Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive622

Jimbo attacks an editor on AFD?

Resolved

 – User is blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Kevin Rutherford (talk)

64.255.164.0/25 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look at Jimbo's new comments at the AFD attacking all the editors who are criticizing him for demanding an article be deleted? I mean should Geo Swan have to be be criticized like that? I mean how can anyone want Houston McCoy deleted and redirected to Charles Whitman without demanding that Tony Blair be redirected to George Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's sock are you? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

These things get a life of their own after a while ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, attack the messenger. Isn't it possible that someone would be bothered that Jimbo says to delete an article, an admin does it, the deletionists cite "secret" discussions and then Jimbo returns to get it deleted? Nobody else concerned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to resolve the issue with Jimbo, so bringing it up at ANI is premature. Discuss any issues you have with an editor with that editor first, then bring it up on ANI if that does not succeed. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide us with differences and we might listen but until then abstract accusations won't help your cause. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the AFD. Half of it is attacks against Geo Swan and the rest of the ARS.

I did read it. I saw no attacks. If you disagree, please post diffs. Yworo (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I voted "Keep" on the article (which is probably going to be deleted), but I see nothing in Jimbo's remarks which can be construed as an attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen quite enough from this IP range. 64.255.164.0/25 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion about this block, but I just wanted to link to the diff that the IP was talking about. I think it's important that people not think that I attacked anyone. The idea that my comment might be thought of by anyone as an attack was a surprise to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an attack in that diff, though I suspect questions will always arise when you contribute to AfD and similar discussions, for if you were to interpret a policy in a new way - "I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems" for example - well, it unavoidably sounds like new policy creation rather than the verbalising of random user-thought, simply because you are who you are and some newer users are unsure as to what position you hold here. My two cents. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent admin required to review Request for Page Protection

I made a request for page protection. The request was declined with the reason that it would be ineffective as one of the parties in the dispute was an admin and protection wouldn't prevent them editing. While this may technically be the case, is this true that an admin could evade protection in a dispute they are involved in without that resulting in swift sanction? The admin declining the RFPP recommended asking here for uninvolved admins to review his decision. I would like page protection combined with mediation (which I will seek if protection is achieved). Without protection, I don't see how mediation can work. I do not want this request to escalate into drama so would appreciate if we keep this in the abstract here and not name names. If page protection is of value when one of the disputees is an admin, please review the decision at RFPP (you can review my contributions to find it). If it is not of value, please advise me on what dispute resolution steps I can take next. Once again, please no drama. Colin°^Talk 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts. First, that RFPP wasn't the right place to start. That's for requests to protect pages from vandalism. If there is edit warring going on 3RR would be the right place. If there is a difference of opinion on the content, then Third Opinion or an RFC might be the way to go. Second, if an admin locks a page to force everyone to discuss the matter on the talkpage, then an involved admin should not edit thru the protection. This has come up a few times, and the consensus has always been that the admin should consider the page blocked as if they were an ordinary editor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For info, this is the decline [1]. The page is Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. The admin that the user has an issue with is SlimVirgin - have you notified her? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this was supposed to be kept abstract :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How the hell was it supposed to be kept abstract - he was asking people to review TFOWR's decision and invited us to review his contributions to find it. Which is what I did. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RFPP is often the right place to request full protection, which, in policy, does prevent admins (especially those involved in the dispute) editing the page. However a quick review of the history and related discussions doesn't particularly suggest to me the need for full protection (or blocks which are often preferable with a limited number of edit warriors) at this time. I believe this was also alluded to in the response. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion of the merits of the protection request itself but I don't see how the administrator status of one of the parties in a dispute should affect the decision to accept/decline a RFPP in any way. Would you fail to block an administrator for violating 3RR because he could theoretically unblock himself? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is probably newness on TFOWR's part - he's a fairly new admin. I've known admins regularly lock pages where other admins are involved in the dispute. And the suggestion that SlimVirgin would just edit thru it probably shouldn't have been made....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, and thanks, Ron Ritzman and Elen of the Roads. TFOWR 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I specifically requested no names, which is why a certain editor was not informed (though the Admin at RFPP was). I did not want the details of the dispute or any editor behaviour to be discussed in this forum, and still don't. The question of whether that lock affects an admin has been answered. Two independent admins feel page protection is not necessary at this stage. While I disagree and think it would be helpful, and that third opinion (tried) and 3RR (unlikely to be breached) aren't options, I would like this section closed as Resolved. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 15:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge Apocalypse

Resolved

 – page semi'd and up to 80% complete bollocks removed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Stonehenge Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this page needs attention from one or more admins. The content is quite obviously vandalism from more than one user IP, and it's going to take more than the few "undo"s that I just attempted to get it into shape. I have requested that it be protected at WP:RPP. I just don't know enough about the subject matter to know what content is correct and what is utter bollocks. -- role^player 13:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've so far semi'd the page and removed 5Kb of complete bollocks. There's still some way to go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is looking a lot better now! -- role^player 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing to drive business?

User:AllieLGray has made a total of 41 edits, all related to Rasmussen College, a private, for-profit school. Lately, the editor has been going to articles about each city they have a "branch campus" in and changing the entry so that the link goes directly to the company/school website, rather than to the article about the school or using the school website as a source to show the campus exists. I'm suspicious of the activity being done this way, especially when the editor hasn't edited on any other topic. This seems more like covert marketing than good faith editing to me. Would someone else take a look and see if they get the same feeling? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• A person of that name has written numerous articles for their blog [2] and has a profile on linkedin listing Allie Gray as the Online Marketing Manager at Rasmussen College.[3]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for spamming/advertising. It looks clear cut to me, it would be a massive coincidence for this to not be a marketing ploy, as where better for an 'Online Marketing Manager' to advertise than by embedding external links to their site in Wikipedia articles? Whilst it is arguable the user was not warned with the usual 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, block system, but I think it is difficult to assume good faith here, as it is almost a certainty that the account was only created to spam. If it is a huge coincidence however, they are free to request unblock and review. --Taelus (Talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to unblock, this is way too soon. You need to actually tell them, at least once, that this is considered spamming. We can't assume everyone knows all the rules we operate under the second they start editing. It is, in fact, fairly easy to assume good faith here, certainly at least as much good faith as we show a common vandal. If they resume doing the same thing without asking for help, then we can consider blocking. There are more tools in our toolkit besides templates and the block button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Are there really? You wouldn't know from the way the block hammer is waved around. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
        • "If you kill me, how are you going to get the bird? If I know you can't afford to kill me till you have it, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?"

          Gutman cocked his head to the left and considered the question. His eyes twinkled between puckered lids. Presently he gave his genial answer: "Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill."

          "Sure," Spade agreed, "but they're not much good unless the threat of death is behind them to hold the victim down. See what I mean? If you try anything I don't like I won't stand for it. I'll make it a matter of your having to call it off or kill me, knowing you can't afford to kill me."

          "I see what you mean," Gutman chuckled. "That is an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides, because as you know, sir, men are likely to forget in the heat of action where their best interests lie, and let their emotions carry them away."

          Spade too was all smiling blandness. "That's the trick from my side," he said, "to make my play strong enough that it ties you up, but yet not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment."

          Gutman said: "By Gad, sir, you are a character." – Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon (1929)

          Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that a number of the edits were reverted, often with links to the policy in the edit summary and she went back in and added them again. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You still can't assume that she's seen the summary. She may be checking the pages on occassion and changing it back then... yeah, I know, stretching AGF, but we still can't make the assumption... a warning first, then a block. The only time a straight to block is appropriate, IMHO, is when a person is actively vandalising numerous articles and that's all they've done.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't assume anything. I pointed out that her edits were reverted and that some of the reverts did link to the policy. If I was assuming anything, I'd assume that someone who is the online marketing manager would familiarize themselves with policies before pushing their ads onto a site. But she's been made aware now and I'll assume that it'll stop. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have little doubt that she knew what she was doing was questionable at best... but blocking without a direct warning, doesn't fly. The fact that she probably knew and if she was watching the pages might have seen the summary, doesn't ensure that she knows.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise. On reflection I clearly over-reacted here and jumped the gun. Foolishly, whilst I did ask myself about good faith editing, I looked at this scenario from completely the wrong angle and didn't assume good faith at all. I will apologise to the user in question, as looking at it again several hours later I did it wrong. I have no real excuse, I hold up my hands here, this was a bad block. Again, I apologise, and will strive to do better in the future. I hope I will not misanalyse the facts so badly again, especially as I will most likely always reflect on this mistake. --Taelus (Talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't worry Taelus, you can wipe the humble pie away from around your face; we all make mistakes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so, but I feel particularly bad as I have effectively become my own worst enemy, in that I am opposed to overly hasty blocks. It's one of those scenarios where I look back on it and think "What on earth was I thinking?!". Fortunately though, I think this will always lurk at the back of my mind and thus hopefully prevent such a foolish thing occurring again. That is all I can hope and promise anyway. My apologies to the community. --Taelus (Talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the editor and pointed her to WP:COI Anthony (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An attempt to prevent users for participating in discussions

Resolved

 – Drork gets WP:BOOMERANGed yet again. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, a group of users with certain political views try to block users who have different views from commenting on this page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy. This is a sensitive politically-related subject, which may result in a policy change. Therefore any form of censorship in this topic should be strongly condemned. In contrary to that, User:ZScarpia and User:RolandR asked User:Elockid to block me, since I expressed view which were not in line with their views, and jeopardized their attempt to change policy. Instead of rejecting their request and warn them about conducting the discussion fairly and cooperatively, User:Elockid decided to response positively, which implies personal connection among these three users and authority abuse on behalf of User:Elockid. As you can see, User:Elockid's action was not only illegitimate but also futile, because I can still edit freely and express my views. Nevertheless, his conduct should be condemned, and this discussion Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy should be canceled due to unfair process. 79.182.10.212 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Elockid has never commented there, neither have you on this IP, so - please, which account is yours? :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, Roland has made no edits to the linked MedCab, ZScarpia has but has not messaged Elockid in his last 1000 edits (dating back to January). I find this to be a very misquoted post and should be marked resolved as unfounded. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, would you by any chance be User:Drork previous editing under the now blocked 109.67.38.10. Opps! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An identical thread has been started at the Village Pump by the same user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)'

• I have notified all three users of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Right conclusion SGGH, that is Drork. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blasted internet connection or I would have had it me'self - apologies. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are supplying wonderful material to people who condemn WP. Is this your motivation? 79.178.50.16 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would any comments from me beyond stating that I don't think that anything 79.182.10.212 says bears much resemblance to reality be helpful?     ←   ZScarpia   13:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this complaint at all. As far as I recall, I have only ever contacted Elockid about a completely unrelated IP, User:64.222.111.5, who was edit-warring on Local food and adding inane remarks about moustaches to Keir Hardie, Neville Chamberlain and other biographies. Certainly nothing to do with the Middle East. Nor have I commented on the MedCab. I have no idea what this IP editor is going on about. Since they have made no previous edits using this IP, I cannot possibly know whether I have complained to another admin about any earlier avatar; though if, as seems accepted, this is Drork, I have indeed submitted several sockpuppet reports. Elockid is one of many admins to have blocked socks of this serial abuser. The complaint is totally spurious. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm mystified over why you were pulled into this too (or, why, since you were pulled in, others weren't). Just in case it's not clear, I reported 109.67.38.10 as a suspected IP sockpuppet of Drork. Elockid put a 72-hour block on 109.67.38.10, which 109.67.38.10/Drork evaded (using IP address 79.182.10.212) in order to comment here (adding, "As you can see, User:Elockid's action was not only illegitimate but also futile, because I can still edit freely and express my views."). SGGH then increased the duration of the block on 109.67.38.10 to a week.     ←   ZScarpia   21:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Histomerge Required.

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondered if someone could merge the history of an article I created in a sandbox: User:Lil-unique1/Rose Colored Glasses with the new article created at: Rose Colored Glasses? Thanks, Regards Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doing... Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. I'm not sure about your assertion that this is the primary topic, but that's an RM debate for anyone who cares, and I really don't. If you want the redirect I left in your user page gone, just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Please can you remove the redirect and delete the sandbox? Regards Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Zapped. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this the appropriate page for this sort of thing? Feedback (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do I mean? Do you even know what this page is for? Feedback (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry I do know what the page is for. I though it was for incidents and administrator attention. I've seen that it isn't. I should have known this because I've used this noticeboard quite a bit. I apologize. I should have maybe brought this up at the content noticeboard. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Feedback that this isn't the kind of thing that needs to make a habit of showing up on AN/I, but sometimes it's easier just to do what is asked than explain and start a run-around. Suggest this be marked as resolved now, but I've pressed too many buttons to do that. Courcelles (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mubin Shaikh — (2006 Toronto terrorism case)

99.233.82.251 (talk · contribs) and and closely related IPs Here, has made a number of edits to the Mubin Shaikh article that seem unconstructive, including blanking the page, and very recently re-deleting a referenced section that I had reverted. They have only been warned twice (Should have been more IMHO). Can someone more familiar with this case please take a look and see if their edits are acceptable? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination)

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation surrounding the relisting of this AfD by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Spartaz was the closing admin on the original AfD. When I questioned his close, he tried to start a lengthy discussion on his talk page about the sources presented (a discussion that had already taken place ad nauseum during the original AfD), even going so far as to invite other editors to the discussion. I clearly indicated that continuing the AfD discussion on the closing admin's talk page did not seem appropriate, and clearly noted that I didn't intend to participate in that discussion. Then, I took the issue to deletion review here, and notified Spartaz on his talk page. 66 minutes after being notified that the DRV had been started, he relisted the AfD, apparently in an attempt to derail the DRV. I ask that the new AfD be speedily closed before editors start contributing to it, pending the outcome at DRV. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it's the DRV that needs closing as moot, by restoring the article and opening a new AFD, Spartaz has, in effect, vacated his own closure, and restarted the process. Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I have done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure DRV is the venue in which uninvolved editors decide whether or not to relist the article, or overturn/endorse the close. Relisting the article doesn't vacate his own closure. Reversing the decision on the original AfD to Keep or No Consensus is the only way to vacate his original closure. Relisting the article is just a continuation of his original supervote at the original AfD. The article has already been discussed at great length, as have the sources that Spartaz claims to have a problem with. All Spartaz needs to do is read the original AfD if he is looking for a discussion regarding the sources. If the AfD needs to be relisted because some important topic was not discussed during the previous 6000+ word, 49KB discussion which ended 2 days ago, then the uninvolved editors at DRV can decide to relist it. SnottyWong ^confess 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having been a regular at DRV for nearly 4 years I think I can safely say that a closing admin is always allowed to vacate their own closes. Whether to restore an article or refer back to the community for further discussion is within administrative discretion. DRV will always prefer to see an admin take this course of action themselves rather then wait for a discussion to run for 7 days and then do it for them. In this case the issue over my close is the nature of the sources. DRV is not equipped to have that discussion as its remit is simply to review closes and this is rather more technical and needs people who have read the sources. My belief is that the community needs to decide if the sources you put forward are good enough when the original author of the article, who is a long standing and respected editor, asserts that he has read them and that they not up to scratch. The correct venue for that debate is AFD and that is why I relisted it and why I indicated this morning that I would be relisting it at some point today. Frankly you are like a dog with a bone here, demanding to get your own way and scattering aggressive notes and assumptions of bad faith around numerous venues insisting that it has to be done your way or not at all. I'm rather tired of this and won't be responding further. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• So when an admin makes the wrong call at an AfD, the appropriate reaction is to relist the article? I disagree. The AfD has already been discussed for 7+ days. There is nothing more to discuss except repetitions of what has already been discussed. You obviously have an opinion about this article, which you tried to crowbar into your closing action on the original AfD. Relisting the AfD is just a resumption of your attempts to insert your opinion where it is not needed. Your job as closing admin is to assess consensus, not add your own vote, and you clearly didn't do that. Relisting the article doesn't fix that, it's just going to waste 7 more days, and the time of a dozen more editors, to come to the same conclusion the last AfD came to: Keep. SnottyWong ^babble 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close the DRV, and proceed with the relist - though it should be an actual reopen and relist of the first AfD, not a new AfD! Spartaz said this morning that "I'm going to relist this later today for further discussion of the sources", so discussion with the admin had made DRV moot, but Snottywong deliberately ignored this and went to DRV instead. Fences&Windows 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would make an observation that the conduct by SnottyWong throughout the AfD in question, and the attacks on Spartaz following the closure would generally be considered as unacceptable. Repeated accusations of bad faith against a number of other participants in the discussion, jumping the gun on DRV and AfD and an approach that could easily be considered as personal attacks on talk pages are pretty unreasonable.

I'm not sure what the deal is, but there was some pretty clear axe grinding going on in the AfD, and it looks as if this is more of the same.

ALR (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you point out the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith that I made on Spartaz's talk page? I don't see them. I do see, however, personal attacks directed at me by Spartaz, on his talk page, specifically where he describes me as a "dog without a bone" and compares me to a 9 year old child. I don't find that particularly necessary, and I don't think any of the comments I made were uncivil or unacceptable. SnottyWong ^gab 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Moot the DRV and this ANI thread, but notify all AfD(1) participants of the AfD(2), and move on with life, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Just let the AfD process run its course. We don't have a better venue for deciding whether to delete articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Supervotes

Supervotes are not always wrong. If there were an AFD on an obviously unnotable living person or an obviously unverifiable subject (WP:HOAX etc), then it would be proper for an administrator to close "delete" even if every !voter says "keep". There's no need to do this for "low risk" articles like Masonic Temple. If a closer wants to drive the point home that the apparent consensus is counter to policy then close it "no consensus" or relist it and !vote "delete".

Also, if you have to say "this is not a supervote" in your closing rationale, then it's a "supervote". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection

Not a big deal, but we've got a new editor in an AfD who is messing with the AfD headers. Another editor to keep an eye on things would be appreciated. Location (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Madden NFL 10

This page was the apparent target or a coordinated attach from multiple accounts and IPs. I've indef blocked the accounts. Should we assume that the IPs are compromised (zombies or proxies), warranting long term blocks? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not unless they have a prior history. More likely, 4chan or some other internet chat board is up to something tonight. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Moving on... -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 9

Resolved

 – all have now been closed. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An admin is requested to close three discussions in what is now becoming ancient history. :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonball 2: Reborn

• Can someone please fix this so it can actually be listed? It appears that a user began the AfD but never actually finished it, and when I added my own !vote, that shows up but the discussion doesn't appear on any of the AfD pages. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• It appears there is a real AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonball: 2 Reborn, note the extra space. Courcelles (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I see what's going on now, it was a cut and paste move to get rid of that space. Give me a moment, please. Courcelles (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cut and paste move fixed, everything in working order again. The article is now at Dragonball 2: Reborn, and the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonball 2: Reborn. I've re-added your comment, Erpert, though it is deleted now. Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t | c) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edit summaries/veiled threats by User:70.125.205.144

User is becoming disruptive through various ways. His edit summary [4] contains a threat ("KEEP MESSING WITH MY STUFF .H*E. SEE WUT HAPPENS.... I DONT CARE IF U LIVE OR DIE OR WUT U DO. I DONT SWEAT U OR EVEN THINK ABOUT U. ROLL OVER .") He's also made veiled threats in editor talk pages; see [5] ("AND QUIT MESSING WITH MY STUFF OR IM REPORTING YOU TO CORPORATE OFFICE.") --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours. –MuZemike 03:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:NCDane

User:NCDane seems to be on some sort of a weird crusade to delete Russian spellings of various prominent Russian politicians from articles about them, e.g. [6][7][8][9][10]. He has been warned several times (see his talk page) before that including native language spellings in such articles is a standard Wikipedia convention, but he still insists on doing that. I think that a final warning from an admin and a block, if he does not desist, are in order. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to a warning, NCDane has just declared that he is not going to desist[11], so I think a block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And he just escalated to personal attacks[12]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The spree continues[13][14][15][16]. Would someone PLEASE block him already? Nsk92 (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He's had a final warning, which has been underlined by comments from two admins (including me). Fences&Windows 13:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Let's hope this works. Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actions at Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Resolved

 – User blocked for a week. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could another admin please review the actions of User:Demoss1 at Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell. He's been trying for weeks to remove or edit the article to his own POV. I've reverted him twice myself already, so I wanted to let someone handle this from here. He's now going about adding db and AFD notices to the article in what looks like an attempt to get it deleted since he can't seem to get his way. This should probably be stopped. --Jayron32 05:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he's already been blocked once for disruptive editing there and been subject of a previous ANI--not bad for a newbie editor. I'm involved in the article or else I'd nuke his malformed AfD "nomination" and indef him. DMacks (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him last time. His edit history is fairly brief and simple to review. I would have indef blocked him this time because he's made no useful contributions, but since were're here on AN/I, I'm happy to wait and see what comes of it. Rklawton (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week and left a note. Didn't feel entirely comfortable with an indef just yet, although I think it'd be justifiable. Perhaps he'll reconsider his approach. Shimeru 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol ban proposal

Resolved

 – A community ban has been in place at Wikipedia:List of banned users#P since the 25th. Fences&Windows 15:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a post placed here by a sock of indefblocked Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs). I think everyone here is familiar with the background of this person, so I won't waste any time rehashing. I'm proposing a community ban on Pickbothmanlol. I know that's 2 ban proposals in one day, but as with the previous proposal, this helps us revert on sight without the hassle of 3RR and such. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can revert on sight any indef blocked users' contributions without a community ban. Can you link the diff for the post here that you reverted? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And - is the sock identified and blocked yet? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes [17], and Yes [18]. There is a benefit to banning over indefinite blocking. it was discussed recently but I can't find the discussion. Will look for it. Per WP:3RR reverting an indef'd editor can result in a block for a good-faith editor. A community ban changes that. There is value in a community ban over an indef-block-with-no-admin-prepared-to-unblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I helped instigate that discussion. But I am not yet convinced that the user is socking badly enough to justify it here... Maybe. How often are you seeing them return like this? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive seems pretty convincing. I'm sure that this isn't even all the PBM socks since some tags have been deleted and some haven't even been tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my concern about PBML - the last few socks discovered have had attention brought to them by their own unnecessary actions, almost as if they've been wanting to be blocked. That could simply be lack of self-control, but it could also be gamesmanship: while we're going along happily "discovering" PBML's obvious socks and dealing with them, could there be a deeper sock with a longer history who is being protected by these distractions? I don't want to get into the morass of John LeCarre/mole thinking, and maybe I'm giving the PBML editor too much credit, but I do wonder about the obviousness and ease of capture of those socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on topic, I'm in favor of a community ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... support ban. I'm not sure if he's genuinely stupid or pretending to be- he's taken to trolling some of the small wikis by creating many socks that have suicidal names. Also, this is Pickbothmanlol (or at least his username was). {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively support a ban. This dingaling tends to work indirectly in concert with User:Bambifan101 who, I'm pleased to say, seems to be very quiet as of late. PBML attacks the same articles and games the system in the same way. I for one am tired of babysitting this undisciplined brat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support ban Enough is enough.  – Tommy [message] 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban He isn't community banned yet!? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto This is just getting out of hand. As tommy said, enough is enough. Pilif12p :  Yo  20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per the last discussion about the particulars of community ban discussions, the preferred location for such discussions is on the main administrators noticeboard rather than here on ANI. I believe that our current working consensus on "bannable" includes someone who's disruptively sockpuppeted that long and that badly. I recommend opening a ban proposal over there and will do so later tonight if nobody beats me to it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just let the discussion here run it's course. Why restart discussion from scratch somewhere else? Something tells me more people watch AN/I than AN anyway. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the theory is that AN has a tendency to have somewhat less drama about it, which is in part a function of its lesser rate of traffic. Probably a question of balancing having enough people involved versus the quality of the response. I agree with GWH that ban proposals in general are better off at AN, but I concur with BurpelsonAFB that there's no particular reason to re-start this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. George, if you really want to move it go ahead, but maybe it would be better to move the existing discussion and just leave a little note here saying it's been moved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to be lazy and just post a notice there about the ban discussion here, I think. It would have been better done visa versa, but I don't see any harm or foul in leaving it here, on reflection. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per nom and PMDrive1061. Enough is enough and this will free us up a bit re: 3RR. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be heading towards a SNOW with around 7 people saying yea and nobody saying nay. PBML's userpage is current protected, could an admin add the BAN tag to it please? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the direction is fairly clear, but I neglected to get the notification on AN of this thread up until earlier today. I suggest it be left open overnight so that AN-only readers who may care get a chance to come comment. I will close tomorrow if nobody else does, unless a vigorous discussion has ensued. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine George, thank you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban - Wikipedia has got to fight against this sort of thing. Case made convincingly. Jusdafax 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban - Aside from the socking, the other garbage he's done is enough to show him the door, forever. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per Burpelson AFB's comments — no reason to make someone blockable for violating 3RR just because they're fighting against this vandal. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban – Per Nyttend; I agree that enough is enough. A de jure ban will stop editors from being blocked by 3RR by reverting this vandal, as the above have stated. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed, if he wanted to have a chance he would have changed long ago. No need to have people skirting 3rr to keep him out. Sodam Yat (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per the above. (I always seem to get to discussions after other people have already said what I would say :-P) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, because I'm sure being officially banned will bring him right to a stop... HalfShadow 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all above comments. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NPA violation - ArmchairVexillolgistDonLives

The above named user has a long history of disruptive edits and blocks. He recently made a personal attack on the British Isles article and even after being warned re-inserted the same comment. Pages associated with the British Isles are always sensitive and prone to edit wars. Is it possible that an admin would have a word so that this type of behaviour is nipped in the bud? Thanks. --Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

His previous account at ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs) has multiple blocks for NPA and edit warring. Why should a new name change anything? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, same behaviour as with his previous name. Hence the request for some action .... --Snowded ^TALK 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did leave a quiet word on Don's talk page. Perhaps too quiet... but I haven't seen any further disruptive conduct. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

abuse of admin tools on John Buscema

User:J Greb has activated the review function on the John Buscema article. As an active editor involved in a specific past dispute mainly between myself and Tenebrae, I find his actions demonstrate various problems of conflict of interest and non-neutral actions.

My effort to resolve the problem is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Greb&action=historysubmit&diff=370277267&oldid=370265225

Besides having expressed viewpoints on the editorial direction of the article, there is the question taking sides in the dispute as expressed in his reply above.

Besides his self-confessed involvement, here are a few more examples:

He was active as an editor in various arb enforcement discussions concerning the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=200244529#User:J_Greb

Here is evidence I had presented at the arb case, alledging his collaborative relationship with User:Tenebrae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema/Evidence#Corroborating_evidence

Here he is cited as being involved in a discussion on the John Buscema talk page (he had contacted myself and User:Emperor) concerning a web site link that he was disputing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Nationmaster_links

I think he's crossed the line here. --Scott Free (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how the review function is abusive towards the article? It is still freely editable. --Jayron32 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the review function per se, although I don't think that it's necessary - it's the principle of an involved editor using an admin tool in a dispute they are involved in. Also I think that the collaborative way it was done, could give the impression of one side being favored. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Greb#Help_with_an_RfC) Also since the tool is used for edits that show "vandalism, inappropriate, or contain clear errors", it could give the impression that the admin is supporting unproven claims that only one other user is making. Then there's the fact that one of the parties had been given reviewing priveledges just a few days before, I think creates another potential conflict of interest complication --Scott Free (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You meet the criteria for the reviewer right, so I went ahead and gave it to you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe J Greb has misunderstood the purpose of pending changes and, in particular, the effect of Level 2 pending changes. There has been extensive discussion in other forums specific to pending changes pointing out that it does not replace full protection and, in fact, gives those with reviewer permissions an unfair advantage in being able to insert their preferred content. I have asked him to lift the Level 2 pending changes. Risker (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool - thanks for taking the time to deal with this.--Scott Free (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Scott Free makes a rremarkable charge of "abuse of admin privileges" against admin User:J Greb, who I don't believe has ever been accused of this before. This unfounded charges is, I believe, self-serving misdirection. Free is currently engaged in contentious and dishonest behavior at John Buscema, making the same non-consensus and false-citation edits today that has gotten him banned from the article before.

For the full picture of Scott Free's behavior, please see Talk:John Buscema's current discussion and also click in the arbitration box at the top of that page for the discussion that got Scott Free (and myself) banned from that article for a time — a ban extended on Scott Free for exactly the same behavior he is exhibiting now. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

5 year old debate, 200 verses of Matthew

5 years ago, the community decided to merge and redirect 200 articles that a single user had created dealing with individual bible verse by verse. That same user, 5 years later, has quietly restored/reverted those articles with no discussion. For past history see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV and the many links in those pages. For the 200 articles, see Category:Gospel of Matthew verses. My gut feeling is to simply revert those changes (i.e. restore the 5 year redirects), but I want to get additional input. I was pointed here after posting elsewhere, but understand that this requires no admin intervention and is mostly a content dispute (besides the user issue of having lost a debate 5 years ago and being cautioned by arbcom, then restoring the exact same 200 articles which caused the problem all those years ago without further discussion). -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm similarly inclined. (To restore the redirects) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I, I might even go a little further and request WP:SALT if it continues, but for the moment, I would request they just be reverted and the editor reminded of ArbCom's 2006 decision. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator.

And it looks like he was a member of ArbCom when this went down. As such, I'm sure he's aware of the decision... Bobby Tables (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I, and I have begun doing so. This was clearly against consensus. If the user wants to restore them, he needs to change it. Not edit war against it.

• Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
• Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
• Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
• Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
• Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
• Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34

I've already got one down. Please update the above list as the articles are fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We've already gone through this debate. Restore the redirects until such time as someone can demonstrate consensus to do otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did a few more. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Any reason why they are redirects to Genealogy of Jesus and not Gospel of Matthew? Shouldn't they all just redirect to Gospel of Matthew? — Timneu22 · talk 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone requested User:SimonP to refrain from restoring these? Also, why does he have a biography on wikipedia just because of being a wikipedian / admin / fleetingly mentioned in news as such? --Ragib (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a few. Thinking about it, however, it might be wise to figure out why he did it before acting so quickly. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to block the user until he promises not to do this again. This is a ridiculous amount of work for people to roll back. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On the bio, seems there was an AfD back in 2006 which was closed as "keep". Yworo (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would this be considered correct use of Rollback, as I could knock all these out right quick. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It isn't the normal use of rollback, but given the sentiment expressed here to uphold the prior consensus (which, after all, went all the way to ArbCom), I don't think you would get in any trouble for using it for this. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Twinkle AGF rollback, but I think it would be ok to use rollback; it's not vandalism, but there a massive amount of edits to revert, so, if I'm not mistaken, it is allowed under WP:ROLLBACK. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, with that I will knock some of them out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. More I've reverted; Matthew 7:19-20, Matthew 7:16,‎ Matthew 7:7-8, Matthew 7:9,‎ Matthew 7:6 , Matthew 7:5 , Matthew 7:4 , Matthew 7:23 ‎, Matthew 7:24 Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I've only had a quick skim over the discussion, but I have good reason to trust at least 2 or 3 of the editors who are working on this so I'm helping out with the reversions. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some with rollback and some with copy/paste edits of the redirect link. Seems we are done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I rolled back anything with no intermediate edits by other editors, and used twinkle's restore version on the rest. I knocked out a good chunk of the articles like that; it looks like it went pretty quick with a few of us working on it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I got a few in Matthew Chapters 5 & 6. MtD (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done already? ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As a seven year admin and former arbitrator I would have appreciated being given the respect of at least asking me about this before going ahead a reverting me. Please look in greater detail into the history of this before making the changes. The decision was not to delete those articles but to keep the content by merging them. This was the end result of a campaign to get rid of these articles that was largely pushed by -Ril-, who was banned soon after as being a sock of CheeseDreams. He only began pushing to merge them after a long series of AfDs either resulted in keep or no consensus decisions. (See debates on Matthew 2:16, John 20, John 20:16, Genesis 1:1, Matthew 1, Matthew 1:verses.)

The end result was a series of cobbled together articles, that never worked. See for instance the discussion at Talk:Genealogy_of_Jesus#Overhaul_.26_Archive. Since most of the specific verse content was not relevant to the grand theme articles that they were merged to, overtime most of this content was removed. And with good reason. Seeing this it made sense to go back to the old system, and I began doing so several months ago. I also greatly expanded most of the articles over this period, adding much new content. All of it immaculately referenced. Simply going back and reverting all the page to the redirects has erased all that content from Wikipedia. In effect the articles have been deleted in all but name, but as you see there was never in anyway consensus to delete any of these pages. - SimonP (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is, you went against consensus and remade the articles even though ArbCom said not to....right? Cause that is what I am hearing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really see that Arbcom said not to -- it appears they rejected that fairly strongly. [[19]] - —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

What to do Next?

• Guess I will say it, what should be done with User:SimonP? Strong admonishment, block, taken back to ArbCom, what? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this stuff, but if the Arbitration Committee made a decision which Simon has defied, should it be referred back to the Committee? MtD (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, the current situation doesn't reflect any community consensus. What from Matthew 1:18 has been merged into Nativity of Jesus, the content was simply erased and replaced by a redirect. I am perfectly fine with it going back to the committee. What I would really like though is for the articles to be considered on their merits. I'm proud of pages like [1:18], if all that content is to be deleted I'd like an explanation for why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - SimonP (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but only you say it doesn't have consensus, but the 2006 ArbCom decision, which this is all based on, does, which put them all to redirects. Sorry, but you defied ArbCom and Consensus in a very sneaky way, no matter how you want to spin it. As an admin, you should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the Arbcom say they should all be redirected? Could you point out that part of the decision? - SimonP (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be here, where the consensus was redirect. Sorry Dude, you are out of line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussions. I will always follow the consensus of the community, but can you honestly say that redirecting all of them was the decision of Wikipedia:Bible verses or of the hundred people that commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses. Who there supported redirecting all the pages? - SimonP (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I really don't care who said what in 2006, I wasn't even a member than, but what I do care about is you have gone against consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I am asking where the consensus is to redirect the pages. As discussions from back then show, such consensus clearly didn't exist. - SimonP (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who rollbacked Matthew 1:18, since I thought consensus was to turn those articles into redirects. If I was wrong, I'd be glad to self-revert (or, if you prefer, you can do it; I won't mind). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is reverted, it should be subject to several edits, as some of this appears to be OR and not the "immaculately referenced" page you claimed above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out any such flaws you've observed? I'm certainly willing to fix any such problems that are pointed out to me. - SimonP (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You could fix the problems when you get consensus the pages are needed in the first place. We don't have every single verse of the Bible here, not every single verse of the Torah, not every single verse of the Qur'an, the Hindu texts or the Buddhist texts, so what makes Matthew so special that it needs every single verse on different pages? Seriously. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My belief is that any content that can be referenced to quality academic sources is encyclopedic. Many Bible verses unquestionably qualify, as I think a page like 7:15 demonstrates. The Gospel of Matthew is just the first that I'm working on. I do firmly believe that other holy books deserve a similar treatment, and encourage others to start work on them. There is just as much, if not more, analysis of the Koran and Torah out there and I'm sure some amazing articles would result. - SimonP (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at present, there isn't consensus on this very thread for Matthew. I do agree we should make the books of the religions public, maybe via a new Wiki...WikiReligion anyone?...but that isn't what we are here to decide. We are here to decide what to do with you because you readding information to several pages after an ArbCom decision and against consensus. You can side-step and change the subject, but you screwed up dude. As a Lutheran, I am told to forgive you but as a Wikipedian, you need to own up, take your medicine (whatever that may be) and move onto something else, which I really do think should be starting a new Wikimedia project, WikiReligion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point, no one really knows what the current opinion of the community is. I've thus created a new discussion page at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, and I hope you and everyone else will participate. By the end last time the months of debate had left a somewhat poisoned atmosphere, so I think a fresh start to everything might be very helpful. - SimonP (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of minutia in those individual articles that seems to be beyond the normal scope of wikipedia, but that could be a matter of opinion. It's interesting that it took like 3 months before anyone noticed these reversions by the admin, which suggests they are not high-traffic items. Maybe the admin could consolidate them into his userspace and come up with an encyclopedic article, instead of a cluster of articles with detailed commentary as if he were writing a New Testament version of the Talmud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The other option is that people did read them and didn't have any problem with their being in the encyclopedia. They did get a reasonable number of edits by other users, though mostly minor changes. Matthew 1:18 got 221 views last month, which is about average for a Wikipedia article. - SimonP (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article on each verse of the Bible - and while we're at it, an article on each verse (or whatever they're called) of the Quran. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I think this would be better used if an entirely new Wiki that focuses on just religion. Put the books of the Bible (Christianity), the Torah (Judaism}, the Qur'an (Islam), Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), the Analects (Confucianism), the Tao Te Ching (Taoism) and the Discourses of the Buddha (Buddhism) (and whatever books the lesser known religions use) all in one website so there is no favoritism about the site. Source the ever-living-hell out of each and every page and make it great. Doing it here, it would be just about the "English" religions and not inclusive to all the religions of the world. It needs to be a seperate website and inclusive to everyone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Lord of the Rings, we need an article about every chapter, every kind of creature, and every character from those books. But wait, I think we do! - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be thinking big on this one, but I think with people who know what they are doing, know the verses, chapters, books, etc., I think it could be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Salt

To of course prevent future disruption, these articles need to be salted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't SALT only apply to deleted articles to protect them from recreation? These articles have become redirects. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I sadly, both as an editor and a Lutheran, have to agree that SALT is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Giftiger Wunsch; salting is for deleted pages; in this case, admins might protect the pages, but it wouldn't be useful, since Simon is an admin (and, quite frankly, I see no need for that, as he is discussing right now). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been here nine years, I can assure you I'm not going to launch some 200 page revert war. - SimonP (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had no doubts whatsoever (and wasn't being sarcastic). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite overly dramatic this is. No pages are going to be protected. Prodego ^talk 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally overdramatic. -- JALatimer 04:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we just calm down here?

Hi guys! Hope you're all doing well -- Can ya'll just calm down a minute? Why are you discussing deleting these articles and giving them the Rome-on-Carthage treatment? What would be so terrible about keeping them up? It seems to me a lot of the objections to these articles could be eliminated by removing the wholesale copying of KJV text into wikipedia. But some of the articles are much longer than just the KJV text and include information that is nowhere else on wikipedia. Yet User:Neutralhomer, for example, redirects without regard to what information gets obscured or lost. No offense to you neutralhomer, I just disagree with you on this point. Personally, I think its better to keep stuff than to delete, generally. Why not try and make it better? Stub articles in this grouping seem fine for redirecting, but other, longer articles -- it's just not appropriate to delete that much labor, individual or collective. (The article I've been in conflict with you is not the sole work of User:SimonP. Yet that fact is not reflected right now in teh discussions here and elsewhere.)

My vote: Keep these articles up; then judiciously select articles that are destined to be stubs forever and redirect or delete them. No salt. No big grandstanding and yelling and shouting and saving the world and fighting for the all holy wikipedia policies necessary.

My suggestion: don't include the original text, particularly not a translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JALatimer (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, at the very least, if you redirect an article, do the hard work and make sure all the info is included in the redirected-to article. Thanks. -- JALatimer 04:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no current discussion in deleting these articles, just redirecting them. The information remains in the history of each page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the information is not visible to a normal peruser of the encyclopedia. Which amounts to de facto deletion vis-a-vis the reader. I am well aware that the article can technically be restored, as you well know. :)-- JALatimer 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be called edit-warring against consensus...and you are asking for "calm"? Let's not mess with the articles until the outcome of this and other threads. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gotta say, the one example article linked above looks pretty well-referenced to me. I don't see what the big deal is: they were redirected, the content was deleted, and someone came along and turned each redirect into a referenced article. If you want to AfD them again, in hopes of forcing a redirect, feel free. I'm simply not seeing any wrongdoing here. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I have two additional concerns: 1) The ArbCom case is from 4.5 years ago. That's an eternity in Wikipedia time! Trying to use that as some sort of a bludgeon is unsupportable. 2) Looking at Matthew 1:1, the text appears to be nominally referenced. The previous consensus was (at most) that notable Bible verses should be kept as their own articles, so by referencing multiple independent reliable sources, there is at least an argument that each particular verse is independently notable. Now, that may not stand up to scrutiny, but having seen plenty of Bible commentaries, I can agree that any arbitrary verse has offline, non-trivial mentions. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've set up Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, where we can hopefully come to some consensus on these issues that will work for everybody - SimonP (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's good to get this actually discussed. Also, note that SimonP is a sysop. Hence SALTing doesn't do anything but put salt in the wounds. (Whether they be existent or not) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Humerus pun. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If We keep these... we should not use the King James Version, or include other versions, particularly the New American Version, which as a Catholic is the version used in American Catholic Churches. That's just my $0.02. Do what you want with it, it is clear that at least some of these articles can be merged. Why not merge the stub articles into Chapters? --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: just before his block, JALatimer copypasted the content from the redirect into a new article titled "Vain repetition". -- œ^™ 21:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Both complainants - User:GregJackP & User:Minor4th has been blocked for abusing admins, per WP:OWB#37, case close!

We've got a new article in the main space that makes me more than a little uncomfortable. When Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah didn't quite go the way they envisioned it, User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th decided to create the article called Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. It's not awful, sourcing is so-so, though I think it's a coatrack. It also singles out User:William M. Connolley's arbcom sanctions and the furor over User:Durova's mailing list as examples of administrative abuse, which gives me pause. I'm tempted to speedy this myself, but have been a rather vocal about disagreeing with them over Sarah's RfC. Any thoughts on a way forward or should this go to AfD? AniMate 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy on what grounds? Minor4th • talk 03:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a speedy deletion, but was tempted to speedy it as a G-10 attack page. AniMate 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who did it attack? The article is well-sourced. There are newspaper cites, peer reviewed journals, conference papers, etc. Both Connolley and Durova were mentioned in the articles cited. The topic is notable, having been covered in multiple media sources. As an admin, you don't like the article because it points out a problem that has been here for a good while. I did not cite to Wikipedia, but there are a multitude of discussions on this very topic throughout. GregJackP Boomer! 03:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well. That was quick. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I boldly speedy deleted it under CSD#A10, as a POV duplicate of the already existing Criticism of Wikipedia, where the current title does not make a valid redirect. I expect to be desysoped for this presently, but it seemed like the best course of action here. --Jayron32 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SO much for consensus. Minor4th • talk 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand why it was speedied, but not why the current redlinked title couldn't be a redirect? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it's back? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, gone again. Without consensus--Jojhutton (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, seeing as the content was adequately sourced, I merged non-duplicated content to Criticism of Wikipedia and left a redirect. Regardless, I am sure that this is the most abusive thing an admin has ever done, and I expect to be drug before the ArbCom with demands for emergency desysoping for performing this merge. --Jayron32 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Its Horrible", "Misuse of Admin Tools", "Censoring the Wiki", and such. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think redirects need admin tools.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed the sarcasm there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How dare you, Jayron32, skip all the way to the correct result without the intervening kilobytes of empty drama? How dare you, sir? — Gavia immer (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No valid redirect is grounds for speedy now? Making it up as we go along?Minor4th • talk 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking in polemics in order to gain a moral high ground? --Jayron32 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• What material did it duplicate, or is this an attempt to bury a notable subject that does not reflect favorably on admins? GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of proves the need for the article now, doesn't it?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(ecx3)Isn't there a process for merging, especially in the middle of an AN/I on the content?Minor4th • talk 04:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)It exactly proves the point of the article. To appeal this move, do we do it here or on DRV, noting that it was under discussion here when it was summarily deleted? Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The content has been merged in toto (save for the short introductory section explaining what an administrator was) to Criticisms of Wikipedia, where you are free to edit it, and continue to expand it. --Jayron32 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • YOu are also free, without any objection from me, to undo the merge and return to the old state of affairs. I would not object to that. --Jayron32 04:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg cant you just revert the merge and partial delete? I am not sure how to do that. It was not the action in his admin capacity, it was simply an ill-conceived action related to editorial content. Minor4th • talk 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the rediret per WP:BRD to obtain consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 04:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Jayron please revert yourself until consensus is reached. That is not the kind of bold controversial content editing that should take place 30 seconds after an AN/I is opened. Minor4th • talk 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You want me to return the redirect after GregJackP already got rid of it? Wouldn't that be an edit war? I have no intention of edit warring over this issue. If you want the redirect back, why don't you put iy back? --Jayron32 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On the surface, two users who evidently had a conflict with an administrator creating an article on criticism of administrators after their complaints were not echoed by anyone else smacks of a very large WP:POINT violation. Resolute 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Totally agree about the pointiness of this. When consensus says an RfC is a bad idea and should be closed you two insist on keeping it open anyway, but for this you demand consensus. Awesome. Anyway, it's Saturday night and I'm off to kill some brain cells, but I really think an article calling out individual editors who are still contributing here is a bad idea. The article's a coatrack and we really don't need it. AniMate 04:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

All this seems to be highly ironic. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2) I am not an admin. I've restored the redirect. The article as it was, standing alone, was a totally unnecessary coatrack. All the substantive content has been merged into the proper article, and this title redirects there. There has been no hard and no foul, and all's right with the world. Your content is in a Wikipedia article, which, I assume, was your goal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin abuse!!! --Jayron32 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Thanks to GregJackP for starting the BRD process by reverting. Now lets discuss. The big issue here seems the title. The term "abuse" is a loaded word which clearly seems to violate WP:NPOV. The content seems somewhat solid (if somewhat also "navel gazing" of the sort that Jimbo has expressed his loathing of on several occasions). Could we maybe discuss a move to a more neutral title, like perhaps Criticisms of Wikipedia administrators and include a short summary section and seealso hatnote in Criticisms of Wikipedia to indicate the clear connection between the two topics? --Jayron32 04:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It was re-reverted. I don't think we're ready to move on. The article should be restored to its status at the time the AN/I was opened. Minor4th • talk 04:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of discussing the prospects for ending this conflict, such as my concrete proposal above? --Jayron32 04:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I do. I reverted it to the way it was when the AN/I was opened. I will go read the Criticism article and discuss your proposal shortly. Minor4th • talk 04:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the word "abuse" is loaded and POV-y. Suggestions for better wording? Minor4th • talk 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Would I be failing to AGF if I opined that he is possibly more interested in getting his way than any actual discussion? On the topic at hand, the only question in my mind is whether Criticisms of Wikipedia has grown large enough to require a split. If it hasn't, then the criticisms of administrators belongs there. If it has, then a discussion on a proper split is warranted. A split may very much be warranted, as that article is now nearing 120k. Personally though, I'd favour a more neutral split along content and culture lines - i.e.: rather than an article criticising one group on Wikipedia, an article discussing all aspects of the criticisms of the community, including administrators, instead. In either case, the use of "abuse" certainly is POV. Resolute 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now AfDed it. Since we couldn't move forward here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia‎ is the place to have any future discussions about it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. Can this be closed now? Or do we need to extend the drama just to fill our lonely saturday nights with entertainment... --Jayron32 04:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The AfD makes this discussion moot - that is the proper forum. Someone please close this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to need a Steward or someone to close the AFD now, since any admin on WP who dare close it would have a COI? They probably shouldn't be allowed to participate in the AFD, neither, by logical extension. –MuZemike 04:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol. By the way, I think the bit about Connolley using "his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to Lawrence Solomon, took positions that he disapproved of." - quote from Lawrence Solomon, may be a BLP violation as it is patently untrue. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

*I thought we were concerned with verifiability. not truth? Isn't that the standard, that it has been published in a reliable source? GregJackP Boomer! 05:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard is not "cherrypick info from sources which I find to be supportive of the point I am trying to make with my article" nor is it "take information from a source that is demonstratably false, merely because it is published somewhere". --Jayron32 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it demonstrably false? Minor4th • talk 05:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really agreeing that William Connelly used his admin privileges specifically to make every edit he did at Wikipedia? That all 2000 people he blocked were blocked because he disagreed with them on climate change issues? Please... You're starting to take a rediculous stance on this. Take a step back, and really listen to yourself. Merely because someone got some bit of silliness printed somewhere doesn't mean Wikipedia should repeat that silliness. --Jayron32 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This claim is clearly false and defamatory. I've removed it, per WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to include additional verifiable, reliable secondary source that discount what is recited in the article. It's wikitruth until refuted or balanced by v/r sources. Minor4th • talk 05:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but Solomon's column isn't a reliable source - he's no expert on Wikipedia, and it's ridiculous to suggest that his demonstrably false statement is any form of truth. Wikitruth indeed! It's a BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

One article on criticism of wikipedia should be sufficient to cover the topic. And we have to be real careful writing articles about wikipedia, given the obvious risk of conflict of interest or personal investment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He's published in a venue with editorial oversight with a reputation. Those are our criteria for a reliable source. This is a national newspaper. Reporters and columnists don't need to be published and recognized experts on the subject to be reliable sources otherwise we have probably thousands of newspaper sources on the encyclopedia that should be purged.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike normal WP:V criteria, WP:BLP actually is about "truth, not (just) verifiability". One of the central motivations of BLP is to avoid libel, which is a real-world legal concept and not dependent on our in-house rules. And when judging libel, it is actual factual truth that counts, not whether a claim has been made in what our internal jargon calls a "verifiable" source. If a personally damaging claim is obviously and demonstrably wrong, it must go out, no matter where and how it was published. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you can point out where that is on BLP, because after 2 read throughs I don't see that at all. I see it reference WP:V where sources speak to verifiability not "truth".--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's spelled out explicitly in the policy text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to claim it as a defense for your edit, it sure does. So you're saying you cannot source policy to support what you claimed?--Crossmr (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Libel: "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified". Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that contradicts this one? Otherwise it is your opinion that it is libel. Attributed to Solomon there is no libel even if its false. It is truly Solomon's opinion and feeling about the issue as printed.--Crossmr (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No libel even if false? Where did you get that idea? Attribution to someone else is no defense against libel. Tell us, are you actually saying that Solomon is correct? Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I said Solomon is entitled to his opinion which was given a national audience in a national newspaper with editorial oversight. Whether he is correct or not that is how he perceives the situation and his opinion has been given press and attention thus making it appropriate for the article. If there is a genuine libel issue here then WC can take it up with Solomon, the test has already been published nationally and internationally on the internet. Saying "Solomon of the National Post had this view on the situation with WC..." isn't libel. Wikipedia isn't making the statements, it is simply including high profile views on the subject in the article as we're required to do by WP:NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I left this on the AfD as well, but it's probably at least equally appropriate here:

Given that convention is to handle criticisms about a subject on that subject's article rather than in a separate article, and in fact having distinct "criticism" sections within articles is also discouraged, I would argue that both Criticism of Wikipedia and some parts of this article, should simply be merged with Wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, after reviewing all the above... I was going to say this, per WP:OWB#37: "When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. If there's a block involved, expect to see a battalion of sockpuppets in short order, making even more shrill cries of admin wrongdoing.", and WP:OWB#31: "People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves.". That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bingo! And that's how certain initial complainants end up getting "plaxicoed" or "boomeranged". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme

Resolved

 – The personal attack was dubious, not aimed at the complainant and the restriction hasn't yet been archivied or notified. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please block JBsupreme for violating (with a personal attack "you're off your rocker") in this edit 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC) the editing restriction imposed in this edit 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC), to wit: "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's stretching things a bit. I don't think that's worthy of being blocked, even though it's a little heated. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, JBSupreme doesn't seem to have been advised yet by Arbcom of the outcome of the request for amendment. And I agree with Nihonjoe, that's mild by any standard. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Agree. Clearly the user is quite vocal in his disagreement, but I wouldn't call that edit a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How about uncivil? Both that post and this later post.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a look at past events should tell us this person will not change the abusive edit summaries- in fact they have only gotten worst. The editor does not edit alot but clearly gets into conflicts almost every time they do ... Anyways we will most likely see him/her here again - as in the past - the BITE aspect here is overwhelming .Moxy (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Jeff G has some issues with this user - witness this final vandalism warning for a legitimate edit on Regina (company). Jeff G should be educated about what vandalism means, and encouraged to seek other means of resolving his problems.   pablo_hablo. 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the restriction does not come into effect until it is actually archived and the user notified by an ArbCom clerk. And of course, the proper forum then would be WP:AE. T. Canens (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• "You're off your rocker" is possibly one of the lamest claims of a personal attack that I've seen on this noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Clearly you don't frequent WP:Wikiquette alerts GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I rarely go there. But I did specify this noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I take a rather dim view of users running for AN/I or whatnot about civility matters that do not concern them in the slightest; it smacks of juvenile tattle-taling. If an admin sees that comment and feels they should take action, that's fine as that is one of the things they are appointed to take care of. Or if the target of the comment (here, Hi878) wishes to complain, then that is their right too as they are directly involved. But I don't see where Jeff G has a horse in this particular race. If it doesn't involve you, then IMO butt out, bro. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Agree; I hadn't noticed that the supposed personal attack wasn't even directed at the complainant. If the user at whom the comment was directed hasn't said they consider it a personal attack, why bring it here? I think this should be closed: there's no indication that this was a personal attack and the complainant clearly has some sort of personal motive for bringing it here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, come off it. He's not even been told about the amendment passing, but you're already trawling his contributions? Fences&Windows 19:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've boldly marked this resolved; feel free to revert if you think that was premature! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's premature. Jeff G.'s clear agenda with this particular editor may need to be addressed at some stage however.   pablo_hablo. 20:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He may have an agenda, but it's hard to dismiss his concerns outright when ArbCom has acted on them, don't you think? In this case the grounds for not blocking JBsupreme seem pretty flimsy. He was well-aware that his behavior was under scrutiny, and the comment, although mild, is still part of the pattern which ArbCom acted on, so it's hard to see the refusal to block him as anything but process-wonkery. Perhaps AE would be more attuned to the reasons for ArbCom's decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment was slightly rude, but not a personal attack, and doesn't warrant a block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Noting for the record that a WP:AE request related to the same matter has now also - in my opinion, ill-advisedly - been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JBsupreme.  Sandstein  22:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AnnaPiwo threatens to sue

Resolved

 – Blocked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall seeing an admin once blocking a user for threatening a lawsuit. If that's standard practice, then here's another one: User talk:AnnaPiwo. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to require a prompt block until the legal threat is withdrawn (editor objects to their website being on our spamlist). However, you haven't notified them of this noticeboard posting --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to, but had an edit conflict with the user's talk page due to an admin blocking the user. Is there any need now? The user would have to do much more than just discuss things here to get the block removed and the dispute resolved. My initial posting was just a "heads up". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeff G has left a notice there now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that this person was blocked so immediately yet User:Stillwaterising is still left blockless? Feedback (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Go read the thread, above and you'll see why. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The NLT issue from the day before at ANI thread-Possible_WP:LEGAL_situation - involving User:Stillwaterising - Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read and participated. No reason on why he wasn't immediately blocked has been issued. Feedback (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Because in stark comparison with the above editor, Stillwaterising did not make a statement of the form "If X, I will sue Y". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hmains and category ownership

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.

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue --Jayron32 23:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Hmains has continued to put Fort Nassau (North) and Fort Orange (and perhaps others I assume) in the Category:Forts in New York parent category on forts already in the Category:Colonial forts in New York after having been explained why the parent category is unneeded. Now Hmains has added a comment on the talk page of the Colonial forts in New York category stating- "# As you can see I just created this category and am populating it. I also created the category purpose, which is to include forts that were built during colonial times. This does not exclude the fort from being in the Category: Forts in New York category, which includes all forts built in the area of the state of New York, no matter when built or how long they lasted. And articles can be found in both a category and its parent. This is clearly explained in WP:DUPCAT. These are called non-diffusing categories. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing. If you are changing this, then your editing is incorrect and a result of your misunderstanding of the category system."

This is an egregious violation of WP:OWN and I ask an admin please step in to keep edit warring from occurring as there is no need for a fort to be part of both categories when being a fort in the NY during colonial times automatically makes it a fort of the parent category (neither fort survived past colonial times and therefore were never part of the STATE of New York).Camelbinky (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Camelbinky asked to discuss this on a talk page, and after I made one statement there, he proceeded without further discussion to post this entry here. I set up this category as a non-diffusing category as outlined in WP:DUPCAT and as I stated in the category purpose. It does not seem that Camelbinky understands or care to accept the idea of non-diffusing categories and so is making an irrelevant attack argument here. I am not claiming ownership of anything; I am just stating facts. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• A disagreement over whether a page belongs in a category and a parent category does not belong on AN/I. Have you tried to get wider consensus, for example from Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, before coming to get admin intervention against your opponent? Fences&Windows 21:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that was a function of WikiProject Categories, as most (but not all) wikiprojects tend not to have "authority" to make those decisions, but I can try there, thank you. I dont feel he is an "opponent", I just think he's someone who doesnt understand categories and I did ask him if he wanted to discuss this to take it to one of the talk pages of the articles, but instead he decided to start an edit war and make an ownership statement at the category talk page instead (ownership because it is full of the personal pronoun "I created the category" and "I decided the category scope".Camelbinky (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I too have run into Hmains and I have discussed some category issues with him but we have come to consensus about these things. Taking this here is really unnecessary. Personally, I would put the colonial category as a subcategory of the other one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (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.

Conflict of interest in editing @ Taio Cruz

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.

Resolved

 – discussion moved to more appropriate venue--Jayron32 23:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

---

OK what began as a debate over the reliability of Myspace as a source of information for WP:BLP has now escalated now that the other user involved, Musikshun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now claiming that he knows Taio Cruz personally and that he is correct in using a Myspace profile for Taio Cruz as an acceptable source of information. See the discussion here: User talk:Musikshun. The revision history speaks for itself. I have no personal vested interest in the article and it is a subject I very rarily edit. To diffuse the situation I will agree to continue to have little involvement with the article however this is definately an issue which should be resolved. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks or anything like that. You've got the wrong place. Go to WP:BLPN. Feedback (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left a COI notice for the other editor involved, but on cursory inspection it seems that the sources in the version you're reverting to don't seem to be working. The only mention I could see of the other name used the phrase "also known as" not "born as" so... there may be a possible compromise? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there could be a compromise. But the main issue here is that the other user involved is adding Myspace which is already proven to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source with the discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (see discussions here, here, here, here and here). Therefore please correct me if I'm wrong for assuming that it is wrong for editors to persistantly add content from a source which general consensus seems to disapprove of. Note not long after I made this post another user also undid Musikshun's edit [20]. Perhaps I didn't explain that well enough before. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted to that version just because myspace doesnt work as a source, but it needs a content review pretty badly at this point. -- ۩ Mask 23:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted WP:BLP Noticeboard. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2010 (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.

Request

Resolved

 – done. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please delete the egregious personal attacks left on my talk page archives by the IP User talk:72.209.204.232, and please block the user for harassment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done by the tagteam of myself (deleting revisions) and Jclemens (blocking). Carry on. --Jayron32 03:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

4 minutes...that's a fast response! N419BH 03:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

+Block notice :) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karunyan

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.

Could do with a rangeblock, but all registered socks are blocked. Oversight contacted. TFOWR 10:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Has been waiting for a check user for two days, and meanwhile he's socking again and laughing at our inability to block him. Anyone with CU available? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well someone decided to oversight those already! Also, this guy is STILL socking? Do they ever tire of this? --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He's been at it for a few months so far, so guessing he just has no life or something that he keeps doing it (and making no secret about it). Seems half of it is just his joy at taunt Wiki as a whole for its inability to block him though, despite at least two active range blocks. From one of his socks remarks, he apparently goes from hotel to hotel with a laptop to use their wifi and get around them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored out part of AnmaFinotera "request for oversight" statement. AF, please email the oversighters at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org directly for your oversight request. Please do not post such requests on-wiki, especially on a highly-watched page such as this, as it only gets more people looking at those edits, which is what we do not want. –MuZemike 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the oversighters about your request (with the email address I struck above). –MuZemike 06:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I thought they had already been oversighted? Last time I emailed that address to deal with one of his edits, it sat there for days while they argued with me over whether it met the criteria and in the end it was never removed. At least posting it here will generally get it taken care of in a more timely fashion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:54, 28 June 2010 (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:Chriscleary

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by User:Black Kite. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Chriscleary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Chriscleary is currenlt emptying a page over and over, without explanation. Evalowyn (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Block without Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise of Minor4th

Resolved

 – Block was justified; user had been warned; uninvolved admins have reviewed the block and upheld it. GregJackP (talk · contribs) also blocked per BLP-vios; block appealed and upheld. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th (talk) was inappropriately blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk). There were no user warnings issued. The matter deals with another admin who has been discussed at length in news sources, and his efforts to control global warming discussions and push his WP:POV. The initial reference was from a major newspaper but was deemed by Future Perfect as a non-reliable source. Original source was Solomon, Lawrence (December 19, 2009). "Wikipedia's Climate Doctor". Financial Post. Retrieved June 26, 2010..

Additional sources that support the material in the article, but that was not included at the time, is:

• Schiff, Stacy (July 31, 2006). "Know It All:Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?". The New Yorker. Retrieved June 27, 2010..
• Ball, Tim (Ph.D) (January 1, 2010). "Control of Climate Policies by Unaccountable Bureaucracies; The Canadian Example". Canada Free Press. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Ball, Tim (Ph.D) (February 8, 2010). "IPCC And CRU Are The Same Corrupt Organization". Canada Free Press. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Brown, Mick (October 28, 2006). "Wiki's World". Telegraph. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Brown, Mick (October 28, 2006). "Wiki's World". Telegraph. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
• Giles, Jim (December 2005). "Internet encyclopedias go head to head". Nature. 438: 900–901. doi:10.1038/438900a.
• Giles, Jim (October 2006). "Wikipedia Rival calls in the Experts". Nature. 443: 493. doi:10.1038/438900a.

There are additional articles by Solomon, carried by CBS, etc., but I have not listed those. There is clearly support for the material, and the block appears to be just an effort to silence criticism of a Wikipedia admin. GregJackP Boomer! 12:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You two starting that article just after you've tried and failed to get Sarah sanctioned as there was no case for her to answer looks very pointy to me. You could've dropped the stick, but you decided to grandstand instead. I'm not surprised that he'd get blocked for edit warring over material to do with a living person using disputed sources. Stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Fences&Windows 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block was already contested and the request for unblock was declined by another admin; the only way to overturn the block now is if consensus is reached that the block is either no longer necessary, or was inappropriate. Given that the block was mere hours ago, the only likely defence is that the block was not made per policy. I noticed that on the AfD for this article here, Minor4th indicated that he was aware that continuing to edit war on the article would lead to violation of WP:3RR, and yet I notice he made a further edit after leaving the comment. In addition, violation of 3RR is not necessary for an admin to make a short block for edit warring. I believe a 48-hour block will be sufficient to discourage the behaviour for which the user was blocked. Even if consensus overturns the block (and I see no good reason why a short block should be overturned after an edit warring offence), it's unlikely that will occur before the block expires on its own. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a BLP warning prior to the block. Minor4th has already made an unblock request. In fact, it's already been reviewed. TFOWR 13:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet no mention of the declined unblock request, no mention that the block was for a BLP violation. Why didn't you mention these, GregJackP? The issue's been discussed enough already here at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• The unblock was denied, probably because the admins don't like the tone of the article. There is appropriate sourcing for the information. The question is whether this will be a matter of retribution because the admins don't want their dirty laundry published. GregJackP Boomer!

  So the heading, "Inappropriate Block without Warning by..." was a mistake? TFOWR 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Greg, the reviewing admin left a very constructive comment in the review of Minor4th's block, and accusing multiple admins of blocking as a personal vendetta is showing a very clear failure to assume good faith. I would also like to point out that this isn't the first time I've warned you about assuming good faith. Unless you have any evidence to show that the administrators involved acted against policy, this thread is a waste of time as the block was already appealed and declined, and the user was warned before being blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  (maybe moot, ec with block) If nom were uninvolved, I'd say he "accidentally overlooked" the warning that is clearly given. I strongly advise GregJackP consider whether he wants to continue participating in building our encyclopedia or go out in a blaze of fire. DMacks (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And I also blocked GregJackP for reinstating the same BLP violations again for which Minor4th was blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And his unblock request has been declined (he says the block was just retaliation and an attempt "to shut us up". He was asking for it in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close as resolved? I believe it has been established that the claim made in this thread was incorrect; Minor4th was temporarily blocked for editwarring after a warning, and there seems to be no evidence that the block was against policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why am I not surprised it is closed? Perhaps you want to update yourself on this → WP:OWB#37~? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Clear case of admin abuse, and I particularly appreciated the shrill cries of the now-blocked sock, too. Dave1185, do you fancy closing this? You're otherwise uninvolved; Giftiger wunsch and I have both commented and should avoid closing this. TFOWR 13:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the blocks were apporopriate. FPAS is an involved party. Sole Soul (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• On that defintion of involved, any admin who removes BLP violations or vandalism cannot block an editor who re-inserts it because they are involved. Other than to enforce BLP, FPAS does not appear to be involved at all. Resolute 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Noting that the presumption here is that Sole Soul is alleging that FPAS is an involved party for that reason, otherwise evidence (or further explanation) would have been provided to substantiate the claim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Greg's edits, but we don't have a clear rule on adding negative sourced materials about BLPs, AFAIK, as opposed to vandalism and unsourced materials, and so, mistaken (but good faith) users should not worry when to treat an admin as an involved and when not to. Sole Soul (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The rule seems pretty clear: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced. TFOWR 10:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And also clear to me, what is not clear is sourced negative material as I said above. Sole Soul (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely I am not the only one who has noted the irony and hypocricy of GregJackP's repeated WP:AGF failures in light of his complaints againt Sarah... Resolute 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not, and myself and editors drawn from IRC by the {{helpme}} template commented on this and warned GregJackP about WP:AGF on the user's talk page at the time; I personally found Sarah to be very abrasive, but nothing worth dragging up an RfC over. I think GregJackP simply needs to learn to accept that conflict is an inevitable part of consensus, and that the best way of dealing with dispute is to attempt to resolve it civilly, and if that doesn't work, just move on. Exaggerating the situation and claiming breach of policy certainly isn't the way to go to avoid future dispute. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban question

GregJackP apparently only wants to finish one more article before he retires - that article being the one involved here. I suggest that given that this article is about to be either deleted or smerged (with nothing retained), and his presence is an ongoing BLP nightmare, perhaps his retirement should be made official, given the fact that the article was a disaster, and the transparent sockpuppetry is, well, transparent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be vindictive. If he wants to retire, let him. Fences&Windows 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason for such action is to protect wikipedia from disruption; if he's not going to be editing, there's no disruption. If he comes back and starts editing disruptively again, then a ban may be considered. If he decides to come back and edit constructively again only to find he's been banned/blocked from doing so, wikipedia loses out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the behavior of the authors of Administrator abuse on Wikipedia has been exemplary, but I've also seen nothing from either of them that needs indef blocking for, let alone a community ban. I hope that the probable deletion of their article will put things to rest, and they'll drop the stick and return to productive editing. If not, this issue can be revisited, but nothin's happened so far to justify a ban, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Ownage

Resolved

 – User advised to take the matter to Commons. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The uploader states that he owned and created this image when it is obviously stolen from somewhere. File:Pep.png--TwelveOz (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is hosted on commons, so we can't do anything about it here. Try tagging commons:File:Pep.png with {{copyvio|your reason here}} MER-C 12:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja's talk page conduct

Resolved

 – A combination of Zlykinskyja's continuing talk page incivility and the generally disruptive nature of her other contributions has resulted in an indefinite block, which includes the removal of her talk page editing privileges. The page is now blanked. SuperMarioMan 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since administrator MLauba imposed a month-long block for using Wikipedia as a battleground (13 June), Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) has continued to personalise and dramatise the actions of other actions on their talk page. On 22 June, FormerIP raised legitimate grounds for a sockpuppeteering investigation concerning the user, and apologised for potential distress when the result proved to be negative. Zlykinskyja's response to the investigation went beyond refuting the case at hand to making personal attacks and casting hostile aspersions on FormerIP and other editors, as the edits here demonstrate. The text of the sockpuppet case is now prominently displayed on the talk page, with FormerIP's apology ignored. Editors including FormerIP are referred to as a "pro-guilt/anti-Amanda Knox group" with relation to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which discusses the conviction and imprisonment of Amanda Knox. A request from Pablo X to amend such remarks about other editors has been dismissed as "harassment", while subsequent pleas from Pablo X and FormerIP have been removed due to illegitimate claims of "insults and attacks". When I noted assertions on the talk page which misrepresented myself and another user, the section was again removed and, far from revert or strike through the unfounded allegations (which concern multiple users besides just me), Zlykinskyja simply substituted my username into the text of their response to the sockpuppet investigation, despite the irrelevance of the paragraph to the matter in question and the innaccuracy of the accusations detailed.

I would have added a message about all this to the blocking administrator's talk page, but MLauba appears to be on a Wikibreak. As it is currently presented, Zlykinskyja's talk page is a series of vitriolic swathes of texts which vilify other users, which I do not consider to represent civil behaviour that is expected of a Wikipedia contributor. There is surely no justification for posting baseless allegations on a Wikipedia page, even if a user is currently blocked and unable to edit any other areas of the site. No diffs are provided to substantiate claims in the response to the sockpuppetry investigation. I'll leave the content of other areas of the page (such as sections on BP and "anti-Americanism") for others to judge, but could an administrator please firmly warn Zlykinskyja about their actions? In my opinion, however, the threshold for the removal of talk page editing privileges has unambiguously been crossed. Thank you. (I shall inform Zlykinskyja, FormerIP and Pablo X of this report.) SuperMarioMan 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I won't do this myself, as I'm previously involved, but someone really needs to go through that page, remove all the personal attacks (that could take a while, frankly), also remove all the WP:SOAPBOX content (mostly at the top and bottom of the article), and remove talkpage access for the remainder of the block. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not caused significant distress by the contents of Zlykinskyja's talkpage. However, I think that Zlykinskyja has gotten very much into a battleground frame of mind and is unhealthily (perhaps slightly masochistically) dwelling on perceived conspiracies against him/her whilst serving the current block. On the one hand, taking away the facility to use his/her talkpage in this way might actually be helpful to the user. On the other hand, it may increase his/her sense of victimhood. So I have no recommendation. I don't take any pleasure at all in Zlykinskyja's unhappiness, but he/she is a very disruptive editor and ought to get out of blaming other users for the consequences of that. --FormerIP (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja has complained a number of times that other editors involved in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article are anti-American, and has asked for an American admin to look into the matter, but apparently no-one has been willing. It might be helpful if someone felt able to oblige. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. You don't get to ask for a referee from your hometown. It would be chaos if editors with a nationalist POV could demand that there case only be looked by admins of their nationality. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, please be assured that I was making no attempt to speak for your feelings, just to report what precisely has been going on during the last few days. On a side note, if piecing together all the diffs in the original report is too time-consuming, I offer this as a fair summing up of the majority of the civility problems that I perceive: claims of victimhood interspersed with attacks (genuine ones), gross misrepresentation of other Wikipedia users, woefully inaccurate assumptions (I don't know where Zlykinskyja got the idea that I support Knox's conviction, since to my memory I have expressed no personal opinion, which is irrelevant in any case. I have also made precisely zero edits to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.), a hostile partisan atmosphere drawn up on the basis of nationality and UK/US/European divisions, dredging up past comments from users to provide "evidence" that the current contributors to the page are anti-American, tired accusations of censorship, harassment and bullying, a vociferous objection to all who dare to question their multiple violations of multiple Wikipedia policies, and, in general, blowing out of all reasonable proportion the perfectly sensible actions of other editors. That this user has responded to evidence of attacks (see the diffs) with yet more attacks (natually, with no support from diffs) indicates their sheer lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions on the collegial spirit of Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By "just for the record", I meant to register that I didn't feel that I was being caused any harm by the talk page diatribe. I didn't mean it in a "ahem, let me speak for myself" type way, Mario, and I don't see anything wrong with the way you reported the details. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Briefly: - I am personally annoyed with the behaviour of this user and how he/she portrays other eeditors on the talkpage, particularly claims that various editors belong to agenda-driven 'groups'. However, any attempt to change this behaviour is seen as harrassment. The user is currently blocked, so what is an admin to do?. Well, it would be nice if someone were to have a word, however this will most likely be seen as more harassment.   pablo_hablo. 23:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talk:

The information I posted on my Talk page was posted there due to the fact that I was blocked, but was involved in an unjustified sock puppet investigation. There was no other way for me to respond to the false sock puppet charges. There had also just been a prior charge a few days earlier. This also necessitated a response on my Talk page. As the situation is rather complicated and I am currently blocked, and SarekOfVulcan has been gracious enough to post this here at ANI, I would just ask that for my further comments in this matter, that everyone please counsult my Talk page, which is the only place I can speak at all on Wikikpedia due to a very long one month block. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusions of User:SuperMarioMan about Zlykinsyja's use of their talk page while blocked. Unless Zlykynskyja is willing to remove all content arguments about Meredith Kercher from their talk page, and all complaints about persecution by editors or admins who they believe have the wrong nationality, I suggest that Zlykinskyja should be blocked from the page for the remainder of the one-month block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Zlykinskyja

I'm rather involved in this entire matter and am no fan of Zlykinskyja's, as I fear most of you know; however, it actually makes me sad to see her feeling as if she was being poked. If she accepts and if there's consensus here, I propose to change her sanction to:

• restriction to only edit the talk page of the article about Meredith's murder for the remainder of the month;
• mentorship by a fellow editor in good standing of her choice;
• civility parole for no less than three months.

Keeping on blocking her for longer periods of time doesn't help, in my opinion, because she thinks she is doing nothing wrong. It only makes her belief that she is being censored stronger. I think we should deal with this editor differently, trying to get someone she trusts to explain her why this community tends to react the way it does — that is to say, badly — and how to avoid further blocks. Do you think it would be acceptable? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• No comment (yet) on the above proposal; off-hand it looks good but I've only skimmed Zlykinskyja's talk page and the issue at hand. One additional comment I would make is: Zlykinskyja appears to have a concern about non-American admins. Speaking as a non-American admin I'm surprised, and naturally regard the concerns as being without merit. However, as a means of addressing and resolving Zlykinskyja's concerns, I have no objection to any American admin assisting Zlykinskyja. (Why should I?) I'd personally be prepared to recuse myself on grounds of nationality until Zlykinskyja was satisfied that we all strive for WP:NPOV. (This is in no way intended to set a precedent: I reject the basic premise that an admin's nationality necessarily has any bearing on their work). TFOWR 11:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think it could be helpful for an American editor to try and mentor her, but I'd be concerned at the suggestion that she thinks we have taken sides and wants the involvement of admins from what she perceives as her side. In the case of this article we have a dead Brit and an Italian court jailing some people including an American. I like to think that any of our admins could get involved in this case, but as a Brit I wouldn't be offended if an editor asked that the relevant admins not be British, Italian or American. I'm not offended by her request for an American admin, but I'd have been much more impressed if she'd asked for one for one from a "neutral" country. So as for the proposal, I'd agree with the mentorship, disagree that the community tends to react badly, and disagree about confining her to the talkpage of the contentious article. I'd be happy to end the current block early if she agrees to a period of editing collegially on a completely different topic, and taking a break from this particular murder. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I realise I worded the first point in a terrible way and it may mean all but what I had intended; I meant to say that she can edit all articles she wants, except the one about Meredith's murder; in that case, though, she still can edit its talk page. Re-reading, I see it was a blunder on my part; so, anyone willing to help might assist me in saying what I wanted to say. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily against your proposal, Salvio, but it does strike me as being a reduction on the current sanction - should Zlykinskyja be rewarded in that way right now? On the other hand, some sort of mentorship might be effective (although it would require an admin to put in the necessary time and effort. I know of one case where mentorship plus a lengthy 0RR restriction did seem to have positive results. I think Elen of the Roads makes a valid point about the dangers of allowing users to ask for a particular nationality or whatever of admin. Imagine if this was allowed on Middle East articles. --FormerIP (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think Elen of the Roads makes a valid point about the dangers of allowing users to ask for a particular nationality or whatever of admin. Imagine if this was allowed on Middle East articles. It must never be allowed to happen. I think in this case, however, we're well before that stage. There isn't an entrenched "US editor vs. European editor" mentality surrounding the case, just one (or two) problematic editors. I'd certainly trust US admins to edit, protect and take other admin actions with this article: that's a degree of trust which I might not have at more WP:POV-orientated articles. TFOWR 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose one way you could distinguish this case is that other involved editors are not objecting to a US admin being asked for (whereas in something like a ME article they probably would). --FormerIP (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think we're just rewarding this editor. We've been down this road before: she was blocked twice for one month (in the first instance, it was sockpuppetry, in the second disruptive editing or something like that, I haven't checked) and yet she did not change her editing habits. She just came back from her block and behaved just as if nothing had happened in the meantime. That's why I think we should change our approach to this matter. Since blocks do not seem to help, my opinion is that we could give a crack at something else, to see if it works. That's why I proposed mentorship (coupled with a civility parole, because I wouldn't want to come back in a week, complaining about this editor's attacks). This user is well-meaning, she is not a vandal; she really thinks she is trying to improve the article. She just goes about it the wrong way, in my opinion (and, if I may say so, she should grow a thicker skin). That's why I think mentorship might help. And, if it doesn't, there's always time to adopt stricter sanctions. At least, we will have tried. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio that blocks do not appear to be encouraging the user to amend their (her?) behaviour. Prior to her standing one-month restriction, on 14 May MLauba imposed a two-week block with the proviso that "Once you return from your block, you are strongly advised to unwatchlist the above article and find other topics to edit" (i.e. outside the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic). An increasingly belligerent series of nationalistic attacks led to the removal of access to her talk page the next day, and still the page is home to insinuating remarks of a comparable "United States v. United Kingdom and the rest of Europe" slant, which still pertain in part to the Kercher case. The user appears to be drawn to high-profile, highly-charged topics well-documented in both the British and American media: first Kercher and the subsequent conviction and imprisonment of American student Amanda Knox, now BP and the (as yet unresolved) situation in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (see these sections of the current page). She seems to require that any intervening administrator present their personal opinion on the case, as if personal opinion were at all relevant to the production of an impartial encyclopaedia. In particular, it is concerning that within the timeline of this ANI discussion, she has pestered the administrator who transferred her response to this page for their view of the perceived bias against American editors ("But what about the anti-American issue?") Judging from the quotations that she has pulled from the Kercher article history and outside newspaper sources (see sections linked above), the user has a propensity for sweeping generalisation about nationalities (for one thing, how reasonable is it to suggest on the flimsiest of evidence that all Britons hate Amanda Knox with a passion?) How nationalities are perceived in the media of different countries is a side issue or a metatopic which is well beside the issues that Wikipedia is duty-bound to document.

In conclusion, since there appears to have been no meaningful change in the user's attitude to editing, I agree that a different approach is required, hence I support the proposals of mentorship and strict monitoring of civility. However, I feel that altering or lifting the one-month block so soon is too lenient: this particular block has succeeded one of a shorter duration, and when MLauba set the first, he unequivocally warned Zlykinskyja about the consequences of resuming such conduct in future. SuperMarioMan 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, if past behaviour can be used to hypothesize about future one, this block risks being not too useful (granted, it's preventative, in that it prevents her from disrupting the article further, but once it expires we'll back to square one); so, we should try to get her to accept mentorship and the civility parole, to try to make it palatable to her, more than it would be to make her sit out her block, and on top of that, accept further limitations. However, I very well understand your point and if my proposal were to be accepted, we should make it very clear that she's not getting away scot-free with her accusations and personal attacks, but that we've just decided to give her a second chance to see if she can understand what it means to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, perhaps rescinding the block is indeed a reasonable idea. Certainly it would send out a message that Zlykinskyja's suggestions on the Kercher/Knox topic are welcome, on the condition that she is mentored and monitored to ensure no further incivility problems in her contributions. "Reform, not punishment". I don't really have much experience on the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page or any sort of long-running dispute with this user — I came to ANI primarily just to have the unsubstantiated talk page claims about me and a number of other editors withdrawn (although this still hasn't happened). SuperMarioMan 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja has no unblock request currently on their page. If they would begin an unblock dialog, and offer some concessions about their future behavior, we might have something to work with. To request unblock, they should use {{unblock|Their reason here}}. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that her ongoing behaviour such as this is not encouraging. Rather than deleting her words that others object to, she simply deletes their objection and leaves her offending words in place. If there was actually some indication that she wanted to change then there might be some cause for hope, but at present I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• So now what? The editor in question is not willing to remove their uncivil comments and allegations against fellow editors on their talkpage and neither shows interest in an conditional unblock as laid out above in this thread, at least for now. Time for an uninvolved admin to step up/in?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. I would remove the comments myself if I were not the initiator of this discussion. There has been little activity from Zlykinskyja since 24 June. SuperMarioMan 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

right, well this is not going to resolve itself, but good news - apparently Godwin will be sorting it out, in the fullness of time, when the user presents all his/her evidence of harassment etc which has been mentioned but not delivered so many times before.   pablo_hablo. 18:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• My God, this user is persistent. See this unbelievable edit. No commentators in this discussion appear to be disputing that there is material on the talk page which should be removed, and I have set out my proposals on which sections should be excised here in the hope of gathering a consensus. The circus that is this user's talk page must be brought into line now. SuperMarioMan 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  I fear I have to admit I was wrong; this user really doesn't seem interested in trying to get along with other peacefully; at this point, I'll support any action taken by an uninvolved admin. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've arrived rather late at this discussion! But, just to check my understanding, presumably Pablo's posting, above, means that Michael Godwin (Wikipedia legal counsel) will be sorting out Zlykinskyja's claims of harassment, but we are still in need of an uninvolved admin to address SuperMarioMan's concerns about Z's talk page, which is the subject of this AN/I debate. Bluewave (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can be sure that MG will be "sorting out Zlykinskyja's claims of harassment". He will presumably reply to the email, though. Sorry for splitting hairs, but I think it would be the case that any harassment claims will remain a matter for the community unless MG thinks they raise a legal issue. --FormerIP (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my above statement, which was someshat tongue-in-cheek; I don't think that there is anything for legal counsel to sort out even if Zlykinskyja Esquire's memorandum is ever completed. It is not the first time that diffs or evidence (of harassment, anti-Americanism and other things) have been threatened promised by this user, however there's never somehow enough time. I'm keen on reading the memorandum if/when it emerges.   pablo_hablo. 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja indef block review

I think I'm uninvolved enough to meet the criteria here, and I am an American admin, so I've increased the block length to indefinite, removed her access to her talk page, blanked the rest of the page, and provided her with the address for unblock-en-l, to be used when she's willing to edit within community norms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I'm sorry, because I hoped we could solve it in some other way, but I see she is not willing to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. After six month of behavior problems with this editor there is little or no hope they will change.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Per Salvio and TMCK, and noting my hope that there will be an unblock request that addresses the community's concerns. TFOWR 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Why not try letting her edit via a mentoring agreement? You can even think of she being blocked while allowed to communicate via email with an appointed mentor who can make edits on her behalf if they are deemed to be appropriate. Note that some time ago there was a big consensus here to block User:Wikifan12345. I was the only one here to propose a mentoring agreement, others dismissed my suggestion by making comments like: "Are you going to volunteer mentoring him?". But what heppend since that time is that Wikifan is back from his ban and has caused the same type of problems that led to his ban. So, nothing has been done at all to address his behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This was already proposed (above) with the editor in question showing no interest.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would still support mentoring - presumably this remains a possibility if Zlykinskyja requests an unblock, and presumably an unblock is likely to be granted if Zlykinskyja agrees in good faith to mentoring. --FormerIP (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I regret that it has had to come to this, but this user has been given quite enough chances to amend their disruptive behaviour. Efforts to attempt a different approach have been futile. SuperMarioMan 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Wikipedia is not a good place for a person who holds such strong views on a controversial topic. See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs. We do have some opinionated people working on our articles. But an editor who never lets up on the stream of rhetoric, and claims victimization by a gang of editors with the wrong opinion about Amanda Knox's guilt, or the wrong nationality, is hard to tolerate. If you want diffs, just behold this editor's talk page prior to the blanking. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Count Iblis. If the editor showed no interest before, maybe now, when the indefinite block is a very real possibility, they will. I believe we should try one more time. In any case I believe her talk page access should be granted. Indefinite block and removing talk page access were made at the same time, but any convict should have the right for the last statement. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. With regret, I can't see an alternative. Mentoring would only work if the person accepted that there was a problem with their behaviour and was prepared to listen to advice. As it is, the editor is convinced that they are in the right, and that a whole bunch of editors, including several admins, are all conspiring to harass them (hence the memorandum that they are sending to Michael Godwin). They weren't even prepared to remove offensive material from their talk page, when requested politely or when threatened with admin action. But the editor could still request an unblock and could propose a mentoring agreement as part of that request. Such a request would presumably be considered on its merits. Bluewave (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block. This is an editor who has wasted an awful lot of time turning her interests into a battleground, and has ignored suggestions, blocks, and direct advice. Indef is not permanent of course, she still has options. Now, however, she won't be able to take time away from productive editors. Dayewalker (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Waldoalvarez00

Waldoalvarez00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Studiodan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can somebody please have a word with User:Waldoalvarez00 regarding his repeated deletion of images from the Circumcision article, and for this rather delightful message on my talk page? Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Exploding Boy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I make a public challenge to you. Can you point out were i did the personal attack? I remind you something. I will take a fragment from: Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." So you are in fact personally attacking me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DUCK! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note for the editor; I'll keep an eye on the page for his activity and if it continues will deal with him. (Don't expect me to deal with any of the other issues that crop up there, though. I'm not crazy. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I give it a fairly wide berth normally. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

nice to see this issue nipped in the bud. Good to see it dealt with before it comes to a head. I know, I should just cut it out but i am too busy amusing myself. Carry on. --Jayron32 05:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Groan...Exploding Boy (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd give you a tip for that, but it might be taken out of context. ... okay, that's bad. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me all too much of high school, especially last year =P. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Moan... =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I keep getting yanked into these kinds of debates, but that page has some other edit warrior who has decided that the word "uncircumcised" is "hate speech" and keeps changing it to "non-circumcized". I think he's in violation of 3RR by now, but I just wonder what should be done about that nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• What would Groucho have said~? *✄ ✄ ✄* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, but he might have come up with a pun on the word mohel. Meanwhile, check out this guy's user page[21] which is certainly unusual in that it consists entirely of a lengthy essay about circumcision. Mr. Rogers might say, "Can you say obsessed?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He's just being a dick! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 22:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan continues to edit war and has broken 3RR. I've taken him to AIV, and if they won't do anything about it, maybe someone else will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of tendentious editing as it looks like consensus is against him. I'd endorse a short-term block for disruption and edit-warring if he persists. -- œ^™ 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If I had encountered Studiodan by way of the report at WP:AN3 I would most likely have blocked them. As it is, I came via WP:AIV and didn't look too closely at the times of the edits, preferring instead to warn the editor. Studiodan appears to have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and believes that "uncircumcized" constitutes "hate speech". Several editors have tried to assist them in their quest for clue; however, with no apparent success. I've told Studiodan that any more edit warring, any more claims that other editors are engaging in "hate speech", will result in a block. TFOWR 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan has now been put on ice for a week, although it's doubtful he's ever going to understand what the issue is. Waldoalvarez00 has not edited in a couple of days now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Lucy-marie is troublesome.

Lucy-marie (talk · contribs · logs) is a troublesome user. I came across a few of her edits on an article and I don't believe they are in good faith. Yesterday, she reverted another user's edits, claiming that they were not supported with a reliable source. This was false, as the edits in question were sourced, and the source was from an official website. After thoroughly examining all subsequent edits and making sure this was indeed erroneous, I restored the edits that she had removed. I have examined her contributions and she doesn't have a good record here on Wikipedia. She has been blocked for suspected sockpuppetry in the past and has received several complaints from other users on her talk page for similar incidents, which involves attacking editors on articles, falsely reverting their edits and pointing out that the edits were not sourced, or when they were, the source was not reliable. When I and other users have tried to discuss it, she either ignores our comments or speaks to us in an uncivil tone, failing to admit that she is wrong. Another suspicious activity she regularly seems to take part in is removing comments from her talk page.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Top_Gear_test_track&diff=prev&oldid=369817788

Have a look at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Lucy-marie and her user talk page.

Also, it appears she is using anonymous IPs to agree with her on articles. When I confronted her about the reversion she made to a constructive edit, she told me that there was proof it wasn't a reliable source, in the form of another user, two minutes later, editing the same article and agreeing with her. Again, she has been accused of doing this before.

I don't know what to do about this user, but evidence shows that she has been warned, however, she refuses to admit that she has done anything wrong. I don't know what needs to be done, but what she's doing has to stop. Shannon! talk 00:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be more specific. Please provide links to edits and explain why is wrong with them. Otherwise you are best to resolve disputes through content WP:DR first. You do not explain whether you have done this. TFD (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff I posted above is one of the examples. She reverted an edit, claiming that it was not a reliable source when, in fact, it was. This isn't the first time she's done something like this, as you can see on her talk page. It's filled with complaints, thus, I feel that actions should be taken. She's been on Wikipedia long enough to know that what she is doing is wrong, yet she plays it off as if it's nothing. Shannon! talk 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable people may disagree on the reliability of sources. There is no "reliable source God" which deems that some source is reliable always; might I suggest that you ask why they think the source is unreliable, and perhaps also seek to find alternate sources which may be more acceptable? --Jayron32 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that the edit summary she left in your diff states that blogs are unreliable; that's generally true. I would recommend finding a more reliable source. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor she was most in dispute with on this particular matter. She assumed because it was a "blog" it was therefore unacceptable. She was not willing to take any notice of the fact it fell within WP:NEWSBLOG and was the official production team blog for Top Gear, so please can you not make the same false assumption as her, Wunsch. The word "blog" is unhelpful here, and Wiki's policy relates more to unofficial, fan-generated content, eg on personal blogs. I noticed that she cited an anon user as agreeing with her that "my source had been proven incorrect" despite explaining my edit to her - in fact it was my source (the TG production team blog) that had proven the existing one (Top Gear Magazine) incorrect! She has also refused to respond to discussion, instead citing that it should be on the article's talk page not hers (it's more relevant to her editing style than the specific article's content), and just re-stating her (incorrect) point rather than acknowledging anything. Halsteadk (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

After responding to Halsteadk on thier talk page the following comments were left by the user "I can't be bothered any more. You clearly can't be bothered to address my valid point and I have better things to do with my time. And by Sunday evening it will all be academic anyway." In my opinion that ended the discussion. --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Though it seems the blog is acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG, it also appears to be a primary source, and ultimately third-party sources are recommended; in any case, given that the dispute is simply over whether or not a source is reliable, why not find an additional source? It'd take less time than this whole unpleasant process has taken, assuming that it is notable enough for additional supporting sources to be found. Note that I wasn't making any assumptions about the source, I was simply pointing out that the edit summary in the diff justified her edit and at the least demonstrated that it was made in good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this issue looks to me like a content dispute. I don't think there's anything requiring admin attention at the moment and, in my opinion, you should take this up on WP:RSN or give a go at mediation. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Salvio. Should this be closed as not requiring admin attention? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say a few things here. I am a regular editor and do not engage in any of the above claims against me. I do not edit using anonymous IP addresses and that can be checked, if necessary but is wholly a pointless exercise. I would also like to state that the Suspected Sockpuppet case was nearly three years ago. Also the level of comments left on my talk page is relatively minimal for a user who edits on a regular basis. The reason I remove some user comments is when the user posts "warnings" or "this is what should be done" messages. That is because I am familiar with the rules and find it insulting to have them posted on my talk page. I would also like to point out that the user who bought this complaint is acting in a troll like fashion because I have posted a comment on their user page they have disagreed with. The user has not contacted me or initiated any form of DR or even basic talking before posting here. I find this user to be far too quick to jump the gun and is therefore a flawed editor who I believe was hastily given Rollback and reviewer rights. I would also like to state this is a content dispute and nothing else. I will not post the same edit summary when reverting after I have posted an edit summary for an identical edit. Also the majority of comments on my talk page refer to content of articles and not to inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. I now believe that this editor may be acting in bad faith towards me and could potentially be a previous user who has disagreed with me in the past. It is the initiation of discussion like this one which drives away the dedicated editors who are not scared to be bold in their edits.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be some co-ordination here between the two users involved please see [22] and [23] I am suspicious as it is a third user editing on a talk page discussion between two users on a user talk page which rarely happens. This has happened on my talk page and on Fair Shannon. I would like to though end this discussion as it appears to be innapropriate in nature, unconstrictive and highly overblown with baseless threats made against me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am now very suspicious of the user who bought this complaint, the user is far too knowledgeable of Wikipedia procedure to be a new user and has a very close relationship with the editor I reverted, the user who bought this complaint has now changed their user name. I am suspicious of the activates being undertaken here as they do not appear to be the activities of a new user or a users who edit in good faith. They just dont follow a "normal" behaviour pattern. There may be an innocent explanation but the level and speed at which my history was trawled through and spread. The speed at which this was bough and the whole nature of this situation strikes me as very very suspcious. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming an account is hardly suspicious, especially when it's less than two yearsmonths old. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

Some eyes on the Robert Byrd page will be necessary through the day as it was reported about 10 minutes ago that he has passed away at the age of 92, so there is likely to be the general vandalism to the page that comes with any death. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The article's currently under PC1 protection (which IMHO is good for low traffic articles, especially BLPs). However, I'd suggest if editing picks up any more you consider requesting semi-protection instead. (Oh, and I've watchlisted it, too: other reviewers may wish to also watchlist it). TFOWR 10:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the place. WP:AN would have been appropriate, but this is for particular incidents. Not future speculated ones. Feedback (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

68.222.36.196 (talk · contribs) decrementing seniority of Senators

Resolved

 – User invited to create an account. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is vandalism or what, but 68.222.36.196 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing all the articles on U.S. Senators and subtracting 1 from the number of years seniority listed in the seniority template. Yworo (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be because Robert Byrd, the most senior Senator, died today. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is not a vandal, he's actually very diligent; write on his talk page that he should be an editor. Feedback (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I thought there might be a reason, even though none was given in edit comments. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Revdel request

Resolved

 – Offensive revision has been deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:PeterSymonds — the offensive move log entry. There are tons of these elsewhere within Wikipedia, but PeterSymonds has recently deleted his user page and the move log entry is prominently visible. PleaseStand ^(talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm.. what was done? Feedback (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(del/undel) 09:28, 22 February 2009 Sembia (talk | contribs | block) (log action removed) (edit summary removed) <-- –xeno^talk 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What, if anything...

Resolved

do we do about stuff like this? -- Rrburke (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert as improper use of humour, addition of unsourced content, or WP:CRYSTALBALL: take your pick. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And RevDel in cases like that probably doesn't hurt, so done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey back at it again

Resolved

 – Arbitration Enforcement Request filed by Pfagerburg. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Linuxmdb

Check the contribs, I mean, he's not even trying to hide anymore (MDB) == Merkey DeBugger SPI the user. Ban the account.

He's banned, not indef blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And his IP address which just happens to end in Utah. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/tracert/?tool_id=68&ip=71.219.59.226 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:RhodiumArmpit is going around, blanking pages that he feels this Merkey fellow created. This is the wrong approach. This user should be using the speedy deletion tag system, or AfD.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them as a very obvious alternative account. They can use their main account to edit these pages if they wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:RhodiumArmpit is an obvious sock of banned user User:Vigilant, and therefore should be blocked per WP's long-standing rules. But don't shoot the messenger and disregard the warning just because Vigilant was a pain the the WP:Arse. User:Linuxmdb's edit history should make his real-life identity obvious. Will you apply the policy on socks of banned users evenly, or are all editors equal, but some are more equal than others? Pfagerburg (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I might be the wrong venue anyway. I have submitted (yet another) Arbitration Enforcement Request. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy, WP:Legal

Resolved

 – No legal threat was made, nothing for admins to do - Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

An on-going discussion has been taking place in an informal moderation case.[24] The moderator just advised users to stop editing the article. He said

"This is an issue that extends well beyond the confines of this article, or even Wikipedia, and as an individual with no official links to the Wikimedia foundation, I simply do not feel comfortable leaving such a poteltially litigious issue in the hands of individuals without legal protection." [25]

I'm not aware of any reasons that users should stop editing the article or of any legal threats that have been made. Can we find out what the moderator's concerned about? harlan (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you ask them directly for clarification? Admins may have extra abilities at Wikipedia, but mind reading isn't usually among our extra tools we are granted. --Jayron32 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have the 'read mind' button? It's right between 'block user' and 'summon dancing girls.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am the moderator in question, my primary concern regards the heated nature of the content, while no legal threats have been made, I see potential for them, and have decided, in shameless self intrest, to cover my a#$ and refer to formal mediation, where any legal threats that might arise can be dealt with properly. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. Might I consider this issue resolved then? --Jayron32 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats aren't generally allowed. Can we get a clarification posted that users are allowed to edit the article? harlan (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not making a legal threat. He's saying he fears legal problems for himself, and is washing his hands of the issue. Might I suggest that a) you voluntarily (with no force of anything except your own sense of decency) refrain from editing the article while it is under dispute and b) that you follow up with the request to move forward with formal mediation? This suggestion is based on a reasonable set of steps to resolve the problem, and not on any legal problems. Its merely best practice to stop editing during a dispute, and if the informal mediators tells to to take it to formal mediation, well, take it to formal mediation. --Jayron32 03:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pornbio / BLP / Libel

Resolved

 – Article is at AfD, people are watching the article - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to address this issue, but I will be logging off shortly so I wanted to link it from ANI so that others could keep an eye on it. See Talk:Donny Long for more details.  7  10:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:BLP but I shan't be abused, sworn at or shouted at. I have told the user to use the existing policy, and not to be abusive. There isn't anything in the current revision that appears unsourced. I'm sure we can keep an eye on it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this and revert the worst offences; I'm sure the user will eventually get the message that we're not going to listen to shouted threats. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This guy means business; keeps vandalizing templates and apparently knows how to IP-hop ad nauseum. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the close to zero educational value of the BLP and the trouble it is causing, I would support deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. But the vandalizing and yelling has to stop first; then I'll be all for trying to sort this out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree; we have politely explained what he can do to resolve the situation per policy, and until he starts to behave like a reasonable human being I don't intend to do anything to resolve the situation other than remove his vandalism. I haven't looked at the article in question as I have only recently been made aware of this incident, but if an AfD is opened at one point I'll take a better look and consider whether or not the article should be kept. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was reverting as fast as I could with Huggle when this character was going nuts... he IP-hopped at least half a dozen times and committed at least a one hundred acts of vandalism. Whatever you do with this article, the person behind it needs an indef block so as not to eat up any more of our time and energy. This isn't the way to file a complaint. Jusdafax 17:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone suggested to this guy to try contacting OTRS? I would, but I'll be buggered if I can find a contact e-mail for them. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• On camera?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, that was an unintentional and somewhat unfortunate pun, wasn't it? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at cleaning the BLP up a bit as per his objections but there was little independant coverage and the subject is objecting so I sent to to AFD for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Avargas2001 (3)

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

24 hours after his last block expired this user is back recreating the same articles as before. See here for renewed personal attacks.

Last time he was told that if he continued problematic behaviour he could expect to be indeff'ed without warning. I now suggest that this warning be acted upon.

See previous reports here and here, notes on talk page (as editor has a habit of blanking his talk page) for details.

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified here and has now also removed a speedy template here. Repeated removal of speedy deletion templates in exactly this manner was part of the problematic behaviour last time around. Pfainuk talk 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He's been notified, warned and even blocked before and yet the user is still being disruptive? Well I suggest a longer block. Probably a 1-week block. After that, if he would continue, an indef. block should be issued. Feedback (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He's had two one-week blocks already. As I say, last time around we told him that he could be blocked indef without warning if he continued to be disruptive when he came off the block. Which he is now doing. I might also note that he has now vandalised Falkland Islands three times [26] [27] [28], the second two with personal attacks thrown in, the third after a final warning for vandalism. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Avargas2001 indefinitely for disruptive editing. Any administrator should feel free to lift this block if consensus develops to do so, or they feel the user will not continue with their pattern of disruption. –xeno^talk 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Though note that attacks have continued on his talk page. Pfainuk talk 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno^talk 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone delete the offensive edits from the talk page history? N419BH 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the two worst edits. Fences&Windows 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block request (and question)

Can someone please block User:Brickriver2 as an obvious sockpuppet of User:FrameWave20/User:Sfdrag? The original sockpuppetry case was filed under the name of a user who was shown by checkuser to be uninvolved. I asked about the best way to proceed with this on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations but received no reply - any suggestions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs or any evidence of how and why it is obvious? Feedback (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What he said. Fences&Windows 20:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed a quick look at the user's contributions and the SPI case would have been sufficient. Perhaps this will help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

They've edited Wolf Hudson filmography, Wolf Hudson, L.A. Zombie, Grabby Awards, and Diesel Washington, which the previous editor had edited, and also Cybersocket Web Awards, which they hadn't. As an overlap in editing isn't surefire (as in the SPI you link to), shouldn't this go to SPI? I'd start a new case under Sfdrag, as that was the earliest account, and remind them they need to rename that other SPI. Fences&Windows 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Two words: Wolf Hudson. Get it now? I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to take it to SPI except I suspect this isn't the last sockpuppet we'll see. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential abuse of multiple accounts?

Ok here's the thing. Ratizi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass reverting the file uploaded at: Hush hush; hush hush.jpg as seen here ([29]) to an incorrect version. Numerous attempts to question the conduct were made here. It hadn't occured to me until today when I examined things closer that some of the revisions were made by Ratizi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - too much of a coincidence? Also note that User:Ratizi1 redirects to User:Ratizi but the talk pages for the two accounts remain seperate. Is this not an abuse of multiple accounts? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are they doing anything listed at WP:ILLEGIT? --Chris (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts although in this case its the same file. Both accounts have been used to revert the cover art to an incorrect version. (inspite of recieving a recent warning and request for explaination). Its obvious that both accounts are active... is there any legimate reason for having two active accounts? The contribs show that Ratizi has been active from November 2006 to June 28 2010 whilst Ratizi1 is active from March 2007 to March 2010. There is a lot of overlap which in itself requires questions to be asked. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the sockpuppetry page, it does list a few reasons where an alternate account may be acceptable. In this case, I'm guessing that for security reasons the user has one account for public computers and another one for his/her personal computer. The names make it pretty clear to me that these accounts are intended to be the same person. N419BH 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... even if that is that case it doesn't excuse the use of both accounts to revert an article/file back to previous versions which are incorrect and to disobey requests not to do so. He/she has failed to respond to discussion and therefore his/her actions are disruptive. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That I can agree with. However, having multiple accounts is not necessarily disruptive. Have you attempted to discuss this issue with the user on relevant talk pages? N419BH 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, this case should be taken primarily as a behavioral issue and not a sock issue. It's easy enough to block both accounts if a block is deemed necessary. --Chris (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

IP user (173.32.162.12) with repeated history of vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked two weeks

The IP user 173.32.162.12 has a long history of vandalism - their talk page is littered with warnings and one indication that they have been blocked. In the last 20 minutes, the user has gone on a vandalism spree (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), including twice vandalizing Today's Featured Article, Mariano Rivera, and putting obscenities on articles/user talk pages. Recommend a long block. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Lolo2010

Resolved

Lolo2010 (talk · contribs)

At Babysitter Wanted, this user is deleting the entirety of the plot stating that they're the copyright holders of the film and that the synopsis contains spoilers; claims which are, in order: 1) unprovable and 2) irrelevant.

I've pointed out no further than two times that spoilers are assumed here to such a degree that we don't even warn for it anymore, but they're just not getting it. I don't actually care one way or the other, but this appears to be a Wikipedia:I just don't like it situation, and you don't just delete stuff from an article because you think it 'spoils the plot'. HalfShadow 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, the user is violating WP:COI, WP:SPOILER, WP:DISRUPTIVE [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]. Point these pages out to him/her with a fair warning on his/her talk page. If the user continues to be disruptive, a 24-hour block will be placed. If anything continues beyond that, then there are a number of possibilities, but until then, lets just give out a fair warning. Feedback (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well technically, I've already pointed out WP:SPOLIER to them, specifically about not deleting stuff because they think it spoils it and I'm not entirely sure COI applies yet, since it can't be proven they are who they say they are. HalfShadow 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The beauty of everything is that we have to assume good faith here (meaning you can't just accuse someone of lying, you must assume they're saying the truth). If we AGF, then the person is unconsciously admitting to violating WP:COI. The user probably doesn't know about WP:COI, so like I said before, mention it to him. It will go 1 of 2 ways:

1. The user will have to stop editing all articles related to the subject or risk getting blocked for violating WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:COI and WP:NPOV.

2. The user will admit to lying about being involved with the production and his credibility will be shot down, immediately giving us enough reason to believe he is willingly being disruptive. (meaning he will be blocked much faster next time around). Lying is probably the most frowned upon things on Wikipedia other than legal threats. Feedback (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You should take a closer look at WP:COI, since it doesn't actually forbid editing with a conflict. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

COI does forbid the editing if the editing is in ways a neutral editor would disagree with, and in the spark of controversy or doubt, the biased editor must ask first. However, Lolo was a newbie, he wouldn't know any better. Feedback (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow, you highly exaggerated. The user made only 2 edits, and after the edits, you gave him only one warning talking about WP:SPOILER. Never should you warn a new editor with such rudeness (WP:BITE). You're supposed to:

1. Assume Good Faith.

2. Add a welcome tag ({{Welcome}}) to his talk page like I did.

3. Approach the editor and explain him what he did wrong.

What you did was bite the poor user. He only reverted you once; not disruptive, just new at this. Feedback (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history for the article, an IP was making identical edits and claims immediately prior to the creation of the LOL2010 acct. They were welcomed and warned about spoilers there User talk:76.91.197.158 as well. Heiro 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, its probably him, but a message has already been left on his talk page and he didn't continue to be disruptive nor did he respond, therefore there was no incident to report here at ANI. The user probably left or learned his lesson. The way I approached him at his talk page was the way to go. Also, we can't judge him by the actions of the IP unless someone with CheckUser rights assures us it was him. (Its obviously him, but for purposes of maintaining ourselves neutral with the editor, we must act accordingly.) Feedback (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP edits would probably pass WP:DUCK. What I was implying is that he didnt edit the article just 2 times but 4, , so thats 4 inappropriate edits, getting a Level 3 warning after that isn't WP:BITE, its par for the course. Heiro 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That was basically it; as the 'new account' was using the same arguments (and effectively the same wording) as the IP, it seemed most likely they were the same person. As I had essentially warned the IP, I then went on to the next level when it continued with the named account. Since they now appear to be behaving as such (being actually helpful instead of just deleting stuff), I will consider this resolved. HalfShadow 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror

Resolved

 – No admin action needed

Hi, the article states 'The administration of President Barack Obama has discontinued use of the term "War on Terror"'. I am wondering if it is still considered an acceptable term to use (I haven't heard it for several years), especially in relation to WP:NPOV? The example I have encountered is here was when I tried to split two items linked under "war on terror" where the reply in the edit summary was "because Obama doesn't use the term doesn't mean that's not what it is still called". Sorry if I'm not in the right place. --candle•wicke 05:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that's not a matter that requires administrator intervention, because admins don't decide content disagreements. Please see WP:DR for further advice.  Sandstein  06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What do we do when a user recreates an article in their user space?

In this case it's a self-published book. The editor, Fearth (talk · contribs) has posted on my talk page, saying among other things ". i lack notability and i am self published because this is inline with my development scheme. " and " do not delete me simply because my business model of not wishing to be discovered before my story has had time to develop properly". The article went to AfD and was deleted, he recreated it and it was speedy deleted, and now he's recreated it on his user page - User:Fearth. As I !voted (the only one) in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fragment Earth I'm not going to take any action myself. It's my opinion that the user page should be deleted, but it would be nice if the editor could be convinced not to do this again to avoid blocking him. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could be zapped under G4 if he's just keeping it there to avoid it being deleted from the mainspace or MfD'd if he's using it as a userpspace draft and you disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If this user had lots of contributions, showing they were here to build an encyclopedia, a user page like that wouldn't be much of a worry. However, so far, they seem to be here only to promote that topic. Before deleting the page, I'd at least try to talk to them about it, asking if they plan to work on other stuff and if, in the meantime, they might be willing to blank it themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User:The Anome has deleted the user page as a G11 and left a note on their talk page, which I think is also ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If the original article had more than one editor, and the userspace copy is just pasted without the page history, then it's a copyvio... ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the only authoring editor was Fearth, all the other edits were cats and tags and such. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of WP:OR, if it's unpublished. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OR (of the not-too-soapboxy kind) is allowed on a user page, though, as the outlook of the user, or telling others about themselves, say with a rundown on their unpublished book. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A kind of drive-by: I've left the creator a COI notice, modified to the situation. He does not seem to have been advised that he should not be writing articles about his own book, regardless of notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

COI is allowed (en.WP would grind to a quick halt without it), but letting a new editor know about the great care which must be taken with COI is always helpful. The big worries have been the single-purpose self-promotion along with the utter lack of citations in doing so. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to cut it finely, COI may not be as rampant as all that, in the Wikipedia sense that COI is defined as "when an individual's interests related to an article conflicts with Wikipedia's aim of being a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". Editing on a subject of interest to you is not a COI if your interest does not conflict with those aims. :) But in terms of writing an article about your book, such behavior is strongly discouraged. I think "should not" is appropriate, though "must not" would be overstated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's utterly rampant. COI threads and tangles its way through any kind of publishing project. The pith (and sometimes fleeting hope) is being at least somewhat self-aware of COI and not letting it shift into moral hazard. The way to do that is, putting the encyclopedia first. Citing sources, being open to the sourcing of other sundry PoVs, keeping away from OR and staying civil about it go a long way towards that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you put the encyclopedia first, you wouldn't have a COI, I wouldn't think. WP:COI says, "COI editing involves editing Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." But, for instance, though I'm a fan of the band who recorded this album, which I wrote subsequent a listing at missing encyclopedia articles. I wouldn't consider that I have a COI, though, because my appreciation for the band doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's aim. I'm not promoting my own interests or theirs: the album is notable, and I recorded every slim verifiable thread of information I could find on it. :) But we're getting meta here in a way that goes beyond ANI, I think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent stubbornness of IP user

HJ Mitchell referred me here.

Again, aplogies for my error on the Vandalism page. I got a little confused searching around the policy pages and thought that 71.105.87.54's edits warranted a post there.

The issue is that this user has repeatedly attempted to edit articles (normally the first paragraph) to bias them towards India, despite, in every case, India's involvement being stated in a more accurate and succinct way later in the article, in a relevant section. Looking at WP:DR, I'm not sure what's already been done, as he's posted across multiple talk pages with varying responses, and people have linked him to policies like WP:TE without success. He seems to have slipped under the radar somewhat with regards to warnings as far as I can see, but hopefully you can provide some suggestion as to where to go from here? Thanks. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - commons} 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit concerns me: [named editor] the Dictator, I was wondering... for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA reasons, though it's relatively mild in the context of WP:POV editing (though that's no excuse). This edit appears to confirm my suspicions about the IP being a POV warrior. I'd like to have a word with them... back shortly. TFOWR 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I left a message, noting my concern at their apparent WP:CIVIL and WP:POV issues. I suspect you're correct, and that the policies I've linked to will remain unread. However, I think at this stage there's not much we can do here except keep an eye on the IP. TFOWR 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy one

Resolved

 – All deleted - Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean up on aisle seven.

There was an edit history removal to get rid of someone being outed, but the admin only removed one of the two relevant edits (i.e. only the introduction and not the reversion). SDY (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That should be fine- check the second diff, it'll probably look like the edit was a reversion of page blanking, but I'll check. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened. All deleted now, but oversight wouldn't be inappropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits by user:kostja - 3 reverts of a page and using wiki as a battle ground

Revertions of Bulgaria, small naggings at Talk:Bulgaria, the same behaviour in Bulgarian Wikipedia - BAS issue is with a neutrality template after he was completely uncommunicative and harsh in discussing topics concerning BAS. Most of his edits are obviously taking a side. And he feels very confident in doing this here and there. And he disagrees on getting more moderate on any of his oppinions with producing issues comparable to gossips. --Aleksd (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes his "neutral wording" is just a slightly pro-BAS tweak, giving attribution to government content "the government says" and then fact-status to BAS comments "there is a brain drain" (where it used to say "BAS argues there is a brain drain" (paraphrased). I can't see any 3RR violation, they aren't reverts, just edits of similar flavour. You have also failed to notify the editor. Discussion only appears to have begun at Talk:Bulgaria yesterday - why, please, have you brought this here to soon? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have not interpreted my changes correctly. The attribution the "government says" is simply taken from the two sources while the brain drain comment has nothing to do with the BAS.

Of course, this should be discussed on the talk page of the article, though it should be noted that Alexd contributions there have not been very constructive or even civil (though I admit that I'm also somewhat guilty of this). In any case, it's strange that she has raised the complaint when she herself has made three reverts to the article today. Kostja (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining me and seing this. I didn't know I have to put the notice on his page. May be next time. The reason of so soon coming to this is that he appeared like from nowhere and we already met in bg Wikipedia, I knew his ways and I have idea of his preferences and ways of editing. Which things actually happened as usual. His reverting, editing in biased way and writing information he thinks is important but not alway relevant to issue and not aways true. I just knew that here administrators usually pay attention because in Bulgarian unfortunatelly it is not the case and many things are accepted for normal although they probably are not, and my complaints are somewhat accumulated from there, for which I appologize. I'll use things you suggested, thank you very much :) --Aleksd (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy is only for more than 3 reverts so there is no issue, yet. For such a content dispute, I would give discussion on the article talk page more chance to work before coming back here, and even then WP:RFC or WP:3O are other more suitable option. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - editors can be censured/blocked for edit warring even it they do not breach 3RR - it's not an entitlement. Exxolon (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, my point was that "3 reverts of a page" in the threat title suggested the reporter may have been after a 3RR block, so I was clarifying :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, users cannot game the system by using 3 reverts a day. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a huge mistake...

Resolved

 – Admin attention not required GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the past several days I have been reverting edits that were made to a film's article. In particular, these edits were extending the plot to include spoilers, and instead of being a simple plot it would explain, in detail, everything that occured in the movie. I felt that this wasn't correct. I have just been notified that there is no Wikipedia policy against spoilers, which I feel is wrong. Spoilers ruin the movie for other people who haven't seen it, and plots are certainly not supposed to be spoilers last time I checked. I apologize, this was a huge mistake on my part. Hopefully I will be forgiven, as these reverts were done in good faith. I didn't use the rollback feature to revert, but still, per Wikipedia policy, I shouldn't have done it. Lawl talk 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting in this case? Absolution? Just go and revert your edits if they were a mistake. SnottyWong ^chat 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Hopefully you will self-revert now that you know that the Wikipedia does not suppress "spoilers", and that an article's plot summary is supposed to be complete, including all major plot points of the film and its ending (per WP:MOSFILM and WP:SPOILER, among others). If so, just call it a lesson learned. No admin action needed :-) I would probably offer an apology up to the editor(s) you reverted though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure what you're asking for here. You edited the page [30] to eliminate the spoilers, then posted here admitting you made a mistake one minute later [31]. Probably reverting your own edit would do more to show that you understand the policy, rather than deleting something for spoiler purposes and then asking forgiveness. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Thank you for coming forth for this, but this probably isn't the right place to do so as you do not require admin attention. I would suggest you make this clear to any users who were directly affected, and then there shouldn't be a problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that the several edit conflicts I had were with other agreeing parties ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Believe it or not, some people who come to Wikipedia want "spoilers," because they want a full summary of a movie- I know I've come looking for that before. If I wanted to avoid spoilers, I'd avoid Wikipedia, and look for a movie review instead- most people know, I think that a 'summary' means a full summary, including the ending. I think ours is a good policy- there are lots of places to find general plot descriptions of movies, but if I am trying hard to remember what Rosebud was, it doesn't help me to find a Wikipedia entry that carefully refrains from "spoiling the movie" by giving me the information I'm looking for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree there, lol. This is an Encyclopedia, not a promo/review, watch the movie and find out what the big plot twist is! site. Heiro 20:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

click to find out what Rosebud was!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It was his sled, everyone. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, since the movie is a thinly veiled satire of William Randolph Hearst, the real meaning behind rosebud is that it was the petname Hearst had for his favorite part of his mistress anatomy, and he died with rosebud on his lips, LOL. Welles little joke. Heiro 20:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

title editing

Moved to WT:AN#title editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeno (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fire Team Alpha

Resolved

 – Boldly moved without redirect by Fences & Windows. –xeno^talk 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I was browsing around, I came across Wikipedia:Fire Team Alpha, the self proclaimed core of the counter-vandalism unit. I do not believe such projects should be part of the Wikipedia namespace, as it is overly immature, self centered, and is redundant with the various counter-vandalism projects that we already have in place. Projects like these project a bad image of Wikipedia counter-vandalism work, since it often overstates what is done. I'm not saying counter-vandalism isn't important, it's just that projects like this should not exist. Any thoughts on this? I think it would be more appropriate to move this to Deagle's userspace or deleted. Netalarm^talk 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for WP:MFD. --Smashville^talk 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it there later, but I just wanted more input on this, since this project deals with vandalism. Netalarm^talk 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I believe Wikipedia talk:Fire Team Alpha is the page you are looking for. This is not an incident and it does not require administrator attention. --Smashville^talk 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to User:Deagle AP/Fire Team Alpha without a redirect, as individual ventures like this don't belong in project space. Fences&Windows 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem user.

For the past few weeks now, I've been watching the actions of an anonymous IP user from the 88.106.xxx.xxx range. Based on past encounters with him, I'm quite certain he doesn't act in good faith but I think he's finally taken this to a level where it is intolerable. From the start this user has accused me of promoting Indian nationalism and has consistently failed to assume good faith on numerous articles. The main areas of contention were Frigate and Stock market where in both articles the anon attempted to replace images just because they were Indian. On the talk page for frigate, said user accused Bcs09 and me again of perpetrating Indian nationalism claiming that the only reason the ship was included was because it was Indian and that it was not a notable example. Then when I posted a message on WT:SHIPS and several other editors (who were not of Indian origin) disagreed with the anon, he then accused them of practicing Indian nationalism as well. When it became clear that the anon was the only dissenting opinion, he then attempt to elicit support from other users by canvassing on Talk:Pakistan, Talk:Germany, Talk:Bundeswehr and on a known POV-pusher's talk page. Curiously, he never posted a similar message on Talk:India. After it became clear this didn't help his case, he then proceeded change his tune claiming that the Shivalik should not be included because it doesn't have an AESA radar. On stock market the user left a similar edit summary claiming that he was removing Indian nationalism. On Hyperpower, he engaged in another personal attack in his edit summary once again insinuating I was an Indian nationalist and that I should shut up. The user then proceeded to revert all of my edits as evidenced by that anon's contribution log.

I also believe that the anonymous user is a sockpuppet for a registered user that has levied similar accusations against me in the past. I have collected a fair bit of information but would prefer to post that in a topic specifically dealing with that matter. In the meantime, I posted this message to a) bring his actions to the attention of administrators and b) inquire as to what actions can be undertaken to discourage this user from acting in this fashion. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war/POV violation at Building 19

Resolved

 – Pending changes protection added --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some eyes on the Building 19 article? Countless SPAs, including Leave it as is (talk · contribs) and 209.6.185.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (whom I believe to be "As Is" logged out), are constantly reverting my edits to Building 19. For example, see this edit, where said user undoes my removal of unsourced defamatory info on the company. At least two other SPAs, CDickens32 (talk · contribs) and Truth duz hurt (talk · contribs), have been going back and forth either adding, deleting or edit-warring with controversial or defamatory unsourced info. There is also re-addition of a pointless redlink to factory irregulars, which I have removed at least twice since that's not a commonly used term. I'm also concerned about As Is' borderline inappropriate username; given that his only edits are to the Building 19 article, he's clearly here to spread his version of the truth and his only. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I requested pending changes protection, and Fastily added it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also filed an SPI on the accounts that keep reinserting the negative unsourced claims. It's been going on going back to November 2008! Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes was only set for new and IP addresses, I've reset it for all except Reviewers and reverted the last addition by Leave it as is.. This is a BLP violation and we need to consider dealing with the accounts adding the material. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 6 months (seems static), and Leave it as is/Truth duz hurt indefinitely. I don't think CDickens32 is the same person. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to lift the pending changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:HGraphite

Resolved

 – Sock blocked - Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• HGraphite (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is the right place, but wondered if anyone would be willing to block this suspected sockpuppet per WP:DUCK while the SPI case is waiting. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez is still waiting for clerk approval but User:HGraphite is causing damage by passing GA nominations without reviewing them properly. Would be nice to minimise the harm done while waiting for SPI. BelovedFreak 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Checked and blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--BelovedFreak 23:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Razorback216 disruptive sock and multiple IPs

• Notice of ANI [32]

Roughly two weeks ago, there was a surge of multiple, fluctuating IP edits on three articles that included the Gaza War, Six Day War and someone named Caroline Glick. Two ANIs Curious IP disruption from multiple addresses andpersonal attacks were filed in connection with this IP surge and it resulted in Semi for the above-noted articles. All but one of the IP's were California. I am now certain beyond any doubt that it was Razorback216 (talk) . Within minutes of making several edits on the Gaza war[33] [34] [35], IP 69.110.29.179 from California made identical edits on my talk page [36] [37] [38]. Those edits were nearly identical to those made on my talk page some two weeks ago. The same thing occurred in connection with Caroline Glick. However, being that Caroline Glick’s article had been semi'd, the IP confined his comments to the discussion while near simultaneously, Razoback216 made edits to the article's text. Also Razorback216 is a recent account that opened on June 7, 2010. The IP's also began editing in June and both Razorback and the IP's are SPA's making identical edits to the same articles - past, as well as present.

For the the sake of clarity we're dealing with

• Razorback216 (talk)
• 69.110.29.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 99.132.106.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)

Logging in under different IPs does not necessarily entail wrongdoing. However in this case it does for the following reasons. When going through the Diffs of the subject IPs linked to Razorback216 (talk), a disturbing pattern emerges. There are four Diffs that are particularly troubling. These three [39] [40] [41] made by 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) point to a battleground mentality where the user encourages the use of erroneous information in a warped belief that it would somehow help “his cause.” This Diff [42] by 69.110.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) points to an outright admission of using multiple accounts. More importantly, for a recent editor, Razorback216 seems to have excellent command of wiki syntax making it likely that he may be a previously banned user, hence his extensive use of IPs. I think there is sufficient basis to move forward with some sort of sanction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note further that I asked Razorback216 if he had ever edited under a different account [43] but he has yet to respond to my query--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the admission of multiple accounts in that diff, and an IP pasting in comments to your talk page doesn't mean they're the editor who added that material to the article. I think that without clearer evidence of sockpuppetry, this needs to go to WP:SPI for clerks to judge and use checkuser if necessary. Fences&Windows 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He makes the following comment in the referenced Diff I never claimed to be other than a single user even though, incidentally, all of the contributions to the "Allegations of racism" section are not mine. If that's not an admission, I don't know what is?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're gonna be better off at WP:SPI. Looks fishy, but they're the ones with the tools to figure out what's going on. N419BH 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song has instructed JJG and myself in the past that it is not possible to bring editors suspected of using IPs to circumvent topic bans and revert restrictions since it would be outing.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? If it was proved that just one of those were socks to circumvent the ban, parent account would receive a block and then they could all be filed for block evasion... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I get where he is coming from though. Having both someone's user name and IP could lead to off wiki harassment. It is possible even though it is doubtful. I didn't know SPI was that strict.

I thought Razorback's language reminded me of another editor's language and style but did not see anything strong enough to feel comfortable pointing a finger. However, I have asked JJG to keep an eye out for any misuse of socks such as creatting an allusion of support or anything else under WP:ILLEGI. It is easy to assume that it is an editor bypassing a restriction (also under WP:LEGIT) but maybe not enough to be WP:DUCK unless someone else has another editor in mind. If Tim Song was wrong then that is cool (since I am dieing to know) but he watches SPI enough that I assume he knows what is and what is not OK.Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Christopher Pearsall

Resolved

 – Speedy deleted and closed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What a snowball. Deleted. T. Canens (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#RfC

I'm not invested in this thing one way or the other, except that it seems to effect our "rules" in a strange way, and I'd like it discussed fully. Anyways, WRONGVERSION and all that, but the page has been protected so that it reads one way and not the other. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight and User:TheNeutralityDoctor (formerly User:Rush's Algore)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight

FYI... I just tagged User:TheNeutralityDoctor as a sock puppet of the community banned User:GoRight. I would appreciate a second opinion on this. Either it is GoRight or someone pretending to be him. Considering that the latter is unlikely, I'm going with the former. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:100110100 IP socks at it again

Clearly not caring that he is now community ban, 100110100 is at it again on a new IP range as 198.161.203.6 (talk · contribs),[44] continuing right where he left off including his inappropriate mass replacements of {{otheruses4}} with {{about}} (he was warned about this under numerous other IP socks), continuing his "discussions" where he left off last time, continuing to wikihound other editors, and his heavy activity at the reference desks and on various policy pages, etc. He doesn't even make any effort to hide himself. Wondering if a range block might be in order at this point. I've cleaned up most of his edits per WP:BAN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, I also reported to AIV for blocking per his being community banned, but reviewing admin refused to block because it wasn't "blatant vandalism" and not an "AIV" issue. So can someone please do the appropriate block. Very clear it is him, and he makes no effort to hide it. Continued right up on the same conversations and everything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry aside, the edits appear constructive (removing template redirects, removing unnecessary table constructs, MOS compliance, etc.). Is it really necessary to revert them all?

Back to the case, could you be specific as to which edits (other than the template name changes) are evidence that this is the same user? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC) P.S., Could you point us to the relevant {{otheruses4}} vs. {{about}} discussion? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Banning policy is clear on this. I believe the reason we don't want to try to pick and choose which edits to keep is because it becomes a slippery slope of "well, some of their edits were sort of helpful or in good faith", which then ends up 200k of drama and arguing about whether to let banned editors make some edits. Banned means just that, and it was certainly for good reason in this case from what I remember. The IP Geolocates to Alberta, Canada, which is in keeping with the locations of the banned user's previous IPs. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He is banned. Yes, it is necessary to revert them all. Banned is banned, and part of the point of banning (versus blocking) is that NONE of his edits are welcome here, no matter whether they are "good" or "bad" (else there is no point in banning him). He was specifically warned to STOP such mass replaces under his last IP, 174.3.123.220 (talk · contribs) (see its lengthy talk page), and several other ones before it. See the ban discussion[45] where his edits were considered disruptive and not "constructive". He has a bad habit of doing mass template replaces before trying to get them deleted and claiming they are "not used". He tried the same with the blockquote template and was blocked under 174.3.121.27 (talk · contribs), and {{for2}} under 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs). Very quick viewing of contribs of the two IPs, as well as all his other IP socks shows the same editing pattern. Both IPs leaving the same "warning" on editors pages for using otheruses3 and otherusers4[46][47] which he attempted to get deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for correcting me. After taking another look at the banned user policy, I see the support for unconditional reverts. (I was previously looking at a section that made reverting obviously helpful edits optional, but is at the reversing editor's discretion.) Sorry about that. Per WP:DUCK this is the same user, but at this point the user has gone inactive. Being a public access computer, I'm not sure if blocking the IP due to a one-time visit will do any good. It the user returns to this same IP, I think a block would be justified. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, with it being a library IP he may have headed home. He has used that one before, though, so don't know if its a static IP to a specific computer or what. Guessing so though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the reviewing admin who refused to block been notified of this discussion so they can explain their failure to block? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, as they explained it at AIV as not being an AIV issue and needed to go elsewhere. Will notify if it is felt necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who reviewed it on AIV. I referred it to WP:SPI as it was a sockpuppet accusation. WP:AIV deals with simple vandalism. Block/ban evasion is not simple vandalism.

Note that I'm not defending the user or saying they shouldn't be blocked, I'm saying that both pages (AIV vs SPI) tend to be watched by different people, with different "algorithms" they've learned to identify various things. AIV is for e.g. "YOU SUCK" on Atlantic Records or "Joe Schmo is a fag" type nonsense. SPI is more appropriate for "this user is acting like this blocked user, I think they are the same people."

That's all I was really saying. No offense/etc intended, just trying to direct the request to the people who deal with that kind of thing on a regular basis. --Chris (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a large hole for dealing with this particular person. Because he uses purely IP socks, SPI reports are closed without action, but can't report to AIV either? Is the only option to just do new ANI threads every time he shows up? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He is now actively editing again with this IP, doing the same stuff he always does. Can it now be blocked? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tentatively blocked the IP for two weeks. I welcome opinions as to whether a longer block is justified. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think two weeks should be fine. If he follows his usual MO, he'll probably jump IPs after a day or two and pick right back up, unfortunately. I'm wondering if it would be useful to look into doing some kind of filter. Since he does the same stuff without breaking stride, though, I'd think maybe a filter could spot an IP from his known ranges doing template changes and hitting the reference desk...or would that be too broad? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't even wait a day, already back at his usual range 174.3.101.230 (talk · contribs) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, second IP is now blocked, and is trying to get others to post for him on his talk page using the help me. I removed and reminded him that he was banned. He reverted quoting WP:User. Love how he throws around guidelines and policies when it suits him, but ignores WP:BAN and WP:SOCK constantly. He is also engaging in deliberate outing[48] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna make a leap of faith here and see if this snazzy new WP:ABUSE that was being redesigned for so long actually works. Check it out at Wikipedia:Abuse_response/174.3.101.230. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully mostly a footnote, but a rangeblock has also been instituted for his home range.[49]. Now we just need some more definitive answer on the larger issue, though. For a banned editor who socks purely with IPs, where does it get reported? As it is only IPs, SPI cases are declined for CU and may take days with the backlog. AIV reviewers say it isn't blatant vandalism so it doesn't go there. So should any future appearances, such as him on his library IPs, just be reported here again? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess is yes, you will probably have to report the IP socks here. We really could use a great deal more new admins to help deal with these issues. Unfortunately politics and subjectivism play such a large role in RfA that many qualified people are afraid to run and many who do end up wishing they never had offered their services in the first place. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

Richharrisstx edits to Seagate Technology.

Resolved

 – Contributor advised how to contribute under WP:COI, but this is currently a content dispute. Fully protected for three days. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has been actively removing content from Seagate Technology. I want a block please and Semi-protection on article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.63.194 (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I think you raise a legitimate point. I've restored the edits as a potential COI censorship issue. However, I do not have the mop so I cannot protect the page. N419BH 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think protection is warranted just yet. It doesn't look like there's been a whole lot of edit-warring over them, and more importantly, there doesn't appear to have been much discussion about them (although I saw one note at Richharrisstx's talk page, back in 2009). It looks like a recurring issue, but on an every-couple-of-months basis rather than a daily one, so protection might not help matters. Engaging in dialogue first would be preferable, anyway, since it looks as if that's never really been tried. Shimeru 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Richharrisstx has a WP:COI issue, when it comes to Seagate Technology, as can be seen here. And he also seems to be an WP:SPA, who's being disruptive, blanking entire sections without discussing his actions. I agree that we should first talk to them and point them to our policies, hoping that will be enough. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a COI notice on his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also notice that other editors are also destroying the article. Oh, it is the same person who brought up the issue, but can you check his IP address to see if it is Seagate Technology Headquarters? Thanks. 152.31.193.40 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I received the following from one of the reverting editors on my talk page:

"Rather than COI censorship u have two editors (Richharrisstx and I) who agree that the material is TMI and IMO biased and deliberately defamatory to Seagate. For example, Convolve has apparently sued Seagate, WD, HGST, Dell, etc, but the only place this lawsuit appears is in the Seagate article. Furthermore, it is one sided, almost like it has been written by a lawyer for Convolve - without saying so, it appears that Seagate didn't do to much or pay too much to avoid the patent. Similarly, firmware upgrades of computer equipment are so common as to question why here and not in every firmware based computer product starting with MB BIOSes. The "clicking" article might be fair, but I am pretty close to disk drive industries and I have to say this one never rose to the level of some other and very famous problems, like the IBM DeathStar of Iomega's real Click of Death. So it appears to me that the material was posted by someone with an axe to grind against Seagate and therefore compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Thus, IMO u have reverted to vandalism. BTW, I have no affiliation with Seagate and have never worked for them. Tom94022 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)"

I will now inform both editors of the thread here so they may voice their concerns. N419BH 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be a content issue for discussion at the talk page, obviously. But the COI for User:Richharrisstx is pretty clear via his own words (WP:OUTING rather forbids me go further), and the FAQ to which the COI notice points includes information on dealing with these situations. Mr. Harris is welcome to address problems, but does need to know how best to do so. I don't know that anybody has accused User:Tom94022 of COI with the article, but certainly not as part of this report. (152.31.193.40, if you're asking me about the IP address of Richharrisstx, only a few administrators can access that information, and I am not one of them. However, even if I were, I could not answer that question per WP:OUTING and Wikimedia:Privacy policy.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The COI is clear (it was already outed above, might want to courtesy-delink and delete the revision). User:Richharrisstx has been directed to WP:COI. Tom's been directed to the talk page to voice his content concerns. Not sure if anything else needs to be done. N419BH 15:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty much impossible to out him given his current username -- STX is Seagate's NASDAQ code, after all. At least he's not trying to hide his affiliations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Was wondering what that was... So now editors directed, page re-reverted. Anything to do about the IP or are we done? N419BH 15:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's COI doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. After taking a better look at the article this afternoon, I'm not so sure all that stuff belongs in it. Shimeru 18:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• So now we have 34 editors (one probably biased, but SarekOfVulcan now added) who do not think the material belongs in the Seagate Technology article but one anonymous editor who does and has posted here. Can I revert? Do I need a thread on the talk page? Tom94022 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Content disputes normally belong on the article talk page, so yes, that would be a good place to take it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And the IP reverted it again. N419BH 00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Block avoidance

Resolved

 – blocked  – Tommy [message] 12:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Per this edit, the IP claims to be editing his own userspace so its likely badagnani avoiding his indef block: [50]. He's made a couple other edits and if he's still tooling around, it means there is likely a sock so maybe an SPI should be filed.--Crossmr (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, since I'd say that's a pretty clear case of WP:DUCK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:StephensCity SamuelHullStore.JPG

Resolved

 – Taken care of by a Commons admin. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I need a Commons admin to change the file name of the image above. I mistakenly named it for a building it is not (oops!). If someone could, could you rename it File:StephensCity WiddowsFrazierHouse.JPG? Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I have already posted this to a Commons admin at Commons, but haven't received a response in over 12 hours, hence my bringing it here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A note on current events at Commons: the "file rename" function (equivalent to "move" here) has traditionally been an administrative prerogative on Commons, given the extensive consequences of moving linked image files. It has been unbundled and is given out much as rollback is here to Commons users who can show good cause and an appropriate contribution history - fixing one's own mistakes isn't considered a good enough reason. Those who receive the user right and employ it must remember to either manually correct image links or to inform the appropriate bot. Acroterion _(talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked before the image was moved and it was only used on three pages, the Stephens City, Virginia page, my "Images I Have Uploaded" page, and a blocked user's talk page. I changed the first two myself, the third I wasn't sure about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Carl Herold

This page was created for SEO purposes and is a fake subject:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Carl_Herold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.247 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the the article which would assist search engine optimisation? There was a dodgy ref, to de.wiki, which I've removed, but that's the worst I can see (though I'm surprised that a 19th century politician belonged to the "Centre Party" - I'm no expert on 19th century Germany but I thought political parties in Germany didn't properly emerge until the early 20th century). What is it you're specifically concerned about? TFOWR 12:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The concern is that the article may be a diversion to detract attention from this. Nevertheless Carl Herold appears to be a real guy [51] [52], though the article is inaccurate in some places. The level of upsampling applied to the picture is extremely suspicious. MER-C 13:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. More of a google-bomb (or google-bomb shield) than straight SEO? However, whatever the motivation behind the creation of the article, is there much else we can do? TFOWR 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD's

Resolved

 – No Administrator action needed. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at these AFD's.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eurogrand_EG8180-RD
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eurolive_VS1220
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eurolive_B1800X_PRO_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrabass BXR1800H

You have nominated some articles, and they seem to be headed for uncontroiversial deletion so far. The AfD's have no drama, no personal attacks, ... Could you please indicate what urgent administrator action you want? Otherwise you shouldn't have posted this here. Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,but I didn't know if this section is for urgent actions.I had seen Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Christopher_Pearsall so I thought that I should also post pending AFD's.Extremely sorry.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me?

No worries, we live and learn. Normally, AfD's don't have to be posted anywhere else. In cases of serious problems at an AfD (not polite disagreements and content disputes, but severe conduct issues), a note here (or at another venue as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) may help, but otherwise most AfD's run smoothly. Fram (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

KnowIG

KnowIG (talk · contribs) seems to have multiple problems, ranging from lack of appreciation that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than an arts magazine to depressingly poor spelling and grammar (WP:CIR issues) which he edit wars to restore.

However, there are also severe behavioural issues. He is incivil and unreceptive to reasonable discussion, and seems to have real problem with not making personal attacks. He considers it acceptable to delete [53] others' comments from admins' talkpages, and often leaves [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] meaningless but vaguely insulting messages for various editors.

He also refused to adopt a policiy-compliant signature until threatened with a block from an admin – and is in fact only just off a 48-hour block for general disruptive editing. I think that he quite simply needs to be given a break from editing, as he clearly cannot or will not constructively engage with the collaborative model on which Wikipedia works.

(Also, if anyone has a mo, could they please remove the latest batch of ungrammatical and unencyclopedic material he added to the Amy Pond page? I'm at 3RR... Thanks!) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KnowIG reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: ) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  For the love of GOD what is your problemKnowIG (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Which part didn't you understand? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think he just outlined his problem, do you have a response? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Edit summaries such as "Ungrammatical, near-meaningless and not as good as the alternative." aren't terribly helpful, TT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Well, that's no excuse for him; I could think of no other way to express it; he already rejected by polite discussion with the edit-summary, "bugger off." Was that helpful? :P ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Which you equally used to me the other day KnowIG (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Was that because you left me a rude and inappropriate message on my talkpage, do you think, maybe? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Yes, TT, sauce for the goose....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  If you wish to start a thread criticising my behaviour, feel free. I have started a thread criticising KnowIG's behaviour, not just in relation to me but in relation to at least five other editors. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have warned both TreasuryTag and KnowIG about 3RR; indeed, it was TT's ANI note to KnowIG that drew me here ;-) My only comment beyond that is that both editors should consider WP:BRD - discuss early, discuss often. TFOWR 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with TFOWR, it appears both editors are engaged in an unnecessary edit war and their communication hasn't exactly been polite or productive in either direction. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He's currently engaged in edit-warring (not with me, with an IP) by removing accurate information, without supplying any reason. This pattern of behaviour is simply unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism that is. Stop twisting everything. What is your problem? KnowIG (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Adding correct, up-to-the-minute information is vandalism? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what the ATP, BBC and wimby sites are for not Wikipedia KnowIG (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you for real? You think that adding accurate information to an encyclopedia is vandalism? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This sort of bickering is just making matters worse. Knock it off, both of you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He's just admitted that he thinks adding correct information to Wikipedia is "vandalism" – he needs a holiday. Period. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And it should be obvious to everyone that he is incorrect and is being disruptive; but adding to that disruption is not the way to go. Take a step back, wait for this to be resolved at WP:AN3 and/or here. Continuing to make this sort of comment isn't going to help you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) I agree with TT re: the pattern of behaviour, and would imagine that since you have also taken this to WP:AN3, a longer block is likely to be given than the last one, and hopefully it will be enough to make the user adjust his behaviour. Do be aware that your behaviour hasn't exactly been exemplary in this edit war though, TT, and that while you haven't violated WP:3RR, your edits are just as much editwarring as those of KnowIG's, and your communication with KnowIG no more helpful; personally I have no opinion on the edits made by KnowIG on the Amy Pond article either, they don't jump out as disruptive to me, just a disagreement with your edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems that both TT and KnowIG were blocked 12 hours for edit warring. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Quite frankly, there could be a pattern drawn as to KnowIG's behaviour, but over the last few days he hasn't done anything that TreasuryTag hasn't done and there seems to be a fair bit of baiting on both sides. It seems clear to me that they can't play nicely with each other so they should stay away from each other. As Bambi's mother said, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It's also worth noting that both have been blocked by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 12 hours for thier edit war on Amy Pond. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh... I hate when people post the same problem on multiple admin noticeboards. The blocks were in response to the WP:AN3 request, which doesn't require all this lengthy discussion. But now it comes across as if I'm ignoring this discussion. -- tariqabjotu 14:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree that Amy Pond should be protected at this time as an alternative to blocking, as the season just ended in Britain and is still in progress in the US. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Sarek, and suspect that removing their ability to edit a single page is unlikely to stop these editors continuing to fight amongst themselves. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think blocking will either. My experience suggests they'll continue to butt heads as soon as they're unblocked, and as such the blocks will accomplish nothing. If you have a better resolution, feel free to suggest it. --Deskana (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
          • For the moment, that remains to be seen and no further action is required at this point; if it does become a continued issue, however, perhaps a community ban on interaction between the users would be warranted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Very well, we shall delay the problem for 12 hours then. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on both users' talk pages some conditions for a possible unblock, basically staying well away from the Amy Pond article as well as a brief interaction ban. If both agree, then I am willing to unblock. –MuZemike 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left a comment on this on KnowIG's talkpage since I was watching it; I agree with the proposal you made, as well as with rodhullemu's note: there may still be concerns, especially regarding other incidents in which KnowIG has recently been involved; this should not override any further action another administrator, or consensus, feels appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has agreed, but KnowIG has not, yet. Unless the community feels unblocking based on a one-sided conditional agreement is OK, I need KnowIG to agree in order for my conditions to mean anything as well as apply equally. –MuZemike 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@Giftiger wunsch. Absolutely. If something else pops up that would warrant a block (as Rod noted), then that's OK. –MuZemike 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If TT has agreed, I see no reason to penalise him because KnowIG hasn't also agreed; presumably TT's promise to stay away isn't dependent on KnowIG also being unblocked under the same agreement, so I don't think leaving TT blocked would be "preventative" as policy dictates for blocks. Just my opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also note that when TT first posted here, they intimated that they would make no further reverts (Also, if anyone has a mo, could they please remove the latest batch of ungrammatical and unencyclopedic material he added to the Amy Pond page? I'm at 3RR... Thanks!). My view is that 3RR is not an entitlement (hence the blocking admin acted appropriately). However, I'd regard TT's post here as a good faith gesture. That, together with Deskana's willingness to monitor both users, fill me with hope. Which is rare. TFOWR 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image disputes

Currently, there is a dispute over coats of arms images that I illustrated being used in the O'Neill dynasty, O'Neill (surname) and Pope Leo XIII articles. There are three editors opposing the images being used. There are three that support their inclusion, while a fourth has notified the opposition that the images are appropriate heraldically but that he personally finds Baroque art ugly, and of course I support them as well. So, in all, three against and four in support, with a fifth noting the images are correct heraldically but cares not if they are included or excluded. Somehow, the opposition finds this to mean there is consensus against the images being included, arguing those speaking at the WikiProject Heraldry were too few to include in the count and those speaking in support were just random editors that have no say. So, by the opposition math, where they exclude every supporter, there is only myself against the three in opposition.

The opposition is demanding that the images match exactly a primary source and that a link be provided to the image form which the illustrations were copied. Of course, because of copyright, one can not merely copy exactly another man's work. Also, as noted by the WikiProject heraldry, the images do not need match exactly, but merely the symbols and colours need be accurate. I provided this information and a source for the illustrations, yet this was still deemed to be insufficient. Then, the opposition added images they preferred, though they did so without conforming to their own standard.

So, I took off all images form the articles until the dispute could be resolved. However, for this, I was blocked. Clearly this is getting out of hand, and the opposition is not being reasonable in discussing heraldic practice nor sourcing, nor allowing me to remove images without finding an admin to have me blocked. It is not a discussion or exchange of ideas. but merely the three editors trying to force their version and finding any and every way to hinder the process until they wary me and have their way. So I ask for assistance in resolving this matter. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any discussion at an RFC or anything for us to familiarise ourselves with? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No RFC, but the discussion was spread across numerous pages. My talk page, WikiProject Heraldry, Irish people, original research notice board, conflict of interest notice board, Pope Leo XIII and others still. Since the argument is about correct heraldic practice, the Heraldry WikiProject is relevant, while most of the conversation was on my talk page and the Irish people page. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cmckeef

Resolved

User:Cmckeef created two autobiographical pages that were both deleted. Now his user page shows the same text of those articles. This is some sort of violation, isn't it? I think the user space shouldn't have promotional material or something. (I've seen pages blanked before, for similar reasons.) Does something need to be done here? If not, I apologize... but something doesn't seem right and I don't know the exact policy. — Timneu22 · talk 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the page. Though not an apparent spam article, the lower section shows that the article is just a vehicle for advertising the subject's consulting firm. Have dealt with the account appropriately. Should be resolved. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One more thing... he uploaded an image. Where is it? It should also be nominated for deletion. (You deleted the page, so I can't get to the file name.) — Timneu22 · talk 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll scrounge it up, might be taggable for orphan if not a copyright problem. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It was on commons, I tagged it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Privacy, Seagate Technology, and admins.

Resolved

 – You can make a good suggestion to an IP address... Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, SarekOfVulcan, Seagate Technology are my problems right now. First, Moonriddengirl showed my location on what school I am at. I blanked it out. Then, SarekOfVulcan put it back. I did it again. Seagate Technology is protected. Oh, and I have multiple IP address, they change so often lol. How do I dispute the article Seagate Technology? Thank you. 152.31.193.80 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can see what school you are at by reversing your IP address. Perhaps you should create an account? If you wish to discuss the content of Seagate Technology, you should make a thread at Talk:Seagate Technology. –xeno^talk 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN

If you're the same IP that started the current thread there, you should probably start by suggesting specific changes to the article, and not by calling other editors stupid. That should help. Dayewalker (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL again I see. I don't want to create an account. And I see that it will get nowhere fast. I want one here. Thank you. 152.31.193.80 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but you are asking for anonymity? I'm afraid when using an IP address you can't really find that much, it will always be traceable through the various tools. Part and parcel of being here, I think. An account would make you more anonymous in that your IP wouldn't be on the front line of your edits. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OttomanJackson and Michael Jackson

Resolved

_{Topic ban imposed by consensus S.G.^(GH) ping! 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)}

• OttomanJackson (talk · contribs)

This user has been the subject of 2 previous AN/I's; here and here. The problem is rampant MJ fanboyism, which manifests itself in the Wikipedia via the continued creation of non-single, non-notable songs from MJ albums, and has earned a 1-week and a 2-week ban so far. Today, it is more of the same, the creation of Fly Away (Michael Jackson song), sourced to...sigh...the album's liner notes. Mr. Otto has a complete disregard for notability policy, and the guideline WP:NSONGS in particular. There is also a DRV attempt from the other day to resurrect one of his earlier attempts, currently running at unanimous opposition. I don't see what other avenues there are to pursue here, other than a topic ban. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

AfDed the article. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question should be blocked for a longer period of time (1-month?). If he has already been blocked twice before, he has obviously been warned and nose the consequences of his actions. Assuming good faith can only take us so far, it is obvious he is consciously being disruptive. Feedback (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree; and if he nose not, I'm sure he'll soon 'ear from this discussion. (Sorry, I couldn't resist :)) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How can a song released on a Michael Jackson album not be notable? Certainly, reliable sources (album reviews) will cover the song. What am I missing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should Michael Jackson songs be notable simply for being Michael Jackson songs? Reviews of an album that include a song will not make that song's article any more than a stub. It needs sources that specifically address the song itself and make it something more than just another album track. 14:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Bretonbanquet (talk)

So what if it's just a stub? We don't have any deadlines. As long as it's not violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, I don't see the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, millions of songs would get articles, which would be ridiculous. From Wikipedia:Notability (music): Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not a paper encyclopedia and the last I checked, disk-space is cheap. I'm still struggling to see the harm in having this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical "it's harmless" inclusionist mantra. What you are missing is reliable sources addressing the song itself. Not contained in a track listing, not rattled off in a simple "these unreleased songs will be on the album", as in the MTV source you just added to the article. Look at articles for One After 909 or The Happiest Days of Our Lives to see what kinda of threshold we're looking for here. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How does deleting the article make Wikipedia a better place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Because all of that info - what scraps of info there are - could be merged to the album article to greater effect than having a three-line article standing alone, never to be anything more than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read through WP:NOT lately? An encyclopedia should strive to be the sum of all human knowledge. That does not mean literally accumulating every scrap, shred, and nibble of detritus created by every human being in the history of civilization. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "all" that I wasn't previously aware of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, one of the articles that you cited as a paragon of Wikipedia sourcing, The Happiest Days of Our Lives is currently tagged as possibly not meeting the notability guideline. It even cites Wikipedia, an open Wiki with no editorial oversight and no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking as a reliable source. I hope that you will be consistent and urge that this article be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a strange usage. I gave my girlfriend a pearl necklace this morning. I observed it and added it to the sum of human knowledge. Is it encyclopedic? Intelligent people should be able to, and be expected to, separate the wheat from the chaff. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not tweeting about every piece of data that crosses our eyes. As to the article, I disagree with the notability tag, as there are clearly sufficient sources that discuss the song itself included in the article. I also fail to see where there is a citation to the Wikipedia in the article. Can you point this out? It'd probably be better to continue that tangent on the article's talk page though. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

...Though, presumably, intelligent people are unable to distinguish the difference in significance between the release of one's own bodily fluids and a song by a major pop star? Dekkappai (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban and possible block

I propose that the user be topic banned from Michael Jackson and songs produced by that artist. Another block may also be in order. History of socking too. User has had ample warnings about notability and music. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed 1-month block and topic ban. This user very rarely makes constructive contributions, and instead decides to be nuisance. Pyrrhus16 12:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is such a wide topic ban necessary? Does the problem extend beyond creating articles with notability issues? Rehevkor ✉ 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We have had other problems as well, such as the creation of Michael Jackson is awesome! nonsense. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's a troll. WP:AGF has gotten him this far and it is time WP:BLOCK takes him stops him in his tracks. Feedback (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a troll. There is no harm in this article as it will become good. Please don't block me or ban me, I hate being bblocked, plus the whole reason I got an account was for MJ-Related stuff. OttomanJackson 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you hate being blocked, then why continue to be disruptive? Since your last block expired, you have misused talkpages, tried to redirect a clearly notable Beatles song article in an act of bias (which you have been warned about several times before), and edit-warred on an article. Pyrrhus16 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your signature must include one link to your userspace, OttomanJackson. See WP:SIGLINK. Rehevkor ✉ 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles redirect is pure vandalism, nothing less. This user freely admits to disliking hating the band on his userpage. If this kind of thing can't be controlled, then a topic ban sounds the least punitive measure that should be considered. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Did the Beatles redirect happen before or after this editors last block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A month after, as far as I can tell. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that we must be sensible, but this is pretty "black and white". The user is a vandal and has not learnt from his week-long or day-long blocks. An indefinite topic ban + a month-long block is the way to go. Feedback (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a couple more thoughts? This isn't quite the consensus enough to execute. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We've AGF'd for this user, and he continues to be disruptive, writing articles on non notable songs after being repeatedly told not to. A topic ban is more than appropriate IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This person's interest is purely Michael Jackson promotion, regardless of Wikipedia policy that may prevent some aspects of it. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus. How does "the user is banned from making any edits to content relating to Michael Jackson, including the creation of or edits to articles on Jackson's songs, or the insertion or changing of material related to Jackson in other articles" - the last part is to stop any MJ IS AWESOME stuff going into Music or Pop. Sound okay? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. Pyrrhus16 14:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, logged, informed. Up for review if requested following one month. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

YellowMonkey is hereby advised to be more careful about his use of the rollback function and to engage in discussion regarding the use of diacritics in articles, but no admin action is possible or required at this point, therefore discussions should be continued elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to request that User:YellowMonkey's rollback rights be removed, because he has persistently abused it. I made a number of gnoming edits to various Vietnam-related articles.(e.g. [60],[61],[62]) He disagreed with these edits, but instead of discussing it with me, he used rollback on all of them, and didn't even have the courtesy to leave me a note on my talk page. I objected to this behaviour on his talk page, and reinstated my changes, and he used rollback on them again. A look at his contribution record shows that he habitually uses rollback on good faith non-vandalism edits.[63] And another editor, writing on his talk page,[64] has advised him not to use rollback in that way, but he's taken no notice. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) No comment on the issue, but YM is an administrator, rollback is part of the admin package so it can't be removed without removing the whole package (which can't be done here). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? As HJ has said, this user would have to be desysopped.  – Tommy [message] 12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Have you asked YellowMonkey about this? You've been putting in diacritics (along with delinking). Is there a consensus for that? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) They have. TFOWR 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) rollback is part of the admin package so it can't be removed without removing the whole package I don't accept that ;-) The community can topic-ban editors, I see no reason why the community can't ban me (say) from using rollback. TFOWR 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) That's possible, I didn;t think of that, but the right itself can't be removed from admins without removing all the other buttons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, TFOWR has a point. I am "banned" (not officially) by an admin from using the "Vandalism" button on TWINKLE, but allowed to use the rest of the TWINKLE buttons. So yeah, you can be banned from using a particular application, until there is a time that the community or an admin thinks you are use is again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC) It's maybe a discussion for another day/another venue, but I think the cries for de-sysop-ing everytime an admin allegedly misuses rollback can be addressed with social solutions, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water. Back on topic, I'm recalling a recent incident here which appeared to make very clear when the use of rollback was - and was not - appropriate. TFOWR 13:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Many older admins were promoted before the current ultra-conservative rollback culture started (that came when a feature was added to have non-admin rollbackers). It's not obvious that the rollback guideline is very accurate with regard to the way rollback was traditionally used and still is used by such admins. They often leave a manual edit summary in the first revert or two, and then switch to rollback for the remainder. In every case, it's better to look at the reasons why something was reverted, rather than to focus too much on which technical tool (undo or rollback) was used for the reverts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Nonsense. It is the responsibility of every admin to stay up to date on the guidelines and policies surrounding their tools. These guidelines regarding rollback have been in place for years, and if YellowMonkey had been asleep for those years, he was at least requested to stop. Please don't make excuses for admins just because they're admins. -- tariqabjotu 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) If you are going to revert 10 edits of the same kind by the same user, leaving one or two custom edit summaries and then rolling back the rest has always been acceptable. YellowMonkey's comments on his talk page show that this is exactly the practice he was following in reverting a large number of AWB edits to Vietnam-related articles ([65], two days ago!). If the rollback guideline page does not document this, it just indicates the guideline page is not accurate. It would not be the only one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) To be fair, the outcome of the previous discussion here was that New Admin School was updated - but that was fairly recently. TFOWR 13:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) That seems to just link to WP:ROLLBACK, which does have the language about "tedious" reverts that I expected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Or you could just use User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js and avoid the problem altogether. –xenotalk 14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Colonies Chris, you didn't mention that you used AWB to make these changes, or that you changed about 2 dozen articles in the same way at the same time. Unfortunately, the reputation of AWB for making bad edits is quite high, so it's not unusual for people to simply undo AWB edits if they disagree with them. In this case, it seems your edits broke the established style of the pages, which was to only use the diacritics in the infobox and not to use them elsewhere. Also, YellowMonkey indicates that AWB only added diacritics to some words, not all, leaving the articles still inconsistent. You get more personalized responses if you edit the pages manually, rather than going through a large number of them in a row with AWB. When you are use a semi-automated process to make a large number of edits, it's hard to complain about someone else using a process to make it easier to undo them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I think this case is an edit war between YellowMonkey and Colonies Chris because they are competing each other on articles' style. SO I don't think it make any sense if YellowMonkey use undo button instead of the rollback button (because it would take a little more time to do a same thing). The problem that we should try to resolve here is the edit war, not the tool which is being used. It's good that no side has voiliated WP:3RR up to now. As far as I know, there is no established consensus to use diacritics in Vietnam-related so I suggest Colonies Chris starting a section in WT:WPVIET to gain the consensus before making such a massive change because It's now clear that one editor (YellowMonkey) doesn't agree with you.--AM (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) tl; dr, but YellowMonkey could have been kind enough to use UNDO, not rollback as such a user is not vandalizing. I think this sort of use of rollback creates an unfriendly atmosphere here and leads to problems down the road. I would like to hear his response.  – Tommy [message] 14:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) ...however, all rollbackers (including admins) can use rollback in this way under certain circumstances. When "admins abusing rollback" last became an issue, the New Admin School was updated to make it clear that admins are bound by the same rules-of-rollback as any one else. However, those rules do include rollbacking of the form YellowMonkey appears to have engaged in. (with a nod of the head to Carl, above). TFOWR 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Just wanted to make a note. Since YellowMonkey is an Aussie (it appears), he probably won't see or respond to the post for awhile. I think it is around Midnight or 1am where he is (might be off with that). Probably be a few hours (or more with real life and all) before he responds. Carry on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Carl and AM, please read my comments on YellowMonkey's talk page. These pages were already inconsistent in ther usage of diacritics, and the statement that they were only used in infoboxes is simply not true. There doesn't appear to be any consensus one way or the other among Vietnam-related editors about whether or not to use diacritics - for example, if you look at Category:Provinces of Vietnam, some of them use diacritics in the article title and some don't. Or to take another example, the title of the article about the city Vĩnh Long uses them, but the article on the province whose capital it is Vinh Long Province doesn't. This is a clear case of an admin misusing his powers to steamroller his personal preference without discussing it, and showing a total lack of common civility by doing this without even leaving me a note on my talk page. If he had at least done this before using rollback I would be a lot less annoyed. This sort of behaviour shouldn't be acceptable from an admin. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) If there was no consensus whether to use diacritics, then the AWB rules say you should not use AWB to add them: "If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding." So someone could argue equally well that you were using AWB to "steamroller" your personal preferences without first finding consensus among the Vietnam wikiproject. I don't see an abuse of administrator powers here, unless you are saying you would be perfectly OK if he had done all the reverts with the "undo" button instead of doing some of them with the "rollback" button. That is, I don't think your complaint is actually about rollback versus undo. Your complaint seems to be that your unilateral AWB edits were undone, but anyone could do that with or without rollback rights. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) This looks all-too-familiar Like it or not, there are more than a few administrators who routinely use rollback on revertable, non-vandalism edits. While those who post regularly here at ANI don't appear to like this very much, no one is bothering to tell older administrators until someone decides to bring them up at ANI. Seems like a pointless dramah excess to me, since the edits were (at least arguably) revertable in the first place Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) You can't possibly claim that Yellow Monkey wasn't aware of this policy. Even if he wasn't at the time (and he should have been) the comments made by GriffinOfWales on his talk page (see link above), and then by myself, made that perfectly clear, but he went ahead and repeated the rollbacks even after being reminded of that. Why do we bother to have a page that clearly states in bold red letters how rollback is and is not to be used (Wikipedia:Rollback_feature#When_not_to_use_rollback) if you're going to make excuses when an admin violates that policy? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm saying that if we say that policy and guidelines are descriptive and reflect consensus, we've got to honestly deal with the fact that many admins don't see that it's a big deal to rollback non-vandalism edits.... until they're screamed at for doing so. That's a separate issue than individual conduct, and the "admins are responsible to keep up to date on consensus with the tools they use" sentiment is interesting, but entirely lacks a mechanism to be workable. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) It's also true that there are ordinary editors out there who sometimes violate various WP policies, such as 3RR or editing against MoS, but I don't see any admins making excuses for them on the basis that they might not have read the policy, or they might think it doesn't apply to them. This whole question of when to use diacritics is clearly one that needs to be discussed, but it takes two to make a discussion. Read YM's comments - do you see any willingness to discuss? He simply removed all my changes (including many entirely uncontroversial improvements) without even bothering to notify me. That's not discussion, that's steamrollering. and it's not acceptable from any editor and especially not from an admin. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC) As I pointed out above, because of habitual overuse of AWB to implement undiscussed changes like this, many editors simply revert such AWB changes without comment. In any case, it's patently clear now that there needs to be some agreement on diacritics before you add them again. Unless you are arguing that the reverts would have been OK if only they used "undo" instead of "rollback", I don't see how your complaint is related to administrator abilities. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Indeed- if someone makes contentious changes with AWB they shouldn't expect other editors to spend the time and effort needed to partially undo only the contentious bits, the general fixes and the like will probably get reverted as well. –xenotalk 19:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Razorback216 disruptive sock and multiple IPs

• Notice of ANI [66]

Roughly two weeks ago, there was a surge of multiple, fluctuating IP edits on three articles that included the Gaza War, Six Day War and someone named Caroline Glick. Two ANIs Curious IP disruption from multiple addresses andpersonal attacks were filed in connection with this IP surge and it resulted in Semi for the above-noted articles. All but one of the IP's were California. I am now certain beyond any doubt that it was Razorback216 (talk) . Within minutes of making several edits on the Gaza war[67] [68] [69], IP 69.110.29.179 from California made identical edits on my talk page [70] [71] [72]. Those edits were nearly identical to those made on my talk page some two weeks ago. The same thing occurred in connection with Caroline Glick. However, being that Caroline Glick’s article had been semi'd, the IP confined his comments to the discussion while near simultaneously, Razoback216 made edits to the article's text. Also Razorback216 is a recent account that opened on June 7, 2010. The IP's also began editing in June and both Razorback and the IP's are SPA's making identical edits to the same articles - past, as well as present.

For the the sake of clarity we're dealing with

• Razorback216 (talk)
• 69.110.29.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 99.132.106.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)

Logging in under different IPs does not necessarily entail wrongdoing. However in this case it does for the following reasons. When going through the Diffs of the subject IPs linked to Razorback216 (talk), a disturbing pattern emerges. There are four Diffs that are particularly troubling. These three [73] [74] [75] made by 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) point to a battleground mentality where the user encourages the use of erroneous information in a warped belief that it would somehow help “his cause.” This Diff [76] by 69.110.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) points to an outright admission of using multiple accounts. More importantly, for a recent editor, Razorback216 seems to have excellent command of wiki syntax making it likely that he may be a previously banned user, hence his extensive use of IPs. I think there is sufficient basis to move forward with some sort of sanction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note further that I asked Razorback216 if he had ever edited under a different account [77] but he has yet to respond to my query--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the admission of multiple accounts in that diff, and an IP pasting in comments to your talk page doesn't mean they're the editor who added that material to the article. I think that without clearer evidence of sockpuppetry, this needs to go to WP:SPI for clerks to judge and use checkuser if necessary. Fences&Windows 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

He makes the following comment in the referenced Diff I never claimed to be other than a single user even though, incidentally, all of the contributions to the "Allegations of racism" section are not mine. If that's not an admission, I don't know what is?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're gonna be better off at WP:SPI. Looks fishy, but they're the ones with the tools to figure out what's going on. N419BH 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song has instructed JJG and myself in the past that it is not possible to bring editors suspected of using IPs to circumvent topic bans and revert restrictions since it would be outing.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? If it was proved that just one of those were socks to circumvent the ban, parent account would receive a block and then they could all be filed for block evasion... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I get where he is coming from though. Having both someone's user name and IP could lead to off wiki harassment. It is possible even though it is doubtful. I didn't know SPI was that strict.

I thought Razorback's language reminded me of another editor's language and style but did not see anything strong enough to feel comfortable pointing a finger. However, I have asked JJG to keep an eye out for any misuse of socks such as creatting an allusion of support or anything else under WP:ILLEGIT. It is easy to assume that it is an editor bypassing a restriction (also under WP:LEGIT) but maybe not enough to be WP:DUCK unless someone else has another editor in mind. If Tim Song was wrong then that is cool (since I am dieing to know) but he watches SPI enough that I assume he knows what is and what is not OK.Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:LEGAL situation

Just want to drop notice here of this edit, where the summary left was "Image is a violation of 18USC1466A and has been reported authorities". Tabercil (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough one. At the very least, Stillwaterising needs to be informed that he is not, in fact, the foundation's lawyer, and that he has no responsibility or duty to act as such on its behalf. And I very much doubt he's reported said image to the authorities, which is a cornerstone of why we instituted WP:LEGAL - because 99% of legal threats aren't real, but they still poison the well. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image has been reported, as per proposed guidelines, to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children this morning. It is something that, by law, they are assigned to handle. The are not law enforcement, however they do investigates reports and refer to law enforcement when appropriate. Before anybody asks, yes, they do handle reports of cartoon images of child sexual abuse. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then your work is done. Don't continue to edit war; if it's illegal, I'm sure Mike Godwin will receive a phone call soon. Otherwise, it's no longer your responsibility. --Golbez (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Random question, but why is everyone assuming that the cartoon is depicting children? I can't tell from the cartoon that they would be underage... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "everyone" is saying that, I think it's Stillwaterising that is making that claim. I don't see it at all. I definitely don't think the cartoon represents "children" at all. In fact, it's hard to tell just what is trying to be depicted, as I am unfamiliar with the Futanari topic. Although reading through the description, it seems as if the grahpics are depicting "she-males" or Hermaphrodites. In my opinion, this is an extreme reaction by Stillwaterrising with no basis in reality. Dave Dial (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition futanari can't be she-males, instead they are hermaphrodites, sharing both genders and have an feminine appearance. There are some different variants of futanari, which were long part in japanese believes. In the 90th they became a popular extension to the yuri genre, with the aim to attract male customers. --Niabot (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'd prefer an image where the subject(s) is/are blatantly obviously grown women (yeah they're chicks with dicks, but you know what I mean). The one on the left isn't, IMO. However, neither of them are obviously meant to be children either, and it is worth noting that pubic hair is censored in Japan (or at least iit was, I'm no expert), meaning anime and manga usually don't feature it and even images drawn in the style of Japanese comic art may also lack it. I don't know if that is part of what is causing the concern. Members of the anime and manga project will have much more informed opinions, suggest someone invites them to have a look. Someoneanother 01:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest this invitation. And you are right, nearly every picture/manga/anime is drawn without pubic hair, since this was illegal in japan for decades and this kind of censoring forced by the US after WWII is also the reason for things like tentacles. --Niabot (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing this show up on my Watchlist I finally gave a damn to take a look....and with all the mentions of Mike Godwin here and below, I have emailed him and made him aware of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm a little surprised that no one continued the WP:LEGAL discussion, instead moving on to the more salient points. I suggest perhaps a "WP:Don't be a vigilante", "If you think illegal content is on Wikipedia, contact the foundation, don't edit-war to remove it yourself." --Golbez (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Futanari

Several users (User:83.100.224.86, User:Cherryblossom1982, User:Niabot (uploader/creator), and User:Dogcow so far) have attempted to insert a cartoon depiction of child sexual abuse (my personal opinion) into this article starting the June 21rst. I have made two reverts today, and have been threaten on my talk page with violating wp:legal. I have only said that that image potentially violates 18 U.S.C. § 1466A and warned the users not to insert the image again. I'm afraid this has escalated into an edit war and this needs to be delt with appropriately. I feel that these users should be disciplined and the article be set to temporary full-protection. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think an image is illegal, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel. Apart from that, all other Wikipedia rules apply, including the rule against edit warring. --Golbez (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Contacting Mike Godwin will get the response of "My advice is that anyone concerned that they might violate child-pornography law send these links directly to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Wikimedia Foundation will defer to NCMEC's expert judgment on these matters." This isn't helpful. 18 U.S.C. § 2258A requires all suspected child pornography (no "proof" required) that is reported to the website administrators be taken down and reported "in a timely manner". I'm still wondering why there's no policy for dealing with this. If two or more established editors think it's illegal it probably is. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your ability to predict Mike Godwin's response. And according to Wikipedia (an esteemed location of trustworthy information, from what I gather) and their article on simulated child pornography, even 'realistic' virtual child porn is legal in the United States, unless judged obscene; this is far, far from realistic. Perhaps you should edit the article if it is wrong. As for "if two or more editors think it's illegal", first of all, where's your second? And second of all, what of the two or more editors who think it's hunky dory? --Golbez (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And for someone who cites the law so well, I'm surprised you haven't looked at 18 U.S.C. § 2258E, which states that only a "computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" falls under the definition of child pornography. Unless you are exceptionally blind and think that drawing looks like two hermaphrodites, you're way off on sending this to the NCMEC, or anyone for that matter. This image is no more 'child porn' than the movie Scream was a snuff film. Less so, since there's no actual, y'know, children involved. --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A includes any cartoon depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct. I think the moral of this story is, I'm not a kiddy porn lawyer, you're (presumably) not a kiddy porn lawyer, and I doubt Mike Godwin is a kiddy porn lawyer (but possibly is unfrozen and caveman), but he's a lot closer to that "lawyer" part than any of us. Stop being a vigilante. --Golbez (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

18 USC 2258E has been amended by 1466A due to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. User:Golbez is a known supporter of pornography on Wikipedia and Commons. I'm requesting neutral admin opinions. Also, if people are going to bring out WP:NOTCENSORED they should read the whole listing, which also says "Content that is judged to violate ... or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my name is right there. Really. (edit conflict: you changed it before I got to post this) Second of all, I'm not sure I recall ever defending pornography on Commons (I admit having some porn articles on my watchlist, hot womens are nice to look at), and I frankly have no interest in this pornography, I simply get drawn to WP:LEGAL issues because I enjoy permablocking people. Thirdly, did you yourself not save the article on Heather Harmon, an Internet porn star, from deletion? So basically, I'm bad because apparently I'm like you? Finally, if it is removed, it will not be by you. It will be either through consensus, or through an WP:OFFICE action. But y'know, thanks for attempting to sully me in a public forum like that, especially when I never did the same to you. Class act. --Golbez (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterising, I would agree with you if I thought the image depicted children engaging in sexual acts, but I don't see that the two figures in the cartoon are children. You have good intentions, I'm sure, but this cartoon doesn't seem to depict children at all, and that's my stance. Perhaps if you could explain why you believe one or both figures in the cartoon to be underage...? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He reported a cartoon to the missing children's bureau??? I fail to see how this is a good use of our tax dollars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image on left appears to depict a adolescent minor and the one on the right is meant to be an adult. It doesn't matter is the subject is post-pubescent or not, it only matters if the subject is appears to be under the age of 18. Obviously, their ages aren't included in the description, however there are identifing characteristics. 1). Breasts. The adult has larger, full breasts with normal adult-sized nipples. The adolscent has nipples that are smaller than an adults, and small underdeloped breasts that are found on a minor in Tanner stage III (the images and information in the Wikipedia is not accurate, however even if the girl is Tanner stage IV that would put her in the 13-15 year old range). 2) Build. Adult on right has full height, musculature, and proportions. Figure on left is proportioned like an adolenscent. 3) Head. The face on the image of the right is typical of an a child. The head is proportioned and shaped like a child. The hair is styled like a child. 4)Penis. The image on Commons was kept, in part, on the argument that this girl has an adult-size penis. Really? Like this characteristic makes the above irrelavant? Hardly. It's large because this image was intended to be sexually arousing, and the scenario of an adult fondling an well-endowed adolescent likely appeals to the "prurient interests" of some users, which BTW qualifies it for the first part of the Miller test. Bugs, read 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(a)(2)(B). All 1466A violations are included in the statute and must be removed and reported "as soon as reasonably possible." Also, in general, I would think it would be the criminal that wastes tax dollars, not the person reporting the crime. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, they look like adults of an alien life form, as their anatomy does not conform to humans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"In general", I would think that someone calling the cops to report a jaywalker is, assuming good faith, an easily-upset, histrionic hall monitor. Assuming bad faith, I would assume this person lives under a bridge somewhere. Either way, the jaywalker may be the criminal, but the "upstanding and concerned citizen" is without a doubt the one wasting tax dollars and time. Unless and until any pen-and-inked, two-dimensional intersexed children with bright pink hair have been reported missing in the vicinity of a foggy bathhouse with disco lighting, perhaps last seen in the company of an older-looking, brown-haired similarly-inked two dimensional intersexed he-she - and do notify me on my talk page if this is the case! - I would "in general" argue that you're getting worked up over the erotica equivalent of jaywalking. Badger Drink (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors, administrators, etc do not deal with takedown requests. If it is clear an image should be removed, we will of course do it. But you need to contact the Wikimedia foundation if you have a takedown request for legal (not content) purposes. There is nothing else to discuss here. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Predego, what I hear you saying is that current policy does allow this image to be deleted, or for the users to be blocked, etc. This goes against all public statements make Michael Snow and Mike Godwin, such as this, as well as illegal removal clause in WP:NOTCENSORED (above). - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just get this out in the open: Will you continue to edit war to remove this image from the article? If so, and you then continue to do so, then you will blocked for edit warring. If not, we are done here, as it is no longer a concern for the administrator noticeboard. Which is it, so we can either go to bed or release the hounds? --Golbez (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) "If it is clear" != "one person makes a very dubiously-argued near-rant that is, at best, an illustration of that one particular person's personal thought process". Hope this helps. Badger Drink (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We aren't lawyers, and we aren't qualified to make a judgement here. That is why you have to contact the WMF - which does have lawyers in their employ precisely to get input in situations like that (among other things of course). If it is obvious an image should be removed (i.e. consensus) it will be done. But that doesn't seem to exist here, so if you believe there is a legal issue you need to contact the foundation. Prodego ^talk 03:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Both characters appear to be sexually developed (considering the subject matter) making any determination of their "ages" extremely difficult. They could range from their late-teens to their early 20s. I also don't see anything about the character's suppose ages in the image's description page. Also, you can't point to artwork of a character with a small bust and calm that the character a "obviously" a minor. Especially when it's clear that the rest of the body proportions are way off as well, such as the size of the head and the length of the arms and legs in relation to the torso. While I don't claim to be an art expert, even I can see the problems with the overall body proportions. —Farix (t | c) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I go out for the evening and look what I miss! I've only just seen this discussion and am only contributing since I have had my name mentioned in what I believe is an erroneous and libelous manner. Firstly, I did not insert the image in question, I simply reverted vandalism from an IP contributor complaining about a depiction of pornography. Not child porn, just porn. Secondly, in my opinion, the image depicts two adults as far as one can determine age in what are, after all, imaginary creatures; they cannot biologically exist as humans. And if we're going to try to sound scientifically impressive talking about Tanner stages, it should be realized that one cannot determine age by Tanner stage, any ages given are only for theoretically "typical" individuals and many fully adult women never develop breasts beyond Tanner stage IV. To see this fantasy image of non-existent beings as child sexual abuse is ... (well fill it in yourself, if I did, it would probably not be polite). Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of returning to more rational discussion, isn't the image the equivalent of original research? It's licensed as user-created content; it's therefore simply one user's opinion, accurate or not, as to what an example of this type of pornography might look like. I would think that the only appropriate illustration for the article would be an NFCC-compliant image from a publication described in a reliable secondary source as futanari. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OI covers this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And as I read WP:OI, it fails the test, because the image creator's ideas of the nature of the pornography involved are unpublished etc. Of course, right now the entire article is minimally sourced and at least borderline OR.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we really arguing the artistic merits of an image of two anime dickgirls, and whether or not it is a faithful representation of the subject matter? Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If the image is representative of how Futanari characters are depicted, it's not original research. Also a non-free-use image cannot be added to the article because a free-use equivalent can be created to illustrate the subject, thus failing WP:NFCC #1. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the determination that the image is representative essentially OR, since it's based on the opinion of the image creator? As for NFCC#1, this analysis would also exclude all use of NFCC images to illustrate articles on non-living persons, since an editor could always create an original drawing/painting/image.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The only reason someone would take such a tack would be to game the system and create a Catch-22. But really, how hard is it to compare a free image with a non-free image and determine that the two depict the same subject? —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the policy issue. Take a look at Jazz. By your analysis, all the illustrative nonfree sound samples at the end f the article should be removed, because they could be replaced, in theory, by original compositions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Potentially replaceable music samples on another article has no relation to whether a free use image can be created to illustrate THIS article and is tantamount to WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, this is getting very silly. I never even heard of this subject before, but all you have to do is type the article subject in teh Google to see the image covers the article subject. Are we going to argue someone's drawing of an Apple is original research because it's his/her interpetation of an apple? I think Brandon had the right idea, close this thread. If the disruption is started again, someone can make a new thread. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting worse

[78] Stillwaterising is now informing people - without any legal standing and, furthermore, without any authority - that they may be breaking the law if they revert his edit. I'm a little personally involved in this, what with being pissed at his assassination of my character, but I think we're approaching the level of a civility or legal block here. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they might be. But that is certainly bordering on legal threats. Seems worth letting him/her know your concerns. Prodego ^talk 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

... I ... I think he's well aware of my concerns with his behavior here, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care. You know, the whole argument for the previous two sections. As for 'Well they might be', it's not up to you or me or any individual Wikipedia editor to make that determination. That's why the foundation has lawyers. The only legal issue we tend to care on an editor level is copyright. Anything beyond that, we have the foundation. I don't get to tell people that I'm going to sue them if they revert me, and I find telling people they're breaking the law if they revert me to be very similar. And when we're dealing with copyright issues, it's the foundation we're protecting; Stillwaterising is specifically saying the person who reverts him is committing the crime. I call for a warning shot. --Golbez (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page encouraging him to enjoy the fine weather they're having in his city of residence (Austin, TX, according to his userpage) and take a walk, gaze at the stars, or perhaps go on a nocturnal bike ride...in essence something that will cause him less stress and hassle overall. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That looks like exactly what WP:NLT is there for. He's made his point, he's been warned that he could be blocked for it, he should be blocked for it - not warned again. I don't say this in defense of the image itself, by the way, since we plainly could replace it with one that doesn't have the problem under discussion, or with no image at all - but nonetheless, his behavior is unacceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to again say, just for those who missed it, I emailed Mike Godwin (legal counsel of WMF) and notified him of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should remove the threat that SWR placed on the talk page. This is exactly the kind of thing that NLT is meant to prevent. Telling other editors that they'll be in trouble with the law if they revert you, even when the threat is absurdly, obviously wrong as this one is, has a chilling effect. The threat should be removed and SWR blocked until he shows that he "gets it." In the meantime, I've posted a response telling other editors to ignore the threat.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't that character blocked already? He's leveling legal threats left and right, and shows no sign of retracting them. He's complaining about a cartoon character which, by definition, has no "age" - and cartoon characters with features that wouldn't exist in real life anyway. Put that guy on ice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is going too far and has needlessly turned an extremely borderline case into a pressure cooker. If Godwin or the powers that be don't see anything to take action over then an RFC should solve it. Bandying around terms like "criminal" really isn't on, if there was any real doubt then the image would be gone already. Someoneanother 07:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Brandon closed this thread and I reopened it. I don't think it's proper to close this without some kind of admin response to the NLT violation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that Stillwaterising deserves a block? He has been warned already, yet he continues to issue legal threats and continues to edit war. A 24-hour block should be instilled immediately. I am appalled that no one has issued the block yet. Feedback (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering a couple of the userboxes on his page ("This user finds censorship offensive", "This user believes in logic"), I'm very tempted to label this entire temper tantrum as a textbook WP:POINT violation - and I'm very loathe to fling that particular label about, as far too often it seems to be used as a synonym for "[having or expressing a] point". This here, though, is disruption, borderline trolling, plain and simple. For a person who claims to believe in logic, Stillwater's behavior over the past few hours has displayed a remarkable lack thereof. Badger Drink (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he seems to have stopped what he was doing a few hours ago, probably upon retiring for the evening, but this doesn't change the fact that there are still unretracted threats on the record, threats that are based entirely on SWR's wholly subjective interpretation of a cartoon, an interpretation shared by no one. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And therefore a block should be issued. If he just returns later in the day and experiences no consequences for his actions, what does that say about the system here? Feedback (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NLT is clear, legal threats are not a valid WP:DR mechanism. Indef block (which could last only 5 min, etc). Legal threats of any kind should not be tolerated. Verbal chat 09:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could everybody.. please stop edit warring over the closure of this thread. The whole thing is over an editor steaming ahead without using the options available, no need for anyone else to do the same. It's getting depressing. Someoneanother 09:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the early closure of this thread is disruptive, especially as the problem hasn't been addressed. Verbal chat 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't have a problem with Brandon closing it, figuring that since nobody had blocked on the basis of the discussion either nobody was going to or what was there would lead someone to block without further repetition. Conduct aside it's just waiting to see what Mike Godwin says, which is another matter. Though quite why the thread needed labelling as "nonsense" I don't know. Someoneanother 10:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats are forbidden. The user must be blocked indefinitely until or if he withdraws the legal threat. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat. "We should not include this image, because I think it's illegal" is no more a threat than "we should not include this image, because I think it's a copyright violation". Watching out for Wikipedia content being legal is a good thing. Warning fellow users if you believe what they are doing might cross a dangerous line is a reasonable thing to do. A legal threat is "I'll sue you if you do X". Different issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It IS a legal threat. It's an attempt at intimidation. That's what NLT is about. Unless he retracts, he cannot edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What could he possibly "retract"? He made a claim of fact (or opinion), not a statement of intent. If he had said "I'll sue you", he could now retract by saying "okay, I changed my mind, I'm not gonna sue you". But what he did say was "I think this picture is illegal". What do you want him to say now? "Okay, I changed my mind, I no longer think it is illegal"? If that's what he thinks, that's what he thinks. If you are confident he's wrong about it, where's the intimidation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I retracted the statement. I made no threats. LEGAL pertains to treats of lawsuits and even if changed by consensus (ex post facto) it does not apply to this incident. I find it offensive that I'm under attack while a potentially serious legal issue goes completely unaddressed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's all just drop it, people. Comments on the legitimacy of the legal issue have been made, comments on the validity of the statement that this is a threat have been made. Rehashing them will just stir up the pot. All that can be done now is to wait for Mike Godwin to reply, and leave things be in the meantime. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dots to be connected

I am reluctant to wade into this mess, but it should be pointed out that Stillwaterising made a similarly pointy edit on Child erotica, adding an image that they apparently believed was child erotica. It was discussed at Talk:Child_erotica#Images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DC, I know you and I are friends with a long history, that aside - is this really relevant to the conversation? Also, the point I made there WAS legal according to US law. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But can you see why people might think it's rather odd? On the one hand, you've reported a cartoon to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and on the other hand, you've posted what looks like an exploitative photograph of a real child. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And although he claims to have "retracted" his legal threat, in his latest diff as of a minute ago he's still beating the same drum.[79] He needs to be put on ice like others who make legal threats, until he understands a few things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He will not be blocked for raising what may well be a valid and serious concern, in the proper forums. And the idea that the inclusion of the other image pointed out above was in some way "pointy" is plainly absurd – the whole point of that other image was that in fact it is believed to be not a child. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's used threats and intimidation. Not that it's worked. But you need to be real careful about letting editors get away with legal threats. It sets a bad precedent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The only threatening I see us from Bugs and limited number of other users. NLT pertains to threats of lawsuits, not warning users that their actions may be against the law. Wiser minds here have recommended that this issue should be put to rest. If this incident leads to a revision of NLT then so be it, but as of now it doesn't apply. Please assume that I have the project's best interests in heart, which I do. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong about what NLT is about. See Verbal's comments, below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect, rather than assuming, I suggest you ask Stillwaterising whether or not they believe the subject in that picture was over 18. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Warning users that their actions may be against the law isn't a legal threat... in the same way that warning Scooby Doo and the gang to stop snooping "or else" isn't a threat. It's a form of intimidation. If the users' actions are really "illegal" (which it's likely that they're not, as any legal actions would be taken against the foundation, not the individual users), then it's really not that big a deal. The worst that could happen here is that the feds would say "please take that particular image off your servers", and then the foundation would comply. Stillwaterising has already (purportedly) reported it to the feds, so what's done will be done. So he needs stop making a big deal about it. What will be done will be done. [flaminglawyer] 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That kind of intimidation, threatening behaviour and chilling effect is already covered by WP:NLT. If some people feel it is misnamed then they can propose a rename on the talk page, however what Stillwaterising did is against the spirit and letter of NLT - no change to the content is required. He reported the image (pointlessly in my opinion), removed it and at most should have left a note saying he had reported it. If someone reverted him he should not have editwarred using his legal interpretation as a stick. He went further which is clearly blockable and should not be repeated. He still doesn't seem to understand the problem. In my view, Stillwaterising's addition of the picture to the other article could open WP up to problems and shows poor understanding of this whole area. Verbal chat 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Good summary. We've seen many editors blocked for violating NLT despite the lack of the "I'll sue you" part. NLT is not about suits, it's about stopping intimidating behavior such as what Stillwater engaged in and continues to. The unwillingness of admins to do something about it is puzzling, but it's not the end of the world. If Stillwater continues doing this kind of thing, he will eventually be stopped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Recent posts to Jimbo's talk page show a "if you're aginst me you're for ceepee" (paraphrase) mentality, that may also be having a further chilling effect and is not good DR. Verbal chat 21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • If the admins won't block the guy for his continual legal threats, then the best we can hope for at present is to be vigilant and revert his nonsense on sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin note

 Administrator note Since apparently I'm not allowed to close this, I kindly request no admin block Stillwaterising unless he continues being disruptive. There is obviously no legal threat he can revoke, as he only claimed that the editors would be in violation of the law (which is still just as disruptive, just removes any benefit of the instant block). Blocking would just inflame the situation and asking him to "revoke" the legal threat would be akin to asking him to renounce a position he is very keen on. I have warned him on his talk page that any further edit warring on the article or legal posturing will be met with a block. That is all. Brandon (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is a legal threat. I request that an admin does block until the threats are rescinded and the user states that they will not repeat this behaviour. Closing an ongoing discussion is disruptive.Verbal chat 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  You can't rescind a legal interpretation. That doesn't make it any less disruptive than a legal threat, which is I've already given him a final warning. Brandon (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  Of course you can. Verbal chat 10:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  And this should be moved to the bottom, as you have no special status to override community discussion. Verbal chat 10:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of you have to cut the crap. If this were a newer editor, he would have been blocked on site. He's being disruptive and yes he has not only issued legal threats, but has acted upon them supposedly "reporting to authorities". What the picture depicts is subjective to the viewer. If a 5-foot 30 year old flat-chested woman with soft skin is depicted in a picture, we can't assume its a teenager. If he wants to assume so, tell him to go ahead. However, wasting our time with these silly discussions, reporting to "authorities", issuing legal threats and reverting good edits is just not okay. He should be blocked for at least 24 hours and if not, a 1-month "Pornography" topic ban should be issued. Feedback (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A 24-hour block would pretty much be a CDB. [flaminglawyer] 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but CDBs are allowed if they also prevent the pissed off users from being disruptive. Let him cool down and save us from his disruption in the process. Feedback (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the CDB article? Cool down blocks don't cool down. Cool down blocks fan the flame. At least short CDBs do. A long CDB, for, say, a month? That would cool him down, but that would also be excessive (IMO). [flaminglawyer] 21:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Cool Down" at stake here. The guy needs to retract any and all stuff in regard to legal action of any kind, or he should be indef'd. That's standard procedure with legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then issue a topic ban where he cannot edit article or talk pages on any article related to pornography (frankly, his obsession with pornography is quite disturbing). If he doesn't comply, then he can be indef. blocked. I think this is fair. Feedback (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take a voluntary 24 hour break from Wikipedia. I hope that some wise minds get together and realize that blocking/banning me for what I've done is excessive and is actually the worst kind of censorship (silencing the critics). More, let me make this clear. I reported the image, on Commons, Friday morning. At that point I had not noticed it had been inserted on Wikipedia. When I said "the image has been reported" it was a mere statement of past event, not part of a threat. I don't regard informing users that they they may be breaking a law as a threat. I would hope that other users would so warn me if warranted. I have no special connection with law enforcement and do not have any power to arrest or prosecute anybody. Several things could happen from this, but most likely Wikimedia will be held blameless if it does indeed report the image. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wider policy issue

Irrespective of the merits of this particular incident, there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with reports of possible illegal content with respect to child pornography which does not automatically get good-faith editors banned blocked for expressing their concerns. After all, we have such a mechanism for reporting copyright violations. Does such a mechanism exist? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a "formal" process, but there's any number of things you could do. One would be to take it to Godwin, the lawyer. Another would be to take it to Wales, the public face of wikipedia who certainly has motivation to keep things legal. If it were me, I would simply take it to a trusted admin, and say "What about this?" Stillwater's approach, assuming it was sincere and not self-serving in some way, is clearly not the way to do things: Edit warring, legal threats, etc. FYI, he seems to have quit in a huff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think someone who brought up such concerns on ANI or elsewhere in good faith would be banned, regardless of whether or not there is a formal process. Someoneanother 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have said "blocked", of course, not "banned" -- I have refactored that. and split this out as a separate subsection. Now to your point, A user who in good faith says "I'm removing this image as it's illegal" may well be deemed to have made a legal threat and the result of that is a block until the threat is withdrawn -- see the discussion above. Surely this is not what we want to happen: we actively want to protect Wikipedia from illegal content. That's why we need a proper process, so that good-faith users can know what to do, and we don't have to endlessly debate whether an editor's actions are proper. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that if Stillwaterising or any other editor feels that a particular image is in violation of relevant laws then they should notify the appropriate authorities. Notifying Wikipedia should be secondary and handled through the official channels (perhaps email to OTRS), not on public noticeboards. I am confident that after Stillwaterising returns from their hiatus they will confirm that they have filed a report with the authorities. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that it isn't clear just what those "official channels" are. I would hope that we can be more proactive than just waiting for the feds to call? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way - if someone uploads a photograph of an adult having sex with a six year old, I am going to be first in line to revert it, delete it, get the uploader blocked (how the hell did they come by that photograph if they're not a paedophile) AND report it to the authorities. And I expect WMF to thank me for it. On the other hand, I went through the Livejournal strikethrough, and I know that uploading artwork of alien life forms having sex, underage literary characters having sex, or anime characters having sex with tentacles, does NOT constitute an offence under US law, UK law or international law. DC's comment is based on that position also I believe.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My position is that editors who genuinely feel that an image is in violation of applicable laws should contact the relevant authorities first and Wikipedia second. The community has shown itself, in discussions like this one, to be utterly dysfunctional when it comes to issues of this nature. Personally, I would email OTRS and let the handler direct it to the right place. Any attempt to define who to contact or what to do in such circumstances will be fruitless without at least the participation of the WMF, who seem to duck even simple questions such as which jurisdiction the servers fall into. If I were to come across something that I felt was unambiguously illegal or sexually exploitative of a minor, I would report the image to the authorities and remove the image in whatever way I could. Any notification to the WMF would come after that. If I were to be blocked for that, so be it. Perhaps Stillwaterising was acting the same way I would, but this case seems to involve something that most people find ambiguous at best. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion. There was no legal threat. The user did what he believed was in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Warning other users could have very well been a gesture of care, hoping to prevent them from aiding in the distribution of possible illegal material. I certanly hope that one of us, had we seen possible child porn would simply "email a lawyer and forget about it". Edit warring, if it took place was certainly inappropriate, however, if it is not part of a pattern of conduct, ca be considered a lapse in judgment based on the situation. I believe that expecting an "apology" from an editor who attempted to protect the innocence of children, and indeed protect the encyclopedia is not in our best interest. I do believe we can/should discuss a policy to resolve such issues elsewhere. ANI may not be the best place for it. If we do so, I would like to participate. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

note IRT Elen, That may be your view, but we are not lawyers, and indeed, we are not lawmakers. The OP did reference laws that may indicate that a court COULD find certain material illegal. We need policy in place, based off of a opinion of WMF lawyers, to guide users in the correct action to take in a situation in which they find such material. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Godwin et al seem to have been very quiet on this issue, and it's clearly an area where there's enough ambiguity on our guidelines for admins and editors, while acting in good faith, to come to very different conclusions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. The law is easy, the OP just didn't read it. The law says that photographs of sex with the underage are illegal - the illegality is because somewhere in back of the image is a real child being forced to have sex with an adult. Possessing such an image is against the law in the US, the UK, Europe, the Commonwealth and most other places. Ergo the uploader has committed a crime just by having the image to upload. WP:NOTCENSORED is clear that content that is illegal in the state of Florida should be removed in advance of any takedown request. It's not my view, it's Wikipedia policy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you are talking in the right discussion? The initial action of this thread was an image/drawing, which one/two guys found to be an illustration of one/two children having sexual intercourse. No one in this thread talked about "photographs". --Niabot (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh do keep up. Read the whole thread, it really will make things easier. ::::::This is the relevant legal statement [80]. I believe any educated person can follow it. I believe combining this with WP:NOTCENSORED and the guidelines on paedophile editors confirms my position both with respect to the theoretical person uploading the image of an adult having sex with a six year old; and my position with respect to uploading cartoon images of Futanari (an alien species in Japanese fantasy which look like girls with dicks).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad, didn't notice that you are already talking about theoretical issues or other cases which have more an more nothing todo with the initial case. Its getting wider and wider and at the end we will talk about the creation of the universe. Maybe you should find a better place for this extending discussion. --Niabot (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I will agree with. This discussion has rather run away with itself, and I apologise for snappy comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Elen is quite correct of course - the law specifically refers to images of identifiable minors, not cartoons of aliens that might look like minors to some. But something seems wrong to me if we should have to pass around links to legal chapter and verse, to resolve such an issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that anyone would be blocked for that? YOu should read the whole thing, the problem was that stwr kept insisting it's child porn and claimed that reverting his removals is agains law.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is merit to User:Kenilworth Terrace's suggestion. I think it is accurate to say that the existence of a specific WP:COPYVIO policy, including the separate speedy deletion criterion, is a way for people to make legal claims without actually violating WP:NLT. Tagging something as a copyright violation is, to me, a shortcut to saying "Posting this on Wikipedia may be against the law and thus make Wikipedia liable." In other words, if we actually wrote out what tagging something as a possible Copyright Violation means, it could end up sounding like a legal threat. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a separate, named guideline would allow someone to tag a possible child pornography image (etc.). This would 1) Keep good faith users from being unintentionally blocked for violating NLT, and 2) Clearly point to other editors that they need to be extra careful if they want to restore the image. It would not preclude consensus from arguing, as in this case, that there is no violation of the law; nor would it preclude the WMF from making an independent and unilateral decision to remove any image they saw as placing them in legal jeopardy. It doesn't make sense to me to say that for one possible legal violation (copyright infringement), we can tag something with a speedy delete and walk away, while with another possible type (child pornography), we have to take extra steps to contact the Foundation by email (etc.). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• The law that was possibly violated was 18 U.S.C. § 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children". This law specifically refers to cartoons/illustrations (see Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States). Although this is an obscenity charge (and therefore subject the Miller test), the penalties are much the same as for photographs of actual minors. A conviction for distribution will result in a 5 to 20 year prison sentence a lifetime membership to the registered sex-offender club. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  That image is not a possible violation of 1466A. It would have to

  1. (a)(1)(A) Depict a minor
  2. (a)(1)(A) engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and
  3. (a)(1)(B) be obscene.

  None of those seems at all likely, although point 2 is possible likely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC

Sorry to step in again, but isn't this the exact kind of situation WP:NLT should prevent? A wikipedian is actually being threatened to spend time in prison for his contributions to wikipedia. If this is not a legal threat, I have no idea what could be.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• No idea if he will respond, but since Stillwatersing has steadfastly refused to contact Mike Godwin regarding this issue, I have: [81]. That is my sum total of involvement in this issue. Carry on. --Jayron32 03:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  (ec) Never mind point 2: It seems to meet 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (2)(A)(v) and/or (2)(B)(iii), even if not (2)(A)(iii) or (2)(B)(ii)(II). Still, the foundation, or its legal counsel, needs to be informed. Conversation here is of no legal interest, other than being a violation of WP:NLT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per far above, I did already contact Godwin a couple days ago on this very subject, so he is aware. For the record, I have no comment on the "legality" of the image one way or another, just contact Mike since he name was brought up. Jayron, you might want to contact Mike per his email, he sees that more often than the talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the foundation (infowikimedia.org) on Friday (June 25th). It was late in the afternoon so I wasn't expecting a reply over the weekend. Nobody asked or requested me to contact them, but at this point I'm sure Godwin is aware of the situation. I have talked with Godwin numerous times over the last two months. Mike has not edited Wikipedia since April of 2009. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he has edited as recently as this month. --khfan93 20:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should drop the stick, and back away from these articles for a while to regain perspective. You know the boy who cried wolf? Seems apt here. You are not a member of law enforcement or similar, so back off for a while as if you continue like this (violations of NLT, etc) you will be blocked. Verbal chat 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

() I've put a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Procedure_for_dealing_with_potentially_illegal_content for how to deal with this sort of issue in future. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Proposal to close? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to close this issue, but the wider issue is obviously not resolved. I would like to make sure that a precedent is established regarding NCMEC reporting and NLT. Reporting to NCMEC should be encouraged and in no way limited lest there be a infraction of WMF's whistleblower policy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you an employee of the Foundation? Because, well, otherwise the policy doesn't apply at all. Anyway, the issue as far as I can see is not that you reported an image to NCMEC (feel fre to continue doing this if you feel the need), but that you tried to intimidate other users by telling them that they were doing something illegal (or legally sanctionable). That is the behaviour that has to be stopped, and that is the infraction of WP:NLT you made. Fram (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

<comment redacted by --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)>.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I've debated with Stillwaterising at Commons:Commons:sexual content on such issues, and I strongly disagree with his contention that cartoons are child pornography (though there are still rare, essentially terrorist obscenity prosecutions i.e. Mike Diana). That said, I've also commented at WP:LEGAL that I think the policy as it stands, and as it ought to be, must not punish anyone (or block "not as a punishment") for reporting what they feel to be a crime, nor warning people that they think something might be illegal. We don't want to start handing out lotto jackpots like the Catholic church because we deterred people from reporting serious crimes. However, that said, we also have a WP:SOAPBOX provision that could apply to someone who makes a crusade about telling people an idiosyncratic version of the law, long after he's made his report to NCMEC (or not) and gotten Wikipedia's top guns to look over the image. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

88.159.113.13 vandalising soccer ground pages.

Resolved

 – Second IP has stopped editing. If they start up again, remove this tag. Also not sure if they are the same user as MO seems different. N419BH 01:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this IP is randomly changing the capacity of various soccer venues. No references and at least in the case of my local ground the value changed to was about 10 times the real number. Could somebody with a bit of time/tools please revert. See Special:Contributions/88.159.113.13 - SimonLyall (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You could do this yourself with WP:Twinkle or just undo them, no need for admin tools. Fences&Windows 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ability to block the IP for repeatedly doing this nonsense does require admin tools ;-) I've blocked the IP: they had been warned several times before and there's no indication that they would stop of their own accord. Agree that Twinkle+editors is all that's needed for the reverting, though. TFOWR 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...and for future reference, the best place to deal with stuff like this is WP:AIV. TFOWR 20:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't have time to do it myself since I have to leave for work in a couple of minutes. WP:AIV specifically says warnings must have been given and I don't have ability to block them so I'd have to ask an admin anyway. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I reverted back the most recent. Some of the earlier stuff I couldn't see refs for, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to see a level 4 warning at AIV, but for something like this - an editor with several final warnings for the exact same thing - I'd happily block without a recent warning. TFOWR 20:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

And now 95.155.35.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, IP hoppers... WP:DUCK. N419BH 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bioidentical Hormone Page Very Biased and Locked up by WLU

Resolved

 – WLU is not an administrator, and this is a pure content dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a new user so I am not sure this is the correct page for this discussion. However, I would like to ask how to edit the Bioidentical Hormone page to make it more neutral. As currently written, the page is very biased and contains many untruths, distortions and plain old nonsense. Every time I try to edit the page, another user, WLU , undoes the edit. Looking at the history o the page, this single user, WLU has been maintaining a choke hold on the page for years. This creates a very narrow and biased viewpoint which is what not Wikimedia had in mind or wants for its content. Does any one else have any experience with this? What is the usual procedure to resolve this? This is general appeal for assistance to make the Bioidentical Hormone Replacement page more neutral and balanced.Craigventersmonster (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected, since 3 brand-new accounts, including Craigventersmonster, showed up to edit it today. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And the edit was hopeless too. Jumping straight to ANI after your first edit is reverted doesn't look like the actions of a new user to me. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. User:Craigventersmonster, User:UGAcodon and User:Thx1138robert all include four tildes in their edit summaries, something that is very unusual. WP:DUCK says these are sockpuppets. Fences&Windows 17:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, able to use a pipe on their fourth edit. Quick learner. But missed the capitalization standard for wikipedia pages.

I've been over the sources, and this topic at length (check out the talk page archives). There's 60+ sources already in use. The majority of the scholarly publications are negative, suggesting BHRT is all hype with no substantial difference between it and HRT bar expense and unnecessary testing. Attempting to portray BHRT as something to be embraced (or worthwhile) would require egregious alterations of OR, MEDRS, NPOV, UNDUE and V. That "narrow and biased viewpoint" is based on a lot of high-quality sources converging on a single opinion.

And on a purely factual level, I'm not the only editor to undo changes to the page, I didn't lock the page, and I haven't maintained a chokehold for years. Like, a year and a half, tops, and every so often I let it breathe.

Thanks to F&W for letting me know about this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the incorrectly placed request for unprotection from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and left a note for the editor (cvm). If an admin disagrees, please revert. Verbal chat 18:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've also done the same, as the report was repeated. The place for discussion of that article is on the article talk page, which the editor has ignored in favor of ANI and RFPP reports. Dayewalker (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of the claims for superiority of bioidentical hormone therapy are what is deceptive. There is essentially universal medical consensus that the claims of superior effectiveness of bioidentical hormones lacks an evidence base, It is accepted that bioidenticals and non-bioidenticals are expected to have the same benefits and risks. There are lots and lots of high quality secondary sources and consensus statements from eminent healthcare agencies which state the same thing that bioidenticals are no better than nonbioidenticals. As a result the article is balanced as it reflects the overwhelming view of the medical community. Sadly bioidenticals are promoted by proponents to a naive public, as a panacea for a wide range of diseases and conditions which is pseudoscientific at best and fraud at worst. Despite hormones having potentially serious adverse effects including death, serious interactions and important contraindications, these bioidenticals are sold without package inserts and typically without any medical oversite. There are concerns that this user craig, has been using sockpuppery to edit the article, as stated by fences and windows and others.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am marking this resolved, but discussion can (and probably should) continue at Talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy or WT:MED. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Usertalk Issue

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 48 hours for harassment. N419BH 03:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor and I have a garden-variety dispute regarding an article.

Roughly six weeks ago, I asked him to refrain from posting on my talk page because personally, I found his approach needlessly accusatory and condescending.

He has since posted on my talk page about twenty times. Quite recently, his pace is picking up. I want him to post comments on article talk page, but not my talk page.

What might I do about this?

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should probably notify the other editor of this thread like our directions indicate. Don't worry, I've done it for you. I will now examine your complaint. N419BH 02:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like both of you have violated WP:3RR (More like the 15RR based on your talk page alone) and need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I suggest both of you stop or you will probably be blocked for disruptive editing. N419BH 02:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FYI: WP:3RR specifically exempts "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines". One of those user page guidelines also specifically allows removing most types of comments from your talk page, and cautions other editors not to replace them. I make no comment on WP:CIVIL or any other issues going on there. Anomie⚔ 02:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, my understanding is, that the user is rightfully afforded rather wide latitude in managing his or her talk page with regard to reverting unwanted comments.

It's quite true, that I've reverted at least 20 of the offending editor's comments on my talk page. In the edit dispute (not here at issue), however, you would find a rather different state of affairs.

As to notification of the offending editor, the reader may understand, in the context of my particular complaint, that I am unwilling to post on his talk page.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, you are correct about reverting your own talk page. My apologies. You should probably read WP:CIVIL and possibly tone down your rhetoric. That might help avoid problems like this in the future. N419BH 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours, then extended to 48 for asking me to continue the harassment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GHJmover

There has been a second incident of stalking/vandalism of my edits and randomly reverting them without comment by the IP user:12.230.218.121. The first incident was reported in Feb 2009 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHUastro/Archive, an editor who apparently thinks "Dobsonian telescopes are cheap". This new incident happened after User:GHJmover made a series of edits along the lines of "Dobsonians are cheap"dif and amateur telescope maker "(John M. Pierce) is equal in stature and historical importance to (Russell W. Porter and Albert G. Ingalls)"[82] which I corrected for WP:NPOV or reverted. He also started blanking links to articles he did not likedif. User:79.240.36.138dif and User:79.240.2.239dif are close IPs supporting User:GHJmover's edits. Edits also supported by User:130.183.86.193 or similar IPsdif. BTW User:JHUastro and User:GHJmover sign their user pages the exact same way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the 12... anon. Looks like an WP:SPI is in order. Vsmith (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Ben Sonnenberg

User:68.49.44.190, who in his first edit to the Ben Sonnenberg article claims to be related to the article subject, has made a series of edits removing content and / or being critical of Sonnenberg. See edit 1, edit 2 and edit 3. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• 68.49.44.190 has made three additional edits to the same article, removing sourced content or adding nonsense. Alansohn (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an ordinary vandal, see [83]. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Atheisty

My first encounter with this user, which I suspect to be a sockpuppet (and who is a single purpose account), was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mormon sacred texts with a vote he made. I responded to this vote and marked it as SPA. I can guess the user was not satisfied, and maybe he was even offended with my vote or with my comments in this AfD, but he didn't contact me about his concerns over me. Now he seems to stalk my edits and my votes in other AfD, and in all the AfDs I voted for he "votes" too (that is, he votes the opposite of my own votes), and he "re-edits" my edits :see his contributions]. I cannot deduce which account is sockpuppetting, but it is highly probable that he is a sockpuppet of an user involved in the Criticism of Mormons article and AfD page. (I now have based evidence on who it might be, see below) I request the help of an admin, as I see it as a pure purposely harassing of my account. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, this looks like an SPA and seems to be stalking User:Maashatra11's edits. Checkuser might be needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree here, I have a pretty strong suspicion it's a sock of another account, also currently involved on some of those pages. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you qualify who you might be thinking of (here on in email) and I'll run a CU request. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi from Maashatra11, in this diff from an article about a well known Christian song that I coincindentally never edited, he blanks all the lyrics of that song and writes in the edit summary: "lyrics violate wikipedia rules". I think this User can be blocked for vandalism, not just for sockpuppetry which might be very difficult to figure out. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The song Maashatra11 is refering to is The Old Rugged Cross. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that vandalism? Looks like the song itself is old enough, but did the author live too long for the copyright to have expired by now? --Onorem♠Dil 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It falls under the category of having been published in the US before 1923 so is in the public domain for certain. Yworo (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought there was some 70 years from death thing involved too. Just thought I'd ask. --Onorem♠Dil 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If first published after 1923 or outside the U.S., that sort of rule becomes more likely. But the 1923 rule is a bright-line for U.S. published material. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the specific recording from the 1950s mentioned in the article would still be protected, even though neither the word nor lyrics still are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs)

• I reverted all his edits, IMHO no immediate admin intervention is needed, as his activity seems to have cooled off for the moment. Let's hope he won't repeat his disruptive pattern.Maashatra11 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of users have raised with me (off-wiki) some vague thoughts on who this person may be, however it is classed as a 'hunch' with only one supporting diff which, at the moment, links the 'suspect' to this account only in that they both disagree with the same other user. I don't think SPI will let us do that kind of fishing expedition, no? I'll have to take a look at the accounts mentioned and see if I can identify something that I could actually take to SPI. Someone correct me if they think SPI would take it as is. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The originator of this discussion has taken it on himself to remove User:Atheisty's comment from this AfD, even though no sockpuppetry or other evidence of wrongdoing has been proven. I would also add the the removal of the complete lyrics of a song, whether or not they are out of copyright, is completely in accord with policy, so certainly can't be called vandalism. I don't want to get into an edit war, so could someone else please either restore User:Atheisty's AfD comment or explain why it should be removed from the discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been given some thoughts on sockpuppetry on my talk page, which while it is a reason to think, I'm not sure it is at this time in any way conclusive. I also have no evidence of block evasion, and only a sliver for vote stacking - so I'm probably not going to take it further. The user seems okay with this. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really a "sliver" for vote stacking in my opinion. I think it's pretty obvious he voted twice in the same deletion discussion under two user names. If that's not a sock, then who is? Maashatra11 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thread from SGGH's talkpage discussing the assumption that User:Atheisty is a sock of User:Storm Rider

copied from user:SGGH's talk page :

Hi! Following your comment in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Atheisty, I have an idea who my stalker might be. This diff, from User:Storm Rider expresses clear objection and even anger to my comment. I am not sure about him, but he's the only user I could think of. I will appreciate it if you run an CU request about him. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know if SPI will let us take a fishing expedition but I shall browse around. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SGGH! I have more evidence based on the striking similarity between the comment and vote made by User:Storm Rider, and Atheisty' vote, as can be implied from the AfD of Mormon criticism. Both use "Weak Delete" and use very similar wording. I think similarity of edits can be a good reason for a CU. Anyway, I will make a bit of copypaste for you so it's easier for you to compare :

Weak Delete Repetition adnauseam benefits no one and LDS topics do seem to particularly repetitive. If there is anything novel in the article, then keep it and change the title to fit the new topic, i.e. Criticism of the Doctrine and Covenants. A hierarchy for hierarchy's sake is meaningless unless the progression results in a cumulative addition of new information. Simply repeating what already exists elsewhere is aggrandizement. --StormRider 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

vs.

Weak Delete The information in the article seems to be expressed in other articles critical of Mormonism. The article could be salvaged if it was entirely redone and devoted to a specific criticism..... Hierarchy, I believe, is meaningless. --Atheisty (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The suspected sock seems to have cooled off for now so nothing immediate is required to be done. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Storm Rider, I set it up for you. Take it away, Maashatra11. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of User CSS

Resolved

Hi, please delete User:Schuhpuppe/hideToolbar.css. Thanks. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done by NuclearWarfare. Future deletion requests can be handled by placing {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. :) – B.hotep •talk• 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Honour killings

I'm aware this may show my own cultural biases or smack of cultural imperialism, but I'm not convinced this kind of editor should be tolerated: Sulaxn (talk · contribs). Probably needs some advice at the very least. Verbal chat 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually entirely sure what they're talking about; they don't seem to be expressing themselves very clearly. Is this about euthanasia or something, or have I completely lost the plot? In any case though, perhaps this is best to discuss with the user before bringing it straight to AN/I. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like soapboxing or part of a sermon. Will keep an eye on this. – B.hotep •talk• 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the editor was, from his outlook, commenting on neutrality as to a given topic, but didn't understand what that talk page is for. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

(not sure if this has been adressed) but I've noticed today on "Boss's" talkpage that this IP User:96.44.151.61 thratened "before I have to spend money on a laywer" which seems like a leagl threat to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Donny_Long Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Already done: that is, blocked as a confirmed sock of User:Donnylong. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel

Resolved

 – for now. Complainant semi-retired. No admin abuse found. N419BH 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to complain about SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs) edit warring in the Abortion and misuse of administrative tools (by himself or at his request) to punish other users who disagree with a recent change or to protect that recent change from being reverted.

SheffieldSteel is an admin and also an involved editor in that article, as we can see on the talk page and the article itself, starting by this edit and many other times he edited on the article talk page not to discuss content in a consensus building process, listening to the other part and using arguments to overcome differences, but only occasional situations, usually using an authoritative or imposing voice.

The first act was when one user did a major change to article that lead to an edit war betwen users supporting or disagreeing with that change. SheffieldSteel interveining to support that change by blocking an user who disagreed with that change and had reverted only once.

Then he started threatening me that I would be blocked if I reverted changes I disagree. As what would became usual, SheffieldSteel used deceptive messages, like if it was some kind of vandalism by removing sources when it was a deeper discussion about content that was going on the talk page, that involved the discussion of reliability of the sources and misrepresentation of the sources by WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. Often he made such warnings after the request of another user involved in the content dispute supporting his same POV, without checking if that user complains had any ground, if wasn't he the one causing the problems, if there was any problem or need for administrative intervention (specially by an involved administrator).

Finally after another user decided to ignore the ongoing discussion on the talk page and did a bold change to the article, I was making minor changes to that major change, like removing a source about a different subject. Then SheffieldSteel requested my block and I was blocked after his request and the article was protected.

The third abuse was after one user made another bold change, so a series of edits followed that text, including reverts by both parties, then understanting that editor concerns about the relevance to the article of that issue (placenta previa) myself included I decided to remove the mention to that issue. SheffieldSteel, then uninvolved in this specific discussion reverted me and when I did the same he asked for my block and I was blocked the second time. While I was blocked, few minutes before the end of my block, SheffieldSteel reverted me twice arguing there was consensus for his change while two people supported my change and others brought new sources to the discussion that was still going on.

The fourth abuse was when I was trying to move foward the issue we have been discussing for several weeks in that article talk page, by using an initial, but consensual version suggested by another user, that reflected the result of the discussion process so far. But SheffieldSteel reverted, despite of no argument opposing to that version, performing the same change that lead to this article first protection. Just after doing that change, SheffieldSteel requested article protection and the article is now protected for one week.

I'm tired of these SheffieldSteel recent edit warring that should receive the same threatment he asks for others (which resulted in 3 blocks so far) and how administrative tools are being used by him (or at his request) to punish only the other side of the content dispute at the same time they're used to protect his supported changes.

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) another involved editor, was also sick of this behavior where administrator status is used to protect his side in the dispute while always punishing the other. After his 15000 article edits Anythingyouwant left Wikipedia because of that. I won't follow the same path but if nothing is done about these SheffieldSteel actions I'll carry no trust about the quality of administrative actions.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm unsure how Sheffield Steel being an admin is related to you being blocked twice for fairly obvious edit-warring violations, since he didn't block you himself. The discussion at Talk:Abortion#Placenta_previa is fairly clear that you didn't have consensus to make the changes at that point; I haven't time to wade through the other diffs. If you have evidence that Sheffield Steel edit-warred inappropriately at any point or used his admin tools to gain an editing advantage, please present them concisely. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If that counts I was blocked twice by the same admin under the request of the same user/admin. I'm not discussing my block here. But if Sheffield Steel actions of consectutive reverts, twice in Placenta Previa, both without consensus, the same number I did before being blocked and one more than himself took into account to block Schrandit. As well as he last revert to include the same text that caused the article to be protected twice. If those actions don't also justify a block under the same criteria he used for those other blocks.

The other point is if it doesn't classify as a misconduct to make a change that included recently added content still under discussion and ask for page protection just after that when he should be aware of the protection tool shouldn't used to protect his declared preferrable version.

The third point is if Sheffield Steel abused his tools by blocking Schrandit, for his single revert, when Sheffield Steel had a conflict of interest by supporting the other partie in that content dispute?--Nutriveg (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I can add a wee bit of detail, as an involved admin. SheffieldSteel requested full protection for Abortion at WP:RFPP, noting that they felt that blocking editor(s) had not worked in the past, and that they hoped protection might force everyone to come to the table and discuss. I looked into it, and agreed to the request. Since then I've been following the discussion: I'm not aware of SheffieldSteel having abused any admin tools since I first became involved. TFOWR 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC) slight amendment...: "used" → "abused". TFOWR 20:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c)Well isn't that ironic. The reason I asked for page protection to resolve the recent edit warring is because I thought a new approach might be in order, as Nutriveg had probably had enough of being blocked. I don't know what else to suggest. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like Nutriveg just doesn't like consensus going against them, and interprets what they want as "consensus". Fences&Windows 20:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, it's clear how you took care to revert to your declared preferrable version just before asking for article protection.

Fences and windows, I'm not the topic of the discussion here, if you want to discuss me please open a different section. This section was created to discuss those points above--Nutriveg (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've retitled the section to address your concern. However, it would be better not to name editors in titles. Verbal chat 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to disclaimer, that Verbal was involved in several disputed with me in the past, including in that Abortion article.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Nutriveg should take a holiday from this article. Verbal chat 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Up to blocking Schrandit, I was trying to avoid being actively involved in content disputes at Abortion. I made occasional comments to steer discussion in a productive discussion and I made occasional reverts of what I felt were clearly unproductive edits (e.g. this one - don't forget to assume good faith when comparing the source and the edit!). (Note that in addition to blocking Schrandit I considered blocking other users who had got involved in that edit war; the decisions - and distinction between editors - that I made at that time was based on their block history and their User Talk history. See User_talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive_6#Note_on_my_talk_page for more background.) After that block, I had a change of heart. Since Nutriveg had been so active both in terms of Talk page output, reversions, and protests that I was an involved editor, I decided to put the admin hat well and truly away, and concentrate on discussing that content. That goes some way to explaining, I think, the current complaint. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not just about if you have edited the article, but if you are a neutral party or not, having affinity for one side of the dispute, like you have assumed to have. Your blocks and block threats were directed to those parties you later better expressed such disagreement. --20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. Doc James, who I warned about edit warring (see link above), is someone I am in disagreement with, and that's why I "threatened" them? Am I also in disagreement with RexxS, who I may have "threatened" leading to this discussion? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were blind to don't see RexxS edit war on my talk page after my warning on his, but when the discussion was about content and you had to decide what to do in that edit war you blocked Schrandit, who reverted once, and warned DocJames. And that DocJames warning was far from those "self revert or be blocked threats" you sent to me.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My warning to DocJames was carefully worded precisely because a templated message could never have said what needed to be said. That should be obvious from... well, reading the message. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that SheffieldSteel actions have risen to the level of that inappropriate for an admin. He is now evolved and as such is the same as everyone else. When the abortion page was first protected it was with Nutrivegs wording in place [84] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to disclaimer DocJames is an involved party, he is the one who reverted the article before Schrandit was blocked by SheffieldSteel for doing the same thing.

DocJames, That first protection I was still editing if you didn't realize when SheffieldSteel requested my block and that article was protected, that's why that bold edit of yours wasn't edited until the end of the discussion on the talk page.

But that's not even a minor point in my argument, but if it was OK to block Schrandit and threatening} to do the same with me when SheffieldSteel had such conflict of interest, and if it was OK for an admin to make a change and request protection just after that edit--Nutriveg (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's finish this discussion

Come on guys, let's finish this discussion, I'm waiting for some uninvolved admins to came here and agree on the following points:

• It was OK (or not) to SheffieldSteel block Schrandit and threatening to do the same with me in an article SheffieldSteel had a conflict of interest (affinity to one side in the content dispute that later became evident)?
• It was OK (or not) behavior for an admin, to make a change in an article, to its declared preferrable version, and request protection just after that change?

If I'm able to listen to the answers to those questions I'll understand how much admin bias I can expect in my future edits.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, someone answer. Then perhaps I can get a break from the never-ending stream of smears, half-truths, and unsubstantiated innunendo. I'm willing to let a fair amount slide, but surely this has gone on long enough. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the time these questions remained unanswered I got my answer: uninvolved admins don't even care about those issues.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg

Should a topic ban be proposed for Nutriveg to prevent further disruption at Abortion and Talk:Abortion, and to stop him from getting blocked again (see the editwarring on this very page). Verbal chat 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to disclaimer, that Verbal was involved in several disputed with me in the past, including in that Abortion article. So that should be taken into account to understand why he's so much against me.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is what uninvolved editors and admins think. So far, only Akhilleus has offered a definitive answer to that question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying you should be blocked because I was blocked in the same conditions you have edit warred? Or that I may be blocked and your abuses pointed above forgotten.

I'm still waiting for those same admins you're now calling to block me, to answer if it was OK to block Schrandit and threatening to do the same with me when you had such conflict of interest, and if it was OK to make a change and request protection just after that edit--Nutriveg (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, please self revert as you've just broken WP:3RR - on ANI of all places. Would it hurt to make the title of the entire thread more neutral and reflective of the content? Per WP:TPO and WP:CIVIL etc. This is why you should probably take a break. Verbal chat 22:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're silly, please stop taking your historic of personal disputes with me to disrupt this ANI that I created and break away from this discussion.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't refer to people as silly it is disruptive. Also please stop reverting, a step back is in order. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that something does need to change such that the topic area of abortion can be improved to reflect the scientific literature.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Off2riorob, English is not my first languange and I didn't expect Verbal would understand it that way since that was how he initially addressed me on my talk page.

DocJames, agreed, and that becames much better when editors are not threatened out of the discussion by an admin with a tool in their hand to use only against users he disagrees about content.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated, if someone calls you silly I suppose you are in your right to call them silly back, although tit for tat name calling is not a solution to disputed situations, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I never called Nutriveg silly, while I was the target of uncivil language and accusations from him. Verbal chat 06:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm providing the diff if it wasn't clear for everyone, as said I don't know the cultural implications this word may have.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Editwarring on ANI is very very silly". I stand by that comment, I think it is a truth we might hold self evident, to borrow an American phrase. You are very lucky not to have been blocked for violating 3RR, and your response to the warning doesn't seem to show you get it. To underline, I did not call you silly and I didn't reply as I'd agreed to take a break from commenting here, as you requested, to show good faith. For you to take advantage of that to leave a personal attack is telling. You've made several criticisms of my editing, that I'm afraid I don't understand and have asked you to explain. Please do, on your talk page or mine. Verbal chat 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Good luck finding an "involvement" with me. While not an admin, this certainly looks like a content dispute. Nothing more, nothing less. I highly suggest the involved parties work it out on abortion's talk page. I will also note that abortion is a highly contentious issue, and as such no one is going to get their exact viewpoint expressed in the article. All parties are reminded of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. N419BH 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll say this: if I had noticed that Nutriveg was making the same kinds of edits [85] [86] for which I blocked him before, I would have blocked him again instead of protecting the page. I do not believe this editor understands the meaning of consensus or how to discuss matters constructively on the talk page; if he did, he would be working towards agreement at Talk:Abortion rather than attempting to take out an opponent in a content dispute through spurious allegations of admin abuse at WP:ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

N419BH, surely there was a content dispute involved, otherwise we wouldn't have an administrator with a conflict of interest, but this ANI is mainly about evaluating those administrative actions cited in the section above (Let's finish this discussion) so I'll know how much administrative bias is accepted in the Wikipedia environment (despite of whats written in Wikipedia:Administrators and may better decide how much is worth to colaborate in such environment.

For the record I've been trying to reach consensus despite of the WP:OR and WP:UNDUE environment in that article talk page, that can be seen by my number of edits in that talk page. :There's no such thing as me trying to remove an opponnent because SheffieldSteel rarely contributes to the discussion (only to revert and reject), there are others supporting his POV and I don't see how the result of this ANI could remove him from that discussion. On the other hand Schrandit was blocked the first time he reverted in that article, I was threatened of blocking to resolve a content dispute, later blocked twice under the request of that same admin, AIY decided to abandon Wikipedia after 6 years and 15000 article edits because of such selective administrative actions targeting only one side of the content dispute and this section starts with someone proposing my ban from that article and the same administrator (Akhilleus) who blocked me those two times I was ever blocked is more than willing to block me again. So it's clear who is being removed from that discussion by the use of coercion.-Nutriveg (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks like your "rouge admin" is actually doing everything by the book, like asking for a second opinion instead of unilaterally blocking you. Your blocks are the result of an independent admin looking at your contributions after being alerted to possible issues and deciding they fell afoul of our policies. The article is locked in order to force discussion, as obviously attempting to be civil about it hasn't worked. The next step, should it come to it, is for the disruptive individuals to be blocked. Perhaps if you toned it down a bit you might actually get something done instead of being blocked for disruptive editing. If there's a problem, someone else will fix it. If you're the only one reverting a specific edit, perhaps it's not a problem. N419BH 13:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Your actions here have shown you in less than a good light, Nutriveg. Verbal chat 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use names so I'll know which admin you're talking about. So far no uninvolved admin has shown up in the topic above (Let's finish this discussion) to answer those questions about SheffieldSteel actions as an admin, so any other point about that issue is just smoke.

N419BH, you should be more aware of what happened on that talk page and the history of those before making such conclusions about me. I'll ignore Verbal as usual, since we both had a long history of disagreement in article talk pages and his intentions here are clearly personal.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• (As an involved editor): Nutriveg has been blocked twice for edit-warring on abortion, and his edit-warring has additionally forced the article into full protection twice (log). (Note that despite the controversial nature of the topic, it had not required full protection for almost 2 years, until Nutriveg arrived). His behavior continues unabated.

  Despite the presence of numerous intelligent and seasoned editors, Nutriveg's actions have completely stalled efforts to improve the article, instead diverting an immense amount of effort into addressing his increasingly unreasonable objections and handling his constant edit-warring.

  I am firmly convinced that the article cannot be improved until Nutriveg is either topic-banned, voluntarily chooses to make major changes in his approach, or successfully shunned by other active editors at the article. As an aside, this is exactly where Wikipedia falls down most consistently - in dealing with this sort of tendentiousness. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are false claims, few weeks ago, there were many editors agreeing with a proposed suggestion made by me where you MastCell, other editor and SheffieldSteel were the only opposing voices, in the mean time one user, that initially raised the issue in the talk page, abandoned that discussion after he was blocked the first time he reverted, AIY decided to abandon Wikipedia after 15000 article edits and you're trying to silence me, where I will also not accept to work in such censorship environment.

Few days ago we have reached consensus about the use of "lower mortality" term when a sporadic contributor shown up just to exarcebate the discussion, where he found chorus between the same group of users.

Shortly after that there was consensus about a another user suggestion, since no user so far expressed what was the problem with that suggestion, but the same group of users decided to simple revert that change when it was put in place.

All disagreement so far in that article was caused by itentions of some editors to first decide what to write and later to care about sources, ignoring what the majority of the (updated/secondary/worldwide) sources say and showing no care to do WP:OR when no source support their intentions to give more enphasis to a topic than the sources themselves. And even between that small group there's no consensus about a proposed text.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the talk page and read your specific links above. As an uninvolved editor, I have stated I feel your claims of admin abuse are unfounded. If you'd like, I can ask an uninvolved admin to review this case, but you probably won't like the result. I think you're better off excusing yourself from the abortion article, or perhaps you could change your approach and try to discuss your specific issues in a WP:CIVIL manner. N419BH 18:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward at Abortion

Does anyone have any ideas how we can move beyond this current impasse? See above for my suggested proposal and for MastCell's interesting analysis. Needless to say I do not think SheffieldSteel is the problem, but Nutriveg gives his opinion in the first post of this thread. What does the community think? Verbal chat 18:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If Nutriveg continues to be disruptive, a topic ban would seem necessary. Fences&Windows 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just found this thread, and I feel I must register my disgust at this post by Nutriveg, making an accusation against me (which I refute) without even having the decency to notify me that he was discussing me at this noticeboard. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I hereby second a topic ban of Abortion for Nutriveg. N419BH 00:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would support a topic ban from Abortion-related topics for Nutriveg. I just think they're too invested in the topic right now and maybe some time off could help them more in the long run. --13² 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I've only just noticed this discussion otherwise I would have been along a lot sooner. I was first alerted to problems at this article when I saw a thread initiated by Sheffield asking for uninvolved admin action some weeks back. I protected the article for three days, and to cut a long story short, I was impressed by the effect that had. A lot of discussion took place on the talk page thereafter, and even when Nutrieveg came back from a short block, it seemed to be going along fine... until the next block... and now we are at the situation where it is being discussed again. I also had MastCell request on my talk page that I look at the article and the conduct of involved editors (both sides of the fence) – I decided not to get too involved in case I had to take further action, but sufficed to say, I found no misconduct, least of all admin abuse, by Sheffield whatsoever. Therefore, the problems lay firmly at Nutrieveg's doorstep and I would suggest that he take a proactive step back. – B.hotep •talk• 09:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems from his user and talk page that Nutriveg has (sort of) retired. Seems therefore probably resolved. Verbal chat 10:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute copied from User talk:NuclearWarfare

This administrator is not available to deal with the situation at this time, which is escalating. It may all amount to nothing, but if any administrators would give a thorough review, it would be appreciated.Editor182 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User is persisting to revert edits

Unresolved

An article ban on Kristoferb (talk) may be required as they refuse to accept that their images aren't suitable or a contribution to sertraline or paracetamol. When I have disagreements with other users, I either seek the opinion of a third party, compromise or accept the decision. This particular user is beyond reason, claiming that you're my "puppet", and refusing to accept the consensus of others. Editor182 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on situation

The situation with Kristoferb had escalated into two disputes. I decided to throw in the towel because I had given up trying to reason with this person or gain the support of other users, and the dispute was beginning to disrupt the articles, the paracetamol article was locked and I didn't want to have fluctuating changes on a featured article like sertraline. I've only just noticed that you're an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I had said in both Talk:Sertraline and Talk:Paracetamol that an "established" user had agreed with the decision. If I had noticed this on your user page earlier, I would have only left you a message, as an administrator had already attended to the situation. I'm hoping you will still enforce your decision when you return. I regularly contribute to articles on pharmaceuticals, so I'll be around if you'd like to reply. Editor182 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

I was expecting this would be over until you could return and settle the matter, but Kristoferb has now turned his attention to harassment.[87] I hope you could consider this user worthy of a ban. Editor182 (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may intervene because I saw this pop up in irc, this is not harassment, and certainly not ban worthy. It is not personal in the sense that it is an attack, but rather offering an opinion. Assume good faith and try to work through disputes, rather than seek mediation. Thanks  – Tommy [message] 13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an isolated dispute.

The dispute was originally concerning two of this users images on separate articles which was attended to by NuclearWarfare, but the edit was reverted by the user in their own best interest. Not only are these articles awaiting rectification, but this user is now turning their attention to my contributions. If this isn't harassment, then it most certainly is a personal agenda. It's unlikely that his latest argument will suffice with the contributing users of the article, so that isn't the issue, but it's apparent that this user is now looking for trouble, the quality of the articles isn't their priority. I have spent too much time trying to reason with this person, I've never come across someone on Wikipedia that's so stubborn. Editor182 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We can wait for a response from NW, but from my perspective he isn't being over the top stubborn. He has his views, you have yours. I've seen way worse.  – Tommy [message] 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The situation is stable at this point, and only active in the finasteride talk page. The sertraline and paracetamol articles aren't the center of his crusade after I gave up trying to reason with this person, and closed them without consensus. However, as previously stated, the situation would not have escalated into further edit warring and subsequent disputes if I'd known NuclearWarfare was an administrator. If NuclearWarfare returns and decides to enforce their decision on sertraline and paracetamol, Kristoferb may continue to remain stubborn beyond reason, though I agree that suggesting a ban may have been excessive at this stage. Editor182 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Situation getting out of hand

Kristoferb has now turned their attention to temazepam. This is a relentless vindictive rampage.

It's more than likely Kristoferb turned their attention to the temazepam article as they could see their argument in finasteride was not going anywhere.

This will undoubtedly continue. A ban doesn't seem excessive at this stage, on the contrary, it seems like the only way to end this and in the best interest of the community;

• Kristoferb doesn't cease, doesn't reason, doesn't listen, disregards and belittles the opinions of others. This is evident on the finasteride talk page and the fact that the earlier reversions by NuclearWarfare were undone. Furthermore, Kristoferb is now taking matters in their own hands, removing images on muliple articles in favor of their own user uploaded image without even explaining why in the edit summary. The latest being the image on temazepam before any consensus from other users. The user sees disputing topics as a game. To quote Kristoferb on the paracetamol talk page, "you LOST the dispute", "Editor182 knows he will lose this dispute just like he lost the last one." Obviously Kristoferb confused my decision to stop the dispute, which wasn't going anywhere, as a "win". Disputes aren't "lost" or "won", but a consensus is brought forth by the community.

In my opinion Kristoferb is simply not suited for Wikipedia. Editor182 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting review

• NuclearWarfare, I only just saw your message in discussion history. No problem. I'll await your review in the meantime. Editor182 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the previous and related disputes, I did ask Editor182 (talk · contribs) to discuss and establish consensus, etc. See here; they removed the message here, and when I elaborated on my talk page, they removed that too [88]. I remain neutral, I just thought this might help clarify the situation thus far. Chzz  ►  19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Comment

• I explained to Chzz that I treat my Talk page like an email inbox, not an article, in order to keep the page from becoming cluttered with outdated information. I must emphasize; I only remove messages after I read them and if they do not require a follow-up discussion, and then only when discussions end do I clear my Talk. In order to prevent the fair misconception that I disregard messages, "This page is left blank when not in use." always remains on the page.

• I had attempted to discuss and establish consensus with this user on both sertraline and paracetamol, but as discussed above, the only input was from one user on sertraline who was neural. I closed these disputes, with the support of this outside user on sertraline. Kristoferb has reopened these disputes, among others, and they remain open.

• Most importantly discussion and consensus was unnecessary on both of the above articles - administration had already attended to the situation and made their decision - Kristoferb reverted both the administrators decisions. It was unbeknown to me at the time that these reversions were done by administration, but regardless, the ongoing warring and ensuing disputes were unprecedented as two users had already disagreed.

Review from NuclearWarfare is pending. Kristoferb is not a user who is able to discuss, establish or accept a consensus from users which isn't in their favor. Editor182 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another update ...

Kristoferb is now removing images of his own accord from finasteride and temazepam. In one argument, his request for an image deletion was denied, in another, nobody responded and he took matters into his own hands again. Reverting disputes without consensus, along with everything else I've mentioned above. It's become too much for me to continue to functioning on Wikipedia with this person on my case. NuclearWarfare, please review this case, and if you can, please overlook our previous edits, as soon as you have time. If this user stays as they are, then I give up. I'll try to stay out of their way, and I suggest everyone else do the same, it doesn't matter if you're a team agreeing to a consensus, an administrator reverting an edit, if you compromise, or reason, because that's all irrelevant. This user is for themselves. I will add this to the administration page, at least until NuclearWarfare returns, because Kristoferb is disabling my ability to contribute with this personal crusade. I enjoy contributing what and where I can, but at this moment, I'd be saddened, but relieved if I was given the boot instead of our good friend Kristoferb. Editor182 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Propecia (finasteride) 1 mg tablets (CA)

File:Propecia (finasteride).jpg

Propecia (finasteride) 1 mg tablets (AU)

• I've informed Kristoferb of this thread, and I've given them some advice. Editor182, you should calm down and follow our guidelines on dispute resolution. Let third parties state their opinions on what images to use. You don't need to comment at such length about this. Fences&Windows 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Editor182 has populated many pharmaceutical related articles with images he took hastily (out of focus, blurry, over exposed, poor lighting, and/or weak composition) which are now being progressively replaced along with other poor quality images not taken by him. He continually disputes the meaning of objective photographic terms like "focus" and "blurry" in defence of his images. An image of a tablet where the tablet is totally blurry is not, in any objective sense, a quality image. As per proposed guideline on image quality: If the picture is too dark, too light, blurry, or has other issues that cast doubt upon this recognition, the image should be removed from the article, and in some cases, may be deleted. It is as simple as that: when a conforming image is found showing the same subject, the non-conforming image is replaced. It is now Editor182's position that, at the very least, two images of the same subject should be in the article - one the high quality replacement and one his poor quality original image. There is, however, no logical reason to have two images of 1mg Propecia tablets or two images of 10mg temazepam tablets - one good and one bad. --Kristoferb (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The images that Kristof complains about are not nearly such poor images as he claims. I suspect he's got some issues with his computer screen or something. One article that was a bone of contention was where he kept posting a picture of a pill whose box was in something other than English. It had some value on its own, but not to the exclusion of the other photos in the article, which he insisted on trying to remove. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Kristoferb, would you mind explaining why, if you believe Editor182's photos to be so poor, you nominated one of them for featured picture? SheepNotGoats (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - if it is as good as he says it is, we should see many positive comments on its technical merits.--Kristoferb (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
        • • Let's do an experiment. Two images. Open both and look at the large version. Can you see what is written on the tablets in each photo? Remember, the image is in large part an illustration of the medication, which is the tablet. --Kristoferb (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be clear to observers that this is basically a content dispute, albeit one instigated by a probably well-meaning, but over-zealous editor who has a higher standard for free photos than the typical wikipedian does. And, again, there's nothing wrong with the photos. They're just pills, not works of art. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you sure? There is a Wiki Project page entitled How to improve image quality. It says: Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish. --Kristoferb (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"One article that was a bone of contention was where he kept posting a picture of a pill whose box was in something other than English. It had some value on its own, but not to the exclusion of the other photos in the article, which he insisted on trying to remove." I didn't know this, but it illustrates what I already knew. As for a course of action, his disputes on paracetamol and sertraline need to be thrown out and returned to the last revision done by NuclearWarfare (in respect to the images), because NuclearWarfare is an administrator, not my "puppet" as Kristoferb put it at the time when they reverted the edit. If he favors his images over the images of others to the point where he removes them without cause, then imagine how he would react about someone going against their own images? No need to imagine, it's all right here. Editor182 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "without cause" is only in your mind. I have told you why they were removed. You just take it badly. --Kristoferb (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I tried to give you the benifit of the doubt about the quality of your images by nominating the Propecia for Featured Picture. I've now removed it, but this was the first reply to the nomination: Oppose (because “über oppose” doesn’t count as any more points). I don’t know how to state this any less painfully. I suspect there have been better iPhone pictures. This isn’t close to FP material. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoferb (talk • contribs)

The cause is definitely there Kristoferb, but in your own mind, and nonetheless obvious to others. The cause of your actions is to remove other images in place of your own, whether they're appropriate or not. Furthermore you do it without even a comment as to why on the edit. There was no "benefit of the doubt", you wanted to see how many negative responses you could get for putting my image up for a featured image, which is a deceptive and blatant abuse of the system. Editor182 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so sure anyone would give a negative response to your image? --Kristoferb (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Kristoferb's submitting of one of Editor182's pictures to Featured Picture a pretty clear violation of WP:POINT? Given the history between these two, I cannot reasonably believe that Kristoferb was seriously giving one of these pictures the "benefit of the doubt." I mean, I know I'm supposed to WP:AGF and all, but...really? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Please ignore that, I simply failed to look down to the next section :( Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you help solve this dispute by giving an opinion on replacing his cell phone images? --Kristoferb (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by Kristoferb to make a point

I've merged this thread with the above one, in case something gets archived early, so that they aren't split, and so that things are easier.. I guess. Feel free to revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the above thread, Kristoferb is probably correct about the exceedingly poor quality of at least one of Editor182’s pharmaceutical-related pictures (Propecia, above). However, the proper remedy was pointed out, above, to Kristoferb on how to deal with this. One alternative remedy is not to disrupt the community by making what is obviously a bad-faith Featured Pictures nomination like he did here. I ask the administrator community do deal with this disruption in a swift and clear fashion.Greg L (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I was honestly trying to give the image a shot. Editor182 is very convinced of the quality of his images, so I have eventually come to the conclusion that perhaps I am missing some hidden merit. I am relieved, however, that other's feel the same as I do about it. I didn't anticipate anyone might feel foolish voting on it. --Kristoferb (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I might have been inclined to believe you if you had said all of that in the nomination statement. Instead, your nom statement is written as though you believed it was worth promoting ("This picture shows a Propecia tablet very well and is technically very good"), making your actions appear very disingenuous. SheepNotGoats (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I am not an expert photographer by any measure, and I am being repeatedly told it is actually a good photo - so I put that. In any event, I certainly didn't mean to cause any massive disruption to the nominations system and apologize if that did in fact occur due to my actions. When this concern was brought to my attention I immediately removed the nomination to minimize any subsequent impact it might have on the page. --Kristoferb (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how nobody else has ever had a problem with the quality of my images either. If you keep replacing other peoples work with your own, there will eventually be a dispute, and this will eventually come out. Editor182 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• He just told you your image is of "exceedingly poor quality". FYI, "exceedingly" means "very".--Kristoferb (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What’s wrong with you two? This reminds me of Star Trek’s Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (YouTube clip) where you guys can go at each others’ throats in the fourth dimension for all eternity. Editor182: Please clarify who “you” refers to; I didn’t replace any photos of yours. You two need to take these posts and put them in the above thread. This thread is for dealing with the bad-faith stunt Kristoferb pulled over on Featured Pictures in dealing with your photos—the quality of which, or lack thereof—is an entirely different matter (don’t get me started). Greg L (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I never referred to you, Greg, the only person who has replaced images and ever had my images questioned is Kristoferb. I'm not a regular in discussion, I'm a regular contributor to articles. Editor182 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a permanent ban on Kristoferb for trying to give Editor182 something to be proud of. --Kristoferb (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Kristoferb, that's the first thing we agree on. Editor182 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If this incident is worthy of such action in the opinion of those charged with disposition of the complaint, then so be it.--Kristoferb (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, Kristoferb, your intentions here could not possibly have been clearer when you went to Featured Pictures with your nomination. You knew full well people would vote on it. Moreover, you got the precise response you expected (and you turned around and quoted it, above, before I could come here to alert the admin community of this stunt). Accordingly, your edit summary when you retracted your FP nomination (here), where you stated “Was good faith - a chance for it to shine. But I will remove it not to cause trouble” is not in the least bit true. It was not a good-faith nomination and you had zero expectation it would “shine”. Greg L (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is not my expectation but rather my sincere openness to being surprised if the results did in fact contradict my expectation. The fact that you gave a poor review can in no way prove or disprove my state of mind vis-a-vis a willingness to be surprised by the outcome. Had your nomination been positive, I would have retracted all nominations for removal held against the image in question.--Kristoferb (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Don’t start wikilawyering with me. WP:Assume Good Faith does not mean “abandon all common sense.” You knew full well what you were doing and what the outcome would be. It’s time to man-up for that stunt you pulled rather than hide behind the apron strings of “sincerity”. Editor182 needs to stop replacing pictures with the ones he’s taking if the above-cited example is at all representative of his typical work. Kristoferb needs a binary-enforced 24-hour cooling off period as a result of disruption and lack of contrition (as evidenced by the edit summary) he left, which lacked *truthiness* and heaped insult upon disruption. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
      • This dispute over his images has been going on for days and there has been shockingly little outcry over the, IMO, poor quality work they represent. Based on that it can hardly be maintained that nominating it is a departure from common sense. Editor182 correctly maintains that several people have come out in support of his images in the past - something I thought impossible and a departure from common sense. At the point I nominated the image I was prepared to be surprised by a favourable or at least not shockingly bad outcome on voting. I'm sorry you insist on seeing things so black and white with regard to my expectation or intention.--Kristoferb (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
        • What an Interesting juxtaposition of points in one post. On one hand, you write of “shockingly little outcry” over poor quality images. Yet, on the other hand in the very same post, you profess surprise that I saw through your intention when nominating that über-lousy picture for FP status. I’ve had enough of you. Wikipedia is chock full of editors who think Wikipedia is a big game to play and wikilawyer the rules. I will have nothing more to do with you. Goodbye and good luck. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh, Greg, now you at least have an idea of what I've been up against. Furthermore, I don't replace images, I contribute them, that's Kristoferb's job. Editor182 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
          • You are exactly right: I was, at that moment, willing to adopt a contrary view to my own view as originally formulated. That is called being objective. People do think this image has technical merit - it is part of the record. Based on the outcome of this adoption of the contrary view, I was willing to subsequently alter my own, original view. I don't think it is that hard to understand. --Kristoferb (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• After reading all this I believe both Kristoferb and Editor182 need to take a probably admin enforced break from editing. On one side we have Editor182 absolutely flipping a nut over his cell phone images being replaced with what appears to be images taken with a proper camera, and then we have Kristoferb taking it to the extreme pushing his buttons and making this from a small dispute to a full blown fight that is now crossing multiple projects on the site and drawing in far more people into this silly game. Enough is enough. @Editor182 if your going to be taking photographs for wikipedia and choose to use your cell phone, you have to expect they will get replaced at some point, get a proper camera. @Kristoferb when Editor182 first started edit warring over your replacements you should of followed proper procedure and asked for intervention instead of just instigating and continuing to war yourself. Both of you have made egregious errors and probably both will suffer the consequences. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I might add that you're right, I've taken most of my images with a lousy cell. I don't know, I guess I really like my Nokia N82. FYI I have a 10 megapixel digital camera, which I've used to take a few images in the past, such as of the N82 itself. The difference in quality is negligibe, as I don't take photos of scenery, they're just cartons and pills, they come out fine, as is the concensus of most users. Maybe it's because this "cell" was the best camera phone imaging device of 2007, but who knows. ;) Editor182 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I took the dispute to the Talk page immediately. Editor182 closed the discussion, edited other users posts, removed the disputed images from the discussion and continually disputes the meaning of "blurry" and "in focus". Numerous attempts to cite wiki guidelines on image quality have failed to move the dispute to a logical resolution. --Kristoferb (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears from the article histories both of you violated WP:3RR multiple times in a row, so you clearly are not without blame, and the FPC stunt clearly crossed the line. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, look, I'm not a professional wikipedian. I just wanted to replace some cell phone images with proper ones. I never excepted Editor182 would take it personally and not come to deal with the reality of his images. --Kristoferb (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I completely understand, cell phone images should be replaced if possible, but once Editor182 started bucking at your replacements you should of stepped back and asked for assistance from more experienced editors instead of breaking rules yourself. Personally I think Editor182 is far more at fault here, but you clearly didn't show good judgement with some of your actions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I hope I haven't caused too much trouble. --Kristoferb (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Probably best if you both cease any posting on those pages until an admin renders judgement if there is a judgement to be rendered. Either way, I wouldn't edit them anymore if I was you until then. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
              • His idea of a solution is to keep the proper images and the cell phone images, albeit lower down on the article. If that is reasonable - I personally don't think it is - then I'll relinquish all claims against the questioned images. --Kristoferb (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
                • If they illustrate different subjects differently, sure, if it's just a way for him to keep his ego intact by not having one of his images removed, then clearly thats wrong. I haven't given much thought to the images themselves, since I don't really want to get involved, but if they're both illustrating the same thing, and having both in the article isn't benefiting it over just having one, then whichever one has the best EV should be kept. Educational Value does not necessarily mean which one has best resolution or sharpness, but which one illustrates the subject the best, and I'll reserve judgement of which image I think is best since I want to remain neutral. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
                  • Sounds reasonable to me. I hope whoever is going to decide this considers a photo of a pill where the pill is out of focus to be problematic. So far, not many seem willing to say that to Editor182 for fear of hurting his feelings (?). --Kristoferb (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
                    • (ec) I regularly work in the FPC side of things, I have no qualms telling someone their image is not good. Once an admin chimes in on possible punishments I'll take a look at the articles and see which images should or shouldn't be there. But I do not want to get involved in their editing yet. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
                    • (Edit conflict)YouKristoferb, you are hereby cautioned to remain WP:CIVIL and Assume Good Faith. You're on thin ice too. I don't want to see you blocked over some remark on a page designed to solve problems. N419BH 01:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
                      • Who was that directed too? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
                        • Understood. --Kristoferb (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Temaze (temazepam).jpg

Panadol 500 mg tablets (AU)

Zoloft 100 mg tablets (AU)

TLTR: Regardless, images aren't my focus on Wikipedia, I contribute what I can, and if someone removes content, including images which I don't agree with, I'll ask questions in discussion, or usually, two editors will simply be for or against my decision without going into much detail in Talk. How did this all begin? Kristoferb uploaded images which weren't contributions to the English version of Wikipedia. I was a "world wide view" supporter long before this person tried to use it as an argument, but I stated that if the English-speaking users can't read what's in the image, won't see it, won't use it reports, or even news reports. An Australian image of Zyprexa was shown on US news when discussing atypical antipsychotics. Why? Same English-based format, the language, the logo, and it was a free image for them to use. Didn't matter that it was a box, instead of rx only it said prescription only, same logo, same context, whatever.

It's always good to have visuals in articles, but whom is going to use the images presented by Kristoferb, especially the sertrlaine and paracetamol, in any sort of project for those who use the English Wikipedia. If you go to German Wikipedia, it's not a page translation, it's a different article all together on all subjects. Kristoferb should take those images and put them in an article where people can have any use for them. They're non-recognizable from the box alone, unless you read some fine English print or the description below, but so what? We have plenty of English versions of these drugs, we don't need to confuse or mislead people in the least.

Now, to Kristoferb himself, he doesn't just add these useless images, he also replaces the useful ones. Extremely stubborn and impossible to deal with, won't admit they're wrong, won't acknowledge other opinions, feelings or interests except those of his own. As another user has stated above, Kristoferb would do this frequently on articles I have no interest in, so it isn't just me, he's a problem to the community in general. He argues I don't think generic images should be in the articles, they don't see that they're not usable, understandable, worthwhile, or go with the context of the article. It's better to have no image there at all, it's irrelevant to its readers.

Even after the dispute, I had no problem with his other images which were in English context, and I don't layout images in favor of the author, the layout for temazepam was purely in interest of the articles layout and context. After this turned became a relentless dispute, turning his attention to finasteride, temazepam, or whatever image he saw I contributed which he had also done so. I have never had issue with anyone before this clown began over-exaggerating imperfections in image quality. When I said they're not "perfect", but definitely not worthy of deletion, Kristoferb claimed that alone was enough, so what now, a perfectionist? No wonder his whole focus on Wikipedia is images, which needless to say, well, I'm often lost for words when dealing with him.

Now, this personal attack began with sertraline and paracetamol, where his images were just out of context. I wanted them gone, but he didn't, so we did a little edit warring, which I don't intend on doing, especially when a "little" turns into a locked article. Now, here's the shock, an English Wikipedia administrator undid his edit after we stop stopped warring, not only on paracetamol, but on sertraline too, which told me that a user agreed that these images weren't appropriate, however, Kristoferb disregarded the administrators reversion and the reversions continued. If I had known at the time it was a decision by administration (not a regular user), I would have stopped, left the administrator a message, said goodnight, as I've explained already, and that Kristoferb should have accepted the consensus of two users anyway, but thought the administrator was my "puppet". So the warring went on until I found out that there wasn't a need for any of that, an administrator had already decided on our dispute.

At this time Kristoferb has had no consensus for his outside propaganda, and his image from sertraline and paracetamol have no right to be there, as per reversion of an administrator. I doubt this is over, and I don't know what the administrator has to say about all this now, but its been a hopeless, time-wasting feud, nothing resolved, cases got bigger, why? Kristoferb disregards the opinions of others, what's worse, is he degrades them. Anyway, that's just some of what I had to say, nobody probably read it, and maybe I was completely wrong from the first paragraph, but I can accept criticism. I doubt this will continue, but a ban on myself or Kristoferb would be equally satisfying if that was the case. Editor182 (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that this is the English Wikipedia, not the American English Wikipedia? Australia also speaks English, therefore images from Australia, or the UK or anywhere else that speaks English is relevant for this wiki. The whole argument seems to be more like you like your images and don't want them replaced and fought hard against it even when shown they're sub-par quality. After all the images linked into this dispute, your image is from a cell phone, and is very POOR quality (blown highlights, out of focus, etc..). As for the other articles and images, I won't comment since I haven't really reviewed them, but between and File:Propecia (finasteride).jpg, is a superior image and should replace File:Propecia (finasteride).jpg imho. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• On the side of this page you will find other Editor182 images which are in question and can be replaced with better, non-cell phone versions.

--Kristoferb (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You just stated my point exactly, here is a more complete list [89]. I know it was a lot to scan through, hence the TLTR warning, but the point was this is the English version of Wikipedia. That administrator who reverted those edits was an administrator of the English Wikipedia, there is no one Wikipedia. Anybody in any country of the world probably uses English Wikipedia, that's not the point, the point is those who do look at English Wikipedia, wherever in the world they are, have no use for seeing some Turkish or Korean writing on boxes of sertraline or paracetamol, etc, what for? No purpose, no use, waste of space for images that do contribute. Those images belong on one of the non-English versions of Wikipedia. American English spelling is just the context on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, organize instead of organise, etc, but no need for a translator. Editor182 (talk)

• You are rambling. --Kristoferb (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• ? Legit Q, Legit A. Editor182 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Generic paracetamol 250 mg tablets (NK)

File:Sertraline 50mg.JPG

Sertraline 50 mg capsules (TK)

You completely misunderstand her point. She was telling you that your English obsession is totally unfounded and irrelevant to any discussion. --Kristoferb (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Really? Why don't go contribute to one of the articles in Chinese, and see if that gets reverted. It's an extremely simple point I'm making, perople who come on Wikipedia's English version expect to read it in English. They don't care about boxes of common medicine from forgein countries with different writing on it, it's the exact same thing, but there's no use for it. Those who want an English version encycopedia want to be able to read it. Yes, it's just a box, and yes, you can a description underneath it, but what's the point? Are they going to spot it or the likes of it at the pharmacy, see it on the news? It's basically like saying, "look, paracetamol, from Korea .. yes, and it has some Korean on it too, and look, here's another image of generic sertraline capsules from Turkey..." - Right place for everything, okay? I'm not going to take a photo a generic bottle of ibuprofen from France, with French writing on it, and display it on the English article. More importantly than being useless, it uses up space, for relevant images of the pharacuiticals in their area. This does not apply to everything and it's obvious what I mean by that, a kangaroo can be shown on a Korean article, but why show a Korean generic to English readers? Improve the context of the English version on pharmacuitical drugs, that is the idea. I can't explain it further, perhaps the administrator can explain his reason, doesn't have to be the same as mine, but I can't see another reason, can do you? Editor182 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand policy, we don't JUST use American English, look at the MoS. Example: Fertilisation. It seems you don't quite understand the policies of wikipedia yet? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Shall we have a look at the famous Korean Tylenol? Oh, is that English I see? BTW, there is absolutely no rule forbidding a foreign language in an image so long as it is described in the caption - not relevant here, of course, since it is in English. Moreover, the article is on a chemical compound called paracetamol, not the brand Panadol. Indeed, there is an article on Panadol, yet you push to have two (2) images of that particular brand in the article on the generic chemical? That's just outrageous.

Read what I said above. English in all contexts is suitable for English Wikipedia. Funny to have brough this up, because I use a mixture of American English, British English, but American English is predominant on Wikipedia, but it doesn't require a concious effort to change between the simple spelling of words. Editor182 (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why a Korean generic paracetamol package can't be on the English Wikipedia. This is a chemical compound page, and if generic paracetamol from Korea is marketed in English speaking countries.. then it is relevant. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

This is what I proposed to replace the image of the bottle (top, first image). In English... from England in fact. I wonder what the issue is? I wish someone would tell me. --Kristoferb (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it's not! If it were marketed in an English speaking country, there would be English print all over it. "Made in Korea" is all it would say at the back, and perhaps the company in Korea who made it, but it would have all local phone numbers on the packaging. Country code 850 is for North Korea. Editor182 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is in English! Can you not see that? Don't you have Korean shops where you live? This is all just some pathetic excuse to keep your substandard images. Am I not right? --Kristoferb (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand

This is going nowhere fast. Krist and 182 are just bickering back and forth now. The way I see it, both need a break from each other, as well as other matters, such as Krist's WP:POINT violation, or the WP:DRAMA that 182 is helping to create, alongside Krist.

• Krist: Stop baiting 182, like what you said above at 6:10 UTC.

• 182: Stop dragging this conversation on and on. Your images are of low quality due to the fact they were taken from a cell phone, and because of that the likely hood that they will be replaced is high. Accept that fact and move on.

Let this thread end. If either of you two comment to this section, it better not be more arguing. Prolong this with more of the same, and I am sure it will not end well for either of you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• So, will I be able to replace some of Editor182's images without being hounded endlessly for doing so? Is this the final disposition in this matter? --Kristoferb (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Let someone else do it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My short summary and diagnosis of events...

Summary

1. Kristoferb replaces Editor182's images, with those he regards as higher quality.
2. A dispute takes place
3. Although (in my opinion) Kristoferb's images are higher quality, instead of moving to discussion he harassed and pushed to have the images replaced, even calling them vandalism. (And nomming them at FPN
4. Editor182 posted on NW's talk page with their understandable complaints.
5. A rather strange discussion has taken place with Editor182 trying to assert that their images are higher quality due to nationality issues, disregarding technical quality. (I disagree, but that's not the focus)
6. I bury my head in my arms. (Why can't we just decide what images are best for the pharmaceuticals in a better manner...)

Diagnosis

1. Kristoferb stops trying to make a point, stops trying to insert the images, and initiates a discussion (or lets others do so) so that consensus forms.
2. Editor 182 acknowledges the consensus that forms, and does not try to attack those who they disagree with.
3. The wishes of the community are carried out.
4. They refrain from launching personal attacks at one another

Fairly general, but I hope I've fairly summarized what has happened, and what we agree should happen. Feel free to discuss, (and edit if consensus forms) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put my opinion on image options on the talk pages of the relevant articles, I think I found them all out of all the above mess. Talk:Finasteride, Talk:Sertraline‎, Talk:Temazepam and Talk:Paracetamol‎. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably one of the most ridiculous disputes I've ever seen in RL and on wikipedia. That went on way too long.  – Tommy [message] 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

182, kris: Don't comment on that.  – Tommy [message] 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And it's still going on... Nothing I can do until they stop, and "they" at this point is mostly 182. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Some links, he's been actively violating WP:3RR since this was posted [90][91][92], attempted to get kris banned and pages locked, was warned by another admin about forum shopping, replacing[93] kris's entire talk page with a threat... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This attachment to poor quality images is simply not rational. Is it not possible to simply make the edits (insert the new images) and forbid reversion? --Kristoferb (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The best bet for you is to keep away from Editor182. He's shown he can't behave himself, but frankly you've shown a good deal of the same when dealing with him. Walk away. If he keeps up this disruptive behavior, he'll be blocked (frankly I'm amazed he hasn't been blocked already) I would avoid editing the same pages and avoid comment on Editor182's work. Be assured there are a large number of people watching. Show us you've learned your own WP:CIVIL lesson. Go to the main page, click on "random article" and improve whatever pops up. You can't control 182's actions, only yours. If his need to be controlled, an administrator will do that. N419BH 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify. That's advice and not a rule. And that doesn't apply to this particular page. I would however suggest you comment here on your own actions only and not 182s. N419BH 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of my part in this dispute, I must say that I am taken aback by the degree of deference being afforded to Editor182. Solving this dispute really boils down to an objective analysis and subsequent determination as to future of the questioned images in the relevant articles. If someone so charged to make such a determination would do so definitively, this dispute would just go away. I see absolutely no benefit in being led around by Editor182's illogical and irrational attachment to his inferior photographic contributions. That said, I will avoid editing the concerned pages but I do so under the expectation that the competent authority will finally do the obvious and replace the bad images. --Kristoferb (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say editors that react like 182 has acted is rare indeed, I've never encountered another editor like him. I've ran into some difficult to get along with people, sure, but never one that took it to such an extreme over their images being replaced. Having "your" content replaced or removed is common as articles evolve and better media is found, thats the normal process of the encyclopedia. To try to get people banned and war edit to prevent the removal of "your" content is unacceptable. I'm confident the right punishments will be handed out. At the moment, I personally, am going slow with editing those articles. Best if everyone cools down and takes a breather before. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see we share a similar characterization of the situation. Best regards, --Kristoferb (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New Day, Same problems

Editor182 is back at it, trying to get kristoferb blocked, this time over at WP:RPP. N419BH 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice how he deleted the warning he got for forum shopping right after the RfPP post, to try to game the system. He's also did another round of reverts on the pages to keep his images in place. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can safely say he is beyond reason at this point. His belligerence will not stop until we accept his images or he is blocked. --Kristoferb (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You was warned above to not edit these pages and let others do it.... You didn't heed that warning, probably to your own determent. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In my line of work we don't let the belligerent call the shots. I'm not sure why it is not the same on wiki. --Kristoferb (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I will say it one final time. Let someone else do the reverting. Trust me, there's several people (including me) watching these articles. If you see a problem, bring it here. We'll deal with it. N419BH 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. As an uninvolved Admin -- who also reads articles in the areas I have little expertise -- do we really need images for these drugs at all? What the Physicians' Desk Reference does is furnish images of the pills themselves, not their packaging, in case they are separated from their labelled container; I don't see any other need for an image, unless there the packaging is discussed in the article. AFAIK, these pills are identical throughout the world, due to economies in mass production; if they are different in different countries, then a photo would be of use. We could reproduce that by creating image templates, say {{infobox capsule|size=regular|label="50 mg"|shape=round|color=yellow}}, & then we do the politically correct thing & delete all of these presumably Fair use unfree images. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

About 55% of all prescriptions are dispensed with a generic equivalent. This means images of the original brand are, indeed, irrelevant to over half of perspective readers. It is misguided in the extreme to enforce some quai policy of brand name image prominence or exclusivity in articles on chemical compounds. Where brands are significant in their own right, a separate article is created for them (i.e.: Panadol or Tylenol.) Generic drug images play an important and indeed crucial educational role in the article. Without them, readers are given the incorrect impression that the brand name version is the only legitimate formulation, which is plainly false. Omission of illustrative examples of generics casts doubt on their legitimacy by conspicuous omission from an article ostensibly on the generic formulation (i.e.: the chemical compound not the brand). This is an encyclopaedia, not the marketing department of Merk or Pfizer.--Kristoferb (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikiplayer13 continually claiming to be an admin

Resolved

 – Userpage fully protected by an actual admin N419BH 00:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiplayer13 (talk · contribs) continually puts a claim on his User page that he's an admin. He has repeatedly been asked to stop it, and myself and others have repeatedly removed the claim, but he always reverts. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everard, I've fully protected his user page. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See also: 82.46.89.207 (talk). For what it's worth. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clever --SPhilbrickT 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the IP isn't blocked by now; it has vandalized userpages, and is a quacking WP:DUCK sock of Wikiplayer13. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't edited in 7 hours. I think a wait and see is in order. N419BH 03:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the same user, but I think it's more likely that he simply wasn't logged in. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have unprotected on the understanding that it won't happen again. User told that reinsertion, or any impersonation of admin, will result in harsh blocking measures. I have watchlisted the page and advised that an actual RfA is very unlikely to succeed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing issue that needs intervention at Jason Leopold

Resolved

 – Semiprotected page and left detailed instructions for IP. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to check the page for BLP issues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

An anon user, claiming to be the subject's lawyer, has been issuing legal threats and edit warring at the article for weeks. Numerous people have tried to discuss the issue with him, both at the talk page, his talk page, and at the BLP noticeboard, but nothing is changing and no one appears to be paying attention to the BLP incident thread. Some attention here would help. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved and agree that something needs to be done. The editor has gone through at least two full sets of escalating warnings, has had policy repeatedly explained to him, and simply doesn't respond to discussion, continuing to post as if he didn't hear anything. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the IP a few times because he kept putting comments in the articles and i had to warn him a few times, he has numerous final warnings on his talkpage but hasn't been banned--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I will semiprotect the page for a week and leave a detailed message on the talk page. This is intended as a compromise solution that will encourage the IP to contact OTRS if the IP is actually an attorney. If no such contact is made in a week or so, that will change the situation. In the meantime, there is some benefit to having a light touch. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Yworo (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Peducte (WP:OR, WP:CIRCULAR and WP:ADVERT)

Resolved

 – content dispute / edit war seems to have cooled off - both editors warned, will be blocked if it resumes. Toddst1 (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Peducte has repeatedly tried to introduce, amongst other things, these comments which are in my view clear violations of WP:OR and WP:ADVERT:

According to the university's past history book <ref name=historyrecognition/>, its history dates back to the first year of Yong'an reign (258 CE) when Nanking Imperial [[Daxue]] <ref name=Daxue/> was originally founded <ref name=nandahistory/>, and it's supposed to be the [[List of oldest existing higher learning institutions|oldest existing higher learning institution]] in the world <ref>[http://ap6.pccu.edu.tw/Encyclopedia/data.asp?id=4453&forepage=1 The article of the Central University] on [[Chinese Encyclopedia]] says that the university "extends to have more than 1700 years glorious history. Universities at all times and in all over the world are incomparable" (學統綿延，達一千七百多年的光榮歷史。古今中外的各大學難以相比). This is also concluded from what has been known till present about the historical length of higher learning institutions in existence including related information on Wikipedia.</ref>.

To me, at the heart of the dispute lies Peducte's desire to attribute to Nanjing University the status of the oldest university of the world, something which he has been trying here, here, here, here and here although he has been at least once reverted by another user here. and pointed to his WP:CIRCULAR reasoning by a third user here.

But in reality there is no sign that this Chinese ancient center of higher learning was comparable to a university which has, according to general scholarly consensus, its historical roots in the medieval university (for extensive quotes, see Talk:University# European origin of the university). This view has also been independently conveyed to Peducte by another user. Neither is the continuity of its "1700 years glorious (sic) history" proven , a phrase which, taken from the university's homepage, reveals its promotional and unencyclopedic character just as much as the claim that "Universities at all times and in all over the world are incomparable (sic)". Therefore, I have removed all these unsubstantiated, exceptional claims.

I've been pointing Peducte to no avail to Wikipedia:NONENG already a while ago. His insistence at integrating his material, his removing the advert template which has been included by another user and his general editing pattern, indicate that he has been acting close to an promotional single-purpose account since his recent arrival. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dissecting Perducte's rationale, half of it is WP:CIRCULAR (Chinese WP says so), the other half WP:ADVERT (Nanjing University website says so): see here Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe both of us think the other side is tendentious. Whole talks please see my talk page and related talks: Talk:Nanjing University, Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, Talk:University. We can also resolve them through disscusion on the related talk pages. - Peducte (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of bringing it here is that despite the megapixels of words at all of those locations, certain basic wikipedia policy constructs are not being followed or understood. Active Banana (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the particulars of this dispute (which I have only looked over briefly thus far), I will note that Gun Powder Ma has a tendency for mild POV-pushing on China-related articles: he consistently tries to assert that predominance of ancient Roman culture over the equivalent ancient Chinese forms. I've been having a long, drawn-out dispute with him myself on taijitu over his insistent attempts to call certain Roman shield markings 'yin yang symbols' despite the fact there is no scholarly evidence linking the shield markings to the Chinese symbol and no relationship whatsoever between the Roman markings and the Chinese philosophy. in detail, he bases his arguments on a number of casual references in questionable published sources - e.g. a footnote in a museum journal or a speculative article in a literature journal - and then crafts some weasel-worded commentary to make it seem like a strong scholarly view. I'm going over the sources in this dispute to see if he's doing the same thing here. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Turning to the substance of this dispute, I find User:Peducte is using self-published sources to advance the antiquity of the University of Nanjing, ignoring the widely accepted historical distinction between Universities and other (earlier) institutions of higher learning. Since Peducte's argument is based on dubious promotional material and lacks documentation in reliable sources, it is clearly Original Research. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that a survey of Perducte's contributions indicate that this is a single-purpose account focusing exclusively on the antiquity of Chinese universities (and the discussions arising from that issue). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article. How can you say it's Original Research? The content "more than 1700 years history, with the longest history among all universities" is not from self-published sources, but from Chinese Encyclopedia. Are you claiming that the Encyclopedia is not reliable sources? It's surely not self-published sources. And the sentence is a translation from Chinese text, the original text uses 大學, universities is only a translation. So actually the meaning is it's the world's oldest existing 大學. Is this an extraordinary claim? In the text of article, in order ti avoid misconception and disputation, "higher learning institution" is used to interpret 大學 instead of university which is generally used in translation. (from Talk:University, revised) - Peducte (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) is again trying the limits of Wikipedia's patience. Previously it was incivility, now it is pushing a non-consensus edit. Please see Menachem Mendel Schneerson and the relevant talk page section. Also notice that I have warned him on his talk page [94]. Also notice the provocative edit summary of his latest edit, which is in addition factually incorrect. In view of that it is sad that he should warn me on my talk page to read WP:3RR. [95] Debresser (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an ownership problem at the article for Debresser and other Chabad members at that talk page. They've stymied all progress for months (read that talk page if you're interested). The last an/i on this he started my be instructive: [96]. Every none Chabad editor that's opined thinks the edit and source are fine. They've been holding this up since April. Oh yeah, Debresser has 6 reverts on that page in the past 24 hours, though not all of the same edit: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]. Bali ultimate (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, why are you seeking to remove this sourced material from Wikipedia?   pablo_hablo. 10:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, you'd know why if you read the talk page, this dispute goes back a few months. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not is another matter. Bali ultimate, 3RR is not a privilege. Your approach at Menachem Mendel Schneerson was edit warring and a repeat of such edits should see you blocked. Don't edit war, no matter how right you think you are. Fences&Windows 10:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's reverted 3 different editors six different times in the past 24 hours. I've reverted twice. What were you saying again? The problem is quite simply yet another article being owned and controlled by partisans. That's the problem. Everyone who's opined on this since April who was not Chabad has no problem. I guess off to arbitration when i have a chance (will probably set something up next week if someone doesn't beat me to it.).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same goes for Debresser re: edit warring. A repeat of this will end in a block. I've protected the article for two days to prevent a continuation of this war, for now. Wrong Version™ guaranteed. Fences&Windows 11:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I know why I think he's doing it, I was just hoping that Debresser would be honest about his motives in bringing this content dispute here, especially when he is on such a sticky wicket himself.   pablo_hablo. 11:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, do I detect a lack of good faith here? My reasons are as simple as stated above: this edit is highly controversial, and has no consensus. All this is clearly on the talk page. Bali ultimate decided that after a month or more of status quo ever since the end of that discussion, he could push through his opinion. He is know to me as an aggressive and tendentious editor for close to a year now. So I reverted him, and took the case here when he didn't desist. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read the talk page thanks. I am no expert on faith, good or otherwise, so can't answer your question. This edit appears to be controversial mainly because you don't like the content it adds to the article.   pablo_hablo. 12:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof for your ascertation that I "don't like" the edit? Because if not, then your are in violation of WP:Good faith. Which is precisely what I suspect to be the case, frankly speaking. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You can suspect whatever you will about my assertion (which is what I assume you mean, unless ascertation is something different), I have no comment to offer on faith, as I said above.   pablo_hablo. 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC on the matter here [103].Bali ultimate (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In which you forgot to mention the previous, very extensive, discussion on that same talk page. But thanks for stopping the edit war you started at the last moment. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Debresser is a Chabad rabbi, isn't he? He shouldn't even be editing Menachem Mendel Schneerson per WP:COI... Bobby Tables (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If he maintains a neutral point of view, then it's fine. Basket of Puppies 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth shouldn't he edit it? Are Catholics forbidden from editing articles about the Pope? For that matter are Jews forbidden from editing the article on Moses, or any other universally acknowledged leader of Judaism? And while we're at it, I'd like to know on what basis Bali Ultimate categorises editors as "Chabad" or "non-Chabad". If he goes solely by what position they take on edits like this one then his claim that Chabad editors are against it and non-Chabad editors are for it is tautological. If he has some other criteria, please detail them, because I'm dying to know how he decided that I'm a "Chabad editor". -- Zsero (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As there's an open RFC perhaps it would be better to continue this there; it's essentially a content dispute and admin action has been taken to protect the article.   pablo_hablo. 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

More eyes requested on TFA

Could more people watchlist, for now, today's TFA, John Diefenbaker? I recently reverted pretty nasty vandalism that had been up for sixteen minutes, God only knows what people are thinking out there. Everyone must be on vacation.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we're on vacation; it's Canada Day. I am home and will watch, though. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shshsh ki mako

Resolved

 – Shshsh ki mako (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Shshshsh stalker is back [104] (see User:Shsh ki bhenka yar. Active Banana (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeffed. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And back again User:Shshs ki bahanko

Emails at the Help Desk?

There is something really strange going on at the Help Desk. Starting here there are 4 different threads by anonymous editors who claim they are receiving emails that state someone has registered an account with their email. Any Ideas what is going on, and why they are all appearing at the help desk, as I cant find these claims anywhere else? wiooiw (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They're phishing, pure and simple. I got one (on an email alias that no Wikimedia server has ever seen), and while it's very well done, the urls are all faked (to an internet pharma site). The ones I've seen really come from an IP in the Russian Federation, but as it's almost certainly from a botnet, that means little. Tell people they're nothing to do with us, that they shouldn't click on the links, but that they should delete the email altogether. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written the information page WP:PHISHING, to which people receiving such mails can be directed (also from WP:OTRS).  Sandstein  20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have linked it from Wikipedia:Contact us/other#You received a mysterious email from us or you think you have been subscribed to a mailing-list without asking so. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OFFER for User:Aaronpon

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked. --Chris (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

This user has been indef blocked since December of 2007. I cannot find any evidence of block evasion or sockpuppetry since then. Therefore I'd like to propose an unblock per WP:OFFER, with very close monitoring. --Chris (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the original block, but that's a long time to be blocked; I see no reason not to give this user another chance. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Before my time, too, but the block was for sock puppetry (and vandalism). If there's no evidence of sock puppetry in >2 years I'd say the risk of disruption is minimal - so I agree: give them a chance. TFOWR 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Heck, that's 2.5 years. That's a lifetime for some people...especially if he is/was a teenager (no evidence of this). I'd support an unblock, let him know he's on a short leash, though... --Smashville^talk 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Support WP:OFFER unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock on the condition that a suitable mentor be found. N419BH 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd make sure that he understands that any indication that he is becoming disruptive again will result in an immediate block, but other than that I'd support a return. I think he'll have enough eyes on him that a mentor wouldn't be necessary. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, conditional statement removed. Now full support. N419BH 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have they been notified of this good news? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is an unblock notice on the talk page. N419BH 20:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I mean has the user been e-mailed? Not all of use have notifications by e-mail when our talk page changes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

oppose I don't support offer, never have, never will. I also oppose this extremely short discussion. Claiming no evidence of sockpuppetry is like asking to prove you can't do something. If he's been successful, no one would know.--Crossmr (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on the discussion. I think any unblock discussion needs to run at least a day, probably a little more, to ensure any problems with the user can be brought up. Sodam Yat (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of maintenance templates by Pdfpdf

Pdfpdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed maintenance templates from Independent Order of Odd Fellows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Diffs 12:10, 25 June 2010 16:34, 25 June 2010 17:01, 25 June 2010 00:28, 28 June 2010 22:44, 28 June 2010 00:04, 29 June 2010 .

Content discussed at Talk:Independent_Order_of_Odd_Fellows/June_2010 (2-24 June 2010), Talk:Independent_Order_of_Odd_Fellows#Linkfarm (and all further discussion on the talk page), and on Talk:List_of_Order_of_Odd_Fellows_lodges where the disputed content has been copied as a stand-alone list.

He's been warned three times 16:55, 25 June 2010 17:21, 25 June 2010 23:44, 28 June 2010. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Pdfpdf

User Ronz has repeatedly made numerous disruptive edits, not only involving me and the IOOF page, but involving numerous other editors and numerous other pages.

I have lost count of the number of times he has been:

• Asked to explain himself. He never has.
• Asked to discuss the matter he is currently complaining about. He never has.
• Asked to engage in conversation and discussion. He never has.
• Asked to specifically identify which parts of the vague and general references he quotes as justification for his point of view he is referring to. He never has.
• Asked to clarify his vague and non-specific statements and accusations. He never has.
• Advised that his actions are inconsistent with his statements, and been asked to explain. He never has. explained

He has repeatedly made numerous edits contrary to the consensus reached on the talk page. I have lost count of the number of times he has been warned that this is unacceptable behaviour.

Etc. etc. etc.

Now he has decided to complain about maintenance templates.

It has been explained to him numerous times that the templates are irrelevant, inappropriate, and unrelated to the situations he is asserting. He has never discussed the matter.

Examples of long-winded attempts at discussion and conversation that he has refused to engage in can be found at

• Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows#Disruptive, unexplained, unjustied, POV edits.
• [[Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows#Justification for table of lodges jurisdictions]]
• Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows/June 2010

Etc. etc. etc.

User Ronz is a time-waster who does not seem to understand what "consensus" and "discussion" are.

He likes to quote all sorts of WP:Alphabet soup which bears no relevance to the assertions he makes. When asked to explain specifically what he's talking about, he never responds with clarifications.

Etc. etc. etc.

He has already wasted many hours of many people's time with his disruptive edits, and with long winded pointless irellevant responses to polite and reasonable questions.

If he refuses to stop harassing me, and others, then I guess I'm going to be forced to waste even more time tryng to get WP admins to prevent him from harassing me, and others.

I guess I'd classify him as a disruptive editor whose modus operandi is harassment.

I just wish he'd go away and stop wasting my time, and everybody else's time. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. User Ronz seems to have suddenly become more rational! (Still refuses to answer questions, but hey! don't look a gift horse in the mouth ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely fascinating!!!

I see our self-opionated narcissist has decided that my response to his fantasies are considered, by him, to be "tangential", and readers of this page should not be allowed to make up their own minds or form their own opinions.

I highlight this as an example of his ... errrrr ... "alternative view of reality". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Pdfpdf, let me remind you that calling someone a "narcissist", while minor, is a personal attack and should be avoided. You could probably lose the attitude too and discuss things politely. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of your opinion.

It fascinates me when people concentrate on the trivia, and avoid the issues. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it's an issue. I collapsed the inappropriate remarks above by Pdfpdf, but he thinks they're worth discussing. Let's discuss. Much of it is nonsensical, some self-contradictory, and all meritless. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear me. Back to fantasyland.

Somebody neutral: Is there ANY point in this exercise? Cleary, it's not achieving anything. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the description of this related dispute. "Personal attack" was already identified by a neutral editor. I think "harassment" is obvious. I can expand if anyone would like, but I think he's made the case for himself. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantasyland. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Given Pdfpdf's edit-warring over the accusations against him, I've only listed "personal attacks." --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Pdfpdf, knock it off. Ronz, WP:DFTT. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I already tried that. It didn't work, so now we're here discussing his behavior. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, your recent behavior has proven to clearly be less than satisfactory. The sarcastic comments and snarky attitude you have exemplified in this thread have simply worked against you and proven Ronz's allegations to be correct. Consider yourself warned. Further attitude and/or disruption will result in a block. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Without justifying Pdfpdf's personal remarks here, the point that he has made about Ronz editing approach have been my experience as well. Not previously being an editor on the IOOF pages cited above, I had attempted to bring some calm to the debate and to provide a position rooted in WP policy. The problem is in essence that in November 2009, Pdfpdf created a list of IOOF Grand Lodges around the world, each of these lodges oversees numerous other lodges (which are not listed). On 01 June 2010, Ronz edited the page for the first time, did not think that this list is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia summarily removed the entire table without explanation on the talk page or consensus. Pdfpdf reverted the list on 02 June 2010 and asked for an explanation, Ronz provided a curt explanation and deleted the list again. Aside from fixing one dead link, since this time on the main page Ronz's been to engage in a protracted edit war with Pdfpdf over the existence of the table and the tagging associated with it (whilst he may not have fallen foul of WP:3RR, the overall history has the characteristics of an edit war). Whilst there were legitimate concerns that the table needed improvement (eg internal referencing in lieu of external referencing), Ronz's ultimate goal has been to eliminate the table entirely in favour of a short summary. The scope of the tagging by Ronz has been overstated compared to the actual issues in contention and the implication of the overstatment has been that the content of the page was put up by vested interests and could justifiably be deleted without further debate. I am not aware that Pdfpdf has any connection with IOOF, and I certainly have never been involved with the organisation. I mounted an extensive justification based on WP policy and historical significance which I believe quite clearly demonstrated that all bar one related tagging points were not remotely applicable. This left one point which, whilst I believe the point was not justified by policy in relation to the article, I never the less considered to be a legitimate point of contention and therefore justifiable for a tag to remain on that ground until consensus had been achieved. Ronz was not prepared to accept any of this. Indeed, shortly after I separated out the list into a subordinate stand-alone list article, despite initially tagging the list with just the one tag based on 'too many examples', Ronz subsequently changed his mind and added tags for sources, neutrality, notability and advertisement (for detailed explanation of why these were not relevant see here). Ronz has been the only editor who has had an issue, and so far has not been prepared to accept alternative viewpoints. He has suggested that he would like to go to RfC, but I have not yet seen any evidence that suggests he will accept an outcome that may be contrary to his view point - I hope this is not the case, but my confidence is not high. In all of this, Ronz has provided little to no linkage of his position to WP policy other than sweeping statements that he thinks WP:SOAP, WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SELFPUB and WP:LISTCRUFT apply. Yet my argument has gone through every element of these along with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:STAND and WP:SALAT to provided a detailed argument. Ronz's response has been to say that he doesn't agree but not to provide a solid justification for his position, to have a scatter gun approach to tagging, and to not do anything to assist with improving the quality of the article. Given this, I can easily see Pdfpdf's frustration - that doesn't justify the response but, in my view, it is understandable. Pdfpdf is a legitimate editor who also does work for WP:MILHIST and WP:ODM - he may occasionally have a low tolerance threshold, but he is not a troll. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate AusTerrapin joining the initial dispute (08:32, 26 June 2010) and the discussions I've had with him since. I think we've made good progress together.

Summarizing his comments above: We have a content dispute, he's unhappy that I've not changed my position in response to his arguments, he'd like me to be more involved in the articles, and he doesn't like the tags. Welcome to consensus-building!

Then he made a bad faith assumption on how I'd respond to the RfC that I proposed, instead of just trying some form of dispute resolution that brings in others' perspectives. I asked him to refactor his comments 16:25, 28 June 2010, and that was the last contribution he made until now. I'm happy he went ahead and refactored his remarks on the article talk page prior to making the comments above (14:04, 1 July 2010). I'm willing to move on and just hope that this is that last time he'll make such assumptions. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that Pdfpdf went to a lot of trouble to build a list of lodges which included 69 external links (in this old version). However, such lists are a problem for Wikipedia because thousands of articles could have comprehensive lists, and there are many dedicated promoters and fans who would like to use Wikipedia to document every facility connected with a topic. That is why WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that it is not our purpose to build comprehensive lists (except for navigational lists showing our articles that relate to a topic), and why WP:MOS#External links states "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". If http://www.ioof.org has a list of lodges, we do not need one; and if they don't think such a list is warranted, why should we include one in an encyclopedic article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

'New password request'

Resolved

 – Nitwits think it's fun to try and reset passwords... we don't particularly care NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to post this but this was the best I could find. I just this morning received from WP a notice that someone from IP address 199.126.144.121 attempted to change my password. Is there any way I can find out who that is? I have email enabled on my account so an email response would be welcome. User:Pedant (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore it, I get them all the time, but they have no effect other than the irritation unless the vandals manage to hack your email account, which is unlikely at best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to find out who it is. Anyone could have clicked the "send me a new password" link. But it's harmless, and you can just ignore the email message you received. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You can however find the general location of where that IP 199.126.144.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is. Just use a WHOIS. Apprently it's coming from Edmonton, Canada, with an ISP of "TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC" and a domain of "TELUS.NET". (Links: 1 2) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I had the same thing happen to me too this morning. Except this IP geolocated to Mumbai, India. I've never had an email like this before. -- œ^™ 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, unsure if it's related but the above IP originated from my geographical area. Burnaby, BC -- œ^™ 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "George Reeves Person" does this all the time to users, and I think he's been using proxies as of late to send such requests. –MuZemike 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, don't worry about it. It's nothing. User:199.126.144.121 (talk) 05:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the input... this item can safely be deleted if it's appropriate to do so, I'm through with it, but don't really have the energy to devote to researching how this page works right now. I'd really like to get back to writing more, I can barely even find time to research the Rhythm Club fire -- which is a fascinating and rich subject itself, and plenty of work for me... when I can get back to it. I'll be 'away' for 3 weeks at least. I appreciate all the effort that's been spent on my trivial password issue, thanks again! User:Pedant (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Idle threats? Or worthy of concern

Resolved

 – Starting to drift off-topic, and the target of the threat has been contacted; they can take whatever action they feel necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see:[[105]]. As a Baha'i, I am worried about the admittedly minuscule possibility that this is more than just some foolish prank. In my years of editing I have never seen a threat like this. Is there some way to inform the proper authorities? --Buster7 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, terrorists don't usually advertise their plans on wikipedia. I would simply revert it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted prior to my concern. Would you be so glib if the Cologne Cathedral was the target? The edit violates WikiPedia standards and is evil-disposed and hostile. And, in todays world, IMHO, it is worthy of attention, and action. This may not be the place for that attention. --Buster7 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not being "glib", I was responding to the question and giving my advice; others are free to disagree, but I don't see that statement as a huge cause of concern; more of a very bad joke. And yes, I would respond in the exact same way if the target was Cologne Cathedral, Westminster Train Station or my home town, if it was written in a similar style to the threat being discussed. It would be a completely different matter if it had been more specific or better written, but as it stands it looks much more like something a kid scribbled thinking (s)he was being funny. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with Giftiger Wunsch that no sensible terrorist — if there's indeed such a thing as a sensible terrorist, but I digress — would ever publicize a terrorist act they were about to commit, I'd stick to the old adage "better safe than sorry" and inform the authorities. After all, if it's just a prank, it'll be quickly dismissed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But not before some 13 year old just looking for lulz has to explain to his parents why a couple of Shin Bet MIBs just paid them a social call. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I like the way you think! ^____^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a serious matter and the IP has been blocked. There should be ZERO tolerance for any kind of death threats or terrorism threats on Wikipedia, prank or not. -- œ^™ 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist groups have been known to war of their attacks a few hours in advance (IRA for example). In this case the person appears to have enough ah mental issues for the threat to be somewhat credible. Likely need someone in isreal to inform the authorities.©Geni 23:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I 100% agree that such a threat is at best a very bad joke, and if I'd seen it myself I personally would have reverted and issued a uw-joke-4im (assuming bad faith but not terrible faith); but I don't think a report to the authorities is necessary; it certainly didn't seem to me to be a particularly serious or official threat. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who may know how to inform the proper authorities, the IP geolocates to Tel Aviv. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the procedure for threats like that? Do we need to contact the WMF? It should be deleted once the authorities have been notified. N419BH 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been taken care of. Once this incident was brought to my attention I called the Baha'i Center in Haifa, and informed them about this deplorable edit. I instructed them how to retrieve the relevant information from Wikipedia if they want to file a complaint at the local police. Dror K, Holon, Israel. 109.65.9.126 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't take "Dror K"'s message as truth. "Dror K" is probably User:Drork, an indef blocked and banned user. I would recommend another Israel-based editor call the Baha'i Center and report it as well as any appropriate police departments there. I would also check the offending IP (the one that has been reported) and the one "Dror K" used, probably the same person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Quite possibly. The IPs (threat and 109.65.9.126 (above)) look different, but the ISP is the same. TFOWR 18:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • So we think a sock of User:Drork made this threat and then claimed to have reported it to the authorities? I think that's a +1 for the theory that this was a hoax then, fortunately. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I would still take it seriously, just to get the cops called on Drork. Nothing more I'd like to see than a banned/blocked socker getting the cops called on them for being a putz. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Per Ron Ritzman, above, I'm not sure it would be the cops... Am I bad for thinking this is good? TFOWR 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I was using a "wide" term as I am not sure what they call their version of the FBI over there. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Would that be dealt with by the Mossad perhaps? Also, maybe this is where the conversation should end... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  AFAIK the Mossad handles external threats like the US CIA. The Shin Bet is their version of the US FBI. Internal terrorist threats are their territory. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think you might be right there Giftiger, at least until a checkuser comes along and checks out those two edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input and research. I appreciate that some of you understood the serious quality of the threat--whether it was real or not, whether it is a hoax or not. I have informed the officials at the Shrine of the Bab and they will do whatever they decide. --Buster7 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• With Buster7's call to the Shrine of the Bab, I think this can be marked resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So they received two phone calls today. That's good, but please don't make further phone calls, because it might become a nuisance. On another subject, I'm quite flattered to see I cause so much paranoia among editors here, but if you calm down for a moment and think seriously, unless it were a possibly serious matter, I wouldn't have bothered to make the phone call and publish this fact here with my real name. If anyone here thinks I'm a criminal, he can make a call the WMF, Wikimedia Israel or any other Wikimedia chapter. They all know me quite well. The name is Dror Kamir. 109.65.9.126 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stupid sock is stupid. DUCK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bender235 and AWB

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.

Resolved

 – no widespread support to issue any sanctions to Bender235; no general consensus that his actions are even disruptive. All users are reminded to avoid edit warring and to leave fully descriptive edit summaries. Please continue civil discussion over these issues in other venues, there appears to be no need for any admin action or even AWB removal at this time --Jayron32 06:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Yesterday, I noticed an edit by User:Bender235 on my watchlist that led me to look at his contributions. I noticed that, contrary to our guidelines, he was using AWB to change a large number of articles from using <references/> to using {{reflist}}. I left a detailed note explaining exactly how this violates our guidelines [106]. His responses are visible at User_talk:Bender235#reflist. He re-did his edits after I reverted them, and has expressed his refusal to follow the guidelines on this matter.

My desired administrative action is for an uninvolved administrator to:

• Caution Bender235 about re-doing bold edits after they have been reverted. Making a bold edit is fine, but once it is reverted, the issue must be discussed.
• Disable Bender235's AWB access. The AWB rules of use prohibit doing anything controversial with AWB.

Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I changed <references /> to {{Reflist}} manually, but anyway I don't see why this is controversial at all. No guideline, let alone rule, says "you're not allowed to replace <references />". And by the way, I asked some of the so-called "first editors" (who according to WP:CITEHOW seem to have some sort of veto against style changes since they "established" the reference style), and will revert my ref modification whereever there's opposition. --bender235 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits had the edit summary "typo fixing with AWB": [107] [108] [109]. This makes it quite clear you were using AWB when you did these edits (although changing from references to reflist is not a "typo fix"). Clearly, there is opposition to your changes – I reverted them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was using AWB while making those changes, but I made them manually (not automatically). The only one opposing thus far is you, citing a rule that doesn't apply to you (since you weren't the first editor of any of those articles). --bender235 (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The rule is that whenever the is disagreement, even between later editors, the original style should remain unless there is strong consensus for a change on the individual article. In this case, there is an explicit guideline, WP:FOOT, which says, "The choice between {{Reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule." The present situation is not much different than if you were using AWB to change the word "color" to "colour" in dozens of articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the rule says, in my opinion. And if it was, this would hold up people from improving Wikipedia, and should therefore rightfully be ignored. From your point of view, I would've had to ask a couple of dozens editors to issue the blessing for edits like this or this. That would put the improvement of Wikipedia in a stranglehold. --bender235 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IAR isn't a shield to do whatever you want, otherwise we could all invoke IAR, and do what ever we want. The concensus with AWB is that you shouldn't be making mass trivial changes that don't change the appearance of the page unless you're also making other legitimate changes. This is the same reason we don't fix unambiguous redirects en masse. There is also an issue of misleading edit summaries which is against policy as well, and which you clearly did. I'd support a removal of AWB until the user can demonstrate a clear understanding of the guidelines and policies regarding it's use, as well as general editing and especially WP:BRD.--Crossmr (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused what the actual problem is right now: that I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or that I did it while using AWB? --bender235 (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are problems. Large-scale style changes are strongly disfavored. And if you don't agree with the AWB rules of use or the general BRD editing method, you shouldn't use AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I made over 100,000 edits, so don't act like I was a stupid newbie. I do understand the AWB rules, but I did not consider replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} as controversial, whatsoever. If you don't want me to do those edits with AWB, okay, I'm fine with that. But I certainly won't refrain from making (citation) style improvements in general. And stop threatening me with stripping my AWB rights just because I made an edit you don't like on an article you presume to own. --bender235 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you using multiple accounts, Bender? You don't appear to have made over 100,000 edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually made 80,000 on the English Wikipedia, but another 20,000+ on German Wikipedia. JFYI. --bender235 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@Bender235: WP:CITE is very clear that you should not change from one style to another simply because you prefer the other style: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Occasional changes and improvements are usually noncontroversial. But large-scale changes made for stylistic reasons are completely inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is that a "large-scale change"? {{Reflist}} essentially only reduces the font size of the references. So what is your problem with this template? --bender235 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, the issue is that once a style is set, it shouldn't be changed without good reason; that's a policy you should be familiar with given that you've pointed out you've made >100,000 edits. I wouldn't call it a massive violation worthy of reporting to AN/I, but it's still against policy, and my recommendation is that you self-revert these changes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Is there a consensus in any of these articles that <references /> is prefered? --bender235 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment on the reverts: As I suggested in the past, only the issue that is in question must be reverted and not the whole edit. Some of reverts revived problems that the editor and/or AWB fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that other editors, cleaning up after AWB mistakes, must manually separate the good and the bad parts of the broken edits. That would make administration extremely burdensome. It's trivial for someone to run AWB against the articles again to redo any valid changes. I'm not the only person who feels this way [110]. However, I did limit my reverts to only the bad edits, and left all the ones that didn't make the change in question. That much is reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it's unconstructive to revert a good clean-up edit on the basis of a controversial change which you disagree with. By all means revert the change from <references/> to {{reflist}} and discuss with the user, but don't take the lazy route and knock out positive contributions along with it. In any case, unless specifically argued/reverted by the user who first established the use of <references/>, what's the problem? Leave it as it is and inform the user that it's not per-policy to make such changes since they should leave it in the style already established. If the original editor has an issue with it, they can revert it themselves. It's a small change and it's really not worth all this fuss. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the <references/> style (it has a more appropriate font size). So I have a reason beyond just formalities to undo the changes. Now you could ask why I don't change other articles: because I respect the rule that we should leave them as they are. But that rule goes both ways.

However, in this case, Bender235 still claims he will continue to flout the rule against changing styles (that was also his response to my original note; see his talk page). That's why I brought this here; it will apparently require other administrators to intervene to induce him to follow community norms. And editors who are unwilling to follow such norms should not be using AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support withdrawal of AWB use until Bender can demonstrate that he will use it in an appropriate way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the way that this is done is by removing his name from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users. Any administrator can edit that page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to post my comment about the use of Reflist over <references />. Since Reflist is a template it is easy to run a "search" to find out which articles have references, which is not so easily done using the HTML code version of references!. My personal preference is Reflist and I ran into this same problem in the past myself when I tried to make a similar change to several articles years ago. The real problem I see here is using an incorrect edit summery. I have apossible comprimise solution to this problem. Since the primary argument I have seen in the past is the reduced font that the Reflist template generates, perhaps the standard codeing of the Reflist template should be modified to match the references HTML coding. Since there are multiple reflist templates that allow for smaller font or multiple columns due to the number of references on the page then the one of the other reflist templates could be used if needed as the exception. That way if someone adds the Reflist template as a "minor edit" along with other more significant changes there is not harm done. This would also allow better tracking of what articles use references than we currently have. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with my AWB rights, anyway? I prefer {{Reflist}} over <references />, and now you're "supporting" to downgrade my user status? WTF? What's next? Am I going to get blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for questioning CBM's ownership over certain articles? --bender235 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I too prefer Reflist over /references, and I always use it when adding a reference section. But it's a matter of style, and not "a good clean-up edit." It's an inappropriate change, even if done to a single article. The reason that it is inappropriate is that it leads to un-necessary debates over trivial article characteristics, which serve no purpose and reach no conclusion. There are more than enough things about which everyone agrees that they need fixing. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DGG on all counts (I like reflist too, but don't go changing it on established articles); also I believe I was the one who used the term "good clean-up edit" DGG, and you're misquoting it slightly; I was talking about other positive changes which were introduced in the same edit as the rather less positive reflist change. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, what on Wikipedia is an established article? On which of those I edited (#1, #2, #3, and #4, for example) qualifies as such? In my estimation, Wikipedia is an ever-evolving project. You spot a typo? Fix it! You find a badly structured article? Improve it! You see an awkward HTML table? Replace it with a wikitable! That was my approach over the last six years. I still don't think it was wrong after all. --bender235 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 has been showing up on my watchlist for over a year making good edits to economic articles, so I oppose any sanctions against them at this point. On the other hand I agree with Carl its best to defer to the primary contributors if they dont appreaciate style and format changes, so once they object you shouldnt re-add changes to the articles in question unless you can gain concensus first. Reading DGGs comments maybe you should take a break from or at least slow down on upgrading to reflist, even though it seems a useful improvement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The precise point is that it's neither an upgrade or a useful improvement; it's a matter of personal preference and there's no reason why Bender's preference should override an established style. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I oppose sanctions as well, as references-to-reflist is a change I make without thinking twice. Now that we've established that there are policy-based reasons for thinking twice after all, we should look at behavior going forward, not back at something that seemed uncontroversial at the time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Revocation of Bender's AWB rights, based upon the fact that the editor feels they are right in changes the style of references from one to another, when it was clearly stated above that when one style is implemented on a page, it should not be changed. The fact that Bender has flatly ignored this is my reasoning for the "demotion".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe every user has the right to improve citation styles on any article. But again, what does this have to do with my right to use AWB? By the way, let me complete my rap sheet: I also frequently replace hyphens with en dashes where appropriate w/out asking for permission from the article's owner, I use to replace URIs to scientific journals with DOIs w/out contacting the person who added the references, and I often add infoboxes to articles despite the very fact that the initial author did not add one. Now you might as well revoke my autoreviewer right as well, don't you? --bender235 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bender, you're still completely missing the point. Policy dictates that changing <references/> to {{reflist}} is a stylistic change and that existing styles should remain on the article unless you have a reason for changing it that goes beyond you thinking it looks better. Adding infoboxes, cleaning up references, these are the "good edits" I mentioned before which I felt that CBM should not have reverted. I do not want you to lose your right to use AWB, I want you to accept that these edits are against policy, agree to stop making them, and continue your otherwise constructive work with AWB. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - recently the cries of block him and ban him and remove his tools seems to have hit plague conditions, have a quiet word with him and move on. I also routinely replace references with reflist whenever I see it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I oppose provided that Bender235 stop making this particular change as requested. To Bender I personally like the reflist but for now, the concensus is to not make that particular change. My suggestion is to take it off the list of changes you perform and continue on. You have made a lot of contributions and this is a bad way to loose a good contributor over a petty change. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't have anything better to do? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and change the policy/guideline to say reflist is preferred. It is a good clean up edit, per Rob and Arek etc. Verbal chat 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Even if it is, we don't do clean-up on articles unless things are actually changed in the article. We also don't do them en masse which is what he's done, then ignored WP:BRD to edit war over a style change and has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia is evolving and many article which have <references /> rather than {{Reflist}} were simply written before the latter was available. I see no problem with changing it, though if the change is reverted it obviously should not be edit warred over. But that's not what this editor was doing. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Bender's been a hugely productive editor for some time. Don't take away a tool that helps him improve the encyclopedia. We must simply come to an understanding here. Dawnseeker2000 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Which he refuses to do, hence why this was brought up.--Crossmr (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per others. Completely ridiculous. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that's excessively strongly worded. The only thing that might be "ridiculous" is an established editor who continues with an "I didn't hear that" argument after several others have reminded him of our extremely well-established prejudice against making stylistic changes to articles based on personal preference. Editors making such claims should not be trusted with tools such as AWB which require discretion in their use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is no point in removing AWB access, as Bender is a very useful constructive editor. Just a word of caution about not changing <references /> to {{reflist}} using AWB should be fine. (I also routinely change to {{reflist}} as well.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good edits, infraction (if any) is extremely minor, request is complete overreaction. Stop this crap and edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Veteran Good Faith editor commits minor infraction. In the words of Obi Wan: "This is not the droid you are looking for."--Buster7 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  The good faith was gone when he ignored WP:BRD. Misleading edit summaries and ignoring a consensus achieved dispute resolution process isn't minor.--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose That an editor has been dragged here over a good faith edit should be enough of a dissuasion from doing it again. Removing AWB access would be Punitive, not Preventative. N419BH 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I have a problem with undoing a good cleanup based on a small change. That is at least as disruptive as anything bender's accused of doing. I prefer reflist too (but references / won't display an error message if their are no references making it preferred for new articles; it makes since it should switch once the article has references). It also appears that few of bender's changes actually involved this, most were basic cleanup. This is just baffling to me. If this was some ongoing thing, fine, but you've turned a friendly note into a ridiculous project to remove a productive member for a small, wikilawyering, and quite possibly bad rule. Shadowjams (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  What's bad about requiring editors use proper edit summaries or that they don't edit war of style changes per existing policy?--Crossmr (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (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.