirs, anti-Bret Hart agenda is being challenged. The producer's comments were PROFANE (third-and only reliable-cite fully supports this: "THE FOLLOWING BLOG CONTAINS PROFANE LANGUAGE"), they were sourced from a MySpace blog (where's the debate?) and there is no "strong" conflict (major NPOV vio - no reputable third-party sources supporting a "strong" conflict). Quite frankly, this whole thing was started by Commoncase, and now that his biased agenda is being challenged (relentlessly promoting Bloodstained Memoirs and criticizing Bret Hart), he's reporting OTHER editors. What a joke. 81.170.29.43 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this spam?

Resolved

I'm not sure what to do about this (if anything). The last time JIB830 (talk · contribs) added a link to his blog to a number of articles I explained to him why in my opinion he shouldn't be doing this. He's done it again this month, to over 20 articles. I think this meets our definition of spam, but I'm not sure. So, report this as spam? Warn the user and revert his edits and block him next time? Ignore it? I'd like some guidance from others with knowledge of what is spam and what is just a disagreement about a link. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• *scratches head* he's manually adding his blog to a navbox full of blogs? The whole "Commentaries on Parshah Matot" navbox looks like spam, to me. I have no clue what (or who, I guess ) "Parshah Matot" is though, and to be honest little desire to know. Shouldn't the target really be the removal of the navbox? That seems to be the lure that is attracting this user to add his links.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Why should the navbox be removed? It seems to be a warped solution. Blocking (or preferably counseling) the spammer should work better. Aditya (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  It's a navbox full of external links, though. If that doesn't break WP:EL... I'll grant yuo that I don't know what is on the other side of those links, but if what is there should be in a navbox, then it really should be able to use internal links regardless (along with an actual navbox, designed for the purpose, rather then a generic {{Navbox}}).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  I think that navs boxes were purely for internal wikilinks? I've never seen it used this way. The problem with using a navbox in this fashion is that it obscures where the reader is being taken and I think many people (and I am one of them) would assume it would be taking them to an article here rather than an external site. This is why article have external links sections, no? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly!
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, it's spam. The "Warning spammers" section should answer your queries. Aditya (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since he's done this before, I've blocked him until he promises to stop doing it. I'm looking at the navbox now, though. Black Kite 11:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's spam. Much of the navbox looks like spam. Moreover, the navbox isn't tied to a template, but seems to have been copy-pasted into each article (hence the edits to each article made to add the link). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, now that I'm up to speed on this, yes, the navbox shouldn't carry ELs at all. I'd say it should be deleted from all the articles forthwith. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Attack page or something violating BLP

Hi, Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) was created solely to out a BLPs supposed real name - they get death threats all the time so we have insisted on strong reliable sourcing before revealing identifying information. The same user has be edit-warring on the article itself sourcing this "fact" to fake YouTube videos. Could someone please delete Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) immediately? Thank you. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dunno anything about whether or not the name belongs in the article, but I deleted it as a dab page w/ two targets. I'll look into the rest of the stuff shortly. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, he also added a bit on a Tennessee article but that was deleted. This same issue s flares up every few months but this was by far the most creative. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, the connection is still visible in the deletion log (which is also visible on the Chris Cunningham (disambiguation) page). Is that a problem? Jafeluv (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's been there for two years. So my guess is that removal isn't too urgent. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok. And I guess the connection will soon be available for anyone searching ANI archives for "chris crocker", anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Or a google search for it. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Yes, it is a problem, can it be oversighted at the deletion log of Chris Cunningham (disambiguation)? There are a couple of issues here, one is that we have to avoid outing people, if reliable sources do so then we can follow their lead. Talk page comments and blog posts on otherwise reliable sources still don't count as evidence; and, btw, we're talking about death threats. Now even if you don't care for the guy consider that the last thing we want to do besides accidentally outing him and getting him killed ... is accidentally outing someone else who is then killed. -- Banjeboi 05:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• You can email oversight if you like. I won't, because it's two years old and information about the guy exists in plain sight on google. I'm all for refusing to 'out' him on the talk page or the article, per WP:NPF, but the horse is out of the barn on that dab page deletion log. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can get it addressed, just because it's been sitting in a form there for a while doesn't mean it's acceptable. And let's not confuse Google with reality, there is no reliable sourcing to assert his birth name - that's the point so it could be Cunningham or something else entirely; would the mistaken identity murder of someone named Chris Cunningham sit that much better? -- Banjeboi 06:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I realize that I'm butting in here, but... I wouldn't bother. Leaving the history there actually advertises the fact that "we" (the Wikipedia community, not even just the admins) simply won't condone this type of disruption. You'll never completely dissuade people from doing this sort of thing, no matter what you do. Perversely, the more that you try to prevent in anticipation of enforcement, the worse the problem becomes. Just let sleeping dogs lay.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would no more blame a 2 year old dab page for the murder of a human being than I would blame Jodie Foster for Ronald Reagan's shooting. People receive death threats from sociopaths. Conflating (even implicitly) refusal to jump all over a problem that you have advertised inadvertently with murder is an ugly method of persuasion. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for some misunderstanding I may have contributed to this situation. I deleted the original edits because they were completely unsourced (and in the case of his alleged home town, wrong). The other editor asked if he could add his real name, and I gave a quick response that if he had a good source, he could. In my defense, it was well past my bedtime and I qualified it with an "if", but in hindsight I wish I had given a better definition of what Wikipedia considers a good source, actually looked at his source (which turns out to be a YouTube vid, but also had something about 20/20 in the name which my sleep-deprived name thought was related to the ABC News program) and clearly told him not to re-add the name to the article -- Foetusized (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobbygt92 continues to upload images without licenses

Bobbygt92 (talk · contribs) continues to upload images without any licenses despite a final warning. Time for some admin intervention. — Σxplicit 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Not done Try talking to them using words rather than templates. Also, what they are doing is not as disruptive as most uploaders, who claim an image as free when it is non-free. The user appears to have uploaded only have uploaded 5 images, all of the same subject. Let's try and involve them in the project before we hit them with the banhammer. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I was about to block myself for 48 hours, but Protonk is probably right here. I quickly undid my original block. A user should take the time to craft an explanation of the problem before jumping straight to the block. Crypticly worded templates can be hard for new users to parse. --Jayron32 03:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • To be fair, even if they are templated, the template clearly explains that the images the user uploaded don't have licenses. The purpose of a block is the stop disruption, and in this case, it would be the continuous uploading of unlicensed images (granted, the user has ceased editing for now, but the point remains). It may not be as bad as blatant copyright violations, but that doesn't make it any better. Various warnings, including my own and the ones included in images like this one, should be clear indicators that the uploader has taken no time to address the problem or read our guidelines and policies. — Σxplicit 03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If it's not as bad as "blatant copyright violations", how is it also not any better? It's clearly better than uploading non-free media as free, simply because they get sorted into a pseudo-speedy deletion queue if they are orphaned. Also the F3 upload suggests to me that the user is trying to figure out how to avoid getting the templates and warnings. The next step for them (should they not get the point) is to lie and say that an image is free content. The purpose of human to human contact is to interrupt that chain. Sit down, write a note explaining why their uploads aren't free (most people assume "on the internet" or "for public display" == free), and tell them where to go from there. It's entirely possible that they will never understand or care about our policies, but nowhere is it required that they read them prior to editing and I'm not about to block or recommend blocking a user on so little evidence of wrongdoing. I'm also aware of the purpose of a block and when/if I see incipient disruption coming from that account, I'll change my mind. Until then do not bite the newcomers. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not any better because it's still not the correct thing to do. Trying to get around warnings by choosing different licenses is still wrong. You're correct when you say they aren't required to read policies and guidelines, but that doesn't mean they're free to breach them. If they don't take the time to read the template, or at least contact and ask me or any other editor to ask what they're doing wrong when a template explains it to them, I don't see the point of typing out a personal message saying the same thing in different, personal words. And for the record, I'm not biting the newbies. There's only an amount of good faith I'm able to assume. — Σxplicit 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, you asked for some admin intervention and you got some. I'm sorry you didn't like it. If you aren't interested in writing a personal message, don't. But I won't block the user and (as I said above) I will recommend against a block unless they continue to upload copyvio material. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not completely against Protonk's suggestion, I would like to comment on this. I do not think the template in question here is cryptic; it says exactly what should be said and what the problem is. Before we had this template, we had to manually tell people to stop uploading images and not attaching a license. Someone finally said, "hey, that's a lot of extra work, let's create a template". Templates are not inherently bad or bitey; they are merely convenient. Templating the regulars is another story, obviously - but for a new editor, this is exactly why we have these templates. If we can't template the regulars, and we shouldn't template the newbies, what are they there for? Is your entire argument that we shouldn't be using any templates? I don't want or have to "sit down" and craft a note; someone already did. Reinventing the wheel. If the editor can't understand the template, they should ask questions. If they can't figure out how to ask questions, they shouldn't be uploading pictures anyway. Secondly - a short block here would have been appropriate. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, and here we would be preventing further uploads from happening before the editor could educate themselves on our policies. Tan | 39 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Templates are not inherently bad or bitey; they are merely convenient. Templating the regulars is another story, obviously - but for a new editor, this is exactly why we have these templates. If we can't template the regulars, and we shouldn't template the newbies, what are they there for?" I'm of the opinion that they represent a method of communication with very little efficacy. In practice they mostly serve as a wicket to get through before we can block someone. We should explore why we don't template the regulars before determining that templates serve as an appropriate stand in for personal communication. We don't template the regulars because we can presume they know the rules...and because most of the templates are pretty bristly. {{Uw-sofixit}} is a hell of a lot worse than "here are sources X, Y, and Z, you can help me fix the problems w/ the page". We don't template the regulars because we recognize that people ignore impersonal warnings but cue in to personal suggestions. We don't extend this courtesy to new and IP users for a mix of good and bad reasons--the obvious good reason being that there are a shitload of new/IP users. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A block wasn't probably the immediate thing here, but I have deleted the images because they are clearly non-free images of a living person and would never be able to be used. Black Kite 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't template the regulars because I assume they're somewhat familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Thus, the edit triggering the template was probably a mistake or something more subtle that requires a personal response. And I still use some templates with experienced editors such as 3RR and NPA as that seems to get their attention. The template themselves are fine. Level 1's assume good faith, explain in general terms why the edit was reverted/changed, and give pointers to the relevant guidelines. If a customized message is needed, there's space for that too. As someone up above noted, there's only so many ways to say, for example, "Don't delete valid material without filling out the edit summary". --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by anon IP

Resolved

 – Blocked for using open proxy and as possible sock

I don't know who this is but they have been clearly wikihounding me and have caused at least one semi-outing problem (now resolved). I think there might be a possibility that this is an open-proxy operated by Google, but I cannot verify it. I also see some peculiar similarities between that account and User:Landed little marsdon. Could an administrator look into this, and maybe give an opinion as to whether a CU might be appropriate?

• [12]
• [13]

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am missing the "clear wikihounding". A post to your talk page and a comment to Lar a month ago? Tan | 39 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Content is what is important here. The incredible level of snarkiness is indicative of User:Davkal, for example. In my experience, users acting like this are some of the most destructive around here. I already lost a mentor in part because of this kind of thing. In the past I would have confronted the IP on their talkpage, but now I think it wiser to get outsiders to handle this instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, unrelated to the actual editing, I blocked this IP as an open proxy; it is used by the Google translator service. Tan | 39 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is right. Any administrator who needs proof of that is welcome to contact me offsite. This is the tip of a nasty iceberg. Durova³⁰⁶ 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason off-wiki discussion is needed? Those two diffs (only one of which is on SA's talk page) don't seem especially helpful to building article content, but I can't see how they amount to a campaign of harassment. Many of us are sarcastic at times. Is there more to this, and if it can't be discussed on wiki then I think soem explanation for that should be provided for those of us not in the loop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason that Durova's story needs to be left off-wiki. There is a difference, CoM, between accounts that engage in tongue-and-cheek ribbing and accounts that hide behind proxies and anon IPs to attempt to cause people grief. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you SA. But transparency is also important. Maybe I just don't have the level of trust in off-wiki conferencing that you do. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM, this is real enough. Surely you realize that for some things, the less attention paid here the better? DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well then close the thread. All I see are two diffs that don't amount to much and a comment by Durova whose track record on secret investigations comes well short of being perfect. But I'm willing to take the word of you and SA on faith. Is there a policy page on how these military tribunals are conducted or is it classified? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight's slur is entirely uncalled-for. If that user had wanted to see what I had to show s/he might have emailed and put it to the test, or at least have contacted user talk before slamming my character at a public board. Do the words severe offsite harassment lack sufficient meaning? I've referred to this repeatedly and consistently since it happened, although somewhat quietly because I have no desire to be revictimized. One would hope, if such a thing had to happen, it would be at the hands of banned trolls rather than by people who have editing rights and ought to know better. For shame. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

All I said was that your track record on secret investigations isn't perfect. I understand you may be sensitive over that issue, but I think my concerns are reasonable. A lot of decision making goes on behind closed doors which causes a lot of problems. And as far as my comment goes, it could have been much worse. I could have called you darling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight isn't really talking about you per say Durova, oddly enough, he's angry about this and lashing out on ANI threads as a result. At least that's how I read it, as he has engaged in this exact same kind of behavior before when sanctioned by ArbCom, blocked by an admin, or even warned for something. The best bet is to ignore him, because his gibes are not really about the purported topic of the thread, but rather about the great injustice the Arbs have done him by clarifying the scope of his previously instituted topic ban. I know that's a failure to AGF on my part, but I'm afraid that's the reality. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• <outdent> I have tried to be circumspect. But if others feel it would be helpful to go into more detail on the history of secret tribunals and black op type operations conducted on and off Wikipedia I am happy to do so. If there is a reason why something can't be discussed on-wiki it is entirely fair and reasonable to expect as clear as possible an explanation as to why that is the case. The attacks and smears engaged in by Bigtimepeace are part of a pattern of abuse engaged in by that administrator, but I have a pretty thick skin having survived this long on Wikipedia while refusing to kowtow to the abusive admins and POV pushers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand what you're saying, CoM. Are you threatening to reveal personal information that was discussed off-wiki just to make a point and to scare people off from discussing something which doesn't involve you? If that is not what you're threatening to do, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but would request a clarification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my concerns over transparency and process are reasonable and appropriate. I haven't attempted to intimidate or threaten anyone. I tried to discretely note that our history for secret campaigns is not a good one. This issue has come up before and I hope we don't repeat the same mistakes. My question is pretty simple: when do use secret processes and what protections are in place to make sure that there is really a need for secrecy and that those processes are not abused? That is all. The original report seems to have been resolved. My concerns over off-wiki discussions and procedures that aren't transparent remain. I've answered your questions, but no one has answered mine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're asking for transparency in sock puppet investigations? And you don't see why this might not be such a good idea? Correct me if I'm mistaken. Auntie E. 19:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dungfreak

Resolved

 – death threats aren't allowed, even when made in hidden text

User:Dungfreak made a general death threat here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The username and the contributions are no good either. I'm pressed for time; could someone please indef, and delete all the nonsense? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The quicker the better. The guy won't stop removing speedy deletion templates... Singularity42 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and circled back to block, but Tanthalus already got him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

Please see [[14]]. I'm going to have lawyers sicced on me, apparently. I've warned them that they'll be blocked unless they withdraw the legal threat. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• pop. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• YAY! :) --Rockstone (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Resolved

 – Moves accomplished. Horologium (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A thread archived before these three articles were moved, I moved all the other ones I was able. If someone would be so kind to migrate them to more MOS compliant titles I would appreciate it. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Otto Bauer (pornography) - should disambiguate to pornographic actor ‎
• Mark Davis (pornography) - should disambiguate to actor (could add pornographic although that's not needed right now)
• Michael Brandon (pornography) - should disambiguate to pornographic actor

Just for some background context, could you please link to the discussion involving these pages? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the original thread. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty pretty please!?! I know this is boring but we really do need to move these. -- Banjeboi 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I used "Pornographic actor" for all three, as Mark Davis (actor) already existed as a redirect to the porn star's bio. Horologium (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DBZfan29

I managed to step in this when I swung by the vandalism-in-progress page and saw that an established user had been reported there as retaliation over content dispute. User:Collectonian, who this user was in dispute with, pointed out that this young man's userpage contained a great deal of personal information, perhaps too much. I deleted it for his protection, but sure enough, I'm now in the middle of a hassle over it. Would someone else please review User:DBZfan29? If he limited his personal info as claimed on the talk page, please feel free to restore it. IMO, he's listed too much and this is way too visible a site for such sensitive info. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was probably too much info, even though the user claims "It's just a copy of my FanCorps profile and it gives info that any fanboy/fangirl would write on their page.". There wasn't a ton of personal info, but enough that I would feel uncomfortable leaving it up. TNXMan 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I felt. He pulled up just short of using his last name, but I agree that leaving it up is not in his best interest. I'm still trying to get him to calm down after the userpage deletion and the edit warring. Here's hoping he will. Gotta run...thanks for the opinion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially given that DBZfan29 says the information is copied from profile pages elsewhere, this may be a copyvio anyway. Chunks of the userpage (which is too Facebooky to fit the WP:UP guildelines in any case) are from a blogspot.com profile. http://www.blogger.com/terms.g says (under "Intellectual Property Rights") "…you agree that you will not copy, reproduce, alter, modify or create derivative works from the Service." Does this include profile content a member has put there themselves? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I was curious when I saw that mentioned on DBFan's talk page since I have a friend who uses Blogger. Looking a bit further down, Google firmly states that you own all copyrights to your blog posts, profile, etc, so I presume they are referring only to the Blogger service itself and its trappings/domain specific language. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'd missed it. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 66.4.233.x IP range

66.4.233.x is a range of IP addresses registered to the State of Tennessee Department of Education. After noticing a recent spate of vandalism by 66.4.233.3, I looked into the contribution history of 66.4.233.1 to 66.4.233.30. The following IPs have been engaged in regular or periodic vandalism:

• 66.4.233.3
• 66.4.233.4
• 66.4.233.7
• 66.4.233.8
• 66.4.233.10
• 66.4.233.13
• 66.4.233.14
• 66.4.233.17
• 66.4.233.18
• 66.4.233.20
• 66.4.233.21
• 66.4.233.24
• 66.4.233.25
• 66.4.233.26
• 66.4.233.28
• 66.4.233.30

I added {{SharedIPEDU}} to these pages and started an abuse report, but the activity histories seem to warrant a soft block of all IPs within the 66.4.233.x range. Also, there may be additional ranges within 66.4.x.x or 66.5.x.x (all owned by the TN Dept of Education per their whois) that have similar problems, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia to check contributions for these by any method other than manual. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone that has the correct gadget installed, here is the editing history of the 66.4.233.0/24 range noted above: [15] It does not appear that a rangeblock would result in ANY collateral damage, since checking 20 random edits from about 10 random IPs from that range turned up ZERO non-vandalism edits. I will be enacting a /24 soft rangeblock (anon only, account creation allowed) on this range unless someone can come up with a reasonable objection. --Jayron32 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. [16]. 3 month soft block (anon only, account creation allowed) should minimize the high level of hit-and-run type vandalism found from this range. --Jayron32 02:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, gadgets and click the button next to "Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches, e.g., "Splark*". (Please report any issues here.)". that should allow you to check range contributions. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a further improvement over the CIDR gadget is the Soxred93 tool, http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/ which has the advantage of listing all the contributions from the range in order by date, with the most recent ones first. (This helps focus your attention on vandals who are currently active). See an example here. The CIDR gadget presents the same data, but sorted first by IP and only then by date, which is tolerable for a /24 but cumbersome for a /16. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. LEarn something new every day. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action and for all the information - very helpful! --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 22:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User LineofWisdom

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Tan.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an open request for a serious action against the above user for my constant pestering by him for the past two weeks.

• Firstly he started unnecessary edits in the form of inserting the names of his clan members in an article Marwat co-created by me. When I responded to his vandalism and POV entries then he placed an AFD tag on this wonderful article through one of his confirmed sockpuppet. Obviously the result was a Speedy Keep.
• Secondly then he indulged into an Edit War on the same article with me and as a result I unintentionally violated 3RR and was banned for 24 hours but upon my appeal this user was also banned for a week for Edit Warring as well as using yet another sockpuppet. Article Marwat was also protected upon my request by Jeremy so that he couldn’t do his vanity edits in it. Needless to mention that while appealing against his week long ban he became personal to me and Jeremy who eventually brought a case against him at Administrators Board. He however, got away due to the tolerance policy of Wikipedia.
• Now as a matter of fact he has been vandalizing all the articles related to the parent article on Marwat or created/started by me and the latest example is his placing an absolutely unnecessary AFD at Khayal Muhammad which would prove to be a waste of time for all of us. My other articles which he has disturbed can be found through his user contributions and can be confirmed from my user page.
• I leave it to the administrators to decide the fate of this person whose edits are not at all helpful and who is just here to vandalize Pashto related articles. I am positive that he is a reincarnation of an earlier vandal A M. Khan with whom I had a long tussle of removing his vanity entries in the parent article of Marwat. I am saying this because their style of writing and vandalism targets are exactly the same.
• I expect justice from you. PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE. -- MARWAT  07:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

you're back here already? In my opinion, the two of you just need to disengage for a while. There are over 3 million articles on Wikipedia now, surely something else can keep your editorial interest for a few days. Let him have his way for a while, and then come back to the issue that the two of you have when things have cooled down a little.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are a little disheartening. What do you mean i am back already? This is my first time I brought this issue into your notice. If you are referring to Jeremy's report then I had nothing to do with it. I don't have any problem with him being around but what bothers me is that he is religiously following me around and is pestering me. Now my specific complain needs to be addressed separately. And besides, leaving aside your comment of 3 million articles, should we leave him to have his way with decent articles by placing bad faith AFD's? -- MARWAT  08:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First, full disclosure: I am not, and don't actually want to be, an admin. Therefore, regardless of my personal opinions here, nothing substantive will come of them. Still, I have some experience with this type of thing, and I'm telling you that coming here so soon after the last incident involving the two of you just doesn't bode well, regardless of if you had anything to do with filing it or not. I stand by my earlier statement, that the best move is simply to let go for some short period of time (a week or two would be good, but even 24-48 hours would help) and come back to it fresh. I know how frustrating this sort of thing can be, believe me, especially when you feel that you're in the right. The thing is, if you really are right, then you should be able to stay cool, and therefore weather any reports that the other party may make. Coming running to AN/I isn't really going to resolve anything anyway, even if someone does "give you justice" and bans the other party in the dispute. They'll just be back, so it's a hollow victory even if you achieve it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken but the frustrating thing is that I am really tired of this. I am ready to let it go but he is stuck to me like a skunk's smell. And you will see that the moment he re-logs on he will taint this discussion as well. -- MARWAT  09:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:STALKing is a real problem, and is taken seriously, so if that is what is occurring then you should limit your report here specifically to supporting a case that you're being "hounded". In other words, don't bother bringing up the background and whatnot, at least not until asked. Limit your evidence to actual "wikihounding" incidents by providing diffs showing how the other user has been harassing you.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In the prior thread (which was mainly involving me, and not Marwatt, Ohms law) part of my complaint was that LineofWisdom specifically made reference to mine and Marwatt's families ([17], [18], [19]), an act which I rebuked him for and which led me to order him to stop posting on my talk page, which he refused to do; he repeatedly reverted my removals of further comments from that thread until it was pointed out to him (by another user) that I was not only permitted to do so, but that defying my request was tantamount to harassment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• In my defence 1) It has never confirmed that I have been using sock, despite my open and voiceferous challenges. 2) I have always been attacked by this gentleman personally, instead of commenting as per subject, wether it is AfD page, Page Protection / Unprotection requests or what ever. 3) I never chased him but chased the articles which seems Un-Wikipedian to me. 4) You could see, in past, he nominated the articles i) of Ex-Chairman Senate, Chief Minister, Justice, Interior Minister and acting President of Pakistan for deletion ii) of Ex-Chief Justice iii) of Member Parliament and Minsiter, regardless of knowing it too clearly that those are too much notable people and posiiton holders, just because they belonged to his rival clan. This is also the reason that led him to edit 90% of his editings at Marwat, as he never wants to have references o his rival clan. Infact, he is full of venom against those who are / is against is tribe. He, on vatarious ocassions has disobeyed decissions of the administrators / operators and advocates who decided or mediated any disputes. He has been to abusive, for this you could see the talk /discussiegardon page of Marwat, where he in Pashto, as translated to me by one of the fellow, has openly challenged and abused his oppoent that ""At any case, I won't allow insertion of the name of that ****** )he is refering to an oppoent of rival clan). Now, the ball is your court, wether to ban or block me or kick him for atleast one month so he must know the price of engaging in personalism and rivalry here on this prestigious site. Regards LineofWisdom (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  so... basically, both of you have brought your real world tribal conflict here to Wikipedia? Do I really have to spell out how that's bad? Wikipedia isn't a battle ground. I honestly think that both of you should just walk away from anything having to do with this conflict. I'm sure that you're contributions would be welcomed elsewhere, but you should really both avoid anything having to do with Pakistan. It seems obvious that you each have personal biases which prevent you from having a clear view on these subjects.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. Maybe an admin should consider a topic ban, at the very least? And LineOfWisdom, when CU comes back as  Likely, as it did in your case, that's very strong evidence. Don't try to argue a technicality. It's about as convincing as "the dog ate my homework". Tim Song (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Relevant recent AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayal Muhammad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafiq Shinwari. Plus this DRV. this edit summary also seems rather problematic. Tim Song (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am not fighting our tribal fight here. I am Punjabi and my fellow and brother Marwatt is a Pashtun. I could assure that I was never biased and wouldn't be biased. I would love to contribute here with good-faith but I am not chased by him. As far as user Tim song's comments are concerned, let me once again make it clear that I have not used the Sock Puppets and my ban is somewhat itself a biased opinion. My fellow, without gettin against me for no reason, I humbly request you to see the User's (who is alleged as my sock) contribution and you will come to know that infact he voted and commented against me. He was using sock, no doubt, as we was the author of the page and wanted to strenghten the tally. I am sorry, if some of my contributions shows I am biased or am in a race of revenge or fight. It is may be I couldn't express myself as infact I am. I am heartly sorry to wikipedia, for being harsh in the past. But now, having nothing in my heart again anyone, I would request to have a check on me which may be placed for my contributions I made since being unblocked, after I was blocked -- so far unjustified - for false allegations. LineofWisdom (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I note that those two AFDs are on articles Marwatt started, LineofWisdom, so you might wanna come up with a defense for that. Also, it's not unheard of for a sock to evade scrutiny by !voting in opposition to the main account. Finally, I will say this again since you do not seem to be getting it: Checkuser results in the positive (Possible, Likely, Confirmed) that lead to a block are enough evidence to block. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Threat received on my talk page Although apropos the above points raised by Jeremy and Tim Song the guy has left me a threatening challenge in our national language written on my talk page (translation in brief = you have messed with the wrong guy so face the music). Where I am going to raise the issue as WP:STALK too I hope that someone will put some sense in this guy now for sure. Don't you think all the above and this latest threat is enough evidence to incriminate him? I rest my case. -- MARWAT  15:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked LineofWisdom indefinitely, and am slightly amazed this didn't happen earlier. Yes, we are supposed to assume good faith - but only up to a point; we should not be fools about it. This guy was here to push multiple agendas, had abused multiple accounts, and had civility issues. Blocked indefinitely per WP:COMPETENCE - QED. Tan | 39 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone especially Jeremy and Tim Song for being so vigilant. Jeremy I would have left you a thank note on your talk page but its semi-protected hence i am doing it over here. -- MARWAT  16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Null persp. As an aside, semiprotection only prevents anon users and new accounts (<10 edits and <4 days) from editing (Not surprisingly, NawlinWiki's recent incidents are why I have it semi'd). I don't think you'd be affected by it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Angiex3

• Angiex3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another strange case I stumbled upon during new page patrol. This is a brand-new user with a well-honed sense of wiki markup who is going absolutely bonkers posting new articles on the kid's TV show "Arthur." Trouble is, a lot of the plot synopses are copyvios and I'm unsure of the images. I'd left word with her (I assume she's a "she" based on the username), but she went ahead and did another copyvio. No edits to any talk page, no creation of a userpage. The thing that really gets me is that I think I've seen this before. Is this a returning blocked user, perhaps? No shortage of weird on Wikipedia! Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User Angiex3 notified about this thread. Notification is required. Exxolon (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like bambiefan. Send a message to Kww or Collectonian to doublecheck. If one of them says it matches I'll indef the account. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are SO correct regarding the warning. I got involved in editing another article and I forgot to post one. Thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't look like Bambifan, but if it is...whammo. I'll send a note right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You sure? Then I must be confusing another sock who deals heavily in the Arthur show, introducing fake episodes, credits etc. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/The_Chubby_Brother and this AN/I post. This stuff makes me wish that we kept a more up to date LTA. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have a winner. Off to do some blocking and housecleaning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. I have to log off, but I'll add this little wiggler to the LTA page when I get back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Navbox used for external links - (continuing discussion above

Now that this has come up here, can we continue discussing it? I reverted a few of these once, or converted them to ELs, and was reverted by Dauster (talk · contribs). I started a discussion here and invited Dauster, who didn't respond.. I'll invite him to this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted all those I could find, they're hiding spots for spam and not even templates. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I kind of hate to say it, but this doesn't really need any discussion. Those navboxes are currently simply unacceptably malformed, and they should go.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say, they may be worse than malformed but rather, could have been faked to look like templates. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just really hard for me to admit that something should be deleted, is all. They should go. There's plenty of support to do so in the above linked discussion, regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the lot. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're all gone now. Some of them had been there for 20 months. Won't go so far as to say they were meant to be faked, Dauster's edit summaries whilst putting them up were straightforward enough, but they wound up as tidy looking and misleading "cans of spam." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I hadn't thought of the possible spam issue. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended the four of you. No deception is intended, merely a more elegant lsiting of commentaries on the subjects of the articles. Would you be comfortable with a box of the sort that tops this page? I'm happy to make the changes. Dauster (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone was considering possible deception, not that you intended any. However, we have guidelines on external links concerning their placement, what should be linked and what should not be linked, and the number of links, and those should be followed. So, no, not the sort of box that tops this page which is for an entirely different purpose. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the concern here wasn't with your actions (which are clearly good faith) but rather with the wider implications of using a navbox in that way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add a note here in support of the fact that the concern here wasn't the obviously good faith efforts to improve the articles, it was simply an issue with implementation.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wanting to see what all the hubbub was about, I looked at some of the articles in question. They are full of external links in the article body. It is my understanding that the only place where an external link is allowed to appear is in an external links section, is that an accurate interpretation of current policy? These articles also contain external links sections that seem rather bloated. Should these be cleaned out? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that external links shouldn't appear in the article body. Be careful with simply trimming them, though, since they might be being used for inline references; that sort of thing needs to be converted to use <ref> tags instead, which is luckily fairly easy. As for bloated external links sections - feel free to trim anything that seems unneeded. We aren't primarily a link directory, and no external link has a "right" to be there. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Only chiming in with Gavia here, watch out for something meant as an inline citation but otherwise, unless there's overwhelming helpfulness to be had with more, cutting external links down to 2-4 is very ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the links in the article body seem to be cites to biblical passages, often the same 2 or 3, repeated throughout. I'll work on converting the refs this week but I don't feel my knowledge of the topic is sufficient to address the EL sections. The attention of editors more familiar with Hebraic studies/Judaism would be most welcome. Thanks for the advice everybody. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert but a lot of those articles look like they are being used for the study of Judaism rather than being studies of Judaism? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the first 21 of the weekly Torah reading articles I must confess to feeling overwhelmed. All of them contain dozens, if not hundreds, of external links (usually as duplicative refs to a particular passage or reading) followed by massive sections of links to external commentary and they are all written in an in-universe style that provides precious little context for a reader unfamiliar with the subject. There is good content here (also great illustrations) but there are quite a few articles and they all need some attention. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As much as possible, external links should be converted to internal links. Even if that converts some links to red links, that's not an issue (see WP:REDDEAL). Obviously, the inline reference issue is slightly different of course, and those should be converted to use REF. Religious document references are slightly different... I know that most religious texts are available on Wikisource, and I'm almost certain that there are some templates for linking to them. Either that, or a named and grouped reference could be used to an external source for the text, and those references could be put into a different section. The point being, EL's really shouldn't be in the body of the text. It can take some creativity to adjust them, but it's doable.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI:Wikisource has a whole category of content for Torah: s:Category:Torah
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that it is Dauster again who is the main editor for these Weekly Torah articles. Do these belong on Wikpedia at all? Certainly not in this form, where they appear more instructional than encyclopedic Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Can anyone help me out here? I'm in an edit war on my own talk page and am starting to be tempted to misuse my admin tools (for protection of my page). Admonish me for losing my temper with an editor who didn't bother to familiarize themselves with AIV and talk page processes before accusing people of things, but I want this editor OFF my talk page, and per WP:BLANKING, I have every right to remove his comments - especially since that thread was properly archived. Thank you. Tan | 39 22:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Already reported the user to AIV. Others may wish to comment on the irony. → ROUX ₪ 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's your own page. Why not semi-protect it until the interloper goes away? I don't think anyone would find fault with that (except maybe the interloper). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to fully protect it, and that's most likely a breach of policy (and, really, I don't want to involve admin tools in this). Tan | 39 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned him, twice actually. He seems to have stopped, or at least paused. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it's abuse of admin tools to protect yourself from lunatics. But he'll probably be put on ice at AIV anyway, and if not, you've got several folks watching your page now, so he'll get tired of the ping-pong after awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be under control now, with repeated citation of WP:Blanking; and another revert would be the 4th. Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My take on it is that many of you are good at helping and supporting yourselves but when an ordinary guy asks for help you can be pretty dismissive and rude. I was the user who raised the vandalism alerts earlier and the user you are now referring to came along and offered some welcome support. I have also asked him to stop but that's up to him. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Come again? Protonk (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

He has appeared to continue his notion of talk page behavior. –túrian^patois 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that any further disruption from Declan Davis will likely result in a temporary block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And all this because Salix alba wrote something erroneous back in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

According to his talk page, he has us all over a barrel, whatever that is supposed to imply. Thanks for the eyes. Tan | 39 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But why so many of you? Between here and his talk page at least 7 admins. have piled in. Maybe if the "eyes" had been willing to consider the original issue of vandalism, raised in good faith, but apparently in, what was the expression, an incorrectly formatted way, there would have been no need for so much wasted effort this evening. Swarming like beas becuase one admin. has an issue if a rather immature way to do business, if you think about it. Goodnight. leaky_caldron (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you can't be serious? When someone does something wrong, you are saying it is immature for multiple people who see what was done wrong to act upon it? There is no logic behind that. He got mad because Tan removed the note (which always is done by admins) and then decided to vandalize his page. I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong people. –túrian^patois 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think 7 onto 1 is excessive in any circumstances. There were not many useful contributions and all that happend is that he is feeling more backed into a corner. I'm sure there is a policy somewhere about this sort of excessive, group behaviour. Anyway, moving on - while I have your attention I see you have contributed to the Big Brother harmonisation project. I have rasied an issue over there [[20]] and would welcome your thoughts if you have time please. leaky_caldron (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

7 on 1 is not excessive, there is no reason it is. He didn't listen to those who tried helping him out, so more were needed. If he had just listened instead of acting insulting and incivil, we wouldn't be in this mess.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as an opening message from an uninvolved admin to his talk page I think you will agree that "If his ultimate goal is to get indef'd, then he's making good progress in that direction. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)" is not especially helpful. We should all try to move on. leaky_caldron (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Later I tried to help. Oh, and thanks for the promotion. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

General warning to all participants issued. Uncle G (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but shouldn't someone have brought this thread to my attention? I seem to have stumbled across it by reading user contributions. Whay exactly have I done wrong? What disruption have I caused? Are the admins all powerful, unquestionable beings? Someone wasn't doing their job properly and I told him! As far as I recall, I re-instated by own comments two or three times on another user's talk page. Once I realised that that wasn't taking me anywhere I gave up. The hypocracy of most of these editors is unbelievable. Uncle G had to warn Daedalus and Bugs about doing a much worse crime: editing other people's comments on other people's talk pages (not even their own comments). I think the comments above, like "thanks for the eyes" just serve to prove a point. I reported a genuine act of vandalism, I was treaded with curtness and a lack of respect. I pressed the rude admin about his behaviour and we can now see the aftermath. It's a joke really. It seems that Uncle G is the only admin with a shred of common sense. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I did bring this thread to your attention. But, like most of the other comments given to you, you chose not to pay attention to it. Tan | 39 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Enough means you, too. Let the matter be until at least tomorrow morning, your local time. The admonition about not having an escalating back and forth conflict applies to this page, too. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just based on what I've read from this thread and the talkpages involved, you: Jumped in where you didn't know what you were doing, decided your way was better regardless of how things were normally done, refused to consider that there might be sound reasoning for the normal practice, lectured administrators of long experience as though they were children, threatened to have said administrators desysopped, edit warred with someone on his own talk page and then refused to acknowledge any potential error when it was pointed out by numerous people.

  Now of course, Tanthalas' replies could have explained in more detail - it's no sin being unaware of normal practice at something as carefully governed by protocol as AIV. You probably should have made that point one time and stopped there. Nathan ^T 03:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This isn't helping, Nathan. Leave it be until at least 2009-08-31 08:00 UTC. If there is further discussion to be had, it can be had when editors are calmer, and have had some sleep. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't seem that heated, at least as discussions here go, but perhaps there is stuff going on elsewhere that I haven't seen. I have no particular stake in the matter, so I'm happy to leave that as my only comment on the subject. Nathan ^T 03:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You haven't seen the edit history of User talk:Declan Davis. Things were melting down over there, helped in no little part by a disruptive vandal who decided to come along and stir the pot a bit. Things will be calmer in Declan Davis's morning. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX

I was told on WP:WQA to bring this here if it continued. Thuran X has been uncivil and downright impossible to work with on the Glenn Beck talkpage and doesn't seem to be able to WP:AGF at all. This behavior has also taken place at the Carly Fiorina page, as was brought up at WQA. In the initial WQA report I included the following examples: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], Carly Fiorina talkpage,Carly Fiorina the last of which earned him a warning. His reply to the warning: shows that he learned nothing, and has been supported by his edits to the Glenn Beck page after the WQA was put up (he was notified on his talkpage of it being there): [26] [27] [28] (With reply: [29]), [30], [31], [32]. Finally one editor snapped, and ThuranX continues to accuse everyone of having an agenda. I ask that something be done so that civil editing can be resumed. Soxwon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor, but there also appears to be a clear-cut instance of WP:CANVASS: [33]. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving the canvassing thing to the side because I see that as minor and not relevant to the main point. I've been monitoring the Glenn Beck page for a little while now, and did recently have to warn ThuranX about civility (it's not the first time I've done that unfortunately). Obviously his block log points to an ongoing problem there (I have blocked him, recently, for a 3RR violation but not for incivility), and I believe there was a recent ANI thread about this very issue though I'd have to check. ThuranX arrived at the Glenn Beck article angry about the content, which I think was understandable since there were/are serious problems, but his editing style has not done him any favors there, and indeed has proven a significant hindrance to collaborative editing.

From what I've seen, ThuranX is a conscientious editor who has made a lot of good contributions to the project. But he (I believe "he" is correct) is also often a bit of a bull in a china shop, and tends to inflame situations unnecessarily.

History has shown that we simply do not deal with these situations, and I think we can all think of any number of examples where a good contributor is disruptively uncivil, repeatedly so, and we simply cannot come up with a good way to handle it. I don't think ThuranX will appreciate this thread or care much what is said here, but I'm wondering if there are suggestions (assuming others agree in seeing this as a long term problem) for how to proceed. A user-conduct RFC would be a logical step at some point, but I'm not sure we're there yet. If Thuran would simply agree to chill out/tone it down there would not be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that will happen given past interactions I've had with him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In the general sense of what do we do with good contributors who are too abrasive, we do the same thing we would do with a so-so contributor who is too abrasive. There is no provision in any of the policies that say "If you contribute X good edits, you get a free pass on Y civility or personal attack violations". Editors who feel that way absolutely boggle me. a single incident of incivility might be enough to drive 1 or more contributors from the project. This concept of "net benefit" is also ridiculous. Because the moment they make another editor unhappy with editing here, I don't care how many good contributions they've made, they are not a "net benefit". This is a huge problem on wikipedia. I've seen editors complain about this before, and I've seen news stories and other social media stories pick up on this as well and the complaints it generates there. There is a general perception that some editors are protected no matter what they do, and it has a grain of truth. Think about some of the wheel wars and drama we've had over certain users. In pretty much all of those cases they were in clear violation of policies, yet they were coddled, snuggled and given cookies by some editors for months or years before they were finally (if ever) cut off. Yet another user doing 1/10th of what they did was indef, the key was thrown away, and unblock requests or appeals were quickly shot down and everyone carried on with their day. Wikipedia is a big project and if people can't work with the project and discuss things civilly then the community needs to do something about that. There are lots of existing editors and new editors everyday to do the job. The project doesn't live and die on a single editor but it does live and die on how the community feels.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's time for an RfC so much as it is for an indef block, or maybe a six month timeout contigent on this user firmly agreeing to mend his ways. His block log shows many instacnes of incivility but, as far as I know, he has apologized for few -- if any -- of them. That other users annoy him is reason enough to write (as a mild example) "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk." [34] Alternatively, as ThuranX has been complained about again and again and again and nothing is ever really done, perhaps it could be made clear that he has special dispensation to act as he does without consequence. IronDuke 02:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should start WP:Protectedusers so people can refer to it before they file a complaint to see if there is any point? It might cut the drama down significantly. It would also be a handy one stop for news organizations. In all seriousness, if short blocks don't do the trick, do we have an admin who can make the hard block and take the next appropriate step?--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure ThuranX falls under the "protected" editor category. He's been blocked eight times by my count and unblocked twice, with neither of those being drama-inducing "wheel war" blocks from what I can gather. Editors who are "protected" generally get away with incivility without being blocked, or if they are blocked someone swoops in and unblocks. I don't think that's really the case with ThuranX, and I'm not sure he has any particular protectors. The fact that he is not an admin removes one possible layer of protection, since administrators are (regardless of protestations to the contrary) far more protected from blocks or other sanctions then are non-admin editors.

I don't think general comments about "protected editors" are particularly helpful to this thread. I fully agree, and said above, that we have a problem dealing with veteran editors who also have issues with civility and the like. The problem stems largely from the fact that people disagree about how to proceed in those kind of situations. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. I have no idea if someone has brought ThuranX to ANI before and said generally, "what do we do about this behavior?," rather than specifically complaining about one incident. If a previous general complaint did not result in any sort of attempted solution, perhaps it will be different this time, but that would require us to discuss the specific issue before us. IronDuke puts forward the possibility of an indef or otherwise lengthy block, and that would be one option. If others have specific suggestions that would be great, but if there are general complaints about our ability to deal with long-term editors who don't abide by certain guidelines then I'm not sure this is the place for that. For example complaining about the "net benefit" argument does little good when no one here has invoked it, implicitly much less explicitly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, there are many previous AN/I threads regarding this user (with whom, I should say, I have interacted negatively in the past). A sampling of the complaints: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]... There's more, I think, but, well, nuff said. IronDuke 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful, and obviously the notion of giving ThuranX a long term block or starting an RFC or ArbCom case has been broached before. I'd like to hear from other (particularly uninvolved) editors and admins on this, and also of course from ThuranX, as to what can be done about this long-term problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just read through the August part of the Glen Beck Talk Page--I try not to get involved in these topics, but I couldn't escape knowing. It seems clear that Thuranox , while trying [to bring some degree of NPOV to a previously biased article, has gotten overinvolved. I'm not sure I blame him--the POV pushing done by most notably BigTimepeace Bytebear is some of the most outrageously biased article editing I've seen here. I think we can deal appropriately with this issue by banning BTP Bytebear from this article & talk p. and all other articles and talk pages related to GB) indefinitely --or, if indef is out of fashion, 6 months, I generally think than an angry response to provocation is as wrong as the provocation, but in this case, the provocation is so great that I think I'd be prepared to say that any reasonable person might have gotten upset in dealing with it. But the language Thuranox used was out of control, and I don't know any way of impressing this upon him that would be effective. If BTP Bytebear is gone from the article, that'll certainly help things. There will still be some fighting there, and if Thuranox continues editing there, he'll have to do it with more restraint. If not ,we should take the preventative action of having him stay away from the articles also. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

← That's a pretty strong accusation DGG. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the interruption. Upon clarification I strike my comment. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling, indeed I very much hope, that DGG (whom I quite respect) is confusing me with another editor whose handle also begins with a "B," namely User:Bytebear. ThuranX and that editor have gone toe to toe at the Beck article, and Bytebear's editing has indeed been very problematic, as I have pointed out on the article talk page and on that editor's user talk page (I also blocked them for edit warring). I have only been acting in an "adminly" (as opposed to editorial) fashion at Glenn Beck (trying to put a stop to the edit warring and calm the waters a bit), and while I have the article watchlisted and have made a number of edits there in the past I have not edited the article since March. So I think this is just a case of mistaken identity and if so then no worries at all, but I would hope DGG could clarify that, because I certainly don't think "outrageously biased article editing" remotely applies to anything I've done over there.

Operating on the assumption that DGG meant to refer to Bytebear (right-DGG) , I would also be willing to consider some sort of topic ban. Indeed I was working on a formal proposal along those lines a week or so ago (gathering a bunch of diffs to show what I took to be a seriously problematic pattern) but decided to shelve it to see if Bytebear's editing improved. If we are having a conversation about a possible topic ban I can present the diffs I put together (no one else should bother gathering them, what I put together is pretty comprehensive), though personally I'd like to see if progress can be made on the article talk page first.

I don't think Bytebear's problematic editing means ThuranX gets a free pass, and as mentioned that editor's civility is a longer term issue, though a recent comment by Thuran is, to me at least, encouraging. If we our going to talk about Bytebear (or about me!) we might want to start a subthread just so this doesn't turn into a complete muddle, as Old Stephen would say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I did indeed mean Bytebear. I apologize for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To BTP, since we've out dented already, Actually I got that impression from the mention of how many times its been brought up at AN/I and nothing really being done. This is the second thread on this page dealing with a long-term editor who has civility issues that no one seems to want to do anything about. See the bungie section up above as another example. While no one has wheel-warred over him, no one has rushed to deal with him because he's a veteran. DGG suggests excusing it because there was apparent POV pushing, but I still fail to see that exception in the policy. When we get into that thinking, where do we draw the line? This user was really really really annoying so it was okay for me to chew him out. How many "really"s makes it okay?Do we need 3? how about 2? what if its only 1? We get down to a subjective interpretation of how annoying some user was and who thinks the other user was justified in snapping. Sorry no. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that poisons this community. It will always be the people with the buddies who gets the pass because the other guy was more annoying. Subjective application of these policies doesn't help a single person on wikipedia. There is a reason those kinds of exceptions aren't in the policy. I don't care if the other party is talking about what he did with your dead relative's corpse last night, its the internet. Report them and move on. If someone is supposedly POV pushing, start DR, get third opinion, report it to the relevant projects, and move on. There are millions of articles out there. Conduct the debate civilly, though passionately if you want, or don't be involved in it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

normally I'd agree with you, Crossmr, and very strongly. I think this case is an exception. the initial state of that article was so much of a panegyric that the subject would have been unrecognizable. Bytebear wasn't the only person getting it that way, but he as a major and continuing and very persistent influence. A number of people tried, and I think it actually took Thuranx's intervention to get things going sensibly. Strong medicine, in this case needed. Maybe a little too strong, but the only other way of handing it would have been to topicban Bytebear at an earlier state--and we didn't do it. I think that ThuranX should take great care he doesn't do this again, when they probably will not be so well deserved. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a majority of the comments have been directed at myself and Morphh who have tried to be cooperative and act for the good of the article. There's also the matter of his comments at Carly Fiorina as well, which seem totally unjustified. If Bytebear was the problem, he certainly missed the target. Soxwon (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see that at all. There still aren't any exceptions, regardless of what he thought he was trying to accomplish. The ends doesn't justify the means when it comes to civility. In addition his comments at Carly Fiorina completely invalidate that argument. If this was a one time issue with no priors and no other issues on other articles, you _might_ (in the smallest sense of the word) have a case. But this is clearly not a problem restricted to this article in this case.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say that I'm the editor that snapped (not my proudest moment, but I did redact the profanity and clarify it). I've been personally labeled by ThuranX as "disingenuous", a "fanboy", "whitewasher", "pov pusher", "pretender", bad faith editor, and essentially Bytebear's meatpuppet. I don't think I've deserved any of the labels, but that's beside the point to this discussion. The uncivil behavior was unacceptable and created a hostile environment. I don't agree with DGG that he really helped this article move along, in fact, I think his discussions have been disruptive and created more conflicts and issues than needed to move the article forward. I got there a couple weeks before ThuranX, who arrived on August 15th[44] and at that point we were already moving toward some good progress in including the criticism.[45][46][47] I think it was primarily the work of civil editors working together that moved things along. I think these changes would have happened with or without ThuranX, and likely faster without. I'm conflicted as I would like his perspective and opinion, but we can't get there if he's always leveling attacks and avoiding the policy discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Give ThuranX and Bytebear ultimatums: Any further incivility (broadly construed -- in fact, so broadly that it would be safer not to comment on editors at all, just on edits, and comment carefully on them) or edit warring at Glenn Beck/ Talk:Glenn Beck will result in both a one-week block and a six-month topic ban on the article. If BigTimePeace wants some kind of different solution, it would probably be a good idea to give it to him. If Bytebear is POV-pushing, too bad for Wikipedia, because AN/I has no tools to address that, but sanctions on incivility and edit warring can be ratcheted up. This is a "solution" in that it makes the admin's job easier, but it is no solution for the article or the editors: they are allowed to game the system by baiting the other side into edit warring or an incivility violation. The editor who blows his top first loses the game. It's a sport, not a solution. There is no solution, and I started a section below to start groping for an answer. But in the meantime, without a solution, let's make BigTimePeace's job easier: Give 'em ultimatums. -- Noroton (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since you're considering equal punishment, I don't know that I've seen Bytebear be uncivil or issue a personal attack (could be wrong). He's just been very strict with policy interpretation, so it makes adding content more difficult. ThuranX calls it the Civil POV Push. On the opposite end, ThuranX has been very loose with policy. So aside from politics, you can see where we get the huge clash between these two editors. I don't know what the best course of action would be, but I thought I would clarify what I'm seeing. Morphh ^(talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I really didn't intend to cause such a stir. I have apparently been to strict with my interpretation of WP:BPL relying on the exception for 3RR on such articles, thinking my reverts were in compliance with the rules applied. Rather than applying the rules to facts, I applied them to POV. The edit war in question was an issue of WP:SYNTH where two facts were presented side by side and a direct conclusion was heavily implied. I reverted in the hopes that someone would reapply the information more fairly avoiding POV, but it didn't happen, so I continued to revert assuming the 3RR did not apply under the rules of BLP, and eventually modified the text to a more fair version, which was promptly reverted. I think I have edited in good faith, if not misguided. Since my ban, which I take full responsibility, I have been discussing the issue at length trying to gain a more complete understanding of how BLP applies in this case. I still disagree with some of the assessments by Bigtimepeace, but I am willing to discuss them. ThuranX on the other hand dismisses every suggestion and comment I make with accusations of conspiracy and protectionism, even when other editors agree with me. I think my points are valid, and I admit to having strong convictions about them, but I don't think I have demonstrated a inability to discuss and work with other editors, other than the unfortunate butting heads with ThuranX. Bytebear (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, ThuranX is by no means the only person who takes Bytebear's editing behavior to be protectionism. Sometimes this seems to take the form of a WP:TAGTEAM with other like-minded users who, like Bytebear, have received warnings and bans related to Glenn Beck and/or other US Politics topics. This obviously does not excuse any of ThuranX's behavior, but it is certainly a frustrating experience trying to improve this article. There is a larger problem here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the original post in this thread: As the admin. who issued the "warning" to ThuranX I suppose I should say something here. Yes, I saw his reply. No, I didn't feel a need to respond and inflame the issue. I know the rules fairly well thank you, and I suspect that ThuranX does too. American political articles are going to elicit emotions here, everyone has their own POV. I suggest that all parties simply stick to the facts, the reliable sources, and address the topics and not the editors. All ya'all just need to cool it. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any provide any diffs of Bytebear being uncivil. If they have been, someone should provide those diffs, if they haven't, then why put this odd restriction on them? Thuranx's behaviour extends beyond this article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Bytebear has really been all that uncivil, or if so only somewhat. The issue with that editor is POV editing, not incivility, and that was not why the thread was opened which is probably part of the confusion..

This thread has gone pretty far afield from where it started, jumping over to the editing behavior of another editor, and moving into a general discussion below. I doubt anything will come of it now, but that's fine. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wider picture: a new set of rules is needed for this widespread problem

I've said this before and I'll risk sounding a bit like a broken record and say it again: Wikipedia has a problem with its Wild West atmosphere on articles with controversial content (mostly politics, nationalism, probably religion, I think). We treat them like we treat any article in terms of what guidelines and policies editors are supposed to follow, but our rules are inadequate. POV pushers are attracted to these articles and inevitably offend editors who also have strong views on a subject, and there are plenty of these editors when a subject is very controversial out there in the world beyond Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough BigTimePeaces to try to keep the peace, or enough admins like DGG to even recognize that there may be more than one problem. As a result, Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are, frankly, a disgrace. And that's after many editors have wasted their time on them and many admins have wasted their time dealing with the problems.

We'd lose a lot of good editors if we ban all of the ones who have a difficult time with civility, but who mostly keep it to a minimum. It's extremely hard to identify a POV-pushing editor unless you are also well-acquainted with the issue, and it takes not just you but a consensus to do it. That's hardly ever gonna happen. Article probations are complicated to set up, involve too much work to maintain and can be gamed by POV pushers.

What needs to be done is to have some kind of different set of policies and guidelines for editing on articles & talk pages where we find we have excessive fighting and a lack of constructive consensus-building. The rules should involve how editors treat each other and how consensus is formed, they should encourage calm, rational, cordial discussion and encourage more editors to participate (overwhelming POV pushers with reasonable editors from the broader community who are interested in thoughtful participation that actually improves an article in an NPOV way -- this is not really too much to ask: it's what we're asking now), and the rules should be very easy and clear for any admin to enforce or editor to understand (unlike the rat's nest of an explanation we have for WP:CONSENSUS and related pages and WP:CIVIL and related pages).

AN/I threads are fingers in a very leaky dyke. Instead of this problem coming back to AN/I over and over, with different editors at different articles, the dyke needs to be fixed. -- Noroton (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise good points here, but I worry it's impractical. And you'd get a lot of pushback from editors about two sets of rules, how we determine which article goes in what cat, etc. I also think we lose more editors due to the toxically uncivil environment that prevails here than the few who would storm off in a huff after being told no, they really can't tell other editors to "fuck off." I'd also note the editor in question has made no move at all to suggest that there's any kind of problem with his approach, and it bothers me when people take a sort of "Hey, let's move on" attitude as if the person in question had actually said he was sorry and promised to be better in the future. IronDuke 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I already decides on article probation, as does Arbcom, so we could let them decide whether to put a contentious article into this probation-like status. You'll get no more pushback than we get now, another avenue would be to let a consensus of editors decide at an RfC. All three avenues should be available, just as we would do now for article probation. You don't set up the new rules for any particular article until we see problems with the article and get complaints. This isn't a plan or even a proposal, of course, just an idea of the type of thing that might be done. The real point is that some different kind of set of rules is needed. I would think admins would be happier with an easier system. IronDuke, if you scroll up to my proposal for this particular case, you'll see that I'm not excusing any conduct. POV pushing does not excuse incivility, but solving the incivility problem does nothing to solve the POV problem (by removing editors you may make the POV problem worse). I think the real trick is to channel discussions into calm, reflective, civil exchanges that won't be distracted by comments on editors and where editors will decide on content and decide what to say based on what they really think a neutral article would look like. That's the hardest environment for a POV pusher to succeed, for edit warring to succeed and for incivility to seem right. It's the kind of atmosphere that happens in civil, even cordial discussions, but even in hot, contentious discussions when there is some force or authority, understood by all and seen as fair. You get that kind of atmosphere when you have rules and enforce them consistently, Wikipedia doesn't do that and doesn't get that atmosphere. Editors know that POV pushing and edit warring can succeed, and incivility may or may not result in sanctions. If we can attract more editors to take part in civil, focused discussions, POV pushing will be much harder, and we're more likely to get better articles. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Noroton, we have loads of guidelines on how to behave, and an escalation policy. The lack of structure on this particular page makes this problem a recurring one. I am not thrilled about the layout of RfC but it is a logical next step. One can also make a community proposal here, or refer to the arbitration committee. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner for part of the year, and hope to be timely later on :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And what we don't have is effective enforcement. Who the hell wants to spend a month (or two, or more) in front of Arbcom until all else has failed, unless the editor is already stark, raving mad and the case is no longer about saving the article but has instead turned into a feud in which the goal really is to get the other side punished? By the time something gets to Arbcom, Wikipedia has already failed, often in numerous ways. The articles are what this website is supposed to be about, and they need much more than some Arbcom judging. AN/I is inconsistent. RfC is an enormous investment in time and effort. None of these avenues provide editors clear, consistently enforced regulations for conduct in contentious-article discussions, nor do they encourage good conduct -- they just discourage bad conduct in the sanctioned editors you're watching. Really, Casliber, this system sucks. An analogy: At a busy downtown intersection the authorities have set up four stop signs. But the intersection is so busy, and enforcement is so light and inconsistent, that plenty of people ignore the signs, plenty of accidents result and good drivers come to understand that using the intersection is dangerous or maybe a waste of time, so they use other intersections. Drivers seldom call the cops, sometimes even after an accident, because they see little good coming from that. Should the judges say "we have loads of stop signs telling drivers what to do, and laws in place to sanction traffic violators. We did have a good run of getting through cases in a timely manner ..." I have a personal metric (I think it's an easy example to understand): On Wikipedia, Bill Ayers can't be even said to have been called a terrorist -- the thing he's famous for -- despite his being called a terrorist by every reliable source in creation (New York Times, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, dozens of scholarly and other sources, in fact, just about every source, regardless of political outlook and going back decades -- I've got the proof). The only time "terrorist" or "terrorism" appears in the Ayers article is when we quote him denying it. And it's not as if we didn't have an RfC, an AN/I report and have it brought up in front of ArbCom. I should not have had to go through Wikipedia's clunky dispute resolution system to enforce a 2/3 consensus. Nor is it my fault that after months of effort, followed by weeks of anguish, I gave up. It's only one among many, many POV problems where Wikipedia has failed. We don't need any more guidelines in how to behave, and it's not just a problem of whether authorities will enforce -- it's a system that runs off the rails because it doesn't now have the means to encourage good discussions and effectively, quickly discourage bad behavior on discussions that are inevitably contentious: something like a closing admin, perhaps a better definition of consensus (and possibly a lower bar for consensus), an easier way to canvass more editors, stronger incentives to propose compromises. That's a pretty long list of changes, but they're essentially based on what we already do and tweaking it. Just don't tell me we don't have a problem when we have articles looking like Bill Ayers does, even after the contentious discussion and 2/3 majority. This is just one failure of the system, which has resulted in widespread POV-related failures. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we don't have effective enforcement. Far too often are veteran editors allowed to insult people willy nilly because they think they're "right". They have a group of friends who will back/unblock them if anyone questions them, or have found the admins to be indifferent to their antics. We really need a page which describes how many edits it takes to trade in for a pass on the various policies.--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility applies to all articles. There are many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil. If an editor can't do that, then they should go do something else. If they persist in putting themselves in situations where they become uncivil, then they damage the project. Uncivil editors push away other editors and at times cause some editors to leave the project. I don't care what they think justifies the behaviour, nothing does. We don't need another set of guidelines. Use dispute resolution, get third opinions, ask for a wider consensus. if you can't do that, go to other articles. If you still can't calm down on other articles, go do something else entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Some article topics will be more contentious than others. This often results in lousy, biased articles on Wikipedia. In fact, bad discussions go hand in hand with biased articles, which should not be the case when numerous editors have been involved in editing and discussing an article. Civility enforcement does not always apply to each article. There are not many editors who can edit controversial articles without becoming uncivil if they are constantly confronted with POV pushers. You want the most committed editors, the ones who have a passion for explaining a topic in an intelligent, neutral way, to be productive, but they are precisely the editors who will be most driven away by POV pushers or who will turn to bad behavior because they are the ones who care the most about a particular topic -- along with the POV pushers. Drive away the good, passionate editors and you're left with the passionate POV pushers. It happens a lot. It happens because Wikipedia's set of rules and enforcement of them encourage it. It's systemic. You should not be complacent about it because it hurts the encyclopedia enormously. (I know, this is really not the place for this thread. I need a blog.) -- Noroton (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here, perhaps this clip from scrubs can clear it up [48]. Civility not only applies to every article but it applies to every single page on wikipedia. Why is it that passionate POV pushers can be civil and passionate "good" editors cannot? If POV pushers are being uncivil, deal with them equally. If they're not being uncivil, why can they argue their side without that? There are many people who are good editors who can argue their point without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. There is nothing wrong with passion. There is a problem when passion degenerates into personal attacks and insults. If "good" editors can't explain their side of the debate without using insults, they have a problem. that isn't systemic. They need to walk away and form a larger consensus and deal with it appropriate. Incivility is never acceptable just because you think you're right. Right is very subjective and we don't apply rules like civility subjectively.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a civility policy on a Wikipedia page doesn't work by itself. And it isn't just a problem of inconsistent enforcement (although admins have found by experience that the policy can't be enforced with absolute consistency -- an unwritten policy that Wikipedians can only know through familiarity). For you to say that we should simply deal with POV pushers the way we would with anyone else is fine by itself, but you've ignored the fact that POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility. It also happens to be the prime instigator of biased articles. Much of this is concentrated on contentious articles (often on very prominent subjects), which also happen to generate a large number of complaints at AN/I and ArbCom, although the problem goes far beyond administrator/Arbcom workload. With our current set of policies, contentious articles generate a huge amount of problems and at the same time the huge amount of time and effort that goes into them generates incredibly little good content. The waste is simply enormous. So is the stress.

In the real world beyond Wikipedia, there is a reason why some people have had a longstanding ban on conversation about sex, politics and religion in dinnertable talk they want to keep polite. There is a reason why certain spots on the Internet are notorious for their toxic manners, and a reason why we have Internet-era words like "flame wars" and "trolls". The reason is that when you combine a lack of clear rules and inconsistent enforcement even of them with contentious topics, you get nastiness and a breakdown in necessary consensus building. It is simply not true that we have an unlimited supply of editors for any topic who are capable of long-term civility in the face of constant POV pushing. (And don't forget that even editors who can remain civil are put under quite a bit of strain by having to put up with POV pushing.) The good editors not only find that their facts and reasoning falls on deaf ears among POV pushing editors who are simply determined to bias an article, but they find that Wikipedia puts up roadblocks to dealing with POV pushing: WP:CANVASS makes it difficult to recruit non-POV pushers to discussions; discussions can go on forever and be difficult to read for newcomers; there is no clear, bright line showing editors when consensus has been reached (or exactly what the consensus is) or where civility is breached or where edit warring begins and ends or where discussions should end -- this informality is fine for noncontentious articles (it usually works best), but it is toxic for contentious articles. Think about it: a casual lack of rules is never the case outside Wikipedia when there is no hierarchy of people (who have the power to enforce ad-hoc order) and where the goal is to get something done regarding a contentious issue. Instead, we appoint chairmen, secretaries, etc., and adopt Roberts Rules of Order (not that I'm proposing any of this). At Wikipedia, enforcement of what few rules we have is often left up to the editors on the page who are already debating the substance, so one editor's citing of a policy like WP:CIV or WP:BLP isn't trusted by the editors he is arguing with (and it's often a strained application of those policies anyway). We have a few areas of Wikipedia where discussions are more structured: deletion discussions (XfD), ArbCom cases, Requests for Adminship and elections. They all have their creaky faults, but they all work better than our more contentious articles. Something similar should be set up for articles identified as so contentious that normal talk-page regulations and other policies aren't enough to keep them orderly and productive. This would improve the articles, make editing an happier experience (or at least avoid some of our sadder experiences) and, overall, be easier on admins. This discussion has gotten too long for AN/I, and I think I'm straining the good will of people who come to this page for its main purpose, so this will be may last comment. At some point I suppose I should come up with a proposal, or at least an essay, or maybe find another place to discuss this. -- Noroton (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing is one of the prime instigators of incivility Here is your problem. You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. If you feel so out of control that you cannot control what words you type on a screen, then wikipedia isn't for you. The rules are very clear. Discuss the content, not the editors. Don't resort to personal attacks and insults in an attempt to make your point. There are plenty of steps to DR, and none of those are disallowed by CANVASS. You can use third opinion, posting on relevant projects also shouldn't be an issue for CANVASS. Posting on individual talk pages, coming to AN/I for content disputes, going to the village pump, help desk, other article talk pages, etc. may be. The problem here is that you seem to find fault with the POV for making you or anyone else uncivil. They don't make you do anything.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are responsible for your behaviour. Not POV pushers. You control how you react to them. That's not what we're disagreeing about. Obviously, many people are baited and many take the bait. POV pushing acts like baiting to anyone who cares about an article. I've said repeatedly, including repeatedly here, that it isn't an excuse for somebody else being uncivil. When the same problem crops up again and again, it's time for Wikipedians to look into the causes and try to do something about it. Your position is simply to let certain editors get into tangles that could be avoided. But of course, reducing the temptation to incivility is not the only reason to try to make Wikipedia more difficult for POV pushers to influence. There is that other concern we have, the actual articles. I've explained all that, and you've ignored all that while personalizing the discussion, and even described my position as the exact opposite of my position, even after I've pointed out the difference, so it's time to stop replying to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My solution is to let them seek DR. If there is a problem with the DR process deal with that appropriately. A problem with DR doesn't excuse civility. Whether POV pushing is the cause, a cause, or some cause all boils down to the same thing, it isn't a cause at all. The only cause of incivility is the user failing to control themselves. In a brand new user we issue warnings and work with them. An editor who has never before been warned for a problem also gets a warning. like baiting to anyone who cares about an article it comes down 100% to personal responsibility. If someone is baiting you, don't take the bait. If you agree there isn't an excuse for incivility then there is no reason for Thuranx to get a pass on this. This is a long term problem he should be well aware of the issues he's had in the past and stayed out of those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr - POV is not the cause. Everyone is POV pushing somehow whether they realize it or not - in the above for example you certainly have stated your POV about Bill Ayers and that you are sorry that consensus didn't allow it to be represented in the article. No one can say - my POV is the neutral point of view and you people are all biased. That is why we have policies to determine as objectively as possible how to weigh viewpoints in articles. However one can argue in favour of a point of view without being incivil, and that is what we all have the responsibility of doing. PArt of being civil is standing back when one sees that the majority does not agree with one's arguments, and to recognize when better arguments are being made. I don't mind people with agendas as long as they engage in civil discussion, try to reach a compromise and do not stubbornly stick with one particular way that they want things to be.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing is not the cause, but it is a cause. Isn't there a definition of POV pusher somewhere on Wikipedia? Maybe in an essay? You're confusing having a POV with pushing one. Of course I have a POV, but what we're supposed to want in articles is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say on a subject. That's the difference. Is my estimation of that affected by my own POV? Sure, but it has a limited effect, especially since I try to keep the two things separate in my mind. It isn't that difficult to deal with an editor with a different POV and also different idea of what a neutral article would be. For one thing, both of us will want just about the same thing, usually. We can also direct the discussion toward the facts (that is: What do the best sources and the "consensus" among the reliable sources say?). Discussions about facts can generally reach a consensus. After a while of assuming good faith, you know whether or not the other party is looking for a neutral article or pushing a POV. If the other party is a POV pusher, that should offend the rest of us. And that's a temptation to incivility, and it's more of a temptation when the good editors often don't have effective means to counteract that POV pushing. What matters in the Bill Ayers article is what the sources say, not what I personally think. It's a good example because it's very clear, it seems to me, whether or not the WP article reflects what the reliable sources say. (Having a goal different from pushing one's own POV allows an edditor to add positive information about a subject the editor generally has negative feeligns about. I've been able to do that with Bill Ayers, his wife and Obama in Wikipedia articles -- I want that information in the articles if it helps the readers understand the subjects better.) -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Noroton & Crossmr both have parts of the answer. First, there are people who can't be reasoned with effectively: although they may come across as polite & willing to work towards a consensus, they still are pushing for content which does not accurately reflect the subject in a manner which is useful to the average reader. (One case I recently encountered was an anon IP who objected to my adding some text to the article on Ethiopian Christanity which incidentally mentioned local pagan influences -- although various pagan [or non-Christian] influences have been identified & are commonly accepted in almost every branch of Christianity, & the material in question was taken form the Library of Congress website. His POV was that Ethiopian Christianity had no paganism in it, QED. The conflict was resolved simply by outlasting him -- not an optimal solution.) Sometimes article parole is the right answer.

Then there is the problem of dealing with POV-pushers for too long a time; Nietzsche's words about "beware fighting monsters, for you may become on" is appropos here: deal with too many people who are clearly editting in bad faith, & you start to assume everyone is -- or are naive to the fact many are. WikiBurnout then affects for the person, which can be uglier in some cases than others -- but is almost never pretty. This is not a healthy solution in the long run.

On the other hand, I don't think the problem is so much civility, but respect: it is not that hard to learn how to be disrespectful without be incivil, so only the newbies & the careless get caught up in civility problems. And many volunteers here are not confident enough about being "real" Wikipedians to no never see sarcasm or condescension where none is meant. And we can respect other Wikipedians without agreeing with them, or even liking them: part of the secret is to disagree with an attempt at politeness, not being by being snide (even though that can be a lot more enjoyable & fun to read). Yet to talk about civility, assuming good faith, & respect, one has to acknowledge that there are some who do not deserve it.

(Crap. I tried to explain this as a polar situation, with Noroton's & Crossmr's statements as the two opposing points, but I fear I am rambling here. I only hope something of my intent came across. I'm not going to post here until I've had a couple of nights where I average much more than 5 hours of sleep.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure people who argue with people they don't like for too long will sometimes end up being uncivil. However annoying they are, that still is no pass on civility. No one made them do that. It should be clear to many people fairly early if one side is going to compromise or not. If not the good editor needs to step back and engage DR and other editors. If someone is trying to push a non-legitimate POV giving the discussion a larger audience should solve that problem. We may understand why the user became uncivil in that situation. If it is the first or second time, a strong warning may be warranted, but if the user has a history of getting in debates and becoming uncivil then they no longer get a pass. I would never call for a block on the first civil offense, but if its a 3 year old problem with many warnings, a reasonable editor should have realized he has trouble in certain situations and stay out of them before he gets too hot under the collar to apparently control himself. The editor is responsible for his or her actions. We may understand them in the situation of a new editor who is learning or an editor who has never made that kind of mistake before, and offer guidance, but when faced with a long term problem, we can't chalk it up to inexperience at dealing with those situations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points. -- Noroton (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution for controversial subjects is to insist on verifiability and reliable sources. This has the effect of producing quote-heavy articles with huge numbers of footnotes. The Israel-related articles are a good example of this. That's where our policies take us, and it works, more or less. In the footnote-heavy articles, there are disputes, but they're over things like whether some reporter at the Manchester Guardian or a book by a pot dealer in LA should be considered a reliable source. Those get resolved eventually. Editors should be encouraged to edit along those lines. --John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that (example, and elsewhere on that page there's much more). Doesn't always work. Conclusion: Wikipedia allows its many POV-pushed articles to suck, articles be damned, readers be damned, editors be damned. If the only solutions are to look the other way or ignore the facts in order to worship consensus or walk away, then there is no solution. Wikipedia: We Make The Internet Suck a Little Less. Except When We Make It Suck Just As Much, If Not More. Not even a mountain of quotes, and various foothills elsewhere on the page I just cited, nor a 2/3 consensus could overcome Wikipedia POV pushing. It isn't the POV pushers mostly at fault, it's the system that empowers them. It's Wikipedia. What type of person would be satisfied with an encyclopedia that, essentially, lies? How much discomfort with a lying encyclopedia can you handle and still want to participate? At what point do the lies subvert the morale of the whole project? The editors spouting uncivilly at POV pushers are your coalmine canaries -- you won't see the editors who decide not to contribute to an article or who get disgusted and leave entirely. -- Noroton (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad requested move close

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560 § User:Una Smith

I believe the the recent close of this move discussion is a bad close and needs to be changed. Clearly from the discussion there is no primary topic and following the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline that the extended discussion shows that there is no primary topic. Based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this should have been closed to move Durham (disambiguation) to Durham. This action would in fact be supported by the no consensus close. Since there is no consensus for a primary topic, there is no clearly accepted primary topic. The only case made for keeping the current settlement as the main name space was that it is the oldest. That is simply a fact and does not by default make it the primary topic. I'll note that I could not find the closer listed as an admin. If that is in fact the case, then that editor should not have closed a discussion like this. The closer also participated in the discussion. No consensus on moves does not equate to leaving pages were they are when how to handle that case is clearly covered by a guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a requested move discussion is to assess consensus for the proposed move; clearly there was no consensus in that discussion. It wasn't really appropriate for Ohm's law to close it after having participated significantly in the discussion, but its unlikely anyone else would have come to a different conclusion. Nathan ^T 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is acceptable to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. Procedural problems aside, there really seems to be no consensus to change the status quo there... ultimately, the local consensus is what really matters in a disambiguation issue. I personally agree with you that there is no primary topic and hence a change needs to be made - but the consensus there does not seem to exist. ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to either rewrite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or enforce it. We are at the point where if dedicated supporters of an article don't want the dab page where it belongs, they win. What should be there based on the guidelines and what is best for the encyclopedia are not valid considerations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

nah, we don't need to rewrite anything. Let's not turn into what the folks arguing over the name of the Catholic Church article have created. All that needs to happen is that we keep talking to people.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And, actually, the history shows that it was originally closed by Chzz. Also not an admin, but oh well. Ohm's law changed the archiving method and then signed the close message. Nathan ^T 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• First things first: I didn't close it. Nathan is correct about my involvement in the discussion there, so I wouldn't have closed it regardless. All I did do is clean up after... Chzz, who closed it and tried hiding it or something. The funny thing is that my opinion is that the page should be moved! The whole BS about Una Smith occurring probably destroyed the whole process, that time around. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with starting another discussion. Since this one closed without consensus, we could keep goig until there is consensus. There are several people who are involved who seem to clearly misunderstand exactly what is being proposed, anyway (Ii seems soe think we're trying to rename the town, or something!)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that the incident with Una probably scuppered the discussion (it discouraged me from taking part properly and I would have supported the move), but it's probably best to wait a bit before reopening the discussion so that the people involved can cool off. Nev1 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  True. I'm not about to reopen anything, regardless. The only thing that brought me there at all was the RM anyway, since I participate in those discussions just to waste time between real editing. I have my opinions just like anyone else, but these things rarely actually bother me, one way or another.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi there. Sorry to come in late, nobody told me about this. No problem; I expect that was just a misunderstanding, due to the closure and the kind fixing by User:Ohms law.

I did indeed mark the discussion as archived, but I certainly didn't try to 'hide' anything. My intent was purely to avoid endless rhetoric. I thought that I had made that clear, with the notice I added;

I'm sorry if anyone feels that this was inappropriate. Please consider the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I would have had no problem at all if you had undone my changes, or you could have simply asked me about it.

If you wish to continue the discussions, then of course you should do so, and the previous comments are of course there, for all to see. If there is a consensus to move the page, then I will be just as happy helping with that as I was to help try to mediate a little.

And yes, I am not an admin, but that really is beside the point.

Thank you for your understanding,  Chzz  ►  10:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion was part of the WP:RM process, and thus should not have been closed by someone who expressed a strong view in the discussion. Kanguole 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Need revisions deleted

I don't remember the email address to send these requests to. This is a low-risk situation anyway so I'm just gonna post the links here. Someone please delete them as they contain personal contact info:

• --removed links now that email was sent to oversighters--

Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mailed the oversighters. GrooveDog (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Purposefully including one's own contact information and not requesting its removal does not normally fall anywhere near the oversight or revision deletion policies. I would hope an oversighter would turn such a request down. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Sorry. The information was provided by an anonymous user who probably doesn't realize the implications of posting such info here, so I thought this request was appropriate. Equazcion (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually (I can't see these revisions, since they were hidden by oversight), if this content was put up by minors, then we usually do oversight it. See Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

need help accessing entry

hi. could someone please try to go to the entry for Bodie, California? all I get is a blank page there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

worked for me for at least the top two reversions in the history. Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:72.53.86.52

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks for spamming ELs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is making a series of edits with the phrase "grammer methoo.com was rv", most of the edits include removals of ', changing its to it's (incorrectly in most cases) and null edits. I only noticed because they edited two pages on my watchlist. They have just come off a week long ban and have not learnt their lesson, or how to spell grammar. I have given them a level four vandalism warning, but given the odd nature of the vandalism (and that they are editing when I am asleep) I thought it might be worth having a second pair of eyes on them. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I just reblocked for 2 weeks -- since they just came off a block, I thought that escalating spam warnings would be process for the sake of process.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

James Caan (entrepreneur)

Resolved

 – Khan became Caan as a change of spelling without altering pronunciation. This is now well enough documented if it wasn't before and any further attempt to change it should be considered vandalism. Rd232 ^talk 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can someone help me on the James Caan (entrepreneur) page? There's some disagreement over whether his previous name was "Nazim Khan" or "Nazim Khant". The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of "Khan", and I've set this out on the Talk Page (before my IP changed just now :P), but it's still getting repeatedly reversed, without explanation or engagement in discussion.

There has to be a possibility that this is simply vandalism. Clearly false former names have been added in the past, and (whilst of course I don't have a Wikipedia account myself) the vast majority of the "Khant" edits are made by anonymous editors. One non-anonymous editor has also supported the "Khant" change, but they've only made one edit not to the James Caan page (also to a biography of a living person), and this seems a bit suspicous too. However I don't want to jump to any conclusions, which is why I've come to this general page.

I hope someone more experienced will be able to help!

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it. You might wish to try WP:3O if you feel no consensus can be achieved on the article talk page. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Aditya (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I can determine, there's no good-faith dispute at all here - the "Khant" changes are simple vandalism. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but I can't see any decent sources that support that spelling. If this behaviour continues, I'd generally suggest semi protection of the article, but that would prevent all IP editing, including the original poster here - have you thought about creating an account? ~ mazca ^talk 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP making the changes seems rather static. If the behavior continues, we can simply block it. — Jake Wartenberg 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"I was called Nazim Khan, and it suddenly struck me that I could spell my surname in a different way". No dispute here. – iridescent 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon 82.6.15.242 and Macgrissom currently edit-warring the page attempting to keep the Khant spelling. Possibly one and the same and he logged out to try to avoid 3RR, hard to tell. The anon's edits look like they're basically all trying to slip it in, with one other BLP Vandalism as the only other thing to his credit. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your help and advice with this one. It does seem clear that this is vandalism, and I'm afraid it's continuing. I guess some way of protecting the page from both the anonymous and named vandal may now be needed. I do recognise that this will stop me editing the page too (and yes, it probably is time I get an account!), but I don't actually have a particular interest in James Caan! I just value the Wikipedia project, and don't want it to be undermined in this way.

Rather worryingly, the "Khant" spelling found its way into the Independent yesterday (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/james-caan-a-dragon-in-his-den-1779143.html), and this is now being cited by the vandals. Unlike the Daily Mail's "Khan", this time it doesn't come from a direct quote, and my concern is that the Independent journalist has drawn their information from the vandalised Wikipedia article.

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar

Xandar (talk · contribs · count). The main points are:

• The issue in question is whether we must use the name which an entity prefers for itself in its article title instead of the common name of that entity. Xandar's interpretation of the naming conflict guideline is that the preferred name must be used, rather than the common name which is suggested by our WP:NAME policy.
• Xandar is involved with the Catholic Church article (top-edited pages: 498 - Catholic_Church; 61 - European_wars_of_religion), and is editing Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict to remove changes that may 'restart disputes' at Catholic Church. This includes reverting of basic cleanup.
• I assert no conflict of interest. I am uninvolved in the Catholic Church discussions, and my position on the Naming conflict guideline was initially the same as Xandar's, until good reasons against it were provided by other editors.
• There is a Straw poll to help figure out some of these issues. Xandar has notified at least 11 biased editors of the poll (see contribs), using language like "Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance" [49]. All of the editors that I've checked are either involved with the Catholic Church or various religion pages, or have expressed some level of agreement above with Xandar's position in the discussion. Most have been canvassed on not one, but two occasions. At this time all of those !voting with Xandar on the two issues have been canvassed (except Kraftlos, I believe).
• Xandar's attitude towards this issue is generally inappropriate, for example see here.
• Xandar has been warned on this same issue just several days ago, see also this, so he is perfectly aware of what he is doing. I have also made a section at the naming conflicts page outlining most of these issues, which Xandar is aware of.
• Xandar (and others he has called to the discussion) have been reverting changes to Naming conflict throughout the discussion on the basis of 'longstanding consensus' (a misinterpretation, and WP:CCC). I tried undoing one of these reverts, and Xandar responded by informing Anietor, who promptly reverted the page back to the original version. [see also here] This is continuing despite numerous warnings against meatpuppetry and votestacking.

Some help with this seemingly controversial situation would be greatly appreciated.    M   23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would; most of his edits in the last few days have been reversions, fulminations in FULL CAPS about how we are conspiring against the Papacy, and requests for proxies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • User:M, (as when he made comments about me on the Consensus talk page,) has totally misrepresented the situation. PMA's comments about me, "defending the Papacy" seem to show where he is coming from on this issue, and the distortions being used. I have had to face multiple instances of breaches of WP:CIVIL on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming conflict page, while I have tried to stick to the arguments.
    • M is one of a group of several editors, including PMAnderson, Kotniski, Philip Baird Shearer and Knepflerle, many of whom have been active in the Catholic Church naming dispute, or who have expressed strong views on that dispute, who have suddenly decided to unilaterally alter the longstanding text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict Naming convention so that it supports their views. They have threatened, edit-warred, forum-shopped and vote-stacked in order to try and obtain the fundamental change to the guideline that they want, without consensus. This seems to be the latest step on that road.
    • PMAnderson is currently under sanction for disruptive editing, and User:Kotniski has had several complaints about agressive editing on policy issues. In fact PMAnderson was called deliberately into this dispute at Naming Conflict by Knepflerle, who complained about the use of this guideline in the Catholic Church naming issue. Knepflerle and PMAnderson, with the support of Kotniski, M and PBS, then radically changed the Naming Guideline to suit their agenda, and instead of accepting a revert to the standard consensus version, and discussing until community acceptance of the radical reversal of policy they proposed was obtained, then began an edit war to enforce their own desired policy. The page had to be protected for a week, and almost immediately after protection was removed, realising that there was no consensus for their changes, M, PMAnderson and others started again on the same tactic of radically altering the meaning of the guidance and edit-warring when an attempt was made to restore the longstanding consensus version.
    • It is clear WP practice that substantive changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines should attain community consensus before being made. However this clique are attempting to circumvent that consensus for reasons which are as ChrisO, one of the original writers of the Naming Convention has said, must be because of their involvement in a naming dispute.
    • My role in this is because I have been using the long-standing and never-before-questioned Naming Convention in the mediated debate on the naming of Catholic Church. I found the guidance had been unilaterally and substantially altered, and reverted it. Other affected people were informed and later took part. A discussion was begun, which was then moved to another forum, without telling anyone on our side, in a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPping. I was informed of this, and informed other participants. Failing to gain consensus on the Naming Conventions talk page, they reverted discussion to the Naming conflict talk page AGAIN without informing the opposing side. I again had to inform participants of this, and of the "Starw Poll" they set up - the incident wher M says I mailed 14 people. I did. SINCE THESE WERE ALL THE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO HAD NOT BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE "POLL". It was after this that the edit warring began again.
    • I would therefore state that it is M and his allies who have been disruptive on this issue. Their indecent anxiety to change a Naming Convention that has been stable for 4 years has led them to the disruptive activity I have referred to above. There is no need to unilaterally reverse this long-standing guidance without gaining proper consensus. Our side has been ready to discuss the issue, while defending the principles upheld by the guidance, and subject the result to the approval of the Wikipedia community. Ms side has not, wanting their own way at once - with or without consensus. I would ask that this important page be again locked on the longstanding version reverted by Anietor or StormRider until a real community consensus can be obtained to fundamentally change it. Xandar 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • "Our side"? I can't believe this is still going on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it's become that - with the aggressive strategy of some people to destroy the Naming Convention. Xandar 02:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want this ANI request to become a giant discussion about the naming conflict page. If Xandar has any issue with the behavior of other editors, he can start his own ANI. Even now, with an ANI open on this issue, Xandar continues to revert [50], this time apparently past 3RR. He has undone this (summary: "restoring a controversial new version...") after being informed that it will result in an immediate block. There seems to be more than enough for a block here, given WP:CANVASSING and the numerous prior warnings, some by admins. It would be preferable if Xandar was banned from reverting on that page, and from canvassing for support or 'informing' other editors of 'controversial and undiscussed changes' being made to the 'longstanding guidance', but I seriously doubt that this would put a stop to his activities. This pattern of editing has been going on for about 3 weeks now[51].    M  02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My this is a surprise and such a very skewed perspective. I assume that I am one of those "biased" editors because I have edited the Catholic Church article; please review my editing history and you will see that I am first a foremost a Latter Day Saint. More importantly, if I have a bias it would certainly be heavily slated toward the LDS Church. The claim is preposterous and without merit. I submit that it is also representative of the rest of "M's" claims. He has closely collaborated with the editor that has most egregiously violated all sense of civil discussion, edit warring, and consensus building, Septentrionalis PMAnderson. Before this moves forward, please review M and Pm's talk page discussions.

All that is at stake here is Pm with the assistance of M is the reversion of a long-standing, stable guidance on the preference that preferred names of groups be respected. Not a single editor has recommended that reliable references be ignored, but that when all things are equal, the preferred name be used. Pm and M are determined, regardless of consensus or the views of anyone else, to cram their opinion on the rest of Wikipedia. I reject their efforts, their manner of ignoring all other positions, their edit warring, and this silly, personal vendetta that M is pursuing. He has presented that he is not biased, but his opinions and his position has always been from Pm's position. I reject his claims in their entirety and I recommend that others do the same. --^StormRider 04:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I just have to chuckle at all of this. Can I say I told ya so, now? In my (not so) humble opinion, this whole matter, lock, stock, and every user actually involved, needs to go to Arbcom. I haven't actually seen anything about this since I posted the above linked to discussion here, but I can see that time hasn't helped the situation at all. Everyone just needs to walk away for a while, probably.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• It has long been about deeply entrenched "sides" and "camps"; unless some of them learn to compromise, understand consensus building, or walk away, I think you're correct that it is likely to end up at ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has been involved in this dispute, if it DOES reach arbcom, please let me know. Would It be out of my league for me to request it? --Rockstone (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: 3RR makes exceptions for obvious vandalism and edits against consensus I believe. --Rockstone (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus at that page. Once the RfC is over, we can start talking about consensus. In the straw poll, there were about two uncanvassed participants supporting the old version. Including the canvassed, it was about even.    M   20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An RfC would be much more appropriate. The conflict isn't about how to apply policy and good practices (Arbcom) but what those good practices should be (the broad community). Xandar's activities are appropriate to ANI - he has been warned repeatedly about canvassing, and persists - an Admin needs to do something about this. This would be yet another warning or a short block. Xandar's canvassing aside, there seems to be very little support for Xandar's interpretation. He has, however, been very vocal and persistent in opposing changes to that page, often drowning out the points made with large blocks of text, repetitive arguments, and unsubstantiated accusations. An RfC would be an easy remedy to this, but I don't want to start one until the people involved very clearly understand that canvassing will be dealt with appropriately.    M   20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Xander is supporting the text that has been stable for years. You and Pm are seeking to change that stable policy to something new and you are attempting to force your change without consensus and ignoring all others statements and comments. There is an easy solution...STOP changing the artcile until you have reached consensus. This is conflict resolution at its most very basic. --^StormRider 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm Very close to requesting an Arbiration to solve this whole mess. They can't change a core wikipedia policy without Consensus. --Rockstone (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The key sentence in dispute was drafted by ChrisO four years ago; until this, it was never discussed on the talk page; I'm not sure anybody much read it. In four years, it's been quoted about 17 times in naming disputes, and most of the citations, like the ones using it to demand we move Kiev, haven't been successful. This isn't a core policy; it's an obscure part of an otherwixe useful guideline that a handful of SPA's have been using in a single content dispute.

Then again, I suppose that does make it The Most Important Thing; doesn't it? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The guidance on self-identifying names is important across wikipedia, affecting articles that might otherwise, for example, be called Mormon Church, Calcutta, Canadian Indians Untouchables, etc. etc. It should not be changed by a small group of editors against consensus. Rockstone may have the right solution that would enable non-emotional and considered community involvement of the issues concerned. Xandar 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as soon as I can tomorrow, I'll request an arbitration unless anyone objects. This has gone on long enough to become silly. :) --Rockstone (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR is up early! Wikipedia:Rfar#Catholic_Church_and_Renaming --Rockstone (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great step in locking the policy. Could an admin please reiterate the points about canvassing and meatpuppetry, so that it is clear to Xandar what is or is not acceptable?    M   05:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be upfront about this: I requested the full protection for the Wikipedia:Naming conflicts page, and Kralizec! (talk · contribs) decided to honor the request. My suggestion to everyone is to take the time to really start talking about the changes that each thinks needs to be made to the page. There's an awful lot of (somewhat backhanded) personal commentary (their not quite attacks... yet) going on around all of this. As long as that continues, this isn't going to be resolved regardless of what anyone does.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there something about working on the Manual of Style which drives people nuts? One more reason to consider it a guideline -- or even a collection of best known practices -- rather than policy. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Helpful new template

For admins wanting to deal with vandals, trolls, and other unsavoury types in a more modern, internet-meme-based way, I present a new template: {{Lolblock}}

Simply use this on the page of any annoying user, and watch all adminship-related problems go away! ;) Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• ROTFLMAO! OMG, this is a hoot! I've lamented the loss of another funny block notice...this one takes the taco! WOOT! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it April 1 on some distant corner of the world? But you're right. This would get rid of all adminship-related problems - you won't be an admin anymore :D ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, poo...didn't think about that...! I'd love to use it juuuuuust once on a really deserving soul, however. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the greatest template I have ever seen. Kudos Shoemaker's Holiday. - Javért ^Talk 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you *might* be able to get away with using this on some 4chan vandal. Maybe. Iz teh awesome, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

4channers would say that caturday macros have correct spelling and grammar, so they wouldnt like the icanhascheezeburger style macro. 87.115.88.250 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I say all Grawp socks should be tagged with this. Or is that just me? — Σxplicit 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(So...what? Everyone everywhere, then?) HalfShadow 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the first things I thought of. A few other chronic vandals could use it as well. What's that they say about "great minds?" --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As anyone who looks at the template will now notice: we can has TfD. Cheers! lifebaka++ 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have a cheezeburger. Javért  |  ^Talk 06:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can has lolblock? Awickert (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Awww, I waas half-hoping to wake up this morning to find myself blocked with that template sprawled across my talk page. But you don't always get what you wish for ... ;-) Awickert (talk)

Okay Awickert, you asked for it. (Just trying to make another Wikipedian happy.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats from a company lawyer

Not long ago I created an article about the company Hottrix. About a week ago, I got a somewhat friendly letter from a lawyer who worked for the company. The lawyer made no threats at all, he only explained a few details to me about the company that contradicted what I had written in the article. Since then I had edited the article to remove information implying that a particular person was a CEO (this was based on my misinterpretation of some sources I had read).

Today some information was directly removed from an editor with the same name as the lawyer who had emailed me. This information was backed up by reliable sources in the article. The edit summary said, "removed reference to marital status and club ownership due to pending litigation and potential defamation claims - no relation to Hottrix, LLC - attorney Jason H. Fisher, Esq. 213-891-5143.)" Saying that the information was removed "pending potential defamation claims" looks like a clear legal threat to me. -- Atama頭 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One wishes someone would contact this Jason Fisher - he even left a phone number - just to know what is going on. 128.226.130.90 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He needs to be asked to clarify his comment. I can't see anything problematic in the text he removed so if he can't give a good reason for the removal it should be reverted. I'm not sure what he said should be interpreted as a legal threat, it sounds like there is litigation with some 3rd party, rather than him threatening litigation against us. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} Well, he has a talk page. It's not clear to me that he is threatening legal action against Wikipedia or referring to entirely unrelated litigation, and I will ask him to clarify. I wall also notify him of this thread, as he should have been already. Rodhullandemu 17:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem: [52]. It's about Sheraton's act. Soxwon (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ecx4)I left a welcome and a note at just about the same time Rod did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Could whoever contacts him also please advise him about how to contact OTRS. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I see no reason to revert the removal -- it's personal info about the founder in the company's article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't either, honestly. I appreciate the extra info about the company that the lawyer added. My only concern was the legal threat which seemed to imply to me that any attempt to add information to the article about the inventor of iBeer and other Hottrix apps on the page would lead to a lawsuit. I understand now that he was saying that there is already a legal case going on, he wasn't threatening to start a new one. -- Atama頭 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you were using a reliable source and reporting only what you honestly thought to be factual and did so without the intent of deflamation, then there generally isn't a concern. Liable/Slander laws, as I understand it from my business law classes, are written such that you have to have intent to do harm and knowingly state something that is incorrect. I do agree that the legal action might be against the source from whence you obtained said information, but again that would be against the original source, not those who (in good faith) relied upon it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's much easier to base a case on English law, though it's practically impossible to do so unless you have a lot of money. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice and setting me at ease. My off-wiki communication with Mr. Fisher has been cordial but this is the first time encountering anything on Wikipedia that might even hint at legal problems so I was hesitant to proceed without some other input. I suppose just talking to him on his user page couldn't have done any harm before I brought it here. -- Atama頭 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marktreut edit warring and disruption

User:Marktreut is continuing to edit war and be generally disruptive at the Lupin III article, as well as Characters of The Adventures of Tintin. He has already been blocked three times for edit warring, sockpuppeting, and being disruptive. He regularly adds his own personal opinions and OR to fictional articles, then when he is reverted, edit wars until he's blocked or the article is locked and makes personal attacks at anyone who doesn't let him have his way. At List of InuYasha characters he turned around and vandalized the article after his OR was rejected, resulting in the first of his blocks. At Lupin III, despite the extremely clear and unanimous consensus against his continued attempts at OR on the article talk page, he continues to revert and readd the information, generally waiting a few days, the coming back and adding it again in a slightly modified form. In the last month, he's done this no less than 15 times and at this point he seems to be doing it just to do it. He shrugged off his blocks as ineffective and stating "funny how a suspension from wikipedia also coincides with a well-earned week's holiday abroad",[53] and has repeatedly stated that he will continue this actions until he gets his way, claiming that "we" made him act this way by not allowing original research and unverifiable information into articles just because he feels they are facts and that he is "protecting" Wikipedia. He also tried to aid the Disney vandal Bambifan101 at The Fox and the Hound after following me there. At Characters of The Adventures of Tintin, first he edit warred over the removal of excessive non-free images, and now he is edit warring and interfering with editors efforts to clean up the excessive plot and WP:OR there. Warnings and discussion have proven ineffective with this editor, who refuses to accept that Wikipedia works by consensus and who laughs off Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the blocks he has received. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be a routine content dispute in which User:Collectonian's own behaviour has been poor. Complaining here seems to be just gaming the system. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Inserting the same content over and over to force a point across against consensus on the talk page on a constant, regular basis is not a content dispute, it's blatant disruption. Especially when its just making the exact same edit repeatedly. And making null edits just to take swipes at other editors is beyond absurd.[54] Marktreut makes a mockery of attempting to resolve the issues raised by (eventually) involving themselves in the discussion, then ignoring it completely to make the exact same changes time and again. It's impossible to assume good faith, because they have shown time and again that they are only interested in what they perceive to be important, not the consensus of other editors. As stated Marktreut has already been blocked for edit warring on the very same article, yet the only thing that has changed is the time between edits. Complaining about an editor who shows repeatedly that they have not learned and continues to disrupt is not gaming the system. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who is doing the disrupting. The view of consensus, especially that of User:Collectonian, appears to be that her opinion is all that matters and that if one or more editors agree with her then the matter is closed. I'd like to point out that WP:CON states that "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote" but on "attempts to convince others, using reasons" and I have not been convinced by the reasons of her or others so consensus has not been achieved. In fact it is I who has tried to seek compromises that would acceptable to everyone, but even that has been denied to me. I don't really feel that I am ""protecting" Wikipedia" (if those are my words), I'm simply trying to provide information which I think would be of interest to others and which she is denying. I have never knowlingly provided false information or OR, my edits have always been based on good sources, including the original books, films, comics or TV series. In the case of Lupin III the issue is this: his creator, Monkey Punch, based him on a famous French literary character Arsène Lupin but failed to inform the copyright holders. As a result the character was renamed when mangas or animes based on him where published or broadcast outside Japan, even in France where the name "Lupin" is as famous as "Holmes". I've tried to point this out and put in plenty of outside sources in order to make my case (someone on the talk page even mentioned that it was of "scholarly interest") but others have constantly rejected this simple fact based on reality. I've tried to compromise — coming up with a new form of words in order to explain the facts, but am constantly turned down. The only compromise that they appear to accept is: don't contribute at all.

In fact it is Collectonian who appears to have appointed herself protector of many articles, especially ones dealing with cartoons and animes. For someone to put in just a simple little detail which is common knowledge is anathema to her: she'll dismiss it if there is no outside reference; if a reference is provided then it is not good enough; and if it is good enough then the matter is so "trivial" that it is dismissed anyway (see The Fox and the Hound talk page for just one example). She emphasizes the "encyclopaedia" aspect of Wikipedia and thus implies that articles should be reduced to simply a few sentences and paragraphs of the sort we find in printed books, which is limiting and restraining. If she sees a recent edit which she does not agree with then she will undo it there and then. If I find a contribution that I do not agree with then I usually try to rephrase it in order to make it more acceptable — not take it out completely. Her talk page has been filled with users literally begging for permission to contribute and/or start up other articles based on the originals and being turned down and refused any kind of compromise. People should not have to do that: beg to another wiki editor and being trampled underfoot.

Now to my own sins in this matter: "At List of InuYasha characters he turned around and vandalized the article after his OR was rejected": I'll admit that that was a moment of frustration on my part because I was being constantly denied on the grounds of OR which was actually based on watching the original series. Quite frankly it was all-out provocation on Collectonian's part that made me do it and the first time ever in almost five years of editing Wikipedia. The same applies to the "sockpuppeting" incident. I was hoping that under an alternative name my contributions would be accepted — but sadly it was not the case. Until I came across her I have never had these kinds of problems before.

"Warnings and discussion have proven ineffective with this editor": I have tried to discuss the issues, you can find whole talk pages about them, but the point is that Collectonian and others will just not accept reason or compromise. Wikipedia should be a place that informs and develops over time, not be cast in stone and/or trimmed down to nothing.--Marktreut (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only going to talk about the Lupin issues as thats all I'm involved in. There are four editors involved on the talk page, you on one side, and three on the other. Thats a "majority". While it's not a vote, you have yet to convince the three other editors of the value, necessity and validity of the claims you have made (if one, or all three depending on the time). Many (perhaps most) of your edits to the article have been variations on the same thing, when a objection is made, and discussed on the talk page, you frequently insert the information again without resolving the issue. You keep adding information that is being objected to, so your edits keep being undone. I would do the same reverts. I wouldn't say you have created false statements, however your sources have largely been dismissed by several editors for either not backing up the claims, or not being reliable by wikipedia standards. Additionally you have added statements which rely on interpretation and are not supported by direct claims in the sources you have used. Again, these were discussed and dismissed , but you still added them back a few times before changing tact. Yes the series is based on a french fictional work, but you have yet to provide reliable and accurate sources that prove beyond a doubt WHY it was renamed (at least one source was given that suggested it was renamed "just because"), and/or support the importance you are placing on the claim and it's relevance. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Find a reliable (by wikipedia standards), accurate source that states in a straightforward direct manner that isn't open to interpretation, and states the importance and relevance of the fact to the article and we can discuss it on the talk page first. You know your claims and sources are being monitered and have been requested to discuss them first, but keep ignoring it.

We get it, you think the information is relevant and important, but your methods are what is concerning people, not the desire to add information. You've dug the hole for yourself by ignoring simple, reasonable requests and constantly making the same edits even though you know they are of a concern to other editors. If you stop making the same edits over and over again while ignoring the concerns and bring sources to the talk page before adding them, you'll find people more receptive to your wish to add the information. Forcing the claims in against the talk page comments s not helping your case. You can reword it as much as you like, it needs proper sourcing. Get proper sourcing that leaves no doubt over the meaning or importance of the fact and we can sort something out. You haven't been able to do that, which is why your edits are undone. If you would keep to the talk page until there is some form of agreement over the content, it would be in everyones best interests and the article history would not look such a mess, and people would give you the benefit of the doubt. The bulk of the entire article was largely re-sourced, rewritten and expanded in less time then you have been making the same edits to the page for. If you dropped the forcing of the issue, you'd be taken more seriously, and not considered to be disrupting. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I once came up with half-a-dozen sources to make my case and still I was rejected. I find them reliable and they state more or less the same thing: that the name of the main character was changed when published or broadcast outside of Japan. At the moment Lupin III includes the following statement: "However Monkey Punch did not ask permission to use the character's name, leading to eventual copyright issues with the Leblanc estate" and the source that it refers to adds that "because of this, United States companies translating some of the Lupin III movies had to use a different name such as "The Wolf" (a rough French translation of "Lupin") or as "Rupan"." All that I am trying to do is point out that it was not just in the US but also in the country where the name "Lupin" came from. OK, I cannot go into the nitty-gritty details of why the name was changed, but from contact with people close to the matter it would appear to be a sensitive issue, so why cannot we just specify the facts of what happened? Anyway, what constitutes "proper sourcing" these days? IMDB is no longer seen as reliable to some people, and I've recently discovered a BBC report which contradicts several other reliable sources like the French Figaro. So where does that leave us?--Marktreut (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources you gave were fan sites or other sites that don't qualify as WP:Reliable sources (Lupin Encyclopedia is useable as it's written by a recognised expert - the site owner has many credits for Lupin reviews on AnimeOnDvd/Mania.com, which is a relible source) . Each source was given clear reasons as to why they weren't suitable. The ones that were reliable didn't actually support the claims made or conflicted with other sources used for the same statement. Even with the explanation, you reinserted the exact same references after they were removed despite the discussion) The english language renaming is well documentated in multiple books, magazines and reliable websites, and there is enough evidence to prove that it was done for that reason and what the changes were. It's also relevant for the english wikipedia. The French issue doesn't have this wealth of reliable sources, at least none have been offered that we can agree on. Theres also a question over how necessary the info is (is it relevant to the english audience?) which can be fixed with the right source. IMDB is almost entirely user edited/submitted, such sites are almost never considered reliable. The BBC is one of the biggest news organisations in the world, and isn't user edited. I understand why you feel the information is necessary, which is why I've been asking for better sourcing and details from the beginning, rather then hearsay, rumour and interpretation of random individuals. Again, this is for the talk page. Keep the information in any form off the article page until we can agree, and that will be taken as progress. I'm open to keeping discussion going until everyone is happy, but the insertion of the info when you know we aren't agreeing with it's form isn't helping the article and is just getting people would up. Especially when the details are of some debate. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned they are reliable because they prove the point: Lupin III was renamed "Edgar de la Cambriole" which I know for a fact having watched the TV programme in France back in the 1980s and more recently the DVDs released in France. It's even shown on the lupinencyclopedia.com site where under "Known Aliases", they list the variations of Lupin III's name in a number of countries. No, these are not actual aliases that he himself adopts on his travels, they ARE the names by which he was renamed when his show was broadcast abroad. Ask Luis A. Cruz, the webmaster, if he could confirm that this is the case. As for the relevance: well, the most famous character in French literature is renamed when a series inspired by him is broadcast on French TV — as Quasirandom put it, it is of scholarly interest.--Marktreut (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to jump in and perpetuate an adversarial atmosphere since a change in Marktreut's edits is noticeable over the past few months (evolving into a relatively more collaborative tenor). To be fair to the other editors here, however, it must be noted that this has not always been the case. Marktreut until recently, regularly used very non-reliable sources (fansites mostly) or no sources at all. While he/she says that he/she never knowingly provided false information, that isn't the same thing as following WP sourcing guidelines. As for OR, it is fair to say that the majority of Marktreut's edits (especially in film Plot sections) are just that (OR), specifically his/her comments, observations, and interpretations unsupported by any sources (reliable or not). It is difficult to quickly identify them in a review of his/her contributions, however, since she/he rarely uses edit summaries (despite numerous requests from other editors to do so), but they are there.

In fact, this brings us to the heart of the matter. It is understandable that editors will add OR, Trivia, and unsupported material to articles until they fully understand the importance of using sources, but Marktreut continued to do so long after she/he had been alerted to the issues by other editors who initially took very collaborative approaches to her/him. Just take a look at Marktreut's Talk page to see how often the same issues resurface (and this list is far from comprehensive):

• "Since you've put it back again, I've tagged it with 'unreferenced' and 'trivia' tags, if you'd care to read the relevant policies." 13 July 2007
• "And how do I do this "original research" ? By contacting Miller himself ? I think he has better things to do that confirming minor details like this, but which might still be of interest to enthusiasts." 4 October 2007
• "My main objection is not the trivia nature of the section but the fact that it is all original research." 7 December 2007
• "If you copy or merge text, you need to attribute it accordingly. You appear to have cut the sexual interpretations section from Batman and pasted it into Robin, without noting what you did. If you did cut and paste, then we need to fix that to comply with the GFDL. It's not a huge problem and I don't mind doing it if you confirm whether it was a cut and paste. In the future, when you do so, it's best to leave an edit summary like, Incorporating material from ARTICLE, version per time-stamp of this edit." 16 December 2007
• "Unless you can source that opinion in the words of a reliable secondary source, it's original research because you're analysing the comics, prohibited under policy." 28 May 2008
• "In regards to your undoing the removal of uncited and specialtive information, we cannot connect the dots. We cannot fill in the blanks left by a lack of sources. If we do not have enough to include a connection, then we do not make that connection." 30 May 2008
• "Please read the policy on original research. An editor cannot make personal assumptions about anything, not unless they're plain as day" 20 October 2008
• "...is the result of much original research and understandably lacks pertinent credible sources." 14 February 2009
• "but everything else needs to be supported by a reliable secondary source....Can't believe you went and reverted immediately after you must've read this without discussing with those offering to work with you." 13 February 2009
• "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Continuing to restore uncited trivia, substantiated because *you* (rather than a cited reliable source) think it's ironic -- i.e. presenting original research -- is disruptive, especially in light of your failure to respond to the rationales for excluding this content at Talk:Murder_on_the_Orient_Express_(1974_film)#Kevin_Bacon_and_other_trivia" 12 February 2009
• "Then that is original research, which does not belong here. I have seen the anime and read the straight-Japanese manga. You are not Public Enemy #1, why don't you just learn from your corrections and move on, that's how I learned. :) You can only make your self Public Enemy by breaking Wikipedia's rules." 13 April 2009
• "Dude, are you trying to get banned?" 16 February 2009

Until recently, Marktreut usually responded just once to other editors' questions and objections, frequently complaining about how WP's Guidelines sucked all the fun out of the articles, and then went ahead and re-made the changes or reverted without any justifications based on WP standards or attempts to reach consensus. I'm sure a number of editors found they had to follow Marktreut around and check in detail every edit since lack of edit summaries made it difficult to know what was changed. This, regrettably, has resulted in the adversarial relationship we have today. I am uncertain as to the path to a resolution since Marktreut's track record is unencouraging, but, as I mentioned above, there is evidence that she/he is paying more attention to using reliable sources, and the increased use of edit summaries is doing much to forge a more collaborative relationship with the WP community. Certainly, Marktreut's industry is laudable and welcome when it is productive, so I can only hope that s/he continues to work more amicably with other editors. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a perfect example of what's at issue. Today, while this discussion is active, Marktreut re-adds controversial material at The Great Escape (film). The bare statement, "Tunnel 'Tom' was discovered on the 8th September 1943, long after any Independence Day celebrations", appears to be an attempt to point out that in the film the tunnel's discovery occurs during the POWs' Independence Day party while, in reality, that particular tunnel's discovery occurred in September. Marktreut is concluding, therefore, that the writers must have changed the chronology for dramatic purposes. S/he does provide a source, which, although reliable in character, does not meet WP Guidelines because it does not directly support the conclusion. The website only says, "On 8 September, when 85 meters long, 'Tom' was discovered", and does not address the film adaptation at all, which is needed since the article is about the film, not the actual escape. Marktreut is synthesizing this conclusion, which is not permissible.

Many of us have committed this sourcing transgression before, but most of us learn how to apply the OR and Synthesis guidelines through our own research and more frequently through the assistance of other, more experienced editors. More to the point, Marktreut should be very well aware of this guideline since it has been brought to his/her attention numerous times over the past couple years, and specific to this particular article element as well. But for some reason s/he persists in ignoring the guideline (and s/he admits to fully understanding the guideline - today!). That's the thing I can't figure out. We won't even go into the issue that the same copy has been placed in the article without context or clear relevance/connection to the Production section, even though that's been pointed out to her/him before. What's more perplexing is that Marktreut chose to not participate in extensive discussions about this and related material with other editors for months despite being specifically invited to participate. Again, the increased attempts at explanations (edit summaries) are appreciated, but the persistent desire to add and re-add unsupported trivia to articles in the face of guidelines and other editors' opinions is troublesome. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record I am a "he". In the case of the tunnel discovery in The Great Escape (film) I have not specified "that the writers must have changed the chronology for dramatic purposes", I've simply put in the facts. This film is a mixture of fact and fiction and it would nice to know how they vary — McQueen and his motorcycle being the very least of the fictional elements. That is what I really cannot comprehend: why some people are so much against the inclusion of facts which are based on good evidence. Why should such initiative be classed as "OR"? If we are to refer only to third-parties who confirm something like "Tunnel "Tom" was not discovered on the 4th of July as shown in the film" then WP will be reduced to a shadow of its former glory and it would not be worth the trouble of contributing. Repeating what others say is just dull, repetitive and pathetic. And it can hardly be OR if good and reliable evidence is presented to back the case we are trying to make.

As for the other matters that "173.72.136.143" raises from my talk page, all that I can say is that most of these matters have been settled: either I or the other editors dropped the matter, reached an understanding or else decided that the whole thing was making a mountain out of a molehill. "173.72.136.143" has somewhat failed to note that there have been instances where I and others have sorted things out amicably example 1, where I did not insist on having my own way, example 2 where the other editor accepted my case and example 3, where I agreed that just three images were necessary for the article.

I must say that I find it rather suspicious that "173.72.136.143" has not registered under a proper username. From his/her (I strongly suspect "her") contributions page it appears to be that my edits are a favourite target. In fact there appears to be a large amount of paranoia here that feels very familiar.--Marktreut (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ridiculously obvious implication is beyond inappropriate and borderline uncivil. As usual, when you are in the wrong, you descend to attacking your fellow editors rather than sticking to the issues at hand, which is your edit warring, your continued dismissal of consensus because of your own personal believes, and your continued spurning of attempts to discuss the issues and administrative efforts to deal with your misbehaviors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, it was just a thought, that's all. I'm sorry. Still I think that it would be appreciated if "173.72.136.143" would use tags more often rather than simply undoing the work just like that. I mean, that is what they are there for: to show that the contribution is not necessarily untrue but requires a back-up. As for my "edit warring, [my] continued dismissal of consensus because of [my] own personal believes (!), and [my] continued spurning of attempts to discuss the issues and administrative efforts to deal with [my] misbehaviors": well, all this is because I am trying to present real-life facts and others are denying them. As pointed out above: WP:CON states that "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote" but on "attempts to convince others, using reasons" and (to go back to the original source of this problem) you have not convinced me that the issue of the character Lupin III being renamed when broadcast outside Japan is trivia or should not be mentioned in any way, shape or form — on the contrary, I'm the one who has presented evidence that this was the case, have tried to come up with a compromise and it's hardly trivia for reasons I have already stated.--Marktreut (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

could somebody block an IP

84.240.27.89 (talk · contribs) seems like a single-purpose sock, taking part in edit warring on Polish-Lithuanian articles. It has no useful contribs, and the only talk post is in Lithuanian ([55]). I'd block the IP myself but as I've reverted it in the past it could be seen as abuse of admin power, so I am asking for another admin to review the IP behavior and hopefully block it for a few months. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:BITE talking to the person should be the first step unless you have evidence of sockpuppetry. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, what about the edit-warring noticeboard?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Review and possible block IP

One user keeps adding unsubstantiated claims to Stargate_Atlantis and Robert_C._Cooper that Robert C. Cooper stole some core concepts for SGA from a guy from Vancouver. The IP is 24.85.147.254. The user has been repeatedly warned not to add this content without proper references. Requesting an admin to review and possibly (probably) block the IP. The IP does have some constructive work in the past, but not to the pages linked above. Examples of adding unsubstantiated claims are all of the user's contributions to the two pages above. - EndingPop (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those edits are cited to a blog, are a big WP:BLP worry and could even be taken as attack edits. They can be reverted on sight if the edit summary cites WP:BLP and if it keeps up, please tell an admin or bring it up here again. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User

Resolved

 – Account blocked

Hi. I am requesting some sort of block for this user: Not a cockpuppet. The name shows that he clearly understands at least part of Wikipedia, and all his edits have been vandalism. Username also inappropriate. Apart from that... Alan16 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton indefinitely blocked the account at 00:58 for vandalism. It would be quicker to got to WP:AIV for blatant vandalism next time. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, Alan16 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Is there an alternative here to removing everything copied from other articles & replacing it?

Interesting, I was going to post this at AN because I've bothered this board enough and just want advice, not action, but this big red notice came up when I hit save that made it clear AN was the wrong place. So, here goes, sorry guys to bring another issue so soon.

In the new article Timeline of the Bible (which maybe should not exist and certainly has problems) a clearly good faith editor has copied material from other articles without attribution. I've told him on the talk page that it must all be removed and then replaced with the appropriate edit summaries. I can't see any other way to avoid breaking our copyright, can anyone else? Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could use dummy edits to credit them, if you can be sufficiently diligent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 09:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the {{Copied}} template you can use on both the source and target talk pages to point towards the source histories. MLauba (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What worries me about talk page templates is that they can so easily be deleted, and if you don't know they were there you're not likely to find them. Now dummy edits, that's an interesting idea, how would you indicate what you'd copied? Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done this when I've created an article out of part of another article and forgotten to say where I'd copied the prose from: You hit the edit button and in the edit summary identify the spot in the article that has been copied and say what spot from what article it was copied from. If it isn't clearly describable as a paragraph or section, you could remove the copied text with one edit and immediately restore it with another. Whatever the process, the only important thing is that it's clear. -- Noroton (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could even do it simpler and still satisfy the attribution requirement: making one or two null edits just indicating the various articles this was copied from and hint at the {{copied}} templates on talk in the edit summaries, that way someone who looks for the attribution will know that the talk page is supposed to have these templates. This has the further advantage that should one of the source articles suddenly be up for deletion, the deleting admin will be alerted to the issue of attribution and take the appropriate measures. MLauba (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Having some familiarity with these attribution issues, I posted suggested edits at Talk:Timeline of the Bible#Copyright problem. For anyone interested, Help talk:Merging#Best practice is a fairly recent discussion, where Moonriddengirl originally wrote {{Copied}}. If there's a better page to discuss intrawiki copying and attribution requirements, I'd appreciate a pointer. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard VanU's mass deletion of stubs

I thought that this deserved to be brought to some attention, as something surely isn't right here. Please note that I am not scolding the editor, nor suggesting he be scolded, but only hoping to bring some light to this situation and other opinions on whether this should be done.

A discussion was brought up at the Village pump proposals: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Have a bot autodelete any stub article of less than 250bytes if not edited in X months, which had next to no support for both the proposal of having a bot do it, as well as the proposal to delete said articles. Despite numerous arguments against the idea and an overwhelming consensus to leave those articles alone, User:LessHeard vanU has been carrying out the deletion of literally hundreds of pages. Many of these are being overturned, which begs the question as to

A) How legitimate the reason for deletion is

B) Whether admins can just arbitrarily speedy delete pages that don't meet a set criterion that isn't laid out in any policy or guideline.

C) Whether its appropriate to set out an arbitrary requirement for small articles to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, and potentially delete those that do not.

Thoughts? I let LessHeard VanU know, so you may wish to wait for his take on the situation first. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotchecking a half-dozen of his deletions, I can find nothing overtly wrong with them. Admins delete lots of stuff very quickly all the time; I can clear through about 3-4 articles/minute when clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD. True, these articles had not been tagged for speedy deletion, but they certainly could have, and if they HAD been, they would likely have been easily speedied ANYWAYS. No need to go through hoops here, admins are given the deletion tool and trusted to use it, and I don't see that any of these articles would NOT have ended up being deleted had anyone bothered to go through the extra step of tagging them and waiting for someone else to delete them. I sometimes delete an article for A7 or other reasons when I come across them, even if they are not previously tagged. I don't see a real problem here. --Jayron32 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to Q. B is "yes". Though (in my mind) it isn't best practice, there is nothing 'wrong' with speedying something which hasn't been tagged, so long as it actually meets a speedy criteria. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that many of these pages rather obviously don't meet any speedy criteria. LHVU seems to be under the false impression that places are subject to A7 (quite a number of these deletions), among other things. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ammending my earlier comments, and checking some more of them, there do clearly appear to be some problematic ones which are clearly NOT speedy-eligible. For example, Choc Bay was deleted under the A7 rationale, but being a "geograpic location" is NOT a valid A7 reason, and that reason should only be used to delete a VERY narrow set of articles. I have now also seen several other A7 or A1 deletion reasons where he is clearly stretching the defined criteria for those deletions beyond reasonably. I think that he needs to stop deleting articles under the wrong reasons; many of his articles I do agree do qualify under A7, but far too many do NOT, and this needs to stop. --Jayron32 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I already raised this a while ago on LessHeard vanU's talk page - User talk:LessHeard vanU#Disambiguation, while a number of the pages do meet the speedy criteria, others do not such as A44 autoroute, Albright, Alberta, A377 highway, Adams Landing, Alberta - which has already been restored by another admin, Calinaoan, Chembenyouba etc. The village pump discussion pointed to above was clear that being a very short article should not be grounds for speedy deleting the article. The quantity of these deletions also make it impractical to take them all to deletion review, which would be the correct location if it was just one or two deletions. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I count 59 deletes out of 324 stubs reviewed to date (are there any undeletes you could note, for my ongoing benefit?); that is around (the first 30-40 stubs are "X in (year)" type lists, which are dependent on other articles, so I ignored them then and for this guesstimate) 20%. If I can finish reviewing the 1500+ stubs listed then I may delete 300+ of them. The remainder I am generally either redirecting to the parent article, which usually has the sources missing in the stub, placing an unreferenced template on the stub, or transwikiing the content (to Wiktionary every time). Of those that I have deleted some have had an unreferenced template since 2007, notwithstanding I am looking for stubs that have only been unedited for a year. Per Wikipedia:REDLINK it is stated that redlinks provide greater stimulus for the creation of content, and I am cutting away those two sentence stubs which are no more than a definition of the term (per WP:NOTDEF) or a unreferenced population guesstimate and elevation. While WP:STUB says that such articles can be the basis for growth into encyclopedic articles, I am working on the basis that anything not edited in a year is pretty much at the bottom of peoples to do list.

Regarding the discussion at the village pump, I now acknowledge I was wrong to suggest autodeletion of such stubs - since a lot of them are good search criteria to be redirected to a more encompassing article, and some still have that untapped potential. Some of them, however, do not even have that potential. If the subject does, then hopefully somebody with a reference book or two will be the proud author of a new WP stub article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is the overextension of CSD criteria to justify speedy deletion of lots of articles which just do not qualify for speedy deletion. Autoroutes, villages, bays, and other geographic features do not qualify; if you want, tag them for PROD and let either another admin delete them or give interested editors 5 days to fix them up. Speedy deletion criteria are narrowly defined for a reason, and should not be over extended. I would have no problem with speedily deleting articles without being tagged priorly, if the speedy criteria actually DID apply. The deal is, you are clearly using speedy deletion criteria to delete stuff where the criteria do not apply... --Jayron32 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletions so far that I can see are Adams Landing, Alberta, Beigo, Beres (mythology), Columella (botany), Christian Democratic Party of Lebanon, Choc Bay, Ayshcombe Baronets and Ashby Baronets. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayshcombe Baronets, a disambig page to one redlinked member? Christian Democratic Party of Lebanon, a party that only appears in Wikipedia and mirrors in Google - where the named leader has some ghits under Christian Democratic Union - and might be wrong (I gave some detail in the delete summary)? Ho hum... I initially was deleting geographical mini stubs using CSD#A3 (no substantive content), but considered "substantive" to be a judgement call - but I suppose I can use the rationale in a PROD. I am pleased to see that the other undeleted articles have subsequentley grown a reference or two, but would they have done so if I had not deleted them? Since, hopefully, a PROD will create a similar response I will be content to do that (and I will not action them after 5 days, to ensure that there is a third party review). I propose that I only continue with my review after this matter has been resolved and a working practice for me established - whether that discussion continues here or on my talkpage I will leave for others to decide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to stop. Now. Many of these being deleted are simply not speediable nor should they be. Looking at the cache for example of this one which is a small village that would not be touched at all. There's nothing wrong with such content. Moreover, almost all of the geographic examples deleted apply to areas outside the English speaking world which reinforces systemic bias massively. This isn't acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Chopan Ata, from a nineteenth century Russian sketch. (Before restoration).

Mausoleum of Chopan Ata, from a nineteenth century Russian sketch. (After restoration).

This is problematic, especially if the principal focus is to be geography. Many parts of the world are underrepresented so their geography coverage is far from adequate and stubs do not receive frequent attention. The examples here come from a world heritage site in Uzbekistan. Due to competing transliteration systems I was unable to understand the available sources well enough to expand relevant articles and use the image in mainspace (the odds of committing a good faith factual error were just too great). Checked Category:Wikipedians in Uzbekistan, which has only two members, and left an inquiry for the one who was active. Have received no reply since March. Our gaps in coverage are significant: this year it has been possible to write DYKs for the natural lakes which the Suez Canal intersect, the westernmost point on the continent of Africa had no article until I wrote it, and roughly twenty percent of Africa's national parks remain redlinked. Substubs for these topics aren't ideal but they're better than nothing. It's very worrisome to see mass prodding on a formulaic basis. Unless one is exceedingly careful, the large scale result would include reinstatement of considerable systemic bias. Durova³⁰⁶ 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sometimes I wonder why we even have criteria for speedy deletion, since so many admins seem to take it upon themselves to make up their own. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Where there's a will, there's a way. The CSD criteria are intentionally strict, but I don't think they are applied in isolation or capriciously; but they still have some flexibility. There is always the remedy of userfication once the deficiencies have been pointed out, and Deletion review otherwise. This is a wiki, where anything may be undone, and everything is open to discussion. If admins are persistently abusing CSD, that's a cause for concern, but I would prefer to see specific examples of this rather than a vague assertion. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it is frequently a bad idea for admins to directly speedy delete things they come across that seem speedy deletable, rather than speedy tagging them. Of course there are exceptions for really obvious speedies, but anything where there is a substantial judgement call whether it really is speediable ought to get two opinions: speedy nominator and speedy-reviewing admin. Additionally, in at least some of these cases PROD would clearly be more appropriate than speedy. Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's plainly destructive to delete articles on notable battles which blatantly doesn't satisfy A3, such as the one on the Battle of Halani, which is very significant in the history of Pakistan. There's more likeliness that information be put in an article when it's a stub, even if a "sub stub", that when it's a redlink and there's a big red warning at the top of the edit window with text like "... deleted ... no indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". Cenarium (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual merit of the deletions, but I'd just like to point out that deleting lots of stuff outside normal channels then being somewhat recalcitrant about it is the fast track to losing the bit. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is very often something very wrong about deleting things that have not been tagged, and its time we prohibited it, in order to keep admins from making mistakes like this, and acting in defiance of policy. I do not trust any one person, myself included, to be right more than 90% of the time. This is much too great a risk, and the only way of lessening it is to require two people, which gets us down to 1%, which is probably as low an error rate as feasible. There are in fact n umber of admins who do apply CSD capriciously. Some of them are even wikifriends, people I respect otherwise. I don't want to come here and start accusing them. As Arb com as said, no admin is expected to be perfect. To protect us, as well as the contributors , and the content of the encyclopedia, we need reasonable checks. Anyone who objects to having others routinely check their work, by working in a two step process, probably does need their work checked very much indeed. I have a lot of derogatory terms i could use here, but I'll refrain, if only because some of the worst offenders are , as I said friends. I've done it wrong too, from time to time. I say this not because i think I'm better or more accurate than they, but because I know that i probably am not. We cannot act single handed except in very limited cases. I'm not too proud or self-confident to just tag articles like everyone who isn't an admin, and I do not really trust anyone who thinks it's a over-harsh restriction and attack on his authority or knowledge.

I see LHVU has agreed to stop, and use prod, which is exactly right, though I remind people that the period for prod is now 7 days, not 5, just as AfD. for now. It's time to change the rule so that neither he nor anyone is in danger of doing it again. It will avoid such disasters as deleting an article under A3 that reads "'Cavans is a unit of mass in the Philippines used for cereal grains equivalent to 50 kilograms". This may not be a sustainable article, but it is not deletable as no content. Indeed, if one can tell that it might be a directory entry, it intrinsically has some content!. I see in his log many towns deleted under A3, that still remain deleted. I think it appropriate to undelete such articles without formal deletion review, as clear mistakes. But I don't mean to emphasise his deletions in particular.

Each time the rule to eliminate single-handed deletions has been proposed, it has gotten strong support except for the objection of a few admins who want to continue to have the right to delete whatever they like however they like. This doesn't mean they are necessarily doing deletions wrongly, but none of us should be in a position where we could take the chance. None of us are good enough. None of us are sufficiently trusted. Admins who argue this way bring us all into disrepute. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principal, but I'm not sure that the error rate goes that low. You assume that errors in tagging and deleting are uncorrelated, both across individuals and serially. This may sound pedantic, but it's important. If errors are serially correlated (that is, seeing someone tag something makes me much more likely to delete it) and correlated across editors (that is, me and LHvU are likely to make the same kind of errors both in tagging and deleting) then the advantage evaporates. Along with that advantage goes one of the stronger arguments for mandating that articles see a tag before they get deleted. Those of us arguing against such a rule aren't just doing it out of selfishness and we don't bring the admin corps into disrepute. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Ohlsen

Resolved

 – autobiography deleted by request of editor who began the article

Could an administrator look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Ohlsen-Artist featured in the Borås Tidning, pleae? The article is written by the subject, who is now requesting speedy deletion because she feels the delete tag will make people question her credibility as an artist. Jafeluv (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedied as G7. Normally I don't like speedying articles while at AfD, but I didn't see the point of causing what appeared to be angst in the subject in order to follow policy. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick response. Jafeluv (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

How abut a courtesy blanking of the AfD page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community, may potentially cause harm: for example, emotional distress. Didn't she ask to have the article removed because the feels the tag will make people question her credibility? Won't the AfD discussion do the same thing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Do it if you want. AFDs are noindexed by default, so someone looking her up will have to go to her userpage, then her talk page, then the AfD. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the thing is, a proper discussion might have shown her notable. I'm not sure. The way we deal with the subjects of articles here can be very rough sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

The subject of this aricle is back editing the page after several blocks, using the same editing style as before: unexplained reverts, removing unflattering sources, adding self-promotional text, etc.

currently editing as User:Californiason and 170.170.59.139.

previously blocked accounts:

User:Tonytonyb

User:Daphnaz

User:Michaeledean

70.233.8.130

and a dormant unblocked account at User:Brianq

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonytonyb/Archive for the sock case page and User talk:Michaeledean for the most recent block. Is there any point in starting another sock case all over again? Hairhorn (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not 100% convinced on the IP address; at the least the IP may be a shared address used by other editors, and only very recently picked up by the Tonytonyb/Michaeledean character. The person that has been operating these sock accounts and disrupting the Brian Quintana article does so almost exclusively, editing only that article and related ones. The IP shows a wide range of interests that would indicate to me that it may be an unrelated person. The Californiason account has not been terribly active, and I would agree that the IP and Californiason are the same person; but I am not 100% convinced of the connection to the Tonytonyb account. Tonytonyb and Californiason could very well be two different people, but who know each other. Without a CU, I don't think the behavioral evidence is yet strong enough to tie it to the Tonytonyb person. I would recommend filing a SPI report and asking for a Checkuser. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further problems; the WHOIS on the 70.233.8.130, which is most definately TonytonyB/Michaeledean comes up with a Plano, Texas location while the 170.170.59.139 comes up with Ventura, California. Not sure if Checkuser can dig deeper into the IPs used by the now-blocked accounts, but this seems to locate to very different places.--Jayron32 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP 70.233.8.130 is a Kinko's, it's hardly surprising that there is a wide range of posts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but under that logic there is no reason to block it then. Plus, it appears to be a Kinko's in California, while the other cited IP is a AT&T address from Texas. I think if someone from Texas wanted to go to Kinkos to edit Wikipedia, he could find one closer to home... --Jayron32 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't specifically ask for a block. The editor in question is the subject of the article being edited (or someone with an extremely close COI); this person lives in or around Los Angeles. The fact that there is one geographically anamolous IP with edits made in July doesn't change the fact that User:Californiason and 170.170.59.139 (an IP from California) are evading blocks, in particular the one most recently put on User:Michaeledean. Hairhorn (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I never noticed this report, I've had a go at cleaning up this article (claims not supported by sources, puff, the usual) and today some other editors have done the same, the problem is that the whole article seems to be managed by sockpuppets and ips to ensure that a certain (pr friendly) version remains. How we deal with that I'm not sure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was dealt with previously through bans and page protection. But the protection lapsed and block evasion is easy to do, it could probably be dealt with much faster, the socks are always pretty obvious and could get booted much sooner. Hairhorn (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Comics

For those who like to keep an eye on articles for potential vandalism, you might want to add Marvel Comics in light of today's news.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• lol disney. Had my heart in my throat for a sec. Thought Stan Lee had died. Glad to hear that wasn't the case. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I'd rather have Stan Lee dying than what actually happened :( ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Aye. Last thing we need is cutesy crap in comics nowaday... waitaminit! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sigh. That's like the Asteroids movie. what's the possible story line? Blue guy rescues forest animals from fat russian mario. The end. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Wasn't that a story idea Jim Shooter came up with? -- llywrch (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Onikiri

User:Onikiri has been blocked several times a year and a half ago, but immediately resumed the exact same disrupting behavior (edit-warring via several anon IPs, refusal of dialogue) there for several months until the article got protected on May 16, 2008, and is now back to his antics here with 216.184.121.126, 66.249.203.19, 190.57.5.231 and 168.243.218.154 (if the edits themselves don't make it obvious enough the anon IPs are the same editor, WHOIS should put all doubts to rest).

(there might well be more examples of such behavior, those are just the ones I noticed) Erigu (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Onikiri has been edit-warring to some extent on that article, they aren't the only one. I've fully protected the page for one week to cool off the dispute, and would encourage all editors to discuss their content differences on the article talk page and develop a consensus. Regarding the socking, per WP:DUCK the IP edits are almost certainly Onikiri. This is moot while the article is protected, but if dynamic-IP disruption resumes once the full protection has expired then semiprotection may be worth considering. I haven't handed out any sanctions at this stage to encourage Onikiri to contribute to the talk page if they so desire; however, WP:RFCU is thataway if you want to take things further, and a resumption of edit-warring and/or reverting once protection expires will lead to appropriate action. Hope this helps EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I certainly wouldn't mind discussing the edits on the talk page (I did, in fact, with other editors), and I directed Onikiri there, but he kept going at it anyway... The other edit wars I linked to aren't encouraging in that area either... Erigu (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but by reverting Onikiri you were engaging in the same edit-warring behaviour. Reversion of content that's not obviously vandalism will inevitably be picked over, and unless it's WP:BLP enforcement or you can show a current consensus that the material does not belong, it will be frowned upon. As you know, part of the utility of the talk page is in developing such a consensus, but I saw no real evidence that this had been done. You could also have tried to discuss this with them on their user talkpage.

Having said that, on reflection I think that penalising everyone for disruption that's largely coming from a single source is unfair of me, so I've changed the protection level to semi and left Onikiri a strong warning. This will at least eliminate the IP socking, and if you can all decide this issue between yourselves you'll have something to point to in future. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga may be able to help out, and you can always take a look at WP:DR for some dispute resolution ideas if necessary. Of course, with protection now at semi, any further edit-warring will lead to blocks being handed out. Stick to one revert per WP:BRD, then if attempts at discussion go unanswered, drop a note here (or on my talkpage if you like). EyeSerene^talk 13:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. Erigu (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question, is this possibly related to the Brazilian IP editor that has systematically attempted to change the importance ratings of numerous Saint Seiya related articles from low to mid or high along with other non-constructive eidts? You can check on previous discussion about this group of IPs at the anime wikiproject (Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato, National flags in character infoboxes, Saint Seiya characters, Saint Seiya, and Brazilian Saint Seiya IP editor strikes again) Because the editor is on a dynamic IP that contently changes, its impossible to contact him/her. --Farix (Talk) 14:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so: Onikiri's IPs all point to El Salvador (or at the very least Central America)... Erigu (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Deathtozombies

Resolved

 – Permablocked

Reverted two edits one at [56] and another at [57] made by this user. However, I believe that there are more edits made by this user that need to be checked. I would check myself but I'm leaving for work right now. Shinerunner (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a single good edit in a year. Bagged, tagged and booted. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on an AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Consensus is this wasn't a blatant personal attack, Abductive has been warned for being incivil, and the AFD in question has since been closed. No blocks will be handed out at this time, so there is nothing really left to discuss. Take it to WP:WQA instead. --Jayron32 21:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

After I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations, User:Abductive said "User:TomCat4680's notion needs to be completely ignored--not even counted as a vote, since this is not a vote." My vote is just as good as his. This is a blatant personal attack and I want him punished. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack.

We do not "punish" people.

You forgot to mention that you deleted his comment, something which you shouldn't have done.

OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Abductive's comment was in relation to TomCat's assertion that all government agencies are inherently notable. Don't know if that would help anyone in swiftly dealing with this issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That discussion belongs on the aforementioned AFD. This is an ANI about a personal attack. My rights are being denied here and all you care about is the fact I deleted 2 sentences of text that I considered offensive. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It WAS a personal attack. I have the right to vote on any AFD I want. Saying my vote doesn't count is against the rules of AFD's and I had every right to remove it. Stop ignoring the issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've told Abductive it wasn't appropriate, and the closing admin will ignore that sort of commentary anyway. Again, everybody, AFD is NOT a vote but a discussion. Would you mind if we move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion matters just as much as everyone else's. We all have equal rights here and just because he disagrees with me it doesn't mean my thoughts should be ignored. I think he deserves more than a slap on the wrist. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block him for saying something inappropriate like that. I'm sorry but we don't block to punish people and frankly, I'd rather you just drop it and move on. He hasn't commented again and you seem to be creating more drama than necessary about this. Again, the closing admin will ignore his comment. I can promise you that. Otherwise, you can start a WP:DRV whatever the decision and see how it goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he should at least comment here first. I think I at least deserve an apology. Also if you're an admin why don't you just close the afd? Its been open for 2 weeks already... TomCat4680 (talk)

The statement is a comment on the reasoning of the vote, not an attack on character, so WP:NPA does not apply, and it is certainly not anything which requires administrator intervention. I think this a good time as any to fight a misconception about AFD which goes that all votes are divided into "valid" and "invalid" categories all depending on whether they fit the criteria at WP:ATA, and that the decision is made by counting up the "valid" votes on each side, while discarding the "invalid" votes. Clearly, if there are no policy-, guideline-, or common sense-based arguments at all on one side of the issue, the debate will be closed accordingly, no administrator will keep a proven copyvio no matter how many people vote to keep it; and no administrator will delete the president of the United States no matter how many people vote to delete it. But if a reasonable case has been made on each side, the raw opinions do make up part of the consensus, and they should not be blithely tossed out either. With that said "all X are inherently notable" arguments are superficial, and tend to fall flat if somebody argues for why the are not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have closed the AFD now. The consensus seemed to be with keeping the article due to improvements made, and I can't see a turnaround to a deletion consensus as probable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not in the business of forcing people to apologize for perceived slights nor are we in the punishing business. Since the AFD in question has since been closed, and there does not appear to be any chance of admin action, I am closing this thread before people say things they will regret. If you wish to discuss the behavior of another editor, WP:WQA is a much more appropriate venue than ANI. Take it up there.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to undo speedydelete of StorefrontBacktalk

Resolved

 – restored to userspace Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemike speedily deleted StorefrontBacktalk. I was trying to save the article which had contribution from a user who would appear to have COI interests. There was no warning that the article was going to be deleted or the rationale for the speedy deletion so that it could be fixed. The article is linked from two other articles since it interviews people in the information technology field for retailers (rather than just reguritating other sources). It in particular it has done a lot of reporting on the Albert Gonzalez case. Therefore I am asking that it be restored along with its edit history. Thanks Americasroof (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please either contact Orangemike directly or take this request to deletion review, as this is not the correct forum. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:Americasroof/StorefrontBacktalk. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shame on you Tim. You really should know not to copy & paste text from the (deleted) article's history, which breaks proper attribution.  :) I have undeleted the article and properly userified it. (Americasroof didn't create the original article, but instead was in the process of cleaning it up when it was deleted.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'd put it in user talk as well, rather than userspace - so many ways to screw up, so little time! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all concerned for the prompt attention. I appreciate getting the history back as there were some links I wanted to look at. Since I know the article now will receive a lot of scrutiny, I won't put it back unless I think it can withstand the increased scrutiny. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interests Parsecboy

Resolved

 – Should have been someone else to block, but block was ok. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia blocking policy was not complied (misuse of administrative powers Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Conflicts of interest), administrator Parsecboy blocking user with whom he is engaged in a content dispute. --Tomcha (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you haven't notified Parsecboy of this thread, although I now have. Meanwhile, some links to relevant articles would assist. Rodhullandemu 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks. You can feel here: Talk:Ford Ranger#Ranger - Ford_Thailand and User talk:Tomcha#Misleading edit summaries and AutoAlliance Thailand. Tomcha (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You should also note the four (4) declined unblock requests. A block was warranted. It was just made by the wrong admin (granted, I never noticed that the admin who blocked you was the same you were in the dispute with). A troutslap perhaps, but as we have no powers to actually sanction an admin, I don't see us being able to do anything here, seeing as the block was upheld and expired. --Smashville^talk 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin with me in a long dispute's edit it is proven User talk:Parsecboy#re Tomcha. His block was not justified. --Tomcha (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree here that Parsec should not have been the one to block, but I think that one was warranted. WP:SYNTH looks like a good thing to link to right now... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who first broke 3RR "Three revert rule"? Me or him? Thanks you. --Tomcha (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant. Your question has been answered - yes, someone else should have blocked, but no, the block was appropriate. There's nothing further to discuss here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gmail

Resolved

 – Sky no longer falling. ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs some eyes. Gmail is down at the moment. One person already inserted text implying the site is permanent unavailable.

It's fine. I'm in chat and just checked my inbox on reading this, and had new email. ThuranX (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not down for me either. Not that that has anything to do with the problematic edit. Equazcion (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's up now. Thanks. -- 128.205.238.130 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• [58]. Nathan ^T 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xook1kai Choa6aur

Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor who is related to a number of IP addresses listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.15.125.234/Archive is disruptively editing several article with the purpose of unduely promoting theories concerning multiregional evolution. The user was previously blocked as User talk:24.15.125.234 and numerous editors have complained about the user at User talk:76.16.176.166 and both accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry. The user has a habit of deleting warnings from his talk page, [59], [60], [61], [62]. It is sometimes difficult to detect that this user is being disruptive because the user uses very technical language, however it is often incoherent. [63]. The user also has a habit of unnecesarily sprinkling fact tags all over articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some may find this discussion on TimVickers' talk page to be relevant, particularly the parts regarding XC's history. – – ClockworkSoul 14:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that editors have gone to extraordinary lengths to engage with this individual and have very kindly and patiently urged them to refrain from editing until they have obtained sufficient proficiency in English language skills to make coherent contributions (see here). However, the editor entirely ignored this suggestion as evidenced by recent postings (e.g., here) and edits (e.g., here). The amount of edits this editor produces on entries that require a good deal of technical knowledge make it inordinately difficult to follow up, as in some cases their edits become interleaved with later edits of contributors unaware of of these problematic additions or changes (see here and my attempt at consolidation). Many of their edits are very extensive and show clear evidence of this editor's misconceptions of technical processes and concepts (see here). These are then very difficult to resolve because of their modest language skills. So the resources in terms of time and expertise of other editors required to deal with these issues far outweigh potential benefits that the work of this editor might contribute to these entries. Malljaja (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what Malljaja wrote is exactly what I was trying to say at Tim's talk page ([64]) at the same time. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two interlinked problems here. First, are the quality of this editor's contributions and the apparently incomplete grasp they have in some of the subjects they are trying to write about. This is a content issue. Second, is the unwillingness or inability of this editor to discuss their ideas on talkpages. This is a behavioral issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been struggling with this editor since the start of June, when they were editing as User:76.16.176.166, User:76.16.183.158 and User:71.201.243.137 and I've tried to work with them. You can see a prime example of how they behave on this talk page. I would have called for a topic ban for human evolution, but seeing how they are replicating the same problem on PCR-related articles I don't think this editor is competent to edit at all. They edit war, they are insufficiently fluent in English, they are uncivil, and they are a POV pusher. It will take time to review their contributions, but there is ample evidence to support a permanent block. Fences&Windows 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They also went on a bizarre spree of edit warring and insults as 24.15.125.234, which geolocates to the same place in Illinois as 76.16.176.166 and 71.201.243.137. Fences&Windows 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Previous ANI thread for the IP user is here. Fences&Windows 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlsberg Group, Hunter S. Thompson, Wiki brah

Resolved

Not sure where to go with this (if anywhere). User:Rose Nylundstein made this edit [65] using a reference with no preview available on Google Books. No other references connects Carlsberg Group and Hunter S. Thompson in any real way. User:Rose Nylundstein in "her" total of 7 edits it also tried (2/7) to get a redirect from James Hoffmann to World Barista Championship deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_9]. Two previous nominations to delete the article on James Hoffmann were made by User:Baileyquarter (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hoffmann (2nd nomination)) and User:Yardleyman (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hoffmann) both sockpuppets tracing back to User:Wiki brah etc. With the history involved, the lack of quick verifiability of the source and the lack of other sources corroborating the claim make me think this is disrubtive editing adding false information. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly  Likely, based on technical data. Blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from a vandal

User:Jinglesporjab took an existing article, changed a couple of the names, and created a nonsense article. When that article got deleted, this was the response. Looks like a legal threat, to me. Note that there is at least one instance of vandalism in the user's edit history, besides the nonsense article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would call that pointless noisemaking rather than a serious legal threat, to be honest. ;-) Shimgray | talk | 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Not a legal threat, just trolling. Ignore. Giving them attention is what they want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify: Ignore, and block if they make one more unproductive edit. I've left a final warning on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this and left them a 'request' that they make it clear they intend no legal action. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They clearly have no notion concerning the Freedom of Information Act, which regulates the records of government agencies in the United States and nothing else. Ignore. Acroterion _(talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm suprised we're showing them this much patience; they'd usually be indeff'ed as a vandalism only account by now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 17#Hispanic Commonweal (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_17&diff=297123546&oldid=297120522):

"First: Wikipedia is not your free web host.

You do have freedom of speech. However, your freedom of speech does not permit you to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is, figuratively speaking, someone else's wall (in this case the owner is the Wikimedia Foundation). If you want to write on Wikipedia, you have to follow the owner's rules. The site owner's rules are final."

— User:S Marshall

I cannot say any better than how we said it. MuZemike 23:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently too complex for AIV

Resolved

 – Blocked one week by Cirt

My report has been hanging at AIV for nearly two hours, so it must be too complicated for AIV patrollers. 189.220.102.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for constant introduction of bad charts and false positions into song articles. He was blocked two days ago for vandalism that included this edit. A few hours after he was unblocked, he repeated the identical edit. He wasn't satisified with simply repeating his old vandalism: he inserted grossly false figures into the Lindsay Lohan discography, and then committed a series of six edits on an Ashlee Simpson song, falsifying positions and adding bad charts].—Kww(talk) 01:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted several of his edits that appeared to be Vandalism. If h isn't blocked tomarrow morning I'll revert the rest of em (Thank you Huggle!!) --Rockstone (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens on Orly Taitz

Resolved

 – Jclemens and Viriditas are interacting cordially after agreeing to reset the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since 28 August, and for the last several days, I have been discussing the good article nomination of Orly Taitz by User:Jclemens on his talk page. I have not edited the article in question, but have concerns about stability, sourcing, and NPOV. Recently, I took my concerns from Jclemens' talk page and raised those same concerns on the article talk page. (See my comments over at Talk:Orly Taitz) In response to a heated discussion, Jclemens has declared that he has "topic banned" me from this article[66] after I have explicitly stated that "I intend to continue to maintain my neutrality by staying on the talk page" and not get involved in editing the article. To recap, Jclemens nominated the article for GAC, I responded on his talk page asking why I shouldn't quick-fail it, and then I placed several criticisms and suggestions for improvement on the discussion page, noting I had no intention of editing. Now, Jclemens declares I am topic banned. Jclemens is currently the top listed, primary contributor to Orly Taitz, with 106 edits.[67] I have been actively discussing his recent GA nomination, and several issues on the talk page. While I'm sure it is tempting to topic ban critics of our work, I don't think his topic ban declaration against me is legitimate. Could an uninvolved administrator look at this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, the topic ban is inappropriate. For established users like you, it takes community consensus, not one admin, to impose a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will voluntarily stay away from the page for 24 hours to let things cool down. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's totally inappropriate. While a topic ban isn't a use of the tools exactly, it's pretty close. He's involved in the article (heavily, as you note) and shouldn't be 'banning' people from it, not least of all for suggesting that it be quick failed. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Per my message at Viriditi's talkpage and my notice to Jclemens I have unbanned Viriditas from Orly Taitz related pages. As noted in both comments, I express no opinion on the appropriateness of Viriditas' actions but only that Jclemens flawed use of admin authority (as they are involved in both editing the article and interacting with Viriditas' in regards to it). I note V has voluntarily agreed to withdraw from the issue for 24 hours, which will permit Jclemens time to commence a topic ban request should they wish to pursue that course of action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses

Well, despite WP:NOTIFY, no one seems to have waited to hear my side of the story before rushing to judgement.

• User:Viriditas has engaged in unprovoked, repeated and disruptive incivility against me and another editor, (diffs: "wikilawyering and obstruction", "Civil POV pushing and Wikilawyering", "wikilawyering and obscructionism", and "cherry picking sources") despite multiple warnings to cease doing so (diffs: [68], [69], and [70]), has asserted that objections to his conduct are simply "an attempt to change the subject" but despite those protestations, his incivility is the sole reason I topic banned him: (diff: [71])
• Having said that, this entire evolution raises several questions:
  • Protonk, your assertion that I topic banned Viriditas for suggesting the article be quick failed may coincide with his version of reality, but certainly was not my motivation, and in fact, I told him to go ahead and fail it if he wanted about 16 hours before his attacks began on the article talk page. I'm no stranger to WP:GAN as a nominator or reviewer, both before and after becoming an administrator, and it seems quite illogical to presume that I'd try to use a topic ban to boost an article's chances of passing. I'd appreciate it if you'd care to qualify your statement in light of my explanation.
  • Per KoH's comment, is it within the purview of an individual administrator to impose a topic ban, or not? Practice seems to have been that admins could do so per their discretion, subject to community or arbcom review, even though no such mention is made at WP:TOPICBAN.
  • I am unclear how my editing of an article restricts me from acting in an administrative capacity to enforce appropriate policies. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say anything about "if you edit an article, you can't take action against someone who is incivil on the article talk page"--rather, it says quite the opposite. I doubt a full reading of the record will find my actions objectively unreasonable: ("When you're ready to discuss problems, rather than editors, simply drop a note on my talk page asserting your desire to so focus in the future. Note specifically that you are not expected to change the content of your objections for this topic ban to be lifted, merely their presentation. Dissent is absolutely welcome, assertions of cherry-picking, wikilawyering, and the like are not"). If such interactions are now considered by the community to be "totally inappropriate", then may I suggest WP:INVOLVED be updated to reflect such?
  • Speaking of community involvement, I provided what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable, policy-based condition (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) condition for the removal of the topic ban. Is there a particular reason why this remedy was deemed to be inappropriate, and another admin unilaterally reversed the topic ban without waiting to hear my side of the story? Isn't this discussion substantially moot, in that Viriditas has agreed to essentially the terms of the topic ban anyways? Topic bans, like all tools, are designed to promote collegial editing. If Viriditas is going to return to the talk page and present his arguments in a logical, dispassionate manner and cut out the accusations of bad faith and misconduct, then my entire goal in enacting a temporary topic ban has been achieved. I still view temporary topic bans as a more appropriate and lower-level response than blocks for repeated incivility which doesn't rise to the level of vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a continuum of problems that we deal with in articles. I consider myself 'involved' in about 3 dozen articles (give or take). If I revert vandalism and block the user on Adam Smith, I am neatly in the right. It is (almost) literally impossible to imagine a reasonable person who could view "Adam Smith eats poop" as anything other than vandalism and see a block for a named account with no contributions save blatant vandalism as anything other than a VOA. It is another matter entirely if I see an editor who is editing tendentiously or disruptively on Adam Smith or being obstinate and disputatious on Talk:Adam Smith and I block/ban them from the article. There are no shortage of different views on what might have been going on there. Perhaps another outside observer would see the situation as a dispute between two editors. Perhaps another observer would see the editor I viewed as disruptive as correct in their interpretation of sources. It is impossible for me to disengage my perspective of the content from my judgment of the conduct. More importantly, it is impossible for me to show to others that I have done so. You are involved in the Orly Taitz article. If you don't see yourself as involved, then others do. As such, you shouldn't be taking any admin actions there which could fall into gray areas. If you don't see your action as being well within the gray area, then accept some feedback: it was. I may be wrong in my quick summation as to the impetus for the topic ban. If I am I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion. But I don't feel I'm wrong about my interpretation of INVOLVED. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Apology accepted, thanks. If I implied that I thought I was not involved, then that was not my intent. I most certainly am involved in the article and any assertion from anyone that I'm not is laughable. Having said that, I believe where our viewpoints diverge is that I haven't interacted with Viriditas in any administrative capacity: there's no history that could be construed as historial bias against the user in question. Thus, if I am uninvolved with the topic banned editor (Viriditas), and the topic ban has nothing to do with the content of an article with which I'm involved, there's no particular reason for me to avoid dealing with a problem. I realise that the last clause is important and disputed, but maintain that both my words and actions demonstrate that the topic ban was related to incivility rather than article content. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The problem is that your involvement with the article precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance. The appropriate response to perceived incivility on the article talk page would be to get some input from another admin. They might disagree with your read and suggest that you too seek some dispute resolution. If you were just two editors involved in a dispute you would have to go through some route like that. But because you are an admin you 'can' (distinct from should) skip that and remove him from the page. IMO INVOLVED was written to proscribe a course of action like that. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • So there are two assumptions which I challenge: 1) that my involvement "precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance". Really, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know the difference between civil discourse and personal attacks. I dislike unprovoked accusations of any sort, and I don't think you'll find my actions in this case inconsistent with those in any other. I see no logic in the presumption that I am incapable of telling incivil users to take a time out until they can comport themselves civilly. 2) That INVOLVED supports the recusal of admins in all situation in which they're involved. In fact, it says absolutely nothing of the sort--there are no prohibitions in that section, just a recommendation that administrators may want to seek others to perform blocks. The clause that you're probably referring to, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." is up the page a bit, but there's still nothing applicable there: one has to seriously torture the definition of "advantage" or "comflict of interest" to include simply expecting civility in a dispute. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
            • The first one wasn't completely an assumption. In my opinion, you topic banned someone with whom you should have entered dispute resolution. Obviously you and I hold differing opinions about it, but I imagine that your involvement with the article might have led you to undertake an action you otherwise wouldn't have undertaken. That said, it is also possible that you felt WP:TOPICBAN applied neatly and also felt that literal involvement with the article didn't preclude the use of the tools (broadly). I also am going to repeat my charge that this falls well away from obvious problems on the continuum of unpleasant editor actions. The diffs you provide above are either garden variety wikilawyering, warnings from you to him, or responses to warnings. Where is the clear and actionable incivility? Protonk (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Your definition of actionable incivility differs from mine. At any rate, Viriditas and I have come to an understanding about the article and how to amicably promote forward progress, so I'm unsure of the need for future discussion on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps?

So, two questions remain, and here is as good a place to discuss them as any:

• Is a topic ban a tool administrators are entitled to use?
• Does WP:INVOLVED no longer reflect community consensus? Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Those don't seem to be relevant, as these aren't actually in dispute; these, in fact, seem to be framed less as a way of discussing any actual issues as they seem to be a way of steering towards a pre-determined conclusion justifying your actions. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, no, actually, it was my intent to see if I was misinterpreting policy or misunderstanding consensus on the topic. The justification of my actions is up-page a bit, after which post only one editor has seen fit to call my actions questionable. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, no, actually, since neither of those "questions" are actually in dispute, the answers are obvious. The purpose, again, appears to be form of rhetorical framing: "Do you agree with X? Do you agree with Y? Yes? Therefore I must be right!"

As for objections, I see at least two clear objections above, and if you'd like, I'll add a third: yes, it's very obviously a misuse of admin authority to declare a topic ban for the purpose of winning a dispute on an article for which you are heavily involved. It's not even borderline here. Are there a minimum number of objections you need before you are able to take this on board?

Also troublesome is your "archiving" of the Talk page discussion without any actual archive I can find, an action which seems indistinguishable from plain blanking or deletion. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it unfortunate that you assume bad faith on my part, presuming that the topic ban was a content dispute rather than a civility issue, rather than taking my statements at face value, especially in light of the fact that Viriditas has apologized on my talk page for his phrasing, and I've endorsed his content concerns. Feel free to follow-up with me or him on our respective talk pages, but I'm pretty sure this ANI thread is done. Oh, sorry about forgetting to add the archive box--someone's done that now. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't think there's a problem with a single admin enacting a topic ban without discussion (which means basically "you edit here again, any admin should be blocking you")? A single block of an editor for being disruptive I can understand and support but to go around and say that you alone can declare that editors are not allowed to edit certain topics without discussion with others seems highly aggressive. Add in the fact that you look like you could be involved. I actually don't care if you have a real conflict of interest, it's the perception to a neutral observer that it could be an issue that's concerning. Block individuals if you like for being disruptive but don't act like you have the authority of the community to enact topic bans until you actually have it. Banning policy only considers topic bans and other discretionary sanctions appropriate for areas that the Arbitration Committee has designated and even then admins are still required to report said bans. Is Orly Taitz in some Arbcom-designated area that allows for discretionary sanctions? Then the issue is simply a matter of putting a notice in the proper place. I'll drop this though if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "assuming" bad faith on your part, Jclemens, I'm citing evidence of it: before you misuse that all-purpose shield, remember the full quote is "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And now we have four people pointing out your actions are bright-line questionable. If Viriditas's actions were such a Bad Thing, then a non-involved admin or editor -- and make no mistake, you ARE involved -- should have been the one to do something, and I'm pretty sure the unilateral reaching for the admin blunderbuss that is a topic ban would not have been their first action. --Calton | Talk 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a bit of help at Smells Like Teen Spirit article

(Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I wasn't sure where else to go)

Hi. Is there a member of this project that can provide a reliable source stating that SLTS was nominated for two Grammy Awards? Myself and a couple other editors can only find sources verifying a nomination for Best Rock Song, and no others, so we edited the article to reflect this.

An editor by the name of WesleyDodds has reverted all of those edits. I think he's probably acting in good faith, but he hasn't provided any sources, hasn't added to the talk page discussion, and doesn't leave an edit summary explaining why he's reverted, so I have no idea what the problem is. None of the other pages relating to Nirvana awards make this claim, and neither do the Grammy articles for that year. The current source only verifies Best Rock Song.

So, what's up with that? 124.179.173.61 124.179.173.61 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, WesleyDodds is a longtime and frequent contributor to alt music articles, but it appears that you may be right. http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1993/grammys.htm only lists Nirvana as a nominee for Best Rock Song, not Best Hard Rock Performance. Not a good thing to edit war, even if you're right (I found this out recently :) ). Tarc (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WesleyDodds has indeed been revert warring... and unfortunately, you have too. I've left Wesley a reminder that 3RR violations (or continued near misses) will lead to blocks, and you also should take the same on board. Wesley's dismisssive post in the discussion thread and the reversions have also earned him a WP:TROUT, especially as the IP would appear to be correct about the Grammy award (see list of 1993 nominees/winners at [72]). EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for that. I appreciate it. Cheers! 124.179.173.61 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

mass date-changing

User:GravySpasm has a 14-month+ history of making no edits except changing dates to his preferred format, in violation of the MoS. People have gently pointed out on his talk page, dating back to July 2008, that this might not be appropriate editing, but that seems to have been neither acknowledged nor heeded. --Delirium (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• A review of only a handful of edits picked at random shows nothing that enters the territory covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. This account isn't de-wikifying dates, only changing, for example, "April 4, 1792," to "4 April 1792,", preserving wikification in cases where such dates are wikified (example). Note also that no-one has mentioned this issue, or indeed anything at all, to this editor over the past 11 months. I suggest that you drop another talk page note, therefore, and make fresh attempts to communicate with this editor before deciding that xe is uncommunicative. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the issue isn't date delinking, but date changing, in violation of the prohibition on changing date styles, except where strongly connected to an English-speaking country that uses a particular date system, that's been longstanding policy (the "Retaining the existing format" subheading here). I'll drop a note, though. --Delirium (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Das Ansehnlisch

I've tried to get User:Das Ansehnlisch to discuss his/her reverts of the redirection of non-notable song articles. The editor has not discussed and continued to revert. I initially didn't revert as I had requested discussion. When the reverting continued with fairly inflexibily worded edit summaries I did revert, as did another editor.

I did finally get a response from him, but the words "screw you"-while not having the (presumed) offensive effect on me-do suggest to me that the editor has little or no intention of disucssing or working together.

Could admins please look into this and advise? I will also notify the admins involved in the editor's previous three blocks. many thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm - there is something a little strange going on with their user page. It seems to be directed to User:The Chauffer. Anyway, this is Das Ansehnlisch's contributions. regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the page, you'll see he locked himself out of the account User:The Chauffer, and started a new account instead of asking for assistance. I've worked with him a little - he has a theory that most songs are notable if only you look hard enough, so his reversion of redirects is based on this. sometimes he's right - we managed to make a nice little contribution for The Chauffeur. He appears to be a contributor to several music wikis, so his view of what's notable is probably a bit skew-whiff for Wikipedia, but I think he generally means well (although I agree 'screw you' wasn't exactly a helpful or civil contribution). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If he has his own views on notability, that is all well and good. That does not exempt him from abiding by the norms of wikipedia, which include discussion (particularly when his opinion appears to differ from general consensus) and refraining from incivility and personal attacks. --Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack on an AFD

Resolved

 – No action needed, now generating more heat than light

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attack on an AFD and have to advise that there has been another personal attack on an AFD today from User:Abductive. He said the article I had written, List of books by Ian Stevenson, was a "Blatant attempt to expand the Wikipedia footprint of this fringe professor. Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)" This is incorrect and it flies in the face of the assumption of good faith. I responded by explaining that I was a WikiProject: Books member who was trying to improve coverage of books on WP, but this only resulted in more unsavoury comments from him. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like much of a personal attack, honestly.-- Darth Mike ^(talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is an attack on my good standing as an editor who does his best to follow NPOV and avoid POV-pushing. I certainly don't "blatantly" flaunt WP rules. Johnfos (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that resembles a personal attack from abductive. I do see some assumptions of bad faith and I've left him a reminder to assume good faith in the future.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but your comment on Abductive's Talk page could cause confusion since it immediately follows something I wrote, and it could be seen that you are replying to me, which I don't think is the case. Also, you may like to include the link to the relevant deletion discussion, to ground what you are saying. Otherwise your comment becomes most unclear. Johnfos (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't punish people for bad faith Johnfos, they just get "warnings". TomCat4680 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we don't "punish" people here in wikipedia. A block or ban is used to prevent further disruption from a user, and not as a punishment for something they have done. There have been no violations of WP:PA as far as I can see, and there is no need to block User:Abductive. He needs to be reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF however, and that is exactly what Crossmr has done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He violated both policies twice in 24 hours, how is that not blockable? Obviously he's ignoring the warnings and needs something more severe so he understands that his behavior is unacceptable. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps the second complainer noticed your ANI complaint and piggybacked on it? Abductive (reasoning) 08:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See he doesn't think what he did was wrong and is now making false assumptions. Further incivility and assumptions of bad faith. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not an assumption of bad faith, because there is nothing wrong with follow-on complaints, right? Two possibilities present themselves; the second complainer came to ANI independently to complain, noticed the earlier complaint 22 sections up, and decided to file another complaint, or the second complainer researched my contribs and/or looked at my talk page, saw the ANI notice there, and decided to follow up with one of his/her own. Abductive (reasoning) 09:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's it, he's stalking you. Two editors have complained about your behavior and two admins have warned you about it, yet nothing is your fault, we're all just out to get you. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC) TomCat4680 (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

TomCat, you are beginning to be a bit disruptive. Abductive is not going to be "punished" for whatever he's done or not done or whatever. Please understand that. If you continue to whine about it, your behaviour is also unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Two complaints and two warnings in 24 hours is okay in your mind? And you're accusing me of violating policy? Are you still mad about last night? At least I admitted I was wrong. Abductive refuses to do so and continues his uncivil behavior. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not interested in when you admit you're wrong, if you just start up again. You're hounding Abductive, for some remarks that really were not that egregious at all. You're calling for him to be "punished" despite being told several times last night that we do not punish people, so, yes, I am accusing you of violating policy.

Abductive has had some warnings/suggestions/comments/messages left on his talkpage to deal with the problems in his editing style. Now it's time for you to stop being disruptive with immediate effect. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how, in your own words, am I being disruptive? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Those were my words. You are hounding Abductive. You are calling for people to be punished despite the fact that you know that we don't punish people. You are constantly accusing him of personal attacks where there are none, and it has been explained to you. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hounding him, I didn't even start this ANI, Johnfos did. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did I accuse him of personal attacks on this thread? NOT yesterday's thread, this thread. Look carefully...TomCat4680 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the explanation of what "hounding" means? I'll copy it here, since you obviously didn't. Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. You are hounding him. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one hounding me. You did last night and you're doing it again. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TomCat4680, it looks to me like you're the one assuming bad faith now. He is not going to get blocked for this right now, so drop it. Abductive, how the reports were made is not really important here is it? What matters is that you have breached WP:CIVIL, so please correct that and remember to adhere to that and WP:AGF. Everyone has their opinion; that's why we have processes like AFD. We just have to give it in an acceptable way without trying to suppress the opposing opinions. The current situation is not much, but if you continue to do this you may be blocked in the future. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how, in your own words, am I assuming bad faith? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been explained to you already. You are accusing him of personal attacks, when he's not making any. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay one that question was for Chamal, not you. Two, when I mean in your own words I mean explain what I did without pointing to policy. You are NOT a robot. Three, I didn't accuse him of personal attacks in this ani, I accused him of assuming bad faith and incivility, of which 3 admins have agreed he committed twice in 24 hours. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really need a more detailed answer, I'm talking about you steadfastly believing that Abductive has acted in bad faith and trying to get him "punished". This is a minor incident, and you're blowing it out of proportion. I don't see any reason to continue this discussion so please drop it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a snippy comment but it's not a personal attack. A personal attack would be "so-and-so is a jerk". Saying that so-and-so is trying to expand a fringe author's "footprint" is simply an opinion based on the observable evidence - namely, that there's already a list of books in the main article, and the main article is not long enough to justify a separate page which consists of mostly the same info that's already in the main article. And the fact that the fork article's writer took it personally suggests that it touched a nerve - i.e. that it's probably true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If a block isn't punishment, what is it? dictionary.com defines punishment as "A penalty imposed for wrongdoing". Isn't that exactly what a block is? Where am I wrong here? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To find out about a policy on Wikipedia, you have to go to the Wikipedia page on it. A dictionary won't help you with that. See WP:BLOCK. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment". Black Kite 10:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparent suicide note

Unresolved

A_life_to_remember is about to be speedied but someone ought to look into this and contact the proper authorities. He's also posted it on his user page at Moosie.hm (talk · contribs). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact a Checkuser just to confirm he is where the narrative says he is. If not a suicide note then it is a story, and in either circumstance is inappropriate for WP. Deleting. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP address geolocates to the western end of Montreal island, Canada. Would someone in Canada mind calling local authorities? If you require the IP address, please email me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case this is true, was it a good idea to delete the article under A3: "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content"? Alan16 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for just now getting back to this, I posted the report here just before heading off to bed last night. I believe copies of this note may still exist in the editors subpages... I tagged it for speedy but if necessary it could easily be restored and would prolly be better than restoring a mainspace article. He had also copied it into his userpage. I hope it's just someone looking for attention, or a kid blowing off steam, or a prank. :-/ <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is the suicide threat in that? I just read it, and it just sounds like a rather sappy love story and he's apologizing for ruining their relationship. AniMate^draw 04:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. It sounds to me like someone with an unhealthy fixation, with an ending that sounds like he's about to off himself and apologizing for it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

II do not see it that way either. I don't think he's even being dramatic and looking for attention, just posting what might be a personal narrative -- or might even be original fiction. Certainly we want to play it safe in doubtful cases, but this isn't one of them. DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please delet

Please delete this edit and edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsenic&diff=prev&oldid=311389409 thank you J8079s (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While that edit is offensive vandalism, it isn't worth using the delete tools over. We generally delete material if it is severely libelous, invasive of privacy or something like that. Juvenile racist vandalism is simply reverted. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How about the edit summary? It will show in "History". If it's problematic Thanks anyway.J8079s (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is clearly descriptive of his edit, nothing more. While the word "nigger" itself is inappropriate in the article, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish that all of our racists/vandals would so clearly label their vandalism in an edit summary like this, so that we knew to remove it ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Linkfarm edit war on Mail forwarding‎?

Hey. Over on the mail forwarding article, 78.86.124.181 (talk · contribs), an anon IP and a newly-created account CrestedEagle (talk · contribs) have been adding in a set of external links that really strikes me as violating WP:LINKFARM. I actually got involved as a third opinion, but three other editors are in the same boat. There's a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page there and we opened an RfC for the discussion, but this seems like something that's a direct violation of Wiki policies on spam. I didn't take this to AIV since there's been some kind of discussion, but the fact that a new user shows up and sides with the IP seems somewhat fishy. Would it be possible to get an admin to take a look at this? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the list, and semi-protected the article for a week to stop the ongoing edit war. As a short and simple answer: No, that list does not belong there, we are not the yellow pages or an internet directory. {{dmoz}} is maybe what you may want to use. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Talk page has now seen 5 6 editors enquiring on satire/spoof site about Beck raping girl in 1990 that's making it's way around the internet (and believing it to be true).

• http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9gbdj/did_glen_beck_really_rape_and_murder_a_girl_in/
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090901181557AAie9Wz
• http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-323336
• http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-murdered-a-girl-in-1990/
• http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_Raped_And_Murdered_A_Girl_In_1990

Request permission to semi talk page and a little help if the shit hits the fan. Soxwon (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the article itself is already protected. It was declined at RFPP today. Still, it's probably worth semi-protecting the talk page for 24-72 hours; after that much time, hopefully the talk page chatter will be productive. tedder (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages generally aren't protected preemptively. You should take a minute to review the protection policy. As I said at RfPP, if there was continued disruption you should have made another request there. At the time I declined the protection request, there were only 5 disruptive edits. There may have been a few more since. Given that people decided to rush to ANI for no apparent reason (as there's clearly no emergency or reason to protect it unless there was continued disruption, in which case a follow up report to RfPP would be the proper way to go) I'll let another admin take a look. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought this from a request for page protection based on a suggestion from someone there. I just wanted a simple 24 block. Soxwon (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you did. I don't know why another admin directed you here. This page is not for page protection requests; if they had input to offer on the matter, they should have left it over at RfPP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is aimed at me ("another admin")- my concern wasn't the "pre-emptive" rule, it's the fact that both the article and talk page would be protected at the same time. I'd rather get consensus here at ANI for protecting both for a short amount of time rather than doing it at RFPP. tedder (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this isn't going away any time soon. I support any effort made to avoid Wikipedia being caught up in this issue, both to avoid defaming Beck, and to avoid blackening Wikipedia's name. A bit of semiprotection is the lesser evil by far. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A request was made at RPP to protect the talk page of this article. I have declined it since the policy is not to protect both article and talk. But it seems like a lot of BLP violations are (or at least have been) taking place there. Maybe we should decide what to do here? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are also subject to BLP rules, and if someone is posting such an extreme BLP violation on the talk page, then it should also be protected in some way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

When an article is protected, the talk page should be open to all goodfaith editors to request changes to the article. Is the issuance of a "final" or "only" warning followed by indef block or temporary block for a few disruptive editors not preferable to locking up the talk page? Why would we assume that if a talk page is protected or semiprotected, that problem edits won't reappear as soon as the protection is lifted? Take a look at the early history of Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for many examples of keeping the talk page open to editing while removing inappropriate posts[73], [74]. Edison (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is too much so I've semi-protected it for 12 hours. We'll see if it dies down at all after that. These excessive BLP violations are far outweighing the possibility that some IP user is going to bring something productive to the table. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion by User:Jayjg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Currently being handled at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jayjg

---

A number of recent edits by user:Jayjg appear to violate his permanent topic editing restriction:

Jayjg is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles [75].

For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project. [76]

Appreciate if this could be looked into. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a case for arbitration enforcement rather than ANI.  Skomorokh  14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be he doesn't think the topics he edited fall under the ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahmedinejad, Holocaust denial, Persecution of Jews, Islam and anti-semitism - sure is skirting awfully close.  Skomorokh  14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think he's straying from the topic ban, but most likely doesn't think he is doing so, hence I'd tend to deal with it at the outset as a good faith misunderstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread, let's hear what he has to say.  Skomorokh  15:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The only one of the linked edits that is possibly a problem is that about Islam and antisemitism. Even then, that's only a problem if one buys into some sort of notion that anti-Semitism and being anti-Israel are related. He also recently edited Benjamin Freedman but stopped editing that article after a discussion with me where I commented that I thought it seemed to be pushing the limits of the ban. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing any violation here, even "broadly construed," except, paradoxically, for MeteorMaker. Posting a complaint of dubious merit here in an attempt to get an editor who used to be active on I-P articles punished seems to be a violation of both the letter and the spirit of MeteorMaker's own identical ban. IronDuke 15:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

None of those articles appear to me to be a violation...Modernist (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His edits stray from the topic ban because anti-semitism and anti-zionism are often conflated as one in the same. Mistakenly so, from my outlook, but then, that's a slice of what these I-P PoV kerfluffles on en.Wikipedia have been all about. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec - but Gwen Gale said it better so I'll delete that part of my comment) Is this the forum for discussing whether IP / AE conflict "broadly construed" encompasses Muslim/Jew conflicts? That's a question far broader than this one case. I would say that practically, it does. As that article heading says, its subject includes "the attitudes of the Muslim world in history to Jews as a people". There's clearly some relationship between antisemitism and being anti-Israel, plus half of the Jewish people are in Israel, their historical origin. And the so-called Arab world makes up about half of the Muslim world, also the origin and focus. I haven't followed this at all, but unless there's a pattern of testing the limits of the topic ban a friendly note / caution makes sense after deciding what that limit is. Requests for arbitration enforcement are cumbersome, but for an editor who is topic banned themselves that's a safer forum than here, but they really shouldn't be worrying about it unless it affects their edits directly. As they say, if you're topic banned there are some pages you best take off your watch list, for your peace of mind. Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because anti-Zionism is, or can be, a form of antisemitism, doesn't mean all forms of antisemitism are anti-Zionism, or even particularly related. IronDuke 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The pith is that the two are indeed often taken as one and this underlies many I-P edit wars and gnashing of teeth. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not "taken as one." It has been suggested that anti-Zionism can act as a cover for antisemites. It does not therefore follow that an edit about antisemitism is necessarily an edit regarding anti-Zionism. Embezzlement is a form of crime; it does not therefore follow that if I were topic-banned from embezzlement, I would be topic-banned from crime. I can't see how this point could be any more straightforward. IronDuke 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is not simply an Arab/Israeli issue, and cannot be normally construed that way except to say that there are people from many different cultures who are in denial for one reason or another...Modernist (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody agrees it would be helpful to know the exact boundaries of what the ArbCom (twice) has loosely defined as "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project". Can topics such as Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews be discussed or not? Jayjg has now, four months after his topic ban, chosen to volunteer as a minefield-clearer, which is a duty somebody will have to carry out sooner or later. As suggested above, I will post an AE notice as well in order to ascertain that these areas are safe to thread for everybody who got the blanket topic ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Following the input here, given arbcom set the ban, only they can give feedback on the ban's reach. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:86.1.207.130 / User:Albsol88t

Resolved

 – both blocked Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin kindly take a look at the edits of 86.1.207.130 (talk · contribs) aka Albsol88t (talk · contribs) and figure out how best to handle him. Edit warring, personal attacks, etc. I'd report a 3RR violation from when he created a new account to do another revert, but it's stale at this point; WQA seems pointless as civility is only one of his problems; and I already had a third opinion on the article come in and agree that his edits don't belong, but he clearly doesn't care. Warnings/blocks/friendly explanations or whatever you feel is appropriate would be appreciated. DreamGuy (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Based upon the exact same edit to the same article previously it looks like he previously used I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) as well, which was indef blocked for harassment. DreamGuy (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Both now blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a rather sad example of how we lose content contributors, and content, when people's responses are little more than revert warring. Uncle G (talk)
      • Well, considering the content was was worse than useless and the contributor in question has *never* added anything of value to the encyclopedia, if they refuse to change their behavior then this is someone who should not be posting here in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, the editor expanded the article with more detail about the alibi and the gas mask, important facets of this case that the article seriously under-represents. If that is "worse than useless", then you have the wrong definition of "useless". Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, congratulations, you apparently managed to find one edit the person made which, if properly cited to a real source, would have been somewhat useful. I guess that excuses his calling me a pedophile, edit warring to restore multiple copies of the same sentence fragment in multiple locations, adding false information, using multiple accounts to try to get around 3RR, block evasion and so forth. Are you just on a "newbies are sacred and must be protected at all costs" kick, or do you have some personal conflict here I don't know about? DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• The profanity isn't acceptable, but I can understand the editor's frustration that has led to the profanity. You're disputing whether this person is a serial killer or a spree killer. The editor has told you, on the article's talk page, that this person is documented as a serial killer in the literature. But instead of going and checking the literature, you're just revert warring instead, and complaining about personal attacks when your revert warring causes frustration.

  So now I am telling you, repeating what the editor says: Stop revert warring and go and check the literature. You can start with Cummins' entry in ISBN 9781572151444, a book that is entitled the Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. And if you don't like that book about serial killers, try ISBN 9780671020743, another encyclopaedia of serial killers.

  You've been told that the content that you dispute is supported by sources. The next step is always the next step for a good encyclopaedist: Go and read the sources that you've been told about!

  Edit warring is not the correct response, nor is a declaration that you have "consensus" on your side, supporting further revert warring by you, when in reality your only support is one other editor, who merely agreed that the edit warring was disruptive, and whose claim that conent was removed is clearly contradicted by the content removal in xyr own reversion. Revert warring, instead of reading the sources that one has been told support the content, is not the response of a good encyclopaedist. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Please do not lecture me on allegedly not having read the sources. If some source calls this person a serial killer, it is simply wrong. If you'd bother to look at the definition of serial killers versus spree killers you would know that. I can cite a zillion reliable sources to back that statement up, from real experts on serial killers and not what somebody may or may not have said about this particular incident on some website or whatnot. It was some other editor who earlier removed the serial killer statement in favor of the spree killer one, which I supported once I realized the timetable of the killigns involved. On top of that, I called in a third opinion, like I am supposed to, and they agreed. So this *was* a clear and obvious consensus of 3 to 1 despite your trying to claim I didn't have any consensus there. Your whole rant above basically threw WP:AGF out the window and instead assumed that an experienced editor with long demonstrated knowledge on these topics didn't know what he was talking about and that some potty mouthed, block-evading vandal who couldn't even string a sentence together with proper capitalization somehow did. Your idea of what makes someone a good encyclopedist clearly needs a major rethink. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • … not when it is contrasted with "If some source calls this person a serial killer, it is simply wrong.", it doesn't. I remind you of Wikipedia:Verifiability. And the "potty mouthed, block-evading vandal who couldn't even string a sentence together" managed to string several sentences together for the article. You simply removed them, ignored talk page attempts to discuss verifiability by the editor who made the edit (despite your asking for sources), revert warred, painted the person that you edit warred as a "vandal" simply because xe edit warred right back, and have been revert warring ever since. The only reason that you're calling this person a "vandal" is, I suggest, because that is the only way you can justify your 1 2 3 4 5 6 reverts so far. This person is not a vandal. Expanding the article with content such as "The billet passbook, signed by cadets as they entered and left, seemed to back Cummins alibi." is not vandalism. On the contrary, it's adding verifiable content. You're making a very poor show of being "an experienced editor" here. You're revert warring. You're removing verifiable content. You're ignoring the talk page statements that something is verifiable. And you're attempting to get your own way in a content dispute by pointing out where you've driven the editor whose additions you are repeatedly reverting to profanity by your behaviour. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it is with people trying to blame the side fixing the article for revert warring. When someone adds bad content, it should be removed. That's why someone else first removed the false claims of serial killer and switched it to spree killer. The editor clearly did vandalize my user page and made claims that are simply wrong. I also did what I was supposed to and brought in a third opinion. I also posted to a wikiproject looking for more editors. I only reported the person here when the abuse became ridiculous and suggested that admins here take whatever action they deemed appropriate regarding the abuse, suggesting warning or whatever. I did everything any experienced editor is supposed to do when faced by someone dead set on adding grammatically and factually incorrect text to an article repeatedly. I don't know why you have a problem with me having acted completely by the book, but I don't particularly care, since you seem to be in a minority of one. DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• • And concerning your claims above, Cummins, who wrote the Encyclopedia of Serial Killers you refer to above, is not an expert on serial killers. The guy churns out books on whatever topics come his way, mostly on paranormal topics, and they are filled with errors his section on Jack the Ripper is one of the worst such overviews I've ever seen). Unfortunately a lot of the pop lit on serial killers is like that. We use WP:RS standards here, not just what some nobody working at a book mill claimed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You aren't doing so. You aren't even looking at sources. You outright refused to engage the editor on the talk page when xe talked about sources. You are revert warring to remove content, without reasoned discussion or application of content policy, and without addressing the verifiability assertions proffered by the editor who you were warring with, plain and simple. And you're coming here for backup in your revert war, using as a means to gain support for your reversions the fact that you've so frustrated the other editor, by not even doing the research that xe asked you to do and simply revert warring and claiming an entirely mythical "consensus", that xe has resorted to using profanity at you. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty blatant violation of WP:AGF, there, Uncle G. The claims you've made are outright false, and have already been proven wrong by evidence provided above. The guy used profanity from the very beginning and left accusations of pedophilia and so forth against me before ever trying to justify any of his edits, there was a clear 3-to-1 consensus against his edits, and the feeble attempt he came up with later was both inaccurate and filled with profanities. You apparently do not care about the actual facts of the situation, so there's nothing left to do but to ignore your misinformed rant. I do hope you're not inserting yourself so vocally on other situations in which you are equally misinformed DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Longuniongirl (talk · contribs) is probably (per WP:DUCK) the same editor back under a new name. The account is not even a day old and it has multiple incidents of edit warring under his/her belt, including the exact same edits on Blackout Ripper per above. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll just note here that I blocked I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) indefinitely on the basis of this edit alone, as it's about the most unacceptable piece of vandalism I can think of. Hut 8.5 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The blocked editor seems to be back again, this time as Howto8008 (talk · contribs). DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao2911

User Tao2911 has continued to vandalize the Adi Da article. He has received numerous warnings, the history of which can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tao2911&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tao2911&oldid=308590937

His most recent warning can be viewed on his talk page here: If you continue to remove well-sourced content from Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Goethean wrote a final warning on his page, "If you continue to remove well-sourced content from Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)"

Tao2911 has removed well-sourced once more in numerous edits that took place today. I would like to see follow up from wikipedia adminstrators regarding potential blocking of this user. Geronimo20 warned him in August 2009: Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing.

And Goethean wrote most recently that if Tao2911 continues to remove well-sourced content from the Adi Da article then he would be blocked. This has happened again and this editor has been doing this on an ongoing basis for too long now. A stop must be put to this kind of behavior.

I wrote in Discussion for all the new edits I made, explaining what I did and why I did it, and that if there was anyone who felt that any of the content was not NPOV, to please bring it up, so that all editors could reach a consensus before editing. Tao2911 has continually ignored these requests, in the past, and now and made numerous edits only to post uncivil comments in Discussion afterwards.

Here is the history of his removal of well-sourced content today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Da&action=history

Here is a link to the Discussion where my polite posts were made and where his posts were also made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Da

I would like to see some resolution to this matter, as it's making it impossible to create a neutral article on Adi Da! Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What Devanagari108 calls "well-sourced content" looks to me like worshipful adoration of the sort that is usually written by a disciple. (I have no involvement with this article, having looked at it for the first time in response to this ANI thread.) Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and both Tao2911 and Devanagari108 have been guilty of edit-warring. There is disruption from both sides that needs to be addressed in discussion, not through reverting. The accusations of vandalism are spurious and unwarranted. Per WP:VAN, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". I have to agree with Looie496 that the "well-sourced content" is debatable; much of the information that was removed was sourced to Adi Da himself. Again, this belongs on the talk page of the article, not WP:ANI, and if discussion doesn't work seek dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy football (American)

A new user, Jwangner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added some unsourced "strategy", (which is strikingly similar to his user name) three times, once as an IP and the other two from this account. I've already reverted the article three times and warned him twice. Seeing as this isn't necessarily vandalism and I'm "involved", I don't want to revert any more (if he adds it again) nor do I do I want to do anything more than warn him. Can someone else keep any eye on the article? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'll keep an eye out and block him if he carries on with this. He hasn't done it again since you gave him a level 3 warning, though - he's been made aware his edits are inappropriate; and has stopped for now. I don't think any further action's necessary at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 19:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit against Wikipedia?

Resolved

 – Mike Godwin notified (See archived comment below). Not much else AN/I can/should do. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was surprised to read today that the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and its founders are reportedly suing Wikipedia in New York County Court. The Wikipedia article on the organisation has been the site of numerous legal threats in recent months, including from individuals claiming to be associated with the organisation. These threats have resulted in blocks of several editors and/or sock/meatpuppets. The lawsuit news article makes several statements about A4M's putative claims against Wikipedia. Here, I quote several such claims from the text of the 01 Sept. 2009 Courthouse News article and present the reliable sources on which they are based: "Wikipedia falsely reported that A4M's mission statement was "never growing old." In fact, A4M says, its mission is to "promote research into methods to retard ... the human aging process." However, the statement about growing old is from a New York Times article, quoting founder Ronald Klatz. The full quote is "We're not about growing old gracefully, said Dr. Ronald Klatz, 43, the group's president, who practices in Chicago. We're about never growing old." "The group, also known as A4M, says Wikipedia reported thatmany exhibitors at A4M trade shows ... have been indicted in federal and state investigations into illegal trafficking of human growth hormone and anabolic steroids. But A4M says that only one [A4M] exhibitor has ever been investigated for wrongdoing and the charges against the exhibitor were later found baseless and dropped". The statement on exhibitors is from a second New York Times article, which reports that "many of the individuals and companies cited in the indictments have been involved with the academy and its conventions over the years." The article also states, "The authorities have indicted 20 people, including four doctors, in three states as part of an investigation into what federal and state prosecutors describe as a booming and illegal trade: Internet trafficking in human growth hormone and anabolic steroids. More than half of those indicted thus far in the case worked for companies that peddled their wares at the Las Vegas convention or that belonged to the trade group that organized it, the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine". "Wikipedia allegedly stated that A4M's founders claim to have medical degrees from Central American Health Sciences in Belize, despite never actually studying there. This improperly implies that (the founders) did not receive appropriate or sufficient medical training, A4M says. In fact, it says, that [the founders] completed the requisite medical education ... to earn their Doctor of Medicine Degrees ... is not in any doubt. The statement about the Belizean medical degrees is also supported by the New York Times: "Both men received medical degrees in 1998 from the Central American Health Sciences University in Belize, without, they acknowledged, ever having studied in the country." Since I have been involved in editing this article, I would appreciate any advice from administrators regarding what repercussions I and other individual editors can expect from this lawsuit...the New York Times articles do mention that the organisation's leaders are quite wealthy and known for using the legal system. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC) First, someone needs to consult the wikimedia attorney, Mike Godwin. Second, someone needs to be sure that sources for information in that article meet standards of notability and verifiability. If the allegedly controversial info is reliably verifiable, then theoretically wikipedia should be safe. But that's a question for Mr. Godwin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC) User:MGodwin is Mike's page which gives contact details. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I e-mailed Mike with a pointer to this thread. Nathan T 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you all; I was just in the middle of e-mailing him myself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC) It's probably worth reading up on the Video Professor incident. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Hopefully this comes out better for registered editors. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Folks, let me respond to the legal threat here (we're responding). Otherwise, feel free to continue your volunteer efforts to improve this or any other article. MikeGodwin (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ajweberman vandalizes his own BLP

User:Ajweberman is A. J. Weberman, an activist in the Youth International Party. Yippies style themselves as pranksters, and Mr. Weberman has a history of both editing in violation of WP:COI with respect to his biographical article, but also just goofy vandalism as in these diffs: [77][78]. A topic ban may be in order. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted his more recent vandalism to the article. While this is somewhat funny (I had no idea any Yippies still existed. I had presumed they had all grown up and become, I don't know, investment bankers and used car salesman), there's an additional concern in that some of the material he is adding involves other individuals who may still be living and involves statements about drug use. This creates a potential BLP issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lambiam and Milomedes

In an ironically fitting attempt at wikilawyering, Lambiam has now filed a grievance [79] over Milomedes' block for making legal threats, despite the fact that Milomedes himself has gone away. I wonder what Lambiam's personal interest is in this, and why he thinks it's OK to use legal threats to try to intimidate other users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it will be accepted; one ANI thread --> ArbCom is not usually kosher. Tan | 39 12:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also doubt the case will be accepted, but please do not needlessly indict Lambiam for starting the Arbitration request. I don't see it as either vexatious or frivilous. He has a legitimate concern over the application of our NLT policy. I disagree with his assessment of the Milomedes situation, but I also think he has the right to ask for a further review. He may not actually get any further review, but he has the right to ask, which is all he has done. Let's WP:AGF on this. It is entirely possible to disagree with others in a civil manner, and that is all I think is happening here. Yes, I was the one that issued the block that Lambiam is objecting to, but I still defend Lambiam's right to object... --Jayron32 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Jayron. Bugs, I think jumping in quickly to ask what people's interest in a matter is... is somewhat counterproductive. One could as easily (and with approximately the same amount of good faith assumed, give or take) ask why you asked about motives at the RFAR/C page, and then brought the matter here. In future please consider not doing that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I raised that question here first and posted it there as an afterthought. I am baffled as to why Lamb I Am jumped in here right after Milo Medes went silent. They both raised the same point, dissecting selected wording from the NLT writeup to try to "prove" it's not a legal threat, and ignoring the general point about intimidation. And why is he defending someone who has displayed no interest in defending himself? There's something fishy going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding AGF, I always assume good faith - that is, I assume that a given editor is doing what he thinks is right. That don't make it right, though. And in general, I raise questions that I have that I don't see others raising. It's better to raise a question and have it disputed than to never raise the question at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think you may be jumping at shadows. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Constant disruption by user Z.K. HAL at Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We've been experiencing a heavy dispute at Talk:List of best-selling music artists since August 11th 2009 over Michael Jackson's total record sales figures. So far, we haven't been able to come to consensus on the issue. Since August 23rd I've made an attempt twice to come up with an idea so it would possibly suite both sides and end the dispute. I first suggested the first example on August 23rd [80], which was received positively by almost all editors who commented on the model, the user Z.K. HAL began to find pointless excuses; however. Another editor and I tried to explain and clear things up for him which only resulted in poorly constructed arguments stated by Z.K. HAL. I made another attempt on August 30th, wherein I demonstrated another similar model with detailed footnotes and asked the users to post their votes which would possibly lead us to consensus once and for all. The same user, Z.K. HAL, immediately jumped in with his/her disruptive and long arguments here, even though, I have stated at the top of the section to comment very briefly. And today, in another section of the same dispute, he not only disagreed (as usual) with everything that anybody has to suggest, but he also left uncivil remarks addressing to me here.

I can't seem to find a way to lead this dispute to consensus with Z.K. HAL constantly interrupting the flow of all the discussions that are taking place at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources trump almost everything. At WP:GOODCHARTS there is a list of sources which have been found to be acceptable for use here (and some not), and anything else should be debated on its merits. We have to avoid original research and synthesis, but as long as a coherent approach can reach consensus, that should prevail. Meanwhile, precedent requires that the editor proposing the change must support it. I also suggest you notify Z.K. HAL of this discussion and invite him to contribute here. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please not that I am not suggesting to include original research within the table. The table's sources come from IFPI databases, in some cases I have to convert the gold/platinum awards into figures to make them clearer for readers. And in some cases I don't have to convert them because databases themselves indicate figures for record-sales. As for inviting Z.K. HAL here, I'd like to avoid doing that as I have a feeling that he might begin filling this area with very much like what he's done at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists--Harout72 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but notifying editors of discussion here is regarded as basic courtesy. {{ANI-notice}} should be used for this. We do not run kangaroo courts here; he's entitled to respond. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the chap(ess). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The user Z.K. HAL has been notified of this posting; however it doesn't look like he has intentions of sharing thoughts here, instead he keeps being uncivil at Talk:List of best-selling music artists and certainly ignores what anybody has to say.--Harout72 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I noticed few minutes ago that there is discussion... First of all, I reject all Harout72's claim that I insulted him, quiet contrary he (and few other editors) insulted me but anyway if he was offended by any of my statements during temperament discussion I APOLOGIZE. All my objections in Talk:List of best-selling music artists were based on well constructed arguments (sometimes 2 long 2 read) but Harout72 and few other editors simply ignore them. Also I accapted his suggestion regarding final model here but with one condition - I pointed out that final table needs very important note regarding under-certified records here and here and he rejected that with some kind of insult (insinuation). Also very important, Harout72 are counting total certified sales around the world but without defined consistent counting method(ology) - in one country he counts 2-cd record as 2 copy and in other countries he counts same 2-cd record as 1 sold copy here (I explained that with example but if is it neccesary I will prove that with figures used in final table.) Regarding Swedish certifications, Harout72 use in table wrong history of gold/platinum certifications changes. His figures are not based on any reliable source and I provided official document (pdf) - history of gold/platinum certifications changes in Sweden. I got it via official e-mail from Swedish IFPI here. However he ignored my source and his intention is to use own wrong, without source Swedish figures here. Anyway if my source is not reliable (ok!) than we must delete Sweden from table (because we don't have other web source). ... Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, you have already been explained in this edit of mine how the multi-disc cds are counted by RIAA. It's all in here. As for the e-mail which you supposedly got from Sweden's IFPI, the document here that you have uploaded, I personally can't open it for some reason. Another editor who was able to do so; however, stated that it does not look anything official in this edit.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 read again this edit. I know everything about how the multi-disc are counted by RIAA, I wrote that 2 times before you. You simply don't understand my objection. Take for example The Beatles' album Anthology Volume 1 (2-cd record). It was certified 8×Platinum by RIAA and that represents 4 million sold records, but album got 8×Platinum award because there are 2 discs in it (8 million units/discs). In UK same album got 2×Platinum award and that represents 600,000 sold records but in those 600,000 sold records there are 1.2 million units/discs. At the end total certified sale of that album in UK+US is 4.6 million records or 9.2 million discs/units but in table you are using 8.6 million figure because you are counting units/discs from US (8m) and records from UK (600k). That is irrefutably wrong. You must count everywhere 2-cd records like 1 copy (record) or like 2 copies (units/discs). Regarding [Swedish IFPI I recieved that document from official (I can give you a name of woman or if you want I will forward you that mail) but it's OK if you don't believe me but you can't use your figures because you don't have any reliable source for them. However you can check my claims easy - sent e-mail to info@ifpi.se and simply ask them...--Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...and that would be the ultimate form of original research, and therefore disallowed. If they publish it clearly on an official website, you're golden. If they e-mail you a document that doesn't appear elsewhere, it's OR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept/understand that of course :) but as I mentioned before Harout72 has wrong (swedish) figures without (reliable) source and other editors agree with that!? I can't do anything regarding that issue. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, it's impossible to get anywhere with you. I'm quite tired of writing speeches to explain to you simple things in different ways. This is not the place for it, but I will do it again here briefly. RIAA does not count CD-cases, they count each unit within the case as one unit towards the certification. In other words, if a Double-CD material has been certified 8 x platinum, that means they've sold 4 million cases of it (this is where you get confused), each case contains; however, two discs (for example). You don't take 8 x platinum which is 8 million units in US and divide it by 2 as you are suggesting. If what you're saying was true, then 4 million cases of a Double-CD materials would simply mean 4 x platinum. And RIAA explains this in the criteria, Multi-Disc Set: Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification, Minimum running time 100 minutes. Meaning that they would only count those Double-CDs as one unit if the play-time of both CDs combined is under 100 minutes (as stated in Criteria). And that would be 8 x platinum=8 million cases (not the units within cases). It's very simple. Cheers.--Harout72 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG, everything you wrote here regarding RIAA certification is true and that is exactly what I wrote countless times. But again you are missing the point... Problem is when you count US and UK figures together. You take units-figure from US and then records (cd-cases) figure from UK and that is wrong. Apples & oranges. The Beatles' 2-cd album Anthology Volume 1 was sold in 4m copies in US, so 4m people bought that album. Album recieved 8×platinum status (8m) by RIAA because there are 8m discs/units in those 4m sold records and RIAA give awards for units in this case. OK? Now, in UK same album was sold in 600k copies, so 600k people bought that album. Album recieved 2×Platinum status (600k). In UK you recieve certification award for sold albums (records) not sold units like in US but in those 600k sold albums there is 1,2m discs/units. Now, when you are counting total certified sales (US+UK) you take 8m figure from US and that represents units/discs and then you take 600k figure from UK and that represents albums (not units) and you get 8.6m figure. That is wrong. Apples & oranges. If you take units-figure from US - 8m then you also must take units-figure from UK and that is 1.2m. Other possibility is to take total amount of sold albums (records) and that is 4 million in US and 600k in UK. So total certified sale in UK+US is 4.6m albums or 9.2m discs/units. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to all administrators here because you lost some time regarding this issue. I give up. Harout72 do whatever you want in that article. I will not bother you anymore. More than 20 years I am connected with this subject so I tried to improve article with suggestion(s) and well-meaning objection(s) but unfortunatelly everything was rejected by default without proper reading. I was constantly misinterpreted, attacked... and at the end I am accused of being main problem! Whole discussion is full of endless rhetoric and nobody will read anything there. I simply lost time & nerves. IMO article will be biased but... Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move cleanup requested

Most of the history for The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld episode) is here; history merge requested. Mike R (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've merged all the history of the disambiguation page from before July 2008 to The Bubble Boy (Seinfeld episode), and moved the history that was at "The Bubble Boy (disambiguation)" to The Bubble Boy, without the redirect, because "The Bubble Boy (disambiguation)" is a bad redirect target. The history was a big mess, and there were duplicate articles about the Seinfeld episode for about a year, so I couldn't clean it up properly. However it's better than how it was before and most of the attribution is at the title of the current article. Graham87 01:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mathsci and User:Slrubenstein

This complaint cover several issues. If this is not the appropriate place to file this complaint, please direct me to the proper venue - thanks. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Background On August 27 I saw a tag on the European identity and culture section [81] of the Ethnic groups in Europe article stating that it was unsourced and that the date was from July 2008 - well over a year. Upon looking at the history of the section, there had been no work on it since then with the tag still in place. I removed the tagged section in question [82] under WP:RS, WP:OR and other reasons, and described my actions on the talk page[83], believing that it detracted from the article.

On August 28, Slrubenstein reverted my edit [84] claiming that it was not POV and that I (Dinkytown) should do the research on the subject. [85] I did not revert his edit but again explained my reasoning as to why it should be removed. After some discussion, I told them of my concerns that the section was POV, but most importantly this section had no sources and had been tagged as such for over a year. Mathsci stated that "...and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush".[86]

I told them that I would give them 48 hours for them to start bringing some sources to the section before I would move it to the talk page, as per WP:HANDLE. [87] I told them throughout the entire discussion that this was not personal and that we all should just be concern with getting sources. I told them that no debate can occur until there were sources to talk about, therefore, we need to have sources for this statements.[88]

They admitted that they did not have the sources. "I do not have them, but I know that these are the majore (sic), verifiable, and significant sources on..." [89] and "I do not have the time to do the research..." [90] A year has past and no one has found the time to do the research.

Instead of working on the section, both Mathsci and Slrubenstein carried out personal attacks on the talk page against myself and anyone else that disagreed with them. "Yalens remark is silly." [91] and "Yalens, you have Wikipedia backwards. What do you think facts are, anyway? Do you think they are the truth?"[92]

I told them that this section should be moved off the article and worked on in the talk page and get the sources which supports the claims here. [93] I was threated that if I did that "...if you did that, you could in principle be blocked for disruption." [94]

After 24 hours, I informed them that I will be moving the section to the talk , under WP:HANDLE to work page because of the abuse that has been going on. [95].

Mathsci reverted the material [96] claiming that “…this editor is being disruptive” and threatened... "...You are likely to be blocked if you continue edit warring and making threats..." [97] and threatened using different words: "This was advice, a mild warning: it was not a threat." [98] and notified Slrubenstein, an administrator to consider this action, to which he agreed and supported the threat. "I agree and share your hope!" [99] He also notified other people of this threat against myself. [100] As of August 31st, he has threatened other people with the same unjustified statement: "I'm afraid you will be blocked if you continue arguing like this..." [101]

This dispute had been tagged with POV and no source tags for over a year and still no sources attached to them. [102] Mathsci and Slrubenstein were also involved in the previous debates that occured over a year ago. [103]

To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status.

Additional threats

Mathsci has drawn attention to my ethnicity (Sami) as I describe on my homepage, something that had nothing to do with the page or the section in question.

"BTW this was the article at its weirdest [104](citation his) - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :)" [105]

When asked what he meant, he up-loaded the attached photo of a Sami woman on the talk page with this statement:

"This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :)"[106] Photo here

Mathsci described negitively a photo of a Sami woman which had no relavence to the article. I can only assume that this statement was used to describe my ethnicity in a derogatory way, and therefore a personal attack on my ethnic background, which had nothing to do with the article in question.

Mathsci’s also stated that I was "edit warring and making threats...". [107] In the two days of editing the section, I made only two edits, both for two different, good faith and stated reasons. I was not edit “warring” as Mathsci describes. I have never made any threats to anyone on any Wikipage.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Humor me; can I have the Cliff's Notes version? Tan | 39 02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to cut it down now. Dinkytown (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Better? Dinkytown (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So Mathsci mocked you with the hilarious image on the right? If you want seriousness, please just "link" it, not "show it".--Caspian blue 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Mathsci and Sirubenstein both agree that Dinkytown has a valid concern, but object to setting a rigid 48 hour deadline. I think they would both like to handle this cooperatively but object to being shoved: if you shove people, they automatically shove back, even if you are shoving them in the right direction. It also appears to me that Sirubenstein is trying to put the onus of doing the necessary research on Dinkytown, which is improper -- the onus of sourcing is on people who want to maintain material, not on people who question it -- but I still feel that it would be better to try to handle this less aggressively. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not too concerned with sussing out a personal attack by Mathsci (and maybe I am wrong in this), I am concerned that unsourced information is being shoved back in after a year of being tagged. From my perspective of WP:V, a core policy of our project, this information should indeed be removed until valid reliable sources can be found. Anyone agree? Tan | 39 03:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I told them that as long as there is progress,that fine. But they said the same thing a year ago until people just gave up, and then the disputed section remained with no sources. It then becomes their personal blog. I suggested to move it to the talk page, but they refused. Dinkytown (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that; I suggest the next step be to let these two editors respond on this thread. Slrubenstein states, "What matters is significant views from verifiable sources." How he can argue to replace this material without refs and state that is puzzling. However, like everything, there's two sides - I assume you've invited them to this thread? Tan | 39 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. I could wait. Thanks for your opinions. Dinkytown (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact no deadline for improving an article, and pushing people to do it by a fixed time is not constructive. We are already too much oriented towards immediate action and immediate replies. Everyone has the responsibility to help find material. There are hundreds of thousands of unsourced or inadequately sourced sections at Wikipedia. We should first deal with the actually questionable material, of which there is plenty. I could easily challenge 100 of them an hour, and it would take about 50 times that work for people to fix them. Using good policies indiscriminately is an effective way to harm the encyclopedia Is there some reason why this particular section is particularly problematic ? After one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?! Pushing this way -- & then coming here when they rightly object -- seems a little POINTy. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree, as I tend to do with you, David - no offense intended by that, more of a wry comment. Well, a tiny bit of offense intended because sometimes I think you are the fly in the ointment simply because you like to be the fly in the ointment. I'm probably wrong there. Anyway, what's pointy is pushing to keep this stuff on Wikipedia after a year of being tagged. Policies back up Dinky's edits; they don't back up keeping the material. You say, "after one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?" I say, the 48 hours is lenient - hell, this should have been removed ten months ago. WP:V is a core policy and allowing material to stay on without sources is wrong. Also, what's wrong with Dinky's way of going about this - removing it to the talk page to be discussed, etc until valid sources can be found? This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing with virtually all challenged unsourced material - especially after a year of opportunity. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of other articles with this problem - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Invalid argument. That you could easily challenge 100 in an hour? Invalid argument. Tan | 39 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned below these kinds of pointy interventions are quite common both on Europe and Ethnic groups in Europe. I'm not quite sure that Tan has actually examined the content, which is more or less common to both articles (not thousands of others as he suggests). The article on Europe is more carefully sourced; the rate at which sources are added to EGE is slower and more sporadic, because of the huge number of ethnic groups. It often happens as a result of people making complaints on the talk page. The material was unsourced but neutral and sourceable. Patience is all that is required. WP has no WP:DEADLINE. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I can confirm DGG's claim: there is a lot of material in Wikipedia which needs to be sourced. I know this because I wrote some of this ...years ago, when we didn't have a sourcing policy, & when I stumble across these articles & am surprised to find them much as I left them -- & still without any sources. (I hope that's because someone knowledgeable has reviewed the content & decided it was accurate.) To try to force this material to be properly sourced (as Dinkytown was doing in this case) now would only end with a lot of otherwise uncontroversial & reliable material being deleted, & Wikipedia becoming less useful for a long while. While there are good grounds for deleting unsourced material which has been flagged & unfixed for so long, perhaps a more prudent step would be to be lenient on any flagged content which sounds plausible, & only act on content which triggers one's innate BS meter. (Even better would be to fix the problem, but I know that only happens rarely.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dinkytown, if other editors want to try and save a major section of an article from deletion, then giving them more than 48-hours is probably a more productive approach. That said, SLRubestein's and Mathsci's threats of a block are worrying. Dinkytown does have policy on his side. Moving uncited text to the talk page is not a blockable offense. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, Cla68, that my threats of a block are worrying? Whom have I threatened? Where? Do you have any evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To be clear Dbachmann (talk · contribs) intends to rewrite the section in the article, as can be read on the talk page. Cla68 is wrong (not the first time [108]): there have been no treats of a block -just advice and warnings. So far several editors have entered the discussion there - Dbachmann, Slrubenstein, AnwarSadatFan, Varoon Arya and me are for sourcing/rewriting the material. Similar problems have arisen in the lede of Europe, where some of the same sources were mentioned. In that case the persistent complaint was by TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later identified by admins as a sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg. Similarly the definition section was carefully written with sources following persistent attempts by another user to express a point of view about transcontinental country. Dinkytown, without naming sources, just removed the section with these comments. [109]. Instead of collegial discussion, he started a subsection setting a 48 hour deadline for improvement. [110] The material has been there since early 2007 (written by A.J.Chesswas (talk · contribs)) when the article was called European people, before it was renamed European ethnic groups and extensively rewritten by Dbachmann. Similar material appears in Europe, in that case very carefully sourced. The other user who has taken Dinkytown's point of view is Yalens (talk · contribs) who has been unreasonable in discussions when presented with lists of sources. Here is his latest reply to Slrubenstein, who has been extremely patient.

So, wait, its NPOV by definition if it states a source. Ahoy, let's all state the Mein Kampf as Neutral Point of View then! I love the logic here! (and seriously... I really fail to see how... ah, well, this is pointless, nobody is going to read this trash of a page anyways). Any fool can say that whether its published or not doesn't determine its neutrality. I find it funny you go by such illogical criteria. The fact is that this is SUPPOSED to be a factual encyclopedia, not one based on imaginary things by a long list of authors with their own Pan-European-nationalistic-and-heavily-opinionated-point of views that are anything BUT Neutral Point of View. If you're going to say it as "some people say", with references, that's fine, but the whole page proclaims these things as verified, universal truth, which it isn't. And further more, the page is full of things like "the culture of Europe is influenced by Central and Eastern European romanticism"... Central and Eastern Europe ARE Europe, are they not now? And it goes onto things like the Rennaissance, which was a Western European phenomenon, somehow being generalized to a whole continent. Not even your pan-European nationalist authors can verify that, yet its right there anyways! The whole section is a bunch of generalizations and non-Neutral Point of View. I don't care about things like PhDs, plenty of ridiculous fascists had PhDs. What matters it that this is CLEARLY nothing but opinion, no matter who says it.--Yalens (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked Yalens to refactor these comments and hat he risked being taken here if he continued using the talk page as a WP:soapbox. That I presume gave Dinkytown the idea of starting this section. Both he and Yalens have not discussed sources in any shape or form. Interventions like this appear every few months on Ethnic groups in Europe and with slightly lesser frequency on Europe itself, probably because it is on more watchlists. Incidentally Dinkytown mentioned the picture of Sami people in the current article after I mentioned the old picture in the gallery. He wrote:

"You" made a reference to my user page. I never threated anyone. I just stated my intention to what I will do and the reasons why. There actually is a time limit: see here. Everyone will agree that a year is way too long, if he or anyone else has the sources on hand, then 48 hours should be enough. The time should be short as the content is disputed. If more time is needed, then they should state so, otherwise it should be moved off and worked on there. If you are talking about this photo? Yea, I like it too. There is only one question that will never be answered: Does he have two wives? Dinkytown (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the last remark. I pointed him to the right image, saying I knew nothing of the marital status of the woman. Dinkytown brought up my response here: as far as I'm aware, his own remark could be offensive to native Lapps reading wikipedia. He clearly was making a joke, but that is far from evident in the statement at the start of his flimsy complaint here. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User: Slrubenstein's response

This situation is being misrepresented, and I am being misrepresented.

• Dink presents this as a simple problem: she removed material that had been tagged a long time ago, and MathSci and I have been after her ever since. It is not that simple. In fact, Dink deleted a great deal of material that had not been tagged; indeed, she removed and entire section of the artile[111]. I restored it because a good deal of the work in the section, while unsourced, does reflect significant, verifiable views. I posted the names of several historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists who have written on the themes of the section and who can be looked to as verifiable sources. Dink's response was to declare the section "white supremist" propaganda, and asserted that she does not need to do any research to know that the material does not belong in Wikipedia.[112] I provided more citations that could be drawn on to develop the section.[113] I personally do not have the time to write more content for the article, but I know of verifiable sources and am glad to help other editors working on the article. But Yalens response (with no indication that has read any of the sources) is that "these are all POV."[114] In short, what we have here are two POV warriors, Dinkytown and Yalen, both of whom reject our core policy, NPOV, which insists that we include all significant mainstream views fom verifiable sources. But Dink and Yalen reject actual research, and simply reject anything they do not like as "POV." Aryaman has since begun participating, suggesting other sources we can use. That is the example of the Wiki way - a collaborative spirit. Quite far from Dinkytown's delete, deny, and denounce attitude towards improving an article! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the real character of the conflict. Now, as for how I have been misrepresented:

• I am not a deletionist, when possible. I reverted after dab registered a complaint on the talk page about the deletion. In my revert I said that while I personally agreed that the material tagged for a year could go, I did not consider the material as a whole to be controversial. I provided a list of possible sources, and encouraged both both Dink and dab to consider revising the material to improve it.
• I made no personal attacks against Ylens. I did however ridicule what Ylens said. That is because Yalens was proposing to violate NPOV. He stated what he wanted opinions removed from the article, to be replaced by facts. NPOV is premised on "not truth, but verifiability" and including all significant views from reliable sources. I provided a list of mainstream verifiable sources that expressed these and similar views. But any campaign to remove all views from an article is indeed ridiculous. Yalens is no newbie. s/he has been around long enough to know our NPOV policy. Instead s/he wishes to push her own POV, claiming it is a fact and all others are just opinions. This kind of approach is precisely hwy we have an NPOV policy.
• Immediately after lumping me and Mathsci together, Dink states that he proposed to move the contested material to the talk page and was threatened with a block. By naming names in the preceeding sentence, and not naming names in this sentence, Dink is implying that mathsci nd I threatened a block. This is false. I never threatened a block.
• According to Dink, MathSci threatened a block, and in regard to the threat, I wrote to MathSci that I shared his hope. At this point I feel Dink is abusing AN/I. Dink is hoping you will read his summary but not check the links. if you check the link, you will discover that there is only one statement made by MatchSci to which I expressed sharing his hope. I will quote it in full, here: MathSci wrote, "I think Dinkytown probably has to learn to be more patient, that's all. No need for extra drama on ANI at this point" and I wrote that I agree and share his hope. It is obvious that I share his hope that Dink be more patient. I continue to share this hope. Is this clear to all other administrators? I share MathSci's hope that Dink be more patient. If i am wrong to express this hope, well, sue me.
• Dink blames me for not allowing him to edit the article. This is a damned lie and scurrilous. Dink write, "To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status." I defy Dink to provide any evidence that i have threatened to block him. So I am an admin. So sue me. Because i m an admin I am no longer allowed to edit articles? That is screwy! You may as well say that because I am an admin there is a very real potential threat that i will delete Dink's user page, that I will delete this page, that I will delete all of Wikipedia. Nyah nyah nyah, I am Snidely Whiplash!!! Really people. An incident is when something happens. Now I think is a good time for me to state again that I continue to share MathSci's hope that Dink be more patient.

Here is what happened: an editor deleted several paragraphs of an article. dab pointed out that there is some real value in these articles. Many of you know that there is little love lost between me and dab, but when someone is right, someone is right. dab was right - there is value in that material. I restored the deleted material and I immediately provided a half-dozen sources or more that address the major points in the section. Now, up to thi point I see no problem. Indeed, in my view, so far this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work - we are collaborative, if at times contentous, process. Someone pointed out problems in a section; someone else pointed out value in a section; a third editor named sources that would be worth consulting. Isn't each person doing their part to help make the encyclopedia better? Well yes, if everyone assumes good faith. I didn't doubt Dink's concerns are sincere, I just think that they do not justify deletion and that the section can be improved. Why can't dink assume good faith on my part, that I actually do know something about ethnic groups in Europe, and European culture, and that the sources I provided are verifiable, reliable, and significant, and meant to help start moving things forward if more editors wish as I would hope to get involved ... with editing the article. Alas, dink seems only to want to increase the drama here. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to reply to other editors' good faith concerns. I did not mean to be ordering Dink to edit the article all by himself. But I will encourage any editor to add rather than delete, and above all, to do research. My providing a list of potential sources was made in good faith. If i had time to read through all of them now and fix up the article I would - believe it or not, I have added my fair share of content to this encyclopedia and I intend to continue to do so. But I have a job and cannot always put a lot of time into this. I am being sincere: I have the sources written down but i do not have the time to do the writing ... I figured that i could help by sharing the sources; i assumed anyone who wants to work on the article might appreciate that. So, I happen to know good sources on the points that concern Dink, so i provided them. I fail to see how there can be anything wrong with this. I encouraged Dink to do some research if he wanted to make a real contribution to the article and this was a good faith gesture, assuming Dink wants to help research and write an encyclopedia. Moreover, I directed the same invitation to dab, who has expressed a desire to research and write the article. And like just about veryone else, he simply asked of Dink, patience. In the following discussion, other editors mentioned verifiable sources supporting the material Dink wanted to delete. The fact is, we have views in this article that are supported by verifiable and significant sources. The proper citations have not yet been put in, but several knowledgable editors - I include myself - consider the views so clearly significant and verifiable that all that really is called for here is patience. But there are two editors who not only seem to lack patience but who seem to which to delete views that well darn it they just don't like. Welllllllll.... we have all seen this before, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that this disussion concerns the seven editors on the talk page of Ethnic groups in Europe. All aspects of this are being discussed, including content and the active search for sources, which is currently happening. For that reason the title of this thread was changed. I understand that some users are drawn to create drama on wikipedia, but in this case the humdrum gathering of sources for the rejigging is the most profitable direction. Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mathsci's repeated edit warring[115][116] Mathsci, you've warned many times that you're not allowed to alter or remove other people's comments. in general, only third and neutral people can change the thread title, not the subject of the complaint does that. Since the report is about your personal attacks and threats to the reporter not about the article itself (if that case, Content noticeboard separately exists for the purpose), you would much better refrain from engaging in such disruptive edit warring. Your another edit warring and incivility have been the subject of the ongoing ArbCom case even though you technically had nothing to do Cold fusion. So please be constructive. Thanks.--Caspian blue 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)--Caspian blue 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Caspian. The original title is an accurate description of the complaint.

The whole complaint here is not about any disagreements of sources or content. It’s about threats made by Mathsci and Slrubenstein against myself by, and their conflicts with basic Wiki policies.

There can be no debate on the European identity and culture section, since there were no sources cited to do a counter retort. Of all the thousands of words that were created from that debate of that section – it was all opinion, nothing was cited. Show me any page number, any citation that supports anything on that section. There isn’t any, yet Sir… was asking me to do research on material that I personally disagree with! I could say on the Sky page that “sky is falling”, provide no sources, tell other people to do the research on that statement, and then threaten anyone who tries to remove it as unsourced material. That is exactly what happened with this section. Wiki policy states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Can't get more basic than that. It's up to Mathsci and Sir... to get the citations. I offered to move this section to the talk page to discuss it further, as Wiki policy dictates. Yet I was reverted and then accused of edit warring several times, threatened to be blocked, with Sir… backing up that threat.

Mathsci, why did you contact Slrubenstein [117], Dbachmann [118], the talk page,[119] [120] and myself [121] with the word “block”? You could have said “Dinkytown should be more patient…” and end it with that, but instead you chose to use the word “block” – that is a threat, even by Wiki policy.

Sir…. When Mathsci came to you regarding possibly blocking me, you could have said “...hang on, he has quoted basic Wiki policy here”, or “No, blocking would not be approperate now”, or “No, his edits were in good faith. Lets see where this goes…” or anything even more neutral than that as any good administrator could see - but you didn’t. You chose not to counter Mathsci’s blocking threats, and ended your statement (with his ‘patience’ statement included) with “I agree and share your hope!” You even reverted my removal of the section.[122] Willingly or not, you were backing up Mathsci’s threat and using that power to gain advantage in the ‘debate’.

It’s not about my patience towards the section. Other people have debated this same issue over a year ago.[123] I will not - and don’t have to wait, another year to remove either one of yours’ personal blog of this section. Wiki policy backs this up.

Mathsci states above that several people came forward to offer work on citations, great! Then move it over to the talk page as per WP:HANDLE. Keeping it on the main page assumes that its factual – which it’s not.

I gave you 48 hours to provide some citations. That was never fixed in stone, as long as there was some progress towards X, I was willing to cooperate and debate any issue. Instead, Sir… and Mathsci chose to invest the time in personal attacks and defending their POV opinions on the section. This proved to me that you were not serious about sourcing or citations. That’s why I cut the time short and moved it to the talk page – with solid policies behind me. Your reverting my move (in conflict with policy) proves that neither one of you were serious about a discussion. Following that up, I was accused of edit warring, and threatened with blocking.

It's not about content, it's about people actions. Dinkytown (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Last time I checked, there wasn't policy that supports decreeing a 48 hour limit to improve a section. I've also noticed that there is a large bibliography on the article; I assume you checked each of these to determine that the section was unreferenced? Is there a reason that you're not mentioning the entire section about sourcing on the talk page or the attempts to improve the section by other editors? Did those not count for some reason?

But honestly, after reading the talk page, it does seem like sources have very little to do with this issue. If we're going to look at actions here, lets take a look a what really happened at the same time. Far from being concerned over sourcing, you've made more than five different arguments for why the entire section should be removed ranging from original research to POV and everything in between. More than one editor (in fact, three more than you mention here) has tried to answer your concerns and failing that, advise you that this approach was unlikely to achieve deletion of the section in question. In short, this is a dispute over content, not conduct and your claims to the contrary are not backed up by the evidence. Shell ^babelfish 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said that there was a 48 hour policy. I put that limit there to limit myself in moving the material to avoid a potential edit war and as Tan put it accurately, I was "lenient". I could have removed it immediately, but I told them that “I would be a gentleman” about this and gave them some time. If they needed more, okay... But they chose to spend their efforts on attacks. I then chose to enforce the policy.

Those arguments you cite were brought out early on in the conversation, are still open, and can be addressed at a later time off of ANI. This issue however, is about how unsourced material can remain for over a year and maintained by abusive behavior. Sir… suggested before that I use those and any other sources to cite his statements in the section. I didn’t agree with the statements then and stated those reasons early on. Why should I defend his comments?

Shell, you said that this is about content. You’ve been on the project longer than I have and I don’t have to tell you that sources are everything on this project to avoid WP:OR. “Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked.” What part of this is so confusing?

Read my statement above regarding “the sky is falling.” That is the exact scenario that is happening here. I gave you several solid Wiki policies that support my actions. The burden of proof is on those who want to maintain the section. Maintaining unsourced material by threats is what's the issue. Dinkytown (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions. You didn't mention whether you believe the section is completely unsupported by the large Biobliography and whether or not the sources given on talk were also unacceptable. If you contention is only that there were no inline citations, then you're grossly misunderstanding what it means for something to be verifiable. I did not see this issue addressed on the talk page at any point, which was why I was asking for clarification. Lets try to stick to one issue for the time being since the "threats" you keep claiming seem an awful lot like editors who got a bit fed up when you continued to insist that your interpretation of how policy related to the article mattered more than the other editors involved in the discussion. If you are the only one insisting that material violates policy and you find everyone else disagreeing with you, its time to take a step back and consider that you might be mistaken. P.S. I'm a Ma'am, not a Sir Shell ^babelfish 02:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, as I suggested, Varoon Arya has produced a very nice sourced first draft of the short section under discussion. Material from the book already used for Europe, Lewis & Wigen, will probably also be incorporated. This is the normal way a neutral and anodyne article is fine tuned and sourced. Now that this preliminary version is sourced, a reasonable and constructive discussion can continue. As Shell writes, this complaint was essentially a content dispute with little or no justification except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not that uncommon on this particular article unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Content issue? Rather than "WP:IDONTLIKEIT," what part of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CS do you not understand? If your above statement is correct, then we can remove the disputed section off the main page under WP:HANDLE and work on Varoon Arya's section on the talk page, correct? Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm retracting the allegation that SLRubenstein threatened DinkyTown with a block [124]. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read your correspondence with him [125], and although I understand your reasoning, I stand by my complaint. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly unwise of Matsci to edit war to try to remove his name from the complaint, particularly since he is very likely to be admonished by Arb Comm for precisely the same actions to remove himself from an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley arbitration case. He has not scrupled to name his opponents in this way in his numerous WP:AN/I complaints.

More importantly,I wonder wether he actually read Dinkytown's complaint against him. Instead of dismissing it all as a content dispute, he should have noticed that it includes accusations by Dinkytown against him of personal attacks, threats, and ethnic slurs. Are these accusations perhaps content disputes in Matsci's mind? Perhaps he regards such accusations as beneath his notice? Perhaps he has no answer to them? Intromission (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently arrived Intromission (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is undoubtedly some kind of sockpuppet account. When he moved a comma in Handel organ concertos Op.4 in his seventh edit two days ago, I was wondering when he would next reappear. There have been numerous sockpuppets around the current ArbCom case. It's interesting that Intromission is giving us his running commentary on the ArbCom case, even if it is completely incorrect. Incidentally, just for context, back in December 2007, Dinkytown made a failed RfAr about another content dispute. It is standard to warn people about the possibility of a block if they are editing unreasonably on an article or its talk page, e.g. making unsubstantiated demands with deadlines. Since the rewriting with sources, Dinkytown has not commented on the material he was contesting so aggressively before. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating the Complaint

Mathsci just doesn’t seem to get it. The complaint is about his well documented behavior, not about “another content dispute.” I placed the deadline on myself. I could have moved/removed it immediately per policy, but I chose to give you time to get your act together and get the sources. Now you try to use my generosity for a defense. Show me a policy that allows threatening someone for editing in good faith and policy. That section would have been unsourced for another year, if it wasn’t for this complaint.

What possible ‘context’ can there be with a two year old RfAr case? You were wrong about the case. We settled off-line. Like the edit-warring over the title of this complaint, Mathsci keeps trying to change the subject to avoid examining his well documented behavour.

I have been seeing good progress on the new section. I will comment on there. No need to comment here until needed. Dinkytown (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested it on the talk page, and now it's been suggested here. Going against my better judgment, I'm going to be bold and change out the old, unsourced section with the one I wrote yesterday in the hope that we can end this dispute and get back to editing the section. Thanks, Aryaman (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching it and you did a good job. I made a comment there - thanks... Dinkytown (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What is clear to me is that we desperately needd to draw into the discussion more people who have researched European history, ethnology, and sociology. As you know I still think there are other sources that should be cited and the core problem here as in much of Wikipedia is a lack of editors who have the time, skill or interest in researching (and too great a percentage of newbies, starting from when Wikipedia became famous, were people who lacked the knowledge skill or interest). But we also just need more knowledgable people brought into the discussion, it can't just be the three or four of us. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) Dinkytown's edits to the article are still problematic. Varoon Arya added verbatim a list of five points made in Jan Berting's book with a precise citation. Dinkytown moved the citation and tagged Berting's last point as "dubious". This is really not acceptable behaviour, although it is an improvement on what he was doing before. [Varoon Arya's text does need to be paraphrased since at the moment it's a copyvio.] Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please

Hi there. I considered taking this to WP:RFCN but two admins (jpgordon (talk · contribs) and billinghurst (talk · contribs)) have already reviewed this block, so this it more of a question of appropriate admin action. As this was reviewed twice already, I cannot ask the blocking admin, Cirt (talk · contribs), to reverse his actions, so I brought it here. I feel that this is a prime example of treating a new editor too brief and not explaining procedures and reasoning. The first review was declined with a simple "declined", no explanation. The second one was declined saying that the name is blatantly inappropriate, although the user explains the choice had nothing to do with the negative connotations. I share the user's sentiments and I do not think this was a case where an immediate block was needed and I do not think it violates our username policy, so I would have unblocked them but given the previous 3 admin decisions, I think further consensus would be needed to do so. So here I am, asking for review. Please note also the user's statements at User talk:dreamshit. Regards SoWhy 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I somewhat agree that the username isn't so bad, but at the same time, this is clearly not some brand new editor. Evidence the modified talk page title (I wouldn't know how to do that and I've been here almost 4 years), the formatted signature, the UAA template usage... No, I would not have blocked (in fact I saw it on UAA and found it borderline enough to pass the buck), but let's not couch this as WP:BITE. Wknight94 ^talk 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Nevermind the BITE part (although I think noone should be bitten, no matter if they are experieced or not), I am more interested in determining whether I the block can be lifted. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Very clearly not a new user. Maybe you could say it's borderline, but it's on the wrong side of the border. What I see is an experienced editor who may not have been surprised to have his/her new usename blocked. He is trying to claim he is new - " This is your welcome to the encyclopedia" -- SoWhy, do you still believe this to be the case? By the way, where does the article on his talk page come from? I've tried to find it and can't, have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You do realize that people who worked years as IPs may create accounts only after becoming experienced, like this user, to publish a new article? The article you are referring to is, as the talk pages says, what he wanted to publish with this username. I do not say they are inexperienced, they clearly are not, but they are a new user nonetheless. And the question is not whether they are new or not but whether the block was appropriate. That no user should be treated like that, no matter how experienced, is a different problem. There is nothing in our policies that says "experienced users may be treated worse [or better for that matter] than new users". Regards SoWhy 11:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Personally, I'm not sure a block was warranted in this case - I wouldn't have performed a block myself, but it's definitely a close one, and I would hesitate before unblocking also. Whilst it's probably not intended as such, usernames containing profanity are offensive to many users, which is what the username policy aims to prevent. I really suggest that the user just changes their username, but an unblock might be possible, I suppose. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent)To me it seems an unnecessarily provocative username, and the argument for its adoption and retention was not convincing, especially not convincing enough to create a precedent or an exception to the policy (which is there and stronger than a guideline). I checked MediaWiki:Titleblacklist here and other wikis, it appears as a keyword, so one should demonstrate the need for its use. I gave base reasons for my action, and it wasn't my place to explain the means of previous admins' actions. billinghurst (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• (ECx")I endorse the block. Any username containing shit is going to be offensive - especially one where that portion is highlighted in the signature. Its clearly and experienced user who should know better. If they already have an account they should use that and if its a former ip editor they are welcome to choose another name immediately. Far too much drama for a clearly unacceptable name. I generally take the view that if it would offend my granny which this would then its not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 2009-09-01 12:14:02
  • The "highlighting" in the signature is an artifact of MediaWiki, which boldfaces internal links that are to the same page. On any other page, the signature would comprise two links, one to the user page and one to the talk page — just like your signature normally does. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know the bolding is from the interface but didn't you think it significant that the portion of the name they chose to highlight for their talk page was the "shit" bit? Its clearly a name intended to be read as Dream Shit not Dreamshit and it fails the saintly old granny test by miles. I'm by no means prudish, I swear like a navvy in real life but our username policy is predicated on a wider audience that could find the term shit offensive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Once again: Xe did not "choose to highlight for xyr talk page" anything, any more than you "choose to highlight" the "Humbug!" part of your signature for your talk page, or User:Rodhullandemu, whose similarly coloured and divided signature is below, "chooses to highlight" the "andemu" for xyr talk page. It's simply what MediaWiki does. Were you or xem to put the signature on your user pages, MediaWiki would highlights the other part.

        Moreover, having the user page link precede the talk page link is hardly unusual, and not an indication of a special and deliberate choice, here. You do exactly that. So do Rodhullandemu, SoWhy, Jpgordon, and Baseball Bugs in this very discussion. Indeed, pay closer attention to the wikitext of xyr signature. It's the "dream" that xe actually "chose to highlight". Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• My only question would be is the name really that bad that it deserved automatic blocking without even an attempt at discussing the name. Maybe the name is not acceptable, period, and must be changed, but is blocking the user before they edit, then refusing to discuss or explain the decision appropriate? The Seeker 4 Talk 12:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with the two administrators that reviewed the unblock requests: admins Jpgordon (talk · contribs) and Billinghurst (talk · contribs), as well as above comments by Wknight94 (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and Dougweller (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would not have blocked immediately, but it seems reasonable. If the user agrees to cooperate, they can request an unblock and change their username. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Julian, blocking the user before they edit, then refusing to discuss or explain the decision is not appropriate. The user seems cooperative. Unblock him and allow him to change his username. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All he needs to do is start a new account; he has no contributions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't know it works like that, so the ip isn't blocked? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have left him this [[126]] note, and recommended that as his best solution. On a side issue, he doesn't look like a new user to me either. Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward unblock at the moment, personally -- yes, it's offensive, no, I probably wouldn't feel comfortable seeing my daughter interacting with DS on a talkpage, but given that it's straight out of Perdido Street Station (which I now have to go get from the library, thanks so much), I think it's acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on content. Leaving aside the username issue, and admitting that this is apparently an experienced user, which could mean any number of things, the person in question is obviously quite sharp, and it would be nice if they contributed here. As has only been mentioned in passing, they have worked up a serviceable article on the very important Immanuel Kant essay Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (my translation titles it "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent," but no matter). I have not studied this essay since my undergraduate years which were about a decade ago, but from what I remember the stuff on the user's talk page is a decent summary of Kant's piece, which is great since we currently do not have an article on it and should. Rather than simply stealing the text off the user's talk page and starting the article ourselves (though we should do that if necessary!), let's figure out how to get them an acceptable account name (either by a username change request or starting over with a completely different accoun, who cares which one?) so they can start contributing. If it turns out this is a formerly banned user or something similar just trying to wind us up I'm sure we'll figure that out in good time, but there aren't many people around here who want to help us improve our coverage of Kant. Sorry for getting off topic here and bringing up an issue related to the encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeesh. At first, I thought it was going to be a matter of capitalization (perhaps it was dreams hit and not dream shit), but no. The user's sophistry makes me suspicious of his future at Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And I of his past. Subject matter and language makes me think "User:Peter Damian", but I am open to persuasion. Rodhullandemu 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but he's not the only person interested in philosophy. I'm not familiar enough with his style to recognize quirks in his writing, but since Damian is a Brit who claims to have received his doctorate in the 1970s, I'd be a bit surprised at him dropping a casual reference to G.G. Allin as he does on his talk page, but maybe he loves crazy-insane American punk rock. Also the Kant essay in question does not seem to fall squarely within Damian's philosophical wheelhouse, for what it's worth. So you could be right, but I'd need to see more evidence before this goes out the window. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:DUCK trumps WP:AGF IMO. JuJube (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Do you people know how many "poo" names are blocked in a day? Yes it can be read as "dreams hit" but it can also, and more likely be read as "dream shit". The person can request a name change to put a space in there or just create a new account. The fact that it can be read another way means nothing, imagine the gaming that would occur if we thought that way. Chillum 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, my point was more, if he did mean it to be "DreamsHit", he could just change the caps, but he explicitly says in his unblock request that not only is it meant to be "shit", but that "shit" is somehow not a curse word anymore. I'm in despair... intellectual mockery of language has left me in despair! JuJube (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no dispute as to how the editor intended the name to be read. Not only did xe state outright that it was "dream" + "shit", but xe signed xyrself "dreamshit". Notice the linking. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Good block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly, this username isn't so bad, but it's still a over the line of what we consider appropriate, so I think that the indef blocking was called for. I really would have liked to have seen it executed quite a bit more gracefully, however. Honestly, there's simply no reason to be this brusque, and flatly refuse to discuss calls for appeal. – – ClockworkSoul 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for review: "shit" is "shit". If I had the username "Banffuckley", do you see the City of Banff, and the common last name "Uckley"??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees the username is inappropriate, even editors way up in Banff (notorious username pranksters that they are!). Personally I'd be willing to unblock if the user said they wanted to change their username and promised that their next edit would be to make a request at WP:RENAME, and I've posted a note about this possibility on their talk page. Of course they could also simply start a new account, but ultimately it makes little difference so either one is fine with me.

But as I said above they have written an article and posted it to their talk page, so unless we find this to be a banned user or a sock account of an existing user (either of which are certainly possible, but there's no real evidence as yet), we should be focused on figuring out how to get this person to get to work editing with a new account name, rather than focusing on the propriety (or lack thereof) of the word shit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"How many social workers does it take to change a lightbulb? One - but the lightbulb has to want to change". So far, dreamshit is a lightbulb. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lightbulbs don't write articles about Immanuel Kant essays, and I'm guessing you don't either. I know a lot of people around here don't actually believe in WP:AGF, but I do, and without concrete evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that "dreamshit" is someone who wants to contribute and who simply chose a shitty user name, rather than a lightbulb who needs help from a social worker (or something). Bad username or no, I think anyone who is willing to contribute an article on a difficult subject deserves some measure of thanks, not simply disdainful jokes likening them to inanimate objects. I only stress this point because it seems likely that we are having trouble recruiting new editors to the project, and whether or not "dreamshit" is just here to make good contributions or rather is a returning user who wants to start drama with their user name, I think some of the attitudes expressed in this thread make it all too clear why Wikipedia is not always so inviting to newbies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

...and therein you missed the point. Dreamshit will only change their username when they decide that they want to change it. Up until now, they're arguing that they should be allowed to keep it. Their writing abilities are not the point of my post, nor were they compared to an inanimate object. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the fact that they wrote an article was not the point of your post, and the simple fact that that was the point of your post (combined with some other similar points) was precisely the point of my post. Amid all the hubbub about the username, no one bothered to say to the editor, "that looks like a decent article, thanks for being willing to contribute that," and indeed seemingly failed to notice that they had written an article. Regardless of the particulars of this user and their situation, I think that's indicative of an unfortunate trend on Wikipedia whereby we are not always particularly welcoming (and, yes, I fully understand the user in question does not seem to be "new"). But we're kind of talking past each other here and I've said my piece so I'll let it go at that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I have this this user is the apparent attempt to claim they are new (have I misread that?). I believe in AGF but also that there are limits to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Clear violation. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block. WP:NOTCENSORED does not equate to WP:NEEDLESSLYOFFENSIVE. An experienced editor – or reasonable adult – knows this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It would have been a good block if he had been asked to change his user name and refused to do so. He did defend the name, and his defense was not replied to, just rejected. There are some names so bad we wouldn't even ask first, such as racist insults, but this is not in that category. I don't defend the name, and I agree with insisting he change it, but this is not the way to treat contributors. DGG ( talk ) 13:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that DGG, and obviously I concur. The editor with the poopy name seems to have left the building so I went ahead and created Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose using the text posted on their talk page (plus a few small adjustments). Kant was, you know, wrong and stuff in general, but at least a lot of his stuff is pretty damn hard to read. Wait, that's not good either. Anyhow I think we can sum up this thread now in quantitative terms: -1 new user account, +1 article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of User:HarryAlffa

This user is engaged in a slow edit war on the Trans-Neptunian_object article against consensus reached on the talk page. He is trying to insert a questionable line into the lead of this article (see diffs [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134] and the last one [135].) Despite being told multiple times by multiple editors that he is wrong, he obviously decided to push the desired change by edit-warring. I want also to point at the uncivil behavior of HarryAlfa on the talk page, which has made any further discussion with him all but impossible (see [136], [137], [138]). I am asking an (uninvolved) administrator to take necessary measures. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As you may see from the talk page, it is quite clear that Policy dictates the inclusion of the alternative name. Really it shouldn't be this difficult to explain simple reasoning to people, but some people! Yes multiple members of the same group have told me, certainly, but none has offered counter-reasons to my reasoned debate! WP:Concensus, "we work to a system of good reasons", not by counting votes. If anything the other editors should be chastised for their unreasonable behaviour - which is disruptive. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion of your behavior not of content issues. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

tag-team reverted by User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz

The sectionTrans-Neptunian_versus_trans-Neptune on the talk page was started by me, 20:36, 5 June 2009. User:Ruslik0 never took part in the discussion. I ended that section on 14 August 2009 by starting an RfC on the subject.

User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz tag-team reverted the 'alternative name' from 17 June to, well present.

Reversions with no attempt at communication on the talk page;

• Serendipodous [139]
• Ruslik [140]
• Ckatz [141]
• Ruslik [142]
• Ruslik [143]

Further reversion with no attempt at communication on the RfC;

• Serendipodous [144]
• (With simple nay-saying on talk page RfC) Ckatz [145]

Reasoning wins out over democracy. The inclusion of the alternative achieves concensus. Policy.

I have also been accused of personal attacks. I have attempted to bring reason and intelligence to the fore. Who objects to reason and intelligence? Charles Dickens was accused of libel over Oliver Twist, because some men believed the book was about them - which said more about them than they realised. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When a single editor gets into an edit war against multiple editors, the single editor always loses. Unless you can persuade them that you're right, you aren't going to get anywhere, and won't accomplish anything except eventually being blocked for disruption. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I, however, think that 1 week is too short, taking into account that two previous blocks failed to prevent further disruption. Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "Plaxico" can get extraordinarily fixated on a single word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me allude to an edit by the editor: I'm saddened to see Wikipedia editors apparently still unaware that the number of hits reported in Google searches is a quite useless number, despite Google making no secret of the fact that it estimates the number and uses several mechanisms that throw it off. It is a fallacy — one that has been recognized by experts in several fields, including linguistics, for several years — to use that number when deciding anything at all about the usage of a word or phrase. Wiktionary editors, in comparison, have long since switched away from counting Google hits to using linguistic corpora (which are what some of those mystery abbreviations that one might see in the Beer Parlour, Tea Room, or RFD are all about) — and, of course, using concrete quotations, doing actual research rather than counting Google hits. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Google is generally a poor measure of significance. HarryAlffa tried to insert "Trans-Neptune" on the basic of a Google search. After it was explained to him that his search results were wrong he still continued to insist on inclusion of this very rarely used term. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further action?

I suggest that it may be time to consider a community ban for HarryAlffa. He has a long history of disruptive editing and insulting everyone around him who doesn't agree with his views. His unblock request actually summarizes his behavior quite nicely—in it, he insults everyone who was involved in this row, calling them stupid and claiming they lack the intellect to understand his views. He was doing this on WP:LINKING previously, which caused his previous block. He clearly doesn't like the way WP works in practice, and isn't interested in playing nice with other editors. I'm not sure why we should continue to accommodate such an individual. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I fully support the community ban of HarryAlffa. I want to provide a brief excursus into the recent history. HarryAlffa began his disruption of the Solar System article back in the May (or even in August-September last year). He started a FAR, which was soon closed as keep. In the course of it he made a lot of uncivil remarks about mental abilities of other editors. You can see them by reading the page or in the history. I want only to provide one diff. After that FAR the relations between HarryAlffa and other editors were, of course, poisoned, and I generally stop assuming good faith on behave of this editor. AGF is a great policy, but not a suicide pact. However I expected that HarryAlffa would at least back out of that discussion. I was mistaken: he instead started an RFC, where he tried to get what he had not got in FAR. Insults followed as usual, but RFC produced no results. In the June HarryAlffa was blocked for one week, partly because of problems with Solar System article, but mainly because of his behavior here. Since then he lay low for some time, but recently resumed his activities. He edit-warred against consensus on Trans-Neptunian object and again was uncivil on the talk page (and was blocked as a result). He also disruptively edited the Solar System article. So, I think, the case is clear: HarryAlffa is not here to productively collaborate with other editors. He only likes to get what he wants, I when he does not, he insults those who disagree with him. I am afraid, but the ban is only option left, in my opinion. A topic ban will not help—it will only serve to export the problems to another area. Ruslik_Zero 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• In his current unblock request he managed to insult everybody, even MediaWiki developers. Ruslik_Zero 08:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've declined that request; the core of the issue is that he edited disruptively, and he does nothing to refute or mitigate that. The broader issue, as I note to the editor, is that he shows no intention to edit within policy; he continues to discount the opinions of "stupid editors" and editors of "average intelligence", and sees no issue with that. I'm hesitant to community ban just yet, but I don't see much of an alternative at this time. Every further unblock request digs a deeper hole. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hear you, UltraExactZZ. I only consider a community ban as a last resort. As you said, he shows no sign of slowing or stopping. A topic ban will not work because he's been in other areas of WP with this behavior (and been blocked for it). After he was blocked for insulting editors who disagreed with him about self-linking, he left WP:LINK and went into article space with the same behavior. He proposes or does something that he firmly believes there is good reason to do, but then ignores consensus if it is against him. His M.O. is to insinuate that people who don't see his point lack the intelligence to do so. Where does it end? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a step before a community ban (several in fact). I note he's only ever been blocked for a week at a time. Why not just indef block him (or a lengthy block) until such time as he shows comprehension of what got him indeffed, and you believe he won't do it again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This, of course, is possible, but in the present circumstances it will not be much different from a formal ban. Ruslik_Zero 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this use is not dealt with now, the history will repeat itself. Ruslik_Zero 12:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of improper image uploads

Djjesse123 (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times in the recent past for things like vandalism, edit warring, adding copyrighted text to articles and uploading a multitude of copyrigted images without an yof the necessary information. This user keeps uploading images of DVD covers, but does not include any copyright/licensing information, source information, or fair use rationales [146]. He even wiped out another, unrelated image by uploading a new one over it, messing up an article about a comic book character (which I have now reverted). He did these last two uploads after I explicitly warned him on his talk page to stop uploading images improperly. He has ignored all warnings and notices on his talk page. I recommend he be blocked as he refuses to communicate or acknowledge warnings and continues to upload copyrighted images without the necessary information. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, quickly checking his article creations, all are pure copyvio stolen from other sites with an infobox tacked on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All of his image uploads are tagged for various failures, or fixed. Not that this stops the problem, but at least so far everything's been processed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His unsourced POV edits [147] are also an issue. I gave him a final warning a couple days ago but the behaviour continues. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect English is not this editor's first language. Look at this diff. "Steven segal is offer a role in" Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Very worrisome, but he hasn't edited meaningfully since the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Defence

Resolved

English Wikipedia does not govern practices at other WMF projects. Durova³⁰⁸ 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administers and Editors, I have lately been informed that [an announcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#swastika_barnstars.3F] was made here some days ago regarding a barnstar posted by me. I have been addressed in that post many times and some untrue and misleading judgements has been made about me. Because of this I should have the right to defend myself and explain briefly what happened. In Farsi wikipedia We had a weekly collaboration about swastika, a sign which has been histirically used by nations having Aryan roots such as Iran, Tajikestan, India, etc. . A user had contributed so much in developing the article, when that week ended I decided to thank him by giving him sth related to that issue. What picture would have been better than that Sign itself? I searched for a sign which could have been distinctly seen. Some Aryan swastikas like [this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Swastika_iran.jpg/175px-Swastika_iran.jpg] were also present, but the sign was small and could not be seen well. It is not true that a 45 degree sign belongs to Nazis. See [this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/IndusValleySeals_swastikas.JPG/175px-IndusValleySeals_swastikas.JPG] indian sign e.g. . I should also express my deep regret for [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=307621506] attack, accusations without evidence. It is an evidently an ad hominom means of dismissing or discrediting my views. I merely expressed my idea politely. I should be rehabiliated. sicaspi 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

• The discussion was closed (by me, if I recall) because we on the english wikipedia have no power over any other language nor do we have any real cause to discuss what goes on there. Whatever defense you wish to make you may make it on the Farsi wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, but I am also a user of en wiki and my name has been mentioned here and some wrong information has been said about me, You should apologize me. Sicaspi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

No, nothing that needs any form of apology was said - someone asked the advice of English Wikipedia - advice was given, but non-transferable. No actions were taken on English Wikipedia. Besides, we stopped expecting apologies at age 8. You were never subject to a personal attack nor incivility. Please remember to sign all of your posts with ~~~~, as all members of English Wikipedia already know :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here in English wiki, I was accused of maliciousness and antisemitism, it is an attack. Furtheremore Please help me! I sign all of my posts with ~~~~ but it seems as if it doesn't work. --sicaspi 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of antisemitism. They were discussing the use of the symbol and its potential meanings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Whould you please answer my 2nd question? and would you please also check Talk:Persian Socialist Soviet Republic, nobody answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well ... your previous posting on this page, you used the 4 tildes and your signature worked fine. This last one, you didn't do it again. As for as the talkpage you noted, as this forum has nothing to do with content of articles, you will likely need to use request for comment to get some assistance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Spammer, or newbie not knowing how to write about a company's turnaround

I am not sure how to treat Mark.franken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He looks either like a spammer looking to spam up Spansion, or a newbie who does not know how to write about a company's turnaround. He replaces the well-sourced article that shows that Spansion has become morally bankrupt with the appalling way it treated its workers while it jacked up executive pay, with a rather spammy and somewhat poorly-sourced article that shows a company with a lot of potential but fails to mention the company's sins that were documented in previous versions of the article. The situation looks like it is turning into an edit war, which is scaring me. I have written a note on his talk page that what he is doing is wrong and could lead to a block, and how to do this correctly. He then reverts my reversions on Spansion, which again destroys the well-sourced information about Spansion's past moral bankruptcy which coincided with its financial bankruptcy. Can an uninvolved administrator help? I feel like that if I continue, I will get involved too deeply in an edit war to stay rational. I am in the middle of moving, so I am currently under a lot of stress and do not think that I can take any further rational direct action on this issue. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, we are not a soapbox. The article shouldn't be there to show that "Spansion has become morally bankrupt with the appalling way it treated its workers while it jacked up executive pay" but something a bit more neutral. The company seems to be heading out of bankruptcy and more articles focus on possible patent violations over what seems to me an undue focus on its conduct going into bankruptcy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, when you are leaving edit summaries like "which went financially and morally bankrupt", then it is time to step back from an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And there isn't a word of discussion on the article talk page....when there's clearly a discussion to be had about how much weight to give to the bankruptcy period vs earlier or later history. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on Mark.franken's own talk page about what is correct because I figured that if he is a newbie, he might not know about an article's talk page. Jesse Viviano (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was thoroughly disgusted when I read the source article in the pre-Mark.franken versions of Spansion about the nearly simultaneous layoffs and executive pay raises. This made it difficult for me to accept any version of the article that did not include this vital information and made impartiality a difficult task. In my opinion, the article was made incomplete and spammed up by these edits. Jesse Viviano (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, layoffs and executive pay rises are common - LloydsTSB/Halifax being only the latest example. To pillory this one company for a common - if lamentable and morally dubious - industry practice falls foul of WP:UNDUE Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the editor in question appears to be the company's corporate communications manager. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this as an argument between two biased editors trying to edit the article in violation of WP:NPOV, one positive, one negative. Seriously, Jesse was it necessary to restore "fate=bankrupt" to the infobox? I would suggest that both of you stay away, one of you has a conflict of interest and the other has an admitted grudge against the company. -- Atama頭 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not the author of the "fate=bankrupt" thing. That was Kingofdawild166 (talk · contribs) who did that. Please see this diff for the first diff that included that, which is not my edit. I would have written "fate=Chapter 11 bankruptcy" if I had done that, because there is a big difference between different chapters of bankruptcy. See the other articles on bankrupt companies I have tagged as bankrupt for evidence that "fate=bankrupt" is not my style. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you were the author of it or not, you chose to reinsert it which implies that you endorse it. The entire "fate=" is not a legitimate infobox entry, it smacks of both WP:POINT and WP:CRYSTAL. Again, it doesn't matter if you had originally put that into the article, you chose to restore it, which at the very least shows that you were inattentive in your reverts. You've said yourself that you are stressed and don't want to deal with the article any more, so set yourself at ease; the article is receiving the attention it deserves and you can get back to your moving (which I empathize with, I just moved last year and I still don't think the stress of that is totally gone, I still have things in boxes). -- Atama頭 18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's mandatory for you to inform someone of a report that you brought up here. I've done it for you. -- Atama頭 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think JV's description of his personal feelings about the company is overshadowing the legitimacy of his complaint in this case. The current version of the article (apparently the version that "shows that Spansion has become morally bankrupt") obviously needs expansion and development, but the brief paragraph about the executive pay controversy appears to be factual, reasonable, and fully-referenced, far from the blatantly biased screed that I was expecting. Meanwhile, Mark.franken's version is just awful (sample: "Spansion expects to successfully emerge from Chapter 11 protection with a sustainable business model aimed at maximizing return on investment for creditors, and generating positive free cash flow and profitability"). Propaniac (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no wonder it's awful; virtually every word added by Mark.franken is copied from some part of spansion's website, mostly [148]. Propaniac (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot emergency stop

Resolved

 – Sleep completed, bot repaired, princess moved and/or saved, and lunch eaten. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) needs to be emergency stopped. Harej (talk · contribs) apparently isn't around at the moment, and it doesn't appear to have a stop function, so... I don't know what else to do other then to come here and ask someone to block it for now. Sucks, but we shouldn't let it continue like this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll block, but what exactly is the problem with its edits? I confess I'm not familiar enough with it to see the issue outright. Since I'm the one who'll have to explain it to Harej, I'd like to know what sort of teakettle I'm boiling... Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it - You're getting edits like this and this, where the bot is posting blank moveheaders on inappropriate pages. Agree that we need some sorting out here, and I've blocked the bot. Please revert me if I've erred. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/current. There's also been some talk on Harej's talk page, here: User talk:Harej#Removing unpaired moveheader because it looks like it blanked Talk:London Paddington station. Anyway, I think I know what started it, and Harej should be able to fix it fairly quick, but like I said he doesn't seem to be around at the moment.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, yes - this is a doozy. What caused it, do you think? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

this edit is what started it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

...or not. I just noticed the time stamp on the Talk:London Paddington station edit, which is odd. It kept working fine for several more hours after that. Weird. Anyway, it should be fine once Harej has some time to reset it and take a look at what really happened.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are editors allowed to do this kind of thing? If we did something like this at work, we'd be shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

*confused* Why are editors allowed to do... what, exactly?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to editors being allowed to run bots that blank talk pages and create other shenanigans, to which I'd reply that it isn't always the bot operator's fault that something screws up. In this case, for example, the bot uses a lot of templates - if someone tinkers with one, it might throw the bot's coding off and send it into tailspin of ZOMG vandalism. If a bot operator is notified of flaws with a bot, and disregards the problem or fails to adequately address it, then they can be sanctioned - and there is precedent for that. But that's not the case here; Interestingly, the bot has only been blocked once before for a malfunction - on 4 September 2008. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (speaking of edit conflicts...lol) I think that you're correct, but I was trying not to assume anything. There is a rather extensive WP:BOT policy/procedure to handle this sort of thing, so I don't see anything to really be concerned about (other then the somewhat Byzantine bot approvals process, but that's a different subject). You can't fix what you don't know is actually broken, regardless. Anyway, I noticed the last block as well, but it's got to be nothing more then a minor coincidence.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darn edit conflicts. That's precisely what happened. The page blankings happen as a result of presumably API errors — stuff which I sadly have not accounted for yet in the code. It's not that big of a deal; when a page is blanked, rollback and move on. On top of this, I was asleep during the events of the tailspin, having been sleeping after a long night of working on Wikipedia and coding. I guess the least I could do is configure the bot to not throw up (or lack thereof, I suppose) whenever there's an API error and the markup of a page cannot be retrieved. @harej 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... and thanks for sharing. I'd be interested to know what you may end up doing to avoid this in the future, if you ever feel like sharing. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page about it, or I'll ping you at some later date. Of course, you're using PHP and I'm a C# type, but the principles still carry over.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The fallout from this is massive. In the meantime, I've shut off requestedmoves.php. @harej 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything we can do to help cleanup? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did all the clean-up, but thank you. The bot, to the best of my knowledge, should not be blanking pages anymore, as I now have it check for a blank variable where page contents should be. Everything has been fixed, the universe has been restored to order, the princess has been rescued and I'm off to lunch. @harej 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the princess is in another castle. Shell ^babelfish 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stilltim has moved about a 100 articles to rather unique types of titles

I am very reluctant to post this issue here, because I know that there should be quite a bit of discussion with the user concerned to try to resolve my worry before resolving to ANI. However, to be honest, I'm not sure how to approach this particular situation, and I think the issue is somewhat urgent to address by people more experienced than I. I do not believe User:Stilltim is trying to be disruptive, and I feel is heart is completely in the right place. However, my concern is that within the space of a few hours he has moved near a 100 articles from conventional titles to rather unique and certainly not community-supported formats: [149]. From what I have gathered on his talk page, he has been spoken to about this type of thing before. Otumba (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned, and asked for an explanation.DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass external linking

Don't know if it counts as obvious spam, but it does seem wildly inappropriate, an external link Massive Fail.

While looking up some British peer, I saw an external link for http://www.leighrayment.com/. It turns out to be the top page for some amateur's personal page on peerages, with no direct connection to the subject of the article. Fine, I'll remove it. Except that it turns out that that exact, essentially useless and unreliable link is on 4,520 pages. Equally useless subpages (like this) are on thousands more, with the total number of links for that domain topping out at 10,170. This needs to be cleaned up, and automated tools are what's needed. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears WP:PEERAGE is treating that site as a reliable source, rather than an "amateur's personal page". Before mass deletion starts, discussion at WP:PEERAGE, WP:RSN, or somewhere similar might be a good idea. ANI doesn't seem the best place to determine the reliability of the source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No different than the hundred or so pages this is on. There seems to be a somewhat more lax standard for those kinds of sites. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedian by that name (kittybrewster) who primarily edits in the peerage area. Nathan ^T 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends if it's used as a source or simply an external link. It seems to be the former; for instance the first revision of Frederick John Howard includes it as a reference. Does it violate our external linking guidelines? No, since it's being used as a source. Is it a reliable source? That's not for this noticeboard to decide. --NE2 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see well over 4500 links to the root domain of the site. Obviously the root of a site is not for verifying article content and smacks of linkfarming. also {{Rayment}}. Looks to be a personal site. --Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not obvious to me - if I get some information from Amtrak's website, I might link to the main page in the references section rather than the subpage I got it from. It's not best practice, but it's not necessarily evidence of anything bad. The only thing that matters is whether it's a reliable source, which I admit is questionable. --NE2 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Point being, that its strange for a site with 295 pages to have in excess of 4,524 links to the root of the site^[150] and a grand total of 10,180 links on wikipedia^[151]. I do however agree that reiability is the key issue, however to overlook the sheer number of links 'not linking to specific content in order to verify article content, would render any claim of reiability impotent. --Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no inherent reason a personal site can't be a reliable source. As it so turns out, Rayment is actually more accurate (on average) than the published sources coverage the same material. (Or at least that is my understanding of the situation from reading past posts on the Peerage WikiProject and otehr related areas.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This TfD might also be useful reading. Nathan ^T 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this is a matter for WP:PEERAGE to decide, and if editors are unhappy with that decision, it should go to WP:TfD or WP:RSN.  Skomorokh  17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lighteningluster

I am concerned that the username in question may be an obvious sockpuppet of banned user Bambifan101 for the following reasons. First, this username was created by the very same person who recently created a bunch of accounts that were indefinitely blocked as abusive sockpuppets, most of which were identified as belonging to Bambifan101 (see relevant entries in the user creation log). Second, a look at the user's contribution history reveals that the user has edited at least one article that is clearly related to a Disney animated film. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me....I think a fresh checkuser would be good to identify the underlying IP range and do some range blocking (or redo an expired one) and find anymore sleepers since one of the newest socks went through and helpfully tagged a bunch that had been missed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

216.246.164.118

Resolved

 – blocked for 31h. Black Kite 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss. Enigma^msg 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discuss? Nah. Seen this one before. Black Kite 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was going to block, but I saw that it was over the whole sharedip template again and I've been down that road before. Looked like disruption, though, and it was blocked twice in August, I think. Thanks, Enigma^msg 01:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin button misuse in edit war.

Over here, things have gotten hot. Asgardian and Nightscream have been in conflict article edit history regarding some dating and issue numbering matters, and it has escalated into an edit war. NightScream protected the page, despite being involved. Both I and Peregrine Fisher spoke out against this page lock. I left a note at NightScream's page, asking him to undo and report the matter, since he was a highly involved editor as well as admin, and since the edit warring issues were clear. I commented that since Asgardian, who in that section linked above, admitted to a recent previous edit war to prove a point, taking this problem to the Edit War noticeboard would've gotten an easy solution. In response, Asgardian accuses me of being the other party complicit in the edit war. While I made a few edits, all mine were to try to find a compromise, based on the talk page, and not a reverting war of edits, as a review of the diffs will show. Most of this is edit war focuses on an introductory phrase, and the use of issue numbers and or dates to tie to the published events. I'd have taken this to the EW board myself, had I realized it would this rapidly turn into this debacle, but given that an admin's use of buttons is in question, and the underhanded implication that I'm to blame for this, I've brought it here. ThuranX (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow...that is a pretty blatant misuse of the admin tools. Revert to the version you want in an article you are clearly involved in editing...and then full-protect it? And looking at the article history...it's not the first time he's done it. --Smashville^talk 14:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems at a cursory review that Nightscream was involved in the content dispute, reverted and then protected the article, which is inappropriate. That said, the article probably should have been protected, and if Nightscream agrees not to act as an administrator and engage in discussion, things should be able to proceed without the need for intervention. Have all relevant parties been notified of this thread?  Skomorokh  14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note, it might be helpful to refactor some of your language on the talkpage, ThuranX – I appreciate it was in the heat of the moment and you were responding to what you saw as unfair accusations, but that kind of tone is unlikely to contribute to a more productive discussion.  Skomorokh  14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, Skomorokh, but tonight ,he [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Hulk&diff=next&oldid=311567036 repeated the insinuation] that I was involved in the edit war, with yet another "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tactic. The manner of both of his attacks pon me is in the form of 'I'm not saying he beats his wife, in fact, I'd like to publicly state here, in a discussion about me beating MY wife, that, in fact, he, who is sitting among us judging me, does not beat his wife.' It's a distraction technique, and i'm actually offended that he'd repeat it in the context of 'I'm apologizing for saying he beats his wife, I can say now that he does not beat his wife....(stuff)... and in conclusion, He does not beat hiswife'. It's a cheap, tawdry tactic for which he was amply warned. As a result, I see absolutely NO reason to redact or refactor anything, as it's clear he's intentionally engaging in this tactic for the drama. In fact, I request a block against him for repeating personal attacks during an edit war after warnings.ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the article without reverting. There was absolutely no reason to protect it so that he could be the only one to edit it. Content disputes are to be resolved on the talk page, not with admin tools. --Smashville^talk 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So...now, I guess, should the page actually be protected is the question, here? --Smashville^talk 18:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "wife" example means, but ThuranX needs to take the advice given above and cool down. The actual issue - a question of formatting - is being discussed between myself and Nightscream, as discussed here: [152]. There were no false accusations. I even stated on said Talk Page that ThuranX was not involved in an edit war. What ThuranX did do was misconscrue a statement I made, and has tried to place words in my mouth. I corrected him : [153], and also advised that he be civil, something he has been warned about before on a number of occasions: [154] ; [155]. He has also continued to be uncivil when blocked for edit warring: [156].

Again, the real issue is under discussion, and an administrator has stated [157] I am not at fault. ThuranX is most welcome to contribute, but just needs to be less emotive. Refraining from the use of caps lock, using exclaimations and profanities would be a good start. Let's just move on. Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Twice Asgardian has, with no reasonable nor just cause, injected into the problem between him and NightScream comments that imply that I am the cause of the edit war. I'm not going to stand for being falsely accused. He needs to be blocked. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as how you interpret that from "ThuranX was not involved in an edit war". I think you need to step back from this because quite honestly, it does look like you need to calm down and look at it with more rational eyes. --Smashville^talk 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Students A and B get into a fight, C goes for the teacher. B, to defend himself keeps saying C had nothing t o do with it over and over, you start looking for why the denials keep occurring. It's a way of deflecting attention from himself. YOU may not see it that way, but I see it as an intentional distraction from his involvement with the bonus of getting me into trouble if he can. Since I was clearly uninvolved, there's no reason to deny my involvement other than to try to bring attention to my edits. ThuranX (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone notified me of this thread. The matter of my use of admin tools was addressed and resolved here. If anyone wants further clarification, feel free to indicate it. Just let me know on my Talk Page, because otherwise I don't think I'll be monitoring this particular discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User still adding unsubstantiated material in violation of WP:BLP and WP:RS

The user 24.85.147.254 has been repeatedly warned on his talk page that he needs to stop adding unsubstantiated claims to Robert C. Cooper and Stargate Atlantis. He cites his own blog as proof the Mr. Cooper ripped him off for some of the concepts from Stargate Atlantis. Request that an administrator take an interest in this issue, since I've reverted his changes many times. I'm not the only user to do so, and I posted to this page about him about a week ago (but I'm not able to find that thread anymore). - EndingPop (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Request page protection at WP:RFPP should the same user return with a new IP. CIreland (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary and Jesus = NPOV or POV?

Resolved

 – Moved to WP:NPOVN. Rd232 ^talk 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am engaged in a dispute with some users. I am trying to improve neutrality of the articles Mary (mother of Jesus) and Jesus, but they oppose it. I am sure every administrator is tired of problems such as this one, but your hep would really be appreciated. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place for this. Soxwon (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you direct me to a proper place? Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For help with this go to either WP:NPOVN or WT:WikiProject Christianity. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he would prefer the former... Soxwon (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Surtsicna is claiming that Muslims call Mary "Umm Isa", although he's not providing a source for that, I don't think, which might be the reason those reverting him are calling it "vandalism". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has raised that issue, Baseball Bugs. The fact that she is called Umm Isa has been part of the article Mary in Islam for a long time. The users who are reverting me are also reverting my attempts to improve grammar and they call that vandalism too. Please see the Jesus article as well; while I am trying to achieve neutrality by either mentioning both Christian and Islamic views or removing both, other users want to keep Christian view only. I can understand one's religious passion as long as it is not part of an encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Think again.[158] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie, thank you for help. I have moved my request and Baseball Bug's comment (as it is relevant) to WP:NPOVN. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

user:Dr.Thundercat

Resolved

 – User blocked, images deleted. — neuro^(talk) 06:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this account's contributions are constructive [159]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairly clear vandalism. User has also uploaded vandalism images to MediaWiki, which I can't nominate for deletion since I don't have an account there. JuJube (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Not constructive indeed...RxS (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the uploaded photos have any encyclopedic value if someone wants to nominate them for deletion (I see they are not on Wiki as Jujube pointed out). I also don't know that we can trust their licensing, so perhaps they should even be speedy deleted? I'm not sure how that works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have flagged the two images that are obvious copyvios that can be traced by tineye on Commons, but the third can't be traced. If I were a commons admin I'd delete them all outright but I'm not so maybe someone else who is can. Here's a link to them[160]. Mfield (Oi!) 04:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite

Resolved

 – Tim Vickers (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, I objected to the opening line of the article on The Waste Land, believing the claims it made were unattributed and a little POV ("The Waste Land is a revolutionary, highly influential poem..."). I appreciate RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) may disagree. And he is entitled to revert me. However, I do object to having my good faith edit reverted twice without comment and marked as minor. It seems at least half this user's edits involve using the WP:ROLLBACK feature to revert edits that were obviously meant in good faith. Rollback is for reverting vanadalism and nonsense. It is not for removing people's attempts to be helpful without any explanation. As I understand it, this rule is quite strictly enforced. I'm not asking for this user to be blocked or to have this permission revoked but I do think he might benefit from a polite note from a registered user.--81.108.130.124 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to remove rollback from the account, but the last time I did so (for a different user) my action was unilaterally reversed. So I'll wait for some comment from the editor in question before doing so. Perusing the last 100 contributions for rollback reverts without an edit summary I found >50% of them to be good faith edits reverted as vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• The use of rollback to twice revert legitimate edits alone, with a single talkpage posting, is problematic. The fact that many of RepublicanJacobite's Rollback reverts are of edits that could be considered good-faith shows clear abuse of the feature. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, I've removed rollback from this account. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Endorse removal of rollback, with the note that if he continues to use the "undo" function availible to all users without explanation, it should be viewed as continued problematic editing. Where a good-faith edit is reverted by ANY method, a reasonable attempt to explain why should be undertaken, regardless of the mouseclicks used to cause the revert to happen. --Jayron32 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his response to Tim Vickers [161] I think he may continue to have problems, as his view appears to be that non/dub-consensus edit = vandalism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And another one bites the dust thanks to Wikipedia's administrator culture. How difficult is it to understand that when you have a non-emergency legitimate concern with an editor, you raise the matter with them first personally and in a sympathetic manner before escalating it? Do you realise what deficiency in emotional intelligence is shown when a volunteer returns to the project after a day or two to find a note saying "Hey, we didn't like some of the things you were doing, so in your absence we held a public meeting to criticise you and decided that you were wrong and needed to be taken down a peg or two. :D"? We act like a mob of socially stunted twelve year old boys so routinely that the above request for pitchforks looks like normal practice. And then wonder where our reputation for being insular disagreeable autistic obsessives comes from. Fucking hell.  Skomorokh  07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I've changed what you put in 'resolved' as I don't want people thinking your comment reflects anyone's opinion. It was his choice not to join in this discussion, he was around at the time. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, rollback is a privilege that can be revoked at any time if it's misused. Asking about it might be a courtesy, but I don't know that it's required. The rules for rollback usage are very clear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I truly regard this as a waste of time and energy, but I want to be clear about the facts, at least. You are wrong, Doug, when you claim that I "was around at the time" and chose "not to join in this discussion." As you can bloody damn well see from my contributions, my last edit was to the Johnny Cash article at 17:31, and the ANI message was left at 19:29, nearly two hours later. I was not in my office or near a computer at that time. My next edit was not 'til 22:41, when I left the (admittedly angry) message on Tim Vickers' talk page. Less than an hour passed between the original ANI message and Tim's message stating the rollback privileges had been revoked. That is one hell of a discussion period. I did not choose not to take part in the discussion, Doug, the discussion, such as it was, occurred, and the decision was made before I ever said my piece. I think it is telling that you regard the matter settled because I decided to retire, and feel no need to consider any of the points made by Skomorokh. The irony of all this, at least to me, is that, given the tone of the message the anonymous user left on Vickers' talk page, I believe that he and I could have worked this out quite easily had we discussed it. C'est la vie. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant you were around before you retired, I'm sorry if I wrote that in a way that was ambiguous. As for saying the matter was settled, what I actually did was change a 'resolve' template from Skomorokh which said (obviously ironically) "The miscreant has been run off. Hallelujah. " to a factual message. Perhaps I should just have removed it, but you said you'd retired and therefore no Admin intervention was necessary. I'll remove it Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, I really am sorry if I caused you to retire. I think there was a problem with the way you were editing. Not so much for me but uncommented reversion discourages all but established users from editing. You're one of many, many others, including admins who've used rollback at inappropriate times. Yesterday I felt I was probably too much of an interested party to say anything more than I'd said. Besides, I wasn't able to leave a message on your talk page because of the semi protection.

This page will be archived in a few days and the whole thing will be forgotten. Unlike with a block there's not, as far as I know, a permanent record of rollback rights being revoked and I imagine you can have them back if you ask again in a few months' time. I really would encourage you to reconsider and stay. --86.25.237.87 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was afraid this was going to happen, but I didn't expect someone to come in here flaming about admin culture. Rollback is a priviledge. The folks who use it are our ambassadors to the world. No one reads or much cares about the signpost, VPP, policy talk pages and what-not, so we can be as newbie friendly as we want there. But they do make edits to the encyclopedia, tens of thousands of people do every day. Each time WP comes up on a site like /. or ars the forum complaints (I know, take it w/ a grain of salt) are invariably focused around admins and hugglers reverting good, sourced edits as vandalism. Each time we revert one of those edits we lose a potential contributor. More importantly, that potential contributor goes off to bad mouth us to their circle of friends. Literally more than 50% of this editors recent edit summary free reverts were improper. More than half the time that he implicitly rejected a contribution as vandalism it came from a good faith editor or potential editor. More to the point, we never would have known about it had someone not come here to complain, because there isn't a lot of energy or willingness to watch the watchers. So no, I don't think this was an abuse of admin power or a reflection on admin culture. I think this was a case where someone was misusing the tool and the tool got taken away. Period. It's not the end of the world, even after a stormy retirement and (seemingly) return. As for your hyperbolic personal attacks and EQ-mumbo-jumbo, I'll let them speak for themselves. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is directed at me, Protonk, you miss your target entirely. I did not object to rollback being removed in this case – the concerns were justifiable, and speak to the same issues I highlight, namely deterring potentially good contributors and fueling an adversarial editing environment. Nor did I claim that any actions taken were an "abuse of admin power" – the actions taken in this case were, as far as I see it, in line with community norms. It's those norms that are the problem. I haven't personally attacked anyone, because no-one is personally to blame – the clueless, self-defeating and project-damaging ways we react to issues with individual contributors are widespread and are our collective fault for failing to reflect and consider the optimal outcome rather than what punitive measures are allowed in a given instance. And no, alienating yet another dedicated contributor is not the end of the world, or even remarkable – it happens around the wiki constantly, the cost of consistently failing to relate to the person behind the other username.  Skomorokh  19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was directed at you. And with respect, "Do you realise what deficiency in emotional intelligence is shown when a volunteer returns to the project after a day or two to find a note saying "Hey, we didn't like some of the things you were doing, so in your absence we held a public meeting to criticise you and decided that you were wrong and needed to be taken down a peg or two. :D"? We act like a mob of socially stunted twelve year old boys so routinely that the above request for pitchforks looks like normal practice. And then wonder where our reputation for being insular disagreeable autistic obsessives comes from." is out to lunch. The entire content of the discussion up until RJB's reply to tim vicker's was calm assent to the claim that someone was misusing a tool, followed by removal of that tool. A tool with a policy page littered with warnings that it will be removed immediately for even accidental misuse. You chose to characterize this process and this discussion as some sort of adolescent/autistic failing of the admin corps. I take deep issue with that characterization and so I pointed out its failings. Walking back the accusation is a welcome step, but you brought it to the table. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, it is a bit odd to try to focus on the hurt feelings of somebody who routinely used a tool to falsely accuse other editors of vandalism. Surely this misses the point? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, who said anything about anybody's hurt feelings? I never said anything about my feelings being hurt, because whether they are or not is beside the point, and it was never mentioned by Skomorokh either. So, what is the point of your bringing it up? I did, however, make specific responses, in the message I left on your talk page, to your accusations, and you have not seen fit to respond. Why is that? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As Elen of the Roads has already pointed out, an edit that you do not feel has consensus is not a "blatantly unproductive edit" and that if you are arguing that you were justified in using rollback to edit war in this fashion it would only reinforce my view that you should not have access to this tool. I hadn't pointed this out before since I thought it did not need commenting on further and that you'd seen this yourself, since you described that comment as just an angry response. I'm sorry if my talking this tool away before you'd had a chance to respond did annoy you, that was not my intention and I'm sorry if it did, but all I was doing was applying the rules - if you use the tool for reverts apart from vandalism it will be removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, let's apologize for removing the tool in a non-emergency situation. We should have waited for the user to respond. That's common courtesy. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh; basic courtesy would have been to afford RJ the chance to tell his side of the story before acting. If we don't have enough respect for an editor to want to hear from them in this sort of situation, that editor was not a good candidate for rollback. In Tim's defense, RJ had been notified of the ANI posting and not responded within five hours, but people are sometimes busy in IRL and no harm would have come from a little patience.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like edit warring with rollback to me. I'm neutral as to how this was handled, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor checking in here; but my observation was that RJ was a competent and committed wiki editor who should at least have been afforded the courtesy of a response before actions were taken unilaterally. Rollback is a privilege and in deciding how to use it, sometimes there is a "snap" decision as to whether an AGF edit or vandalism is involved, given there are instances of "sneaky submissions" that appear to be legitimate. That an edit war resulted is unfortunate but more unfortunate is that a good editor is gone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is spot on why I'm staying neutral, other than to say, maybe it could bear more talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think in retrospect, although I stand by my decision, I could have handled it more sensitively. I apologise for acting so quickly but at the time it looked like a pretty clear-cut case. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is rather belated, I've left him an apology. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the right approach; no one acted irresponsibly or with malice in this case, but the acknowledgment that a reconsideration of the process may have been the better course, is commendable. I hope that RJ comes back to the fold, and again takes up the cudgel (have I mixed enough metaphors?). Good on 'ya, Tim! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Continued incivility by User:Ottava Rima

Resolved

 – RFC/U is that way... Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Note: This is not a tit for tat issue, there are serious problems that need looking at User:Ottava Rima has a long history if incivilities and disruptiveness, being bought up here twice in the last 2 months.[162][163]. Forgive me for not going back further, but I think it can be taken as read! Ottava posted a link to an IRC room this evening, which I proceeded to follow (as you do, when presented with a link). Noticing there were two articles by the title Break, Break, Break, with neither showing any particular strengths as a primary topic, I moved the page to Break, Break, Break (poem), and set up a disambiguation page. This causes him to go on one of his outbursts, claiming I am edit warring because I moved a page (I only moved it once I might add).[164] He claims that I am "intent on causing problems in relationship to this set of articles"[165]. Calling for me to be blocked for moving a page.[166] General incivilities towards Hesperian.[167] More incivilities towards me.[168] He then proceeds to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum for no apparent reason, and posts "well, there is one word for them, and I don't understand how such a person is even allowed to walk around without being banned. "[169] going on to later call me a troll.[170] Given his recent outburst, I strongly feel its time something should be done about this user rather than being allowed to continue to roam around insulting anyone who disagrees with him, AN will soon be full of everyone who he doesn't like! It would be inappropriate for me to suggest a course of action, so I'll leave that for others to suggest. I have brought this issue here as AN is not the correct venue for such a discussion. Jeni (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) User informed of this discussion here. I'm off to bed now I can't reply to anything right away, but I'll be up again in a 3 hours. Jeni (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I think discussing the issue in one forum would be ideal and the wp:an discussion seems to have started first. I think this discussion can be moved there and a pointer left. It looks to me like there may have been an overreaction, but people sometimes get frustrated when poked. If the article was being discussed off-wiki I wonder why you didn't suggest that you think it should be moved and disambiguated instead of just doing it? Also, if you expect civility from others, try to avoid saying things like "I'm guessing you are trying to cause trouble" and "you... are making a fool of yourself". The dispute looks overblown and the editing issue should be resolved through discussion without any more attacks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) This isnt about the issue being discussed at AN, this is about the user. Jeni (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Jeni, for someone who previously had nothing to respond to, you have done ALOT of responding and I can now safely say you are nothing but a big trouble maker. Yes, I am actually defending Ottava. You are the one in the wrong and Ottava did nothing wrong. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) So you are defending his incivilities? Jeni (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Neutralhomer, here's an idea. How about you back up what you are saying with some evidence, and don't just call Jeni a "big trouble maker" unsubstantiatedly? No opinion on discussion. — neuro(talk) 06:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) edit conflict**I have to disagree with Neutralhomer completely. From what I can see Jeni is a sensible editor in very good standing who has made valued contributions to this project and seems unlikely to have any need to be causing trouble. Ottava Rima on the other hand, does indeed have a history of being reported by many editors for problematic behavior and has a busy block log to go along with it. True, Ottava Rima hasn't been blocked at all this year, but that is mainly because they have gotten by with firm just-don't-do-that-agains several times and therefore hasn't done enough in an individual incident to warrant a block but it would all add up. So, no, there is no reason to be defending Ottava Rima incivilties at all.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) For the record, I have no objection to the way Ottava spoke to me. I don't think it was uncivil, and I wouldn't much care if it was. In general I think this place would be much better if a lot of people got thicker skin. Hesperian 05:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC) This isn't a black and white either or. I'm pretty damned outspoken when it comes to OR and incivility. In contrast to Hesp above I think it would be a lot better if insults weren't thrown around so casually and callously. However I think there is merit to the claim that you are stirring up more trouble than the incident merits. Furthermore, I don't have to "defend incivility" in order to assert that you might be overreacting, neither does NH. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not stirring up trouble, I think it has now got to a point where enough is enough. I'm sure your opinion would be different if you were on the receiving end of one of his outbursts! Jeni (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Agree with Jeni. Besides, whether Jeni is overreacting or not Ottava Rima has a history of this kind of editing and has been reported by many editors for such behavior here and elsewhere.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I have been. As I said, I'm in the camp of folks who believe OR is out of line when he acts like this. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Looking at your diffs, no admin action is warranted here. I don't see anything I would block anyone for. If you have a dispute with OR, you will find him more than capable of reasoned discussion. If you have a problem with his overall conduct, open a user conduct RFC. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I see no diffs that support your claim that Ottava Rima even knows what reasoned discussion is.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Oh for Christ's sake. Let's all line up in one camp or another and take cheap shots at each other. Never mind who is in the wrong, nor whether there is anything to be done about it. Just pick whoever you like best and let's get started. Hesperian 07:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I know you are essentially defending me here, but I have to kind of agree with Hesperian, that was a little bit of a cheap shot. Andy was only commenting on the situation as he saw it, and we can't blame him for that. Jeni (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, maybe it was. But that does not excuse Ottava Rima from his actions.--The LegendarySky Attacker 07:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (ec)I agree that this issue on its own doesn't warrant a block, but this isn't an isolated indecent, this user has a history of incivility and disruption, which when all put together *may* warrant a block. When I say this, I mean no disrespect to you, but I haven't seen you around the Wiki before, so I have no idea if you have any past knowledge of Ottava. When I get back later this afternoon I'll see if I can get together a few more diffs to give a bigger picture of this users conduct. To be completely honest, I'd support a "final warning" type action, if any more similar incidents happen, then he gets the block immediately. After attempts in the past to try to get to the bottom of issues with this user privately, I have no desire to try again! Jeni (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC) There doesn't appear to have been an RfC about this user before, and that could be a logical step. Ottava Rima and I have been on opposite sides of a dispute over the wording of a policy just recently, and he immediately started making innuendos of bad faith and was hostile to me. Since we've never had any negative interactions that I recall, it seemed to me to be excessively personal and unhelpful. A recent comment was that my editing made him want to vomit,[171] and he didn't seem to be joking, and another described me as a "single topic editor",[172] which is obviously false. I wouldn't mention it but if there are other editors who've also had problems with this editor then perhaps it's a pattern. If so, an RfC might be the best route to resolving the problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The diffs you provide give a more compelling reason to take action in my opinion. I have no experience with the RfC process, so I will leave it up to someone else to start it, but I will support it all the way. I suggest letting this thread run for a while first, to at least let Ottava have a chance to defend himself. Jeni (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see why not. After all, many editors have had problems with Ottava Rima and when this editor is brought to AN/I the same thing happens. Ottava Rima gets off with a warning because the individual incidents have not appeared severe enough. But added up, one does not have to look hard and deep into their history to see that several editors have had issues with this user. And, just for the record, I am NOT one of those editors who has had an issue with Ottava Rima, nor can I recall any dispute from my own experiences on Wikipedia with him. However, one need not look far into this to see that the judgement scales as they may be tip very strongly against Ottava Rima's favor. So, essentially, an RFC for this user, couldn't be further overdue.--The LegendarySky Attacker 07:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) ANI is not WP:DR, and I think you do need an RFC here. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Concur that RfC/U is next step - simply based on opening statement that a pattern was being established. A pattern is not an incident. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Major problem

I would like to note that this user was well aware that I was going to bed and that I would be asleep by the time this was put up in the same manner that they were aware jdelanoy was performing an admin action to make the original move. Such actions show a clear harassment campaign. I do not think this will end unless there is a block, and it would probably a require either probation or a ban in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was curious as to whether this had happened when I first looked at this thread early this morning. What I found out then would indeed suggest that there was some intended timing, although that evidence will be useless since it is all IRC. — neuro^(talk) 14:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez

Although this relates to civility/communication issues and I'm uninvolved in this matter, it would not be right to subject another party to go through an earlier step in dispute resolution, when it already went through a later step for similar issues (RfC/U - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GabrielVelasquez#Summary). Therefore, I've brought it here for admins to decide how to handle it. The report made at WQA is pasted below. Also, some other comments/edit-summaries made in general which may warrant attention [173] [174] [175] [176]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Below text copied from WQA.

I am requesting a neutral, third party to intervene in a wikiquette regarding this editor. He has placed a personal attack against me in an article talk page and failed to assume good faith on my part. The origins of this incident are at the Survivorman article.

• An anonymous IP added content that I felt was unsourced and a personal opinion/review of the show
• I reverted the addition using the edit summary "Rv, unsourced and personal opinion"
• GabrielVelasquez undid my removal
• GabrielVelasquez then added a comment to the article talk page calling me arrogant and my edit and edit summary stupid. A confrontational tone was used to regarding verifibility and my apparent lack of perfect memory
• A note about my edit was left on my talk page that I feel was needlessly confrontational
• I requested that GabrielVelasquez retract and strike the comment about me left on that article talk page and reminded him about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
• I received this reply stating that I did not AGF to the anonymous IP

The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor.

On a side note, there appears to be additional incidents of GabrielVelasquez not AGF on Talk:Planetary habitability. I am not involved in this dispute and have no further comment or opinion upon the matter.

If a neutral, third party can intervene in this issue, I would appreciate it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor."
  - This a deception, that paragraph has nothing to do with the removed and returned-with-source comments.
  This is a desperated attempt to save face rather than admit error. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NOW that I look at the entire, three-in-one edit I see the other paragraph. I meant to return the single top sentence mid-paragraph and didn't see the full paragraph much lower down in the multi-edit. I would not have return that commentary and was going to reword it or delete it but didn't give it enough thought to do either. As I said on your talkpage Dodo I am not your enemy and asked you not to judge me by that one edit. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also the fresh-IP edit ("removed by another editor") Special:Contributions/207.42.152.210 appears very sock-ish. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Above copied from WQA.

Ncmvocalist, why is this here? Dispute resolution appears to be ongoing between these two users and absolutely does not belong on this noticeboard at this stage. The fact that there was an RfC involving GabrielVelasquez a year ago is completely immaterial to resolving this situation, and does not require that any dispute involving that editor must automatically be escalated to...well, the next step from a WQA is an RfC, so I am still unclear why it is on this noticeboard. Risker (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur - this looks like a simple misunderstanding and overlooking parts of edits and reverts. A little more AGF and a little less aggressiveness in the edit sequence and talk posts would have been nice but this isn't a ANI worthy problem yet. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I took it personal, does that help?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Understating the seriousness of what happened is not a service to anybody. The series of repeated nasty insults was completely unacceptable -- I am not an admin, but if I were, I would give a warning that any repetition of something like this would result in a block. Apologies are well and good, but the main thing is that you must not do anything like that again. If you are intolerably provoked, get help, don't lash out in that way. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You ask that I not "judge you by that one edit". The issue is not the revert to the article, but to the article talk page. Proclaiming that you are not my "enemy" or am "on your side" does not absolve you of your incivility by calling me "stupid" and "arrogant". And now you have begun to question my integrity by implying that I am involved in sockpuppetry. Feel free to file a request to WP:SPI. I am sure that it will be found that I have nothing to do with any of the other accounts or IPs. Lastly, I find it very ironic that you tell me to "cool off". I'll ask you again: retract and strike your comment about me on the article talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling an edit stupid is not at all the same as calling a person stupid. The strike out was coming, if you look at my contributions you'll see I'm not orbiting you, can I finish my dinner? you can put you spin on whatever how ever you want, but I see you don't want the peace that has been offer you, you want to protect your pride. I appologize for the misunderstanding, but to me your multiple edit shows inconsideration of what you do and pride, even people who looked at this have said it's premature. you'll notice that I replaced the comment that you deleted and added a reference for it. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record I took a second look at my comments in question and I repeat calling an edit stupid is not calling an editor stupid. And I have already apologized several times for the misunderstanding. And in this case this administrator is abusing his privileges to defend his error and pride. How do you start a review of administrator abuses?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did I know this was going to come down to me supposedly abusing my administrator privileges? Very well, since you asked, you are in the correct message board for allegations of administrator abuse. Or you can file a more formal complaint at WP:RFCC. Feel free to point out my abuse of my administrator privileges and the community will decide if your allegations are true. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Before this is closed, since it is an edit by the same notice posting admin and that same time, would someone mind checking this exchange for admin bias. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, I object to the bias representation of my edits by Nmcvocalist's statement.

GabrielVelasquez modified a part of Nmcvocalist's statement. I can understand the motive, but this still needs to be considered when deciding what to do here.—Kww(talk) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel - Please do not edit other people's comments like that. If you believe that a particular diff does not accurately represent a situation then provide alternate diffs or diff sequences rather than changing the one someone else presented.

We depend on the integrity and accuracy of complaints and responses. Even if a complaint or response is problematic or inaccurate, we need to know that people aren't editing them willy-nilly making it look like one person said something or proposed something when in fact it was someone else.

Please do not do that again.

I have no time at the moment to investigate the depth of the underlying complaint, so will withold comment on that at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this anti-Semitic?

Here's a recent post to Talk:David Irving [177]. In my view "religious zealots" is a euphemism for Jews. And the fact that I am an atheist won't prevent me from being classed in with those religious zealots who watch the article for 24 hours a day and insist on describing this individual as a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite just because he has lost court cases on those issues in ultiple jurisdictions.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't tell, how can it be "anti-Semitic?" -Stevertigo 15:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the user's first edit in a month, so I'm kinda' confused where that comment came from. Regardless, all they need is some talking to. No admin intervention necessary here. lifebaka++ 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz/Fan mail

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the proper place to bring up such a concern, but this page seems to be a violation of WP:DENY. I know it is userspace, but I have heard of userboxes that referenced WillyOnWheels, and this was done away with due to the successful WP:DENY policy. This "fan mail" page seems to give recognition to obscene vandals and trolls. When view the page's history, you can see that some of the attack comments were even directly added to that page by the trolls and vandals themselves. The page does seem to give encouragement for recognition. I know it is only one page, but only User:Malik Shabazz has a page such as this. I have nothing against Malik Shabazz. I only request that this page be deleted. I don't think that there should be any pages such as this, and I certainly wouldn't want any other users to create one. However, I wouldn't bring my concerns here unless I thought that there was a violation of policy. WP:DENY has been successful in keeping even the most infamous vandals, such as User:JarlaxleArtemis, off of Wikipedia. A certain redirect reference his nickname was deleted per WP:DENY. I only request that the "fan mail" page that I have brought to your attention be deleted. Thank you for your time.--Quince Quincy (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD is the right place for this. :) — neuro^(talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Quince Quincy (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I have seen multiple users with pages and sections on their userpages like this, dedicated to the same thing. If memory serves, some were kept. — neuro^(talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I collected a few off-wiki bits where I am mentioned by name and put them on my user page (linked in sig). I don't think a collection of personal attacks would necessarily encourage more. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church again

Resolved

 – After review, text removed per WP:V and Farsight001 warned for edit warring.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has restored an unsourced sentence in a dispute that has gone on for over a year, after being warned that it is a violation of WP:Verifiability. I'm not seeking a block for Farsight001 at this time, but I would like an uninvolved admin to review the situation here and issue an appropriate warning. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Xandar for more background. Gimmetrow 11:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't seek a block, what good would a warning from an admin do over merely warning them yourself? Admins don't carry any extra weight in their warnings... It is not safe for him to edit tendentiously after receiving a warning from anyone; having an admin give the warning neither insures he will obey it, nor does it make any response more severe should he violate it. Why not just issue the warning yourself? --Jayron32 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Farsight already was warned (on the article talk page). Consider it independent review. Gimmetrow 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It stands to reason the Roman Catholic Church would call themselves just plain Catholic Church, as they believe they are the one true "universal" (catholic) church. Wikipedia is playing into their hands with this misleading title. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetyrow is the one edit-warring here. The whole passage concerned was agreed line-by-line in mediation. It contains two statements of fact, allowably used from Primary sources. One goes Gimmetrow's way. The other doesn't. It was the one that goes against Gimmetrow that he was trying to remove.

PS Baseball. Catholic Church is the name of the Church, and used in full conformity with WP naming policies. Xandar 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its name is the Roman Catholic Church, to distinguish from other "Catholic" churches such as Byzantine Catholic. The Roman Catholic church is often called just plain "Catholic Church" for short because its so much larger of a church than the others (than any other, in fact). And don't give me this "common name" stuff. I look for "Edelweiss" and it redirects me to Leontopodium alpinum. Yeh, they wrote a song about that: "Leontopodium alpinum, Leontopodium alpinum, every morning you greet me..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is a sentence which 1) make a controversial claim, 2) is likely wrong, 3) is explicitly disputed, 4) does not have source and 5) editors have failed to provide sources or clarify the sentence for months. Enough is enough. Gimmetrow 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What "controversial" claim? That they call themselves the Catholic Church? They probably call themselves just plain The Church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that "they call themselves the Catholic Church more frequently than any other term - even 'the Church'". This should be a simple issue and shouldn't take months to resolve. Gimmetrow 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow alittle sanity. We Orthodox Catholics don't call the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church. Gimmetrow is right.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, LM, but that's a different content issue. Gimmetrow 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The point being that the article has the wrong name. "Catholic Church" is incorrect. It used to have the right name, "Roman Catholic Church", but apparently some editors with some kind of agenda got it changed. That's one of the negatives of wikipedia - that a small block of persistent editors can force incorrect information into an article and keep it there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the problem is one of labelling. On one hand "catholic" has the meaning of "pure, correct, orthodox"; to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as simply "the Catholic Church" can be seen as implying all other traditions of Christianity are heretical (some Roman Catholics do believe this, but that is not relevant here). On the other, almost every existing tradition of Christianity considers itself "catholic", especially if they recite the Nicean creed as part of their worship (it contains the passage, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church") -- even Protestant Christians find themselves professing to believe in a "catholic church". In brief, "Roman Catholicism" is less offensive & more precise than any other alternative. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, naming policy supports the use of "Catholic Church", which is the more commonly-used term. And Baseball Bugs is just plain wrong -- the article is about the entire Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches. Majoreditor (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That argument for naming it is bogus, as it's not it's name. And the first line says, "Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church", unless you've decided all the other Catholic churches are part of the Roman church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the entire Catholic communion, including including the Eastern Catholic Churches. Since the subject of the article is both the Western and the Eastern Churches, it makes sense to dispense with the moniker "Roman". I also urge you to read Wikipedia naming policy. Majoreditor (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Peltimikko at Communist genocide

There is an on-going discussion at Communist genocide concerning an article merger. User:Smallbones deleted the merger tag without discussion with the notation No consensus to merge despite lengthy discussion. I then set up a discussion on the talk page stating that consensus was required in order to remove the tag[178] and restored the tag with the notation Need a consensus not to merge in order to remove tag - see discussion.[179] User:Peltimikko then reverted without any discussion on the talk page with the notation One month without consensus. What would a month or a year more do? Probably nothing.[180]

The WP policy is:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.[181]

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't keep a discussion open forever until a consensus has been reached one way or the other. That's nonsense. And you're misinterpreting the above passage, it's saying what to do if there has been a consensus reached, it says nothing about what to do if a consensus has not been reached. Requesting a major change to an article such as a merge, or deletion, or rename requires that a consensus be reached if there is opposition to the change. If, after a reasonable amount of discussion that consensus can't be reached, then the change isn't made. It is not required that a consensus be reached one way or the other, if there is no consensus then you leave the article alone. It sounds like both Smallbones and Petlimikko were correct in their actions, a month certainly seems like a long enough time to wait if discussion has stalled and nobody can reach an agreement (for example, deletion discussions only last a week). If you feel strongly about this you might want to seek dispute resolution but I don't think administrator action is required for any of this. -- Atama頭 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, "no consensus" often is the outcome of these discussions (look in the passage you quoted about about how to archive a merger proposal, and where it talks about indicating the outcome). Also, did you post this here to request that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion? (I assume you don't want the discussion closed at all.) That would be the only administrator action that I could see resulting from this. -- Atama頭 17:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The merger proposal has been open for 24 days (since August 10), so sorry if anybody thinks that is not "almost a month." The wording here is a little tricky with "no consensus to change" perhaps meaning different things to different people. So I'll ask an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Can I do that here? Smallbones (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot is still malfunctioning - I've blocked it again

Resolved

 – No more weird behavior. @harej 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), despite having apparently been fixed following its problems yesterday still appears to be malfunctioning/displaying undocumented features. It's now pasting stuff from elsewhere onto unrelated talkpages (it apparently thinks that howitzers are trains). In addition it's been edit-warring with itself all day at Talk:White-bellied Parrot, Talk:Nanday Parakeet over the presence of {{moveheader}}. As User:Harej appears to be offline and in the interests of preventing further disruption (I'm thinking mainly of the cut+pasting) I have blocked the bot. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Having just had a look through RFC bot's contribs, it's dumped the same 'trains text' onto several inappropriate pages.

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

I've reverted all the instances that were as yet unnoticed and un-reverted. I also notice that the bot has created the user subpage User talk:3247/XDM (disambiguation), for some reason. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to sleep ever again? Hold on, I'll get to the bottom of this. @harej 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The featured to add {{moveheader}} has been shut off for now. @harej 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Torchrunner

Torchrunner (talk · contribs) has been persistently been disruptively editing a small group of articles on 19th century Northern European Christian Mysticism including Jakob Lorber, Great Gospel of John and Swedenborgianism. Multiple editors have repeatedly advised him that his edits violate WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV among others. He has disregarded advise and engaged in tendentious debate over his synthesis of biblical quotation and it's relationship to these mystic's own christianity. He has, on talk pages and on articles, attempted to suggest that these mystics were inspired by Demonic forces or possibly by Hinduism. Torchrunner remains mostly non-responsive to advice and I feel it has reached a point where a good faith effort has been made to draw his attention to applicable Wikipedia policy. Pursuant to this I felt it was necessary to bring this to the attention of WP:ANI. This is the first time I have taken this action and if I have acted incorrectly please accept my appologies.Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I documented some of my attempts to help Torchrunner at WP:NPOVN#User:Torchrunner again.. His most recent comment may suggest the problem is moving from WP:OR to WP:RS, but truthfully I don't blame Simonm223 for being frustrated. Our advise just doesn't seem to be sinking in. What he needs is a broader perspective of how Wikipedia works by looking at articles and editing of those articles outside of this immediate topic area... Singularity42 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

Resolved

 – Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, that's enough. No need to take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like to draw attention to this series of edits. We're used to all kinds of behavior from this editor but I think this goes beyond the pale to WP:Hound. Note the pointy use of edit summaries, [182], [183] on the intervening edits. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should just point out that I fixed the formatting error when responding to the question, but in doing so I do not endorse the content (my opinion is that it is somewhat childish, but ignoring it probably serves the project better than taking the bait). Rockpocket 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems too trivial to concern us. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes with the recent conflict around this user, what is one more? This is clearly disruptive, clearly a violation of civil, and clearly a continuation of counter-productive behaviour by this user.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a peaceful POINT warning. I don't know if more is justified - but am not going to take any action on my own beyond a metoo on Chillium's note. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, I think that's enough. Sarah should protest peacefully, admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777 on this issue. I guess anyone with half a brain can understand that. AdjustShift (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nasty comment. Care to retract it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment wasn't nasty. I've never indicated in this thread or anywhere else that no admin should ever take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Apparently I misunderstood I guess anyone with half a brain can understand that. In what way is that not nasty? Please let me know so that the next time someone says that, I'll be sure to understand that it wasn't nasty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question wasn't appropriate. I've never indicated that no admin should ever take any action against Sarah777. You needlessly asked "Ever?". There was no point in asking such a question. AdjustShift (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. By definition, then if a question is not appropriate, then any response cannot, by your definition, be nasty. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• In looking into this a bit the context seems to be an admin's repeated use of the F-Bomb in a very pointy and confrontational manner. I haven't seen any of the outrage expressed in comments here directed towards the admin. What gives? Is she on the wrong side of the thin blue wall? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Two wrongs don't make a right, and no one has provided any diffs on the admin.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Resolved

 – Closed.  Skomorokh  11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Still Living has been relisted three times and it looks like there is a concensus to delete. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone else better take a look ( I !voted instead :} ) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted too. Onward, yon buck! Protonk (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys suck at closing stuff. D: — neuro^(talk) 08:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Joe, seems your request attracted more keep-happy editors than decisive administrators; closed as no consensus.  Skomorokh  11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason not to bother with admins at ANI. Whenever I look at ANI, it just seems like it's a place for admins to have fun or defend their favorite editors when their favorites are obviously wrong. It takes bad admins to not except a request to close the AFD and pile on keeps when there isn't even one source with significant coverage. That's just a way for you guys to goof off. Don't say that this is a personal attack because there isn't a better way to say it. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fred Singer

Article appears to have a history of controversial edits, but latest series is over content, involves multiple deletions of sourced text and reversions. Don't know if it's appropriate to list for edit warring, sockpuppetry, or page protection. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly Scibaby edits and reverts thereof. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Public_image_of_Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)

I'm attempting to implement the results of this AfD decision to merge, and I am being told by other editors that my behavior is disruptive because they want to implement an alternative. Given that this is a contentious article, a formal deletion review would be my expectation of how they should have proceeded, but that has not happened.

This has been a rather heated discussion and some cooler heads would be much appreciated. SDY (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the two weeks pass? Shouldn't it just be a redirect now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can try reverting the last edit (which should restore it to a redirect), but expect feedback. SDY (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Having similar issues with CoreSite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Skomorokh  02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who closed the AfD discussion as a merge, but allowed the stakeholders in the article wide latitude in how they merged and distributed the article's contents. I imposed a two-week deadline on the merge closure in order to light a fire under the involved parties. We're at nearly one month now, and from what I gather most of the merging is complete. I'm going to put the redirect in place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for resolving. SDY (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mufka

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked for disruption. Another Plaxico moment. MuZemike 07:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

THIS GUY IS A CORRUPT MOD! HE BLOCKS EVERYONE THAT HE DOESNT LIKE! I DEMAND THAT HIS POWER OF BEING A MOD TO BE REMOVED!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleHawk08 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No. And you have been warned for your personal attacks at User talk:Mufka. And could a CU find out whose sock this is and do something about it? → ROUX ₪ 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the above user is also Jbr999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 79.78.106.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Gavia immer (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gavia, you have buttons I don't. Can you do the honours? A CU may be needed to identify a rangeblock if these are dynamic IPs. → ROUX ₪ 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him as an obvious sock of the above blocked account; the personal attacks don't help. Kuru ^talk 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have the magic buttons, sadly enough. My information is just from a two-minute look at the less-than-subtle article history. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Extreme racism from editor

Resolved

 – Indef blocked.  Sandstein  06:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to invite attention to the edits and talk page content of one User:Raghuvir.tomar. His talk page contains extremely racist literature [184] inciting genocide[185], and his edits to Poverty in India, also extremely racist and hatemongering, went unchecked for days[186]. I believe that a community ban is appropriate for this user. Please investigate this matter. Thanks and have a nice day. Endedrates (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted the user page - serious racist rant that appears to have been published elsewhere. The rest of the dribble is inappropriate for a user page. Kuru ^talk 04:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• … and solving the user talk page problem didn't require an administrator tool at all. Uncle G (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but indefinitely blocking Raghuvir.tomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption, which I have now done, does require an administrator. See his latest contributions for the reason why.  Sandstein  06:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good choice there, Sandstein. I reviewed some earlier and was strongly considering that. I support the move - they're not here to build an encyclopedia, even vaguely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:El estremeñu keeps restoring article redirected by AfD

La posada de los muertos was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted. User:El estremeñu then restored it.

An AfD was later started, and the decision was to redirect. However, the user restored it again.

Therefore, I clearly warned the user, but that only resulted in them restoring once more with an incoherent edit summary.

I had previously reported this user on this board for other reasons; those issues are also going on, with continuous unjustified removal of templates that request sources or clarifications to incoherent sentences; I believe most of their actions are not helpful to Wikipedia (lack of English knowledge not being an excuse for arrogance), and that really needs to be fixed.

--LjL (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given the editor a warning that they will be blocked if they keep it up. I'm not familiar with this editor's history, but in most cases I would say let's wait and see at this point.  Skomorokh  20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I feel bringing it here was a good call. The user needs to be communicated with, preferrably by a user who speaks fluent spanish. I note that Ljl seems to be exasperated with the user and has shown a clear head by bringing it to others who aren't quite at their wits end with the user yet. Wish that course happened more often sometimes :) --M^ask? 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've translated the original warning message into Spanish on his talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a general "If you don't speak english, click here to tell us which language you do speak" with the various names of languages on it? I feel like we could use such a template in the event we encounter an editor we think doesn't speak english. Maybe something that could direct them to the babel template and how to fill it out?--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, this is the English language Wikipedia, and a basic level of communication in that language should be assumed. I've found that Google Translate has been adequate for my needs in communicating with non-English speakers beyond my own capabilities, and perhaps these editors should be encouraged to create their articles on their native language Wikipedias and have them transliterated here. There are embedded projects that can do this, but the overhead of providing this facility for a minority would seem to me to be unnecessary. Rodhullandemu 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't assume it blindly though and just because its assumed doesn't mean editors who don't speak english don't come here to try and add links or other such things and can't communicate properly. There would be nothing bad faith about having a template at our disposal to facilitate interaction with them, the only other choice is to play guessing games to figure out what language they're trying to speak or what their native language is, and then find an editor to translate or speak to them. We already have categories to group users by their languages so all we need is a template that can be left to explain to them how to drop babel on their user page and link them to categories of users who speak their native language to get them some help. The only other choice we have with editors who are causing problems and can't communicate is to block them. I'd rather have a tool to attempt communication that have to go that route.--Crossmr (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the case here, anyway. The user speaks Spanish, you don't need any fancy templates to know that. I can speak Spanish to some limited extent, too, and I have previously done so with this user (actually, they started speaking Spanish to me in response to the first message in English I sent them). The problem, as I see it, is that Spanish or not Spanish, the user doesn't seem to accept that he might not have some things about the English Wikipedia very clear. --LjL (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT violation at User talk:WLU?

Take a look at this and tell me what you think, folks. It's borderline, but falls on the actionable side to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Also, take a look at this user page by the same poster. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. Could you help us out by giving some more direct clue about the nature of your concerns? Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell the user to remove all traces of anything that talks about legalities, or they'll be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to completely censor people from talking about legalities -- if an article is libelous, we need to allow people to tell us so, otherwise how can we fix it? Problems only arise when people threaten, either explicitly or implicitly, to take legal action themselves. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are ways to do that without it being a threat. They could say, "I'm concerned this article may be violating the law in some way." That's not a legal threat, that's raising a question. Such was not the case here, and he gawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A single purpose account tell people that they should consult their attorneys is legal intimidation plain and simple("Mr. Watkins would be well-advised to consult with his attorney—especially in light of the precedent-setting case of Ms. Liskula Cohen vs. Google (re. inappropriate and anonymous Blogger use)"). Such comments are a danger to neutrality as the create a chilling effect on editorial decision making. Discussion of liability is fine but sending specific people to their lawyers and citing precedent is a form of intimidation and needs to be done outside of Wikipedia. This account has been used for no other purpose than to make these comments. I have acted accordingly. Chillum 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure (TLDR), but it looks like this relates to the external links I removed from Blue Velvet and a couple other pages [187], [188], [189] and [190], with [191] in the bargain. I dropped a comment at Talk:Blue_Velvet_(film)#R._W._Watkins regards Mr. Watkins. Looks like pretty clear self-promotion.

Thanks for the revert on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a clear violation of NLT--advising someone else to pursue legal action in this manner is a NLT directed against a Wikipedia editor. But the account has now been blocked, as it ought to be, so there is nothing more to do here. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it as substantially less clear. The NLT discussion at RFAR currently provides a good example for what I would consider the bottom of the 'unambiguous range' for legal threats. This seems much more like an attempt to be snide and talk down to someone over the internet. I'm sorry that Mr. Edwards condescended to edit here largely to make this sprawling comment. Perhaps he could have instead chosen to edit collaboratively and constructively. But that was his choice. Protonk (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In effect, he also chose to be indef'd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Requesting undeletion of Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 2, Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 3 and Talk:Alien (film)/Archive 4 as part of a refactoring of the archives. The deleting admin declined due to being conflicted, but suggested I bring it up here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done per deleting admin.'s comment here. — Ched :  ?  11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Coding problems in closed AfDs today

See VPT discussion. Thanks,  Skomorokh  12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DBZfan29 unblock request

This editor has been blocked, again, for edit warring and is now requesting that he be unblocked, under the false claim that no one investigated the issue. As he has cleared the lengthy discussions multiple administrators have had with him,[192][193][194] would like to be sure that any reviewing admin for his unblock request make note of his talk page history and the full story before deciding whether to unblock him. Also good to note that he continues to deny he ever reverted despite proving he did so in his own "story" and his second round of retaliatory AIV reporting before he was blocked again[195][196] - he did the same the first time around, as well as make personal attacks against PMDrive[197])-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said they didn't investigate. I said that my report against you was denied because we need to resolve the dispute ourselves, but you weren't. And you make me seem like I'm bad in your sent notice, like I'm lying about all this. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I never made a personal attack against the admin. I even pointed that out. I was just requesting that he not be a part of this since he said he had your back and even threatened to talk me to me again a while back. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acme Plumbing (talk • contribs)

"threatened to talk with you"? How is talking wrong? I also know what happened too because I was involved in it for a second. But then I just watched. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm smelling something fishy. Another account speaks for the user? Strange. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I knew he was using an IP to edit, but this? Acme Plumbing seems to be a new account and possible been used in disputes before. One could AGF that he jumped in to copy/paste DBFan's responses from his talk page, but of course that begs the question of why? Hmm.... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, and a word of thanks is due for kindly disclosing the sock and block evasion at a main admin board. Everyone should be so courteous. :) Durova³⁰⁸ 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody going to block Acme Plumbing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on Acme Plumbing's talk page saying there is a discussion here and asking him/her to explain the edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Startling, their contribs seem to share no topics at all, but it's very likely a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• wonders if this is perhaps a PinkgirlXXX sock instead* Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Acme Plumbing is  Unrelated, just someone trying to be helpful by cross-posting DBZF's talk page comments. However, someone should ask DBZF about edit warring while logged out and the other two accounts operating from his home. Thatcher 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • • • ..."Curiouser and curiouser." Durova³¹⁰ 02:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "...the other two accounts..."? Well, well! Or as Alex would say... [198] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Since DBZF shows the maturity level of a young child, the other accounts could easily be his/her parents, hence (presumably) the hesitancy in naming them. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DBZF has said that both accounts belong to his brother, agreeing with the first part of Looie's comment. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the contributions of the accounts are fairly different, that's a plausible explanation for now. Thatcher 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DBZfan29 does not appear to have learned his lesson from the last block and insists that he did nothing wrong. In fact, he repeatedly blames other editors for all of the "wrong doing," which is not a good sign. I see no indications that the editor will not return to the same edit patterns that originally lead to his blocked in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He keeps clearing responses he doesn't like from his talk page and demanding more opinions when I'd estimate some ten other editors and adminstrators have responded to him and offered him explanations. Instead he continues to claim he did nothing wrong and continues pushing his view, which to me indicates that he will just come back and continue doing the same edits and edit warring the minute he makes an OR edit that is removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that editors do have a right to remove comments from their talk page, I don't think they have a right to selectively remove comments that undermine his position while leaving others. --Farix (Talk) 11:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He can remove almost anything he pleases other than declined unblock requests. He may not understand, though, how this can do him more harm than help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know he can remove anything he wants, its just his selective removals followed by "I want more opinions" just doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth. It seems like he still continues to deny that he did anything disruptive or wrong, and is continuing to dismiss every advisory message left for him. Man, I wish I had the power he seems to think I have :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I can edit myself, I want to conclude this whole issue by adding one last thing: Here's Collectonian's original report. I want to argue that what she considered reverts weren't reverts...

• 1st revert: diff - This wasn't a revert because she didn't add sources either and I said that there was a mistake on the DVD box.
• 2nd revert: diff (done as IP - admits it his him) - Okay, so I changed what she said, but I did change other things to that she didn't fix. If you consider that a revert, THAT'S ONE.
• 3rd revert: diff - I thought if I just noted the saga name changes without actually changing her edit, I'd be OK. Of course, she still thought this was a revert.
• 4th revert: diff - She said there were no sources, so I added them. That's not a revert. I listened to her. If one of the sources were bad, she should have said so instead of saying "I thought you wolud've learned by now..." And videos can be sources, I read the policy. After I said that, people failed to comment back. Fishy?
• 5th revert: diff - This was an edit conflict. I chose mine over hers. If you also consider that a revert, that makes ONLY TWO (NOT THREE)!

I just wanted to share that with you all. Remember, she's the one who broke the three-revert rule, not me. I listened to what she was saying. I even stopped after her fifth revert because I knew she would never let this go - EVERYTHING HAS TO BE HER WAY, EVEN IF IT'S OK ALREADY. Hopefully those caps will stick out to you all! Bye! DBZfan29 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez at Thessaloniki

Resolved

 – GabrielVelasquez blocked for 24 hours for harassment Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been in a small disagreement with this user over the technicalities of some disambiguation notes at Thessaloniki, which unfortunately he seems entirely unwilling to discuss without a constant stream of abuse and personal attacks: [199] ("leave the real work to real men, not clowns"); [200] ("You think your funny, pair of Clowns, probably responsible for the Hitler redirect vandalism"); [201] ("Just because you get easily confused by logic..."); [202] ("sheer ignorance"); [203] ("stop being such a proud moron."); [204], [205] ("bullshit ... lie"). I note the same user has been involved in several heated disputes elsewhere over the last few days and has been the subject of previous ANI and Wikiquette threads. Could somebody please step in, as this is rather annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's funny coming from your considering all the noted provocations and abuses of yours(see last entry) I have discovered. And in my humble opinion the remedies are far from enough. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just to note, Future Perfect at Sunrise is under an editing restriction by ArbCom here. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 13:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please demonstrate to me how his editing restriction is relevant here; i.e., how he has violated them. I've clicked GabrielVelasquez's diffs and not found any incivility or assumptions of bad faith except his own. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree: this looks to be purely a problem with GabrielVelasquez, who doesn't quite seem to grasp WP:NPA.—Kww(talk) 14:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have warned GabrielVelazsquez for his gross incivility and flagrant use of Personal Attacks. If he continues I will block him. I have also told Fut.Perf. that in order to avoid confusion about his editing restrictions it might be a good idea to stay further away form macedonia related content. It seems that the dispute was in fact about how to disambiguate to the country macedonia.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should FutPerf stay away from Macedonia-related content? His restriction is in the area of civility, not content, and unless someone can demonstrate recent evidence that he can't remain civil while editing that topic, there's no reason he shouldn't edit it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the nature of Fut.Perfs restriction - but this alone is a clue that confusion might ensue. I merely offered advice that edits in that area might be misunderstood - it did not constitute a warning. On a second note GabrielVelzaquez apparently did not understand the seriousness of the warning i gave him[206] and I have blocked him for twenty four hours, which he can use to read up on the civilty policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)