Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive674

Marcha Libertadora

Resolved

 – Page deleted; suggested page be salted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection HalfShadow 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Hope it is the right place for this issue here) The deleted article Marcha Libertadora was again created here. The "national anthem" is a completely fake, the expression "Marcha Libertadora" stand for a military campaign during the independence wars in south america. I do not know about the source of the video on youtube nor about the sheet music (an organisation/website/book etc called "National anthems of [sic!] World" does not exist, nor i was not able to find a source about an anthem of gran colombia. The article was and is stil recreated in several languages as google translation. I am sure that this is pure vandalism, and User:Marcha Libertadora (!!!) is a sock puppet of User:Achun1111y, who started this vandalism in december. For further question, please have a look her, where this issue was discussed a month ago in the german wikipedia: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Antemister#Marcha Libertadora--Antemister (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagged. HalfShadow 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on topic on probation

Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PCPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For a long time now PCPP (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing activity on Falun Gong related articles and any articles that include content related to Falun Gong. He does it with other articles related to the Chinese Communist Party, but Falun Gong appears to be his forte. As for evidence, his edit history is probably the best possible example: most Falun Gong-related edits are disruptive, very few of them are about adding new information, and nearly every single one of them is about degrading or simply deleting information that is unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party. I suggest simply looking at his history. But the specific "incident" I want to highlight here happened on the List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll. See the history and discussion. The point is this: he is opposed by three editors who find it legitimate to include information about the persecution/genocide against Falun Gong in the article about alleged genocides. A judge ordered an arrest warrant against Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan, leaders of the persecution, and called it a genocide. That is in this article. There was other media, too. PCPP has already done three reverts on this page within a few hours. He has been doing this for a long, long time. Please check his edit history on this topic. His primary method is to be aggressive and edit war. When he does discuss things it is never substantial. He throws out a few sentences, sometimes irrelevant, and continues in the same vain. Meanwhile other editors (including myself) present long explanations for their thinking and changes. He ignores it all and just deletes the stuff he doesn't like. Editing the pages becomes extremely tiring. Here is a long list of his biased editing that I made a long time ago. Since then he has done much of the same. He came within a hair's breadth of being banned a couple of years ago, and has only gotten worse since then. It is my neglect that has allowed this to simmer for so long. I think it is extremely clear that this editor should no longer be involved in anything related to Falun Gong, and I believe the other editors, when they hear of this motion, will be greatly relieved that something is finally happening. I know of at least three other editors who take an interest in the Falun Gong articles that, from what I can tell, are fed up with PCPP's disruptive behaviour. Falun Gong is one of the articles on probation. PCPP is a longtime disruptive editor who has now just done three reverts against the consensus (two explicit, one implicit) of three other editors for including reliably sourced information. He should simply be banned indefinitely from the pages, and I don't think anyone who edits the articles will disagree. Background Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57#PCPP Comments by other editors (I take the liberty to simply collect these from different places and present them here, but I hope others take a look and weigh in directly.) [1] PCPP, your edits to this page recently are uniquely disruptive. I cannot but wonder what your intention is; if you desire to see the page contain a level and honest description of events and views, I must inform you that your participation so far is not conducive to this end. Instead, the level of aggression and persistent POV-pushing that you display derails any substantive conservation and leads other editors to turn on you. Prior to your arrival here, we were in the midst of a substantive discussion on how to improve the article, and were in the process of reaching agreements on some changes. You then proceeded to revert these changes without discussion. They were restored and explained, but before the discussion could continue, you then reverted wholesale again. This time you offered minimal discussion in which you made several specious arguments that you failed to substantiate or defend... I similarly do not appreciate that you cannot be taken at your word; I realize now that it is necessary to check your edit summaries against your various difs. You also misrepresent the rationale cited by other editors for their changes. Now, I can assume good faith and believe that these are innocent mistakes, and part of me is inclined to do this. But I am beginning to suspect that there is a certain amount of deliberate disruption and deception here. You may consider taking a step back from these articles and going for a nice long walk. Homunculus (duihua) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC) [2] I just saw this after the shock I got in the recent kerfuffle. Completely agree. I actually wish he would just go away. All PCPP does is POV-push, and he's done it for years (looking at the RfC someone compiled a while ago). I will actually stop editing that page if it keeps it up, so you can't say his tactics don't work. —Zujine|talk 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC) [3] A final note, just to make sure this is not forgotten: I appreciate Silk's positive view of things, but I was monitoring the page before I began editing and commenting, so I saw how it unfolded: PCPP has been absolutely disruptive all the way along. You'll notice the amount of ink other editors have spilled tripping over themselves trying to explain their highly reasonable edits, and the throwaway remarks PCPP makes in response, along with either constant reverts, or what cumulatively amount to reverts. I have been frustrated by this editor, and I can only imagine others have. I know we're not supposed to name names, etc., but this must be pointed out because I don't want a repeat of it. All the changes that he/she resisted have actually been made, they are entirely reasonable, the only difference is that X amount more time was wasted because of his/her stubborn resistance. I won't say more on it for now, but if the problem flares up again I will even more unimpressed. —Zujine|talk 18:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I urge someone to look into the matter and make the appropriate judgement. I will alert PCPP now. --Asdfg12345 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC) The Correct forum would be WP:AE, this is under their sanctions so they must enforce it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

JSOC Edit War

User Paolau.kalani (talk · contribs) has made several destructive edits to Joint Special Operations Command. He is removing sources, and entering a personal opinion based on one sentence from a report stating that the 75th Ranger Regiment is "believed to be part of JSOC." Two verifiable sources that were already in the article counter that; both of which show that JSOC is comprised of Delta, DEVGRU, and Air Force STS only. This is also confirmed on the 75th Ranger Regiment page, which identifies it as part of United States Army Special Operations Command. Furthermore, the bottom of that page has the chain of command, which shows the the 75th is part of USASOC, but not JSOC. There is no mention of JSOC on that page, because it is not related to the Army chain of command. Paolau.kalani (talk · contribs) is insistently removing sources and inserting his opinion that the 75th is an element of JSOC. The confusion comes in because Rangers often work as part of JSOC task force teams, and Rangers are often deployed as support for JSOC elements-- in which case they are transferred under JSOC command. They are not a regular element of JSOC, though, as the 2 sources and the Wikipedia pages of each clearly state. I have issued several warnings on his User Talk page, and another user issued an edit war warning. After that warning was issued, I stopped reverting edits, but Paolau.kalani (talk · contribs) persisted, as seen here. This user needs to be blocked from editing that specific page. Charlie Tango Bravo 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actively monitored by admin. I've again invited Paolau.kalani to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Hopefully he does. If not, I'm prepared to block any party that violates 3RR on the article from this point forward.

Note also that Paolau.kalani has sought help on the situation: see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Edit War. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Block request: Angel's flight

A checkuser has identified user:Angel's flight as editing from IP addresses registered to American System Publications, a company owned by the Lyndon LaRouche movement. This is the same company that user:Leatherstocking, a sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky, was editing from in 2009. He edited logged out several times, and the IP addresses resolved to American Systems Publications in Los Angeles. (See Leatherstocking and WP:LTA/HK.)

Angel's flight has been acting like Leatherstocking and Herschelkrustofsky too, pushing exactly the same text and POV on the same articles, as well as working on a new article, Death panels, an issue the LaRouche movement has an interest in. (See several threads on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive670.) In addition to the CU evidence, there is other behavioral evidence, which I can email if necessary. Could an uninvolved admin please block the account for block evasion?   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I too would welcome a block on this user for his actions at Independent Payment Advisory Board as well as Death panel. The account may be linked to other editors such as User:Intermittentgardener which it often backs up and User:Jesanj for the same reason. I made several complaints here previously about User:Intermittentgardener and User:Jesanj has contacted me by email with material that in my opinion was intended to somehow scare me (someone knows who you are but I am trying to protect you). Quite sinister really. Jesanj has also claimed that Action T4 is a death panel, and as I have discovered, this is something the Larouche organization connects to organizations and subjects in the health field such as IPAB and NICE. These are extremists views and I have accused all of thee editors of trying to politicize the encyclopedia content and push POV in recent times. User:Arzel has a similar editing pattern also and may be worth checking out.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. You have made allegations against me several times without presenting any evidence. Please stop.Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if he is sockpuppet or just one of that supporters of LaRouche who work in his companies or affiliated groups. Both can be true. But his edits in Independent Payment Advisory Board like this one are normal content dispute and I don´t see problem to include what notable politicians think about the topic. --Dezidor (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This came up a week or so ago and I saw what had signs of skillful POV pushing that I didn't have the energy to try to document with diffs. Will Beback would know better than I would about whether that's HK's style. Is there a SPI about this current checkuser finding and were more socks found? Angel's Flight and a couple of aligned editors arrived at that article with new accounts but as obvious non-newbies. My view is that actual newbies are expected to take a while getting acclimated and we can accept some pretty bad errors from them, but apparent practitioners of CLEANSTART should be presumed to know what they're doing when they make the new account, so it's appropriate hold them to high standards. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The POV pushing has been pretty relentless, and as you say skillfully done. In essence, they find a wee bit about something and spin it up into something else. This particular account has been used mostly on the TALK page to back up the unacceptable edits of other editors. Of course they make the same old claim of verifiability and not truth, but even attempts to add material which shows the POV they are pushing to be wrong, some member or other of the cabal working at these articles will come along and delete material. For example this edit which makes it clear that the NHS pays full cost for effective cancer drugs and allows top up by the patients if the price demanded by a pharma company for a drug is deemed to be too high. The counterbalancing material was just deleted because it does not fit the POV of the cabal. At some point WP is about TRUTH and these editors seem intent on hiding it.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked this user as an obvious disruptive sock. Dreadstar ☥ 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest a CU since there were some other accounts with similar patterns. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I too think that a checkuser should be done on all the accounts that have edited Death panel and Independent Payment Advisory Board and their respective talk pages since Christmas 2010 to see if they are connected. This is I think when the push (putsch?) began at those articles. Hauskalainen (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's called "fishing", and we won't do that. If we have individual editors for which we can demonstrate sufficient probable cause, a checkuser would be warranted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JpGordon, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there has been an abuse of multiple accounts. Hauskalainen's argument looks more like a content dispute to me, no reason for a ban either.81.210.206.223 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, its not just content, its about sockuppetry and POV. Puppetry is all about false consensus and that is what I sense is going on and so it seems do others. These editors back up each others edits all the time and on occasions have edited one after the other in quick succession. If one would go 3RR then another steps in and reverts on their behalf. Several are relatively new accounts which have edited only a few accounts. There is a definite cabal at these articles with POV pushing at its core. And as I pointed out above, at least one of these editors had expressed an opinion closely associated with the LaRouche crowd and we know now that Angel's flight was editing from a LaRouche web site that had been used before for puppetry. Taking user account history, editing patterns, edit time patterns and article choice into account, I would say that this would not be a fishing trip..Hauskalainen (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• This block was a little quick, don't you think? I don't see any evidence of POV-pushing presented in the thread above. The entire case was, "This editor edits, in a similar way, from the same IP range as another blocked editor." If an editor is following the rules, stronger evidence should be needed before the account is banned. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The account was blocked for being an obvious sock of a banned user. That user was banned for POV pushing, sock puppetry, and other violations of Wikipedia policies. The account was not simply using the same IP range - he was editing from the same small LaRouche company as previous HK socks. As far as POV pushing, every edit he made was to advance LaRouche views, or to argue against negative material on LaRouche, the same as HK.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree that the account was POV-pushing in the LaRouche article. You haven't provided any evidence that the account was doing so. If the account was following the rules, how can it be blocked because it "might" (with only circumstantial evidence) be the same person? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • What standard do you suggest for blocking socks? Only if they're using the identical IP address and only if they're flagrantly violating other Wikipedia policies? that is not the standard the community has adopted. See, for example WP:DUCK. I note that you have repeatedly asked non-LaRouche accounts to stop editing the topic, yet you seem fine with having someone at a LaRouche HQ doing so. I also note that you frequently join in discussions on WR with the banned editor, who is the senior admin there. While I assume good faith on your part, your involvement with this topic has been decidedly pro-HK. Could you please do us all a favor and ask him to stop sneaking back here and editing under false identities?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • By the way, where is the link to the SPI? I don't see it in your statement above. I just realized that it appears that you haven't actually presented any evidence either that the account is editing from the "small" company you say it is. Where is the actual evidence to support this block? Let's see it. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • A checkuser did the investigation, and found the connection to the company. I don't have permission to reveal the IP in question, but it is definitely registered to American System Publications. Some details can not be disclosed publicly for privacy and other reasons.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • If the IP is confidential, then how do you know it? How was this checkuser requested if no request was made at the SPI page? What's going on here? Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
              • This checkuser request, as is often the case with those regarding prolific and malicious sockpuppeteers, was made privately, by someone very familiar with this particular miscreant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                • OK, without giving the actual IP, did it match up exactly with the IP used by the banned user in the past, or did it just happen to be in the range used by the same company? If so, then I don't think you can conclusively decide that the accounts are the same. The ArbCom decision banned that specific editor, not the company he/she edited from. Also, after performing the checkuser, did you share the information with any other involved party. If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • There is also behavioral evidence to show it is the same person and not just someone else sitting at a desk in the LaRouche HQ. In the past we have published that type of information. However HK is a clever puppet master (his use of socks dates back to Usenet and precedes Wikipedia), and he has adapted himself to be less identifiable. For that reason I will not publish the behavioral evidence publicly. Most of Cla68's objections seem to be Wikilawyering in defense of his friend. Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in the case of disruptive POV-pushing puppet masters.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • No, Will, what I'm seeing here is an editor who was following the rules being blocked as a banned editor on hidden, circumstantial evidence based on "because I said so". Will, did you approach JPGordon privately to conduct a checkuser? If so, were you aware that he was previously involved as an arbitrator related to the LaRouche case? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                      • Cla68, even aside from the plentiful evidence that this is HK, do you really think it's appropriate for a member of the LaRouche movement, sitting at a LaRouche computer, to edit LaRouche-related topics without making any disclosure? Can I remind you again of how many non-LaRouche editors you've asked to stop editing the topic?   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                        • • (a) Will did not contact me. Doesn't matter who did, though. (b) "Previously involved" because I voted on a motion of clarification two and a half years after the original case? Don't be silly. But even if I had been involved in the earlier case, that would have made no difference to the intepretation of the actual data, as I provided technical details only, not conclusions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                            • So, were the IPs identical? If not, then we don't know that they were the same user, do we? Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cla, any details given publicly will help the person behind the LaRouche accounts. In addition, he attacks people—on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere—that he sees as opposing him. I hope you agree that no one should be subjected to those attacks, and I ask you please not to do anything that might make them worse.

American System Publications in Los Angeles is a tiny LaRouche company. Leatherstocking edited from there while logged out, and he acknowledged it was him. He didn't seem to realize a whois would show it was a LaRouche IP. Another IP from the same company edited logged out not long ago, again revealing a very small range. So this is not a situation where different people are in a large company and might be editing unaware of each other.

In addition to the technical connection, Angel's flight was raising exactly the same points the other accounts had raised, sometimes almost word for word, and was referring to issues discussed only on obscure pages years ago. The more he posted, the more he did it. So it was very obvious to anyone familiar with the accounts that it was the same person. There have been dozens of these accounts over the years, and they distinguish themselves by the language they use, the positions they strike up, and by the very particular interests—very specific tiny points that are of interest to the person behind the accounts.

When you were involved in the Naked short selling situation, you agreed (or even suggested) that any new account that arrived at those articles should be assumed to be a sockpuppet. That is, you agreed the situation was such that the usual AGF could no longer be the default position. The sockpuppetry situation at the LaRouche articles is similar, if not worse. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only organization prohibited from editing Wikipedia is the Church of Scientology. If the ArbCom has ruled that American System Publications is similarly not allowed to edit Wikipedia, could someone point out to me where it says that? Otherwise, unless someone confirms that the IP addresses were the same, then there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to support a block of the account as a sock of HK. No one has introduced any other evidence of wrongdoing, be it edit warring or POV editing. Will said earlier that he would be willing to email confidential evidence that he has. Will, please email me that evidence. Otherwise, I'm not seeing sufficient justification for this block. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

HK is a serial puppet master. He has disrupted the project for years and attacked WP editors from his post as WR admin. I've never seen you showing any concern about any of that. Instead, you have asked repeatedly asked non-LaRouche editors to stop editing the topic. You appear to be shilling for HK. Can you explain why you'd hold him to a different standard that Mantanmoreland?   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The person behind the LaRouche accounts was banned by ArbCom, and has continued to sockpuppet ever since. He edits from American System Publications in Los Angeles, a very small LaRouche company. He has edited several times while logged out, which is how the ranges came to be known. I don't know which range Angel's flight edited from, but CU confirmed it was the same company, and it's clear from the logged-out edits that the ranges are tiny.

Can you address the point I raised about Naked short selling? You argued at several of those articles that the various new accounts ought to be treated as socks, even though their IPs resolved to different areas. You argued that it was clear from their posts that they were the same person, or the same small group of people with the same aim and motivation, who repeatedly wanted to add the same material and the same sources, and who therefore for the purposes of WP were one person. But here—even though the IPs resolve to the same company; the company is tiny; it's owned by LaRouche; and the language, arguments, and edits are identical (even restoring each other's exact words)—you're arguing we should assume they're not the same person. What difference are you seeing between the two cases? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SV, you'll need to give me a diff where I said something like that, otherwise, I don't remember the context involved. Back to this discussion, I have another question for Will. Above, JPGordon states that Will Beback did not contact him privately to request the checkuser. It was Will, however, who opened this thread announcing that he had proof that Angel's Flight was an HK sock, (which proof has yet to be produced, by the way). Will, if you and JPGordon weren't in private communication, then what made you decide to come here and announce the results of this non-public sock investigation, and how were you so sure that the results were conclusive? If the checkuser results, including IP addresses, were privileged information, then they shouldn't have been shared with you, right? Cla68 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla, you may have misunderstood. It wasn't checkuser sharing IP information. It was the LaRouche editor who shared it.

Leatherstocking edited logged out in 2009, so his IP range was known. It resolved to American System Publications in Los Angeles, a small LaRouche company, one that HK is linked to. Recently another IP address edited the LaRouche pages logged out again, and revealed another IP range, which also resolved to American System Publications in Los Angeles.

The question then was whether Angel's flight had edited from within those ranges, and the answer, as has been posted here, was yes. Whether it was exactly the same IP isn't known, but there's no need to know that detail. The ranges are tiny, just eight IP addresses in each. That makes it a technical match. Factor in the behavioral and editorial evidence, and it's a match in every sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the behavioral evidence hasn't been presented, and Will Beback refused to email it to me. So, no evidence of a editorial or behavioral match has been produced. The thing is, if that IP range belongs to an organization run by LaRouche, your approach is basically to ban anyone that edits from that IP range. As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been banned from editing Wikipedia. I would expect most, if not all, editors who edited from that organization to be knowledgeable on LaRouche's platform on various subjects. What I'm seeing here is that anyone who edits from that IP range, and shows an unusual familiarity with LaRouche's platform, gets banned as a sock of HK, even if they are doing their best to follow Wikipedia's rules. As you can see on the LaRouche talk page, Will Beback calls editors who don't take his side in the content debates, "Friends of HK." So, there is evidence of a strong bias by Will Beback to find HK behind every bush, but little evidence has been presented that this is so, at least in this cae. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, you are acting as HK's ally if not his friend. You are discussing this matter with HK on WR. You are taking his sockpuppet's side in this and in editing disputes. You have asked editors who do not take pro-LaRouche sides to stop editing the topic, but you want someone who is sitting in a LaRouche office to be able to edit the topic freely. Excuse me if I don't perceive you as a neutral person in this matter.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, you and SV have said that this company where the edits supposedly originated (and no evidence of it has yet been presented) is "small". Could you tell me how many people work there? If you don't know, then how can you be so sure that HK was the person running the account? I can't be sure based on "behavioral" evidence, because you have refused to share your evidence with me. What was the reason for that? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another question...Will, were you given privileged information from the checkuser? Your opening statement in this thread appears to indicate that you were. If so, it appears that the rationale for sharing this confidential information with you is because you are an admin. If this is the reason, then why are you active in editing the LaRouche articles' content if you are also acting in the capacity of an admin in relation to other editors who are active with that topic? Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I'm not going to share information on how to detect sock puppets of HK since you are in frequent contact with him on WR and are generally supportive of him and his sockpuppetry. As for checkuser matters, I've been in touch with the audit subcommittee and if they have any further questions they can write back to ask them.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if someone besides HK edits from that organization, and it appears that you have no idea how many people work there, and they display any "behavioral characteristics" of a character which you refuse to share with me, claiming that I'm in cahoots with HK, they get banned. This appears to be the steps involved, please let me know if I have this right:

1. A new editor shows up at Lyndon LaRouche or associated article and disagrees with you on the content or wants to use sources that you don't approve of.

2. You begin insinuating in article talk page and noticeboard discussions that the editor is a "LaRouche" editor and appears to be related to HK

3. You request a private checkuser, the results and details of which are shared with you.

4. You come here and request a block, without presenting any evidence, but say that it is available on demand.

5. You then refuse to share the evidence with some editors, picking and choosing who you share it with.

6. The editor gets banned immediately, without being told clearly why so that they may defend themselves and even if they appeared to be following Wikipedia's policies

7. You then strike or delete all the comments by that editor from article talk pages.

8. You then resume editing the LaRouche articles.

It sounds to me that if anyone else edits from that organization, whether they're HK or not and if they're following our policies, they have little chance of ultimately avoiding an indef block once they disagree with you the first time. Do I have this right? Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Cla, you have been concerned there was no POV pushing from Angel's flight (Af). I saw some. Here is the LaRouche position something from Executive Intelligence Review (a LaRouche publication): "Obama's so-called health-care reform, modelled as it is on both the Nazi T4 and the British NICE model, is riddled with procedures which will permit the cutting of care, from the comparative effectiveness studies to the Accountable Care Organizations. But the chief measure, as Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag is at pains to stress, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), previously known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), and popularly known as "death panels."[4] Af came to death panel and would support text that overstated things (to LaRouche's benefit). Here's me calling Af's POV out. Af was trying to link the IPAB (and NICE) to the word death panel by overstating-sources & giving undue weight, in my opinion. They took a mini-break then returned by adding back some OK content, but also some content (off-topic and Gratzer) that had already been decided against, fyi. Jesanj (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj, please don't call something a "LaRouche position" which is discussed more widely by many more http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001528 participants than just LaRouche. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, Angel's flight pointed out that source too. Jesanj (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, how I wish that Special:MakeEverybodyInThisDiscussionAssumeGoodFaith was not a dead link. AGK [•] 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps "WP:When you hear meowing, there may be a catfight going on"? Seriously, WP is better served by ignoring personal conflicts than by asserting ill faith. Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Blenn Geck legal threats

Resolved

The guy has already been indef'd as a sock, but he continues to make legal threats. I ask that an admin take away his talk page privileges. I'm told he's been in contact with arbcom about his situatio, so there's really nothing useful he can do on his talk page. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What account are you talking about? User:Blenn Geck isn't registered... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, it's BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but what business do you have posting on his talk page? The guy should be blocked, and yes he should not be making legal threats but you are literally trolling his talk page, eliciting these reactions from him. Please cease and desist from stirring more drama up. You should be interaction banned from this user as there is absolutely no productive reason for you to be interacting with them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now off my watch list. I was trying to see if I could get any truth from the guy, but he won't budge, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening you for "outing" him by reposting the IP he accidently associated with his own account. You're pretty much in the clear; I'd suggest disengaging. No one is going to unblock him. For the record, blocks based on WP:NLT are typically reverted without prejudice with the threats are retracted, aren't they? (I know this is a sock block) --King Öomie 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken his page off my watch list. He outed himself and is angry over having been caught. The blocking admin advised doing nothing about that "outing" until the user hears back from arbcom. I've seen cases where they did revdel when a guy accidentally outed himself, but that's usually for a user in good standing, which this guy ain't, as he's a sockpuppeteer (previous, indef blocked account is Deliciousgrapefruit). Even if he retracts the legal threats, he'll stay blocked, because the sockmaster is blocked. But you're right that if it were an NLT block, retracting the threat could result in an unblock. Not in this case though. He just needs to be stopped from making further legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that it was a different user who discovered the cross-blending of the accounts and their IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, he just needs to be ignored. He's blocked already as a sock. Nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. We'll let an admin decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but beware of the boomerang. This looks like very unnecessary drama to me, and now you're asking an admin to waste their time with it. Good luck. Out.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Admins can stifle the guy or they can leave him be, that's up to them. I just don't like seeing legal threats left standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's bugs for ya! One of the wiki's characters. It's all good natured. I can understand why some may not, but I like it... we're not here to be professional and up tight! Egg Centric 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. You're a good Egg. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) I saw your comments after, but was edit conflicted a full three times while attempting to post (and then while attempting to add (edit conflict), and twice while trying to post this- what the hell is going on up there?) --King Öomie 14:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've run into lots of EC's recently. My screen is also acting weird in the last day or two. They might have made some technical changes in the site. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There really is something screwed up. I've seen several pages with no edit buttons as if they were protected, when they weren't, and I was able to edit one by clicking "view source". I wonder whether logged-in users also experienced that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

When opening a new edit screen, I'm seeing a light blue panel at the top, which is new, and weird. Wasn't there a comment a few days back about how they were going to implement some changes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I've blocked the sock account from editing its own talk page. Socks do not need to edit anything anywhere - they can use their primary account for that unless their editing privileges have been revoked. In that case, they definitely should not be editing a sock talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If BlennGeck and Delicious Grapefruit really were different users on the same computer as BG says, that basically announces off-wiki coordination since IIRC they were in the same edit wars. Heh. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation

If a user reveals an IP address by mistake and wishes to undo the error, I generally don't see a problem with removing it. Removal won't slow down admins or checkusers investigating complaints, and it's foreseeable that in rare cases an IP outing could cause problems such as in the case of a whistle-blower outing his or her work IP. However, I propose only removing such edits when the user makes the request and when the user isn't already involved in a sock case. Rklawton (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do we encourage whistle-blowers to edit articles? I'm admittedly biased on the subject—I have some doubts about the net social utility of whistleblowing—but I would think that the rationale of WP:AUTO would apply with only slightly diminished force. If an individual is too close to the subject to contribute to an article about themselves, presumably they are no more distant from organizations they're closely involved in. We wouldn't allow Barack Obama to edit Barack Obama; wouldn't it be anomalous to allow him to edit Presidency of Barack Obama? Why is it any different? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally it's a matter of "use common sense". The whistleblower example for me evokes an image closer to some schoolteacher editing about a scandal at city hall, than about Barack Obama editing wikipedia. Added: I think Rklawton's approach is generally reasonable. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it's a hypothetical, not like I think O is going to start editing. The hypos was concededly extreme in facts, but I think the same principle is involved. A schoolteacher probably wouldn't be in a position to blow the whistle on city hall, so let's say a junior DA blows the whistle on his boss (or a judge, perhaps). Wouldn't we have concerns about that? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Your concerns are worthy but off-topic. The issue at hand is accidental IP outing. The issues you've brought up fall under WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:V. Rklawton (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken Ctrl-Alt-Del redirects

Please move this request to the right place. I need technical help to fix the result of the redirect Ctrl-Alt-Del (actual redirect) getting broken during recent moves (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Ctrl+Alt+Del and [5]). I started fixing all the broken redirects from the WhatLinksHere (see Special:Contributions/84user) but I feel this needs a better solution because there are archived discussions that now point to the wrong article, and I am loathe to edit archives (although I did just once here). Somehow that set of moves needs to be reverted and it looks like only an admin can do this. -84user (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There were only three links left in the mainspace, which just pointed at the webcomic's article. Doesn't fix the issue, but it isn't as high priority now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was more concerned with the links from Wikipedia namespace, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Assessment (fixed), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 8 (an archived debate), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rantings Of Madmen (the same), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and Happiness (another archived debate). Such links are important I feel, and should not be left broken too long. -84user (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unusual merges and redirects by Special:Contributions/98.82.114.66

I'm not sure if this vandalism or not, but some articles on my watchlist are coming up with "unusual redirect" tags undertaken by an IP: Special:Contributions/98.82.114.66. He seems to have performed merges and redirects on established articles without any discussion, and I think an admin should take a closer look at his edits. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just something to talk to them about, really. Bold merges can be easily reverted. Their response of swearing at people isn't great, and they've been warned over that. Fences&Windows 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Easily reverted, but the merged content requires {{copied}}s in case it's ever restored. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how legitimate his edits were (although one of them was definitely ill-advised), and I've never performed an article merge but I know there is a specific protocol for these things. I still think it's better for someone familiar with merging procedues to look into these things though and offer any pertinent advice. I see Tbhotch has addressed the matter, although he wasn't exactly thanked by the IP. Betty Logan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Fences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not my place to undertake admin duties, I haven't been given that mandate by the other editors on Wikipedia. Flagged edits came up on my watchlist so I posted a notification here. The admins can either look into it or ignore it at their own discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin duties = delete, block, protect, close discussions. Everyone's "duties" = talking, editing. You don't need an admin to revert a bold merge, you don't need an admin to talk to another user, you don't need an admin to engage in dispute resolution. Don't feel that because you've not got the mop you can't use your experience to advise other editors. Fences&Windows 04:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There was an old proposal at Talk:Secretary#Merge in Management assistant, so that merge had some support. There's something odd going on: compare Special:Contributions/74.178.223.7 and Special:Contributions/Cliftongransko. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the huge overlap between those two IP ranges and that editor as well so I asked for a checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cliftongransko. He's doing masses of merges and redirects. Some of them look perfectly legitimate but whenever someone reverts him he tends to just revert them back. What is more worrying is that he's been blanking article talk pages and hiding controversial edits behind inoccuous edit summaries such as "adding references" etc. It's nigh on impossible to keep track of him — editors leave him messages and he just ignores/blanks their comments and moves on to another IP number. An admin has added a couple of user accounts to the checkuser based on the behavioral overlap. This isn't outright vandalism, his edits do usually have a logic but the sheer amount he is undertaking without discussion along with using underhand tactics have lead to a couple of previous blocks within this range: User talk:98.82.161.156 and User talk:98.82.162.198. Obviously I can't say hand on heart it is the same guy until the Sock investigation has concluded, but there is a serious trust issue here if he is lying in his edit summaries and deleting discussions form talk pages. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have just blocked user Dlabtot for a 3RR violation at Alex Gregory. I feel OK about this, however as a matter of principle I submit any block I have made to an article I am also editing for independent review. Manning (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're in the middle of a content dispute and you blocked your opponent. Bad form. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally yes, but there is ample precedent for my actions. This is a fairly clear-cut case of 3RR, and the editor is acting against established consensus, and has failed to present any justification for his contentious viewpoint. Not really a 'content dispute' IMO, it's vexatious editing. Still I listed it AN/I as a matter of principle. Manning (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, it looked like you were heavily involved in the article as well as that edit war and ensuing content dispute. Not a very good block IMO. –MuZemike 02:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll reverse it and take it to 3RR. Thanks for the feedback. Manning (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of 3RR. Since Dlabtot only made three sets of edit, when consecutive ones are merged, it is not possible for there to be a 3RR violation, which requires 4 reverts. That is not to say there was no edit warring, but there is no 3RR violation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I just noticed that myself, hence my original block was in error. So the matter stands as is (with block reversed). I'll refrain from any further admin actions on this article. Manning (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It may have been in error, but it did achieve its purpose - I won't participating at that article any more. You 'win'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the editor in question was actively participating in the related talk page discussion. Blocking them stops them from participating, and that lends another element of unfairness. Rklawton (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently my account has been unblocked, but there is still a block on the IP address I usually use; I had to post this from a different computer. Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted.  7  03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Two things: (1) It's excellent to see you back around again Manning. I was afraid you had left Wikipedia for good a while back. (2) It's probably best to report these kinds of things to WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP in the future, unless there are significant BLP issues in play. NW (Talk) 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to Tokio Hotel?

Resolved

 – Edits reverted, admin has eyes on the vandal, nothing more needed to be done. Carry on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On rock band Tokio Hotel's wikipedia, a user is posting claiming they did cocaine, had hookers etc and putting up false info and links. This is terrible and needs to be deleted immediately. They are a famous 21 year old rock band and none of this is true! It is this person per history:

17:18, 18 February 2011 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) (33,934 bytes) (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Pop%20Culture%20Madness" from rev 414490317)) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiekaulitz (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a bot, not a person. That account just adds sources that have been removed, among other things. The account you should be asking about is this one, or Dualblade6 (talk · contribs) for those who don't want to click the link. That accounts edits are both vandalism. Recommend block for Dualblade6. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

THANKS!!!!!! I'm new - first time editing Wikipedia - and it just freaked me out. :P I'm just learning how this thing works. Thanks SOOOOO much Neutralhomer! They are my favorite band and I would hate for such false statments to ruin them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiekaulitz (talk • contribs) 06:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Times have changed indeed. If Wikipedia had existed back in the day, fans would be editing the articles about their favorite bands to add information about the drugs they did and the sex they had, and would have complained bitterly when their edits were reverted for lack of sourcing. Far out, man! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dualblade6 has been given a Warn4im warning, and an admin is watching his edits, so there really isn't more for the admins to do. Marking resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kool dee and User talk:Yo Yo Vega keeps removing the birth year on the Nadia Dajani page.

I suspected these users are the same person, as they kept on removing the 1965 on the Nadia Dajani page (check the edit history). This user claims that they are the actor's agent; and they did not want to provide her age, for some strange reason. I wanted to report this to prevent any future edit warring. Tinton5 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Yo Yo Vega (talk · contribs) about this discussion. ALL users should be notified. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This article falls within WP:BLP and has no reference at the moment. The only external link given is IMDb, that is not unanimously considered as reliable. olivier (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see why they might be pissed off by ageism in the film industry but unfortunately that is not an encyclopaedic consideration. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

3rd billing in a 2-year-run sitcom followed by several film appearances, none of which appear to be "significant roles". Send it to AfD, that'll take care of the age reporting if it gets canned. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an option. Other than that, the age disclosure concern is a valid consideration for a living person. According to WP:DOB, it may be acceptable to remove the date of birth (or year in this case) if the subject objects. The encyclopedic nature of this date is arguably limited, and I could not find any decent source giving this date. All websites giving her birth date seem to be copying each other with limited reliability. Keep in mind that IMDb functions partly as a Wiki. olivier (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP strongly supports the removal of unsourced / poorly sourced contested and potentially controversial claims about living people. There are many many instances when a factual age is important and having the incorrect information would lead to damage to a living person/their reputation. (drinking underage, claiming retirement benefits too early, statutory rape). I have removed the date. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Their precise age has nothing to do with the subject's notability (not being a child star) and is just general information, unless it can be sourced reliably I see no reason why it should remain in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support unreliable sourced age should be removed - especially when someone objects. I'd also support deleting all but the most basic parts of the article at least until we get get some reliable sources - at this point there are zero. Rklawton (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a reliable source, The Associated Press. So I've added it back. Fences&Windows 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I know I've seen a policy or guideline page that specifically states that "This day in history" type newspaper entries are not considered reliable - I'll see if I can track it down. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be strange, based on what evidence? Anyhow, I also sourced some of the other material. We spend so much time arguing about things like birthdays while the bios sit unsourced or people like Rklawton propose blanking the article instead of improving it. Fences&Windows 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to do both at the same time. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blanking is an improvement over bad or unsourced information that fails WP:V Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We've found that "this day in history" sections in many newspapers are lifted directly from Wikipedia - vandalism and all. It's to the point where these sources are effectively mirrors. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. There's no evidence that the content of the columns are vetted - they're essentially spammed across newspapers worldwide. If there's any dispute on a birthdate it should be removed until a definitive source is provided for confirmation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute

I have asked for a source at List of current heads of state and government for the inclusion of Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state of Australia. Now, before you say, well of course she is the head of state! She's the Queen, right?, read the discussion on the talk page (which is beginning to go around in circles), or better yet, read the Australian head of state dispute article. Simply put, there is no definitive source for saying that the Queen is the Australian head of state. No statement in the Constitution, no declaration in legislation. The best one can get from legal sources is opinion, needing synthesis, which is original research. There are good sources for describing the Queen as head of state, and the Governor-General as head of state. Official sources, academic sources, community sources. This is a debate within the Australian community with a long history, mostly within the context of the republican debate.

However, that's as may be. I am at the moment concerned with the five pillars points. The statement is unsourced WP:RS and if a source is found for the Queen, then sources are likewise found for the Governor-General WP:NPOV. If editorial opinion or synthesis are used, then it is WP:OR.

I'm trying to work through the problem using wikiprocesses, but encountering difficulty. At this point, I'd like to get some loftier eyes on the situation, rather than edit war over something with possible BLP ramifications. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is more of a content dispute, IMHO. Anyways, Why would one ask for a source, when one has already pre-determined (having admitted as much) that no such source exists. At the article-in-question, one of the editors seems un-willing or un-able to accept that Australia's situation isn't unique. Again, this really doesn't belong at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you just write that some sources claim that Liz Windsor is Head of State, and others claim that the GG is? This isn't OR, or synthesis. If the list can't handle ambiguities, then the problem is with the list, not the sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the essence of the Australian head of state dispute article. It's a collection of sources and a summary of the situation. When I added a link, GoodDay pulled it out. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be it's own source, though. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government#cite_note-ERII-0 already said "Queen Elizabeth II is separately and equally monarch of 16 sovereign countries sometimes known collectively as the Commonwealth realms. In each of these countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom (where she predominately resides) she is represented by a governor-general (unhyphenated in Canada as governor general) at national level. In some of these countries, opinion differs as to whether the Queen or governor-general should be designated as head of state; there is no questioning of the Queen's position as sovereign, above the governors-general, however." before the OP's edit the OP's edit, so it wasn't clear why an edit specific to Australia was thought to be required, unless as WP:SOAP. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think ya linked to the wrong edit, DB. Mine wasn't specific to Australia. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Hopefully corrected now above. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The font size was the critical point. By showing the Governor-General in a smaller size than the Queen, Wikipedia violates WP:NPOV. The sources are equally good for both Queen and Governor-General, and the Australian Governor-General's function goes beyond representing the Queen. I can recommend some of the sources in the Australian head of state dispute article for more and better information, but the guts of it is that she isn't a "deputy monarch" or the Queen's Australian agent. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again though, Australia's situation isn't unique. Also, Mies' offered & compromise - using 'same size' fonts, if 'Representative' was added to all the commonwealth realm entries. I dropped my stance on 'different size font' & accepted the compromise. But Skyring/Pete refused to join myself & Mies in that agreement (thus here we eventually ended up). GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of completion, I'd like to add that Talk:Elizabeth II does contain a large portion of this discussion as well. Some of it, I believe is in the archives. For the sake of sanity, I'd also like to say that while this is a content dispute, it's been going of since July 2010 and the unwavering tenacity on both sides makes me think that this is the place to get a final solution. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus the big question. Does a country need to say Head of State in its Constitution, in order to have a Head of State? GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course not! But it's an extremely good source when this is the situation. Definitive even. We do have to source our statements, remember, and it's a lot better to use a nation's constitution as the source rather than the CIA Factbook. BTW, I notice that the CIA has also flip-flopped over the years on this precise point. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government's own website[6] says that Dizzy Miss Lizzie is the head of state. What do we know that they don't know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I too am perpexed by Skyring/Pete's stance. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government has changed its mind repeatedly over the years. See the references here, especially this page from the Commonwealth Government Directory. It's now a gamble as to who says what. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Governor-General was the head of state, and his replacement Julia Gillard hasn't weighed into the debate yet. When official views are divided, how is Wikipedia to respond? Pick one side or the other? Or stay neutral? --Pete (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why will you not accept Mies' compromise? It allows for the fonts to be the same & reflect the Australian Constituion's Chapter II, Section 61 - which states the Governor General of Australia, is the Queen's representative. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it say that the Queen is the head of state? No. The Governor-General's role in Australia is more than that of the Imperial representative the constitution, unchanged on this point since the days of Queen Victoria, implies. That's the way the empire crumbles. --Pete (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the rest of all those commonwealth realm Constitutions say she's Head of State in their countries? Does the USA say the American President is it's HoS? Does the Japanese Constitution say the emperor is its HoS? Heck, the UK itself, doesn't even have a written Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a common misconception. The UK doesn't have a constitution written down in a single document like the US Constitution, but there is plenty of legislation, authoritative works, court decisions etc that together form "the constitution". – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If Head of State is the problem, then there's alot of county entries at that article, which should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Onlookers may wish to examine this (this, this Arbitration case from 2005 and this block log for some background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am heartily sorry for my behaviour at that time. I trust that the difference is readily apparent to all. Let this sorry example be a lesson to all of us to remain within the bounds of acceptable wikibehaviour. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read over some of those 'past behaviours' & I'm quite concerned with what's happening at List of current heads of state and government now. Rightly/wrongly, at that article's Rfc, I feel as though I'm being 'bleeped' around by Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Skyring

I recommend an administrator check over Skyring/Pete's behaviour concerning the said-article. He seems unwilling to accept 'reliable sources' that aren't agreeable with him. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS-I'm trying to help Skyring/Pete avoid another possible long-term block. But so far, he's resisting my attempts. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think his actions are more at issue here than anything else; he's been carrying out a slow edit war at List of current heads of state and government for some time now and doesn't seem to be showing any signs of letting up any time soon. His talk page behaviour is becoming quite frustrating too; WP:TEND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strongly apply. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do to reference made to it & an attempt to use it as source at List of current heads of state and government: I'm concerned that the article Australian head of state dispute, might've been created as a vehicle to promote/support its creators PoVs - on Aussie Head of State topic-. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no "might've" about it. My POV is that there is a division within the community over who is regarded as the Australian head of state and the article describes and documents the dispute. I got tired of hunting up sources for one side or the other and figured we should put them all in one place. So far it's come along nicely, with diverse opinions from reliable sources, nicely balanced, solid input from many editors. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't use the 'dispute' article (any article) as a source on other articles. Wikipedia can't be source for itself. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a collection of external sources. It has a gratifyingly full reflist. Directing readers seeking information to an article describing a situation is standard practice, whether it be Olympic Games or World War Two. We don't need to include every source in every article that has a tangential link. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny, there's a discussion about that very topic here[7]. Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not quite the same thing. The dispute exists and is worth documenting - it has continued on for many years, mostly in the context of the republican debate, rising to a head during the 1999 referendum - so it deserves an article of its own, rather than the few paragraph existence in Government of Australia it had for some time. Linking to it provides the readers of a diverse group of articles with the background and a long list of sources which would be awkward to add to each article, along with an explanation. For example the Michael Phelps bio does little more than mention the Olympics - it doesn't directly tell the reader that there is an international sports and athletics contest every four years. Baron Pierre de Coubertin is not mentioned at all. But if the reader clicks on the Olympics wikilink, all that stuff is provided and reliably sourced etc. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything wrong with the article Australian head of state dispute itself; it is decently sourced and doesn't really promote one position over another. Where the problem begins is with Pete/Skyring's refusal to listen to others and shifting of focus on talk pages, which confounds discussion and keeps us from reaching a resolution; I get the impression he just wants to keep on ignoring and arguing in circles in the hopes that we'll all just give up and let him make the change he wants. I would otherwise just disengage from him if it weren't for the fact that he explicitly said at Talk:List of current heads of state and government that he would revert that article yet again and then actually did so. In other words, I doubt his edit warring is going to stop. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this view. Looking at this section, I outlined the situation and called for consensus, beginning with the wording. Two days passed. I asked for comments. Two more days passed. When, given no response, I made the small change outlined, Mies and GoodDay reverted it, complained that they didn't like it and refused to suggest any alternate wording. Mies then unilaterally opened an RfC, with options which were confusing, couched in misleading terms and did not address the issue. He has one supporter on this - GoodDay. I am all for collaboration and consensus, and invite Mies and GoodDay and anybody else to start the process again, beginning with wording the options proposed in a meaningful way. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course you'd overlook the the lengthy, cyclical, and confounded debate that preceded your "call for consensus" and the long term edit war you've been carrying on at that article ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). As can be seen from the links, that warring has gone on right up until today and the discussion at the talk page that seeks to find a resolution seems to be going nowhere because of your refusal to listen to others, misrepresentation of their positions, accusations of bad faith, evasion of questions, lack of focus, and shifting of goalposts. I've made a suggestion that meets everyone's concerns (no implication that the Queen is Australia's head of state for you, a consistently applied governing logic throughout the list for myself and other editors), yet, you continually reject it for the most incomprehensible reasons. It appears as though the only consensus you'll accept is the one that supports the change you want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find consensus, and then I did my best to try to work out what Mies' RfC was about. I found it tough going, and I'm still not sure I've unearthed his intentions. --Pete (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My personal preferenece is that the article remain as it is: 'large font' for Queen & 'small font' for Governor General. It's out of the spirit of collaboration, that I chose to accept Mies' compromise. When are you (Skyring) gonna do the same? PS: Skyring, you of all editors, shouldn't be going on about others 'intentions'. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither the existing presentation, with Queen presented in a larger font than the Governor-General, nor Mies' compromise addresses the neutral point of view difficulty. If two sections of the Australian community differ in their views about the identity of the head of state, then we should give due weight to both views. Not ignore one because we don't agree. It's like tolerance. Tolerance isn't a matter of getting along with people you like. Tolerance is about getting on with people you don't like. What helps keep Wikipedia strong when so many topics have wildly divergent opinion bases is our NPOV policy. It works. It's how the God article became a useful resource instead of a battleground. Wikipedia editors can't decide singly or collectively who is the one true God - if it came to a vote on this English-language Wikipedia, it would probably be the Christian deity, or maybe Jimbo - but we can ensure that we keep our collectively-written encyclopaedia neutral, so that readers who come to us for knowledge get the facts, and they may make up their own minds without us directing them along one branch of a forking path. Your personal preference is important, and deserves respect if we value you as an individual, but we can't build an encyclopaedia based on personal opinions. We have to work together. I learnt this the hard way. I think that we Wikipedians are helping to build a better world, I really do, and it gives me joy to be part of such a wonderful project. How do you feel? --Pete (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're developing into a SPA, concerning the Australian head of state topic. The very same topic you got into trouble with, years ago. I've put aside my personal preference at the article-in-question (I'm a republican, not a monarchist). Regrettable (thanks to 1 editor). So please, stop with the "my Pov, is NPoV" stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My position is that there is a difference of opinion, and that WP:NPOV requires that we present both views with appropriate weight. --Pete (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"My PoV, is NPoV", isn't a good basis for one's argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that accepting Wikipedia's NPOV policy is an extremely good path to getting along in this community of often strongly-opinionated editors, each with the ability to alter the communal text at will. I commend it to you. However, I fear that we are clogging up AN/I with our friendly discussion here. I raised this incident when you were edit-warring by removing my request that an unsourced statement be sourced. That seems to have held and been properly sourced, so I'm happy with that. You've raised this subsection, concerned with my behaviour as an editor, and I'm happy for that to be scrutinised, but escaped criminal that I am, the eyes of the community are always upon me anyway. Do you see any need for administrator action, or can we let the admins return to their slumber now? --Pete (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I told ya, it shouldn't have been brought to this venue. If administrators want to 'close'? I won't dispute it. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think administrators should have a good look at your conduct at that article, especially the long-term edit warring, the promise to do so again, and the tactics you employ at the talk page to ensure that it won't reach any resolution that isn't the edit you want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's up to Skyring - collaborate or stalemate. If he's seeking an endurance test? I got all the time in the world, honestly. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130

See my prior report at AN/I [25], as well as a discussion at User_talk:Jpgordon#Theosophical_Society_dispute. As I asked in the latter:

• "If you repeatedly ask someone (IP or not) to not post to your talk page, and they continue to do so, is that not actionable?"
• "Often, yeah. But some uninvolved admin will need to stick their nose in for that. "

I'd appreciate help from an uninvolved admin. I've asked him/her to stop, tried "hat"/"hab", and reverted and ignored, but enough is enough. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've also informed the IP that his/her conduct is under discussion here, and that they need to disengage from interaction with you. See your talk page, as I made the same request in reverse there. No thoughts on the underlying dispute. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

His promises to continue edit warring will cause difficulty soon, I fear; what's really going on is a disagreement about sourcing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for the help and comments. I have been, and will remain, disengaged. Regarding the underlying dispute, I don't have a dog in that hunt, so to speak, and am not an involved editor on that page. I think it should be easy for an editor with knowledge, background and interest in the topic to find proper sources. I don't understand why the need to do so is hard to accept, nor difficult to do, nor the rationale behind stating that improperly sourced edits will continue to be made after the article's semi-protection expires [26]. For that matter, if adding the edit is so important, why not register for an account? - JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor was previously blocked due to a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. The editors' statements suggest that he plans to continue reverting. He has already been notified of this ANI report. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools

Do we really allow advertising in User space? I put a speedy delete tag on User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools but it was declined with the rationale "give the user time to develop it in user space". Corvus cornix_talk 18:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It might not be advertising. It easily could be a genuine attempt to create a good article about the company. Given that it's still in userspace, it doesn't seem fair to delete it currently.--Korruski^Talk 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When do we start deleting advertising out of User space? Corvus cornix_talk 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. I would imagine it is a judgement call as to when it becomes blatant advertising, and clearly not an attempt to create an article. In this case, the page seems to be comprised of a few broadly factual statements. It has no contact details except for a very small link to the website, and makes no particularly advertising-type claims. I just can't see the problem with it. Have you taken the time to ask the user what his intentions are with the page before tagging it for speedy deletion or raising it at AN/I?--Korruski^Talk 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

{{noindex}} can be liberally used whenever there's a question about whether or not the spam is blatant enough. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the page has not been indexed since creation, because it includes {{Userspace draft}}, which has NOINDEX built-in. As such, the obscure subpage wouldn't be a particularly effective advertising vector. –xeno^talk 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material.. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But its not clearly spam and you tagged it two minutes after it was created. Slow down there speed racer, give it a bit, dont chase a newbie off. It used a draft template that kept it from being indexed and is at the very least informative, if slightly out of tone. Dont bite. -- ۩ Mask 23:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I never understand the willingness to let crap stay here. Ads are crap. This is an ad. Corvus cornix_talk 03:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools. Would almost certainly be speedily deleted if moved to main space. Fences&Windows 04:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's not in mainspace. It's a user subpage, clearly marked as a draft, unindexed, and with no content that looks particularly like blatant promotion. Why on earth would we have a problem with this?--Korruski^Talk 13:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Never mind. This isn't the place. I'll take my thoughts to the MfD.--Korruski^Talk 14:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Gabirro

The user has updated his personal attack on another user - one he has clashed with on numerous times regarding their different political views. He also launched a personal attack on myself, both on my talk page and on the topics talk page a few weeks ago which I never took action about at the time. The user has been warned numerous times about his edits, and blocked before for edit warring. His editing behaviour has improved somewhat since, but he needs to be engaged about his personal attacks. Greenman (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a warning --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda of User:Wikinger

Resolved

 – DMack has blocked. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We have raid of neonazist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.191.240.208

He putted 14 words where he could, making digits from fasces and sigrunes. 188.116.3.201 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user JoMontNW is in violation of his suspension

This link [[27]] is a reference to the initial incident report filed back on 16 February 2011 (UTC).

JoMontNW is currently under a week-long suspension for disruptions on various articles, block evasions and sockpuppetry. Instead of serving his week-long suspension however, he once again went into defiance mode by creating yet another sockpuppet, Earth11bale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (his ninth sockpuppet, tenth if you consider his personal IP address 174.44.29.160), and using it to carry out all the same disruptions that landed him in suspension to begin with. Keep in mind, he is only in his third day of a seven-day suspension. A certain Wikipedia administrator suggested an indefinite block should this particular editor continue his disruptive ways following his week-long block. Judging by the events of earlier today, from Earth11bale’s contribution list, to his brash uncivil comment on his talk page, and the articles of Natalie Morales and The Today Show being padlocked and protected from persistent vandalism; I think it is very clear that JoMontNW is not going to be a civil Wikipedian. It would be greatly appreciated if an administrator step in and hand down the absolute most appropriate action to ensure this editor does not use Wikipedia as a brick wall to spray his vandalizing graffiti again. Fourviz (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

weird edit summaries

I can't tell if someone is being outed or defamed, or if this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.30.144.210 is just a weird joke. Need another set of eyes.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No clue what's going on, but edit summaries have been deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Need quick user page protection at User:Jojhutton

I am being rudely attacked and threatened by a user on my user space. please protect my user space.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I place a short protection on your page. Did you want it longer or less? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine for now. Hopefully the vandal will find better things to do with his tiem in the next few days. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Any clues as to who the sockmaster might be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

CU to the rescue! GiantSnowman 16:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocked user evaded and used an IP 83.30.47.120 to continue. The IP needs blocked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection not in place, attacks are continuing at the present.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So far there are a couple of ips and a few logged in users. Any new accounts should be blocked on site and as soon as identified, without waning.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they've got both pages semi'd now. That IP was attacking other pages also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this user the same as this user? Looking for sockmaster...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could be. My bet is that this is not over and the vandal will return with another account soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The 83.30.* range is Wikinger, but the political sock accounts are probably somebody unrelated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Here's the SPI case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also rangeblocked 83.30.47.0/24 for 3 months. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again)

Noticing a few pages on my watchlist getting hit by AWB edits by Rich Farmbrough, I found that he again is violating his editing restrictions (basically, no AWB edits that don't change anything substantial on the pages edited). I notified him of this here, but he continued with the the exact same type of edits, e.g. this one.

The only effect that edit has is that Category:Articles with tags with unsupported types is no longer on that page. Sounds good, until you realise that that category was created last week by Rich Farmbrough, without much (any?) discussion apparently, and lists pages with template parameters he doesn't like, but which work without any problem and are, despite what the category proclaims, 100% supported. E.g. in the example I gave, "Biographies" is changed to "Biography", even though both have the same effect, and "Biographies" is the tag that is suggested by the documentation at Template:Notability.

As far as I can see, Rich Farmbrough has created a category to deprecate some tags from parameters, despite the fact that these work perfect and are the ones suggested by the template documentation, and he is then violating his editing restriction to implement his preferred version. Fram (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope other Admins will, as usual, ignore this regular harassment by Fram. I am not the only editor on Wikipedia who's life is made tedious by his doubtless well meant, but pettifogging and ill informed attempts to be the Policeman of Wikipedia. <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

i'd hope you'd stop violating your editing restrictions and show some respect for the community. If you can't do that, you know where the door is. I'm getting a great sense of deja vu as this story is starting to sound like so many more that have come before it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec, agree with Crossmr by the way) As usual? Previous discussions have resulted in two editing restrictions, and 3 blocks. Could you perhaps address the actual remarks being made, instead of focusing on the editor who makes them? Why are you imposing your preferred tags (and spacing of headers, and capitalization of persondata tags)? Fram (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (and is there any reason why, after I have twice shown you that you are adding an incorrect month to some tags, you still do this[28]?) Fram (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rich, this is really bad. I've only barely touched the previous discussions, but I see 3 non-controversial blocks in your history. I don't think I've ever seen an admin blocked for more than a few hours without being unblocked, so my (admittedly inexperienced) eye tells me you've probably done something wrong, over and over. You're going to end up being desysopped (this is a warning from a neutral party, not a threat). Can't you just quit making minor edits with AWB, or your fake AWB bot or whatever it is they're claiming you use? Also, your response employed nothing of substance to respond to the accusation whatsoever, but it did make a clear-cut use of the famous ad hominem logical fallacy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This sort of random renaming of template parameters is one of R.F.'s habits, and it's also a violation of his editing restriction. Unilaterally declaring that "Biography" is a better parameter name than "Biographies", and then editing thousands of articles to make the change, is a clear example of a cosmetic change. How is that tracking category populated, by the way? Can't the template that populates it just have the category link removed?

Unfortunately, the only way to stop this is going to be an edit restriction that prevents R.F. from making large scale edits via AWB and bots. The present, limited edit restrictions would have been sufficient, but R.F. has persistently ignored them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of edit restrictions, is this not covered in the AWB rules (minor edits of no consequence) as something not to be done? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - I looked at the changed articles, and they were good edits, because the plural form was not placing the edits into the correct category (due to checks within the template), but the singular was. In essence, it corrected a user typing error. I would not call this a minor edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The solution there would be to fix the template. If this went before a bot approval, they would point out that just changing the invocation of {{TDMCA}} would fix the issue without requiring any article edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)...if not for tha fact that Rich Farmrbough first changed the template to only accept the singular[29], making the previously accepted and preferred parameter suddenly unwanted: a change which he only mentioned after the discussion here started[30]. This was not proposed, not discussed. Because his implementation only supports one tag per type, and because he choose other ones than the ones so far supported, he has to make thousands of "minor" edits to articles that didn't have a problem before he started tinkering with the template... Fram (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@Errant: Yes, but admins are automatically authenticated by AWB (and even if they weren't, one can compile a custom AWB that doesn't authenticate the user or reveal that it is AWB; or use some other bot framework). So it's not practical to just disable AWB access, which would otherwise be a useful way to address AWB abuse.

My opinion, based on the long-term pattern, is that the only way to dissuade R.F. from making such meaningless edits is going to be a strict edit restriction backed up by blocks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a moment, can somebody please explain what is actually going on technically? Through what template mechanism are those categories actually pulled into the articles, and what template code determines which parameter versions are matched to these categories and which aren't? Why is it that the template documentation actually prescribes the plural forms, but Rich is now exchanging plurals with singulars? Rich has recently been editing the notability template, but I can't make heads and tails of it technically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rich added a tracking category in the template's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

...and because the categories he created are called Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability (and parallel names), his solution needs the tag to be "Biography" (i.e. the exact word used in the category name), not some variation of it like bio, biographies, ... (yes, it took mes ome time as well to figure it out). Why he choose to change everything to fit his solution, instead of finding a solution that matches current practice (and the template documentation and so on) is not really clear. Why he didn't discuss this isn't clear either. Neither is it clear why he is still adding date=January 2011 to templates, even when we are closer to March than to January. Or why he is still changing the capitalization of Persondata parameters, despite clear opposition against this (not just from me). Fram (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Summary: R.F. changed the implementation of the Notability template, to use {{TDMCA}} instead of {{DMCA}}. Unfortunately, the new implementation is broken, because it assumes the notability template parameter's name is "Biography" instead of "Biographies". Rather than fixing this by editing the template code, R.F. added a tracking category for the pages that use the (perfectly correct) parameter "Biographies", so that he could edit every one of them to change the parameter to "Biography". This would never have made it through the bot approvals group. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From what I can make out Rich added the new option of "Biography" to the template the other day, and is now changing some of the templates to that form. This then lets the template automatically put the article in Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability, that seems a reasonable and sensible change. But it would have been nice to see Rich explain that rather than the response he did make here... --Errant ^(chat!) 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a message 3 days ago in Rich's talk page User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Trying_to_populate_newly_introduced_parameters.3F on the new parameters which I find odd too and I got no answer. My comment there explains why I find plural better than singular. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Re: answers to me above. Now to be fair, it's kind of hard to handle plurals in wiki-code. Most especially when the plural is a y -> ies change. Maybe someone would volunteer to make this change (if technically possible), and avoid nuclear war for the rest of us? Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to come up with a solution to that now (agreed, it would be the easiest solution) but I am not entirely certain there is one. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We would have saved a lot of effort if the change was previously discussed somewhere so we all together could combine ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One easy fix: in the notability template, move the invocation to TMDCA up into the switch statement, so that you can hard-code the appropriate category for each group of parameters. It's not like we have hundreds of different parameter options. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It may not be as "fullyautomatix" as the current solution, but a variation on this may work (not tested, just taken and adapted from a different template):

{{#ifeq:{{{bio|¬}}}{{{Biography|¬}}}{{{Biographies|¬}}}|¬¬¬¬||[[:Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability]]}} Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That would mean putting more logic into TMDCA. Since we already have a switch with a complete list of parameters in the notability template, I think it's better to consolidate all the logic there. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Oh, I meant that this should be put into the notability template instead of the TMDCA, sorry that I wasn't clear. Fram (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is actually an easy fix, there are several ways to do it, but the point is to be scalable. CBM's is a preferable fix out of those offered. However there are several hundred completely incorrect paramter 1 values - I will provide a link shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Also, on a somewhat related issue, Rich managed to transclude {{TDMCA}} on 150,785 pages with nought for edit protection (4.234% of all content pages). Mistakes like this are precisely the reason I always encourage Rich to discuss his changes, templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

TDMCA created without edit summary and has no documentation. I don't know what it does. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't editing a fully protected template to implement such changes without discussion on the talk page first not a violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy and thus of your admin abilities? Fram (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

TDMCA wasn't protected til just now. It looks like some hack added to the notability template[31] a few days ago (that is why it's transcluded into so many articles) in order to add a new category to articles containing notability tags of unrecognized type (person, organization, etc), and maybe similarly for other templates. I agree something like that shouldn't have been done without discussion, particularly about finding editors willing to actually update the relevant articles based on that category. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to "templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason": Rich repeatedly edited this fully protected template, Template:Notability, making substantial changes, without any prior discussion. This is a violation of the protection policy and thus a misuse of his admin capabilities. Creating an unprotected template which indirectly appears 150,000 articles is, at first sight, just a bit of stupidity, but not a real violation in itself. Fram (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, yes, that makes sense. But, I think templates like Notability are protected to prevent vandalism across the huge range of transcluded pages; it's not like an article protected due to edit warring. Changing (e.g.) some words in a protected template probably shouldn't be considered too much of a problem. But complicated template programming that hits so many pages really should be reviewed and (if possible) tested on a separate server before being deployed on the live server. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, why do this with templates at all? Why not just process a database dump offline? And it was pretty bogus to write a template like that with no documentation.71.141.88.54 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See User:Rich Farmbrough/temp220. The tracking category is for long term maintenance, and the database dump is 4 weeks out of date so, no it's not bogus for those reasons although a db dump is is useful. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

The template's merits can be reasonably debated, but if you're going to write such a pervasive template at all, it's completely bogus to not write any documentation for it. It was quite hard to figure out in part because it's hard to see the actual link graph of transclusions in the wiki (you can only see the transitive closure of all transclusions for any template or article, unless I'm missing something), but documentation really would have helped. We could use some better tools on toolserver to analyze this (it could also be done with Mediawiki extensions, but that might cause a performance hit). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What would most users do when it has been pointed out to them that they have made policy violations, edits whoch don't have support and should have been discussed beforehand, plus violatons of editing restrictions, plus numerous errors (many pages dated with the wrong month)? Yes, obviously, go to an unrelated RfC/U that the messenger filed about an unrelated user, and give a totally diff-free distortion of the facts, meanwhile complaining about a lack of "the collegial approach that we try to foster in Wikipedia"... From someone who replied to this ANI discussion with the personal attack of "regular harassment", this is rather hyopocritical. Fram (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fram, I'm not entirely sure that going off topic this way helps. Just as he should know better than to have responded as he did, so should you DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but it does show a good example of his pattern of response, which is often more "attack the messenger" than "debunk the claims". Fram (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So, Fram, what do you suggest at this point? olivier (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that a block is needed to prevent further disruption, and then we need to discuss how to update the editing restriction to disallow any automated editing and any editing of protected templates without prior discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If I try to summarize, my understanding is that:

1. RF is making "AWB edits that don't change anything substantial on the pages edited", and that is called the "disruption" here
2. RF, as an admin, has altered a protected template without discussion ("protected" here = only admins can edit), but not necessarily with a damaging outcome.
3. Some users are unpleased by the way RF is interacting with them.

Is that a fair summary? olivier (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For #1, R.F. is under an active edit restriction about trivial AWB edits, which is listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

The larger issue is a long-term pattern of this sort of thing from R.F.: undertaking large-scale unapproved (and often completely undiscussed) bot jobs, combined with a lack of communication. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For #2, the damaging outcome is that thousands of pages that worked perfectly allright before, have to be changed to fit his solution; that admins editing pages that other editors are not allowed to edit gives admins an editing superpower which was never the intention of the admin bit (and which is for that reason disallowed by policy; that an unprotected template stood for a few days on 150,000 pages, giving vandals the chance to vandalize that many pages at once.

For #1, apart from the changes that don't add anything to the page, there are also too many errors, like adding the wrong month to tags[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]..., or adding the same parameter twice with different values[46]. Note that in many of his AWB edits, he is also still adding or changing the defaultsort no matter if it is relaistically necessary or not, despite an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC on Sortkey issue, where there is no consensus to do this automatically, and a number of editors raisesd their reservations independently. The short discussion at Help_talk:Category#Defaultsort is indicative of why such AWB edits are a problem: "I've hesitated to remove them, because the massiveness of such edits suggests some reason for them." Editors see an admin making hundreds or thousands of edits with the same pattern, and presume that this is some agreed-upon, imposed rule, instead of being the preference of one or some editors, which may be removed again at will if it doesn't improve anything in any way, as is often the case. Fram (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That make things clear for people new to the matter. olivier (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We all know Fram that that is not "an onging RFC" it has not been edited for some 5 weeks. And it was started by you. You cannot use it as a chilling effect forever. Basically you take arms against something then never stop, which might be laudable in some cases, but here is merely tiresome. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm missing something in the discussion, though - for clarity's sake, Rich, do you have anything to add on whether or not your edits violate your editing restrictions? If it's a frivolous accusation, as you seem to imply, great - we can put it to bed. If not, then it probably should be discussed in that context as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for cutting to the crux. As the above discussion shows these were not "null edits" by another name, but a moderately small change to provide additional functionality using time tested techniques. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Incidentally the link to the list showing the indisputably bad values of parameter 1 I gave earlier as promised but it was overwritten by Fram here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

That clearly looks like a software accident of submitting at the same time, which didn't result in an edit conflict. Fram is not to blame for it happening. Silverseren^C 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that must have been an unidentified edit conflict. It's not as if I had any interest in suppressing that edit by Rich Farmbrough. Note that he could have used that dump to remove the obviously incorrect parameters from pages (e.g. "date+March 2008") without anyone protesting and without any change to the template. Note also that page tells us that before Rich's AWB edits, there were 2214 pages using Biographies, and 4 using Biography: but after the template change, the latter was the only accepted value, and the former had to be changed. If there are only 4 "correct" pages in your solution, and 2214 "wrong" ones, it may be time to change the attempted solution. Fram (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see these as well-intentioned edits that did not work as planned because of insufficient thought and especially lack of consultation. I'm not a template expert, but there seem to be some good solutions above. And I do know that even trivial changes of this sort that affect many articles have to be done very carefully. The time to have them discussed would of course have been before the template was changed and the edits made--and I would think anyone experience here would have realized it, so it is rather extreme carelessness or perhaps over-confidence, especially in view of prior restrictions. Given all this, I think we need a firm restriction now that Rich must consult before any new change of templates or new AWB job. The recourse if that should fail would be a total ban from editing templates and using AWB at all, to be enforced by clock if necessary. We must deal with this, but we should do it in a measured way. Rich, please tell us you understand that problem and that you're willing to accept this. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that Rich quit using any sort of automation or programming (including template programming) on Wikipedia for a while. If Rich wants to contribute his software skills to improving the Wikipedia ecosystem, he should do it at toolserver for the time being. That way if something goes wrong with one of his programs, it won't disrupt wiki-editing nearly as much as these bot and AWB incidents have done. I can think of several useful tools Rich could write, that would help with the maintenance tasks Rich has been interested in, while making no edits at all to Wikipedia. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that Rich Farmbrough also changed Template:Refimprove, also fully protected, to introduce a "type" parameter through his new, undiscussed and then unprotected and undocumented TDMCA template. All this contributed to have Category:Articles with tags with unsupported types with 6000 pages which had no problem before this template was introduced. The same was done on Template:Wikify and Template:Expand list. The latter is not protected (but probably should be, with 11000 transcluaions), so I left it alone: the former was a protected template as well, so I reverted the change there and at Refimprove.

One example of what these changes accomplished. The previous version of Samuel Gougeon listed the article correctly at Category:TV articles of unclear notability. After Rich Farmbrough inserted his "type" template, the article had to be changed to accept a different parameter (not cat=TV but type=Television) to be listed in Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability? The actual gain of these changes? Zero. But the effect is that because of these changes, undoing his change to the template isn't enough, now many related changes, to categories and articles, have to be undone as well. All because this was not discussed before implementation, even though it is in general wanted for such changes, and certainly when it is done to protected templates. I'll try to undo as much of the damage as possible, but it may take a while. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly on the Wikify template this would be a bad change; we don't work by topic, but by date :) I think Rich needs to discuss this proposal centrally somewhere; while I have no issue with it in general he a) is under editing restrictions which should always make him pause for thought and b) such a major change should always be proposed somewhere obvious and gain consensus. If he had done so then probably the mass update would not have been needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another protected template changed to introduce "type" without discussion at Template:Unreferenced section. Not through the TDMCA template though, but directly. No idea why a different approach was chosen here. Fram (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the urgency of finding all these unrecognized type parameters. Who's going to fix them anyway, once they are found? Is there an example of one creating some kind of mistake in an article that users can see on the screen? We're writing an encyclopedia and if we're doing a good job of that, some disorder behind the scenes that doesn't cause tangible problems can probably slide for a while. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why has SmackBot gone back to unnecessarily changing the capitalization of templates? [47] I thought this was fixed in AWB. –xeno^talk 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Does it not only with "unreferenced"[48], but also with "citation needed"[49][50] , "coi"[51], "when"[52], "expand section"[53], ... At least it does it only with templates that are dated at the same time, no longer with things like "cite web" and so on. Fram (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That Smackbot edit also fails to list its Build version in the edit summary (which is important for tracking given all the issues that continue to arise). Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Question to Rich: how much longer do you think this sort of behaviour of yours can go on? This TDMCA business is just the latest "I know what needs doing and I'm going to do it, everyone else just get out of my way" attitude. At some point a ban from all forms of mass editing becomes inevitable. Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the general attitude lately is that bots are evil and Wikipedia doesn't need them and that everything should just be done by editors you should block the bot. If you are going to expect a zero error rate then you may as well block Rich too. Fram is going to follow him and the bot continuously until that is the result anyway so theres no reason to drag this out further. Of course all the good things that Smackbot does will just go without doing but who cares anyway right. It is of course more important that nothing be changed from one case to another than to ensure that maintenance tags get dated anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a general attitude that bots are evil. I run User:WP 1.0 bot (2,799,291 edits), User:VeblenBot (407,122 edits) and User:PeerReviewBot. The problem is not bots in general; R.F.'s editing is not in line with our best practices for bot operators. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anomiebot manages to date maintenance tags without upsetting anybody; and nor are the mass editing issues in Rich's history solely about tags. Nobody expects zero error rate from a bot, but AWB edits are supposed to by manually reviewed, and doing so in a responsible manner ought to get an error rate reasonably close to zero. In fact, Rich's new perl-based version of Smackbot seems to have an acceptable error rate, and in a way it's bizarre that still-in-use AWB version apparently continues to have a much higher one. Anyway, it's kinds funny having you chip in when on this very page there is an ANI thread indicating you have exactly the same problem as Rich in understanding the importance of discussing mass edit tasks before doing them - even that does sometimes involve frustrating very lengthy delays. Rd232 ^talk 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

First AWB does NOT have to be manually viewed. It has a bot mode that requires seperate approval and in bot mode you do not have to manually view all the changes. Second, my ANI is a different issue that perhaps you need to read a little closer. I WAS NOT simply changing redirects. I was removing garbage data that the rules clearly state should not be there and my ANI was started because CBM revoked my access to AWB. As for your comments about discussing mass edits. Your comments seem to indicate that an AWB user must always discuss their changes which would negate using the application for most users. Simply put you are requiring a user who spends a lot of time making edits to additional sanctions that an editor who does a few edits does not have. Just because I spend many hours doing many edits does not and should not mean I need to discuss every edit when they meet the regulations. The point above with my ANI that I particularly reject is the recurring statement that I did something wrong. There is NO rule that states what I did was wrong except CBM's perception. Deletion 1000 characters from a talk page, regardless of how one may justify the statement, is NOT a minor or trivial edit. --Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB rules also apply to the auto-save "bot" mode. Your own edits clearly fall foul of AWB Rule 4, which uses the phrase "insignificant or inconsequential edits"; by introducing the terms "minor edit" (Help:Minor edit) and "trivial edit" you are unhelpfully muddying the waters. And it shouldn't need saying that prior discussion of a mass editing task doesn't involve prior discussion of every individual edit within that task. Nor does every AWB use need prior discussion; most people manage to stick to the usage rules without any problems, see Rule 3: "Don't do anything controversial with it. 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.". Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats true and I admit those bots are very useful but they do not do anything to better the articles themselves. They don't fix problems, they don't correct typos and formatting and they don't date maintenance tags like smackbot does. The general attitude lately is that bots that make changes to articles are evil and more and more users are focusing all their attention on things that are truly meaningless like wether a bot changed the casing of a template. Is it needed no. Is it going to change how the article displays. No. But if its done with another edit like dating maintenance tags who really cares. Multiple editors have spent literally days debating these truly insignificant things. THEY DO NOT MATTER. If the bot is fixing problems or dating maintenance tags or whatever and happens to replace a redirect, change the casing of a template to uppercase, remove spaces from headers, etc then is it really worth having multiple editors who could be editing articles or improving content spending weeks or months debating the symantics of uppercase vs. lower case. My opinion is no it does not. Now if the bot or editor actually does something wrong like break a template, delete or erroneously break formatting or data then yes we need to discuss it and do what ever it takes to fix it. But we need to quite quibling over these truly insignificant things. Its stupid an petty debates like this that are the reason that the ANI historical tables are by far the largest of any content on Wikipedia and are require in excess of 100GB (yes Gigabytes) of storage. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are edits that don't matter but that annoy a number of people for whatever reason, then why continue doing them? If they don't matter, don't do them. Fram (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because they don't matter to you, doesn't mean they don't matter. The editors on WP are a fickle bunch frequently sticking close to the topics that understand. Just because an edit annoys 1 or 2 does not mean that it shouldn't be done. There is an editor out there who has exception to almost every aspect of editing; Categories, talkpages, portals, how and when to use references, how and when to use infoboxes and on and on. If we had to stop everytime some fringe editor wanted to make an exception we would never get anything done. It would almost be like saying you have to have 100% support to be an admin. No matter how good an editor you are, someone is going to oppose it or some reason. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, in your previous post you are shouting "they do not matter". Now, you reply with "Just because they don't matter to you, doesn't mean they don't matter." Could you please make up your mind about what is actually your argument? And if you have changed your mind and believe that they do matter, then please explain how e.g. removing spaces from headers matters enough to impose one system above another which works equally well, and which has exactly the same visual result? Fram (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Defamatory edit on Benazir Bhutto

[[54]] edit is defamatory and may need to be hidden.--Charles (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Best to just revert for WP:BLP, warn ,and block after final warning.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(blinks) You do know Bhutto's been dead some time, Jojhutton?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The man named in the edit is alive. I'm not convinced hiding it was necessary, but I've gone ahead and done it because BLP issues are taken very seriously and caution must be exercised. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course I was speaking of the named assassin in the edit who as far as I know IS still alive. Thanks for keeping up.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Earthcore" article being gamed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthcore

6 months ago I added a "controversies" section to this article. I also cleaned up the "personal reflection" style of the article into wiki format. I need someone to come and mediate the argument that i've been drawn into. my posts on the discussion page keep getting edited by the user "fisted rainbow" and his related IPs, who has also been claiming that I'm an opposing buisness interest, and has also been making un-referenced claims that everything in the controversies section was false or fixed. please note this is not an edit war, I've been trying to wait until a third party came in to arbitrate, however the agressive stance taken by the user "fisted rainbow" (+ IPs) seems to have stalled any attempts to arbitrate. Cognitive Dissident (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Earthcore is the biggest mess of text I've seen in a while. I can hardly make heads or tails of it. Consensus in October 2010 was that the controversies section was poorly sourced and thus removed. You seem to have missed that part. Anyway, this does indeed seem to be an edit war.--Atlan (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had time to help over there recently, but there seems to have been a long-simmering dispute at that article between the organizer and someone who has a beef with him about not being able to get some refund or something. My view at the time was that the "controversies" stuff was not really of encyclopedic importance, was largely due to being poorly sourced, and was effectively implying blame without proper attribution. The personal arguments that have broken out on the Talk page should be taken off-wiki - this really is not the place for them. Wikipedia is not a forum for righting perceived wrongs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above; when I posted the section at that talkpage, I was not intending to set off the flame war that resulted. I'd say more, but Boing! said Zebedee summed it up pretty well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I am at a point where I have no choice but to place a intervention stalking order via the courts in regards to Cognitive disident's constant personal attacks on me as are clearly seen in the discussion/talk section. (However thankfully other editors have deleted most of them). I am aware of who this person is now and I protecting myself and my family from this person . In regards to the article all points outlined above are still valid. Common consensus clearly shows that the Controversies section Cognitive disident added was poorly sourced and thus removed. I request that the ongoing dispute in the talk page be removed or deleted as this is never going to end until the courts step in place and place order on this person. Wikipedia should not be a avenue for personal attacks on talk pages or anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs)

That seems like a pretty clear legal threat; I'll warn the user now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat against Wikipedia, though -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's obviously directed at Cognitive Dissident; at least that's how I read NLT. Note that I didn't say that he should be immediately blocked, just that I would warn him about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Also, I think we do need to consider whether any of the content of the Talk page is defamatory and whether it should be removed - Fisted Rainbow (talk · contribs) has been open about his own identity, so I think we do need to consider our ethos of avoiding harm to identifiable people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it myself, since I'm the one who accidentally started this whole mess and I really don't want to inadvertently create more drama, but I'd strongly recommend that the whole talkpage be blanked. Nothing good is going to come out of leaving those giant ranting screeds of text up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Empire Music

Would someone please close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Empire Music? My Twinkle seems to have hiccuped when this was posted and it is over two weeks old. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

a well meaning newbie

has done a lot of recent edits at Sunshine Building, but has left it a shambles. I left a note on his/her user page, but the editor has not been back. Could someone please restore the picture and fix the info box and I'm not sure what else? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to before they made their edits, since most of their edits looked OR and without sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Phishing scam by User:Aurapop

Resolved

 – User indeffed The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Aurapop (talk · contribs) created the page How to get free gold points on spp (nominated for CSD G3.) The trouble is that this is more than pure vandalism, it is a phishing attempt to obtain passwords to this game, Super Poke Pets. All You Have To Do Is Send Your Ema.il, [Ema.il] Password And Superpoke Pets Password, And Then Write The Amount You Want, Within 24 Hours They Will Enter The Points Into Your Account. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson attacked me again

Some of you may recall me posting here about User:Chrisjnelson attacking me. I was told to come back here if he did it again. I don't know how serious this is, but I consider it insulting. This is what I'm talking about. RevanFan (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume this is the link you meant to give us, RevanFan? Since it shows, "yeah you know what i meant, fool" as the edit summary, and the one provided above doesn't?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In my defense, [snip].►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good for 1 month, considering your last personal attack block was two weeks... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone saw this or not, but I wanted to add that he said this after I notified him of this discussion here. RevanFan (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact he invoked that metaphor so casually probably tells us more than we needed to know about his personal life. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, his most recent comments on his Talk page show how much he wishes to actually be collegial here. Corvus cornix_talk 06:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He posted a comment claiming he didn't care about being blocked. Yet he cared enough to post a comment about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

WP:AIV has a major backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The backlog looks to have been taken care of as of this post. elektrikSHOOS 09:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

LiteralKa and a dispute about GNAA-related articles

Resolved

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

Would like some admin to look at this. It's a GNAA guy, who has recently tagged some of "non notable" articles for deletion; seems like all of them have been declined; but please some admin keep an eye on those articles, well, I fear for most of them, as well for my other internet profiles (facebook, etc) as it has been pointed out that they would go hack some of my accounts. All of this happened after I attempted to do a review of User:Murdox/GNAA's references, and opposed the GNAA's article recreation, but what LiteralKa and company have been doing is totally unacceptable, saying that "the articles were widely uneeded, and [he] felt that it would be BOLD to do something." "I didn't delete them, I put them up for speedy deletion." I'll fuck off the wiki for some days, for my own safety Diego Grez (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• And excuse me if what I wrote cannot be understood at all, I just don't feel okay. Diego Grez (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope this doesn't scare you off from assessing the rest of those sources, it would be a great help to me! Thanks. Murdox (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Are comments such as "oh I forgot, since I am a mexican terrorist of basque descent" necessary? There isn't any need to leave Wikipedia. I already noted your habit of overrating when I supported the lifting of your edit restrictions, so please don't blow this out of proportion. Wikipedia has a team of dedicated sysops who monitor and respond to situations like this, so be assured that your articles will be safe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, haha, Michael. They should know better why I said that :) And no, of course no I won't be leaving Wikipedia. Diego Grez (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that I don't understand. Would you feel comfortable elaborating? By the way, I'm glad to hear that you won't be leaving. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Instead of assuming good faith, Diego Grez is accusing LiteralKa of some sort of retaliation. He's also accusing him of being a danger to his safety. Those accusations are false and unsubstantiated. Diego Grez's behavior is unacceptable in a civil place like Wikipedia. -- Femmina (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, interesting, you had not edited Wikipedia since November until now. I wonder why... Diego Grez (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Not relevant, Diego. Calm down, don't rise to LiteralKa's bait, and don't bait anyone else. lifebaka++ 03:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This ANI report seems to be resolved, since an admin has blocked LiteralKa 72 hours for making pointy deletion nominations. There had been a dispute between LK and DG at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 18. I fixed the header of this report to be neutral. It had been 'LiteralKa, and GNAA-related idiocies.' EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree with the block. If that is not direct wikistalking with intent to harass, I don't know what is. –MuZemike 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing from User:Ion Zone‎

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.

@rpeh: single-letter links in a sig are a bit fiddly, especially on small screens or for users with visual problems, etc. A few people do this but it isn't entirely ideal. @Ion Zone: user pages are not for discussions; if you click through to a user page you can find the user talk page from the tab at the top of the page. @both: AGF, and give each other a break - in both senses. Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Please can somebody take a look at the recent behaviour of Ion Zone‎ because I'm getting fed up with him right now. We've been having a content dispute, and I asked for help here while stating my intention to stay away from the article in question for the time being. I'm not asking for admin intervention here because I'd like to see if dispute resolution can solve the problem.

Ion Zone decided to move the debate to my user page (not my talk page). I removed his edits and asked him not to edit my user page again, pointing out that my talk page was the place to ask questions. He ignored me and edited my page again, and (after being asked again to stop), did it again, and again. His excuse is that my talk page link isn't particularly visible, which is nonsense - many users have less obvious links and I use this sig on other wikis with no problems.

Quite simply, I'm getting fed up with Ion Zone's pattern of editing. AGF is all very well, but the way he keeps posting on my user page despite having been asked several times to stop leads me to believe he's doing it deliberately. I'm going to post this then step away for a few hours because if he continues, I'm going to say something I'll regret. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't actually click on your talk page button because it is too small. Stop keep whining and making yourself out to be a victim, Rpeh, you are the one who decided to take the debate onto my talk page. As I've said a dozen times already, opinion is not evidence, if you want to debate me come back with some actual examples and debate it on the article talk page like you are supposed to.

Ion Zone (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not asking for admin intervention here" And yet you are on the administrators noticeboard for incidents? Can you clarify exactly what assistance you need? Ion Zone - you should not edit other people's user pages, particularly if they have asked you to stop. The talk page link looks fine to me. If you really can't get there, just go to the user page and then click the 'discussion' tab at the top.--Korruski^Talk 19:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant about the content dispute. I'm asking about Ion Zone's WP:COMPETENCE problems when it comes to finding the right place to post. I see he's making the same point yet again here. This user has been asked several times not to post on my user page, but continued to do so. Even if his point about the size of my talk page link were correct, which it isn't, it's one extra click to my talk page. He has refused to post there and keeps insisting it's my fault. In short, he is being deliberately inflammatory. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mate, it is not my fault your link is so damn small my computer swaps between the letters and sends me all over the place. I'd already responded once or twice before I even realised where I was posting. Most people have bigger links. I'm sorry if this annoyed you, but my talk page is not a spillover for debates.

Ion Zone (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said in my initial submission, even after AGF, you had your chance and blew it. I pointed out what you were doing wrong, you ignored me, ignored me again, and ignored me again. There is no way to reconcile the way in which you responded with "Good Faith".

It is your fault if the link is "so damn small". As I said in my initial submission, I use this same sig on other wikis. It's identical on UESP and has the same style on RationalWiki, but with a different username. Nobody has ever complained about the talk page link being too small before.

The fact is that you deliberately posted on my user page after having been asked to stop. Your only excuse for doing so has just been shot down. You were deliberately trying to inflame an already tense situation. That's a fact. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rpeh, you seem to have a very tenuous grip of what is a 'fact'. If you must know, I, personally, have a very hard time clicking on small things, such as single letters. I told you to keep the debate off my talk page and, frankly, I don't care about your precious user page. My talk page is for information only, not debates. Only the last edit was actually, fully deliberate, and even at that point I had no idea how to access your talk page. Deal with it, and stop whining.

Ion Zone (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you deliberately set out to annoy me but it's my fault? Your talk page is not for information. Please read WP:OWNTALK. --rpeh •T•C•E• 13:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been to the page (made a few comments) and looking at the previous discussion I think that both editors Rpeh and Ion Zone might need to take a break from it for a while. DMSBel (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have deliberately avoided Ion Zone's posts on that talk page, and I certainly haven't taken the sort of intentionally provocative action Ion Zone did in posting on my user page despite repeated requests. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so this is just observation. The debate between these two editors there has been fairly heated. Both editors seem to have opposing strong feelings about some of the content. Ion Zone has explained that he has dyslexia which would account for his mistakingly clicking the user page. So I don't see that he was deliberately being provocative, but he should not have kept posting there. Rpeh is being a little bit tendentious too in the discussion and has accussed others of "whitewashing" on two or three occasions which doesn't help. Again I suggest both editors take a break for a few days. DMSBel (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that I am taking a break - at least from that article. Dyslexia is a condition that affects reading, speaking and spelling, and doesn't have anything to do with clicking a mouse. Ion Zone has admitted that he deliberately posted in the wrong place after I asked him to stop. That's needlessly provocative.

I also already stated that I'm not bringing up the article content here because that's a separate issue. What's at issue is Ion Zone's behaviour in deliberately stirring up trouble. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read through again. Korruski has presented the solution as regards the talk page. Keep calm if it happens again and report here, though I very much doubt there will be any repeat. DMSBel (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Paph, I said the last edit was deliberate. I would like to point out that the majority of the edits were to tell Raph to go away, which he did not do. Raph also assumed the pretence of a mod\admin and threatened to issue me with a "warning".

Ion Zone (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can issue a warning: you don't have to be an admin. And misspelling my name in a rather transparent attempt to annoy is just another example of your appalling behaviour. You need to apologise to me for deliberately inflammatory edits. --rpeh •T•C•E• 20:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you get so upset about such tiny little things? If you must know, I pressed P by mistake and couldn't be bothered to change it. If I really wanted to annoy you I'd have made it a pun.

Ion Zone (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And missed the "e", put the "p" in the same place. I'm not upset, but it's pretty obvious you're trolling in an attempt to get me upset. First the user page, now this. Pathetic.

As I've said above, you have a real COMPETENCE problem. You always require multiple saves to make one edit, and keep doing this after a request to use the Show preview button. You can't work out how to reach a talk page, even after having reached the user's userpage. You refuse to listen to points made on article talk pages. You edited an archive of an AfD years after it was closed. Your lack of competence is shocking in someone who's been around since 2005, and I'm afraid I can't see any other conclusion than you're doing it deliberately. THAT is why I brought this issue to AN/I, and I've seen nothing to change my opinion in your edits since then. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop being so ridiculously pompous, particularly about your name. It's just an unpronounceable mess of letters. I don't know what archive you are talking about, but most of the other users seem to agree that most of the Northern Ireland section is worthless. You are simply angry that the broad opinions stated as fact in the article are not being taken as as absolute truth. You refuse to provide cited examples of actual events or justify the existence of any part of article beyond reciting the categorical statement that the sources belong their and are relevant. You have openly stated that no opposing opinions should be allowed, despite the Wiki rules stating that all opinions of this sort must be balanced. You use the rules as though they only apply to other people, and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you as being 'incompetent' or a part of some big conspiracy. I don't know about anyone else but those sound like Wiki competence, bias, and a few other issues to me.

Ion Zone (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2011 (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.

Death threats & claims of past murders

Resolved

 – WMF Emergency contact address notified ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Color me slightly paranoid perhaps, but an IP editor who has been editing from IPs in London UK making death threats and claiming to have killed people before has me a touch worried. diff diff for a couple examples. Even if he's a "run-of-the-mill" psycho, he still sounds like he could be dangerous to the public. Should the authorities be contacted?Ashanda (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no not again. See edit filter 170. The old LTA report is here. Now he's back in the UK it may be worth a report if someone's interested. In any case, block on sight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the filter set to automatically report to AIV? That might help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It was, but the filter was disabled a while back after he'd disappeared. He probably hasn't edited for 18 months so we'd need a fresh batch of examples to work from as his focus seems to have changed a bit. The style is the unmistakeable though, and fairly easy to catch with a filter once you've seen it often enough. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice you are the go-to expert on this guy and are willing to make range blocks. Hint, hint. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to ask: Did the IP kill Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick? HalfShadow 20:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  No, it was obviously Reverend Green. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is an offence that magistrates will take quite seriously in the UK. There are doubtless several possible charges, but the one that looks likely to me is under the Communications Act 2003, which creates an offence of sending malicious communications that are grossly offensive. The Malicious Communications Act 1988's solitary offence is also a strong possibility. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So... is anyone going to make the call? I'm in the USA, rather out of jurisdiction. Ashanda (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I normally might offer, but I'm busy in the next several days and would rather not have to talk to officers, who may want to visit the calling admin and take a statement etc - which can be quite a time-consuming process. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Trust me on this one, let WMF handle it. Email emergency@wikimedia.org. There are people who watch that address like hawks 24/7 and work for WMF who know who to call and how to handle things. They will get back to you fast. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll happily email them. I'll get right to it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's received. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to remember that address in the future. Ashanda (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have this image in my head of some 14 year old "trollz and lulzer" pissing his pants and trying to explain to mommy and daddy why a couple of Scotland Yard MIBs are in their living room asking a whole lot of questions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DRV procedure

Back in August 2010, Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 was deleted via AfD because it did not meet WP:AIRCRASH (an essay), which had been changed since the time the article was created. I accepted that at the time. However, WP:AIRCRASH has since changed again. I believe that as currently written, the article would now meet WP:AIRCRASH. I have asked the deleting admin whether he would be willing to restore the article, or whether it should go to DRV. Unfortunately, he has not edited for a few days on either of his accounts. Is there an admin willing to undelete the article, or should I take the issue to DRV, in which case I would ask for a temporary undeletion to give all editors a chance to see the article being discussed. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Only you and one other person cited WP:AIRCRASH. Because this article went through AFD, you need to take it to deletion review - you don't need to wait for the deleting admin if he is not available. Just open the request at DRV and notify the admin on his talk page. Once you have opened the DRV, you can ask for temporary undeletion. --B (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will open a DRV, and inform all participants in the original discussion of the DRV. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a DRV, but WP:REFUND seems not to cover the situation. Restoration of the article at the moment may be seen to be usurping the DRV because the effect of what I am requesting at DRV is overturn and immediately relist at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DRV is the correct forum - REFUND is only for non-controversial restorations, such as expired PRODs. --B (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access

Resolved

 – Favonian (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Erik.leif (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet on February 13. After his first unblock request was declined, he proceeded to post inane material in complaint of the block. Could an admin revoke talk page access? Since WP:CIV WP:CIR also applies, could an admin also note that in the block log? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politics RfC

An editor, who is not an admin, who was not involved in editing the article, closed a contentious RfC discussion regarding content in the lede. The closing and resultant edit to the article were reversed by an editor opposed to the result, and then reverted by another uninvolved editor sympathetic with the result. The uninvolved closing editor is unwilling to reverse the close, and editors unhappy with the result are very upset.

I am the uninvolved closing editor.

I request corroboration that my closing of discussion was within policy. Respectfully, Lionel (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I revereted the unhappy editor (The Four Deuces) I believe it was. I was not involved whatsoever it the rfc, nor have I edited the article. I should like to know why you feel I am sympathetic with the result? Tentontunic (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have assumed. I stand corrected, Tentontunic. Lionel (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect, and with an assumption of good faith on Lionelt's part, he's presented the edits in a somewhat garbled way re their sequence. I took probably 90 minutes to carefully document the correct sequence, with diffs. Please see Talk:Right-wing politics#Non-admin super-vote closure of RfC for the exact sequence. The crux here, imo, is that Lionelt improperly closed an RfC, I reverted him, he reinstated the close, and then another user (Snowded) reverted that reinstatement, effectively repeating my action. As little drama as possible on this one, everyone, okay? Not directed at any individual; just a general request. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put my hand up to manage this. I'm currently polling those involved to see if they will accept my assessment. If they do, then we can close this ANI. If not, I'll report back and ask for someone else. Manning (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Manning, that approach is reasonable and I'm confident you'll do a good job. IMO, non-admin closures of this type of discussion are ok in principle, but it takes quite a bit of skill and clue, and I don't think Lionel was up to the task at his current level of experience. The lack of a detailed closure rationale or explanations afterwards, and his general approach to post-closure discussion, call for some review of the closure. But I don't think the vested participants should be allowed to shop for closers until they get one whose decision they think they'll like. If Manning isn't accepted as closer, the next step would be some kind of DRV-like discussion, I'd think. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I read most of the RFC. I largely concur with the Ohiostandard summarization. My understanding is that an RfC normally runs 30 days, but can be closed earlier if a consensus is reached. The time was not close to 30 days, and the status was not close to consensus. I saw a lot of good arguments, a lot of interesting arguments, and a lot of thoughtful arguments. I'd like to say I saw clear progress and hope for a resolution, but that hadn't yet happened. While there seemed to be a slowing of momentum on 9 Feb (perhaps mistakenly viewed as a sign that parties were finished making points?) there was no obvious resolution—indeed, some had started exploring other avenues. I see no reason to end the process early, especially such a brief summary. I wonder if Lionelt misread SV comment "The point of the RfC is to decide the issue and hopefully put an end to the reverting, so it's best to leave this part of the lead as it is until an uninvolved editor closes the RfC". I read that as saying "stop reverting", but it looks like Lionelt read it as a request for an outsider to close it soon. Whatever the rationale, I felt the close was premature.

I'm not one of the involved parties, so I have no say in whether Manning should step in, but I support the move.--SPhilbrickT 02:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Token post to keep thread from archiving, in case Manning wants to summarize his findings here when he's completed his review.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The content of the lead section for this article has "bounced around" quite a lot since Lionelt's non-admin RfC closure; it has been subjected to multiple revisions, reverts, and versions. Some of that ongoing edit warring was arguably defensible in that the first part of it took place during the interval immediately after the non-admin closure, and before that closure had (a second time) been reverted. That the relevant section has been "changing under" editors' talk page comments and RfC discussion has made that discussion unnecessarily confusing, though, and I've restored the section to its pre non-admin-closure state for the sole purpose of ameliorating that confusion.

I already, a few moments ago, informed Manning of this on his talk page, and I won't have the least objection if he, or any other admin sees fit to revert me in this. I'm posting this notification here, as well, only because I'm not sure how quickly Manning will see my message on his talk page, and because more admin "eyes on" re the lead section of Right-wing politics will probably be needed to keep the section stable until Manning does see that. My doing so should in no way be construed as any lack of confidence in Manning's judgment; my feelings are in fact very much to the contrary in that regard. The talk page section I created to document this problem, and my pro-tem choice about how to resolve it can be found at the Moving-target lead section needs stability during RfC about it section of the article's discussion page. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Incident related to longevity arbcom case

While the recent arbcom was on, I split one of the articles in the scope of the arbcom (Longevity claims) on the grounds that it had an over-long embedded list. I created a new (List of unverified longevity claims) from it. User:NickOrnstein put up that new article for deletion without notifying me, so I was unaware of it. And it has been deleted. If it had all happened during the arbcom, I would have highlighted it in the workshop. And if it had all happened afterwards I would be looking at arbitration enforcement. But the event straddled the closing of the arbcom. The arbs advised those involved to get advice from experienced uninvolved editors, and I've been doing just that but people don't want to get involved (see the AfD closing admin's comment to me on his talk page). I think I will just have to start again splitting the article, but recreating a deleted article is deprecated, isn't it? Any suggestions as to what I can best do? (With the aim of getting consensus about clearing up the walled garden.) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@NickOrnstein: it is generally considered common courtesy to notify the creator when you nominate an article for deletion.

@Itsmejudith: Regardless of merit, it is my impression that AE reports filed very shortly after the conclusion of a case are often rejected. I assume the idea behind the split was to have one article where we have good records of birth and death dates, and one where we have good sources making statements about ages but no reliable documentation? It looks like the content was merged back in to Longevity claims. That article is on the long side, so Wikipedia:Splitting supports divvying up the topic. I think at this point the best way forward might be to start a Request for comment on the talkpage pointing to the old discussion and asking the regular contributors to refrain from overwhelming the outside input by rehashing the same discussions that led to this impasse. If that gives a consensus everyone can live with, great; if not, AE will still be there. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the logic of the split. My thinking was that an article entitled Longevity claims should be an article about that topic. Related list articles are numerous and complex, how to deal with that is being discussed on the talk page of the WikiProject but so far only by those of us who were already involved in the ArbCom. An RfC is a good idea, so will action that, and as you say ask regular contributors to hold back. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping this will help. David in DC (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We must globally, not only locally ban this dangerous neonazi extremist

Please look:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bsadowski1&diff=prev&oldid=414783166
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALeinad&action=historysubmit&diff=414783268&oldid=405860564

User:Wikinger even if he lives in Poland, he ferociously hates all Poles as subhumans. That means that he can be one of residents (Project Riese watchers) placed in Poland by retreating nazis. He even admitted this as follows:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_language&action=historysubmit&diff=414770767&oldid=414770100

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.3.201 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I already place several rangeblocks used by this person. Please continue to report here or my talk page for any further abuse. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The above thread is related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

DNFTT. It's all Wikinger (talk · contribs), including the open proxy he used to report himself here. Just range-block on sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps devil who spied after those IPs said it thee. So thou can perhaps fake thee as omniscient. But it is devil's pride in thee, because even devil is NOT omniscient. From this I see that thou are doomed to hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.226.21 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty good. Maybe we should add that quote to the block template. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User on RU Wiki (title changed to remove name)

Resolved

 – Special:IMPORTFIGHTSFROMOTHERWIKIS hasn't been enabled so please don't try and export your fight here Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also known as Mikhail Albertovich Lebedev. Blocked in ru.wiki and meta for trolling and sockpuppets. Please block User:SA ru in en.wiki, all contributions are trolling. Bunker by ruwiki (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Little help here, please.

75.47.142.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is causing problems over at WP:AIV. You'll see the full story there. Dokter Zombieman ^brains.../_{the infected} 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the user. FYI, this is almost definitely a sock, maybe launch a CU? GiantSnowman 16:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you know who the user is, there's not much a checkuser can do. The privacy policy states that a checkuser can't declare what editors are editing from what IPs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. In that case, anybody recognise the sound of this IP's quack? GiantSnowman 16:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what the IP editor has been doing, the OP apparently needs to be reminded of Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice required, apparently...

Per this Wikipedia:Hardcore images needs an Editnotice created to let us know that we're not allowed to edit that essay without Herostratus' permission. I was going to create one myself but it seems one needs to be an admin to do it; no doubt he would have himself had he not been desysopped.

Oh, and yes the above may contain a *hint* of sarcasm. Egg Centric (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Account creators may also edit edit notices. --Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can make one if he wants it. Otherwise, I'd ignore him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar on its way Egg Centric (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I think the sarcasm is funny, this is actually a situation where some input from others would be great. Months ago I asked HS to userfy this essay. The request was refused and I took it to a deletion discussion. Editors assumed it was an attempt to censor an essay and overwhelmingly !voted to keep. Since then, HS has locked the page down. Reverts (not my changes) here and here. These on top of the gaul to say anyone can edit but me 'is not only completely out of line, it is against WP:ESSAYS. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.". Time to userfy this essay and I believe HS needs a reminder of protocol if they can dictate who can and cannot edit.Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. If anyone wants to WP:OWN an essay, time to move it out of project space. Fences&Windows 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is troubling, Fences. The essay was up for MfD this fall and the decision was "Keep" (the headcount FWIW was 11-3, and one of the "Strong Keep" voters was Jimbo, for whatever that is worth.) So just deciding on one's own say-so to ignore that is troubling, and since you also deleted the shortcut (not called for, since many shortcuts point into userspace) this is an administrative rather than just an editorial action, so this is doubly troubling. (actually, a bot did this, sorry)

Now, as to "owning", this is an interesting question, and it involves the question of "hostile edits" to essays in Wikispace. Of course what constitutes a "hostile edit" can be debatable in some cases. But not here. An editor (who has repeatedly, vociferously, and at great length expressed his opposition to and rejection of the entire thrust and thesis of the essay) was gutting the essay, essentially a slow-motion page blanking. This was no good-faith effort to improve the essay or make it stronger and clearer, but rather a hostile attempt to destroy it, disingenuous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. All this is discussed on the essay's talk page, which Fences should probably have read before taking this mistaken action.

In my opinion, edits to an essay that are clearly hostile shouldn't be allowed (instead, editors are encouraged to create refuting essays of their own and link to them on the original essay's "See also" section). I think if the principle of hostile edits to essays is to be allowed, that lead to a lot chaos and basically the potential destruction of the concept of essays, at least for those which are not necessarily popular and well-protected.

But who knows, maybe it would be a good thing. But it would be a major change, and there should be some quite considerable discussion before this is accepted, I think.

So if someone could please undo Fences' action and sort this all out, that would be good idea, I think. As always, I'm open to RfC, mediation, or whatever other good solutions are available. Another MfD would certainly be permissible. But not just, you know, one editor deciding he doesn't like the page. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't one editor not liking it. You reverted two other editors trying to make changes so at least three of us were raising concerns. You are able to make it say so much more in your user space so have fun with it and make your point. If you feel it is sufficient to change policy (which is an ongoing discussion over at Commons which you have been absent from) then please submit it at the Village Pump's policy page. F&W did act a little more boldly than I expected but any admin applying the policy fixes the issue and is exactly the outcome I expected sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that in the article history, I see only User:Atomaton, not counting this one edit by Egg Centric, unless one wants to go back to November or earlier.

Well, anyway, Fences, there you have it: if you acted a little more boldly than Cptnono expected (!) then I think it's safe to say you've gone quite a bit off the edge of the board.

OK, well, this looks like a good case for mediation, I think. I'll file a request with the Cabal, and if mediation works OK we'll take it from there. In the meantime, the essay should be moved back into main essay space, and I would prefer if someone do this, but this is not critical, we can do that later on. I am restoring the shortcut, though, as this will make the page easier to point to.

Also, ould it be asking too much if, in future, participants at ANI could suggest dispute resolution or something before taking precipitate action? We do have a whole dispute resolution process, and it would a good thing if admins in particular familiarize themselves with it, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:ESSAYS, the idea of an essay is to put forward a point of view. These may range from personal to minority views, to views that enjoy wide consensus. If an essay sets out to make the case for a particular point of view, it is legitimate for the author to ensure that it stays true to that point of view. Improvements should be focused on clarifying the presentation of that point of view, but not to change the point of view. Editors who do not agree with the point of view put forward are free to write an alternative essay. Sorry, Fences, the deletion and userification without an XfD was improper, and should be undone. --JN466 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Reread it, please: Wikipedia:ESSAYS clearly says, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Do you see this occurring here? Because I certainly do. The issue is not the viewpoint, it's the refusal to let others edit it. The MfD was about the content, not the actions of the author. None of the content is being changed in userfication. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Here are some of the changes Herostratus reverted: [55], [56], [57].
    • For reference, the previous MfD for the essay at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hardcore images was a clear Keep. --JN466 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at the edit history, and detailed discussions in the talk page you would see that no editor has tried to change the point of view being made in the essay. If it is in main space, then the essay is subject to the same consensus rules and BRD rules as any other article. No editor may wp:OWN the essay in mainspace. Clearly the originating editor of this essay wished for no one to modify the article without his approval, and explicitly expressed that he owned the article. Hence, he should be able to do that, but only if it is in user space. having said that -- see my earlier comment below about due process, that Herostratus should have had a chance to express his view before any action was made. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that the essay could be broken into sections allowing expression of all major points of views on the general topic. An exclusionist perspective of only allowing one editor to make changes and expressly prohibiting edits of any kind from editors that are viewed as hostile is not functional. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I've dropped a post about this to the Gendergap list. I would like a few more eyes on this, in particular female eyes. --JN466 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I think that it is clear that a personal essay should be in user space, and community work to develop policies or guidelines should allow opinions and expressions from the spectrum of Wikipedia editors. In this case I was bothered by the lack of due process. I would have at least liked to see editor Herostratus express his viewpoint on why his essay should not be in user space before any decision or action was taken. Atom (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Atom, you have indicated that you will not accept mediation. I leave it as exercise to the reader to determine why this might be so. This now leaves us with the question, what to do next? RfC is not designed to handle this type of situation, and I don't know of any other dispute resolution steps that would apply here.

One solution would be for another editor or editors besides me to agree to watchlist the page and defend the page's integrity. However, we're all busy and have full watchlists, so I'm not sure if anyone is willing to do this.

Another solution would be to move the page back to main space and initiate an MfD.

A third solution would be to clarify the operative policy, by suggesting something like the following change be made to WP:ESSAY (additions show in italics, and if anyone could suggest better wording that would be fine) and submitting it to an RfC:

"Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. If an essay is subject to hostile or destructive edits (such as section or page blanking), and only a single editor objects, that editor may be assumed to be in violation of WP:OWN and the essay may be summarily moved to userspace by any editor; no WP:MFD or other procedure is required

I wouldn't support this, but it's arguable - a case could be made that if only one editor is watchlisting and defending an essay this if prima facie evidence that it doesn't have consensus to be in main space, and if the community wants to adopt this change to WP:ESSAY I'd go along with it. This is the de facto standard that is being applied by Fetchcomms and Fence, but I think it would be a good idea to have it clarified by community decision before we apply it across the board.

So which of these three solutions would be best, or does anyone have another suggestion? Since mediation has been rejected, I would seek advice. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, I agreed to assist you if you thought mediating something would help. I'm not sure what iy is I said was a "rejection". Secondly, while it was in your user space, it was your essay. What did we have to mediate? Third is, what do we have to mediate? I have just as much right as any other editos to improve Wikipedia. We went through a very normal BRD cycle and discussed viewpoints in a ehalthy way. Should all articles be mediated when that happens? Atom (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Move back to Wikipedia namespace because there was an extended deletion debate with the result Keep. The essay which was considered for deletion was the one written by Herostratus, not a denatured version. The extent and manner such an essay can be changed is a question that needs to be addressed. I think edits which substantially change the meaning of the essay as opposed to refining it or elaborating on it are properly reverted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was before the ownership issue. HS proved that others were not welcome to contribute after the deletion discussion so this was a great decision. Faster than I thought but same result that should have been expected. And note that I did not edit war, edit maliciously, or even open this ANI so I am not the bad guy as HS is asserting at the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am more inclined to see what is happening here as a form of censorship. Essays should reflect a range of opinions, and there was plenty of support for having this as an essay in the MfD. This reminds me a little of happened to the WP:ACTIVIST essay a few weeks ago: it was overwhelmed by editors dicking around with it, making it say the opposite of what it used to say, inserting jokes, etc. In the end it was locked, the controversy has died down, and the essay now seems to be coming along nicely, judging by the WP:ACTIVIST talk page.

I am not saying behaviour at this essay rose to that level (although this comes close, but there was still an effort to change and water down the message of the essay. If you fundamentally disagree with the message of an essay, it is better to ignore it and work on a different one stating your position; both essays can and should then link to each other. That way we get fruitful debate; not by shutting positions out.

• Move back to Wikipedia namespace per previous MfD. --JN466 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that "shutting positions out" is exactly what HS was doing by WP:OWNing the article. If people cannot edit the essay, it doesn't belong in WP space. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This absolutely needs to be userfied. In addition to ownership issues, Herostratus apparently means for this to apply to a very contrived definition of "hardcore", that is almost just bukkake and nothing else. It's a pointy salvo in a content dispute that Jimbo has latched on to. To Jimbo: While an appeal to exercising editorial discretion when it comes to pornographic images would be a completely appropriate essay, this isn't it. Gigs (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And "hardcore" has actual legal implications that the essay ignores. The essay also ignores that there are very few (if any) articles solely based on sex acts in adult films. The creator of the essay actually tried to change the scopes of articles so that this essay would be more inline with those articles which meant that any policy change would have removed those images. There is attempted gaming of the system and wheel warring now. But fine, I will play the game. Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give examples of those edits please?--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bukkake is the perfect example

• The essay was created on Oct 28.[58]
• A couple weeks earlier, Herostraus had changed the scope of Bukkake to being only about pornography.[59]
• Then there was some edit warring with Herostratus against multiple editors.[60][61][62][63][64]

Cptnono (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowballing is another one. Just a few minutes ago Herostratus put forth the argument that it is only in porn and no where else.[65]. Similar discussion have taken place. I ill be happy to track them all down but it will take a bit since they all kind of blend together since they have happened multiple times.

C'mon, saying Dr Ruth is not RS when it means that an articles scope will be about sex acts and not just porn? I have to track that diff down still. Gaming. Complete and utter gaming.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That kind of editing is the kind of editing I usually see lead to a topic ban. There is a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with some attempts to game the system to try and drive their personal crusade. If they can't reign it in, then I'd recommend a topic ban be put into place immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor was actually blocked once after receiving multiple "final warnings". One of the transgressions was actually editing an image in the main space to be of a creampie with smiley faces all over it. The editor has toned it down since then but I still see it as covertly trying to disrupt articles. This might be for reasons that are morally acceptable but it certainly does look like a personal "crusade" to me. By the way, I made an edit to the essay recently that would have made it so it was no longer a concern for me if it stayed in the mainspace. It was reverted by another editor but if people want to take a look at it I think it should be considered since it would make it crystal clear to the reader that this essay is very contentious.[66] Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

¶ Herostratus' diffs provided by Cptnono above of "chang[ing] the scope of Bukkake" and "edit warring" show Herostratus correcting the article text to match what the sources actually say, and other editors reverting the article so that a definition of bukkake not made by the sources is thereby falsely attributed to those sources. "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring" WP:EDITWARRING. The edit warring accusation is more fairly leveled at those reverting Herostratus' edits in this case. That said, Herostratus' conduct in relation to the bukkake definition has not been exemplary in all instances:diff shows Herostratus correctly observing the problem of proving a negative, but using an example that is uncivil. The creampie image edit from September Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#User:Herostratus sounds like it was inappropriate, though it's hard to independently judge without having seen the image. The discussion about it had problems on both sides.

¶ Regarding the HARDCORE essay, I don't particularly agree with a number of things in the essay, but it does seem reasonable that an essay, even one in Wikipedia namespace, not be fundamentally altered from its original point of view. That's a discussion that ought to be brought to a larger audience at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines or another appropriate place. For my own part, I think there's a case to be made for all essays only to exist in userspace.

¶ Given that Herostratus does appear to have a recurring, albeit not constant, problem with instances of incivility, I think it's reasonable to ask Herostratus: what are you personally going to do to address that problem so that it will not recur? "I'll try harder" would not be a particularly satisfying answer.

¶ Some of the other editors here have some questions about their conduct to answer as well, but as this AN/I isn't about them, I leave that to their own discretion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban of Herostratus

Given his previous block for this kind of behaviour and the fact that he's again being disruptive with it, I think it's time he was topic banned from this kind of thing. He's engaged in bad faith assumptions[67], edit warring (evidenced above, and below with him being blocked for 3RR over this kind of article), ownership (again above), and created a hostile editing environment with his little insults he likes to toss into statements[68], like referring to editors as fanboys and the like[69]. As such I propose the following topic ban: Herostratus is topic banned for a period of 6 months from all articles/images/templates/discussions/ and other material related to pornography or human sexual practices (broadly construed). This is to ensure a cordial editing environment for all parties involved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus has continued his attempts at Point of View pushing and trying to get articles to fall under his essay with edits like these [70].--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#User:Herostratus

  Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive148#User:Herostratus_reported_by_User:Enric_Naval_.28Result:_31_hours.29

• Support I've seen way too many ANI discussions on Herostratus over the past year alone, all about the same general actions on his part on the same type of articles. This needs to stop and a topic ban should stop it. No more of this image censorship nonsense, no more of this content nonsense that doesn't seem to fit his view on what sexual content is. Silverseren^C 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• oppose I am not seeing an issue that would warrant removing a long term contributor from his main contributory area. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  insults, bad faith assumptions, edit warring, attempts at ownership, these are not issues for you? As we note above, Herostratus attempted to change Bukkake to be only about pornography several times in the past and it was reverted each time. He's now attempted again. I'm seeing on-going long-term behaviour issues here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

still some room for discussion imo. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Does bukkake occur outside porn? You should provide sources that show that, because otherwise his edit was fine. Fences&Windows 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I provided a news story on the talk page which indicates that there are private bukkake parties. The problem extends well beyond that though and goes to his general conduct surrounding this topic. How he treats other users in this discussion and how he frames his opinions in an aggressive and insulting manner.--Crossmr (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Fences & windows with regard to the need for sources for bukkake occurring outside of porn. As yet, none have been produced. The case Crossmr's article refers to was either a live bukkake sex show at a private sex club for paying voyeurs, or a open viewing of the recording of bukkake pornographic film to be sold on the internet. See here Talk:Bukkake#Sources.3F. The talk page comments "So why is this image used in this article? I think most of us can figure that out, can't we." and regarding a "frat-boy atmosphere" were certainly not helpful and could be characterized as either incivil or not assuming good faith, and the essay's use of "fanboys" isn't helpful either. However, by themselves they don't seem to rise to the level of needing a topic ban; regarding "fanboys," the essay WP:FANCRUFT has been around for a long time and survived two AfDs. I'll have to see what the 3RR and OWN were about tomorrow if I have time. Crossmr's own edit summary "take your point of view elsewhere. You've provided no sources which indicate no one outside a pornographic film has ever done this" is problematic. Perhaps the problem of aggressive, very unfriendly or threatening editing, POV, and ownership is not exclusive to Herostratus, if Herostratus is guilty of that at all? I remain undecided on that point. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Taken individually no of course not. Hardly anything anyone does taken individually would even warrant action most of the time. But given that he was blocked for edit warring over these kinds of articles in the past, and he was again doing so here, and there were ownership issues over the essay which was what started this discussion it's showing a long-term aggressive and disruptive behaviour with regards to this topic. The behaviour doesn't seem to appear with other topics, hence the reason for proposing a topic ban.--Crossmr (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring? Look at Atomaton's edit-warring below, against talk page consensus and "in the interest of article stability", which you seem to be perfectly fine with. Edit-warring against talk page consensus "in the interest of article stability" is like fucking for virginity. And you yourself are edit-warring to add content not backed up by sources, and not mentioned in the article, to the lead. --JN466 13:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You've been told twice now that he wasn't edit warring, and HS has previously been blocked for edit warring over this topic. And speaking of doing things against consensus...--Crossmr (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As Шизомби points out, Crossmr has hardly behaved stellar himself. And to boot, Herostratus' argument is actually in line with sources ... what I see is an effort by Atomaton and Crossmr to promote bukkake as something that occurs as a sexual practice in real life (just like there is an effort to promote two women cumswapping as something occurring naturally outside pornography at the Snowballing article) when there is no evidence of that in sources.--JN466 13:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Feel free to actually point to any policies or guidelines I've violated or retract your statement. You yourself have already been assuming bad faith with claims like which, in the cited sources addressing this variety, the males seem to find unpalatable over at Snowballing. And your bait and switch tactics on Bukkake by suggesting one image be removed and then turning around and removing the other image for spurious reasons not based on consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  WP:V, WP:OR, WP:LEAD, WP:CIVIL, with this edit. --JN466 13:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Can you prove no one has ever done it privately? If not that reverting it violates those as well. CIVIL is questionable since herostratus has has edit warred over this before against more than one editor and didn't provide any source for it yet did so to bring the article in line with his new essay.--Crossmr (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't have to prove that, and neither does Herostratus. If you want the article to say that people do it privately, outside of the pornographic context, the onus is on you to provide a source saying so. So far you have failed to do so. --JN466 15:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus' recent edits of bukkake do not violate V, OR, LEAD, or CIVIL; they brought the claim in the article in line with the claims of the sources. The burden of proof is not to prove the negative that "no one has ever done it privately" but rather to reliably prove that someone notably has, and to reflect in accordance with NPOV what kind of balance there is between those positions. Herostratus' past conduct doesn't change the fact of these particular edits being not just acceptable, but required by policy. That said, it's clear that not all of Herostratus' edits in or relating to this subject area are good, as noted in my simultaneous reply to Cptnono in the other section above. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure they do. While the act predominantly appears and is researched in the context of pornography that doesn't make it only a pornographic act. When describing the act itself the difference between the basics of a bukkake that would appear on film and in private are negligible. The only real difference perhaps being whether or not the woman was getting paid and the presence of a camera (maybe on both counts). From a sociological stand point there might be differences, but from a basic description of facts, it is first and foremost a sexual act. We can go on to discuss where it is most prominent and how it is often shown, discussed and researched, but labelling it as such creates a point of view that no one anywhere has ever tried this in private.--Crossmr (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It might help to cite where exactly the sources define it outside of the context of pornography. Having looked at the cited pages, the claim does not appear on them, thus it is improper for the article to attribute it to them. Perhaps you found it on other pages? I note you had previously written here where you said a newspaper article (that has yet to be added as a source to the article) was support for that claim (see my Bukkake talk page comment about the case referred to in the article; it did involve pornography). That you would see the need to post that seemingly indicates your agreement that the article needs support for that claim, seemingly meaning you agree the sources currently in the article don't support the claim, unless there is some other possible interpretation of what you wrote or you've since changed your mind. Also here where you mentioned you're looking for reliable sources for the claim but haven't found any yet and you also no longer claimed the newspaper article supported that claim, unless there is some other possible interpretation of that comment as well. Excluding an OR point of view (and unverifiable attribution to sources) is not taking the "point of view that no one anywhere has ever tried this in private." If there is evidence of it outside of the context of pornography, by all means that may be included and then addressed in an NPOV way. Rather, requiring that the claim remain until sources can be found for it, and requiring that the claim be misattributed to sources that don't make it is where the POV problem seems to lie. Absent any evidence that the sources say what the article claims they say, if it is going to continue to be insisted the sources make claims that they do not, it seems this matter might have to go to the NOR noticeboard, unless there is any better idea, which I might welcome. Incidentally, did you notify Herostratus about your "Proposed Topic ban of Herostratus" discussion? I paged through the entire edit history for his talk page and don't see any evidence of your ever having posted on it, unless perhaps you did so under another username? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This was part of an on-going discussion in which he was already part of. There is no requirement for multiple notifications every time someone adds something to this discussion. Had I started a new section I would have been required to notify him. This is a sub-section in a discussion he's already taken part in. Yes there is a newspaper article which mentions that a private bukkake club exists, but it is scant on details, so I'm trying to find a better one. If it's all I find I'll bring it to the talk, but I'd prefer a stronger more detailed source.--Crossmr (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I just saw this, thank you Шизомби (Sz). I left a note on Шизомби (Sz)'s talk page (under the section "Talkback") with a quick take on the matter, probably a little more informal that I would write here. No, I don't think a topic ban is in order, and all things considered I think it'd be worth an ArbCom case before doing that. Don't have time to write more now. Herostratus (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And getting back to the original topic

And as a separate issue, and getting back to the original topic of this thread, it looks like what's been going on over at WP:HARDCORE is a disgrace. Haven't had timne to look into it, but I intend to. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it"? Isn't that the real spirit of being uncensored? Herostratus (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a disgrace. The bad faith assumptions and little biting insults have no place on this kind of an encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a disgrace that information on guidelines and policies directly related to the essay are removed. No reason besides the assumption that the intent to undermine it has been presented. One editor didn;t even say the text was a problem but that where it was placed was the issue. So with some changes, another editor readded it. However, it was reverted with no explanation besides pointing to the comments of the editor who did not detail why there was an issue with the prose.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Essays are there to present a point of view. The concept of Wikipedia essays explicitly protects Wikipedians' right to express minority points of view in them. Editors who fundamentally disagree with this essay's point of view and are not interested in presenting its arguments as clearly and convincingly as possible have been asked by several editors, including Jimbo, to write their own essay, expressing their point of view, rather than trying to change the essay's point of view. Once we have both essays, they should link to each other, so no editor viewing either essay will be left unaware of the other point of view's existence. --JN466 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question did not counter any arguments made in the essay. Please go reread it and stop assuming the worst. And then stop edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When I saw this topic, I read the essay, and started a rebuttal at WP:Hardcore pornography images/Rebuttal, using Template:dablink to insert a line about it at WP:Hardcore pornography images. Using subpages and dablinks in this way is the best answer I can think of to allow people to develop essays expressing deeply divergent points of view without edit-warring them down to nothing. Perhaps people here will think of something better. In any case, it will not be very useful to impose administrative sanctions on Herostratus or anyone else unless the best practices for such situations are made clear. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and by the way I left a note over at the talk page for the essay guidelines a few days ago (Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia essays#Suggestion clarification for "Improving existing essays" suggesting a possible clarifying addition to that page. Anyone interested in this issue could chime in there. Herostratus (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In the News issue

At this time of the day it's hard to get admin attention so I'll post here. It has become apparent that the item on the main page about Belgium is of dubious factual accuracy. See the discussion at WP:ERRORS and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Belgian government deadlock. Admin attention to consider pulling the item would be greatly appreciated. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Resolved. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of my access rights

Once my ANI is completed I have decided I will probably scramble my account and walk away. In site of that and in retrospect to the work I have done here I wanted to ask that if anyone wants to look at what my rights are they may want to remove a couple like rollbacker, Autpatrolled and the like in case my account is compromised at some point in the future. There is no requirement to do so of course. Its just a suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrators, A little help please

Well I have repeatedly redirected edits made by User:Marissac95. A Ronnie Radke fan girl who keeps making articles despite the fact that he doesn't meet requirements of notability, as well as some of the other standards. She repeatedly makes a page which has no info that isn't already on Escape the Fate's page. She is also doing the same for Falling in Reverse despite the fact that the band has, no albums, songs (raw's and demo's don't count) no confirmed record label ect. I keep revering telling her that neither radke, nor the rest of falling in reverse meet requirements. So she stalked me and found my facebook and posted a link on Ronnie radke's wall telling his fans to badmouth me. I would like and administrator to please lock the pages because she will not stop and it is border lining harassment. Please lock Ronald Joseph Radke, and Falling in Reverse (band) Neither are notable enough on their own. The account was solely made so she could appease his ego and all her edits in some way have been mentioning him despite the fact he is not notable enough for his own article. It is painfully obvious she is a fan girl because she named the page Ronald Joseph Radke, rather then the name he is more know by which is Ronnie Radke. She gives unreliable and questionable sources, all of which report largely the same thing. He isn't notable enough for his own article, plain and simple. I have asked many admins for help but I have nowhere else to turn. I mean if he met requirements, sure he could have an article, but he just doesn't. I ask that the page be locked as a redirect so she cannot continue this nonsense.- D33DeeD33Guy —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

I can't help with the user, but as to the article, I note that Ronnie Radke already redirects to Escape The Fate. On the other hand, proposing a merge is likely to result in complaints from editors of Escape The Fate. To move forward, we need consensus, and it seems to me that the quickest way to get it is to simply treat this as a contested prod (which it basically is, albeit with week's delay between the contest and nom): take it to AfD, and propose a delete or delete & redirect.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a couple of minutes so I went ahead and did the nom for you. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more civil, please? Your comments about "fan girls" and "appeasing egos" are only going to cause offence and don't help us with editing. RHaworth has blocked them for edit warring. If you don't think this person is notable, please go to WP:AFD, and consider dispute resolution before coming here. Fences&Windows 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that there's a copy of the band article in the article incubator at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Falling In Reverse. It had been redirected; that's not appropriate as it's a cross-namespace redirect. I removed a poorly sourced paragraph. Fences&Windows 20:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also requesting Falling in Reverse be deleted. no notability and it's an unsigned band with no album or official releases.--Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AN3 review requested

Could an admin with a few minutes to spare please look at this AN3 thread. It was closed as "no violation" by an admin with the comment TLDR (too long, didn't read).

The editor reverted the same porn image back into an article four times, each time against talk page consensus (8:1 against him in the end), while claiming consensus in the edit summary. --JN466 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't close it "with the comment TLDR", he said "No violation.. Also TLDR." In other words, he looked at the diffs, concluded there was no violation, and didn't read the rest of the novel. --B (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write the novel. The chap who four times put the image back in against solid talk page consensus by eight editors, edit-warring against two of them in the process, did. Is that all an editor has to do, write a novel and say "I am now going camping for three days?" --JN466 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I don't want to put words into someone else's mouth, but I'm assuming he looked at your initial complaint, saw that the diffs were not within a 24-hour period, and decided not to block. That's a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. But in any event, my point wasn't whether or not I agreed with the decision - it was that it was factually incorrect to say that he closed it "with the comment TLDR". I also note that you haven't contacted the admin himself on his talk page to notify him of your thread here. As for "I am now going camping for three days", a statement of willingness to not edit the page in question is often considered - blocks are preventative and not for punishment and if there is no disruption to prevent, there's no block to make. --B (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The admin's closing comments got the basic facts wrong. There was no RfC running. There was a talk page discussion, started by myself, in which 7 editors said the second bukkake image was redundant, and should go. Each time the image was deleted, in line with talk page consensus, the editor reverted it back in. After the third time, with 7:1 talk page consensus against him, he started an RfC. After that, he added it back again for a fourth time, claiming consensus in the edit summary. By that time 8 editors had said the second image should go. I am not asking for the editor's head on a plate, but I would like someone to tell him that he was being disruptive because – by any reasonable standard, he was. --JN466 04:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, don't try to misrepresent my position. The image you removed is not the one I agreed to being removed, and in fact you've presented yourself hypocritically over these debates by claiming on one article that the most appropriate (and common scenario) image should be used to illustrate the subject on one article and then on the second article removing that type of image in favor of another. I, in fact, do not support the change you made to the article as it stands. So frankly i find his edits to be more in line with consensus than your since you proposed one thing and did another.--Crossmr (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

[71] That was the image I removed at the time. I replace the lead image with the other image later on, because a woman editor complained that it implied to her that the woman being ejaculated upon had her hands tied. That seemed reasonable to me. I was honestly not aware that you had disagreed with that decision. How you can say his actions reflected consensus, when 8 editors said the article should only have one drawing of a woman being ejaculated upon, and he kept adding a second one, mystifies me. --JN466 04:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the consensus was to remove the second image, not the first. As for the woman complaining, there was no consensus that that the image portrayed that and there is nothing in the image to clearly indicate that is the case. Everyone who puts their arms behind their back isn't being restrained. Also not censored would apply here as the image clearly shows the most common scenario as you yourself have indicated is most desirable and appropriate to be used. If we changed the encyclopedia every time a single person objected, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all.--Crossmr (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the second image showing just two men is the one that he reverted back into the article here and here and here. Three times. That is the image you do NOT want to be in the article, is it not? --JN466 05:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I added a third diff to this post. --JN466 15:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not a single person objecting. It was overwhelming talk page consensus:

• Kaldari: "Agree with JN. 2nd image is redundant" diff
• Enric Naval: "Both images show the same thing in almost the same way, so we would only need one of them." diff
• Genevieve2: "the Illustration depicting the act of bukkake seems to me inappropriate for a site serious as Wikipedia ... This image must be removed, thanks, merci" diff
• Carolmooredc: "One is enough." diff
• Crossmr: "I agree with the removal of the second image due to article length and a bit of redundancy." diff
• Oda Mari: "I agree with OP, CaroMooreDC and others. I find no reason that the two similar images should be needed in the article. One is enough." diff
• Herostratus: "I would support this per WP:HARDCORE." (expressing preference for not using either of the explicit drawings). diff
• Jayen466: "I propose removing one of the drawings. The two drawings are very similar, and the second one is redundant." diff

Even if I remove your comment from this list, which you now seem to renege on, that leaves seven editors agreeing. Are you saying that seven editors against one opposing voice are not a sufficient basis for changing an article? --JN466 05:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do not mind using the image showing just two men. The principle is still clearly illustrated, and the reader can imagine other men outside of the picture frame that will take their turn later on. I was more worried by a female editor's impression that the woman's hands looked as though they were tied behind her back. This project and its gender gap are currently prominently in the news. I am not sure that it is in our best interests, at this time in particular, to ride roughshod over female editors' concerns in articles about hardcore pornography, and basically telling female editors that their impressions and feelings are invalid. Especially in the case of a female editor who had previously, by her own statements, felt abused by male editors when she commented in a similar on-wiki situation. --JN466 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If it matters at all, I'm a woman and I do find it rather objectionable as well. Just saying. No problem with the article existing, but there is no need for more than one illustration, if any (I'm sure the imagination can fill in the blanks). Anything more than one simple illustration is smacking of salaciousness..or something.Gingervlad (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, my feelings exactly. If you add a comment in the RfC on the article's talk page, this will ensure that your opinion will be noted there.--JN466 05:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the dispute on the article talk page.

That's correct. The consensus was to remove the image of the one of 2 people, not the group. The act is a group act, and as you've pointed out the image which most clearly illustrates the most common scenario should be used. Are you saying that claim you made was false? One person suggested the first image be removed. Of the rest of the people who commented they either agreed with your assessment (which was indicating that the second be removed) or they clearly stated that the second be removed. stop claiming a false consensus. You had no consensus on the removal of the first image.--Crossmr (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

B has it right. I reviewed the diffs and the edit summaries. I observed no violation, but rather someone wanting to maintain a version for an RFC, with reverts more than 24 hours apart. As I was closing the an3 case, I encountered an edit conflict, wherein the accused dumped a huge amount of text justifying his actions. As I had made my decision, the details of the dispute weren't relevant, so I closed it as "no violation" and did not read the "novel". And yes, blocks are not meant to be punitive. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic, there was no RfC. Atomaton reverted three times, and when he found that talk page consensus was solidly against him, he started an RfC. And then reverted again. As Kaldari said (although he redacted it later), this was a pure attrition tactic to keep two almost identical pictures of a woman being ejaculated upon in the article. --JN466 05:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let me say this: we have a few editors with sheer endless determination to keep multiple images depicting women in degrading positions, beyond anything that could reasonably be justified by encyclopedic relevance, in articles like this (2 images, one is enough) and this (5 images at the time) and this (completely redundant image) and this (one image that does not match the text, as this is primarily a gay male or heterosexual, but not lesbian practice). Is this who we want to be? --JN466 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment- Why is it that some admins block first then ask for a review later? Hardly ever happens the other way around.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Umm, the admin in this case - Amatulic - opted NOT to block the user reported at AN3. The user who filed the report - Jayen466 - is the one requesting review. --B (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Without getting into the subject of the original AN3 complaint, "No violation.. Also TLDR" literally spelled out as "No violation.. Also [it's] too long [and I] didn't read [it]." does literally state that the editor had not read it and thus implies the decision must therefore have been an uninformed one, even if the truth is that the editor had actually read it. Regardless, TLDR is UNCIVIL (TLDRIU, if you like). Alternatively, "No violation.. Also, the original complaint could have been more succinct" would have implied the editor read the complaint and offered a CIVIL comment about the length. However, it wasn't all that long and Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia and Wikipedia presumes editors are capable of reading long pages (even simple.wikipedia does). Incidentally, Amatulić's userpage doesn't appear to indicate an admin status? Was it a non-admin closure, or did someone else close it? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Amatulic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin (you can see blocks/deletes/etc in his logs). I disagree that TLDR is uncivil and in this case, the part that he is saying he didn't read was the reported user's defense because he had already decided not to block the user. If you're reviewing a report and just from the diffs provided and looking at the article history, you have enough information to determine you're not going to block the user, why does it matter what the user said in their own defense? --B (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so, B, you seem to know my thoughts.

I had already made my decision not to block, so anything the accused would write in defense wasn't relevant. My "TLDR" comment was not meant to be incivil, just a shortcut way of informing the user that the long essay wasn't necessary as I had already made my decision. I apologize for the way it came across to others.

This whole ANI thread resulted because one editor seems intent on imposing a punitive block, when it was clear that even an escalated 48-, 55-, or 72-hour block would not have been noticed by the editor, and Atomaton stated that he's willing to abide by consensus. My understanding of blocking is that they should be levied to prevent further disruption rather than to punish. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Atomaton stated that he's willing to abide by consensus I saw little sign of that while he was editing. Let's hope it proves so when he returns. --JN466 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, not a clue as to master

Resolved

 – Terminated, with extreme prejudice. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

His first edit outside of creating userspace was to insult Gamaliel. So yeah, block probably in order until we figure out whose sock it is: [72]. Soxwon (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

With the account blocked, I would recommend taking it to a CU so they can trace the range they are using and see if any other accounts have used that range. Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious for those of us who frequent WR, but it is perhaps best to not to give him the attention he wants.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 50 Squadron RAF

Resolved

New article has replaced copyvio

This article is tagged as a possible copyvio but doesn't appear (as far as I can tell) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems A replacement article has been put together at Talk:No. 50 Squadron RAF/Temp which the principle editor and I think is ready to move to the main article. Can an admin investigate and if in agreement make the move. Thanks. NtheP (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is listed - 2nd entry down on 16 February 2011. After seven days (or probably a bit more) an admin will come along and sort it out. Dpmuk (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The old copyvio has now been G6'd and replaced by the newly written article. All sorted now. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia problem

We have a brand new editor, Hyc3f (talk · contribs), making trollish edits. I reverted once and was immediately followed by an undo -- I'm about to retire for the night so won't be able to follow up, so I'm adding a pointer here, even though it is formally too early for ANI action. I have notified the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They have reverted the user aboves reversion of their trolling. I reverted them and left another warning at their talk page, and some pointers to policy pages. Heiro 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

After the two reverts already mentioned, Hyc3f has now stopped. They saw sense? Or perhaps it was just a quick bit of trolling before bedtime. I'll keep an eye out for their return. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User IP:99.12.124.133

This IP was blocked two days ago for repeatedly adding unnecessary gun model details to pages. They are now back to the exact same behavior, despite being told that these edits are both unconstructive and constitute WP:OR. Here are a number of diffs that show as much: [73] [74] [75] [76] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrael (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Some assistance required on Shenmue

• Uwright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.118.204.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.188.111.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.52.32.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For the past 6 weeks, the above user and IP's have been edit warring on Shenmue. The editor (behavioral evidence suggests all are the same person, a fact they have not tried to hide) apparently has a problem with the term "killer application" and has changed it in "salvation title", "franchise title" and "must have title" respectively. Each were reverted for either not making sense or being a made up term (I for one have never heard salvation title before).

The problem with using killer application is apparently that Shenmue is not an iPhone app. I guess that makes sense when you're 12. Anyway, they will only stop to discuss the issue when blocked, which has happened several times already in the past month. The discussion can be read on User talk:65.255.147.183. The discussion broke down with them calling me or Golbez a douche and the stated intent of continuing to edit war until they get their way. When not edit warring on Shenmue, they vandalize my user page, talk page and articles I've created. So far, only User:Golbez steps in to block them, the article has low traffic, but I'd appreciate more eyes on this. I'd ask for page protection, but it is only one person.--Atlan (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to semi-protect, but I see Mjroots stepped up already :) -- Luk ^talk 10:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, beaten to it. Semi-protection will keep the IPs away for a week, which just leaves Uwright2 to deal with. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm uneasy to have the article locked down for a single edit warrior, but since it has such low traffic, I guess the damage is minimal. I hope this yields more results than him/her simply waiting out the week to continue edit warring. Uwright2 is not autoconfirmed yet, btw.--Atlan (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive?

Should Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Race and intelligence, which dates from before the ArbCom case, be archived somewhere? It's still live. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No-one has used that page in 8 months, so what exactly is your problem with it? Or is this just another handy reason to make a spot appearance on AN/I? Weakopedia (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's fitting that your ID is "weak"-opedia, as that was a pretty lame comment. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I happen to come across the page rather accidentally, and I thought it might be better to archive an open unused sub-page the subject of which had been settled by ArbCom, rather than leave it live. If I had any idea where it might go to be archived, I would have done it myself, but I don't. if no one thinks it's a problem, that's fine too, I just thought I bring attention to it; I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several ANI sub-pages related to that dispute. I don't think there's any systematic practice of archiving such pages. Given that the conflict isn't active right now, I'd tend to want to leave the pages alone and be vewwy vewwy quiet. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

80.225.213.191 - Block evasion

80.225.213.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an IP used for block evasion by blocked user Francis E Williams (talk · contribs). (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams). I think this is the right place to report it? Thanks [[CharlieEchoTango]] 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 72 hours to match the block on Francis E Williams. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and legal threats at Edward E. Kramer

Could some experienced admins look at the article Edward E. Kramer and see what can be done? An editor has been using sockpuppets to continually remove referenced information which he disagrees with. It appears this removal had been going on for years and not only involves numerous sockpuppets but also legal threats.

For example, in 2006 the editor Israel Legal removed the disputed section per this edit. Using this sockpuppet this user claimed to be an attorney who was protesting the insertion of this information (see this edit for more).

A few weeks ago I edited the article to reinsert this information. This editor reappeared as Dante19 and began removing the information yet again. When two other admins became involved in the editing dispute (Orange Mike and SarekOfVulcan), Dante 19 "gave up" and was immediately replaced by the sockpuppet User:NYlegal1 who claimed that the information in the article is a "fabrication and libelous" even though the article quotes directly from newspapers like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. NYLegal1 was warned by an admin about using legal threats (see the user's talk page).

Because I am involved in this editorial dispute, it would not be appropriate for me to warn or block this user for sockpuppetry and legal threats. Thanks for any assistance. If I'd known the back history of this article and how much irritation all this would cause I probably would not have ever edited it. Ah well.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in this issue as I can see why it is so contentious. I read the article once and I must say I think its an extremely poor editorial decision to include the criminal allegations in the article, especially before he trial is concluded - This is material that can have extremely damaging impact on the persons life - I would not want the responsibility for the potetntial suffering that including this information might cause the subject on my shoulders, especially if he turns out to be innocent. I think this is a complete failure of editors to take the possible real life consequences of their wikipedia editing into account. Just because something is verifiable that doesn't mean we have to include it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• For a charge of this nature which has not been brought to trial after ten years nor attracted really widespread comment . I think BLP needs to be considered, and this should be moved to the BLP noticeboard. I would be inclined to call it disproportionate negative coverage. unrelated to notability. I recognize the possible counter-argument that the coverage at this point does him no harm, and excluding it might possibly do him harm, but I'd need to see a discussion showing that very clearly to go along with that. Otherwise, my suggestion would be to remove, revision-delete, and protect if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I think the sockpuppeteering and legal threats might be an indicator that it is hurting someone.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a subject which has gained a ton of news coverage over the years and, it should be noted, the trial is still going on. The article could have included many more very in-depth news articles if we desired; it appears previous editors felt using all of the news articles as references were overkill. The editors have also bent over backward to include the defendant's side of the story and to keep the article NPOV. BLP does not mean that anything negative on a person must never be included because it may hurt someone's feelings. Wikipedia is about providing correct, reliable information. But if people want to take this to the BLP discussion board I'd be happy to go along with that. But the main problem is that this one editor simply wants this information removed and is using sockpuppets and legal threats to accomplish that instead of discussing the issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I'm done with any further edit attempts on this article. I've reverted it to NYlegal1's previous version and if he wants to delete all this information that's an issue for others to deal with. As it reads now the article is definitely not NPOV since it's all from the defendent's POV, but I have no desire to keep going back and forth on this issue. And if people truly feel that it goes against BLP to have this information in the article, then I support removing it.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I just unarchived this thread, because the dispute is ongoing. NYlegal1 requested "create protection" on the article. I declined, but SlimVirgin protected it, and then reverted to the last version before NYlegal1's latest revert, calling it the "consensus version" and pointing the disputants to the talkpage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That does sound reasonable, although I would have thought semi-protection would have done the job. Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

An AFD in need of help

This AFD is under attack from a number of sock puppets, that have been changing user's !votes [77]

Is it possible someone could add the appropriate templates explaining this isn't a headcount and I believe there is a template that notifies the closing admin whether a !voting user is new to Wikipedia, could someone add them please. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If the users are marked (ideally, even if they aren't) the closing admin should take their opinions against the actual guidelines and policies anyhow. The number of editors is not so unmanageable as to render useful examination moot (yet). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, I warned User:Bluegal and have notified them of this discusson. I, personally, don't think anything more is needed at the moment. Ravendrop 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Drop another note here if they continue to change the !votes of others. But as long as it doesn't keep up, we are loathe to sprotect AfDs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

24.61.171.248

24.61.171.248 is making personal attacks at Talk:Glenn Beck. It looks like the IP is that of a user who is blocked for socking. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#Gaming the system and canvassing. Should be blocked for block evasion or repeated personal attacks. The personal attacks are commenting on the contributor and not the content.[78]

By the way, my old tricks involve agreeing that some sort of wording describing the fears of the possibility of inciting violence is possible to add to the article and that CNN should be used if it says the same thing as Media matters.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP admits to being a blocked editor on their talk page.[79]Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48hrs for block evasion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New user AfD'ing Transformers articles

Resolved

- sock indef blocked.

This one seems very familiar, but I can't recall from where. Brand new user Underween (talk · contribs) has jumped right in sending Transformers related articles to AfD, including several that only exist in user space [80] [81]. Anyone remember this MO? Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cow of Pain? Reyk _YO! 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • PS- I have notified Underween of this thread. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Last time it was User:Matthewignash (now renamed), who was a sock of Wiki brah. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Is that the same user as Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and if so, why is it still editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No, that was another Wiki brah sock, that was blocked for impersonating Mathewignash (note the extra t). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 08:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there several independent sockmasters infesting the Transformers articles, or is it all just one guy? Editor XXV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockmaster, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I know other information which I know this is Wiki brah (Not going into any detail per WP:BEANS). –MuZemike 08:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Without getting too much into outing or external drama, there is evidence elsewhere on the Internet that Wiki brah and Decepticon Shockwave/XXV are separate individuals cooperating with one another. They are both using sock puppets to attack Transformers articles, but they aren't the same person. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. Don't give the game away. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they've disclosed their plans on-wiki here. –MuZemike 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, what a bunch of losers. If my life was centered around vandalizing Wikipedia (and simply being reverted) to this degree I wouldn't be bragging about it... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Especially when it's over a line of action-figure toys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dadeville, Alabama

Resolved

 – IP editor has not reverted again since the 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

68.239.242.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems dead-set on putting the name of the dude who allegedly poisoned Auburn's oaks in the article about the man's hometown, Dadeville, Alabama. Now, I know Dadeville, and it's bad enough there that it doesn't need this (the letters they write from there to our local paper are something else). The man is not notable per WP:BLP1E, and so his inclusion as a notable person is completely unwarranted. The IP, by now, is convinced that I am whitewashing the article etc. etc.; you've heard it before. They restored that stuff again; I'm at 3R and I'm tired of it.

Incidentally, I posted a note at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about the underlying issue (mentioning the man in the first place, as a subject), but there are no takers there yet; I don't even think that he should be mentioned in Auburn Tigers or Auburn Tigers football, but I'm going to stay away from it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I may have said a bad word to that IP. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll monitor the articles and the user's contribs. I recommend an admin block the user and put semi-protection on the effected articles just so no one else gets the bright idea to do the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reported them to AN3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The best discussion of this is now happening at WP:BLPN#Auburn Tigers football#Toomer's Corner. The IP editor has not reverted again since the 3RR warning. Any resumption of the same thing is likely to earn an edit-warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

An IP has repeatedly posted inappropriate canvassing messages at WP Turkey:[82]

I have warned him on his talkpage about the canvassing[83] But he keeps on posting it.

He also keeps on removing information from the Hatay Province article:[84] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The incident came to my notice at WP:AIV when the IP editor 69.175.10.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for comment deletion and non-neutral edits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey. The IP editor's comments on the project Discussion page are not in English, so I'm not able to read what was written. The incident seems to be a heated content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No violation here. Posting a note to a project talk page is specifically mentioned as acceptable in Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran it through google translate: "Friends, Hatay Province, the page can look a little bitDid he? Written by Arab nationalists, propaganda here, too." "Republic of Hatay on the Syrian propaganda page looks like. Where are the Turkish nation?"

The messages is clearly biased and the audience is partisan. Thats Inappropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the content of that post was biased, which makes it "campaigning". I have added a follow-up note to the editor's talk page. I have also removed the notice. (I was going to replace it with a neutral invitation to participate in an article-talk-page discussion, but at present there is no such discussion.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree as to all. SD -- it would be helpful next time if you were to share the content of the message, and the gravamen of your complaint, in your initial post. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New user AfD'ing Transformers articles

Resolved

- sock indef blocked.

This one seems very familiar, but I can't recall from where. Brand new user Underween (talk · contribs) has jumped right in sending Transformers related articles to AfD, including several that only exist in user space [85] [86]. Anyone remember this MO? Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cow of Pain? Reyk _YO! 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • PS- I have notified Underween of this thread. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Last time it was User:Matthewignash (now renamed), who was a sock of Wiki brah. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Is that the same user as Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and if so, why is it still editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No, that was another Wiki brah sock, that was blocked for impersonating Mathewignash (note the extra t). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 08:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there several independent sockmasters infesting the Transformers articles, or is it all just one guy? Editor XXV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockmaster, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I know other information which I know this is Wiki brah (Not going into any detail per WP:BEANS). –MuZemike 08:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Without getting too much into outing or external drama, there is evidence elsewhere on the Internet that Wiki brah and Decepticon Shockwave/XXV are separate individuals cooperating with one another. They are both using sock puppets to attack Transformers articles, but they aren't the same person. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. Don't give the game away. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they've disclosed their plans on-wiki here. –MuZemike 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, what a bunch of losers. If my life was centered around vandalizing Wikipedia (and simply being reverted) to this degree I wouldn't be bragging about it... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Especially when it's over a line of action-figure toys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dadeville, Alabama

Resolved

 – IP editor has not reverted again since the 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

68.239.242.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems dead-set on putting the name of the dude who allegedly poisoned Auburn's oaks in the article about the man's hometown, Dadeville, Alabama. Now, I know Dadeville, and it's bad enough there that it doesn't need this (the letters they write from there to our local paper are something else). The man is not notable per WP:BLP1E, and so his inclusion as a notable person is completely unwarranted. The IP, by now, is convinced that I am whitewashing the article etc. etc.; you've heard it before. They restored that stuff again; I'm at 3R and I'm tired of it.

Incidentally, I posted a note at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about the underlying issue (mentioning the man in the first place, as a subject), but there are no takers there yet; I don't even think that he should be mentioned in Auburn Tigers or Auburn Tigers football, but I'm going to stay away from it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I may have said a bad word to that IP. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll monitor the articles and the user's contribs. I recommend an admin block the user and put semi-protection on the effected articles just so no one else gets the bright idea to do the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reported them to AN3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The best discussion of this is now happening at WP:BLPN#Auburn Tigers football#Toomer's Corner. The IP editor has not reverted again since the 3RR warning. Any resumption of the same thing is likely to earn an edit-warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

An IP has repeatedly posted inappropriate canvassing messages at WP Turkey:[87]

I have warned him on his talkpage about the canvassing[88] But he keeps on posting it.

He also keeps on removing information from the Hatay Province article:[89] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The incident came to my notice at WP:AIV when the IP editor 69.175.10.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for comment deletion and non-neutral edits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey. The IP editor's comments on the project Discussion page are not in English, so I'm not able to read what was written. The incident seems to be a heated content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No violation here. Posting a note to a project talk page is specifically mentioned as acceptable in Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran it through google translate: "Friends, Hatay Province, the page can look a little bitDid he? Written by Arab nationalists, propaganda here, too." "Republic of Hatay on the Syrian propaganda page looks like. Where are the Turkish nation?"

The messages is clearly biased and the audience is partisan. Thats Inappropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the content of that post was biased, which makes it "campaigning". I have added a follow-up note to the editor's talk page. I have also removed the notice. (I was going to replace it with a neutral invitation to participate in an article-talk-page discussion, but at present there is no such discussion.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree as to all. SD -- it would be helpful next time if you were to share the content of the message, and the gravamen of your complaint, in your initial post. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass link moving from Brain to Human brain by User:Nono64

Please see: User talk:Nono64#Regarding changes from brain to human brain.

Nono64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a huge number of edits, changing internal links from Brain to Human brain. In many cases, these edits have introduced factual inaccuracies that are extremely obvious. As one representative example, this edit: [90] made the link go to "human brain" in a sentence that actually says, explicitly, "all mammals". There are many, many, other such edits, most of which have been reverted by a variety of other editors.

After a large number of such edits on 17 February, several editors asked Nono64, in the user talk section linked above, to stop and be more careful. Nono64 replied with a "who cares?" [91], and resumed making numerous further such edits today, in a manner that suggests WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that something can be done to reign in these indiscriminate and disruptive edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User notified: [92]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In my comment in that section (approximately the third or fourth different editor to dispute the edit pattern), which had continued after previous editors' complaints there, I included a note about potentially getting block for disruptive edits. There have been no more edits in the past short while since then. I was hesitant to blanket revert the changes since some look viable and others I don't have expertise to evaluate, but on the whole the pattern of apparently blindly/indiscriminantly changing brain->human brain and blowing off numerous others' complaints about it is a problem. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Even fictional brains. Perhaps Nono64 would like to go through and check all the edits himself as it doesn't appear he checked them when he made them. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I too feel that this really needs to be stopped. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In the time since I left a notification on the user's talk about this ANI thread, Nono64 has made approximately 200 more edits (apparently automated). None of them seems to involve brain, but there has been no response of any sort here, nor at his user talk, nor any self-reversion of the disputed edits. In my opinion, this is not adequate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He has a note on his page that he is "one of the 400 most active Wikipedians" and that he has "made over 75,000 contributions to Wikipedia" which demonstrates the harm done with a blind obsession to making as many edits as possible, as fast as possible, without looking closely at whether the edits are useful. He neglects the time wasted by other editors following around and cleaning up his inappropriate edits. Edison (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By now, it's pretty unambiguous what the consensus is amongst those editors who have commented here. Is it time to take some sort of action? Should an administrator issue a block until Nono64 acknowledges the problem and demonstrates an intention to remedy it? Should an RfC/U be started? Should we start discussing a community ban? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. He stopped with the brain edits, not for the asking, but after he was very firmly warned. But he did stop. Has he done this kind of thing before? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a reoccurring trend for Nono64. I had made a comment on his talk page (see User talk:Nono64#Repetitive linking of Human Eye) nearly ten days before the first comment about the brain edits. At that point, the current problem was the linking of 'human eye' in lieu of 'eye'. My comment received no response and was prompted by his repeating the linkage after my revert (see: diff). From a quick glance through his contribs, it appears that these are not isolated events and Nono64 seems reluctant to change his behavior. Vindicata (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point I think it's worth looking into whether these are assisted edits or an unauthorized bot. --King Öomie 09:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

About Fainites' point about not-punitive, I do understand that, really. However, it seems to me to be inadequate for Nono64 to simply move on to another area without any real indication of understanding the problem. It's as if that's a way to game the system. I'd be satisfied with a simple statement of acknowledging the concerns of other editors and of intent to be more careful in the future, but we don't have that—indeed more like the opposite. Vindicata is right, and Nono's user talk is full of these kinds of concerns, including an unanswered complaint from an IP after the human brain thread. As Kingoomieiii says, maybe this is a matter of shutting down Nono's use of some sort of bot until the issue can be cleared up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction when I checked his contribs and when the reverted linkage was redone. Given that there is no indication in the edits summaries nor his user page that he uses a bot/script, I had come to the conclusion that he is not using either. However, now that I am double checking his contribs, I notice that, for example, in early February (see: here) he made continuous edits at a rate of 1-2 per minute with identical edit summaries and almost identical types of edits for long periods of time. This is a behavior is seen repeatedly, though with different types of edits. I have trouble believing that a user could make all of these edits on so many different pages with such speed without some use of a script or bot. If there is no use of assistance, the editing is almost obsessive to the point of ignoring the concerns of other editors. Either way, I believe this falls under the case of WP:MEATBOT. Vindicata (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on how long it took me to revert, I cannot imagine how anyone could do these kinds of edits so fast entirely manually. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A few lines above, I asked whether we should consider any of three possible courses of action. Personally, my opinion is that a block by an administrator, just until Nono64 acknowledges the situation and makes a commitment to be more careful in the future, would have been the most efficient use of everyone's time and effort. But I think the silence from administrators is actually a pretty clear reply to my question, and I can accept that. I'm going to keep an eye on this user, and if these kinds of edits re-emerge, I will start an RfC/U. I just want to say now, before this thread gets archived, that I hope that other editors who have commented here will consider participating in that RfC/U, when and if it happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I noted the possibility of a block when I commented on his talk-page about the brain edits. So if he does it again in this or another genre, he could be blocked to prevent the obvious likely disruption of doing it again after that, as it would be evidence that he is prone to doing this repeatedly, against WP:CONSENSUS and despite warnings to stop. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let me ask what you think about Vindicata's point about the "eye" linking having already been another genre. Do we see repetition already, then? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do see a pattern, and as I've said, it's a terrible one. My key is that this is the first occurance where anyone has said he's been warned about a future block for it. I'm not up for instablocking without warning. But if it happens again, I would be up for block because he (now) knows that it's not just "they'll whine on my talkpage and then I'll ignore it" and also for blanket revert of it (appears we've been undoing them piecemeal in most recent event). I'd be happy to revise my position if someone else finds where someone has mentioned the blockability to him before...I didn't look into his talk-page history. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I slogged back through Nono64's talk archives to double check block warnings. He has been warned 3 times total, 13 Aug 2008 and 21 Sept 2009 (both for non-consensus moves of articles after being told repeatedly not to) and 18 Feb 2011 (by DMacks). He was blocked twice, first on 21 Sept 2009 for 24 hours, then two days later (23 Sept 2009) the block was accidentally extended for a week then reverted. What concerns me is that, for example, in 2009 he had over 90 RfD's on articles he had created while also have numerous requests for him to not move articles without consensus. Early on (ie, 2008), he seems to generally respond to the messages on his talk page about these actions but as things progressed (2009-) there is less and less acknowledgement by Nono64. My impression is that, despite warnings and attempts by other editors to inform him of policy, he has ramped up his number of edits in flagrant disregard of policy. I think it is very telling that there has been no response to several messages about his mass linking (mine included) and in User talk:Nono64#Regarding changes from brain to human brain, he responded twice, once to semi-justify himself and the other to say "Who really cares of animal reelin?". He has also not made a single response to this ANI report and continues his level of edits. I am curious what percentage of his edits are ultimately reverted due to his ignoring consensus. Vindicata (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(Yeah, there's a lot of "slogging" to be done here, alas.) I see what DMacks means now, and that makes very good sense now that I understand it. So from Vindicata's search, it sounds like the previous warnings were leading to the previous blocks, and DMacks' recent warning is the first since then. I share Vindicata's assessment of the inadequacy of Nono64's responses. Is that, then, where we now stand? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DMacks. He's been warned can be taken to have read this ANI.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring + WPavoidYou etc.

From 18:12, February 20, 2011 through 19:42, February 20, 2011 DonaldDuck performed 18 subsequent edits and deletions in the article Ivan Dumbadze. For 16 of them no explanations for the removal were provided while two others were dubious.

On 20:55, 20 February 2011 I warned DonaldDuck, asking him "to explain the reasons for each edit".

In his reply DonaldDuck, in particular blamed me that "Your article " article is "full of Wikipedia:Original research", which is an exact WP:NPA case (WP:AVOIDYOU allows to say "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research").

Instead of properly explaining his actions, on 05:18, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck reverted his unmotivated edits back. His comment "Cherurbino, do not revert dozens of edits without discussion" was stylistically aggressive (again WP:AVOIDYOU), if not to say that initially it was DonaldDuck who boldly deleted and edited large portions of the article.

Only after that, on 05:53, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck posted a set of claims at the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze page. None of them was supported with citations' requests in-line templates in the article itself — DonaldDuck never uses this Wikipedia:Dispute resolution tool, which is also far for being a friendly WP:ETIQ manner.

On 11:05, 21 February 2011 I placed a second warning on User talk:DonaldDuck page. Besides this warning, in a search of consensus, I proposed DonaldDuck, in particular, to «use the talk page to specify exactly: what, in your own opinion, "is not supported by references" I've provided. Requests for sources are also appreciated in a form of templates "citation nedded"».

Anyway, on 15:29, February 21, 2011 I promised DonaldDuck to answer each of claims to an article he published within a reasonable time.

However, instead of waiting for my reply, on 15:36, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck came with another 21 series of edits. They lasted for more than an hour, up to 16:52. Inter alia, it created the technical obstacles for me, for due to systematic edit conflicts I could not improve the article myself.

Thus I see no will for a dispute on the side of DonaldDuck. His arbitrary edits are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith, since an author is persistent in imposing his own text, sources and in censoring out abstracts which did not suit him, although they do not go beyond what is considered to be appropriate in Wikipedia.

Thus I am forced to revert all these 21 edits of DonaldDuck again. I also kindly ask to give a relevant evaluation of DonaldDuck behaviour within local regulations of Wikipedia. I also ask anybody to provide a required impact upon DonaldDuck meaning to invite him to a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article concerned instead of WP:EDITWARRING. Thank you, Cherurbino (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor you've been interacting with is "DonaldDuck" (with no space), not "Donald Duck" (with a space). I've corrected your links above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correction; sorry for I did not check by clicking back on a {{u|DonaldDuck}} I used. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute. Donald Duck's edits appear not to be "arbitrary", but in large part to be removing unsourced POV statements - the statements may be true, but they need to be sourced. While DD may be trying to "sanitize" the article, Cherubino is exhibiting ownership behavior, understandable because he or she created the article. It would probably be better if both editors took things a little more slowly, and instead of making large changes and large reverts, dealt with the problems in each section one by one by discussion on the article's talk page, and avoiding "warning" each other on user talk, something which usually just gets an editor's hackles up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and unreservedly support your proposal to take things a little more slowly. It was not the WP:OWN case; the reason of my claim was that DonaldDuck did not listen to my appeals for a productive discussion. And was too quick in his deletions; not waiting for my appeals to wait for improvements.
The list of claims' signed by DonaldDuck appeared on Talk:Ivan Dumbadze retrospectively. And even after I expressed readiness to rewiew these claims, one by one, DonaldDuck again ignored this proposal and started re-editing again. I cannot name this approach as "constructive". Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I also note that DonaldDuck posted two comments about the changes they made to the article talk page, and Cherubino chose not to engage in discussion there, but went instead to the user's talk page. Also, the article reads as if if might be translated from another language -- it need a good going-over by a competent copy-editor to bring the writing up to snuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "DonaldDuck posted twog comments" — let me again emphasize the retrospectiveness of this action. Later, due to edit conflicts which lasted for >1.5 hour when DonaldDuck made 21 edits ("technical" WP:OWN?) I physically could not improve anything, for the text I saw was divverent each time. However, by now I've responded to most of the claims of DonaldDuck at the article talk page. Some of items need further clarification by claimer. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "article reads as if if might be translated from another language " — sorry, this is my English language. Sorry if it seems bad to you. Unfortunately I can't exactly guess what "bring the writing up to snuff" means, but I hope that does not assume any suspicions. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no suspicions. "Not up to snuff" is a colloquial expression meaning "Not up to standards". The language of the article is stilted and does not conform to normal English constructions. If you create other articles, I recommend that you run them by other editors first before adding them to article space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that it's quite a stretch to consider "your article is full of original research" a personal attack, while at the same time considering that "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research" is not. We don't need to tread that lightly around here.--Atlan (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the paragraph of WP:AVOIDYOU was edited today, but the statement I meant remained unchanged. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to the point that personal attacks are not the central problem in this issue. What really matters more, is the whole non-constructive way which the opponent has chosen in pursuance of his WP:GOODFAITH to improve the article. You may see on the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze that I've already started to eliminate defects; that I scrupulously reply at each of claims (even when some of them are repeated twice). Hope that DonaldDuck shall also support this academic manner. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see your replies at the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze and will not make any big edits to this article without first discussing it with you at the talk page.--DonaldDuck (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I am missing something, this user was placed on 1RR restriction [93] (which he now violated), engaged in sockpuppetry and twice blocked indefinitely [94]. Biophys (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  I made only one revert. There was no violation of restristion, even considering my 1RR restriction is still active (it was made 2 years ago by admin, who is now desysopped).

  User:Biophys is currently topic banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles. --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that I have anything to do with this complaint by Cherurbino? No, I warned him [95] looking at your edit wars in other articles. Are you telling that you did not edit war? Here it is: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, during 24 hours. I just wanted to say that you must be very careful. Biophys (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am careful. Two of your diffs are identical, and of remaining 2, only 1 was revert. Now I am not doing any edits, I will wait until Cherurbino replies to issues raised at the talk page. --DonaldDuck (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Article written by Cherurbino had serious WP:NPOV issues, it was strongly agains Dumbadze and close to WP:Attack page.
• Some parts of the article were not supported by sources, some mixed facts in the sources with Cherurbino's own analysis and opinions about events. I will list such WP:OR pieces at article's talk page.
• I made some bold edits, probably I had to make better edit summaries and use talk page to explain my edits earlier.
• I have to note, that Cherurbino at first did not reply at the article talk page, he reverted all 18 of my edits and placed warning at my talk page, accusing me of vandalism. It appears that now, Cherurbino agreed with some of my edits, which he initially reverted. --DonaldDuck (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Now I will not make any big changes to the article, without discussing it first at the talk page. --DonaldDuck (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

(a copy of my message at User talk:DonaldDuck)
Hello, DonaldDuck! I appreciate the steps you've made towards consensus about the disputable article. First of all, I mean your long list of complaints etc. on the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze. That's what is appreciated in Wikipedia.

I've just started with this list. It shall take a few days, so the only thing I appeal to you is not to hurry. Surely, all your notes shall be revised in proper time. Thank you in advance for your patience. Cherurbino (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange interaction at Norwegian diaspora and Talk:Norwegian diaspora

I would like some qualified comments on the interaction I am engaged in at Norwegian diaspora and its related talkpage. I recently afd'ed the article because the concept of a notion of a Norwegian diaspora community does not exist in the literature of global diasporas, and the concept seems to be a Neologism, or at best a phrase used in a few works. The AFD was closed as a delete, but the article was recreated within an hour by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) who had commented in favor of keep based on the argument that he thought it was a notable topic. He then produced two sources that each used the term once. I see this as being in conflict with Our policy WP:NEO that states that topics must be supported by sources about the term, not just topics that use the term. I have tried to argue this point and that specifically the population of Iceland and the Faroe Islands cannot be included in the socalled "Norwegian diaspora" because they have none of the traits that usually define a diaspora and because they migrated 800 years before the creation of the modern state of Norway and have since made their own nation. I thought I made a rather well argued and well mannered response but Richard Arthur Norton has rejected my reasoning and appeal to policy by saying that I am simply stating my opinion and that his source (an Australian professor of Poetry - not a sociologist or expert in Norway or Diaspora or migration) firmly establishes that he is right. Mr. Norton and I have both been editwarring about this - I admit that. (I reverted once yesterdayand twice today, he has reverted three times today and weirdly proceeded to issue me a 3rr warning). But I would like some extra eyes on whether or not my interpretations of policy are sound, and whether his use of personal commentary (forexample calling me "Essjay") is reasonable. Extra eeyes and opinions is what I ask.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no article at Norwegian diaspora, there was a chart, and that was moved to List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country and that was deleted. This left no article for Norwegian diaspora so I created a stub from scratch. The argument is whether a term used since 1986 is a neologism, and whether Norway is somehow exempt from the concept of Category:Diasporas with 245 entries. This isn't an article on the definition of "diaspora" and should incorporate all the synonyms for diaspora such as emigration and immigration. A diaspora is a dispersed population that maintains some ties to their native culture through language or religion or food. As for mentioning an event that occurred 800 years before the modern state of Norway, well, all articles on countries begin long before the modern state was formed. The article on Egypt doesn't start on June 18, 1953, but 8,000 years earlier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in the last statement - but have provided no evidence that the population of Iceland live up to that definition. You also have not adressed my arguments related to the RS and WP:NEO policies. And you also have not apologized for your personal attacks comparing me with the Essjay, suggesting that I am faking my credential. Also you say that the phrase has been used since 1986 - there are exactly 16 sources that use the phrase in google scholar - none of them have the "Norwegian diaspora" as their topic but use the phrase in a different context. As for the start of articles about countries that is one thing - but you are explicitly trying to include viking expansion in 800 as part of a supposed Norwegian diaspora. You say that Norwegian diaspora was not deleted- that is ok, I just nominated it now then.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You aren't faking credentials since you haven't offered any, Essjay was much more complex than fake credentials. He argued that he was correct through personal knowledge that trumped reliable sources. His fake credentials were just icing on the cake revealed much later when he worked for Wikia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RAN also began a WP:DRV of the close here before recreating the article. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Coming in as extra eyes and and a novice opinion, I think that Maunus (having filed 2 AfDs and this ANI against RAN, going so far as to canvass Griswaldo, presumably based on his talk page comment to !vote on the latest AfD) needs to cool down. The project here is to write encyclopedia articles. RAN seems to be working on writing an article that quite a few people think belongs in Wikipedia, while Maunus seems to be working to frustrate RAN. Sharktopus^talk 02:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. canvassing is not a single friendly notice in neutral language. And I didn't even mention an afd iun the notice. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not canvassing. After I commented on the Norwegian talk page, he pointed out to me on my talk page that the entries have similar problems. Then he nominated the second for deletion as well. I hadn't voiced an opinion on either AfD at that time. Meanwhile RAN stalked his way over to the Swedish AfD, then announced to a keep happy crowd at the other AfD that Maunus had also nominated that article for deletion. Now, I couldn't care less about that fact personally, but it's rather disingenuous to sit here and make such accusations about Maunus while claiming that RAN has clean hands.Griswaldo (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions." At 21:56, Griswaldo says Norwegian diaspora should be deleted. At 22:53 and 22:56, Maunus AfDs Swedish diaspora and pings Griswaldo about Swedish diaspora. 23:04 and 23:11, Griswaldo !votes delete on Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora respectively. Maunus is the nominator and Griswaldo is the ONLY Delete !votes at Norwegian diaspora. At the time Maunus pinged Griswaldo on his talk page (22:56), there were already 3 !votes at Norwegian diaspora, all of them "Keep".

I don't recall claiming that RAN has clean hands and I don't appreciate being called disingenuous. I hope some uninvolved admin will look this over and tell Maunus and Griswaldo to stop harassing RAN and stop trying to WP:OWN the word "diaspora." The word "diaspora" is no longer reserved for groups that were dispossessed, enslaved, or refugeed; its usage has changed. It has changed in the real world and it has changed in Wikipedia. If you look at Dutch diaspora, it is clearly just used as a synonym for "emigration." Sharktopus^talk 06:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Harrassing RAN? Provide diffs please or strike your accusation. The fact that Dutch diaspora exists as an entry does not mean it is a commonly used expression. Someone decided to use "diaspora" in the title of all the X emigration entries, but it's not used that way in reliable sources. Look at the article you mentioned. It doesn't even use the term "diaspora" in the opening sentence of the lead, nor does it use the term anywhere in the entry. Why do you think that is? Probably because not a single source used in the entry does either. That fact signals a very large problem with the article title. I'm afraid this might be a much larger issue than the Norwegian page.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your accusation of vote-stacking, he did not notify me of the AfD, he notified me of a related topic to the one I had already commented on. I then noticed the AfD tag on that page. This is no more vote-stacking than any other tangential highlighting of a page at AfD, like, let's say tagging an article for rescue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dutch diaspora" does not need to be a commonly used expression unless "foo diaspora" falls under WP:NEO, which Griswaldo and Maunus assert but nobody else agrees with. I just started an article called "Lunar rhythms in biological systems" which is about a real phenomenon many scholars have discussed, although some said they were talking about "lunar cycles" and others about "lunar influence", etc. etc. It is permissible to use the word "diaspora" as a shortcut synonym for "emigration that results in emigrant communities." Dictionaries use it that way, people use it that way, and Wikipedia uses it that way. The editors of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas do not own the word "diaspora," and neither does anyone else fighting a rearguard action to keep it to its prior meaning. There is by the way an entire book called The Dutch Diaspora, which according to its page on Amazon uses the term to describe the former Dutch empire.

I don't know if "harassing" has some wikimeaning beyond "engaging in repeated unpleasant encounters with and saying unpleasant things about in public places," but I will happily strike that part of my comment in the interests of harmony. It seems to me from the tone of the comments by all three parties to this argument -- Maunus, Griswaldo, and RAN -- that some degree of personal animosity is being shown that is not benefiting any of their abilities to collaborate with the others on writing an encyclopedia. I am confident that Maunus, Griswaldo, and RAN are all excellent people and good Wikipedia editors, it also seems to me that they would benefit from staying away from each other for a while.

I agree that the word "vote-stacking" is a harsh way to describe Maunus' notification of Griswaldo. I used it only to highlight the part of the canvassing policy I think was relevant, notifying somebody whose views are already known. Griswaldo and Maunus assert it was not canvassing. Perhaps they are right, but it still looks like canvassing to me.Sharktopus^talk 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono removing comments, threatening editors

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

Please review the following:

• Questionable removal of "personal attack" under the guise of "vandalism"
• Immediate bullyish warning for questionable "personal attack"
• Bullyish, unwarranted civility warning (later rescinded after he realized he was wrong)
• Another removal of "personal attack" because of "blocked user" (?!)

This, in addition to his caustic abuse of other editors on talk pages... Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to feel bad for removing personal attacks from a blocked user (see the thread above this where thew blocking thread and the verification to being blocked are linked) So what is the point of this ANI? I misread your comment. Reread it and felt stupid so struck out my note on the talk page and apologized on yours.[96] Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake and apologized to you but I am within the standards here to strike or remove comments from a blocked user while also am able to notify disruptive IPs of uncivil behavior. End of story. Sorry you got caught up in it but get over it.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any of this as rising to a level sufficient to warrant an AN/I report (sorry, Blax), let along action. Blax -- if you have a view, why don't you raise it to Cpt on his/her talk page? Frankly, I don't see much here, and can from the above anticipate Cpt's response, but this seems like needless drama. We all have more pressing matters to address, I expect.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I of course agree, but just to reiterate, I do feel like a dick for the "warning"/notification given to Blax. I misread his comment as saying I had a POV when he was simply saying POV on the part of the source. I did jump the gun there. But the apology was made before this was even opened so it is a little frustrating. I also still believe a paragraph on the content being suggested is appropriate. No one has provided any wording but only sources so that is a good next step. We done here?Cptnono (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

When I see what I believe to be questionable behavior from editors, most especially when it involves repeatedly removing others' talk page comments, I usually post it to ANI for outside review. I wouldn't usually be so quick to pull the trigger, but in this case the editor was falsely accusing me of personal attacks and threatening to remove my comments (when I knew no such personal attack exists) at the same time he was aggressively removing others' comments. Glad it all worked out, but I still think his repeated removal of others' comments is inappropriate. To Cptnono, I appreciate the apology but I still have a problem with your shtick of immediately claiming to be the victim of a personal attack, and threatening to remove others' comments; it reeks of bullying and ownership. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake and apologized to you but I am within the standards here to strike or remove comments from a blocked user while also am able to notify disruptive IPs of uncivil behavior. End of story. Sorry you got caught up in it but get over it.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by banned users can be reverted on site, removing two of the above IP's comments attacking him is not "aggressively removing others' comments". Cptnono clearly apologized for misreading your comment and warning you to be civil before this AnI, accusations of bullying are not appropiate.AerobicFox (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would urge, unless there is any cogent disagreement, that this be marked closed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the only mistake that was made was corrected and an apology issued. I see no need for any admin action here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Achmednut321

Resolved

 – for a week anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am currently in a conflict with editor called Achmednut321 (talk · contribs) over content regarding the List of Mad episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The editor insists to add unsourced information regarding the status of a new season and grammatical and spelling arrangements of episode titles. The source currently being used, TV Guide, only verifies that the show is still only within it's first season and that episode 13, the source of the dispute, list listed with a particular spelling. I have asked this editor multiple times on both theirs and article's talk pages stop adding such information, but they have ignored me, re-adding it, making it's out there claims, and insisting to unreliable sources.

First there was instance regarding the Cartoon Network website, which I have been openly against using. I have stated reasoning for being against using the site due to the fact that the site only verifies current information regarding their programing and never archives their information. This current information only good for seven days, then they remove it. As it stands Cartoon Network is no longer advertising a new season, but just new episodes. TV Guide, however, archives it's information crucial for verifying information that is or becomes dated. In response to this, Achmednut has tried to discredit the site by calling out supposed title errors. I brought this before the reliable sources board who verified that this had no effect with it's reliability.

Then they insist using TV.com. I have told that this is not a reliable, yet they have insist that it is regardless of of the fact that I have explained to them why it is unreliable. Now they are making claims that a Mad issue verifies what they are claiming. Despite explaining to them that making claims without sourcing, they still try to re-add unsourced information.

There is also an identical dispute with the IP:98.165.140.193 who has been theorized to be Achmednut321 logged off, due to their edit history, their refusal to sign their comments, and the fact that the editor would allow the IP to edit their user page. I brought this to Achmednut's attention which they naturally denied it. Sarujo (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: It appears that Achmednut has been block for one week for making attacks on my person here and here which were reverted. Yet they managed to get out this declaration before getting blocked. Sarujo (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User interfering with AfD

Resolved

 – User directed to WP:TPO, has committed not to make further such edits. –xeno^talk 19:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Maheshkumaryadav (talk · contribs) is editing the comments of other people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution‎‎. As I am involved with regard to the AfD and related controversies, I would like to leave it to others to take or initiate appropriate measures.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now i am aware of the rules, I will not be interfering with Afds in future. Thats my promise. Thanks--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

24.l77.120.74 account deletion request

Can somone please delete this user account and talk page of user:24.l77.120.74 ? I created it and it is no longer required. It was the subject of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams/Archive at this URL [97]. thank you for your help. Francis E Williams (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't required in the first place, so I think it should stay as it is, block notices and all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

{{db-author}} the userpage, nothing of use there, but I agree that the talk page should remain. GiantSnowman 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate blanking by User:Me-123567-Me

Me-123567-Me (talk · contribs) has, on two occasions now, tried to delete lists of university alumni because they are not currently sourced, not because they cannot be sourced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni (closed as keep, with no !votes in support of nom), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni (pending, currently no !votes in support of nom). The consensus in both is that the sourcing is completely fixable, the information is not negative or contentious so it's not a BLP concern that would require immediate blanking (particularly since not every entry is living) per WP:BLPDELETE, and per WP:DEADLINE we're not going to delete the lists just because that sourcing has not yet occurred.

Despite that, Me-123567-Me recently blanked List of University of British Columbia alumni, removing all but two entries for which there were citations.[98] I undid this, restoring the removed entry.[99] Me-123567-Me responded by reverting to his blanked version,[100] and by warning me on my talk page that I am edit warring and am in danger of violating WP:3RR,[101] when I only ever made the one edit to the list.

His improper warning made me think that it would be more productive to bring the issue here to a wider forum. While, of course, the list should be improved by adding references and inline citations, it should not be blanked in the meantime. I think the blanking of the list (and both AFD noms, to be honest) is disruptive, WP:POINTY, contrary to the consensus in both AFDs, contrary to WP:BLPDELETE ("Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.") (emphasis added), and contrary to Wikipedia:Deletion#Editing ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."). See also this ongoing Village pump discussion, where the consensus is clear that we don't enforce WP:V by mechanically removing all content that is currently without references, especially where it is clear that it can be sourced. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Me-123567-Me is correct. See WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states that people on stand along lists must have either their own wikipage or a reliable source to establish their notability, as well as a source (the same or another one) showing that the person is a member of that group. Unless those names have such sources or a wikipage, they should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Without sources, you cannot even say that such material is "not a BLP concern", because you don't know who you're saying it about. Blanking such material does not make the history unavailable, so the list can trivially be restored if it's sourceable, but in the meantime the onus is on the person who wants such material included to justify that inclusion. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

L&S - "...must have either their own wikipage..." Based on the list prior to blanking the vast majority are blue links - that is they have a Wikipedia page. If the page lists them as an alumnus of a school, WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied. And again, mass removal with out appearing to review that is disruptive and in this case, with the editor doing the blanking having been the one to nom the page for deletion, POINTED. - J Greb (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A few things I see:

• Me-123567-Me's first near blanking is indiscriminate and not supported based on the edit summary or AfD.
• If the list does involve a number of deceased people - and such lists can and likely will - then attempting to apply the BLP protocols to blank in one go without verifying which entries are for the living and which aren't is disruptive and harmful at the least. At worst it is pointed editing verging on the destructive.
• With regard to BLP - IIUC, the "pull on sight" protocol has been limited to material that is defamatory, contentious, rumor, and/or flat-out unsourcable. Of those 4, the only possible grounds here would be "contentious", and I don't see an argument being made for that.
• Normally, if there is a dispute over removal.addition of material, editors opt for WP:BRD, leaving the article in the initial state and working on the talk page. Given the AfD and the actions show, it looks like there is little chance of that being done.
• The use of a warning template to try and scare another editor. That's a biggie for me. Yes, the low level templates are routinely used at early stages of content and editing disputes. But jumping on the "Do it again and be blocked" - essentially what the 3RR template is used for - immediately is antithetical to the editing methods used on Wikipedia.

The up shot of this is that yes, the list needs work, but that's all. The deleteion looks churlish at the AfD not going through and the templating of Postdlf would be a classic example of trying to bully an editor. The correction here would be to:

1. Restore the list article to what was kept by the AfD;
2. Add a Ref/Improve tag to it;
3. Make sure Me-123567-Me clearly understands that they should not abouse warning templates in this way; and
4. Someone actually work on upgrading the list.

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the onus is on the person making the addition to the list to provide an in-line citation. None was there so I removed the entries that had no citations. They may have an article or not, but proof must be provided on the list for them to remain. No citation means they can be removed. I don't have time to look for citations for all those people, nor am I required to. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a list, first and foremost, second, any information about any individual has got to at least be cited to a reliable source. The list either needs to be a cited article or it needs to be deleted on those grounds.

Me-12356-Me is correct. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I find it hilarious how the commenters in this discussion are in direct antithesis to how the AfDs have gone and are going, which seems to indicate that the commenters here are wrong. As the OP stated, the fact that the lists have blue linked people on them implies clearly that the information can be verified with sources, which is what should be attempted to be done before removing. Indiscriminately blanking the list is counter-productive to the purpose of the list and Wikipedia. We're here to improve Wikipedia and to remove what cannot be verified or improved. A lack of even attempting to verify is clearly a wrong move and a wrong viewpoint. Silverseren^C 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly states that such information is required to be on a list of this type. If the wikipage of the people who were removed states that they went to the school in question, then they should be re-added to the list. If not, they should be taken off. The problem is that, in very many of these cases, the information is likely to be unverifiable. In many cases, we'll have no way of confirming that these people went to this school with a reliable source; in other words, you're essentially placing the burden on those who want to delete to prove a negative--to prove that they didn't go to that school. Think about the logic behind what you (those opposed to the blanking) are saying. By your logic, I can go into that article, and add any person who has a wikipage whose college is not listed on that wikipage. Then, you state that al of those names must stand in the article until we can prove they didn't go to the school. This is why its necessary to keep names off of the list and place the burden on those wanting to add names. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is a compromise. If the alumni status of a biography is sourced in the biography don't remove it from the list. That's just a little ruder than we need to be. But vainly keeping a list where no citation exists on Wikipedia in any form is clearly in violation of WP:V and nobody should get in the way of uncited contested information being removed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The issue I'm having here is that it's not clear the removed info is actually being contested. Usually per AGF and PRESERVE, we tend not to remove uncited, non-contentious stuff merely because it's uncited--"contesting" implies a reasonable belief or suspicion that the info is actually wrong, at which point the burden of citation goes to the person wanting to keep the info. I do have some concern about whether these lists are IINFO to begin with, but Me-123567-Me is editing somewhat obnoxiously, it seems to me, removing stuff for the pure sake of removing it. I also agree with Schmucky that if the person is bluelinked to a biography with cited info saying s/he went to that school, removing the name from the list is inappropriate. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got a feeling the reason that the review wasn't done is that it would take time to weed out the linked living bios w/o a reference.

Beyond that though, I've got a silly question... what does List of University of British Columbia alumni really provide that Category:University of British Columbia alumni doesn't? If the list is to be limited to actual WP articles that have a sourced mention of being an alumnus of the school, it seems redundant with the category. (Note, this does not excuse the behavior that was originaly brough here for review.)

- J Greb (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A category could only tell you those people went to the school. It would take a list to tell you when they attended, whether they graduated, and what degree they earned. The list doesn't do that at present (it only annotates with their field of notability), but it should (others do). Regardless, WP:CLN also states that mere redundancy is not a good argument for deleting one form of information in favor of another. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify my stance—if the person had a bluelink, then Me-123567-Me should have checked that bio for a source that verifies the person went to the school in question. If xe didn't feel like doing that, then I agree that people shouldn't have been removed. When I prune lists of this type, very often, I do just AGF on blue links, because checking them increases the time to make the edit by tenfold. Plus, I know that at least half of the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE are fulfilled (that is, there is evidence that the person is notable). In the case of school alumni (or TV station alumni--that's another big one for some reason), I more concerned with the addition of a large number of unlinked or red-linked people then with tracking down every single linked person—I still hold that those should be removed on sight, no questions asked. For lists involving nationality, religion, etc., then it behooves us to be extra sure, but not so much with alumni. I guess the question is whether we AGF Me-123567-Me did his/her due diligence before remove bluelinks from the lists. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're to take him at his word, he didn't check anything he blanked, because he thinks he doesn't have to before he removes content.[102] All of the list entries were bluelinks except for two (one redlink and one not linked at all, the removal of which I certainly would not have complained about). Didn't you look at the article and its edit history to check whether bluelinks were blanked, before opining on whether its blanking was correct?

Not to mention the fact that the list already passed an AFD... He nominated a list of almost entirely bluelinks at AFD on the grounds that it wasn't sourced. The AFD was closed as keep, with the consensus that sourcing could eventually be provided so the list wasn't a problem at present. He then blanked the list on the grounds that it wasn't sourced, without even checking whether it could be. That this is a problem seems pretty simple to me. He then slapped an edit warring warning template on my talk page after I undid his blanking once. That this is a problem also seems pretty simple to me. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Previously totally uninvolved editor here. As a test, I looked to see how easy/difficult it would be to source one or more, using only the target articles. I'm no great finder of external references, but even I can follow links. I quickly targeted the three former Prime Ministers listed. All three target articles mentioned their school affiliations, and one included a very decent source right on the article. I've now added that source to the List article. So that's one down. Anyway, the point of the exercise was the AGF question above as to whether any effort was made at sourcing before the blanking. Given my lack of skill at sourcing, and the ease at which even I was able to source one directly from the target article, I really, really doubt any attempt was made at sourcing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll leave them a polite note. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

• I've worked a good deal on listings like this, and as I understand it, for university alumni the standard for listing is either having a Wikipedia article or being obviously qualified for one. As for documentation, if there is a webpage, such documentation is 95% of the time in the Wikipedia article and would just need to be transferred. The other 5%, and the obviously notable enough for inclusion--usually historical figures--the material is almost always easily available, even on-line. (I note that in my experience British public school old boy status as well is usually well documented, but for high school alumni in the US, documentation except for famous figures is considerably sparser & needs to be looked for.) There. There is tow problematic types of case: where BLP rules about questionable or negative information apply: 1. where someone or their fans claims a status they are not entitled to-- but in such cases there is almost always documentation for the claim & generally the rebuttal & both must be reported. 2. when someone now prominent has attended a school that might be considered of relatively low standing, and their supporters wish to keep it out of their biography. Here, good documentation is of course essential, but if it is present , the material is of course retained. It is important not to overuse the essential principles of BLP that we certainly need by extending them to situations where they are net needed -- the net effect of this overuse will be to diminish our ability to write accurate articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with Repeated insertion of material

I would appreciate some help with Atmapuri's repeated insertion of books written by Swami Maheshwarananda, a yoga teacher. He/She insists they are Hinduism's highest priest but I'm not sure thats true. Further, I don't think this person is such a religious authority that his book should be included on every wiki page that relates to his writing.

[103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith, but I can't simply edit war on every single page he/she includes it on, so I would appreciate help in deterring this type of behavior. Thanks--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You agree he is notable, right?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the level of notability that Atmapuri is asserting he has. I'm sure he is notable for his yoga books but I disagree that he is notable for much else. Additionally my problem isn't his notability, it's that the book he keeps referencing isn't scholarly, it's a self-help/religious book.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you sought to discuss your view on the matter with the editor on a talk page, before bringing it here?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes on Talk:Guru#Discussion about notability of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in Hinduism we had something of a discussion. He/She made a straw man argument to establish the notability of this particular person to Hinduism but our discussion was supposed to be about if the information should be included in the lead of the article guru which covers multiple religions. I looked at his/her contributions page and saw the entire page filled with the difs I shared above with shady edit summaries. I attempted to continue the discussion but I don't think he or she will respond now that the page is the way he/she wants it. I felt overwhelmed because I didn't want to get into a massive edit war with someone who just has a single purpose for their account.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but there was no discussion on notability. I only got a very vague response from Profioftruth85. Please be free to check the Guru talk page. Notice that I was only restoring mentions of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda from articles which were systematically deleted by another Wikipedia user called Wikidas. This is not the same as "keep adding". What actions have Wikipedia Administrators taken to prevent this? If there is one user "Wikidas" which does not like one author he can clean the Wiki from it without any consequences? Remember that many additions that are added to many articles are a result of carefully balanced agreements and if there is one user which blindly goes forward deleting specifically only one author, this gives an upper hand to those which maybe before did not have the power to have it their way. Such behaviour therefore I think should be sanctioned. Every author which is notable can make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. That on its own is no argument. If you look in greater depth of my edits you can will find other edits also. About notability and reliable source. Note that in Hinduism nearly all notable religious persons especially the living, have published books through their own organization. They do it like that systematically and purposefully. That is not an argument for reliable or not-reliable source in this case. Atmapuri (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly questionable if this person is notable and if his books can be used as RS. Wikid^as© 08:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the insertion of this book evrywhre bordering of WP:Advertising?--SH 08:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is being used as an RS, and there is a legitimate question as to whether it can be used as an RS (and not just for an opinion), then I would suggest that this conversation be closed here, and opened by the complainant at the RSN. Right church. Wrong pew.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it's an RS, but whether it's spamming one particular person's viewpoint across multiple articles. Clearly the person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't make him notable enough to have his views and opinions take prominence in multiple articles when there are numerous qualified sources for those as already discussed in those articles. —SpacemanSpiff 09:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. Vast majority of the edits deleted by Wikidas persisted on Wikipedia without any conflicts for over 2 years. That can hardly be called spamming. If you carefully examine the edits, you can see that they add actual valued new information not provided nor existent in the articles before. The core of this issue is not the presence of references to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, but if one user like Wikidas has the right to systematically and bluntly remove them with complete disregared for the quality of the articles and their content. Can somebody please answer if this is an acceptable policy on wikipedia? Talking about numerous qualified sources: I would completely agree that reference to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is removed if there exist a secondary source which says the same thing. All edits were added to include new information and what I considered valuable at the time when they were inserted and for many of them his reference provide the only known notable reference on the topics. If you look at the article about Guru, the lede is completely without references. The one reference that does exists points to the "guru can also be considered to be a book" only. The reference from Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda provided an actual source from a notable living person with high authorithy in Hinduism about the definition and its role and value supported by historic evidence. If you have a better reference please, be so kind and provide it. Atmapuri (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, before spamming every page with this person's viewpoints, you will have to prove why his views are notable through reliable secondary sources. The person himself may be notable for an en.wiki article, but that doesn't make everything he says important or reliable enough. You've been challenged by multiple editors at different pages, so you've got to stop your spamming and find reliable sources to support the theory that his viewpoint is important in and of itself. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User: 78.12.110.175 account deletion request

Here [113] and here [114] Majuru (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you requesting here? lifebaka++ 03:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't block (not delete) IPs or accounts over minor disputes on use of foreign languages here. If there's more misbehavior, please point it out.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate blanking by User:Me-123567-Me

Me-123567-Me (talk · contribs) has, on two occasions now, tried to delete lists of university alumni because they are not currently sourced, not because they cannot be sourced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni (closed as keep, with no !votes in support of nom), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni (pending, currently no !votes in support of nom). The consensus in both is that the sourcing is completely fixable, the information is not negative or contentious so it's not a BLP concern that would require immediate blanking (particularly since not every entry is living) per WP:BLPDELETE, and per WP:DEADLINE we're not going to delete the lists just because that sourcing has not yet occurred.

Despite that, Me-123567-Me recently blanked List of University of British Columbia alumni, removing all but two entries for which there were citations.[115] I undid this, restoring the removed entry.[116] Me-123567-Me responded by reverting to his blanked version,[117] and by warning me on my talk page that I am edit warring and am in danger of violating WP:3RR,[118] when I only ever made the one edit to the list.

His improper warning made me think that it would be more productive to bring the issue here to a wider forum. While, of course, the list should be improved by adding references and inline citations, it should not be blanked in the meantime. I think the blanking of the list (and both AFD noms, to be honest) is disruptive, WP:POINTY, contrary to the consensus in both AFDs, contrary to WP:BLPDELETE ("Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.") (emphasis added), and contrary to Wikipedia:Deletion#Editing ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."). See also this ongoing Village pump discussion, where the consensus is clear that we don't enforce WP:V by mechanically removing all content that is currently without references, especially where it is clear that it can be sourced. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Me-123567-Me is correct. See WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states that people on stand along lists must have either their own wikipage or a reliable source to establish their notability, as well as a source (the same or another one) showing that the person is a member of that group. Unless those names have such sources or a wikipage, they should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Without sources, you cannot even say that such material is "not a BLP concern", because you don't know who you're saying it about. Blanking such material does not make the history unavailable, so the list can trivially be restored if it's sourceable, but in the meantime the onus is on the person who wants such material included to justify that inclusion. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

L&S - "...must have either their own wikipage..." Based on the list prior to blanking the vast majority are blue links - that is they have a Wikipedia page. If the page lists them as an alumnus of a school, WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied. And again, mass removal with out appearing to review that is disruptive and in this case, with the editor doing the blanking having been the one to nom the page for deletion, POINTED. - J Greb (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A few things I see:

• Me-123567-Me's first near blanking is indiscriminate and not supported based on the edit summary or AfD.
• If the list does involve a number of deceased people - and such lists can and likely will - then attempting to apply the BLP protocols to blank in one go without verifying which entries are for the living and which aren't is disruptive and harmful at the least. At worst it is pointed editing verging on the destructive.
• With regard to BLP - IIUC, the "pull on sight" protocol has been limited to material that is defamatory, contentious, rumor, and/or flat-out unsourcable. Of those 4, the only possible grounds here would be "contentious", and I don't see an argument being made for that.
• Normally, if there is a dispute over removal.addition of material, editors opt for WP:BRD, leaving the article in the initial state and working on the talk page. Given the AfD and the actions show, it looks like there is little chance of that being done.
• The use of a warning template to try and scare another editor. That's a biggie for me. Yes, the low level templates are routinely used at early stages of content and editing disputes. But jumping on the "Do it again and be blocked" - essentially what the 3RR template is used for - immediately is antithetical to the editing methods used on Wikipedia.

The up shot of this is that yes, the list needs work, but that's all. The deleteion looks churlish at the AfD not going through and the templating of Postdlf would be a classic example of trying to bully an editor. The correction here would be to:

1. Restore the list article to what was kept by the AfD;
2. Add a Ref/Improve tag to it;
3. Make sure Me-123567-Me clearly understands that they should not abouse warning templates in this way; and
4. Someone actually work on upgrading the list.

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the onus is on the person making the addition to the list to provide an in-line citation. None was there so I removed the entries that had no citations. They may have an article or not, but proof must be provided on the list for them to remain. No citation means they can be removed. I don't have time to look for citations for all those people, nor am I required to. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a list, first and foremost, second, any information about any individual has got to at least be cited to a reliable source. The list either needs to be a cited article or it needs to be deleted on those grounds.

Me-12356-Me is correct. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I find it hilarious how the commenters in this discussion are in direct antithesis to how the AfDs have gone and are going, which seems to indicate that the commenters here are wrong. As the OP stated, the fact that the lists have blue linked people on them implies clearly that the information can be verified with sources, which is what should be attempted to be done before removing. Indiscriminately blanking the list is counter-productive to the purpose of the list and Wikipedia. We're here to improve Wikipedia and to remove what cannot be verified or improved. A lack of even attempting to verify is clearly a wrong move and a wrong viewpoint. Silverseren^C 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly states that such information is required to be on a list of this type. If the wikipage of the people who were removed states that they went to the school in question, then they should be re-added to the list. If not, they should be taken off. The problem is that, in very many of these cases, the information is likely to be unverifiable. In many cases, we'll have no way of confirming that these people went to this school with a reliable source; in other words, you're essentially placing the burden on those who want to delete to prove a negative--to prove that they didn't go to that school. Think about the logic behind what you (those opposed to the blanking) are saying. By your logic, I can go into that article, and add any person who has a wikipage whose college is not listed on that wikipage. Then, you state that al of those names must stand in the article until we can prove they didn't go to the school. This is why its necessary to keep names off of the list and place the burden on those wanting to add names. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is a compromise. If the alumni status of a biography is sourced in the biography don't remove it from the list. That's just a little ruder than we need to be. But vainly keeping a list where no citation exists on Wikipedia in any form is clearly in violation of WP:V and nobody should get in the way of uncited contested information being removed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The issue I'm having here is that it's not clear the removed info is actually being contested. Usually per AGF and PRESERVE, we tend not to remove uncited, non-contentious stuff merely because it's uncited--"contesting" implies a reasonable belief or suspicion that the info is actually wrong, at which point the burden of citation goes to the person wanting to keep the info. I do have some concern about whether these lists are IINFO to begin with, but Me-123567-Me is editing somewhat obnoxiously, it seems to me, removing stuff for the pure sake of removing it. I also agree with Schmucky that if the person is bluelinked to a biography with cited info saying s/he went to that school, removing the name from the list is inappropriate. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got a feeling the reason that the review wasn't done is that it would take time to weed out the linked living bios w/o a reference.

Beyond that though, I've got a silly question... what does List of University of British Columbia alumni really provide that Category:University of British Columbia alumni doesn't? If the list is to be limited to actual WP articles that have a sourced mention of being an alumnus of the school, it seems redundant with the category. (Note, this does not excuse the behavior that was originaly brough here for review.)

- J Greb (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A category could only tell you those people went to the school. It would take a list to tell you when they attended, whether they graduated, and what degree they earned. The list doesn't do that at present (it only annotates with their field of notability), but it should (others do). Regardless, WP:CLN also states that mere redundancy is not a good argument for deleting one form of information in favor of another. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify my stance—if the person had a bluelink, then Me-123567-Me should have checked that bio for a source that verifies the person went to the school in question. If xe didn't feel like doing that, then I agree that people shouldn't have been removed. When I prune lists of this type, very often, I do just AGF on blue links, because checking them increases the time to make the edit by tenfold. Plus, I know that at least half of the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE are fulfilled (that is, there is evidence that the person is notable). In the case of school alumni (or TV station alumni--that's another big one for some reason), I more concerned with the addition of a large number of unlinked or red-linked people then with tracking down every single linked person—I still hold that those should be removed on sight, no questions asked. For lists involving nationality, religion, etc., then it behooves us to be extra sure, but not so much with alumni. I guess the question is whether we AGF Me-123567-Me did his/her due diligence before remove bluelinks from the lists. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're to take him at his word, he didn't check anything he blanked, because he thinks he doesn't have to before he removes content.[119] All of the list entries were bluelinks except for two (one redlink and one not linked at all, the removal of which I certainly would not have complained about). Didn't you look at the article and its edit history to check whether bluelinks were blanked, before opining on whether its blanking was correct?

Not to mention the fact that the list already passed an AFD... He nominated a list of almost entirely bluelinks at AFD on the grounds that it wasn't sourced. The AFD was closed as keep, with the consensus that sourcing could eventually be provided so the list wasn't a problem at present. He then blanked the list on the grounds that it wasn't sourced, without even checking whether it could be. That this is a problem seems pretty simple to me. He then slapped an edit warring warning template on my talk page after I undid his blanking once. That this is a problem also seems pretty simple to me. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Previously totally uninvolved editor here. As a test, I looked to see how easy/difficult it would be to source one or more, using only the target articles. I'm no great finder of external references, but even I can follow links. I quickly targeted the three former Prime Ministers listed. All three target articles mentioned their school affiliations, and one included a very decent source right on the article. I've now added that source to the List article. So that's one down. Anyway, the point of the exercise was the AGF question above as to whether any effort was made at sourcing before the blanking. Given my lack of skill at sourcing, and the ease at which even I was able to source one directly from the target article, I really, really doubt any attempt was made at sourcing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll leave them a polite note. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

• I've worked a good deal on listings like this, and as I understand it, for university alumni the standard for listing is either having a Wikipedia article or being obviously qualified for one. As for documentation, if there is a webpage, such documentation is 95% of the time in the Wikipedia article and would just need to be transferred. The other 5%, and the obviously notable enough for inclusion--usually historical figures--the material is almost always easily available, even on-line. (I note that in my experience British public school old boy status as well is usually well documented, but for high school alumni in the US, documentation except for famous figures is considerably sparser & needs to be looked for.) There. There is tow problematic types of case: where BLP rules about questionable or negative information apply: 1. where someone or their fans claims a status they are not entitled to-- but in such cases there is almost always documentation for the claim & generally the rebuttal & both must be reported. 2. when someone now prominent has attended a school that might be considered of relatively low standing, and their supporters wish to keep it out of their biography. Here, good documentation is of course essential, but if it is present , the material is of course retained. It is important not to overuse the essential principles of BLP that we certainly need by extending them to situations where they are net needed -- the net effect of this overuse will be to diminish our ability to write accurate articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with Repeated insertion of material

I would appreciate some help with Atmapuri's repeated insertion of books written by Swami Maheshwarananda, a yoga teacher. He/She insists they are Hinduism's highest priest but I'm not sure thats true. Further, I don't think this person is such a religious authority that his book should be included on every wiki page that relates to his writing.

[120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith, but I can't simply edit war on every single page he/she includes it on, so I would appreciate help in deterring this type of behavior. Thanks--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You agree he is notable, right?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the level of notability that Atmapuri is asserting he has. I'm sure he is notable for his yoga books but I disagree that he is notable for much else. Additionally my problem isn't his notability, it's that the book he keeps referencing isn't scholarly, it's a self-help/religious book.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you sought to discuss your view on the matter with the editor on a talk page, before bringing it here?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes on Talk:Guru#Discussion about notability of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in Hinduism we had something of a discussion. He/She made a straw man argument to establish the notability of this particular person to Hinduism but our discussion was supposed to be about if the information should be included in the lead of the article guru which covers multiple religions. I looked at his/her contributions page and saw the entire page filled with the difs I shared above with shady edit summaries. I attempted to continue the discussion but I don't think he or she will respond now that the page is the way he/she wants it. I felt overwhelmed because I didn't want to get into a massive edit war with someone who just has a single purpose for their account.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but there was no discussion on notability. I only got a very vague response from Profioftruth85. Please be free to check the Guru talk page. Notice that I was only restoring mentions of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda from articles which were systematically deleted by another Wikipedia user called Wikidas. This is not the same as "keep adding". What actions have Wikipedia Administrators taken to prevent this? If there is one user "Wikidas" which does not like one author he can clean the Wiki from it without any consequences? Remember that many additions that are added to many articles are a result of carefully balanced agreements and if there is one user which blindly goes forward deleting specifically only one author, this gives an upper hand to those which maybe before did not have the power to have it their way. Such behaviour therefore I think should be sanctioned. Every author which is notable can make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. That on its own is no argument. If you look in greater depth of my edits you can will find other edits also. About notability and reliable source. Note that in Hinduism nearly all notable religious persons especially the living, have published books through their own organization. They do it like that systematically and purposefully. That is not an argument for reliable or not-reliable source in this case. Atmapuri (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly questionable if this person is notable and if his books can be used as RS. Wikid^as© 08:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the insertion of this book evrywhre bordering of WP:Advertising?--SH 08:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is being used as an RS, and there is a legitimate question as to whether it can be used as an RS (and not just for an opinion), then I would suggest that this conversation be closed here, and opened by the complainant at the RSN. Right church. Wrong pew.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it's an RS, but whether it's spamming one particular person's viewpoint across multiple articles. Clearly the person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't make him notable enough to have his views and opinions take prominence in multiple articles when there are numerous qualified sources for those as already discussed in those articles. —SpacemanSpiff 09:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. Vast majority of the edits deleted by Wikidas persisted on Wikipedia without any conflicts for over 2 years. That can hardly be called spamming. If you carefully examine the edits, you can see that they add actual valued new information not provided nor existent in the articles before. The core of this issue is not the presence of references to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, but if one user like Wikidas has the right to systematically and bluntly remove them with complete disregared for the quality of the articles and their content. Can somebody please answer if this is an acceptable policy on wikipedia? Talking about numerous qualified sources: I would completely agree that reference to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is removed if there exist a secondary source which says the same thing. All edits were added to include new information and what I considered valuable at the time when they were inserted and for many of them his reference provide the only known notable reference on the topics. If you look at the article about Guru, the lede is completely without references. The one reference that does exists points to the "guru can also be considered to be a book" only. The reference from Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda provided an actual source from a notable living person with high authorithy in Hinduism about the definition and its role and value supported by historic evidence. If you have a better reference please, be so kind and provide it. Atmapuri (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, before spamming every page with this person's viewpoints, you will have to prove why his views are notable through reliable secondary sources. The person himself may be notable for an en.wiki article, but that doesn't make everything he says important or reliable enough. You've been challenged by multiple editors at different pages, so you've got to stop your spamming and find reliable sources to support the theory that his viewpoint is important in and of itself. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User: 78.12.110.175 account deletion request

Here [130] and here [131] Majuru (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you requesting here? lifebaka++ 03:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't block (not delete) IPs or accounts over minor disputes on use of foreign languages here. If there's more misbehavior, please point it out.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

death threat in edit summary

I did not take this edit summary and immediately reverted it, but this user and the IP they sit on should be blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've RevDeleted that edit summary; I fully support the block, though it seems more like middle school recess talk than a genuine threat. –MuZemike 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not serious but that level of stupidity should be blocked without our usual levels of template warnings. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who was struck by complainant's username?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Schmuck is not as offensive in general American English as you think it is. Like many Yiddish words that have been assimilated, the original meaning no longer applies to all uses. Most gentiles who occasionally use the word are unaware that it refers to male genitalia. See, for example, Dinner for Schmucks. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a read through Schmuck (pejorative) guys. GiantSnowman 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's about as offensive as calling someone a dork, even though that also used to refer to male genitalia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Someone65

I usually try to avoid drama, but today drama found me. I received a message on my talk page from an IP asking me if giving a misleading edit summary was sufficient reason to be blocked. When I noted that the IP had no blocks indicated in their block log, the IP revealed that they were User:Someone65, who from my research had been blocked by User:SarekOfVulcan for a period of three months for the edit summary issue among several other reasons. I also noted that the IP had recently contacted other administrators requesting review of Someone65's block, and had as well edited other pages unrelated to the blocking issue (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.13.50.235 contributions). I tentatively blocked the IP account for one week for block evasion, and decided to bring the issue of Someone65 here for disposition. To wit:

1. Was the original block applied by User:SarekOfVulcan too long? Too short? Just right?
2. Should User:Someone65's block be lengthened? Shortened?
3. Should the IP block be lengthened? Shortened?

Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the 3-month block SarekOfVulcan imposed was quite reasonable given the disruption and tendentious editing. Some background is here, in the hatted "twinkle back" thread. Extending the block, or at least restarting it at 3 months from today, would seem appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should note that this is Someone65's second strike for socking; see Zaza8675 (talk · contribs). I'll try to look into the situation more later on tonight/tomorrow. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's more an issue of blatant block evasion, unless Someone65 has created another account we don't know about. I'm not too worried about the Zaza8675 account, since it's already blocked. Someone65 knows how to post an unblock request since they've already posted a few of them; since that's not getting them the results they want, they just log out and edit as an IP. Grondemar definitely made the right call in blocking the IP. 28bytes (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-set the clock; 3 months starts again today. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait until tomorrow morning to see if there's any further comments. If not, I'll extend the block to three months as of that time. Thanks for the feedback. –Grondemar 04:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The above (with an explanation via link to this discussion on the relevant page(s)) seems right to me as well. Grond -- welcome to the drama page. No doubt it will find you again.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me 84.13.33.63, 84.13.28.51 and 84.13.59.203 are also Someone65 and that they make quite a habit of evading the block. Lengthening the IP block seems pointless since they switch IP's so much, but maybe we should consider lengthening the block on Someone65. At the very least, the 3 month block should be reset.--Atlan (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I reset Someone65's three-month block as of 7:28 EST this morning based on the conversation above. –Grondemar 12:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He came back

I was this morning contacted again by another IP claiming to be User:Someone65, complaining about the block and over whether User:SarekOfVulcan was too involved to make it. This IP has also made other edits to articlespace around the time I was contacted. I agree with Someone65 that no administrator is above the rules, but then again, neither is he. I therefore blocked the IP for one week, and extended Someone65's block to indefinite. Someone65 should at this point at the very least commit to stop socking in order to be unblocked, and should be aware that continuing on the course he's been on will most likely result in him being banned by the community. –Grondemar 12:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:HarveyCarter

Requesting sock block Carphone warehouse 92.6.81.195 if an admin is around that recognizes this users style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_HarveyCarter Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• - User:Toryhater. - Just created and supporting the ip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toryhater. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Might be Harvey, the style is there. Toryhater looks like a disposable WP:SPA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Take this to WP:SPI? --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI, for this? Just block the blatantly obvious socks.--Atlan (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not familiar with the HarveyCarter user, but I've blocked this account primarily because of the username. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page error

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Graham87 01:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an error on the main page. In on this day the Grayrigg derailment entry says there were 109 deaths when in fact there was only one. Posting here as it's been listed on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors for 45 minutes now. Dpmuk (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1, 109, whatever! ;) –MuZemike 07:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)