Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678

My Kenken link repeatedly deleted

Copy & Paste from Myles325a

For some time I have been trying to insert a LEGITIMATE link to a site which simply lists other Kenken sites and variants. There are, at the moment, two bullies who keep repeatedly deleting that link as against WP:EL rules, and have yet to tell me WHY, even though I have asked them many times. That link is: http://find-kenken-and-minuplu-puzzles.com/ (lists sites for kenken and its close variants. As you can see, there is nothing there out of the ordinary, or which is offensive, ideological, exploitational, vandalistic or illegal. Quite simply, it provides a useful list of sites which fans of the game would appreciate. Of course, the Kenken WP article is a good start, but it would be impossible to dwell on the finer aspects of the game, or broach the different variants extant. I just CANNOT understand why the link keeps being deleted. I am taking this up with the Administrators as well. Here are the comments I have left with superbly named Bongomatic and Dreamguy. ___________________________________________________________ You have removed my link on the Ken Ken page to a site which presents Ken Ken puzzles which are larger and more difficult than the ones found at the official site. I have read the characteristically verbose site WT:EL page. I cannot see ANYTHING there which would preclude the inclusion of this link. There is nothing in the “20 links normally to be avoided” which says that you can’t link to a site which contains advertising, as you maintained. In fact, the poster is advised that it is quite permissible to link to Youtube, which is a site solely maintained by advertising, at massively larger rates than the small site run by ONE person, Patrick Min. Why would it be OK to link to Youtube but not any other site which has some commercial input? To rigorously maintain such a position would be to cut Wikipedia off from most of the internet. OTOH, my link conforms to all the criteria laid out in the WT:EL article for inclusion. It is a site that is assessable to the user, and which deals directly with subject at hand, i.e. Kenken. There is nothing malicious or controversial about it, and it does not violate copyright. Commonsense should be used in this case. I would expect that less than 1% of the data stored by Wikipedia is in the form of articles. The rest is talk pages, user pages, and history. Of the 1% that is presented, a great deal is concerned with matters such as somebody’s side street in High Wycombe and is of no use to anyone. Ken Ken is a very popular game, and newspapers only present the simplest problems. The official Ken Ken site itself also presents only simple problems. I believe that simple commonsense would show that quite a few readers of this article, who had played the game in local media and were now finding those too easy, would be gratified to see that there is a site which provides them further challenges in this field. What possible harm can there be in that? Wikipedia is supposed to teach people things, and the best way of teaching them about some procedure is let them have a go at doing it! It is completely in keeping with the scope of the article. I present this explanation for why I included this site, and hope for a reply. If you decide that you do not want it there, I would like some mediation on this matter, from higher sources. Myles325a (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Why don't you seek consensus on the article's talk page? Bongomatic 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC) OP myles325a back live. In the first instance, you alleged that the link I made from the Kenken article to a site which has other Kenken material was "commercial", and thus against WP:EL rules. I examined those rules, I found that having some commercial element did NOT mean there could be no valid link between a WP article and that site, and that there were hundreds of sites with some commercial element, most visibly on Youtube, which have many such links to WP. When I pointed this out, you simply "forgot" your original complaint, and now asked that I take it up on Kenken's talk page. Even after I replaced the link in question with another one, you keep deleting it, and like your compatriot, Dreamboy, have never afforded me an explanation as to how EXACTLY that link contravenes WP:EL rules. The points I have made below pertain to his latest comments on that link, and I am reprinting them here as BOTH of you continue to exercise high-handed and bullying behaviour with me on this harmless and worthwhile link. Myles325a (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The following comments are the ones I posted just now to Dreamguy, your compatriot who keeps deleting the link in turns with you. And like you, he offers no explanation as to why. Dreamguy had written, FINALLY: Between the behavior above and the fact that another person has agreed the link should be removed the rules you have broken are WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, beyond just the putting up a link that violates WP:EL rules for being encyclopedic in tone. I also suspect you may have a WP:COI about this site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) And I replied: OP myles325a back live. For someone who has, I am presuming, some sort of official role in WP, your English in the above is disgraceful. I make the following points: 1. This is the fourth time I have asked you to detail what WP:EL rule I have broken in linking the Kenken article to a site which merely provides other such sites, and near variants, and includes further educational material on this mathematical puzzle. You keep deleting the link, and you still have not afforded me the common courtesy of explaining how that link contravenes the WP:EL rules. 2. Re: WP: CIVIL If I have been in contravention of the WP:CIVIL rule, then so have you. A civil person would not just delete links that are plainly not vandalistic, without some explanation. I think that you are high-handed, and a WP bully. Moreover, the issue of “civility” is separate to the matter of whether the link is appropriate or not. Even if HAD been uncivil in the discourse associated with this business, that does not, ipso facto, invalidate my contributions to this article. Who the hell do you think you are? You think I’ve been impolite to you, so you think it is quite in order to slash my contributions. You have hardly been civil to me. 3. Re: WP: CONSENSUS. There are only TWO editors who keep deleting this link. And you keep doing it serially. Your idea of consensus could use an overhaul via a dictionary. There are many editors in WP: two means nothing. On top of that, I am very much of the view that both of you are in cahoots in this business. 4. WP: COI. I feel insulted by this baseless allegation. I have an interest in Kenken, and I have some correspondence with some other people who also do. There is no commercial or ideological angle in this, and nothing for anyone to gain. I think that you are way out of line to suggest it. I have nothing to gain from this matter, except in satisfaction of helping to design a good article and assist those who have an interest in this subject. I have said before that WP is full of articles along the line of some side-street in High Wycombe which would be of interest to half a dozen people. The Kenken page involves a puzzle that appears in newspapers across the world and is played by hundreds of thousands of people. It is extensively used by teachers as the user needs to learn about primes and factors to play the game. The puzzle can be simple, or possess a complexity that would tax the most talented of mathematical minds. It is not a trivial computer nerd pastime, but a genuinely intelligent and challenging game, requiring both logical and mathematical skill. Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, does not publish the number of hits, but I would bet they would put the Kenken article in the top 10%. The Kenken page cannot begin to deal with the finer points of the game, or the variants which have sprung up, and the devotees of such a game would always be looking for more EDUCATIONAL material on these. The link provides nothing more than a series of sites which would allow the aficionado of the game to find sites where they could learn more about the game. What on Earth is wrong with that, and how could it possibly be non-encyclopedic? I am re-inserting the link, and putting the contents of my comments here on the talk page of the Kenken article, the talk page of your compatriot Bongomatic, as well as taking it up with the Administrators. Myles325a (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Could you assist me in this matter. I have notified both Dreamguy and Bongomatic that I am making a complaint. I have posted most of this material on their talkpages, and also the talk page of the Kenken article. Sorry if the way I have approached this is not the proper and official way, but it is the best I can do for the moment. I feel that I am being bullied by these editors, and I also believe that the link is entirely within the scope of what Wikipedia aims to do. Myles325a (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguously inconsistent with WP:EL. Don't know what all the fuss is. ^Bongo_matic 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes should go to the talk page and or WP:ELN, but that one looks like link spam to me. If the further links eminating from there are useful, maybe they could be submitted to dmoz and the Wikipedia article could then link to dmoz. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping. I wrote in my edit summary to use the talk page of the article plus I gave you the reasons why you were reverted and why the link was no good. I answered on the talk page but you ignored and headed here instead. So this is the 4th place you've decided to post all of this. Is English your second language? I ask this because of your post "You write like a moron" which has this wonderful followup. This user has civility problems which I picked up on from DreamGuy's talk page as well as Bongomatic's talk page. If anything is to be done here, it's Boomerang.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified DreamGuy of this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a is also at this point subject to blocking under WP:3RR.[1][2][3] Myles, you absolutely have to stop edit warring like that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note:Checkuser has confirmed this was a sockpuppet but on AGF, he has been allowed to edit....Noose knot. Time to let the trap door fall.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The master account, Karmaisking, does not normally edit articles that Myles325a commonly edits. Kik is also pretty sophisticated with his knowledge of WP policies, and would have been unlikely to push a site that so obviously fails WP:EL. I wouldn't use the sock connection to add any weight against Myles325a. I think his own actions are more than enough though. Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this tl;dr prose, but what does "back live" mean? Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible nationalistic content dispute

This was originally brought up at WP:AIV, but this is going to be the better venue. IP user 195.28.75.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported by Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for changing cited information on several articles, including this and this. I glanced at the diffs, as well as a couple of other edits the IP user made, and it looks to me to be a nationalistic content dispute, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to tell what's what. The issue that worries me is that although the IP editor has cited sources, he/she has deleted cited sources in the process of making their edits, and I'm not convinced their new sources are considered reliable as a secondary source for use in a Wikipedia article. Can someone who's familiar with the topic look things over? I'm all for bold editing,, but this may cross the line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right (Nmate also). This could have a nationalistic connotation. The primary state of the article (pre-IP) is definitely the correct one. This could be one of those edits 1 - I reverted it. Adrian (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not vandalism and you should not refer to it as such, but a content dispute. The only way to handle this is by using dispute resolution, bringing in additional editors. If the IP edit-wars, then you can apply to have them blocked for edit-warring. If the editor uses multiple IPs in order to evade a block, then you can apply for page protection. TFD (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that...the other two editors might not be. My concern was the issue of replacing one set of citations with another, and whether the new set was reliable. Again, I don't know enough about the subject matter to make a reasoned, informed decision, which is why I brought the matter here. The odds were much better that there's an admin floating around with more knowledge who could make that determination. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think they can though. It is a content dispute and while the edits may seem extremely tendentious, that is not a call an administrator could make. TFD (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, could someone have a look at this conversation. To me it looks like the meaning of the userboxes are being changed, but perhaps the change of the earlier template makes it the same. I am not good at templates plus I don't care much for userboxes. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the changes made to the template, and there doesn't appear to be any real back-compatibility, so what used to be the right option number no longer is in many cases. I commented on Buaidh's Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically user User:Hamrolly who "lives in Canada" also "lived in Canada" before the change. :) Thank you for checking it out. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More like someone who "is interested in Canada" now shows as "resident of Canada", or similar awkward and unmonitored changes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're serious? That's what I thought. So the change does alter the userpages significantly! Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) on Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4

Whilst reading this article, I found that there was false information provided in this article. I have seen episodes of this series and found inconsistencies with the article and the episodes. I checked the edit history of the article and found out that 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) has been making these edits and the previous changes were correct (due to another user undoing 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs)'s actions. In addition, this user has been warned for editing articles such as Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 2 and Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 3.

I'm not sure if I have addressed this correctly because I'm kind of reporting this user as well as content issues. 115.64.53.181 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.  Notified 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs). -- DQ (t) (e) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some problem editor who specializes in adding hoaxes to articles on this series? I don't recall the name, but I know I've seen this editorial syndrome before. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:149.4.115.3

This ip address is removing content from Ohio State University, that is against a consensus at the University Wkiproject to have consistency across all article. How do I maintain the integrity of that consistency and consensus, without violating WP:3RR, because a ransom ip doesn't care about wikipedia policy and will revert all day long.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubt I'll get it if its only one ip doing it. If the ip is not discussing, and is editing against a consensus, that would be disruptive. Yet I don't want to make too many reverts personally because I don't want to be perceived as edit warring, and I believe in the WP:3RR policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a short semi to get the IP to either look elsewhere or try and gain consensus? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks as if the ip is from Queens College and has a history of vandalism and disruption. Here is the previous discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 7#Article consistency--Jojhutton (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton and the IP are both edit warring, with Jojhutton labelling an edit that looks reasonable on its face[4] as vandalism. The address itself is a shared school address that has templates piled up forever. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to discuss the actual edit on either 149.4.115.3's talk page or the article talk page. I'll leave a note. Anyway, semi-protection is inappropriate if there's only one non-autoconfirmed user involved. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jojhutton also got a bit over-excited in the earlier discussion about the article lede that's now being revert-warred.[5] Let's try to be a bit calmer; this isn't an emergency. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The unexplained removal of content is considered vandalism. Twinkle and Huggle both have tools that address removing content without explanation.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think Jojhutton does not know what vandalism is. He repeatedly labels innocent edits as "vandalism", if they run counter to his POV. Regarding this case in particular, he keeps repeating that there's removal of content. Where? Enigma^msg 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I'm being attacked, please link where I Continuously label innocent edits as vandalism. As far as the removal of content goes. The ip was removing words fromthe schools official name.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the old dispute about "Ohio State University" (the common name) vs. "The Ohio State University" (the way the school likes to style itself). Whatever the current concensus is, should be honored. The IP's attempt to change it qualifies perhaps as edit warring, but not as vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There were several huge debates on the article talk page regarding the lead. The edit you reverted multiple times was not vandalism and was not removal of content. The school's official name is still there. Enigma^msg 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will accept that the edit is not being considered vandalism, although its a fine line, when an ip removes or changes content without any explanation. Remember that Twinkle and Huggle have warning templates that cover removing content without explanation. I do not however accept the unexplained attack on my character by Enigmann. I would hope that he/she would decide to retract that statement.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it a fine line? This is clear as day. A content dispute is not vandalism, and it certainly can not be called removal of content when no content was removed. Also, my name is not "Enigmann". Enigma^msg 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That Huggle and Twinkle have those buttons and that people keep misusing them is a perennial source of annoyance at ANI. I do see there is a lot of actual vandalism at that page (example), maybe enough for semi-protection to be ok, but that's not what I'm seeing here. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The page definitely gets its fair share of vandalism, as any big name school does. Looking at the history, though, it's not occurring frequently enough to typically merit semi-protection. Enigma^msg 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

usually as a rule, if an anon ip, with a history of vandalism and 4 previous blocks, shows up on a page that the ip hasn't edited before and removes or changes content without explanation, that edit will get reverted as vandalism, with a warningJojhutton (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to judge the edit, not just the editor. Changing the school's name from their self-styled name to its common name IS IN NO WAY VANDALISM. It may be contentious editing, it may be edit warring, but it is not vandalism. Vandalism would be nonsensical blanking, or comments like "Hi, Mom!" Arguing over the school's name is not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That you call IP edits vandalism regardless of what the edits actually are? Enigma^msg 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If a given editor has been specifically and repeatedly warned not to defy consensus, then we're starting to get into something akin to vandalism, although it's really more to do with contentious editing and disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton, please see the big template at the top of User talk:149.4.115.3. There is no reason to think that all the edits from that address are coming from the same person, if they are reasonably separated from each other temporally. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said that it was the same person, only that the ip had a history of vandalism. That was pretty clear from the user page. Also, for you vandalism fighters out there, its not uncommon to have multiple people from a school ip vandalizing for years and years and years. I have accepted that the vast majority here have stated that the removal was not vandalism, and I concede on that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Underage users

...are these User:Ninjaman11221/Ethan_Wold_Cook allowed? Also, it seems this user is only here to promote himself and his web works. Phearson (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That whole page is a copy of an article that was deleted at Ethan Wold Cook already, and it is a terrible idea regardless of whether it is technically speedily deletable. Note that the image itself is on Commons, so deletion would have to happen there. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article slightly out of process. If anyone believes it should go through XfD, feel free to undelete and nominate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your deletion. FWIW, let me report myself here for a possibly out-of-process perma-blocking of User:Munich357 who was an obvious sock trying to recreate the same material. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That user is also the commons uploader, so I agree that they were the same person as the above account. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Kim to be acting appropriately in regards to the sock. We don't need to be overly bureaucratic when blocking obvious socks. Phearson (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Old Man Murray

Resolved

 – Page contents were restored by RockMFR (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk) - 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin restore the talk page contents at Talk:Old Man Murray? (might need to restore some losts posts after un-deleting, as it was deleted a couple times). I had a request on my talk page requesting this - but I'm not currently using my admin account as I don't have a secure connection at the moment. --- Barek (talk) - 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

extra eyes

I would like some extra admin eyes on this case Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyrights_and_translation as I am uncertain of the copyright related issue regarding translated copyvio material. It is a possible largescale copyvio issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ongoing WP:HUSH incident / User:Baseball_Bugs

Discussion closed. If further escalation a block will be required.

I have requested, on 8 separate occasions, User:Baseball_Bugs not post in my Userspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felixhonecker&redirect=no#Comments). On the most recent occasion I could not have been more clear, stating unambiguously If you do not like the contents of my Discussion page you should empower yourself not to read it. Any reply to this comment, regardless of content, will be construed as an eighth WP:HUSH violation. In most instances Bugs has stated his continued posting is necessary for "pointing things out" to me. While I appreciate his aggressive policy of proactive user guidance I feel his, almost fanatical, insistence on continuing to proffer suggestions on the best use of Wikipedia - even in the face of repeated notices (initially polite, then firmer) that I prefer not to receive ongoing counseling from him has crossed the line to harassment. I believe that, after 8 requests to desist, if Bugs still feels I am editing or participating in Wikipedia in a reckless way that is endangering the entire site, he should feel empowered to file a Noticeboard complaint rather than engage in vigilantism. While I AGF as to his suggestions I expect a corresponding AGF reciprocity in my desire not to have him flooding my userspace. I do not own my Discussion page but it is, per WP:User pages, "associated with me" and WP:HUSH establishes "trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a ... form of harassment." After 8 friendly notices it should be clear to a reasonable person operating under reasonable circumstances that the continued posting on my Discussion page of "guidance" is material I find annoying. I have stated my annoyance eight times so there can be no ambiguity to this point. I welcome anyone to post on my Discussion page, however, have a specific and very reasonable reason I have requested Bugs not to interact with me ("Maybe someone should report you somewhere" is a threat and as such is inappropriate. Crossing this out would be a good idea especially if you did not mean to make a threat as may reasonable people including myself would take it as such. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felixhonecker&redirect=no#Comments), however, ultimately I believe any user is entitled to have their reasonable wishes respected with regards to their Discussion page if there is not a compelling reason to post content to it by another user. Bugs has yet to demonstrate a compelling reason to make unsolicited comments on it that are of such critical nature they override my 8 requests he stop attempting to interact with me. I appreciate and am honored with Bugs' intense interest in me, however, am starting to get a little creeped out, quite frankly. I am not asking Bugs be blocked or penalized, only strongly cautioned against WP:HUSH as my own pleas have proved futile and he has stated he will continue posting in my userspace at his leisure unless cautioned by an admin. Thank you.Felixhonecker (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Do you still believe that his comment that he'd report you was meant in the context of "to police" rather than "to Wikipedia administrators", and that it constituted a legal threat of some sort? If Bugs is bothering you, then he should stop, but it's not clear to me that you understand Wikipedia enough to safely participate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) On the basis of his whole statement, that the reason I should be "reported" was because "Qadaffi is an enemy of the United States", yes, as I think it's unusual to report people for subversion or whatever was his intent in "reporting" to Wikipedia admins. However, I have chosen not to file a Legal Threats report against Bugs, despite the fact Doc James and other admins say they took his statement as a threat, because I AGF. Because of the potential for ill will and WP:DRAMA, however, I have made the simple request he choose not to interact with me. I made this request 8 times. He continues to imply his ongoing counseling is mandatory and I must accept it. Again, I am honored by his intense interest in me but would simply like to be left alone so as to prevent the possibility of WP:DRAMA owing to his past history of interaction with me (whether jocular or not). This seems like a reasonable attempt at mitigation of future unrest to me. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Per this diff[6], there's a certain amount of pot calling kettle here in respect of unnecessary input on others' user pages. My own opinion is that Bugs has gone beyond what was sensible in continually posting on this user talk page. However Felix would not have made many friends during the exchanges at Talk:Libya and has shown little effort at collegiality here and is to some extent reaping what he has sown. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have never posted to anyone's discussion page after being requested not to do so, let alone after receiving eight successive requests. My hope is that everyone here can be judged fairly and equally without regard to how many friends they may or may not have. I am - as I have often stated - aware that the position I present in the Libya discussion page is not a popular one and is, in fact, decidedly unpopular given current events. I hope, in a spirit of intellectual honesty, that is a non-factor in any request I make for judicial and fair treatment. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure that diffs such as this or this strike me as particularly intellectual or fostering a spirit of open minded, source-based editing. Unfortunately your complaints against others will be judged in the context of your own behaviour here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC) That was not article editing, it was discussion taking place in Libya. I hope people can feel free to be frank and open in the discussion page of an entry to foster greater forward movement on edit consensus. My actual editing of the Libya page has been fairly incidental. IIRC, I don't believe I've made more than 6 edits in my Wikihistory to that entry and 4 of those were reverts that were supported by community consensus. I have intentionally - recognizing I have a minority viewpoint on the subject - restrained my participation to the discussion page. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs made some reasonable attempts to help with DR on Felixhonecker's talk page, combined with making an ill-advised wisecrack that Felixhonecker then ran with. Felixhonecker is being quite tendentious but I don't think Bugs' continued participation on the usertalk page is helping much at this point. Felixhonecker: really, don't worry about the first-class/second-class editor thing, it doesn't make any difference. Good editor/bad editor is the only thing that matters. Just do your best to be a good editor and everything will be fine. The advice you got from Maunus, Doc James, Fut Perf, and (mostly) even from Bugs was all worth listening to. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have tried to give him good advice (for example, that his user page demand for an apology for an SPI is out of bounds), and he won't listen. I've made it clear that I made no legal threat (after he distorted the wording to make a false claim), and he won't listen. Admins have advised him that he does not own his talk page, and he won't listen. I detect a trend. At the advice of an admin, I will refrain from posting on his talk page unless absolutely necessary (for example, if I mention his name at ANI). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks, 71.141.88.54. I appreciate your support. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs - you and he crossed swords and the issue is unresolved. The last person anyone wants good advice from is someone with whom they have unresolved issues. Just leave it. Plenty of other editors watching the situation on the Libya pages. Fainites barleyscribs 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC) He's not taking anyone's good advice. I expect his wikipedia lifetime to be short. But maybe he'll surprise us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC) But you do seem to have a knack of inflaming things (mainly on this noticeboard), so please take heed and try to avoid antagonising other editors you've been in an editing dispute with. Fences&Windows 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC) What I have a knack for is getting to the truth of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs - multiple admins have disagreed with your position that you did not post a Legal Threat. The reason I don't listen to you is because your worlview is out of step with admins on some of these basic issues such as that one. Ergo, I feel it may not be the best advise for me to follow. I would appreciate you terminating your active involvement on my userspace. I'm confident that, if something truly aggregious occurs, there are others with whom I do not have a history who can handle the matter. You could even draw it to their attention if you feel very passionate about it. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Felixhonecker - Bugs did not post a legal threat. You are misreading the other admins' responses to you. Please stop making this acusation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Your first sentence is a distortion of the truth. Otherwise, I've already told you I'll stay off your userpage unless the rules require it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I believe User:Doc_James is being honest when he said "may reasonable people including myself would take it as such" in reference to your Legal Threat. I hope you can choose to AGF and respect the honesty of admins moving forward. Thank you for agreeing to respect my userspace. I regret it was necessary for me to file this ANI to get that to happen. Best Regards - Felixhonecker (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have given this user the same advice as Bugs. Felix needs to drop the stick and become a constructive editor. I closed the previous issues and unblocked Felix with the understanding that this issue would remain closed. That it continues to be opened here makes me doubt the wisdom of my actions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I hope it would have remained closed as well. However, within 24 hours after our understanding, Bugs began editing my userspace again. I also wish all parties had honored the agreement of respect and mutuality. It would have been very easy to avoid this ANI had the user in question simply not edited my userspace. There was no mechanism of compulsion that forced Bugs to edit my userspace and he was free to refrain from that by the exercise of willpower and restraint. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) You completely (and I suspect purposely) distorted my original statement. At no point did I ever threaten to take any kind of action against you. The reason I posted today had to do, not with that, but solely with your continual insistence on violating WP:POINT by demanding that an admin "apologize" for filing an SPI about you. You need to remove that nonsense from your user page, as it betrays your ignorance (willful or otherwise) about how these things work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Felix, you have had your answer - Bugs is now off your talk page. Leave it there. Bugs, for goodness sake do you really think Felix is ever going to be persuaded by your arguments? Do you think it's just possible he is enjoying yanking your chain? So why continue giving him the satisfaction? I suggest to both of you that you let someone else have the last word, per WP:STICK. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs, a single and polite request posted to a userspace is not "insistence" and "demanding" and is specifically allowed by WP:CIVIL. I outlined this in my own userspace. I hope we can continue this discussion at ANI when you are able to interact with me in a more tempered and civil manner. However, I do not believe there is much point in continuing this interaction as you seem intent upon creating WP:DRAMA here. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The OP here has indeed removed that item from his user page,[7] so I think we're done here. (The self-awarded "Martyr Barnstar" is rather silly, but harmless.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Hm...combative user, relatively "new", ANI drama, hostility at political articles, picking a fight with Bugs? I hear a drawer creaking open. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I don't think he's a sock. The OP picked the fight not with me as such, but by posting a userbox threatening to report other editors that he considers to be anti-Gadaffi. The admins were willing to let that go, as he pretty much recanted that threat and has not re-posted that userbox. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The OP's statement here[8] is a bit of a distortion or an oversimplification. There are situations where the rules require notification. Let's hope that need does not come up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, I Need Help

I am not filing an ANI against any specific user. I am just earnestly requesting some kind of help. I have just been informed I will be subject to a second sock investigation in four days and this one will take place in private once a "trusted admin" can be identified to conduct it, I will not be "tipped off" it is occurring and it will take place offline.

Last week, after a six month unblemished edit history on Wikipedia, I made a Legal Threat. I deleted it within four minutes - without being asked - before the person at whom it was directed saw it, and apologized. I was blocked for several days. I have repeatedly acknowledged and apologized for this lapse in judgment and taken full responsibility for it.

However, I am now being subject to repeated lobbying of admins by one user for various punishments and new investigations of me. I have offered this user that I will quit Wikipedia at the end of this week but that hasn't seemed to call off the dogs. I know that, eventually, if enough complaints are thrown against the wall one will stick because at some point I'll slip-up and won't devote enough time to defending myself from everything that's being thrown at me, though that is almost my exclusive focus on Wikipedia now. Every minute of time here I have to spend defending myself against complaints being made by one user.

I just need some help in getting the dogs called off for a few days. I promised this user I'd delete my WP account once I finished Drakkar Noir entry and I will. I'm at a complete loss and at my wits end. I know this is not appropriate use of ANI but I don't know what else to do at this point. Detailed background is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Felix_again.

In an attempt to defuse Drama I asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my Talk page so we would not have to interact. He refused and I requested (see above) an Admin admonish him to stop, which they did. I specifically said I didn't want him blocked or punished, I just wanted him to stop posting on my Talk page because it was likely to inflame things. That backfired and it has inflamed things even more and he's now coming at me with both barrels.

I believe I have contributed to WP - not as much as some - through my edits to Wikileaks, Paul Akers, Samsung Galaxy Tab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc. and should not be treated like yesterday's trash. I don't know why this is happening to me, all for a four-minute lapse in judgment last week. I've been told I have no choice and he is entitled to file as many charges against me as he likes, even if they're not being upheld, but I'm not sure that seems right. Anything that anyone can do, even just words of encouragement, would be appreciated. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're subject to a sock investigation, just be cooperative and truthful and everything will be fine. Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. He's not going to report you to the police or the government; he made a joke and has already apologized for it. Just forget all of this and focus on constructive article contributions. The more time you spend improving articles and the less time you spend on this noticeboard, the happier your stay here will be, I guarantee it. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on Viriditas' talk page, there are some odd timing coincidences, but I am not yet persuaded that Felix and Berber are socks of each other. That burden-of-proof ball is in Viriditas' court at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from editing Drakkar Noir right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

incident / user:SchuminWeb - abuse of admin privileges

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Administrator SchuminWeb needs to be reviewed for displaying COI, as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination)#Old_Man_Murray. This kind of behavior compromises the integrity of Wikipedia policy. Examples of admin privilege abuse was nomination of deletion of articles where had subjects in articles have interacted with him in the past, resulting in a personal vendetta: Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray. Old Man Murray was restored due to COI and personal abuse of admin privileges. A gaming news/blogging article also gives coverage of the incident: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/old-man-murray-deleted-from-wikipedia/ --67.184.48.221 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Administrators should bear in mind that the Portal of Evil guys who are currently chasing SchuminWeb around the Internet have managed to get their beef posted to Slashdot (thread), so there are likely to be many more posts like this. I'm not commenting specifically on SchuminWeb himself, just pointing out that a sudden large volume of IP posts on this topic doesn't mean very much, since it's externally solicited. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, they're cute when they're upset. Of course, eventually they get too big and you have to flush them and the kids start crying and you have to promise to buy them another pet, also ice cream... HalfShadow 00:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I'd be AWESOME if we could go through this discussion without tossing around invective. It gets hard to defend what happens here to outsiders when you act like this. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Why? How are you now? HalfShadow 02:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Fuck it. Just keep doing whatever you want. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 'kay. ...will you still be awesome? HalfShadow 02:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Just to throw this question out there (not taking sides here at the moment): is proposing deletion of an article, as an administrator (i.e. as opposed to a non-administrator), considered abuse of administrative privileges? I ask because I thought admins were also editors and, while I understand admins are held to higher standards than regular editors, that doesn't prohibit them from engaging in regular activities non-admins do. Basically what I am getting at is, if the user in question (who has not actually deleted anything here but, instead, went through the normal deletion process like everyone else) was not an admin, would we still be having this discussion, or is it because of the status itself? –MuZemike 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I agree that it seems to be problematical when editors who are also administrators do almost anything. Any editor should be able to nominate an article for deletion, but only admins can perform the deletion. When it comes to WP:CSD, I have deleted articles that are complete no-hopers, but on the borderline, I have nominated rather than take the decision myself. That's seeking to rely upon independent input. A PROD can be disputed and is open to any editor, and to do so to give a chance for the article to be fixed is assuming good faith, unless it is an obvious libel or copyright violation. That's what admins are meant to do, but if they are in doubt, there are other avenues. Humility predicates that doubt should be deferred to the community. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) is proposing deletion of an article, as an administrator ... considered abuse of administrative privileges? No. Tonywalton Talk 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) SchuminWeb is connected to the article in a personal matter with the subjects discussed in the article. The conflict of interest involved is a serious matter. The admin deciding to pick on these particular articles is no coincidence. Also, let it be known that User:HalfShadow has a negative bias towards Portal of Evil (and as seen in his comments in this section of the article): [9], [10] & [11]. I am indifferent with these articles and the parties involved. This kind of behavior can, sadly, happen to other articles, but I am personally a fan of video game history that had this issue brought to my attention the Rock Paper Shotgun article regarding the deletion of Old Man Murray. My agenda is to participate in pointing out the abuse that is occurring in the processes that are typically mundane. In this case, it is the nomination for deletion of articles. Even as small of an effect I may have (and how terrible my writing is), I am hopeful that I will some kind of effect that will raise awareness of this kind of behavior. Thanks! --67.184.48.221 (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comment When I saw the /. article I figured there would be a great deal of fecal turbulence (hey, I'm trying to keep it at least PG-13 here!) regarding the AfD. Looking through the histories of the AfDs and the DRV discussion, I don't think anyone's going to be able to convince most people that there wasn't a WP:COI involved. But this editor, for one, is going to have serious issues with jerking the mop away when the mop wasn't used in getting the article deleted. Adminship is no big deal, I keep hearing. But given the hoops RfA candidates go through right now to GET the mop, taking it away from someone SHOULD be a big deal, especially when it wasn't the mop that got the editor into the spotlight. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Exactly. If I had speedied an article or otherwise deleted something out of process, then everyone crowing about what a horrible person I am might have a case. But I followed process by taking it through AFD, despite how painful that turned out to be (the whole thing lasted more than a month - the original nomination was on January 29). SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I honestly think this would have gone better for you if you had WP:MERGE'd the OMM article's important bits into another article. I for one have never understood in all these years, why it seems like so many people prefer to delete instead of merge and clarify. In the case of what happened here, I would suggest it be considered that WP have a policy prohibiting anyone from nominating an article for deletion more than once. The fact that SchuminWeb nominated the article *twice* is what makes it seem like an attack and why the greater nerdcore decided to raise arms against him. So it is known, I am generally against destruction of information, which is what I see deletion as being in cases like this. --Omnitographer (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) comment Everyone is allowed to nominate an article for deletion. The COI policy doesn't apply to that issue because AfD's are decided by consensus and no one person's COI can affect the outcome - it is the community that makes the decision to delete. If the closing admin had a COI and the afd was a closerun it would be a different case. There is also no basis for even discussing desysopping here since no sysop privileges have been abused (or even used) in this case. I would suggest closing as frivolous baseless. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC) frivolous is much too strong a word. It's a complaint from a relatively inexperienced editor about what they see as overbearing behavior by an admin. It may be a unjustified, it may not be the right place for it, but I wouldn't call it frivolous. It's not unreasonable for editors to think (incorrectly) that we admins have great power in general; it's certainly not unreasonable for them to think that experienced editors have greater power than the newcomers. Though COI may nor may not apply--I can not say I am familiar with the situation--if someone associated with one enterprise nominates competitor's articles for deletion, I would call that at best ill-advised. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC) comment I concur that there has been no actual abuse of admin privileges. That said, as enforcers of WP rules, admins are generally expected to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than the average editor - that means assuming good faith, no namecalling, scrupulously steering clear of COI situations, etc. It would have been best to make the initial nomination to AfD and then not post anything further on the subject, positive or negative. Stan (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I don't agree. If I take an interest in an issue someone shouldn't be able disarm me by calling me names and then claiming that extended participation on my part is a COI. That entirely the wrong incentives. We also don't want to encourage the Wikipedians to instead participate by proxy by asking other community members to comment on their behalf. Rather, we should hold all editors to a standard of professionalism such that even when a COI is alleged that their arguments are clear, reasoned, and unemotional enough that even people who disagree should accept that they are well reasoned and not the pure product of a vendetta. I think Schumin has held himself to just that high of standard here (though I haven't read he wrote beyond his comments on the wiki). I also think the Wikipedia community needs to do more to protect its contributors from mobs which inevitable turn these events into personal attacks when there really is nothing personal about it. No WP admin can make a lasting deletion on their own, even if they're completely 'rogue', and yet these mobs are _always_ lobbing personal attacks either due to dishonesty or simple confusion about the Wikipedia process. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) The treatment that SchuminWeb has been getting for this was uncalled for. The whole world is not going to come to an end because we don't have an Old Man Murray article. That being said, from strictly a common sense point of view, he was probably the wrong editor to nominate that article (and Portal of Evil) for deletion if for any reason then to avoid even the appearance of a COI and not to give that mob extra ammunition. If those 2 articles really needed to be deleted, then some other "evil deletionist nazi scum" would have eventually gotten around to it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC) "The appearance of a COI", huh? http://twitter.com/SchuminWeb/status/43143325208948736 Gmaxwell, though, is pretty sure that Schumin is 'the kind of person who is immune to this kind of stupidity and not the sort of person who would really bother with grudges'. I can understand that you want to be willfully blind on this; the alternative is that one of your own is an embarrassment, and surely that can't be the case. I see you put the nazi accusation in quotes; do you want to WP:CITE that, or is it just how you guys circle the wagons around here? --meatpuppet 184.164.3.165 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Should he have mentioned the COI in the nomination? Yes; the appearance of proper behavior is almost as important as proper behavior. Is this a big deal in this case? Not particularly. Did he ever abuse his admin tools? No. No admin tool has been used by him in any way associated with this matter. Can we now move on please? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes, please

Resolved

 – Edit warrior is already blocked. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to take off and read this great book I picked up today. In the meantime, a clever editor is using us to make some point about a business conflict involving CFX Bank. In the two edits I reverted here, they first added what look like OK sources, but in actuality these are just partisan posts, and in the second instance they changed the link to the bank's website (from .co.zw to .com) to instead redirect to some partisan site. Clever indeed. Oh, they just did it again. I leave it all to you; somehow I expect to find the Chief indef blocked tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TurkYusuf1 (talk · contribs)

There has been, for quite some time, a slow edit-war over the population-figure of Turkey. The above user keeps changing the number back without ever having used the article's talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) started a section on the talk page to no avail; I have contacted the user on their talk page, where s/he did reply, but keeps going as before. This is becoming silly and tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way on this one, in terms of which source should be used. I would like to note however that this has been a very slowmoving edit war on a FA, and TurkYusuf1 has as stated not posted his position on the talk page. I think there should be some warning about further reverting without discussion, they may have a point, but unless they use the talkpage we don't know what it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User pratullobo

pratullobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of wide ranging bad behavior including canvassing, copyvio, coi, vandalism and my little brother defense. Brianhe (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add possible sockpuppetry -- editing CoI article as 114.143.166.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm arguing above about what constitutes OUTING, but Brianhe posted a link to an external website in this diff connecting Pratullobo with a real world identity. Admins may want to consider if that should be oversighted. Also, if you look at the various claims Brianhe is making on the talk page, they may look a little odd to you, like reporting the user for vandalism done over 2 years ago. I don't know what's going on here, but it worries me a little. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Qwyrxian opinion. Neither am I sure what Brianhe is upto. --Pratul (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

System gaming harassment of User: SchuminWeb incoming.

See here. HalfShadow 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. 1995 called, they want their top-down bbs thread back. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to block the new account NotSchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 16:37, March 3, 2011) preemptively? — Scientizzle 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This all seems very WP:POINTy to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some people out there who really need some new hobbies. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New hobby? HalfShadow would disagree: [12], [13] & [14]. That troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.48.221 (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock Hearing Occuring in Userspace

A sockpuppet hearing against me is currently occurring in userspace. I would prefer it occurs in ANI, as the last two sockpuppet hearings against me this week did, but I obviously don't want to levy sock charges against myself. It's also getting a little out of control and has descended into name-calling between me and the person charging me. I'm as guilty of this as he is (my nerves are a bit raw at the moment). I apologize if I don't know the proper etiquette for sock hearings in userspace, I learned about this when the filer notified an admin a hearing would happen against me "offline" so I wouldn't be "tipped off" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F) so accept my advance apology if this request cannot be actualized or is in any other way inappropriate. Can an admin review and handle as appropriate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas#Felix Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "hearing" going on. You're simply arguing with people on multiple user talk pages. I recommend you stop. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 28, I may have been misled. Bugs has been telling people they are gathering evidence against me to post "offline" (here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonywalton#Help and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F). Is there another way I can have an opportunity to defend myself in an "offline" complaint? I'm not familiar with these terms or the concept of "offline" complaints, or complaints anywhere outside of ANI. It's possible no such thing exists and they're just trying to get a rise out of me, if that's the case I apologize for my naivete. I admit I don't know as much about Wikipedia policies as I should. Up until last week I had never had to deal with the political side of WP and had simply edited in peace for the preceding many months. I just don't want to get banned out of the blue without a chance to defend myself. I guess I don't understand the process by which one "gathers evidence" to file a complaint "offline." I'm hoping I have a chance to respond to Bugs daily accusations against me in a transparent manner.Felixhonecker (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. I expect if you disengage from debating him on user talk pages and this noticeboard, and instead focus on article improvements, the "political side" will fade away. I notice that of your last 150 edits, zero have been to articles and all 150 have been to user talk pages, user pages, noticeboards, etc. I suspect if you reverse that trend and return to article work you will find the Wikipedia experience more peaceful. 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I would like nothing better! I generally spend 20-30 minutes a week on Wikipedia editing entries and that's it. Today I spent 5 hours editing 0 entries; it was all playing Law & Order. Unfortunately, if I ignore complaints being made about me - especially when they contain factual inaccuracies that are being repeated with knowledge of their inaccuracy - I face the very real possibility of being blocked. In the last 3 days Bugs has posted 19 messages of complaint on admin Talk pages about me, all for the same issue that was adjudicated by admins last week and concluded in a way in with which he, apparently, did not agree. If I'm having dozens of complaints lodged against me, and don't respond to any, eventually one will "stick" just by sheer volume of the noise machine. Then it's lights out for me. Is there a way I can seek an admin to use methods of compulsion to require Bugs stop registering complaints about me multiple times each day? Perhaps he can be required to condense all his complaints into a single mega-complaint once per day? This would solve all my problems and put me back into my modest 20 minute/week editing footprint I used to enjoy.

Also, I'm still unclear if the "evidence they're gathering to use against" me "offline" is something about which I should be concerned? I'm not sure exactly what this is about and would appreciate some clarification. I'm still learning how to defend myself against complaints as it's nothing I've ever had to deal with until a few days ago and now I've just got a kind of baptism by fire with so many hitting me from Bugs at once. I guess I'm just concerned I'll wake up tomorrow blocked. None of this is enjoyable for me but getting blocked is even less enjoyable. I really just want to edit articles. I don't know how I can get Bugs to lose interest in me. Felixhonecker (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You just need to shut up. Seriously, continue in this vein and you're blocked again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't be concerned about the "evidence-gathering". Baseball Bugs has agreed not to post to your talk page, and if he says something elsewhere you take exception to, I suggest ignoring it. If you're editing articles constructively, not acting controversially or against policy, and not posting to the admin noticeboards all the time (hint), I am confident you will be able to edit in peace. 28bytes (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You will not be judged by the number of complaints against you and there is no need to challenge any factual inaccuracies in them. You will be blocked (if at all) for what you have actually done, not what someone else says you have done (even if they say so multiple times). For example, if you are not socking you will not be blocked for it - no matter how often someone accuses you. So stop reacting to every post made by someone else, get on with editing the encyclopaedia and everything will calm down. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fut. Perf. above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over Eurovision content

Hi, I have a concern User Parishan has removed a huge part of text on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article see here. Claiming its not sourced and that it doesnt belong on the article, I have tried to reason with the user and stated that we needed a third party opinion. Instead the user reverted it back to his version and basically said that because he has been on Wikipedia longer he is right and I am wrong,and he/she did this in a very patronising tone overall. Also referring to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball which isnt any reason for removing the content as that guideline says that speculations and unsourced material arent welcome, this section are neither speculations or neither unsourced or not good sourced. Quite the opposit. The material removed by Parishan were sourced, and my personal main concern is my feeling that the user sometimes edits with a Azerbaijan bias. I have noticed that his edits often are pro-Azerbaijan and not Armenia. He has also been blocked twice way back for editing with a pro-Azerbaijan bias. I would request that the content removed are restored and that the user are told not to remove it again. Its up to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the page history and the talk page exchange between you, it appears that Parishan was making a very reasonable point, while you were just reverting him for the sake of it, avoiding substantial debate of the content issue and instead engaging in procedural lawyering and ad hominems. If anybody is not looking too good in this incident, I'm afraid it's you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree ofcourse, first let me remind you that I was the one who wanted a third party opinion while Parishan didnt listen at all reverting back. But now this isnt a who is right who is wrong discussion, it is a discussion about if the content removed should be restored or not. I have nothing personally against Parishan. And you are ofcourse entitled to your opinion but I have to disagree I felt personally that Parishan were unwilling to even wait for a third party opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If a user is that confident of his own edit then it doesnt hurt to have a third party opinion. Especially when another user specifically says that, that is what he/she wants to feel confident about the removed content.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have to question if the content had been removed had it been Azerbaijan that complained about Armenia. As the user has in fact edited alot of Azeri articles in a pro-Azerbaijan manor. That is no insult is a fact when looking trough hes/hers edits. I think the obvious answer to that question is that the content had not bene removed had it been Armenia turning off its airing of the JESC.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see a need for a third opinion, as long as nobody has bothered to present a second opinion. You have not, as far as I can see, presented any coherent argument, based on the merits of the content, why you would want to the content to stay. In the absence of such an argument, I don't see why he shouldn't have gone ahead and made the edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By your response I can see that you dont give any good reason at all for your decision/opinion. You totally ignoring my very very mutch so detailed explanation to why it should be reverted back. I am not interested in having any argument or meta-discussion with you, but let me just say it like this, I think you are not seeing the very good reasons for reversal just because you simply dont want to. And to say that I didnt give a reason when you dont give even a reason at all for your opinion...hmmm.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also has to ask if you actually has read trough my original message? I really wonder, because if you had you wouldnt say that a second opinion hasnt been raised.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at North Shore High School (New York)

 Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another bored and unimaginative high school kid inserting crudely derogatory comments about private persons, presumably classmates he dislikes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TheLostHero2012

This user edits against consensus. He/She also has never even tried to explain their actions. This user has never edited a talk page or even leaves an edit summary, He/She doesn't understand that Wikipedia is a community. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure TheLostHero2012 won't care, and won't respond here, thereby maintaining a record of not having a single talk page edit in the contribution history. For the most part, edits don't seem to be disruptive, and there isn't much I see that demands discussion. Failure to give edit summaries is a problem (because it increases workload for others who have to check the edits), but isn't really a blockable offense. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He edits against consensus. Like on Generator Rex. He keeps on adding characters that other editors have found not necessary. I feel he needs to be blocked, thereby forcing him to learn how Wikipedia works. JDDJS (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He needs to communicate, full stop. I've told him that and said he'll be blocked if he won't communicate and work with others. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. I 100% agree with what you said above and left on his talk page. JDDJS (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, he edited without consensus. JDDJS (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper posting to my talk page

I have repeatedly requested that User:Ronz not post to my talk page. She/he has ignored my request. Is there a way to block her/him from posting to my talk page? History: On Feb. 25th, after s/he templated my talk page [15] and that of two other editors with whom she is involved in a dispute, s/he edited my talk page to restore an unpleasant message from her/him that I had deleted: [16]. I responded that the template was inappropriate: [17]. On February 28th, after many more unpleasant postings to my talk page, I asked him/her not to post on my talk page any more in this edit summary. S/he then immediately posted again, so I explicitly asked, on my talk page, that she stop posting to my talk page: [18]. Since then, she/he as continued posting to my talk page: [19], [20], [21]. Please note that in a 3rr warning on Ronz's talk page yesterday, admin. Beeblebrox concludes: "You are way beyond 3RR already. Discussion is what we do instead of edit warring, it is not a free pass to continue warring behavior". In declining Ronz's request for page protection at Musical theatre, Beeblebrox wrote: "So talk on the talk page and stop edit warring. This could easily have boomeranged on you, I would be completely justified in blocking you right now, so cut it out or you will leave no choice." You may also find the recent discussions at Talk:Musical theatre of interest. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that your reply to Ronz's apology was less than graceful. I've blocked Ssilvers for edit warring on Musical theatre. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason you blocked one participant but not the other? Shell ^babelfish 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Prompt block review requested

I'd like this block reviewed, please. The diff cited is three days ago, and blaming Ssilvers for this edit-war (no one else was blocked or even warned) seems bizarre. I also note that Ssilvers has been editing for five years, has 70,000 edits, has (had) no block record, and appears not even to have received a warning, which is certainly in order before blocking a good-faith user of this tenure. (Disclosure: I have met Ssilvers at meetups and at the Gilbert & Sullivan Society and cannot claim to be entirely disinterested.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

People are routinely blocked these days, while those who should be don't; it's no surprise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good-faith editors should rarely, if ever, be blocked without being warned first that their behavior is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I support an immediate unblock. There doesn't seem to be any warnings and there was little harm being done to the encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock Seriously? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should be clearer. I'm not saying he should be unblocked, I'm saying I did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - Lulz. If Giano had said something as milquetoast as that, we'd be giving him barnstars for his improved tone and congeniality. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been unblocked, thanks to everyone! May I delete all that block stuff from my talk page? And, can it be cleared from my log? Also, in view of this, I'd like to broaden this ANI inquiry to request that someone review of the edits at Musical theatre since February 23 to see who has actually been edit warring there, and what the consensus actually is (as opposed to what involved editors say it is). For example, see these reverts, all within a 24 hour period that violated the 3rr rule: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Thanks for help and/or advice. BTW, I agree with the blocking admin that I handled my responses to Ronz poorly and hope to do better in the future. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. It can't be "cleared" from your block log as in memory hole cleared, but my unblock rationale tried to make clear that I wasn't just unblocking to be nice, but that people actually thought it should not have been made to begin with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note The dust seems to have settled while I was asleep, but I feel I should point out that I specifically warned Ronz [28] to stop edit warring and he simply removed [29] the warning and seemed to be saying that I don't understand the situation and need not be concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  I removed the notice because I had already taken steps to resolve the problem (20:11, 2 Mar), and indicated it in my edit summary (21:17, 2 Mar). I followed up with Beeblebrox, explaining that I had already promised to stop editing the article for 24 hours and to observe 1RR thereafter (22:11, 2 Mar). I indicated this on the article talk page as well so others could find it more easily (21:23, 2 Mar) --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz it seems does not like such evidence left on his talk page. His modus operandi is to spread the discussion around or to insist on placing the conversation on an opposing editor's talk page so people investigating have a harder time piecing things together and to shift blame onto the editor he is in dispute with by making it appear he is reasonably conversing with them on their talk page while simultaneously baiting them and planting diffs that support his view and disparage his opponent. It is surprising how effective his tactics are in bamboozling admins. The sophistication of it when one realizes what is really going on is troubling. I suggest admins wise up to it to avoid mistakes like the one committed in this case. Lambanog (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User Toddst1's blocking in general

As I was looking into this block by User Toddst1, I noticed another section about blocking for 3RR for a separate user on a separate issue, which you can find here. Going to the talk page of the user that was blocked, I found this section. I then proceeded to the article in question where the reverting took place, namely Thiruvananthapuram. I then looked at the history of the article, found here, and became instantly perplexed. User DileepKS69 had not violated 3RR as far as I can see. In fact, going back to the 22 at least, s/he hadn't reverted more than once within a 24 hour period. What the 3RR seems to be based on is the series of 4 edits made on February 25, which were, it seems, all reverts, but there were no intervening edits by other users. As far as I know, doesn't that mean that it qualifies as a single revert? A series of edits without any intervening edits by other users, I thought, counts as one edit or revert in terms of breaking policy. Silverseren^C 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't count and isn't 3RR, but who cares if the worst that ever happens to you is a cute little trout on your talk page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is really not helpful. :/ Silverseren^C 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Un-sarcastic? What is this section for? You know that nothing is going to happen; the only thing people get desysopped for is when they go to someone's house and stick an iron rod up their ass. We can give a "warning" or a slap on the fictional wrist, so go ahead. Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both blocks appear to be inappropriate. Are there further similar instances? N419BH 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't checked. I'll take a look and report back. Silverseren^C 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just from his talk page for the past month, I don't see any other outstanding incidents, but I am relying on the blocked people to comment on his talk page, which isn't really all-encompassing. Silverseren^C 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be better suited for a) a nice discussion with the admin or b) an RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to bring this to people's attention. I am not opposed to either course of action. I was actually hoping that Toddst1 would respond here himself. Silverseren^C 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My next question is actually exactly that, has this been brought to the admin's attention previously. If it has, then we're likely looking at a RFC/U. If it hasn't, then we're likely looking at a discussion with the admin. N419BH 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean has he been informed of this section or has he been reported previously for similar actions? Silverseren^C 05:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I informed him of this section. What I'm wondering is roughly how many incidents of questionable blocks we are dealing with, and has his general blocking behavior been the subject of previous discussions. If we're only dealing with a couple recent iffy blocks we don't really have that much of a problem; everyone screws up from time to time, including admins. If we're dealing with a longer-term problem then we have issues to discuss. If it's been discussed previously then we likely have a RFC/U on our hands. If it hasn't the first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the problem with the individual. So my question is really to determine the extent of the problem and where we are in the dispute resolution process. N419BH 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're being a little to quick to light the torches and wield the pitchforks here. Two possibly bad calls on blocks does not a bad admin make. A quick perusal thru ANI archives for topics on him show one that apparently went nowhere and one that WP:BOOMERANGed on the reporter. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I have always found Toddst to be an excellent admin, often in trying circumstances. We all make mistakes and I have more than one misjudged block on my own record, as I'm sure do the majority of admins who use the tools on a regualr basis. Let's back up a little bit and examine this in the context of his thousands of highly effective actions (including over 8,000 blocks). Maybe part of the reason good admins are so hard to find is that folks at ANI are so quick to turn things into a lynch mob? If there are genuine concerns about a particular admins' actions, the correct venue is their talk page and then a noticeboard iff and only if it can't be resolved amicably. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to users getting the impression that there are witch-hunts. Give the guy a bit of good faith and chance to respond; it seems quite obvious that he went offline after blocking (possibly to sleep or work or whatever other engagements he has in real life). People can make big mistakes, even under great pressure, but can graciously address them, and in such instances, there's no need to jump at all. It would be a different story if there was already knowledge of several previous instances which show for poor judgement where the post-handling of those instances was also concerning. Given that there is no knowledge, and this isn't even at a point where we can determine if this particular incident is resolved or not, this subthread does seem to be unhelpful altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH: It's going to be rather difficult to determine that, considering that Toddst1 is an admin who is involved in a lot of blocks. As other people have put it before, he is the admin that is complained about the most on ANI. However, most, of these reports are entirely unfounded and the original poster gets reblocked or warned. If there are other cases of questionable blocks, one would have to wade through all these other discussions.

@Tarc: I'm not calling for him to be de-sysopped here or anything like that. I'm just wanting him to be more careful in his blocks and, especially, to be nicer to said people. I'm also noticing a significant amount of incivility on his part toward the people he blocks, whether they deserve the block or not. Silverseren^C 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So really what we're dealing with is a couple iffy recent blocks; nothing more. People screw up from time to time. Let's see what his response is in the morning and go from there. N419BH 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Silverseren^C 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you never do anything, you never make a mistake. Agreeing with Tarc in this thread. An active admin who makes many appropriate blocks will make a few in error, and regrettable as that is, the real test is if he is responsive when questioned on the mistakes. He has done a lot of good work as an administrator. Does he correct his errors and strive to improve performance? Civility is appropriate even when dealing with those needing a block. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Edison. I admire Toddst1's work on Wikipedia. I have not looked into the details of this report, but have seen a lot to like in the past. Jusdafax 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From Toddst1

Hey folks. I’ve been out for a while. Just checked back in. I’m not going to try to defend my apparently ill-advised blocks today. Apparently I F-ed up. Apologies to all involved and no malice intended. Consider a trout (or maybe a salmon - they're bigger) - applied.

I will say that I had a RL incident earlier in the day that I’d rather not get into that probably contributed to a lapse of judgment.

If folks want to conduct a broader review of my many blocks, please do so. I've been a particularly active admin and there's a lot to review and probably a lot to improve upon. I will say I've always tried to act at least in good faith and to defend the principles of the project. I'm sure there are many opportunities for improvement in my history.

I think it’s time for a wikibreak for me. If my peers are amenable, I hope to be back in good form soon. Thanks for your patience. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's no real point in responding to this, since you left on a Wiki-break, but I suppose I will anyway in the hopes that you'll read it when you get back. First off, you are an amazing editor Toddst1 and I know situations like this are few and far between in terms of your editing and your active work as a blocking admin. The one thing, however, that I would ask that you work on is your attitude toward the people you block. I've noticed that you are generally quite curt, if not outright rude, toward them when they come to you seeking answers. Even if some of them are obviously not on your talk page for the proper reasons, that doesn't mean that you should respond badly to them. If you could just work on this when you get back and also be a tad more careful and less impulsive in how you block, I think events like this will stop happening, for the most part. Silverseren^C 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue

The situation at Ritual Decalogue has gotten ridiculous. The article had been stable since July; now a group of editors who work together at Ten Commandments and who once accepted that version have been deleting sourced material, adding info they know to be inaccurate, and making the lede about the name of the article rather than about the subject.

On stable articles they work on (such as recently with myself and Jay at Holocaust Denial), they quite rightly require refs for any changes, and do not expect refs to revert unref'd changes. However, they have a long history (over a year) of making changes to other articles without references, and then demanding that refs be supplied to restore the stable version.

In this case, they have deleted the well-sourced statement that the laws in Exodus 34 are called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible, and have added the inaccurate claim that the better-known Ten Commandments are thought to have been composed at a later date, ref'ing a discussion of 19th-century scholarship to justify that, and replacing a more accurate statement summarizing three common scholarly interpretations. The also use the wording "The Ritual Decalogue is a term used in Biblical criticism for a list of commandments given in Exodus 34". That violates the MOS, in that articles are supposed to be about their subject, not their title. And they've deleted various alternate names used in the scholarly literature.

We've edit warred over this; they insist that I cannot revert to the stable version without references. Well, more refs are a good thing, so I recently listed nine references on the talk page that Exodus 34 is called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible: not that biblical critics think it is, but that it simply is, and that biblical critics debate why it is. The refs I supplied are Jewish and Christian, liberal and conservative; they include refs that are used on multiple biblical articles on WP, as well as such obvious sources as the Oxford Annotated NVSV Bible. One ref is from an evangelical publishing house that finds this a difficult passage, as it doesn't square with their understanding of the Ten Commandments. They are not engaging in biblical criticism, but nonetheless state that the Bible calls the laws in Exodus 34 the "Ten Commandments". I've also supplied references for the alternate names. All of this was just reverted.[30]

I don't assume good faith any more: Well-referenced material is deleted, along with the references (with no indication that the refs are in any way inadequate), while a knowingly inaccurate definition is added. The literal reading of the Bible is not the traditional understanding of what the Ten Commandments are, and we say that in the article (perhaps we could go into more detail, if they like), but there is a concerted attempt here to censor the Bible itself, to deny that it says what it's so easy to demonstrate that it says; and also (I don't know why) to misrepresent what scholarship says about it. Variations of this argument have gone on for years, with these same editors, and numerous scholarly interpretations have been discussed in addition to the single old view they keep adding to the lede, a view which one of the editors says is anti-Jewish, but nonetheless seems to prefer.

They succeeded in getting all mention of this third version of "Ten Commandments" removed from the lede of the Ten Commandments article, and I long ago gave up on trying to fight them on that, but now they've brought the fight to the one remaining article that covers this material.

I'm going on vacation and don't know when I'll next have an internet connection, but this really is ridiculous. Please help! — kwami (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are in the right place for this request. It is a content dispute. Try the religion project, or NPOV/N or even perhaps the FT/N if you think they are pushing a fringe view. I'll have a look see myself, but I'm not sure what an administrator is going to do about any of this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Something strange going on here

I've been seeing a series of one-line articles created on possibly NN books. Each article is from a different new editor. There are definite parallels in the editing and edit comment style, so I think it's a WP:DUCK case that there is a sock parade in progress. None of the articles are really speedyable, as books do not fall under A7. This whole thing is just really strange to me. I'm really not sure what the point of it all is. SPAM? They seem to be from different authors and different publishers. Anyway, so far I have been tagging and/or PRODing the sub-stubs. Not sure what else could/should be done here. Articles found so far include: Bang !, Beige (novel), True Believer (novel), Viking Warrior, Love Sick (novel), Ask Me No Questions (novel), and maybe Crescendo (novel). The last breaks the SPA pattern, but there are edit comment similarities. Maybe just coincidence of timing, though.

I'll next work through notifying the different accounts of this thread... - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this, it's part of Wikipedia:School and university projects#Durham School of the Arts YA Novels Project (Spring 2011)... — Scientizzle 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

More info here: User:Roseclearfield/Durham School of the Arts YA Project Page — Scientizzle 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should probably remove your PRODs and give these new editors time to sort out how to improve the articles. Their teacher will likely help them. I doubt a teacher would have assigned these books without them being notable. Silverseren^C 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Already done. I'll leave the tags for now, with the hope that they will guide the students towards key areas of needed improvement. Anyway, thank you, Scientizzle, for your help identifying what was actually going on. I had my mind so set on "Sock Parade" that "School project" never entered my mind. But even "Sock Parade" really made little sense, because I could not think of a "Why" for someone doing that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And "School Project" explains the one that broke the new editor pattern. That one was from the one student who happened to already be a WP editor. :) (I'm guessing, but it fits. :) ) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the last article that broke the pattern, it might have helped clear things up before having to file this report if you had looked at said user's userpage, since it explains this school project thing. Silverseren^C 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:TROUT accepted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be mean. :P I was just pointing it out. Silverseren^C 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm all for getting new accounts to create new articles, but wikipedia shouldn't be used as a test project for a class. If the teacher wanted the students to experiment with wikipedia, they could have created sandboxes in their user space. --Jojhutton (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid your opinion is at odds with the common consensus and foundation stance that supports collaboration with school and university projects that are done as such. Silverseren^C 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Asking them to start on userspace would be a good start indeed. Although this shouldn't be a test ground, basically that's what it is basically for all new users. Whether or not a teacher has them do it, or they do it on their own, it's only going to be our help, guidance, and helpful criticism that will improve the editors and their articles. I just spent like an hour doing one of these books which really did seem like it should have been speedy del, but turned out she was quite notable, just not well known. Who (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From the project director: Students are starting userspaces, not to fear. But in order to put the Educational assignment tag up we just needed to create a few stubs (less than 10). For these books I will follow a different procedure next year. Again, not to fear, students are not experimenting on Wikipedia. Not to fear, not to fear. Best, Roseclearfield (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So...what happens to your student's projects if other Wikipedia editors end up improving their pages tremendously? Because I am severely tempted to help out with these book articles. o_o Silverseren^C 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good question, since I seriously updated Ask Me No Questions (novel). Oh well Who (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on the particular case, but in general I don't think that should ever be a big problem, since it is relatively easy for the teacher to examine the user contribution history or the article history to get an overall idea of how much input the student has had into the end result. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But if we (WP regular editors) do all the work, and leave little available work left for the students to do... - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

May not be an issue. Looking at how the page for the school project has developed over the last few hours, many students are selecting books that already have robust articles to "improve". If a student is going to find enough to improve on one of the "Twilight" articles, I don't think we need to worry about us leaving them with no work on brand new articles. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The critical reception section could certainly improved on that one, at least. There has to be tons of articles reviewing the book out there, more than the four reviews that are currently listed. And Meyer has gone on extensively in interviews about her development of the books, which can be used to expand that section. So, yeah, there is actually quite a bit that can be done, considering each of the Twilight books should have more than enough info out there for them to be raised to featured article status. Silverseren^C 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If it's a new/stubby article then it can indeed be a difficult balance. An approach I take is to focus more on making recommendations and suggestions on talk pages (user or article) of what needs to be changed, rather than just fixing it myself as I would normally do on other articles. Of course this doesn't mean avoiding editing the article at all. And it can take (a lot) more effort for the same immediate result. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. How Wikipedia has changed over the years. I remember giving a presentation on WP back in 2004, which included me demonstrating how to create an article. (Last I checked, that article hasn't been deleted. Probably hasn't been worked on since then, but that's another issue entirely.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the WP:Online Ambassadors to monitor the articles which the students have tagged as educational assignments. I am also one of the major contributers at WP:Novels and will help keep an eye on the student's contributions, Sadads (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailguy

Resolved

 – Blocked, and thank heavens for it. Kids need to get off WP and focus on school. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone any clue what User:Highspeedrailguy is up to at his user page? I know he's caused trouble before - is any action needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by NuclearWarfare. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was skeptical of the WP:GOTHACKED explanation the first time around, but this is just getting tiresome. This is the 8th (!) account or IP he has edited under due to clean starts, renames, compromised accounts, etc., and despite the efforts of a number of editors to guide him in the right direction, he just can't seem to avoid the drama. I think a short-term ban is in order. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I find it hard to believe the "hacked" story, especially as he seems to claim he was online at the same time as the hack - there are only so many times we should fall for "The sky is falling". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Left a final warning. T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I support Tim's warning and thought process behind it. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. Editor has rebutted the presumption of good faith, and is no longer entitled to AgF.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Further warning requested

Enough is enough. This user started as User:Perseus, Son of Zeus, then User:Perseus8235, then User:Highspeedrailguy. Now editing as User:173.49.140.141. Only the Highspeedrailguy account is blocked. This user has repeatedly requested deletes of talk pages and user pages, and is a highly disruptive user. Further examples include SPI accusations, cleanstart attempts, odd village pump requests, revealing personal information inappropriately, bad CSD tagging, Wikipedia account being hacked at least twice...the list goes on. I ran CU and found an additional linked account, User:Sheep Say Baa, which I blocked, and which he later claimed was "his brother".

This user seems to believe that only editing from one account at a time is within policy, and does not seem to get that disruption is a blockable - and bannable - offense. I would warn him myself but that would be poor form, as I've tried to engage, and have expressed some frustration myself. Having run a CU (and blocking an account as a result) definitely makes me involved. Would someone take a look and put him on a very short leash? I am thinking of something along the lines of one account, period, and further disruption will result in a ban, not a block.  Frank  |  talk  22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User is aware of this renewed discussion.  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a one-account restriction. The question is, which account? I believe both User:Perseus, Son of Zeus and User:Highspeedrailguy are permanently blocked as compromised, and him editing under an IP or IPs is not ideal given the obvious need to keep an eye on his edits. Does he get a new account, or should he resume editing as User:Perseus8235? Whatever account he chooses, I think we definitely need to proceed with the understanding that it's the last account he gets: if it gets either compromised or "compromised", that's it. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. He's had, what, eight chances? He needs to, as he said, focus on grades, and not let hackers distract him from RL. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? A 3-month block? Indef? 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd think a reasonably lengthy ban would be in his own interest as well as that of the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this was marked as resolved, however the Perseus8235 account is not blocked... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what got resolved exactly... the IP he's been using is unblocked, as is the Perseus8235 account. We also need to decide what his main account will be, for the purposes of the inevitable unblock request. My suggestion would be to consider Perseus8235 to be the main account, block both it and the IP for 3 months for disruption, and make clear that (1) Perseus8235 is to be the only account used, and (2) further disruption either from that account when it is unblocked in 3 months, or from any socks during or after the block, will extend the block to indef, and will likely lead to a ban discussion. The other accounts are indef-blocked at the moment, and should stay that way. I think a permanent ban is premature, but a 3-month block/ban of any editing would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Perseus8235 account unblocked, if he chooses to come back, he should not make any new accounts. I don't think restrictions are necessary; if something happens again, block indef. Eight chances is too many. He's already stated he will not return, though, so hopefully this is not needed. In reality, this is just an editor who needs to focus on life now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny story...

User:Secrets floating in the sea is a  Confirmed sock of Perseus. TNXMan 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Perseus8235; user is either displaying absolutely no control of any accounts or is playing games with us. –MuZemike 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. So much for not returning. This is just sad. I think "come back in three months and don't sock in the meantime" would have been the best thing for both him and the project, but I can't really argue with an indef either given the obvious not-getting-it. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he came to my talk page asking to be adopted, other than to waste my time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat reported to WMF already. I think it's time to let them handle this now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just taking the piss - has been all along. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly. But regardless, passing it up to WMF was the right thing to do. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User has been active on Simple under Highspeedrailguy in the last few days. Should some note of this be made there? I could just see him trying to hang around over there and cause trouble... -PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of his activities here, his first Simple edits appear to be edit-warring with an antivandalism bot, which isn't too encouraging. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. But is it advisable for me, or someone else, to make a note to active Simple editors to keep an eye out for him, or just leave it for them to figure out? I'm semi-active on Simple, and I know of at least a few cases recent cases where problem users from here just continued their problem behaviour on Simple, exhausting AGF until they were blocked. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to give folks over there a heads-up. I note that he's registered simple:User:Perseus8235 in addition to simple:User:Highspeedrailguy; no idea what other accounts he may have over there. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the Perseus account. I checked the latest one (Secrets...) and didn't find it registered. I have left a warning note on his talk page there and will post something on the noticeboards for the general community. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm considerably active at Simple English, so I'll keep an eye on him. This whole incident has been ridiculous.
And I can't help thinking that there's something to do with Access Denied here...(unless the CU evidence can say otherwise), but that's another story. Goodvac (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia actually under the heel of this new regime?

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

---

I would like confirmation from the community that the regime content editors are now under, according to Bwilkins, is in fact actually the case. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Bwilkins felt the need to respond as he did; perhaps you and he have a history I don't know about? Or maybe just having a bad day? But your underlying question is too vague to really comment on; you said to Beeblebrox "You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are.". Could you point me to this conversation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. I have Beebebrox' talkpage on my watchlist, and I saw a vague yet extremely angry tirade against him. Without trying to clarify, I gave what I thought to be quite gentle, polite advice regarding 1RR. As a response to that, I was effectively called a Nazi and "one of the most problematic" admins on Wikipedia. I look back, I have called nobody names, and honestly thinking that Epipelagic has me mixed up with someone else, because becoming the target of wrath for politely helping makes no sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was not "quite gentle, polite advice". Every response the two of you made in that section on Beeblebrox's talk page is worse than the comment it is responding to. If you want to solve problems, de-escalation is more useful than escalation. But that's kind of a side issue. The question I have is, what is the background that lead to Epipelagic's first post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Epipelagic's question, I can confirm that what Bwilkins wrote is correct: namely, edit warring is forbidden and certain articles may be subject to particular additional revert restrictions.  Sandstein  14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But is it true that any admin can unilaterally impose additional revert restrictions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, only where they are authorized to do so by explicit community or ArbCom decision. You are right, Bwilkins's response does not correctly represent policy in that regard.  Sandstein  14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna ask the same thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just up for a moment, it's 4 am where I am. I'll see if I can find relevant difs latter. Thank you for your most "gentle, polite advice" Wilkins. It was you, not me, who called you a Nazi, I merely reflected back to you precisely what you said, which was that my position was "filth". I have no doubt that if anyone had said that to you, you would have blocked them for a long time, and that no other administrator would have challenged your block. But I am a powerless content editor, therefore dispensable and of no consequence. As you say, just filth. One rule for administrators, altogether another for dispensable content editors. Sandstein has endorsed your position of the draconian control admins can exert now, where content editors who try to protect Wikipedia may have little leeway, not even to make one revert. Why now would any any sane being choose to be a content editor on Wikipedia? Content editors are not posting much on this matter. Perhaps there is too much fear. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My advice to you at the moment Epipelagic, would be to get some sleep, come back here when you're slightly more relaxed, re-read what users (Sandstein in particular) are saying, and try to take a less melodramatic approach to fixing this issue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic, we forbid edit-warring because content editors may legitimately disagree with each other about how articles should read. The rules that restrict reverting are there to prevent such disagreements from being continued through reverting rather than resolved by discussion. Admins who enforce revert restrictions do not do so to penalize editors or to promote their own point of view (in fact they may not block editors with whom they are in a content disagreement), but to enable pacific discussion rather than confrontative reverting. In other words, revert restrictions are content-neutral, and they apply to all editors (including admins) in the same manner, no matter how much the editors believe that they are correct.  Sandstein  16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is just to indicate that I have read and am aware of all this and basically have nothing to add except that WP:EDITWAR is a policy that applies to every single person who edits here. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Question Who are these "content editors" & how are they different from the rest of us? Can I join this group, or is the fact my account has the Admin bit means I'm not supposed to edit at all? articles I can't think of the last time I put on my special Admin Sam Browne belt & armband, & repressed anyone for anything; I have kvetched (in a general sense, not at any specific person) about how my fellow Wikipedians don't understand what an encyclopedia is or how to do research -- but any Wikipedian can do that & I assume does. But in the last week weeks I started two different articles & improved a couple more from "Stub" to "Start" class or better, so I consider myself a creator of content. -- llywrch (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't work with content in articles where I am acting as an administrator, and I don't act as an administrator on articles where I am editing content. Up until recently that was what everyone expected an admin to do. Lately I seem to be running into an attitude that if an admin is not involved in the dispute they don't know enough about it to be able to tell who is edit warring and who isn't. I utterly reject that viewpoint as it is directly contradictory to the idea that admins use their tools dispassionately without taking sides. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It has the advantage of being consonant with the facts though, at least in my experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With appolagies for plagiarism: "Experts are scum: For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War — and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge — get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." That quote is as true today as it was five years ago; and not one of the regular admins here gives a blind cuss. Giacomo Returned 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Beeblebox Hear, hear. This links up with this angry and sarcastic outburst from the same user. I was surprised to see both, and I wonder what lies behind it.

Okay. My outburst was triggered by a user asking me, earlier in the day, what an administrator was. So I tried to explain it to him. I will repeat my attempt here, because it seems to me an accurate account...

That is a very naughty question you asked, about administrators. You must know by now that it is better for content editors to not think about such matters. It is enough to know that... well we really shouldn't even utter the name... that it is the elect you are referring to, the Wikipedia overlords, a nobility which is appointed for life. Most of them do good work on various administrative tasks, such as blocking vandals, moderating deletion debates and dealing with spammers. But having knowledge of what it takes to be a competent content editor is not a requirement for an administrator, in fact it seems to be an obstacle. If you wish to become one of the elect yourself, you should make your move soon. Otherwise you are in danger of becoming overqualified.

But then, for some reason, which totally escapes me, they are also given powers to block legitimate content editors. In the minds of some administrators, content editor = vandal. There is a small but very damaging group of administrators who resent content editors who write better content than they can, and try to block them on the flimsiest of grounds whenever they can. I suppose it's just human nature, but it's mean and destructive. If a content editor tries to defend themselves, perhaps by stating something quite factual about the administrator's behaviour, they can block you for "incivility" or "a personal attack", which is their arcane code for "something I didn't want to hear". You then have a block record they will never erase, which follows and brands you, so other administrators and administrator wantabees can see at a glance that your thoughts are impure. Administrators can do this with impunity, they are not normally held responsible.

Administrators of this ilk tend to operate a set of linked delusional beliefs, such as "no editor is indispensable", "content editors are always replaceable", "there is an endless pool of quality editors falling over themselves to write for Wikipedia", "we don't need content editors now because Wikipedia is basically written", "all we need now are administrators to tidy thing up". There is no vision at all for the quality of the project. I've lost count now of the number of key scholars and scientists I've seen driven off Wikipedia by administrative buffoons. These people are not replaceable. Many of the world's best qualified editors willing to work with Wikipedia may well have already made their attempt, and will never return.

The administrative set up is very provoking, and the longer you edit the more unpleasant it seems to become. If you want to stay on here as a content editor, then the longer you stay, the more you come under the notice of the more predatory administrators, the more likely you are to have a growing block record, and the more saintly you must become. It is a systematic method of negative conditioning devised, perhaps unwittingly, by the administrative corps, as a regimen of escalating punishment for contributing well to Wikipedia. It is perhaps close to point where blocks are becoming badges of honour for content editors, a sign that they are the responsible editors, who contribute the content that needs to be contributed and don't shirk saying the things that need to be said. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The true problem is that content editors cannot become Admins unless they gives up content and fiddle about with categories and other people's typos as writing content alone is not considerd a good enough reason for being an Admin, and the fiddlers (all Admins - like theone who just hurriedly closed this section) will never agree to a change. Tres sad. Giacomo Returned 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus; please give recent examples of how that's been your experience. --John (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to do so at the moment. At the right time and the right place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 4 March 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.

Block needed

Can someone block 24.189.170.26 as WP:Block Evasion of 24.189.168.173? I am also wondering if a rangeblock is possible. They have edited under 24.189.170.26 24.189.168.173 24.189.21.22 24.189.171.59 and possibly more. Thanks, —GƒoleyFour— 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Also edited under the accont NYCSlover (talk · contribs · block log). —GƒoleyFour— 00:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: A rangeblock does not seem feasible, although further disruption might change my mind on that point.  Frank  |  talk  01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please block my account Indefinately

Resolved

 – The account will not be blocked at this time. Although all user rights have been removed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to ask this but can someone please block my account indefinately. I am not longer interested in editing in Dramapedia. Due to the number of edits I have done in the past I don't want someone to vandalize anything if my account gets compromised. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Smacks of an overly dramatic exit. If you want to leave then just leave. Flag your account with "retired". No one needs to block your account. If off the off chance you get compromised we can just block you then. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to look at blocking requests for further options. Who (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Its no big deal to me, if knowone cares. I just wanted to try and do the right thing in case it happens. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we do not care, there are just strict policies. Take a look at the link I provided, possibly try the javascript auto-block. Who (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that abandoning you account is the easiest solution. If you really want, you can exercise your right to WP:VANISH. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As the account has over 25,000 edits, renaming by local bureaucrats is not possible. –xeno^talk 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The user scrambling his own password would seem like the best approach. He'd be locked out of his own account, and presumably would end his wikipedia stay "cleanly". (Well, almost cleanly. He had one 16-minute block.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BB, if you want to leave for good, you should just do it by scrambling the password.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The self-enforced wiki-break would work too, as it would leave an "escape clause" in case he changes his mind someday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"She", I think, as "-ko" is a Japanese diminutive suffix reserved exclusively for female names, which is why The Mikado's character name "Ko-Ko" is a solecism. Rodhullandemu 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why was my comment deleted? It wasn't vandalism. Rodhullandemu 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That may have been an accident. I had to replace one post 2 days ago that another user accidentally deleted...I think timing issues on posts may be causing glitches...I would AGF and not worry about it. But to answer the question, "He" is correct.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The removal occurred here – since the edit summary pointed at a section other than this one, I think the removal was an accident and a result of an apparent edit conflict (only one minute between yours and Malleus' edit). I've restored the comment for you. HeyMid (contribs) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have, sorry Rod.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have scrambled my account password to avoid the temptation to edit. Maybe someday I will return....but unless the drama decreases and the general attitude changes from being less like a High school drama club to being one of wanting to build an encyclopedia (which I find rather unlikely) I will just edit somewhere else, maybe Knol. They seem to be doing pretty good work these days. --71.163.243.16 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Something permanent?

I just ran across User 216.51.166.26 making this series of edits. Normally I would just add a warning or report to AIV if there was enough warnings recently. However, as you can go and see yourself, I ran across a talk page with a myriad of warning spread out across years. I'm not sure if this is something that AIV would deal with, since this would be the first vandalism since January, but I do think this account should be indeffed, as it is clear there is nothing good coming from it. Thus, I brought it here. Silverseren^C 17:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of teh stoopid coming from that IP this morning for a full set of warnings. I dropped a uw-longterm on it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Silverseren^C 17:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A revdel would be good there also, for (apparently) the same reason as in the next section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has decided, with no evidence, that I am attacking someone's religion (whose, I'm not sure), on a page where the subject came up as to whether Catholicism is Christianity. I've tried to point out, in my typically unique way, that Catholicism is the most successful Christian denomination in the world. I'm not sure just what he has a problem with, but he won't talk, he just keeps deleting. What should I do about this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC) What should you do? Convert my son, convert, and the prob will go away. Moriori (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Convert to what? He won't tell me what he thinks is being "denigrated". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I'm glad you brought this up, because this is an incident. WP:TALK and WP:SOAP are very clear about what talkpages are to be used for. The Mi'maq talkpage is to be used for discussing improvements to the Mi'kmaq article. Not to be used for comparing Roman Catholicism to McDonalds' hamburgers, surely there is a more appropriate place for opinions like that on the web, like ArchieBunker.com or something. If I were Roman Catholic, which I'm not, I would be personally offended, but something in me doesn't like to see this happening to anyone else's beliefs either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I wish there was a GrownupPedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC) McDonald's was successful because they got out well in front of everyone and have remained number one. The Catholic Church did likewise, and they are the most successful church in the world. That's the point I was trying to make. Til's comments are misguided and out of line. Plus, he has violated 3RR now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC) If we have rules stating that talkpages are only to be used for discussing improvements to that article, but certain editors are priviliged enough to flout these rules and can go onto Talk:Mi'kmaq spouting their opinions about the Catholic Church or whatever, ut nothing at all to do with the article, then the "rules" are obviously a sham in the eyes of everyone. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC) It started with an editor asking the incredibly ignorant question as to whether Catholicism is a form of Christianity.[31] How that qualifies as "discussing improvements to the article" is anyone's guess. Yet you let that stand and targeted my comments specifically. If you're going to zap something, zap the whole section, not just the part you don't like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC) I've archived the section; I think you've both been trolled into banter by some bored kid. Shake hands and leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (ec) ::::::::I agree that the whole section shows little potential for improving the article, and it just barely qualifies as discussion of content, being that "Christianity" is listed as one of the religions of the Mi'kmaq, and the anon editor for whatever misguided reason apparently questioned if that were appropriate. But the comments were digressing more and more from anything to do with the Mi'kmaq and the comment I removed was borderline offensive, Mi'kmaq were guaranteed the right to practice Catholicism by Chief Membertou in 1607 and the reason why some do has nothing to do with McDonalds Restaurants or marketing techniques, nobody cares about your opinion. Talkpages are not your smoking room. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (ec):It actually began with a question on the ref desk. I'm not sure it was trolling. But whatever - the entire subject was off-topic for the article page, but no one was having any problems until Til stuck his nose into it. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Seb was right, I was being trolled. The troll is blocked, and I have apologized to Til for being such a jerk about this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest by an admin

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

SchuminWeb has a long and checkered past with the Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray websites. He should not be involved in nominating nor arguing for their deletion. He posted and was posted about voluminously on both sites. Cundallini (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack. GiantSnowman 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moo? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacas escritoras? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's My Cow? HalfShadow 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Who are you people and where's my horse?". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wife, No Horse, No Moustache. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I've been seduced by the duck side of the farce. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What also floats in water? A duck! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BIGDUCK LiteralKa (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How a user with a total of 2 edits would know about someone's "long and checkered past" is hard to say. Cundallini, meanwhile, had a short and checkmated present. Ironically, Cundallini is an old Italian word meaning "Boomerang". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-read Cundallini's post. He says SW had a long and chequered past on those websites. Many WP editors use their WP handles elsewhere (I do this myself) - so it's not unreasonable for a "noob" to know about it - esp if SW posted on them "Hey I'm getting your WP pages deleted!" Sure doesn't sound like SW, but I think your reaction a little hasty. Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm inclined to unblock here. This user is not a sock of anyone but rather another person who came from the Old Man Murray site as a part of the current AFD dramafest currently going on. I don't think we have AGF'd very well here; moreover, if the user is intent on being disruptive, then let him get blocked on that instead of on a spurious claim of socking. –MuZemike 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed my previous comment due to the new evidence provided below. This is good block. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by all this. The above user has apparently been ridiculed by 10 experienced users some of whom are administrators. I assumed they knew something the rest of us didn't (or at least I didn't) and didn't pay much attention when I first saw it. But if these latter posts are correct (I have no clue one way or other) then I'm appalled. Either way, could one of the admins who posted above give an explanation of this lack of AGF and whether it's justified. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is an external website whose members have had a years-long habit of harassing SchuminWeb in all sorts of venues. There have been postings like the above trying to incriminate Schumin here on ANI periodically for several weeks. Once you've seen the pattern it's quite obvious that this posting was part of the same campaign. Besides, Cundallini (talk · contribs) has now also been CU-confirmed to be a sock of some sorts; see latest messages on his user talk by CU Tiptoety. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - relieved to hear it. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't making fun of User:Cundallini. I was making fun of User:GiantSnowman. But I have seen so many new accounts and ips harassing SchuminWeb over the years that I do tend not to get very excited about investigating them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Been reading through the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination) out of sheer nosiness, and I found it interesting that User:Kade miraculously rose from the dead after 4 years of inactivity after several blocks for PAs and harassment, only to be indeffed for PAs and harassment. I am dying to know whom this User:Kade is a sock of. What otherwise law-abiding Wikipedian has such an evil puppet? --64.85.220.182 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to have someone to compare it to before the CU's will go fishing for you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index

An editor using several IP addresses in the same range has been waging a slow-motion edit ear on these articles, adding unsourced attacks and also abusing other editors. IP has also posted attacks on BLPs, including Antony Loewenstein, Jon Lee Anderson and Orhan Pamuk. I have found at least 14 such IPs, all locating to Colombo.

As well as inserting unsourced hostile material, which has been reverted by at least seven other editors, the IP has posted personal attacks on various talk pages[32], [33], [34].

I'm not sure if this editor (and it is clearly all the same person) has technically breached 3RR; but this is still edit-warring and uncivil behaviour. RolandR (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your header links to the same article twice. I find it useful to use {{la}} in such cases.  Sandstein  14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The IPs referred to are

• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.111
• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.225
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.137
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.23
• Special:Contributions/123.231.84.222
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.56
• Special:Contributions/123.231.86.167
• Special:Contributions/123.231.88.210
• Special:Contributions/123.231.91.115
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.190
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.200
• Special:Contributions/123.231.95.71
• Special:Contributions/123.231.114.221

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hope Roland doesn't mind: I replaced the duplicate mention in the article with another article edited (in a decidedly biased and unverified manner) by these IPs. I agree with RolandR's complaint, but Roland, let me ask you, why didn't you put warning templates for soapboxing, personal attacks, etc., on all those IP talk pages? It may be redundant in the sense that it may not help, but it shows that you did go through the motions and that the user(s) is (are) warned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because each of these IPs appears to be used for just one day, on a spree of reverts and attacks, and is then abandoned for another. I didn't think that the next IP would look at notices on the user talk page of the previous IP. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. Most of the talk pages are still red links. Please try posting warnings etc. in the usual way and then report back here or to WP:AIV if that fails to stop the problem. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, for what good it's worth I have warned each of these IPs. But, since the next disruptive editing is likely to come from yet another, there may not be much point to this. When that happens, I will report it here; and I think we may need a range block. Meanwhile, I will request semi-protection on these two articles. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree warning them now is pointless; I guess I wasn't very clear in my first post. I meant that while the events are happening, someone should drop a warning on their Talk. For example, they used 123.231.93.190 for nearly an hour, and no warnings were issued. Page protection is a good idea. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This user is continuing disruptive edits from Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184, with edit summaries and talk page personally attacking me. RolandR (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

123.231.85.184 is now blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that the articles are protected, this user is posting personal attacks on several editors at Talk:Reporters Without Borders from Special:Contributions/123.231.85.97. This looks set to continue RolandR (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the classic "too dumb to stop" stereotype. HalfShadow 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, it appears that the Sri Lankin IP user's grasp of English (as well as wikipedia policy) is not good. If he keeps it up, semi-protecting the talk pages for a little while would probably help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think his English is excellent. He's having no trouble expressing himself at all. Semi-protecting the talk pages will probably just confirm our rabid racist agenda, racist pro western bias and expose our double standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add the "smiley". :) Although you might be onto something. Maybe he's good at writing English, but not good at reading it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch

Resolved

 – Just an errant mouse click. All sorted. 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I never clicked nothing! ;P --Errant ^(chat!) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a mysterious addition of the phrase "Bold text" that I definitely did not put into an edit that I made, even though it appears that I did.[35] It disrupted the editing. Could someone explain how this could have happened and possibly investigate it? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably just a slip of the mouse. If you click the "B" button above the edit window it will insert that. Just make the edit again and use Preview to double-check before saving, and everything will be OK. No harm done. 28bytes (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your second try was successful. 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. While we're on the topic, theoretically is it possible for an administrator or someone else with privileged Wikipedia tools to covertly make such an alteration of another person's edit? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes: Nope. (I could imagine that some serious hacking from a dev could do this). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't take all that much "serious hacking"; anyone with write access to the database could do it in five seconds (assuming they knew the database schema, etc.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could example how someone might insert the term "WP:BEANS" into another contributors edits, with the relevant code? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be quite hard to do such a deception about anything significant without a high chance of it being found after the fact. The db is replicated in too many places and in too many formats (old database dumps are just the most obvious). There's also methods of authenticating audit logs cryptographically to prevent later forgery, used for example in the financial sector, but I doubt Wikipedia is bothering with aything like that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What often happens now is the toolbar loads after the edit box opens, moving the top of the box down. The click designed to get focus on the edit box hits the toolbar instead. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

At first thought that would be a likely scenario but on second thought it isn't. If one were to click on that position it would be for editing at that specific position, and the appearance of "Bold text" would be obvious.

On second thought regarding another comment, clicking "Show preview" did not clearly display the undesirable addition "Bold text" since it wasn't near the focus of the editing and it wasn't noticed, but it was noticed when "Show changes" was clicked. 75.47.156.95 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Esfericum

Found User:Esfericum vandalising User:LibStar user page and leaving an accusation of racism[36]. I reverted him and left him a warning. He responded with more allegations of racism and antisemitism as well[37]. Is this acceptable behaviour? English appears not to be User:Esfericum's first language. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruptive addition of non-notable person to assorted articles in spite of warnings. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the current policy on "Shit lists"

Resolved

 – Editor begrudgingly apologised, content has been removed. Fences&Windows 05:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I've asked an editor, User:Jaknouse, to remove this User:Jaknouse#Editors on my Shit-List, and they have polity declined [38]. What is the current policy on this? Heiro 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There are precedents but I don't know if there is specific policy. Somewhere between WP:NPA and WP:BAIT (maybe a WP:GRUDGE). It's a no-no for me. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I did this specifically because there were two individuals who took action that I regarded as highly illegitimate and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and I LITERALLY COULD FIND NO OTHER RECOURSE. Both of these are individuals who hide their identities. You will notice that I am quite up-front about who I am. jaknouse (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You should still be above that sort of thing. HalfShadow 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The user's first entry was nine years ago. Surely he should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Enemies lists" are not allowed, and will typically result in a block if an editor refuses to remove such. If the editor is having problems with particular editors, he already knows who they are, and listing them is a WP:POINT violation as well as a personal attack. If he has issues with users, he needs to take those issues through proper channels; here, or dispute resolution, or sockpuppet investigation - or just have a conversation with a trusted admin. The user should be told, in no uncertain terms, to remove the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have to find any recourse, jaknouse? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy is Wikipedia:No personal attacks, per nutshell "Comment on content, not contributors". As BB says, the editor knows which editors he has issues with - listing them for the review of others is inappropriate and uncollegiate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare has removed it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - WOW, I'm not on it. I thought I was on everyones shit-list.Joking aside, I have seen others create lists similar to this, although not as harsh, usually calling the list user pages I have contributed on, or something to that effect. Not a big fanof enemies lists, and this one did seem a bit brash and to the point. Not exactly a candidate for consensus builder of the year.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling I prolly will be now, lol. Heiro 22:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The only enemies' lists that belong on Wikipedia are those notable in real life, such as Nixon's. Not only do they often WP:BOOMERANG (thinking about it, Nixon's did too), they do nothing to build an encyclopedia. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no organization – private or public, charitable or commercial, with paid or volunteer personnel – wherein this would be considered acceptable conduct. If Alice thinks Bob is doing a crappy job at work, she has many potential ways to deal with the issue. One that is never appropriate is posting a notice on the outside wall of her cubicle declaiming to all passerby that Bob is incompetent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as an observation, because of the (misbegotten) way that wikipedia works, there will always be editors with shit lists: I am quite certain that I am on the shit-list of several others, for instance (based on the way they respond to my posts), though I doubt they would admit it. The only issue here is whether such things should be allowed to be public, and personally, I'd rather not see someone get punished for being honest about something that is that prevalent on project.

I'll also add (mostly at HalfShadow), that I have personally come to ignore posts like the "you should still be above that sort of thing" such as was offered above. Not that I disagree with the ideal, mind you, but as far as I can see such phrases are only ever aimed at reasonable editors who lose their temper, and never at unreasonable editors who act like spoiled brats. Everyone should be above that sort of thing, but if other editors are not held (and do not hold themselves) to that standard of maturity, then I reserve the right to be just as mean-spiritedly childish as they are should I see the need. One of the advantages of actually being mature is that is that I can (mostly) turn that kind of thing on and off at a whim, and sometimes it's a useful tool for dealing with people who act that way as a lifestyle. Speak to people in the language they understand, if you follow me...

enough said. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, all right, I'll apologize for the shitlist thing. It was, though, ONLY in my own space, not in any one else's. In any case, I really wish that people would talk to me before peremptorily removing an edit, for a reality check. In some cases, they are right, but in many cases they're just not getting something. A classic example is one article I'd been actively working on -- William Dunlop Brackenridge and I did a cautionary save and someone posted a speedy deletion tag WHILE I was working on it! jaknouse (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Jaknouse displays a fundamental misunderstanding of an element of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia when he declared above "Both of these are individuals who hide their identities. You will notice that I am quite up-front about who I am." There is absolutely no need to out oneself on Wikipedia. In fact, IMHO, it's quite rare. I don't use explicit identification of myself here. I don't really have anything to hide, but it would create considerable distraction in other ways because of a couple of other roles in which I participate, both work wise and voluntarily. After all these years, surely he has noticed that a lot of great editors (not that I'm included in that category) remain incognito here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely stand by my opinion on anonymity. If you want to be anonymous, then don't do anything controversial. jaknouse (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And you have every right to that opinion, but it would be wise to accept that it is an extreme and unusual one here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, let me point out that I do not and have never initiated conflicts. I do edits that are my own and do not EVER go making predatory edits of other people's efforts. When I have reacted, it's because of another person has taken actions without initiating a legitimate review process or because they have taken peremptory action without fully understanding the issue and have not bothered to ask me why. If I question a particular revision by someone else with which I have issues, I ask why before I go jumping to conclusions. I am open to suggestion, and have tried to incorporate reasonable suggestions. I am open to group process, as long as I have an opportunity to participate. In other words, I believe in working cooperatively, and if I seem hostile to anybody, then it's because I have perceived them as being deliberately not cooperative. If you talk WITH me, I discuss things. I am not here to have a power trip. Some people are. Those are the people who push my buttons. Yes, I have been wrong about some things within the context of Wikipedia, but have tried to make alterations where justified. So don't go piling on me as a scapegoat. jaknouse (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology above. With the offending content now gone, I think we're done here. I've marked this as resolved. Fences&Windows 05:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness

no action required. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Supreme Deliciousness posted a link to article(s) and claimed it is written by another editor. As far as I understand, the article(s) disclose the personal name of the author but do not disclose their Wikipedia user name. I'm not sure how User:Supreme Deliciousness made the connection between two. WP:OVERSIGHT was performed on offending edits. User:Supreme Deliciousness was notified about WP:OUTING and this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC) This issue has been discussed at an admins talkpage and at enforcement, I don't know why AgadaUrbanit opened this up here again now. I have already said all that I can say: A user published an article at a big newspaper and several websites where he talked about his own edits at Wikipedia and he signed his name. This gave me the impression that his name was no issue for him. I linked to the article to show what he previously had said, not to reveal his name. As soon as he told me that he didn't want it revealed, I didn't link to it again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC) SD, I am not sure, did the article link to which you have published included in addition to personal name also author's Wiki username? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC) AgadaUrbanit, what admin action are you requesting here? I though the a matter had been settled at AE. Also, what is your involvement in this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC) I am an involved editor watching SD talk page. It appears that WP:OUTING was breached, thus I request community ban. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC) I wasn't sure if it was addressed at AE. The issue was ignored the first time it came up because the editor making the request was banned. And the it came up again recently but other issues were discussed while this was mainly ignored. If admins say that they took it into consideration when closing it then it should be all good but I was under the impression that it was not looked into. SD continues to assert that he did nothing wrong so if it was considered and found to be innappropriate then he certainly wasn;t made aware of it.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) No, I said I was wrong: [39]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) The explanation that SD didn't realise the editor didn't want their name connected to their account is a reasonable one, and they've apologised for it. The more we talk about it, the more people will work out what newspaper article it was and will do the same basic deduction SD did: the Streisand effect. So let's stop talking about it. Fences&Windows 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC) the explanation that he didn't realize that someone who is editing here using an alias does't want it connected to his real life name is bullshit, and I can't believe an admin wouild be so gullible as to call it reasonable. This is doubly so when SD participated in a discussion here on ANI several months ago when this first came up, after Nableezy performed the same outing off-wiki. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC) If someone signs their name to a newspaper article talking about their editing wikipedia, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that they don't mind their name being connected to their wikilife. I don't know any details about this other than what has been said here, but I would like to say that some people may edit under an alias but not care that their name gets out - they might just use the alias because they happen to like it. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) I did not see this. Maybe that is sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Agree with Fences and Windows. It takes a couple of minutes to find out who JJG is from just the basic information presented here. The more you discuss this topic the more curious people like myself will try and figure it out. If you care about JJG's identity being protected I highly suggest you cease discussing this matter. No one is going to punish SD at this point. Let it drop. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) And now I know it was JJG involved. The Streisand effect rolls on. If I were so inclined I might start googling now... Hey, do you mind not calling my arguments "bullshit" and calling me "gullible", Powder Hound? I know fighting about Israel and Palestine is enormous fun (I assume this is what this is all about), but dragging bystanders through the mud just because you're all het up doesn't help. This is going nowhere, but there's no point lashing out at admins who comment here just because you want an opponent banned and it's not going your way. Fences&Windows 05:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny - disruptive editing on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I’ve been trying to reach agreement with User:Mindbunny on a content dispute in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and have found Mindbunny to be confrontational, unwilling to discuss meaningfully, as well as issues of WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally disruptive editing, underpinned by a POV. In a sense, the content issue is not that significant, but I am concerned enough to bring it here because I believe this user has driven other editors away from this article in order to keep control of it e.g. please see this and especially this posted by another editor. Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring here here here here here here here and here. An opposing editor posted these on Mindbunny’s talk page, gave up and has not edited the article since. The Mindbunny account has only been in existence since 1 December 2010. There is a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of User:Noloop who supposedly retired last November – another editor has begun an SPI on that (see here, the result is not yet known. Noloop largely created the article as it now is and was under scrutiny for disruptive behaviour (see also this revert of Noloop's Talk page) – that’s covered in the diffs in the SPI report. (Incidently, 5 editors in total have expressed the opnion that Mindbunny is a sock - see SPI diff plus this

On the specific issue of my current content dispute with Mindbunny, the summary is as follows. I introduced this edit at the beginning of Feb., which Mindbunny reverted. I couldn’t get Mindbunny to discuss this meaningfully and regretfully I got into an edit war. I admit I was at fault on this as well but it was out of frustration in Mindbunny’s lack of proper response. I reported it to AN/3RR (here. This was how far I got on the Talk page with the user at the time I reported it. Mindbunny was blocked and then unblocked in part because I was not sanctioned (the reviewing admin thought I was at fault as well.) After this Mindbunny posted a proper response to my edit on Talk, I responded by radically changing my edit here (with Talk comment) on 8 February. Actually it was a completely different edit albeit with te same underlying point. The article was edited by about 10 editors over the next two weeks including one editor who made some minor changes to the text I added and Mindbunny herself who edited other text in the section it was in on 21st February. None (including Mindbunny) removed the text or commented adversely on it. To me (and maybe I’m wrong on this) this indicates consensus acceptance of the text. Then on 22 February (the day after the SPI on Mindbunny began, to which I posted a comment on the 21st) Mindbunny removed the text. After two reverts, and an exchange on the Talk page I proposed that we get a WP:Thirdopinion here, but there has been no response despite asking a second time. I believe that the reason for Mindbunny’s latest reverts is (a) because I supported the SPI (the timing indicates that) and (b) it is contrary to Mindbunny’s strong POV on this subject. The original edit and this edit are completely different texts but with a similar underlying point. This point is valid and would provide the article with some balancing NPOV – it would appear that Mindbunny objects to that. Mindbunny's edits (as with Noloop) are generally along the lines of being overtly hostile to the Saudi treatment of women. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no sympathy with the Saudi position, but there is a question of maintaining NPOV credibility. I've informed Mindbunny of this post. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, on February 7, the user was not blocked (or, rather, the blocking admin quickly reversed their block), because at that point in time (February 7), they had not been given {{uw-3rr}} or some other warning making them aware of that policy. Since that time, Mindbunny's edits have contained very little other than edit warring and some fundamental misunderstandings of policy (eg "undo violation of BRD by Decausa" - what does that even mean?). I support something being done here. --B (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Mindbunny has adopted a similar approach on Lara Logan - see this. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Entertaining to see so much edit-warring by those complaining of edit warring. The link above is a threat by Eriklectic to start edit-warring, complete with a time and date: "I will be reverting the Lara Logan edits by 10am EST tomorrow". This, on a page that has been protected for much of the last week. B, who "supports something being done here" has chosen to do it by reverting my revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. His comments on the Talk page? Nonexistent. His edit summary? Nothing to do with content. That's a great way to diminish edit warring! As for Decausa, the actual sequence was that he plopped an enormous list down into the article, saying he had found it in Saudi Arabia and needed a place to stick it. [[40]]. I undid it with an edit summary, and he immediately reverted my revert, complained that my reasons weren't "proper," and accused me of edit-warring. Smart! Due to confusion caused by sloppy "recent change patrollers", I was blocked twice. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin on his own initiative. Decausa's description is erroneous in many other ways. This is wrong: " Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring...." I didn't add that; I undid its removal. There is more nonsense in his account, but it's not worth belaboring. My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.Mindbunny (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "I will edit war...", for any reason, is not the way to win friends and influence people. There are lots of things that lots of people would rather not have the public know that are reported and verifiable through reliable sources. Should they be removed from articles just because the person the article is about has neither confirmed or denied them despite the fact that reliable sources state them as fact? Also, a BLP that she didn't authorize - are you referring to the release of the information (which, if the source of the information is anonymous, how do we know they aren't speaking on her direct behalf?), or are you suggesting that the subjects of BLPs must give their consent to their Wikipedia articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts. Mindbunny (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, what makes you the enforcer? Why are you deciding for the community rather than letting the community decide for itself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one, am the enforcer on the issue, as the previous blocking admin (note: I'm not even sure what the whole edit war is about, so I can't be biased on the issue). And that statement was entirely inappropriate. Yeah, I kind of goofed up that block history; the first block was only not deserved because the user wasn't given a proper warning - although later talk on the user's page now gives the impression this may not be the user's only account. The second block was definitely deserved, but I was feeling lenient.

Mindbunny, please stop hitting the revert button and being rude, now, or you'll see yourself blocked again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why would I be blocked for "hitting the revert button", rather than, oh say, those who are hitting the edit button without consensus? As for civility....If you think you're entitled to know whether somebody was raped, you're an asshole. If you think that detail is encyclopedic when it is reported anonymously, you're truly uncivil. The idea that admins care more about the word "asshole" than compliance with something truly respectful, civil, and humane in the description of a sexual assault is offensive and disgusting. And, exactly why is all this crap being directed at me? Somebody just announced an intent to edit war beginning precisely at 10 AM tomorrow. A reader of this page just went over to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and reverted my revert--to prevent edit warring. So now you're threatening to block me for editing other pages because I said "asshole" on AN/I? That makes no sense. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning, referring to other editors by that term is uncivil and borders on WP:NPA territory. It has nothing to do with the article or its content, it has to do with how you choose to present your case. (And on the subject of the article and its content, does it strike anybody else as odd that the, presumably positive, statement that the assault was NOT rape is what's being demanded to be removed?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that I had been sexually assaulted. Would you ask me "Well, were you raped"? If you heard from someone who heard from someone who probably knew the truth, would you run around announcing that I hadn't been raped, and put it on the Internet? I sure hope not, and if you did do those things, you would be an #*$%. Privacy is privacy. You don't ask such things, and you don't tell them. If they're not volunteered, you live without knowing. It's for the victim to specify, or not. And, the BLP guidelines pretty much say that. Mindbunny (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. There doesn't seem to be any getting through that he/she is not in charge and we have to work with others.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. Despite clear, eminently civil requests from the community, Mindbunny appears intent on being uncivil, and of the mind that that is the only way (s)he will be able to make her point. We don't need that. Even if the substance of MB's issue is one (s)he is correct on. Would also suggest a CU, as this appears a likely second problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Account is stale for CU purposes, but the behavioral evidence is very strong. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. I wasn't exactly sure what should happen when I made the original post above, but with the User's responses (which is, by the way, typical of the way the User always behaves and edits) it's difficult to see that he/she will ever learn to behave in a reasonable way. This is particularly so, given the disruptive track record of the user's previous probable account, User:Noloop, who "retired" with the words "I am just fed up with Wikipedia: the cultural bias, the abusive administrators, and a "dispute resolution" process that ultimately has no method other than the popularity contest". DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- Noloop may have a legitimate basis for some of his complaints. Or not. But whether or not MB is the same editor, MB's performance here in this string is sufficient for a block. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block User has shown complete inability to assume good faith and thus assumes everyone else is wrong. Incivility and tendentious editing issues as well, on top of violating WP:CLEANSTART. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A block would solve everything. Do it! The best way to teach editors to assume good faith is to block them. The best way to teach them not to edit war is to revert their reverts. Do I assume everybody else is wrong? It seems to me I've spent hours giving reasons and researching Wikipedia policies. I must be hallucinating. Block me! Hallucinating editors can't help but be disruptive. A block would solve that. Do it. Mindbunny (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. In this case, it would help adjust clue level. The way you have been editing is not agreeable with the community. That's why this post is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the last post, I'm beginning to doubt if this user is ever going to get it, whatever the sanction. (Btw, Noloop was blocked four times before retiring, twice for edit-warring and twice for disruptive editing. At the last block in July 2010 the blocking admin.'s log summary was "apparently didn't get the message last time".) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The community is disorganized and careless. In a case like this, one can hardly blame it: this is a petty personal dispute. I think there has been a single comment from an editor not previously involved (Epeefleche). What is presented here to the community is a tip of an iceberg, a tip slanted and defined by the complainer. Your antagonistic entry into the discussion I started at the Village Pump [41] was a good example. I tried to turn a negative into a positive. You didn't do your research, assumed I was an asshole, and talked to me accordingly (to your credit, you corrected your mistake later, after I did your research for you). Magog blocked me twice--and undid his own blocks both times--because he didn't pay attention to detail. The recent change patrollers reverted me 3 times without even bothering to look at the Talk page--again, a failure to really care about the facts. I've tried to research some of the issues I've seen on this board that caught my attention. I always give up because it is hard and not that important. It takes a long time to sort out the history of a dispute. Nobody cares that much, nobody will bother. What is written here is not written by "the community." It is written by a few complainers with a prior history of conflict with me, and with a track record of distorting the facts. Mindbunny (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay attention to detail" and "really care about the facts": it wasn't me that entered your Village Pump discussion. Don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. The "you" in my comment refers to Bearean. Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you had previous conflicts with Bushranger and B? You've had a conflict with B since s/he left the post above but was there one prior? How was my response at the Pump antagonistic? I cited WP:BOOMERANG because you were guilty of calling Tide Rolls polite warning "vandalism" when you were there to accuse others of misusing the term. I didn't assume you were an asshole...I couldn't make up my mind whether you were a klutzy, complaining noob or someone's sockpuppet. I asked for diffs of what you said because I overlooked them (a mistake but not for lack of looking). I helped you by linking to the diffs once you pointed them out.

Ever since that time, I have been watching you. You really edit in just 2 articles primarily...and unfortunately the edit-warring and disruptive patterns are in both. You've proven above that you are willing to edit war regardless of policies or consensus and I'll add that I've seen you wikilawyering (that is most of what you do) to the point of being disruptive. Those two articles have ping-ponged back & forth in my watchlist with you arguing way too hard for you to have been anything other than someone's sock. Newbs don't jump into BLP arguments and initiate ANI threads or ask for automated tools to be created which penalize RC patrollers and vandal-fighters. I have yet to see you really compromise anywhere or admit that maybe the problem is yours. Sit back and look at the number of folks telling you to consider your actions...stop accusing everyone of being assholes and that everything is broken because things don't go your way. We're trying to clue you in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I argue and wikilawyer, and also refuse to respond and edit without discussion. Both are true. It makes perfect sense. I edit war against consensus, although there is no consensus and I'm not trying to change any article. That makes perfect sense too. I edit war regardless of polices, except for when I cite policies such as BLP and BRD, at which point I am being disruptive. That's fair. Thank you for teaching me. Mindbunny (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? Don't you think there might be a clue in so many saying pretty much the same thing about you but from different incidents? Or do you just think everyone else has got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't. The only editor here who has actually edited with me is you. You could go round up some other editors from Lara Logan, while ignoring those who agree with me. Given your prior interactions with me, I believe that's exactly what you'd do. You are dishonest. You say I tried to add things I didn't try to add, that I didn't explain my objections when I did, that I'm promoting an anti-Saudi POV when I'm not. You cherry-pick links and diffs to present a slanted view, and that slanted view affects the first impressions of others. Also affecting first impressions is my Talk page. It is plastered with erroneous warnings from recent change patrollers--not once, or twice, but three times. All invalid, but nonetheless giving a certain impression to visitors. (Amazingly, the patrollers all claim it's not their responsibility to take 60 seconds to look at the Talk page to see if what they're reverting really is vandalism. Like I said, the community is disorganized and careless.) My Talk page is plastered with block notices that never would have happened if not for the false positives by recent change patrollers. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin, but nonetheless it give visitors a certain impression. Erikeltic showed up and bared his fangs and outright threatened to edit war with me at 10 AM sharp the following day. Typically, you linked to this as evidence of my disruptiveness. You are dishonest. I'm not going to comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'm the mastermind behind a conspiracy against you. I can see you've decided to improve first impressions of yourself on your Talk page.DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny is reverting cited material from the London Times declaring it "has no consensus". This is making good on the promise of edit-warring. Please block...enough is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block From checking this and looking at this editors manner of responses it's time to issue the block. The reverting is continuing at the page which is not good. The uncivil manner of talking along with being totally disruptive I think the time has come to allow the block so that real work can be done at the articles. I also think that this editor should be made to put their other account name on this account since cleanstart has been breached. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an administrator now make a decision on this please. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, now this this account is just an edit-warring SPA. DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BLOCK NEEDED Yep, just coming here to make the same point. You were quicker. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support blocking for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT & WP:AFG. V7-sport (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Associated thread

See below for a broken continuance.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrator action or decision now please

This thread has now been open a week with no action taken (or decision made, if the view is that no action need be taken). A sixth user has now added his/her support for blocking (with an seventh supporting "something be done"). No one one (besides Mindbunny) has posted to disagree. Mindbunny has now made this revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The user being reverted (I suspect the reg user and IP are the same person) has made a number of positive improvements, added sourced material and taken out dubious POV-style material (including some of the tabloid-style box quotes so much-loved by Noloop/Mindbunny and criticized by the article's FA review), but along with that there are some problematic changes. It needs going through to establish what should be kept and what should not from the edit. Instead Mindbunny reverted everything with the comment "undo mass deletions of referenced material".

Mindbunny has reverted all substantive edits to the article since the Mindbunny account was created...every single one (except my modest one which prompted this thread). This covers everything from POV-pushing IPs to perfectly reasonable edits by long-established editors (like this one). I went back as far as October to see if I could find where Noloop/Mindunny allowed someone else to make a substantive edit - and gave up there. This is quite clearly a case of WP:OWN. Noloop wrote most of the article, and was able to do so "in peace" because it was a backwater with little editing traffic. Individual editors then come along and try to make changes and are then reverted on the basis of "no consensus". This article doesn't collect enough editing traffic to establish a group view to challenge Mindbunny's control. But even if it did, I suspect Minbunny would continue the same way as with Lara Logan. No one else will be able to contribute to this article until this issue is resolved.

Please can we have a decision on this one way or the other. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm and 1RR on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

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

---

Resolved

 – Emmanuelm subject to two-month I/P topic ban, closed at AE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NOT RESOLVED. User:Emmanuelm is appealing. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm (talk · contribs) -- The article in question is subject to ARBPIA. I note two reverts in less than 24 hours: [42] (edit summary includes "reintroduced") and [43] ("complete re-write"). The editor was blocked for 1RR on this article just over a month ago; in addition, there was an ANI discussion a couple of days ago on the same issue [44], resulting in a warning (because of "misinterpretation" of the 1RR policy). It would be difficult to conclude that the message is getting through. There is some pretty heavy POV-pushing going on, which needs to be dealt with in its own terms -- but the first step imo would be to insist on putting a stop to the 1RR violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not pay attention. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that it isn't clear enough how both of these edits are reverts. This one restores the following text (for a second time after I had removed it twice):

His job description, or U.N. mandate, deliberately excludes Palestinian human-rights abuses. As Dugard said on October 19, "I have a limited mandate, which is to investigate human rights violations by Israelis, not by Palestinians." The pre-determined outcome, however, has never been a problem for this lawyer. Far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe this way: "Today I deliver my annual criticism of Israel’s human rights record."

The source is an op-ed entitled "The U.N.'s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers" -- so among other problems this editor is putting statements like "far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe" in the voice of Wikipedia, not of the writer.

The second one changes an assertion that the Israelis bombed two schools in Gaza to an assertion that they bombed only one. "Sorry I didn't pay attention" might be adequate the first time -- but again we are now on the third instance of a 1RR problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The first edit is indeed a revert but it is one of many edits on this particular topic, discussed at Talk:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations#Bayefski on Dugard; thankfully, we now seem to have found a text & sources that satisfies everyone. The second edit is not a revert, it one step in my rewrite of the text to better reflect the source, including the addition of a new source and a Wikilink, all pointing to only one school bombed. Bottom line, I am not a bean counter, I am only trying to improve this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Emmanuelm (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A two-month I/P topic ban has been proposed at AE by EdJohnston -- perhaps another admin or two could weigh in and/or close? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I do not consider the undoing of a deletion a "revert". I am not undoing someone's work, I am protecting someone's work. I will explain, once more, the "reverts" denounced by Nomoskedasticity here and there.

The first two "revert" evoked by him, [45] and [46] were in facts attempts by me to undo Nomoskedasticity's deletion, without discussion, of a text & source, namely Bayefski on Dugard. After the first, I started a discussion topic on the subject. Then, to respond to his criticism of Bayefski as a single source, I found a second source from Dugard himself. I thought the result was a better and stronger text.

The third "revert", [47] was, again, me undoing the deletion, without discussion, of a text & source by User:Passionless, namely Costea & Canadians on Costea. User:Itsmejudith created a discussion topic where the issue was eventually resolved; the text was changed, one source removed. Again, I thought the result was a better and stronger text.

The fourth "revert", [48]] was not a revert at all. Instead, it was a step in the writing of a text & source, BBC on al Fakhura. It was originally inserted by User:Passionless, then edited by User:Ruby Tuesday ALMWR, then by me. I did not delete, instead I added another source & text. Here, Nomoskedasticity is clearly mistaken when calling this edit a "revert".

These four "reverts" were not my undoing other people's work, they were part of a normal editing process on these three topics that I would qualify as cool but not warring. I repeatedly quoted WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality to justify why I resisted the deletion of some of these sources. WP:WAR states "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring."

Since my suspension by you, Nomoskedasticity went on a rampage and deleted one source discussed previously, Bayefski on Dugard, deleted two other sources with their corresponding text not previously discussed, including an academic paper published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Rights (edit here), and deleted the text attached to a fourth source, thus hiding the negative opinion contained in it. These edits all remove or hide sources critical of the UN and thus favor a POV.

This suspension prevents me from preserving the NPOV against biased editors like Nomoskedasticity. It is unjust. I intend to fight it with all the tools available to me. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:42, 6 March 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.

Vandals on Disney Articles

Resolved

 – Users and IPs blocked. Who (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Ungster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 76.190.159.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be creating hoax disney articles and adding fake information to the same actors and shows that we were having an issue with earlier this month. I think they are likely socks, but I was wondering if anyone could help. Previous socks that are likely the same user include Odpod34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As of yet Ungster has no edits. I just speedied List of Teams Sport episodes on terms of G3, G11, plus "not a crystal ball" based off of possible vandalism. I looked at Teams Sport article, I can't rule it out as being a hoax or real as of yet, so I left it in good faith, for now. Who (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ungster, not Unger. But considering that this is following a very similar trend (users trying to recreate non-existant seasons of The Bad Girls Club and then making fake disney shows) I'm pretty positive this is a hoax too. Indeed, if it had been at least announced it would certainly be googleable (disney channel gets quite a lot of coverage).--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, that was a typo, I should have cut/paste. I did check contribs by link and there are still none. I am somewhat reluctant to base all user creation by ip to a sock or vandal if they haven't done anything. I am however watching them to be sure. It may sound naive, but I just prefer to be sure. Who (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to show this, but I'm pretty sure Ungster has no contributions now because they were all on the articles that you just speedied?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Damnit I'm a moron. Ungtser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought of that the first time I looked, I always check deleted contribs. By the time I deleted the article after researching it, he at that point, evidentally, made an edit to it, as well as one other article. Sorry, I did check the first time :) At this point I dont have info on the Disney Hoax editors, if another admin wants to block them right now thats fine. I'll do some research and see what I can do. Thanks Who (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible it's a sock of the previous "Hoax Disney" editor(s)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to remember who those were?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The one listed at WP:LTA is Bambifan101. I see Disney stuff daily while on patrol but whether or not it's Bambifan is impossible to say. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The other Disney vandal is User:Mario96; same general topics, but somewhat different MO. Those more experienced with them would be able to tell if this is either or neither of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the one I was thinking of.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the one I was thinking of as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that info helped. Plus the mis-spelling thru me for a bit, but I finally figured it out. User blocked. Anon temp blocked. Articles already marked for speedy. Who (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my bad on the typo, sorry, and thanks for the help.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Shugborough inscription

It looks like there's a slow-burn edit war going on at Shugborough inscription, between Elephantwood (talk · contribs) and a number of IPs. I've issued warnings to Elephantwood and to the IPs, but judging by the discussion at Talk:Shugborough inscription and the linked Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Shugborough Inscription, I'm really not sure what's going on and whether any other action is appropriate - perhaps a protection? (Just off to inform them all of this discussion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And I see Elephantwood has blanked the edit-war warning and the AN/I notification. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

...and calling someone "a nutter" is not particularly civil. Does it seem odd that a newbie with an account less than a week old with 23 edits is making a 3RR report? DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

hi Zebedee, I also noticed elephantwood calling the IPs names and blanking my NPA warning --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a POV issue on both sides, with Elephant knowing the system and attempting to mask his own POV in policy-adherence? Elephant is somewhat against this Morton report thing. No assumption of good faith on my part I know! :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Yes, I read the warning and took it on board before blanking it, and I have apologised on the talk page, unreservedly, for calling someone a nutter. Might we focus on the editing issue? Would it matter if I were a 100-thousand edit man masquerarding as a newbie?Elephantwood (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if you were a blocked 100,000 edit man would it matter, I would think. Content issues aren't really for AN/I or 3RRNB - perhaps a WP:Requests for comment template on the talk page might help draw attention to it. It would definitely be better for the content issue than here. Doc talk 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Elephantwood was caught replacing a Telegraph citation with an unavailable lesser source, thereby suggesting that the Morton Solution was not widely publicised. When this source was to hyperlinked Telegraph citation, he reverted it again. He at first appeared to want all mention of this solution removed from the page, using two long discredited pseudo-historical theories to back him up. He has also made very selective representations of Morton's official site (Morton denies any connection with the Grail and is clearly an outspoken enemy of pseudo-history). Now Elephant has reverted Paul Barlow's work again, thereby lending unreasonable emphasis to the Grail angle. Here is the question: is Elephantwood really the man to update this page? Or has he lost all credibility as a wikipedian? 85.179.143.97 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Doc! I'll do an RFC. 85 has just reverted again, and I've posted to the edit-warring noticeboard to air my suspicion that he is actually A J Morton himself. Thanks again.Elephantwood (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, so I have been margnally involved. The account Elephantwood came into existence recently apparently with the sole purpose of minimising reference to Morton's theories on this page. Elephantwood brought the matter to the Fringe Theories board page (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Shugborough_Inscription), where he/she attempted to portray Morton as a "fringe" writer, apparently deliberately phrasing accounts of some of Morton's views in a misleading way in order to make them appear to be New Age nonsense. Meanwhile the IPs are trying to Big Up Morton (who also has his own page A. J. Morton and already appears on others: Evonium). This has all the appearence of a personal grudge-match of some sort. Morton's views seem notable, but are far from definitive. However, they should be mentioned with due weight and without being misrepresented to the Wikipedia community. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a view of A J Morton's theory, and this has certainly come out in some of what I've posted to discussion pages. But I don't think he's New Age. More importantly, I don't think I've ever described his theory in a POV way in any of my edits. I just think it should be listed along with the other theories of an acrostic type. If you think any of my edits have been POV, or grudgily anti-Morton, please can you identify them. Thanks! (Or alternatively, of course, accept my point that I haven't made any edits of such a kind, which I think is what you'll decide to do).Elephantwood (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To debate the matter without resorting to bending Wikipedia policy (I am not insinuating that you have done so) is fine. That is what Wikipedia is all about. It does not require admin attention to do so, so if all parties are happy to continue this then admin intervention isn't particularly required. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

German IPs have been the major contributors to A. J. Morton, which is written like a book cover bio. Strange coincidence. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I contributed to these pages too, so you are probably still just looking at my IPs, like I have said (this is why they are german). Most of my edits were to remove obvious promotion. I don't think I've made any objectionable edits, most were about shortening or even a little disparaging. So I live in the same city, well Berlin's huge. And anyway, the original edit, the edit Elephant wants removed, was NOT made by me. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the article as it stands.On the talk page, I've asked "85.179.143.97" to make a case for the change they want to make, which would give more importance to A J Morton's article. The latest contribution there from "85.179.143.97"'s reads like the work of someone who is very 'owny' about A J Morton's website, who knows it very well indeed and is miffed that certain material there hasn't been given the importance they think it should be given. It's very different in style, tone, and vocabulary from the two more girly posts saying "So I live in the same city" and "You are pointing your finger at the wrong editor".Elephantwood (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I closed a complaint at AN3 by Elephantwood without being aware of this ANI discussion. See WP:AN3#User:92.231.189.224 and User:85.179.138.8 reported by User:Elephantwood (Result: Protected, submitter warned). As a result of that complaint, I fully protected the article for a week. After reviewing the matter I suggest that Elephantwood is on thin ice. The recent creation of his account, apparently just to edit war on this article, the personal attacks, the apparent detailed knowledge of Wikipedia by a brand-new editor, and his prompt removal of all warnings from his talk page suggest that his intentions are not good. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Owny?" Oh gimme a break. "knowy" maybe. I've done nothing wrong. I don't even particularly object to the subheading being reverted, having never put it there in the first place. What I do object to is EW's self-appointed status as page admin when his behaviour and his motives are clearly suspect. So much info on Holy Blood Holy Grail with little comment. Three sentences on a realistic sounding solution and war breaks out. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the article is protected now, so I don't see any further admin action being needed - if the edit war starts again when the protection lapses, we just protect it for longer, I guess. (But a note to the protagonists here - if you do carry on the edit war there's a pretty good chance you'll be blocked, and it won't matter whether you are right or wrong about the content. So if anyone wants to make any changes to the "Morton" content, please discuss it on the Talk page first and get a consensus before you make the change). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption in Kansas-related articles

While reading through some recent changes in the Kansas State University I read through a discussion regarding the actual name of the institution. While I don't really care one way or the other what the name is, it appears that one participant is clearly using multiple accounts. While the user may indeed be correct regarding the name of the school, the way he appears to be going about it is all wrong and is, by its very nature, disruptive. Edits from User:160.149.1.36 and User:24.143.45.75 seem to be identical to the positions taken by User:Spacini on the article's talk page. Furthermore, they seem to be being used as sockpuppets to give the appearance of more support being given to an argument than is actually present. I believe it to be in the best interests of WP to semi-protect the page immediately to prevent abuse of multiple accounts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

According to contribs for 160.149.1.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 24.143.45.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they are very similar edits. however 160.149.1.36 is a shared US Army account, so it can't be blocked. I do believe it is a possibility this is sockpuppet in play, and should be refered to Sockpuppet investigations. Based on this statement 1 made by 24.143.45.75 and these similar edits 1 & 2, I am temporarily blocking that account until it can be resolved further. Who (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

While the edits may be similar, I can assure everyone that I did not make the changes, nor did I cause them to be changed. I gave up on trying to let the facts take precedent after the the mediation determined that the facts were incorrect. If I had been the one to make the changes, I would have used all the cited references that I used before. Spacini (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oscar776

Not sure what to think of Oscar776 (talk · contribs). I see up to a level 4 warning for disruptive edits, a very large number of creations that got AFDed or speedied. Nothing is terribly wrong with their edits, but I do have to question their competence:

• Here, they completely fail at adding an image.
• Here, they somehow manage to add categories from a band's article to one of their albums' articles, somehow adding a {{good article}} tag in the process.
• Changing an image's name to the name of a nonexistant image, then changing it back a minute later
• Trying to push Black Tide through GA, showing a complete lack of understanding of WP:WIAGA
• Constant addition of good faith but unsourced material
• Egregious typos
• Creation of very short stubs about songs, with little more content than an infobox
• Complete ignorance of talk page — user has never posted to another's talk page, nor have they responded on their own.

Again, nothing too major at this point, but several small issues put together can become big. This user seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio, and I was wondering if anything should be done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thread got archived in less than a day. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bumping again since I'm clearly being ignored as usual. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like s/he needs some mentoring. I get the sense that s/he is quite young. Blackmane (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably being ignored because no use of the admin tools is required at this time. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Their most recent edits seem harmless. Hopefully they're (very slowly) getting the hang of things? If any bad edits need undoing, go for it, but I'm not sure what else can be or needs to be done. 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand the Hammer's frustration. The user is uncommunicative. I placed a few more templates and a note about an inappropriate image, and I have undone a number of their recent edits. I agree that there is no need for an administrator's intervention since these are not massive edits. Is there any sort of standard offer of mentoring we can make? I think they're not of bad will, but they clearly don't know or realize some of the editing standards here. Any mentors around for a hardrocking kid? Drmies (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked for admin action because I wasn't sure if his edits were egregious enough to warrant a block per WP:COMPETENCE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddie used to scare the crap out of me when I was 13 (and made me buy their album, of course), but not so much anymore. Younger Iron Maiden fans may be a little slower on the WP uptake, but if he added this classic image from the commons (assuming it's not copyrighted, and not that he uploaded it) to a Maiden article, he deserves a chance. Provided he plays by the rules, of course. Speak up, little Maiden fan! Doc talk 11:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes no answer can be taken as an answer. I'm not an admin and haven't even reviewed the case but the comments above appear to support what I was thinking before I read them. There is no need for blocking at this time. Yes mentoring or something of that sort may be a good idea, but this isn't really the place to ask for it. It perhaps also helpful to remember that just as the users you seem to sometimes deal with should hopefully stop and think about what they're doing and whether they should change their behaviour what they've been told by others when multiple people tell them to stop (or whatever), if you have similar problems like are being continually ignored or told 'wrong place'/'wrong time' you should also consider stopping and thinking about what you're doing and whether it may be wise to modify your behaviour in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasty decision

Dear Noticeboard supervisors:

I recently had a page, Argentine people of European descent, deleted because, according to Beeblebrox, "a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article" (see: User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion). This "same article" refers to White Argentine, which I did not write, but was deleted on February 11 by Beeblebrox because it was a "synthesis" (see: [49]). I felt at the time that the article was improperly (perhaps offensively) titled, and argued that it nevertheless contained a lot of valid facts and history that could be rescued by excising references to "white people" (the "construct") and refocusing the article on the relevant facts and history.

I believe that Beeblebrox is simply using his administrative privileges to have an article deleted without providing spefific reasons. He made blanket statements accusing me of simply "rewriting" something he had deleted, simply beacuse it looks similar to the other one. I added the new entry being very aware that it would be scrutinized for any bias, racism, or synthsized constructs. I began by cutting out the unsourced list of notable examples in the infobox, any mention of "white Argentines" (except to say the term is, indeed, atypical of Argentine speech), and any inference thereof. I left only the history and data, which are well-referenced. Lest we forget, the existence of Argentine people of European descent is self-evident, and in no way derides other communities in the country. Nor would the article fail to meet standards of fairness, sources, and thoroughness met by those on White Latin Americans, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries.

The fact remains, however, that 6 million Europeans settled in Argentina from the 1850s to the 1950s [50] (including every great-great-grandparent of mine, I should add), and that their descendants have forbears from several different nations, since, much like in the U.S., there was a lot of intermarriage between them. I can't imagine how what I wrote on this particular group could be either offensive or fictitious, and I invite you to take a look through the cache of the deleted page.

You can be sure that I would keep a close eye on the aricle to make sure no one added any language that pushed the idea that "white Argentines" is a valid term, or that all Argentines who happen to be of European descent are "white." Some are, some are less so - but they are of European descent and in that way, distinct from Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, and Afro Argentines (who each have their own story).

As I mentioned to Beeblebrox, I take my contributions here seriously, and I certainly took his opinions from February 11 seriously. I just feel that Beeblebrox is rushing to judgment in this case.

I appreciate your looking into this for me, and am available should you have any quaestions.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All I did was nominate it for speedy deletion. It was deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs). I have informed him of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sherlock4000:

Step one: Talk to Ronhjones.

Step two: if necessary, bring it up at WP:DRV, which is set up for issues like this.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider here is that the 'new' article used large chunks of the old 'White Argentine' article, but without any attempt to provide an editing history - thus plagiarising the works of unattributed authors, and possibly also breaching copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point. If the previous article text is to be used it should be restored with it's history intact before being re-worked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't necessarily count that against the editor, since it's not immediately obvious how a non-admin can do that (or that it should even be done at all). This guideline does not address the issue, for example. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is held against him or not it will need to be rectified if it is decided to allow this article to be recreated. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material is the relevant guideline. I'm not sure how users would find their way there, so adding a link from WP:Recreation of previously deleted pages would be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with my deletion. It was tagged as G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. It was also surprising that an article was created with a byte count of over 50,000! - no one can type a 50,000 byte article in the time that a edit token on Wikipedia is valid - this is obviously a saved version of the original, or copied from a mirror. Putting the article side by side on my wide monitor, with the deleted White Argentine, it was blatantly obvious that this was a re-creation of a page that was deleted at Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Argentine, the layout, the pictures and placement, the sub titles, were all there. One major difference was the page title, which I assumed had been changed, to deliberately try to avoid re-recognition. Thus the decision to delete was an easy one, which I still stand by.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the editor should ask for the original page, with its 1,143 edits to be userfied, so that he can then deal with the issues that were raised at the AfD, and also keeping the attributions. The editor can then ask for a review when completed and a move to article space.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron: I think that sounds like an idea. Let's do that. I'll edit the version deleted after the AfD debate with the changes I worked on a couple of days ago (plus one or two more I detected since then), and anyone who'd like can make suggestions accordingly. This could at least provide readers with an article not unlike White Brazilian, White Cuban, White Mexican, etc, but without synthetic constructs or anything else that should offend anyone.

Thank you for your help, Sherlock4000 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm always willing to userfy - full original article with all it's attributions intact is now at User:Sherlock4000/White Argentine. Note that this page is now on quite a few editors "radar", so they will be checking to make sure that

1. The page continues to be improved - i.e. does not remain as a static user page
2. It does not get back to article space prematurely.

If the title needs changing then that can be done when it does move back to article space. Happy editing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

LessHeardVanU's indef block of Rodhullandemu

Resolved

 – Unblocked by Maunus (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 15:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)
• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#De-sysopping question
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#I have blocked Rodhullandemu indefinitely

Can we have a review of this block please? Rod retired at around 1am, and although he continued editing in the next couple of hours, making some routine reverts, and an appeal to Jimbo over his recent desysop, he hasn't edited since 3.28am. LessHeardVanU has seen fit to block him at 11am, adjusting it at 11.25am, for reasons I can still not fathom, but appear to be a mix of disruptive editing, and/or editing after retiring, and/or comments made on Facebook, and/or protecting him from himself (you'll have to look at both the block log, LHvU's talk page and his section on the ongoing arbitration request for precise details). I see no real justification for this, and would appreciate it if an unwarranted block wasn't added to the things Rod has had to put up with here recently, if he hasn't already seen it. I don't know about anyone else, but I've had my fill of people claiming to be acting in Rod's best interests as they fuck him around (and others continue to bait him), and I think just sticking to basic policy might be a good way to proceed. In LHvU's own words at the case page, should "consensus arise that the sanction is inappropriate, the block may be lifted without reference to me". MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I am trying to do what I consider best for Rh&e, who I know outside of WP (although he has not yet responded to any of my recent messages). I am trying to remove his ability to make ill considered posts - at a time of day when he is unlikely to be in full control of his faculties - in the immediate future. I welcome a review of my actions, and will not query any reversal of them if that is the consensus (nor if ArbCom decide to do so). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ah dear... is "This is for your own protection" now a valid reason to block? Never heard of that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• unblock immediately This is not an acceptable use of the block tools according to any policy we have. I am not sure if the fact that you know him personally is a mitigating circumstance. In anycase, this is not what blocking is for, I suggest you unblock him yourself riht away. Furthermore the block means that he is unable to participate in his own ArbCom case. That is completely unacceptable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock – The fact that LessHeard vanU believes that a block protects Rodhullandemu (or somebody else) is not a valid reason to keep him blocked. Further, Rodhullandemu currently is subject to an arbitration case. Keeping Rodhullandemu blocked means he is unable to participate in the arbitration case (although LessHeard vanU believes he isn't interested in participating). Any user currently subject to an arbitration case should be allowed to participate in their arbitration case. HeyMid (contribs) 14:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• As I have also said on the blocking admin's talk page, I believe that this block is ill-considered. Editors are not required by any policy to either actively participate in arbitration proceedings or to refrain from editing while labeling themselves as "retired". Even if Rodhullandemu's conduct may appear erratic, it is not disruptive to the encyclopedia and does not warrant a block.  Sandstein  15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have gone ahead and unblocked him per the emergent consensus here and the fact that the block was not based in any policy. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I can see why LHvU blocked RH&E, but do not agree with the block. Principally, that is because I do not think it is sensible for us to be trying to protect contributors simply because they are acting unusual; they are not children, and we are not their parents. It is sad that we only take action ex post, and are generally not proactive, with regards to contributors whose behaviour seems to be degenerating, but I think it is the only workable practice: the alternative, as I see it, would be akin to a nanny state.

  I am inclined to treat LHvU's block with more seriousness because of his remark about RH&E being unstable at some times of the day; but I think it would be exceptionally unhelpful to have a protracted discussion about the particulars of that, and, by way of damage limitation, I would prefer, had last week's fiasco not occured, that that particular aspect of the situation be handled privately by ArbCom. AGK [•] 15:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• If LHvU should ever see me dousing myself in gasoline, he would be very welcome to take my lighter away. I wouldn't feel the same about every admin, mind you, but I trust that LHvU has good judgment and would have my best interest at heart. Sometimes stepping outside of policy may best serve Wikipedia and its contributors. I hope that he has reason to believe that Rodhullandemu would welcome his intervention in the spirit in which it was intended. That said, while I am only just now getting my first inkling of this situation, unblocking also seems appropriate. If the hour was the danger, the hour has passed. And, boy, I hope this mess resolves well. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan & Berean Hunter

Lara Logan probably needs full protection again. Third time in two weeks.

I believe the BLP concerns suggest that it should be protected without the material that describes her sexual assault in anti-Semitic terms, and is sourced anonymously.

Some of the edit warring is due to editors whose editing is consistently oriented toward "Jewish politics" (can't think of a better term). At one point, the use of anti-Israeli propaganda by Egyptians was mentioned three different times in our two-paragraph coverage of her coverage of Egypt.

User:Berean Hunter is very plainly trying to draw me into an edit war. His only edits to the article have been to revert my reverts. He doesn't seem to have read the Talk page, as he is unaware that there is a lack of consensus about the additions, even though the Talk page is utterly plastered with arguing about it. He doesn't seem to know (or care about) the history of the article, and that several editors have removed the material he is adding. He only arrived at the article by following me to it, after becoming involved in a different dispute. There should be a policy against following an editor around from one dispute to another. Nobody could possibly think the anti-Semitic material has anything like a consensus (I say more about this on the Talk page). It has caused the page to be protected twice, has been the subject of an ANI, and BLP noticeboard discussion, and two very lengthy threads in Talk. He reverted me using Twinkle (I don't fully understand the anti-vandal technology), and dumped a template warning on my Talk page. I followed a link which says very clearly that that is an abuse of Twinkle.

I don't care if I am blocked, so I don't care if Berean is blocked. I'm not requesting that. That would feel like two third-graders getting in a fight and then trying to get the other one in trouble. Berean needs to be warned that he should be editing the article because he cares about the content, not because he has taken a dislike to an editor. If I need a mentor or a warning, that's fine too. Mindbunny (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified Berean that you have posted this enquiry? See the notice on the top of this page. --Kudpung (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot. Doing now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a reason this is a seperate section from the existing thread on the topic? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no existing thread on Lara Logan and Berean Hunter. There is a thread about me and my behavior, a topic that had already been discussed to death. That thread is a gathering place for people who want to see me blocked. I'm not interested in discussing whether anybody should be blocked. First and foremost, I wanted Lara Logan protected (without anonymously sourced descriptions of her sexual assault). That's done. I also want some insight on the community attitude toward following an editor from one dispute to another solely for the purpose of reverting him, which is what Berean is doing. Mindbunny (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the normal location to report a BLP issue is WP:BLP/N. Also, should this not have been a BLP issue, I would quote WP:DRNC. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Berean Hunter

Lots of bad faith and bad assumptions.

First, I read (out of interest) & watchlisted the article when the news story broke. I didn't edit the article. When the first ANI thread occurred, I went to the talk page and cited WP:NOTNEWS which was backing your position and encouraging others to wait for better sourcing and leave material out. (diff) (edit summary:let the dust settle). My next comment was to an editor who implicated that you were a sock puppet and I defended your position on AGF. (diff) (edit summary:foul ball) When the editor continued on your talk page, I took a position of defending you then. (diff) (edit summary:account for the accusation, please)

You attempt here in your comments to implicate an anti-semitic theme. I don't see where you are getting that from but I assure you that isn't the case. That crowd shouting "Jews" or "Israelis" implicates their idiocy and ignorance.

I've begun reverting you because I see you edit-warring and being disruptive as your intentions were stated in the thread above that you would edit war to keep material out. When an editor placed a correctly cited contribution you reverted citing "no consensus, see Talk", I felt this was disingenuous particularly since you have no consensus on your side. You claim so, but it is like many of your claims and embellishments ==> false. Kind of like your claim above, "that several editors have removed the material he is adding"...apart from you, precisely one editor has removed it and that is the admin who protected the page. I've had nothing to do with the other times that the page was protected (I assume that I have something to do with the current protection...only that admin could say).

The template I dropped on your page is for WP:OWN and has nothing to do with vandalism. You cry wolf abuse and clamor for a policy change at the drop of a hat when you lack understanding or more than likely becasue it is tactical. I no longer assume AGF with you since you are dishonest and attempt to construe that which isn't. But go ahead and explain why this is an abuse of Twinkle.

"Berean needs to be warned that he should be editing the article because he cares about the content"...what policy does that come from? Why would you ask admins for something like that? I revert vandalism or fix things in articles that I couldn't care less about. The subjects being unimportant to me, I do so because because the project is important to me. If a vandal hits an article on my watchlist, I not only revert him but I chase down whatever else he hits. I don't care about Pokemon but I will try to keep the vandalism out of it. What do you really want in posting here?...and yes, this is related to the above thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from a semi interested bystander

Berean Hunter hasn't done anything wrong on the Logan thread. Simple as that. V7-sport (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Two corrections of fact, and two of policy.

• The anonymously sourced claim that those sexually assaulting Logan were chanting "Jew" or "spy" has been removed by 3 editors other than myself, a total of 8 times. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. I am not counting the admin who also removed the material before protecting it. This is why the page has been fully protected 3 times in the last two weeks. In your experience, does that happen because there is a consensus?
• V7 is hardly "semi-interested" He is on of the editors being reverted in the above list, and has been as active as anyone on the Talk page.

For someone who says he's had the page watchlisted since the story broke, you seem a little uninformed. Also, if such factual matters are the basis for making accusations, calling for blocks, and edit warring, you should also make an effort to better inform yourself.

• Of course I don't have consensus on my side. But I am not the one claiming there is a consensus, nor am I the one needing it. I am not trying to insert anonymously sourced material about a sexual assault into a BLP. If the above evidence weren't enough to establish a lack of consensus, you could have looked at any of the discussions I linked in Talk: [59] [60] [61] [62].
• Your last comments about vandalism are irrelevant. I may be wrong about the BLP issues, but I'm not vandalising anything. Treating me as a vandal is disruptive. Your comment proves the point: you are there merely to oppose me, which is a poor reason to be there.Mindbunny (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Whole lot of who shot John.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note - the sourcing is anything but anonymous. Unless The Boston Herald has gone incognito? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think "anonymous source" refers to men in black hats muttering at Wikipedia editors from doorways? An anonymous source can be used in a well-known publication. It is still anonymous. Just because the New York Post relies on such a source doesn't mean we do. Especially not when describing the circumstances of a recent sexual assault in a BLP. A BLP requires high-quality sources, and sexual assault in a BLP requires impeccable ones. Personally, I can't justify any details not authorized by the victim. It's a matter of sensitivity and basic decency. Mindbunny (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you can't hold up editing articles because of your moral standards. That's your POV and others may not hold the same POV as you do. I am totally uninvolved in all of this and I'm sorry to say but with reading this thread and the other thread above all I'm seeing is a lot of I didn't hear that, ownership problems and truth from you. You have to allow these articles to be edited by others, period. Sorry but that is what I see right now. As for Berean Hunter saying he's had this on his watchlist since this occurred, I think you need to assume good faith and believe that this is true. Sorry but this is what I've been seeing so far, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should I assume good faith from an editor who says to me "I no longer assume AGF with you since you are dishonest..."? He said I was the only editor removing material, when in fact the material had been removed 8 times by 3 different editors, or 9 times by 4 editors counting the protecting admin. That's kind of a whopper of a discrepancy. Hard to do it by accident, especially if he's had the article watchlisted since the beginning. Mindbunny (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Mindbunny. You asked " In your experience, does that happen because there is a consensus?" A direct answer to your question is in my experience I have noted that disruptive editing such as yours actually works to exclude material that activist editors don't want included or include material that ha no encyclopedic value. In my experience this encyclopedia is broken and whatever idiot has the most time on his hands to toss the most #@&$ usually gets his or her way. (Not calling you an idiot by the way, but you clearly have some time on your hands.) That said, by my count there are more people who have advocated for the materials inclusion and the last consensus break, which was arbitrarily short circuited when the article was protected was solidly in favor of inclusion. And yes, "semi-interested", indeed, I'm multitasking at the moment. I think I have the grand total of 2 edits to the Logan page, both of which lasted moments before they were reverted.

I'm going to give this one more shot despite the whole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing that you employ so well. It isn't just a single, anonymous source. When thee papers report something they put their names and reputations on the line, further you have no access to their sourcing as it wasn't reported in several of the citations. Stating that it is a single or anonymous source is misrepresenting what has been cited.

Again, Berean Hunterhasn't done anything wrong. This ANI should be pulled off the noticeboard. V7-sport (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going on at Lara Logan Talk. Is it within the rules to post a note saying that discussion should be directed here, or is that canvassing? DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Massive vandalism on computer game articles

Resolved

 – Stand down from battle stations. Vandalism levels have returned to normal. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a large amount of vandalism on computer games articles this evening, including Mario Party 6, Mass Effect, Imperial Guard, Daikatana, Sonic the Hedgehog (series), Dragon Age II, by registered users and IPs. I've indef blocked some registered users as blatant vandalism-only accounts, even if they've had no warnings, so that's a heads-up in case anyone things that's a bit harsh - but it needs to be stopped. Someone with a bit more experience might want to consider protecting some articles - it's not something I'm comfortable doing yet, at least not in the heat of battle. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's some sort of coordinated attack from somewhere. All we can do is liberally semi-protect. –MuZemike 22:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm blocking IPs too, for 24 hours, as they're still going -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, it looks to have cooled down. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this has happened. I remember helping fend of a similar attack on Jan. 24. The best solution seems to be a copious load of semiprotections and blocks. I've also been dropping level 4-im vandalism warnings on any IPs involved in the attacks. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a /v/ attack from our friends over at 4chan. –MuZemike 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, DEFCON level 1. —GƒoleyFour— 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll help with the reverts/blocks. Is the WP:Abuse filter helping at all? -- œ^™ 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's back to normal now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible death threat at Woodham, Surrey

WMF Contacted Jalexander--WMF 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See [63]. I have e-mailed emergency@wikimedia.org. Is there anything more to do?  -- Lear's Fool 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC) That's it. WMF handles it from that point on. That's why they get the big bucks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Hey, howcum they get paid? HalfShadow 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Kudos on catching this.--*Kat* (meow?) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the email, sorry for the late post here (we got it right away however) We're on it Jalexander--WMF 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible page protection

The article Frape(Frape = "facebook" + "rape) underwent a deletion discussion a while back, the consensus to redirect. Nonetheless IP's continue to remove the redirect and begin writing an article, often with not so promising prose "Some ideas for status updates: why does my vagina smell like a fishmarket?, getting a boner watching Schindler's List.. Is this normal?" etc, etc.

Can we protect this article as a redirect?AerobicFox (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

SALT and protect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I semi'd. Hope that's enough. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gracias.AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor violates WP:COPYRIGHT after warning

Resolved

 – editor used guillemets thus quoted a source The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I Dropped a warning on Andrea Jagher (talk · contribs) for inserting of copyrighted material into Recent African origin of modern humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yesterday. Today he went back and added more copyrighted text into the article. Could I have block here? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

For what offense is this block requested? The first diff shows a quoted piece of text, with attribution, and the second is heavily referenced and doesn't appear to come directly from any of the sources it refers to. If you have a specific accusation of copyright violation, let's have the diffs. If you are referring to whether or not the edits in question are appropriate for the tone of a Wikipedia article, that is a vastly different question - I agree the material isn't in keeping with how our articles are written, but that is not an immediately-blockable problem.  Frank  |  talk  17:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Check the text and the sources its straight cut and paste out of the sources which is blockable after sufficient warning. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did, and couldn't find the copyvio you are asserting. That's why I asked for diffs.

In addition, the user in question looks to be multi-lingual; see User:Andrea Jagher, where four language boxes are listed, and three of them are European, which might explain the use of « and » characters to offset quotes. Also, at the top of the user's page are two quotes which also use the European-style quote symbols.  Frank  |  talk  18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the diffs i provided above

Yesterday's violation has The text inserted here and is exact copy an paste from the source

is the exact same today straight copy and pasting from the sources. takes all its text from this, this, this, this this,this, and this one. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The first one is a 100%-attributed quote. The second is a paragraph that includes seven sources. (In addition, you are providing diffs to the removal of the content, not even to its introduction by Andrea Jagher, but that is a minor point; I was able to figure that out.) Again, I agree the introduction of the material is at best inartful, but to be calling these blockable copyright violations is a bit much.  Frank  |  talk  18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"« and »" are a foreign form of quotation marks? hmm thats is interesting and put alot of things in context The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They are called guillemets. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the warning on Andrea Jagher's talk page and left an explanatory note. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm I am gonna go leave an apology note The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be completely appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that I'm glad that you've apologized and that it's an understandable error; the first time I saw them, I didn't know what they were, either. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Nijgoykar- Defaming entry on Roman Catholic Brahmin

Resolved

 – user reported for vandalism after 4th warning Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Brahmin" is a word entirely belonging to Hinduism. But in this article the word is being used with a reference to other religion called Christianity. This article also has a lot of defaming words and sentencesWP:DEFAME and WP:VANDAL against the religion of Hinduism. Many of my entries in the history page has been deleted by the author. Kindly take action on this author and change the title of this article to some other than with a word "Brahmin". Wilspaul (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute; note that the posting user has been blocked previously for incivility, and has been warned about edit-warring, legal threats and sockpuppetry. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User now proceeds to vandalize the article, using rationales similar to those used for removing pictures of Muhammed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Second opinon

Need admin to take a look. i have currently nominated Template:YouTube artist for deletion for reasons cited here - However thats not what brings me here - this newly created single-puprose account i believe is spamming with this template - i think someone besides me should warn him about this because i dont think any warning from me would help - due to our first encounter at Template talk:YouTube artist.Moxy (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI you are supposed to notify them of this thread. No issue, I did it for you, but bear it in mind next time :) Also left them a note about perhaps leaving off usage of the template en-masse during the TFD. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Was going to send him a message - however the server lag thing that just happened over the past few hours - led me to belive this was not posting..was waiting to leave message after i could confirm it was here -- (link to it)...I apologizes for any confusion or work i caused you or anyone.Moxy (talk)

Scibaby/vandalism/personal attacks

130.94.91.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 207.67.144.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 130.94.91.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tired of cleaning up after this IP. User has been banned for sockpuppetry, personal attacks, harassment, vandalism. Coronerreport (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Scibaby issues. I do see that those IPs have made changes, some of which you discussed with them that did not seem like vandalism. However, two of them were months ago and have made valid edits 1 2 since. Although their maybe some vandalism, the IP maybe being used by other persons. Since this is an open case, I would suggest you refer it to WP:SPICLERK referencing the previous abuse. I am hestitant to block them since the edits are too far apart in time without knowing more on the case. Hopefully another admin will have more info on this. Who (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with scibaby, but those edits look completely and utterly unrelated to Scibaby to my eye. You will have to provide much better evidence than this if you want administrative action on the sockpuppetry front.. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, do you have an email address to send it to? Because the RW identity of this person is known. Btw, the proxy IPs fit exactly with prior sock IPs of User:Scibaby. Additional harassment, personal attacks and vandalism can be found at Guy Hoffman. In fact, you'll pretty much find any articles, Matt Gonzalez. Ralph Nader and the like, any articles related to "Wikipedia Idiots" author and her family, manipulated, vandalized or used for harassment by User:Scibaby and his cohort User:Griot, aka the recently blocked User:SCFilm29. Their activities have been reported to several anti-stalking agencies, such as Cyberangels, as well as specific enforcement agencies. Coronerreport (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Users can be emailed from WP. My email link is on the top of my userpage. However, I'm still skeptical that this is scibaby. To my knowledge, actors are well outside scibaby's area of interest. Furthermore there is no point to editing random articles as an IP, as the IP will never be autoconfirmed. In addition, the 130.94 range is not one he's ever edited from. It's on a different continent from the 130.56 range that he has been known to use. You may want to ask Raul654 (talk · contribs) who did the block on the IPs in the 207.67 range if he sees any similarity. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's him. Coronerreport (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by User:Bokiluis that are constantly peacocked, unsourced, and POV.

Resolved

Concerning User:Bokiluis (talkpage: User talk:Bokiluis) - Everything involving Diana Ross is peacocked, unsourced, and POV. His edits are reversed by other users on several pages, but it's getting tiring to clean up his mess. Asked him to stop, and be constructive, but that, obviously (as can be seen here), didn't help. Some of his edits: The Boss, Ross, Swept Away.. well, just take any pick from his contributions list. Is there anything that can be done? Regards, Robster1983 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on... Anyone? Please? Robster1983 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin here. Have you tried opening an RFC yet? Admins usually don't get involved with content problems unless all avenues have been persued to no avail. --Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thnx for replying. Imma try that one. Robster1983 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I just removed a peacock-y phrase "much acclaimed" from The Boss song article regarding Whitney Houston's live shows where she covered the song. Not sure if the editor in question added that or not. It's outside of my normal interests, but I have a certain affinity for Ms. Ross's music, and will come take a look-see at improving some of the articles you mentioned :) --Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case I will not persue any further action, for now. At this moment I am doing some damage control in the articles (can't fix everything, for much was unsourced to begin with). I will also follow him. If needed, I could warn him again a second time, and if needed, a third time), after which I have more ground to stand on when asking for a block. Again, thnx for helping out Quinn! It is very much appreciated! :) Robster1983 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Procedural question for admins: In a case like this, can I (a non admin) mark the thread as resolved, or is that a no-no? --Quinn ^CLOUDY 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can put up the template - and anyone can ignore it, and make a post. Quite a few sections get archived with no template; it is only a courtesy notice for anyone quickly reviewing which topics are live. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Quinn ^CLOUDY 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

attention torward WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – back logged eliminated

We have stuff thats been sitting there for 6 hours The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Single topic disruptive editing

Hi. Talk:Bailiff#Merger proposal has become a very lengthy discussion mainly between myself and User:Rrius. The latter uses such blatant demagogical tricks that assuming good faith could no longer be called 'naive'. It is a clear case of disruptive editing, preventing the merger of a stub article by its unarguedly purely French name Huissier de justice to be merged into Bailiff, and such without suggesting an alternative solution. Apart from the talk page (and a call for assistance that I do not criticize), Rrius had also pushed a completely incomprehensible robot translation from the French Wikipedia into the English article that I wish to merge, surely to make merging impossible: He had then left the "article" in that extremely poor state (though he definitely has the necessary capacities to have cleaned it up), most obviously without intending to work at it. I'm afraid it will be necessary to read through the entire discussion while staying focused, Rrius is clever enough to fool an uncareful reader. I already had identified his method explicitly, but now he continued with the worst demagogy and an unmistakingly plain lie.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 08:20 (UTC) 08:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does it appear as though the initial merger proposal happened in 2007? Is that a WP bug or a problem with my computer?--*Kat* ^(meow?) 08:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in here that merits administrative action against Rrius. It looks more like a content dispute to me. Have you tried mediation? --*Kat* ^(meow?) 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rrius is never disruptive. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great: After my explicit request to read through the entire discussion carefully, *Kat* proves not to have read it even superficially: His question is explicitly explained on two occasions. Before nevertheless coming to a conclusion, *Kat* should understand 'WP:Disruptive editing', [e.g.:

• disrupting progress toward improving an article
• disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia
• edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
• edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch
• harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors [...] by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity
• disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing]

before stating what it looks like. Do you think I would have spent all the time searching for proper sources and examples, and formulating arguments, for anything other than discussing content, until it became clear what it boils down to? Kittybrewster presented a clear and authoritative judgement based on the finest analysis I've seen in years; a judge above all suspicion of prejudice (= preconceived opinion). May I then ask, why do you both bother to hang around here? Is this the best one may expect here?​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 15:10-15:37 (UTC)

I've read the entire conversation. Summarizing for others here: you proposed a merger of an article in September 2007; one person responded, to oppose. Three months later, an uninvolved contributor closed the discussion as stale, without consensus to merge. This is all so far entirely proper. There is not and never has been a requirement to notify the proposer; we don't notify proposers of closures of AfDs. It is presumed that if you are interested, you will be watching the article. Over three years later, you protested the closure of the merge (with some misunderstanding of how long it had remained dormant, rectified) and renewed the conversation. There is absolutely no prohibition against editing articles during a merger proposal. This is permitted even during AfD. Evidently, the contributor disagrees with you that the articles Bailiff and Huissier de justice are the same concept; over two weeks ago, he attempted to improve the article with a translation from the French ([64]). Granted, it made a bit of a mess. Perhaps he relies on WP:IMPERFECT and hopes that other editors will fix the problems. There is no disruption evident in any of this. He disagrees with the merger. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl correctly ascerted what happened, and nothing about that forms my reason for asking assistance here. The 'bit' of a mess largely exceeded what Rrius is clearly capable to correct with ease. And apart from the misspelled 'jusitce' (caused by auto-replacing the auto-translations as 'bailiff') having stayed all over the article, also the fact that an occurence of 'huissier' had become auto-translated as 'usher' instead, illustrates that Rrius did not bother to even read the result: just quickly integrated the lead and gave it a ferm kick into the open field. Rrius is far too intelligent not too realize what will happen to it. It was then obviously an attempt to prevent merging intendedly in the way I explained on the talk page. Note in particular how the sole argument of the initial opposer in 2007 (who took the stub's unsourced claims just for granted), was simply taken over by Rrius who then continued hammering on that alone without presenting new arguments, without attempting to disprove mine, and especially completely disregarding the most undisputable ones of myself and of the person that supported my proposal. Those are wellknown demagogical techniques, of the kind that I assume extremely rarely to be persistently used unintentionally. Please do read a bit more about demagogy before risking to get caught by H. L. Mencken's definition. Moonriddengirl's analysis of the course of events and applicable rules does give me good hope here, now an analysis is required focused on coincidences, techniques, and intend (and likely result: knowing progress by discussing not to be possible, and any progress by outside support made impossible in an endless discussion that hides all proper argumentation by myself and by the rare support, my spending my time outside WP - that's the only reason to counter-act disruptive editing, and what really defines it).​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 16:15-16:59 (UTC)

Apart from 'coincidences' illustrating demagogy (a method of manipulation), there are several more 'coincidences' that illustrate dishonourable manipulation by Rrius:

• After about 3 weeks of discussion, Rrius suddenly "improved" the 'huissier de justice' article by the badly translated insert that I recognize as a manoeuvre to prohibit merging, precisely when finally consensus was becoming clear by a supporter of the merger.
• After my (27 January 2011) demonstration (as extreme Dutch POV) of how dangerous it is to name an article by an arbitrarily chosen foreign language, Rrius immediately pushes antagonizing French bias, and not in an ironical way. And then after my pointing it out, Rrius answered: 'Whether you call it a "huissier de justice" or a "thingamabob" [...]' and later on 'the huissier its cousins' - referring to the Dutch-language '[gerechts]deurwaarder'.
• Repeatedly derogatory or condescending language, and false ascertions of my not understanding the subject.
• Repeatedly stating and insinuating that I should move away.

Such manipulation can hardly be regarded as a series of attempts to facilitate reaching a consensus or to improve WP in an allowed way.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 19:43 (UTC)

• Nothing you describe here would constitute extreme disruption. In the absence of evidence of clear disruption (as we see in extreme circumstances), this is not the appropriate forum. You quote from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing above; it includes a sequence of recommended steps at WP:DDE. Except when editors are reverting and inserting unsourced information, this forum is far down the list. Other fora, including mediation, should in most cases be attempted first. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution also advises that "The Administrators' Noticeboards are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors." This board is here to work with urgent and extreme cases, or cases where other methods have demonstrably been tried and failed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not report 'extreme disruption'. Some steps are included within the discussion, and I'm afraid that mediation will end up in even more loss of my time by a useless yes/no discussion in which Rrius will be claiming a 'content dispute': The latter is nearly always true on a talk page, but entirely beside the point as to what is being reported - which as *Kat* hereunder again clearly shows, is by some not quickly understood. At least, Moonriddengirl has valid points. It is not most urgent; and only extreme by the clever methods, not by the obviousness, of the disruption. Walking away from WP seems to be the only sensible thing to do - It can't be too difficult, I had done that before. One all too quickly encounters some Rriuses and not much is done about that fact.

I just had a technical edit conflict with Rrius (hereunder) but will comment here. Rrius still blatantly lies about 3 against 1. The facts: he merely took the point of the first opposer (deliberately because he was angry at the time and neither then, nor ever later on, wanted to spend the time for finding facts about the 'huissier de justice' outside what had been pointed at from the talk page; there was never any fresh input by Rrius. Only one other opposer showed up recently, openly for non-admissible WP reasons opposing. My proposal had found valid support before Rrius' "translation". That comes rather to 1 opposer against 2 supporters of the merger, if WP guidelines are slightly taken into account - or 3 against 2, if not at all. The obstinate demagogue continues to falsely claim my not understanding something, knowing that most readers will be following his contorted version of what I am supposed to have said, and then it is easy to get the impression Rrius intends. Neither Rrius nor I knew very much about the topic, which I admitted - though only in as far as what I admitted. Rrius' false assertions of my not understanding things I do know, makes him appear the expert. Also that is sheer demagogy.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 22:50 (UTC)

I deliberately omitted summary of events lest this forum also become an extension of that content dispute.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kat*'s then "deliberately" asking what events had happened, must have been dishonest - less that is now the case. And nothing here has been about content. Even on the article's talk page, the disagreement was not quite about content. I wished to merge because there was not enough material to maintain the stub that had hardly anything (and nothing sourced) that was not already in 'Bailiff'. Because the name for an article about the modern 'huissier' type of bailiff, would need another name anyway, and 'bailiff' would more urgently need a separate article about the modern function in English speaking countries, leaving 'Bailiff' as the global overview it mainly still is. It only appears to be a content dispute because Rrius never wanted to discuss the naming, though he once suggested 'Bailiff (civil law)' for a hypothetical but not by him recognized situation.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 22:50 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points:

1. This appears to me to be an abuse of procedure.
2. SomeHuman truly does not seem to understand the subject, so asserting that he seems not to is not false. If he really does understand, he is doing a really bad job of explaining himself.
3. "Repeatedly stating and insinuating that I should move away" sounds really bad, but doesn't accurately reflect reality. First, I have never insinuated anything. What I have said, repeatedly, is that exactly three editors have weighed in on the topic and, of them, only he thinks there should be a merger. With the proposal having sat on the talk page for three years, I have suggested over and over that SomeHuman should let it go. Unfortunately, SomeHuman takes this advice, which many if not most editors would have given in these circumstances, as somehow abusive.
4. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about expanding an article with text from a sister project translated through an online translator. In fact, we have templates to deal with articles where just that is done, and it is something I have done with other articles from other languages before. One of my points early on in the content discussion was that the article, if left separate, it could be expanded; if merged, it never would be. I finally decided that instead of simply making the theoretical point that someone might improve the project, I should actually do the work. SomeHuman may find that to be some underhanded attempt to do something or other (it's not entirely clear to me what my nefarious motive was supposed to have been), but that's just too damned bad. I'm not going to avoid making improvements because one editor alone wants to do something that my edit wouldn't preclude in and of itself in any event. If SomeHuman thinks my expansion of the article precludes a merger, then to show I've disrupted anything other than his dream of a merger, he has to show that expanding the article is itself disruptive. I fear that will be difficult indeed. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing here, to concern adminstrators. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing where Rrius is concerned. But there does seem to be ownership and civility issues on the part of SomeHuman though. I'm also a little disturbed by the amount of time that passed between the initial merger proposal and this dispute. Three years don't pass in the blink of an eye. That SomeHuman decided to make an issue out of this after so long is odd to say the least.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're the worst reader, still not understanding anything about the course of events, and extremely narrow-focusing on that while it has no relevance. That is usually a sign of being drunk or stoned. It would explain your further observations. And that is as civil towards you as your three contributions here can possibly allow.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 23:01 (UTC)

SH, calling other editors drunk or stoned violates civility rules; I would advise you strike out the insult before you find yourself the subject of an AN/I discussion. -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, creating an entry here automatically includes the original poster as part of the discussion as well as the target of the OP's complaint. Regarding drunk-or-stoned, that would require a citation, which I doubt the OP can provide. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Claro, but I'm sure you know what I mean. -Rrius (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The root problem of the dispute seems to be that no consensus can be identified because the interested parties comprises only two editors who have found themselves diametrically opposed and can find precious little common ground. This logjam might be broken lose by adding one more editor to the mix over on the relevant articles to see if progress can be made towards identifying a consensus. Spending time on the meat & potatoes in the talk pages of articlespace should be much preferable to the hours and hours spent trying to prosecute actions here in WP-space.

  I know neither of these two editors nor am I particularly familiar with the subject matter. I am an experienced wikipedian and always put the best interest of our readership first. If it would help solve this, I can weigh in on the relevant talk page(s) to work towards a consensus. Nothing would be binding as I would be just another regular editor (but entirely fresh to this matter). If this is agreeable to User:Rrius and User:SomeHuman, I would propose we close this thread as unresolved and only come back here if there are unresolved issues pertaining to failure to abide by Wikipedia’s rules of conduct. How say ye all?

  Just in case I forget to check back here, please contact me on my talk page if this is found to be an acceptable path forward by the two parties. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

76.206.29.76

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

This user is continously deleting my comments from the Generation Y talk page, called me a moron and has left attacking comments on my talk page, which I had to delete. I initially responded to his/her comment about believing Generation Y is 1965-1979 and I informed him/her that we cannot incorporate original research or opinions on the page, and ever since then they have attacked, and keep deleting my comments, telling me to grow up. Educatedlady (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be removing his comments too [65] What gives? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I also note the IP user wasn't notified of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of posting the required notice. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I stated I removed comments where he/she was attacking me. What do you mean what gives? Educatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

The point Theresa was making, is that diff shows you removing a comment that didn't attack you, it was just a (badly phrased) comment on content and on the discussion. It described "the debate" as being "dumb", it didn't describe you personally as anything. As such, it can't be considered a personal attack and should not have been removed from the article talk page. If there's a problem with the comment - for example if it's misrepresenting sources or if the level of civility used is in question or it's part of a pattern of tendentious editing - then all the more reason it needs to stay there so that others can observe the issue without having to sort through talk page histories to work out what actually happened. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the point I am trying to make is I was attacked. The comment I deleted that wasn't an attacked was removed, but I put it back in good faith, I know you all can see that. Don't accuse me of something that that was purely an accident. Every comment I deleted by this person intentionally was an attack, pure and simple. Educatedlady (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack 75.11.156.74

Now IP 75.11.156.74 is attacking me via Generation X talk page. I checked both IP addresses and both are in Illinois so I am pretty sure they are the same person.

Educatedlady (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He asked that you be banned and you deleted that comment. [66] Don't do that. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 06:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident and I put that comment back as you can see. As for the comment asking for me to be banned, that was an attack on me. He/she had no right to post such a statement on that talk page, which has NOTHING to do with the subject matter. Please do not tell me what to do. You are not my mother. Learn how to talk to people with respect instead of trying to treat them like trash. Educatedlady (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Copping an attitude with folks who are trying to help is not necessarily your best strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who's "Copping" an attitude Baseball? How would YOU feel if someone is trying to speak to you like a child? "Don't do that" I am not 5 years old. So when you are here, take off the "mommy hat" and realize that you are dealing with adults. I don't see how that is helping me. Please explain Educatedlady (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When an admin says, "Don't do that", that's usually good and useful advice. To put it a little more elegantly, it's usually not appropriate to delete other users' comments from an article talk page. If you already know that, then all's swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, when attacked by an IP or a redlink or some other newbie, the best approach is the old saying, "Don't get mad, get even." Tell them to stop, and if they won't stop, then report them here or to WP:AIV or to WP:RFPP depending on the situation, and that will typically shut them down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you put the comment back, so I apologise for that. Note that it was not my intention to treat you like a child, sometimes I can be very direct, some people like it, others not so much. The difficulty we have is that you came here looking for the admins to back you up but it's difficult for us to do that when you have deleted all the evidence of bad behaviour, and may have actually provoked more bad behaviour by deleting comments. It just makes it very difficult for the admins to work out what is going on. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I just feel that we need to speak to each other with a little more "tact". I know I have been guilty of not doing such. I would have never come here seeking help, if I had done the same thing I was accusing the other user of. It wouldn't have made sense, because I know you guys can see who deleted, and edited what. I appreciate your assistance however in the warnings. Take care. Educatedlady (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting comment to be deleted

I am requesting a comment to be removed by an unregistered user on the Generation X talk page. The comment was an attack requesting that I be banned simply because I informed the user on the Generation Y talk page that he/she cannot incorporate opinions on the actual article . Educatedlady (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_X&diff=next&oldid=417433719 Educatedlady (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the sort of attack that is best to shrug off and ignore, deletion or any other form of direct response to it is only feeding the fire, per WP:DENY. Plus it is only ever encouraged to remove particularly nasty attacks. I can imagine those discussion pages tend to get heated, so a deep breath and lots and lots of patience is the only real solution, unfortunately --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I read the comment, no one with a clue will take it seriously.--SPhilbrickT 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that it has been collapsed and probably tells anyone reading much about the IP's attitude and behaviour. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny

I've reinstated this thread which has just been archived because no administrator has either taken action on it or determined no action should be taken. Can an administrator please respond. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny - disruptive editing on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I’ve been trying to reach agreement with User:Mindbunny on a content dispute in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and have found Mindbunny to be confrontational, unwilling to discuss meaningfully, as well as issues of WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally disruptive editing, underpinned by a POV. In a sense, the content issue is not that significant, but I am concerned enough to bring it here because I believe this user has driven other editors away from this article in order to keep control of it e.g. please see this and especially this posted by another editor. Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring here here here here here here here and here. An opposing editor posted these on Mindbunny’s talk page, gave up and has not edited the article since. The Mindbunny account has only been in existence since 1 December 2010. There is a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of User:Noloop who supposedly retired last November – another editor has begun an SPI on that (see here, the result is not yet known. Noloop largely created the article as it now is and was under scrutiny for disruptive behaviour (see also this revert of Noloop's Talk page) – that’s covered in the diffs in the SPI report. (Incidently, 5 editors in total have expressed the opnion that Mindbunny is a sock - see SPI diff plus this

On the specific issue of my current content dispute with Mindbunny, the summary is as follows. I introduced this edit at the beginning of Feb., which Mindbunny reverted. I couldn’t get Mindbunny to discuss this meaningfully and regretfully I got into an edit war. I admit I was at fault on this as well but it was out of frustration in Mindbunny’s lack of proper response. I reported it to AN/3RR (here. This was how far I got on the Talk page with the user at the time I reported it. Mindbunny was blocked and then unblocked in part because I was not sanctioned (the reviewing admin thought I was at fault as well.) After this Mindbunny posted a proper response to my edit on Talk, I responded by radically changing my edit here (with Talk comment) on 8 February. Actually it was a completely different edit albeit with te same underlying point. The article was edited by about 10 editors over the next two weeks including one editor who made some minor changes to the text I added and Mindbunny herself who edited other text in the section it was in on 21st February. None (including Mindbunny) removed the text or commented adversely on it. To me (and maybe I’m wrong on this) this indicates consensus acceptance of the text. Then on 22 February (the day after the SPI on Mindbunny began, to which I posted a comment on the 21st) Mindbunny removed the text. After two reverts, and an exchange on the Talk page I proposed that we get a WP:Thirdopinion here, but there has been no response despite asking a second time. I believe that the reason for Mindbunny’s latest reverts is (a) because I supported the SPI (the timing indicates that) and (b) it is contrary to Mindbunny’s strong POV on this subject. The original edit and this edit are completely different texts but with a similar underlying point. This point is valid and would provide the article with some balancing NPOV – it would appear that Mindbunny objects to that. Mindbunny's edits (as with Noloop) are generally along the lines of being overtly hostile to the Saudi treatment of women. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no sympathy with the Saudi position, but there is a question of maintaining NPOV credibility. I've informed Mindbunny of this post. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, on February 7, the user was not blocked (or, rather, the blocking admin quickly reversed their block), because at that point in time (February 7), they had not been given {{uw-3rr}} or some other warning making them aware of that policy. Since that time, Mindbunny's edits have contained very little other than edit warring and some fundamental misunderstandings of policy (eg "undo violation of BRD by Decausa" - what does that even mean?). I support something being done here. --B (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Mindbunny has adopted a similar approach on Lara Logan - see this. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Entertaining to see so much edit-warring by those complaining of edit warring. The link above is a threat by Eriklectic to start edit-warring, complete with a time and date: "I will be reverting the Lara Logan edits by 10am EST tomorrow". This, on a page that has been protected for much of the last week. B, who "supports something being done here" has chosen to do it by reverting my revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. His comments on the Talk page? Nonexistent. His edit summary? Nothing to do with content. That's a great way to diminish edit warring! As for Decausa, the actual sequence was that he plopped an enormous list down into the article, saying he had found it in Saudi Arabia and needed a place to stick it. [[67]]. I undid it with an edit summary, and he immediately reverted my revert, complained that my reasons weren't "proper," and accused me of edit-warring. Smart! Due to confusion caused by sloppy "recent change patrollers", I was blocked twice. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin on his own initiative. Decausa's description is erroneous in many other ways. This is wrong: " Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring...." I didn't add that; I undid its removal. There is more nonsense in his account, but it's not worth belaboring. My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.Mindbunny (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "I will edit war...", for any reason, is not the way to win friends and influence people. There are lots of things that lots of people would rather not have the public know that are reported and verifiable through reliable sources. Should they be removed from articles just because the person the article is about has neither confirmed or denied them despite the fact that reliable sources state them as fact? Also, a BLP that she didn't authorize - are you referring to the release of the information (which, if the source of the information is anonymous, how do we know they aren't speaking on her direct behalf?), or are you suggesting that the subjects of BLPs must give their consent to their Wikipedia articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts. Mindbunny (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, what makes you the enforcer? Why are you deciding for the community rather than letting the community decide for itself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one, am the enforcer on the issue, as the previous blocking admin (note: I'm not even sure what the whole edit war is about, so I can't be biased on the issue). And that statement was entirely inappropriate. Yeah, I kind of goofed up that block history; the first block was only not deserved because the user wasn't given a proper warning - although later talk on the user's page now gives the impression this may not be the user's only account. The second block was definitely deserved, but I was feeling lenient.

Mindbunny, please stop hitting the revert button and being rude, now, or you'll see yourself blocked again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why would I be blocked for "hitting the revert button", rather than, oh say, those who are hitting the edit button without consensus? As for civility....If you think you're entitled to know whether somebody was raped, you're an asshole. If you think that detail is encyclopedic when it is reported anonymously, you're truly uncivil. The idea that admins care more about the word "asshole" than compliance with something truly respectful, civil, and humane in the description of a sexual assault is offensive and disgusting. And, exactly why is all this crap being directed at me? Somebody just announced an intent to edit war beginning precisely at 10 AM tomorrow. A reader of this page just went over to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and reverted my revert--to prevent edit warring. So now you're threatening to block me for editing other pages because I said "asshole" on AN/I? That makes no sense. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning, referring to other editors by that term is uncivil and borders on WP:NPA territory. It has nothing to do with the article or its content, it has to do with how you choose to present your case. (And on the subject of the article and its content, does it strike anybody else as odd that the, presumably positive, statement that the assault was NOT rape is what's being demanded to be removed?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that I had been sexually assaulted. Would you ask me "Well, were you raped"? If you heard from someone who heard from someone who probably knew the truth, would you run around announcing that I hadn't been raped, and put it on the Internet? I sure hope not, and if you did do those things, you would be an #*$%. Privacy is privacy. You don't ask such things, and you don't tell them. If they're not volunteered, you live without knowing. It's for the victim to specify, or not. And, the BLP guidelines pretty much say that. Mindbunny (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. There doesn't seem to be any getting through that he/she is not in charge and we have to work with others.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. Despite clear, eminently civil requests from the community, Mindbunny appears intent on being uncivil, and of the mind that that is the only way (s)he will be able to make her point. We don't need that. Even if the substance of MB's issue is one (s)he is correct on. Would also suggest a CU, as this appears a likely second problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Account is stale for CU purposes, but the behavioral evidence is very strong. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. I wasn't exactly sure what should happen when I made the original post above, but with the User's responses (which is, by the way, typical of the way the User always behaves and edits) it's difficult to see that he/she will ever learn to behave in a reasonable way. This is particularly so, given the disruptive track record of the user's previous probable account, User:Noloop, who "retired" with the words "I am just fed up with Wikipedia: the cultural bias, the abusive administrators, and a "dispute resolution" process that ultimately has no method other than the popularity contest". DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- Noloop may have a legitimate basis for some of his complaints. Or not. But whether or not MB is the same editor, MB's performance here in this string is sufficient for a block. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block User has shown complete inability to assume good faith and thus assumes everyone else is wrong. Incivility and tendentious editing issues as well, on top of violating WP:CLEANSTART. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A block would solve everything. Do it! The best way to teach editors to assume good faith is to block them. The best way to teach them not to edit war is to revert their reverts. Do I assume everybody else is wrong? It seems to me I've spent hours giving reasons and researching Wikipedia policies. I must be hallucinating. Block me! Hallucinating editors can't help but be disruptive. A block would solve that. Do it. Mindbunny (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. In this case, it would help adjust clue level. The way you have been editing is not agreeable with the community. That's why this post is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the last post, I'm beginning to doubt if this user is ever going to get it, whatever the sanction. (Btw, Noloop was blocked four times before retiring, twice for edit-warring and twice for disruptive editing. At the last block in July 2010 the blocking admin.'s log summary was "apparently didn't get the message last time".) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The community is disorganized and careless. In a case like this, one can hardly blame it: this is a petty personal dispute. I think there has been a single comment from an editor not previously involved (Epeefleche). What is presented here to the community is a tip of an iceberg, a tip slanted and defined by the complainer. Your antagonistic entry into the discussion I started at the Village Pump [68] was a good example. I tried to turn a negative into a positive. You didn't do your research, assumed I was an asshole, and talked to me accordingly (to your credit, you corrected your mistake later, after I did your research for you). Magog blocked me twice--and undid his own blocks both times--because he didn't pay attention to detail. The recent change patrollers reverted me 3 times without even bothering to look at the Talk page--again, a failure to really care about the facts. I've tried to research some of the issues I've seen on this board that caught my attention. I always give up because it is hard and not that important. It takes a long time to sort out the history of a dispute. Nobody cares that much, nobody will bother. What is written here is not written by "the community." It is written by a few complainers with a prior history of conflict with me, and with a track record of distorting the facts. Mindbunny (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay attention to detail" and "really care about the facts": it wasn't me that entered your Village Pump discussion. Don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. The "you" in my comment refers to Bearean. Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you had previous conflicts with Bushranger and B? You've had a conflict with B since s/he left the post above but was there one prior? How was my response at the Pump antagonistic? I cited WP:BOOMERANG because you were guilty of calling Tide Rolls polite warning "vandalism" when you were there to accuse others of misusing the term. I didn't assume you were an asshole...I couldn't make up my mind whether you were a klutzy, complaining noob or someone's sockpuppet. I asked for diffs of what you said because I overlooked them (a mistake but not for lack of looking). I helped you by linking to the diffs once you pointed them out.

Ever since that time, I have been watching you. You really edit in just 2 articles primarily...and unfortunately the edit-warring and disruptive patterns are in both. You've proven above that you are willing to edit war regardless of policies or consensus and I'll add that I've seen you wikilawyering (that is most of what you do) to the point of being disruptive. Those two articles have ping-ponged back & forth in my watchlist with you arguing way too hard for you to have been anything other than someone's sock. Newbs don't jump into BLP arguments and initiate ANI threads or ask for automated tools to be created which penalize RC patrollers and vandal-fighters. I have yet to see you really compromise anywhere or admit that maybe the problem is yours. Sit back and look at the number of folks telling you to consider your actions...stop accusing everyone of being assholes and that everything is broken because things don't go your way. We're trying to clue you in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I argue and wikilawyer, and also refuse to respond and edit without discussion. Both are true. It makes perfect sense. I edit war against consensus, although there is no consensus and I'm not trying to change any article. That makes perfect sense too. I edit war regardless of polices, except for when I cite policies such as BLP and BRD, at which point I am being disruptive. That's fair. Thank you for teaching me. Mindbunny (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? Don't you think there might be a clue in so many saying pretty much the same thing about you but from different incidents? Or do you just think everyone else has got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't. The only editor here who has actually edited with me is you. You could go round up some other editors from Lara Logan, while ignoring those who agree with me. Given your prior interactions with me, I believe that's exactly what you'd do. You are dishonest. You say I tried to add things I didn't try to add, that I didn't explain my objections when I did, that I'm promoting an anti-Saudi POV when I'm not. You cherry-pick links and diffs to present a slanted view, and that slanted view affects the first impressions of others. Also affecting first impressions is my Talk page. It is plastered with erroneous warnings from recent change patrollers--not once, or twice, but three times. All invalid, but nonetheless giving a certain impression to visitors. (Amazingly, the patrollers all claim it's not their responsibility to take 60 seconds to look at the Talk page to see if what they're reverting really is vandalism. Like I said, the community is disorganized and careless.) My Talk page is plastered with block notices that never would have happened if not for the false positives by recent change patrollers. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin, but nonetheless it give visitors a certain impression. Erikeltic showed up and bared his fangs and outright threatened to edit war with me at 10 AM sharp the following day. Typically, you linked to this as evidence of my disruptiveness. You are dishonest. I'm not going to comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'm the mastermind behind a conspiracy against you. I can see you've decided to improve first impressions of yourself on your Talk page.DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny is reverting cited material from the London Times declaring it "has no consensus". This is making good on the promise of edit-warring. Please block...enough is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the material reverted there was sourced to AOL news, not directly to the Times. And it looks like AOL news said that The Daily Mail said that the Times said that... and ultimately the Times appears to have been quoting an unidentified source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block From checking this and looking at this editors manner of responses it's time to issue the block. The reverting is continuing at the page which is not good. The uncivil manner of talking along with being totally disruptive I think the time has come to allow the block so that real work can be done at the articles. I also think that this editor should be made to put their other account name on this account since cleanstart has been breached. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an administrator now make a decision on this please. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, now this this account is just an edit-warring SPA. DeCausa (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BLOCK NEEDED Yep, just coming here to make the same point. You were quicker. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support blocking for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT & WP:AFG. V7-sport (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Associated thread

See below for a broken continuance.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrator action or decision now please

This thread has now been open a week with no action taken (or decision made, if the view is that no action need be taken). A sixth user has now added his/her support for blocking (with an seventh supporting "something be done"). No one one (besides Mindbunny) has posted to disagree. Mindbunny has now made this revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The user being reverted (I suspect the reg user and IP are the same person) has made a number of positive improvements, added sourced material and taken out dubious POV-style material (including some of the tabloid-style box quotes so much-loved by Noloop/Mindbunny and criticized by the article's FA review), but along with that there are some problematic changes. It needs going through to establish what should be kept and what should not from the edit. Instead Mindbunny reverted everything with the comment "undo mass deletions of referenced material".

Mindbunny has reverted all substantive edits to the article since the Mindbunny account was created...every single one (except my modest one which prompted this thread). This covers everything from POV-pushing IPs to perfectly reasonable edits by long-established editors (like this one). I went back as far as October to see if I could find where Noloop/Mindunny allowed someone else to make a substantive edit - and gave up there. This is quite clearly a case of WP:OWN. Noloop wrote most of the article, and was able to do so "in peace" because it was a backwater with little editing traffic. Individual editors then come along and try to make changes and are then reverted on the basis of "no consensus". This article doesn't collect enough editing traffic to establish a group view to challenge Mindbunny's control. But even if it did, I suspect Minbunny would continue the same way as with Lara Logan. No one else will be able to contribute to this article until this issue is resolved.

Please can we have a decision on this one way or the other. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now all I see is people who disagree with Mindbunny on Lara Logan wanting her(?) blocked. That doesn't sound too nice of you. NW (Talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If the other editors to the pages can establish a consensus, it will highlight where the issue lies. Just a hint. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, this thread isn't about the dispute at the Lara Logan article. Elen of the Roads, it's about a long-term behavior issue at Women's rights in Saudi Arabia not a dispute on a specific issue (or not mainly anyway). Can you please clarify. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is about a long term behaviour issue, then start a WP:RFC/U. This board is for problems requiring immediate action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, admins must definitely block the clueless editor who wants juicy details of an assault kept out Wikipedia; WP:NOTCENSORED. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, this thread is about behavior at Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny, you brought up the other issue at 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of similar behavior. But the case for action is about behavior on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Your sarcastic comment implies that because Mindbunny is doing good work on Lara Logan the user shouldn't be blocked. But Mindbunny could be doing spectacularly good work on Lara Logan but it still doesn't excuse behavior on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, let's rush into a decision on a particularly controversial topic - that'll help! GiantSnowman 16:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ArbCom seems to be lacking cases recently, so maybe some wheel warring will give them something to chew on? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia isn't a topic issue it's behavioural. Is Women's rights in Saudi Arabia "particularly controversial". I wouldn't have thought it is "particularly", though it is sensitive in Saudi Arabia, obviously. The threads been open over a week AND GOT ARCHIVED!. So I'm not sure how there's been any "rushing in ". Could you clarify? DeCausa (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UsTC)

I was talking about blocking a user; the discussion is still ongoing, so you demanding Admin intervention NOW - rather than letting the discussion run it's course - is what I meant by "rush." Admins aren't stupid, they can recognise a disruptive editor(s), and know how (and when!) to take appropriate action. Chill. GiantSnowman 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to your (now deleted) reply - no, I'm talking simply about the discussion at ANI, which is still ongoing... GiantSnowman 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it - which is why I deleted the post. DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason this is getting archived is that there is currently no administrative action that can be taken. If administrators don't act, it is because there is no prompt action appropriate at the time. Four editors arguing to block a fifth do not make a consensus for admin action. One part looks like a content dispute, the other requires an RFC/U. Please act accordingly Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I re-posted this wasn't because no administrator had taken action. It was because no administrator had responded at all i.e. even to say no action would be taken. That was after 8 days. Thank you for now providing a response. Your posting seems (unless I'm reading too much into it) as though I shouldn't have asked for an administrator response. But surely it can't be right to let a thread go into archive without an administrator saying what the "administrator view" is? DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that happens a lot here (archival without action or even comment). But you even have an WP:ArbCom member (Elen) writing her opinion above. You just don't seem to like what she says. NW is also an admin (and ArbCom clerk, I think). Tijfo098 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the Women's rights in Saudi Arabia article, the best way forward is to write a sandbox version with the additions you think are necessary for WP:NPOV and ask others' input in a WP:RfC. I only see you (DeCausa) and Mindbunny arguing in that long thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV isn't particularly the issue. You've misunderstood the situation. Look back over the article history and try to find the last time any substantive edit on any part of the article by any editor got through without being reverted by Mindbunny/Noloop. Look what happened to Leicester17's, Deftera's and BlessSins' edits for instance. It's not a content dispute with me because my one and only edit got in and has now stayed (the only one to get in and that's because of this thread which stalled Mindbunny a little). I have no plans to edit that article at the moment and I don't even have a great desire to see much change in it. So as I say it's nothing to do with a content dispute with me. But no one else has been able to edit the article because of Noloop/Mindbunny's behavior and I don't think that's a good thing for the article or Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yours is a WP:NPOV dispute, particularly one of WP:UNDUE. I'd actually be more concerned with the (non-)discussion regarding the reverts/edits at Talk:Women's rights in Saudi Arabia#Regarding 18 Jan. 2011 edits, as they concern recent law changes and actual practice thereof (as reported by the UN and some human rights groups) which seems more significant than inclusion/exclusion one of a kind examples. Leicester17 is one of those editors who seldom edits, and on Wikipedia whoever has most time on their hands wins, unless blocked/banned. WP:Activists (who should be more appropriately called propagandists) often win a as result of this simple dynamic, especially in obscure matters. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What's my WP:NPOV dispute? I don't believe there is a major NPOV problem on that article. It's got some presentational NPOV criticism from the FA review, and I agree with that. But it could easily be fixed (if Mindbunny behaved like a normal editor) - they're more like overenthusiastic naive/immature mistakes than "evil" POV-pushing. But I'm not going to loose any sleep over that and it's not why I started this thread. I agree the Leicester17 edit reversions were bad and is a more important concern. But that's my main point. It doesn't really matter who the editor is or what the edit is, Noloop/Mindbunny hasn't let anybody touch "his/her work". DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember if any of the people calling for my block, at any time in the last month, have gotten the basic facts right. All, or nearly all, of the material Leicester added to the article is still in the article. I don't think I removed any of it, certainly not al of it. Here is the diff [69], and as you can plainly see, it is still there. I object to it because it is redundant. The first sentence of the very next paragraph clarifies the situation regarding the law (codified law in Saudi culture is less of a force than custom). Contrary to what Decausa keeps insisting, to the point of resurrecting this thread from the grave, I didn't revert it even though I object to it. The other main issue is the Mona Eltawhay quote "What kind of God punishes a woman for rape?" The objections to this are invariably that an editor disagrees with the source's analysis. The editor insists "She wasn't punished for rape!" Disagreeing with a source isn't a reason to remove material.

Can somebody please re-bury this corpse? Mindbunny (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attack

The pages Banker's Academy and Linda Eagle have recieved several edits from User:Discoisforlovers, which I believe is a personal attack. The only edits that this new username has made to wikipedia have been to Banker's Academy and Linda Eagle pages and have only consisted of adding false notable information that was not notable or reliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Discoisforlovers. The individual then marked the page for speedy deletion. What can I do to prevent against this page being deleted and avoid any further attacks from this username? I appreciate your assistance! Thank you. --Prowriter16 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page; that'll stop the speedy-deletion process in most cases. A reviewing admin will see what's going on there and take care of that problem. As for the rest...I'm not seeing a personal attack on any level, myself. It looks more to me like misguided but well-meaning attempts at updating article information. A bit of mentoring might be in order, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A personal attack because you WP:OWN those artices? Fences&Windows 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And a few others, it seems. Do I hear a boomerang in the wind? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Depuffed Eagle's article a bit. Needs cites, and I am not positive of notability really. Collect (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me get an icky feeling about an account name like Prowriter16? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great point, Steven. And BB -- yes, you have to love those boomerang AN/Is.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good call. That article is a big pile of ProWriting. Needs more eyes, that advert tag is quite appropriate. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the OP: User:Discoisforlovers has made precisely three edits; two editorial and one well-deserved template. Not the slightest trace of a personal attack. I note that Disco has not been notified of this discussion - I will do so now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Main Page F-Up

The main page is completely screwed up. Can someone fix it please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 00:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem here. Can you describe the issue, or is it resolved for you too now? --- Barek (talk) - 00:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Give us a screencap at least. HalfShadow 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks normal to me as well. Both in IE, FF, and Chrome. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it was fixed. Trust me; it looked very, very bad, messed up the entire left column. There was an extra pipe in the image on TFA, and somehow it wasn't visible on the TFA/March 8, 2011 page. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Glad it was caught and fixed.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to; here's what it looked like. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Here is the fix on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 8, 2011 which looked OK before the fix and here is the effect the fix had on Main Page which did not look OK before. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange files vandalism

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

Dariuxzs has been going though files and I cant tell if its claim of copyright problems or straight vandalism. The individual has been going through and uploading the No free Image.. have one?" image across multiple images.

• File:Sarah RB 6.JPG
• File:Sarah In Motion Tour1.JPG
• File:SarahG Star.JPG
• File:ASAP XV.jpg
• File:Sarah In Motion Tour1.JPG

I am unsure what to do here I almost tagged speedy delete as "test." Since this either Vandalism that needs admin tools or copyright claims... I am dropping it here. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs)

I've blocked them. Any admin can unblock if they receive some sort of explanation and an assurance that it won't happen again. I'm not sure it's vandalism, but it's certainly disruptive, whether or not it's intended to be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They also made a nonsensical page move, which I've reverted along with all the weirdness with the files. What a mess. Compromised account, maybe? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IDK, maybe. Up until last night this was a single purpose account going all the way back to 2008. (The purpose was to edit/enhance the Jonalyn Viray article.) --*Kat* ^(meow?) 05:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The user also made personal attacks at this page, spewing Tagalog profanities at Oningoning in regards to the latter's edits to Jonalyn Viray. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BogdaNz

This user has recently made several unconstructive and unexplained edits to World War II-related articles: diff, diff, diff for example.

He has already been warned for such actions about one month ago. I'll let you judge of it. Thank You.

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

Maimai009 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I see nothing disruptive in any of those three diffs. Would you care to explain why those edits are disruptive. I note that there has been no discussion with BogdaNz on his talk page over his editing. Is this a content dispute between the pair of you? The additions in the first diff were all of countries and territories that were occupied by Germany in WWII, therefore becoming de facto a part of Nazi Germany. Discussion of the issues on the relevant talk pages would seem to be appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Sf5xeplus, total lack of civility

Upon my joining a discussion in progress on an article talk page, I was greeted with this somewhat uncivil response. His civility degraded somewhat further to include this insulting tirade, which earned him a user warning for WP:NPA, with his response to that warning clearly indicates that he completely fails to understand the concept of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS in any way shape or form. Perhaps a reminder from someone in authority would alter his perspective? WuhWuzDat 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the parasite analogy. (I don't agree with it, though.) Perhaps you two could just stay away from each other? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry, but I fail to see any valid reason to limit the scope of my editing, when another editor is CLEARLY at fault. WuhWuzDat 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was also met with what seemed like a rather nasty attitude when I reverted a pagemove which spawned this discussion [70], and subsequently labelled a "troll" [71]. I back the request that an admin remind him to be nice. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think you are consensus trolls, nothing more. I've had plenty of good collaborations with other editors, but I have nothing but contempt for both of you. This is based on past experience. It will be interesting to see if you can improve the article in question - the current "consensus" appears to be to create a content fork by simple 'copy-paste' of the current article into two separate article with the vast majority of the material duplicated. Being proved wrong would be nice, but I think you have some sort of delusion that makes you think good articles are created by stonewalling with your palls at wikiproject:UK railways - they are not. Somebody has to write them - and that writer doesn't seem to be you.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is gonna go well... HalfShadow 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• You have had NO past experience with me, and therefor no reason to prejudge me as "crawling out from" somewhere.
• I'm not a member of wikiproject:UK railways, nor are any of the other editors in the discussion "my pals"
• In the discussion on question, consensus appears to have been reached, with a single exception, user:Sf5xeplus
• You seem to have claimed ownership of the article, both with your comments above, and this edit

I think you should REALLY step back and re read what you type, BEFORE you hit that SAVE PAGE button. WuhWuzDat 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few other examples of this users tact and sensitivity, from the same discussion page [72][73]. WuhWuzDat 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You may not remember me but I remember you and what you do. Hopefully at some point you will realise that it is you that is making me angry, and will realise what parts of what you do are unhelpful. Until then I will have to put it bluntly to you. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then enlighten everyone on this discussion please! Please provide diffs for our previous interactions, because I can find no evidence of either dispute or collaboration with your current user name! Are you a sockpuppet? A returning banned user? What was your previous user name? The only (remote) possibility I can come up with is an anonymous IP jumper from Bulgaria, who shared your blatant penchant for rudeness and holding grudges, as well as your combativeness, and your occasional of use of strange grammar and spelling. He fell off my radar roughly a year before your account was created. WuhWuzDat 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A quick glance through the edit history of the Talk page gives the appearance that Sf5xeplus may have ownership issues, and that doesn't even touch on what looks like not-so-subtle edit warring. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note Watch out, your links were templates and added the entire article for those two essays to this page. I think I fixed it up though?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • D'oh! When good fingers go bad... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This goes beyond just civility, it started going bad on the talk page as soon as it was suggested to get outside views from WikiProjects. He has to realise this is a collaborative project and he doesn't get to dictate what articles get created, or split, or merged. Any further refusal to discuss matters or any incivility of the kind displayed in the last few days should result in a block. Fences&Windows 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have ownership issues - take a look at the edit history - no issues with collaborative editing with "Signalhead" "Biscuittin" and many other editors here and elsewhere, my problem is zero effort no content editors jumping on for a free ride. Any loss of civility is directly due to the past and present behaviour and activities of "Mattbuck" and "Wuzwuddat" - no smoke without fire , maybe WP:DUCK also applies here too. ? (or you can just ignore what I'm saying and assume that this is a random and unwarrented, and unprovoked attack) - I don't like freeloaders - it's painful and tiresome to carry them - geddit?Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a gentle reminder for you...Wikipedia is an all-volunteer effort. Articles are improved by editors showing up to write them, or fix them, or add things to them. No one's getting paid to do any of this, so there's no such thing as a "freeloader". And the "tough love" approach you seem to be taking isn't winning you any points. Just my 2p worth here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is possible to disagree with people without being rude and nasty. Sf5xeplus needs to learn how to do that, and right away too. I've never been trigger happy about "civility blocks" but there comes a point where they are merited. If you continue with the personal attacks and insults you will find out exactly where that point is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of record, the article in question has been on my watchlist since shortly after it was created. I had followed the discussions on moving the article, as well as the current discussion about splitting it, on a daily basis. If Sf5xeplus wants to prove that his "attacks" had some basis in past history, perhaps he should provide some evidence, preferably in the form of diffs. WuhWuzDat 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

While you are here maybe you can fix this

The title British Rail Class 70 (diesel) is a bad title - the machine did not exist before 2008, but British Rail ceased to exist a decade before - the machine has never been called "British Rail Class 70" - this is entirely an invention on wikipedia, due to a namaing convention made up by and enforced by wikiproject:ukrailways. I tried to move the page to a commonly used name (disambiguated, see Powerhaul) but was reverted [74], and when I tried to get a page deleted for a move that was reverted too [75]. You can easily verify that the only uses of the term "British Rail Class 70" is wikipedia and its mirrors using a web search. You can also verify that "Freightliner Class 70" "General electric powerhaul" "Freightliner powerhaul" and other combinations are in common use. What is the point of a consensus when it generates incorrect article titles? not very good consensus is it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dogged adherence to naming conventions can be rather unhelpful. If that name is purely a wikipedia artifice and not used in the outside world, and if there's a clear, neutral alternative which is used in the outside world, then the way forward is obvious. bobrayner (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody knows Wikipedia is written according to consensus. Now stop bitching and get on with the program: be civil, make backroom deals, and then you can write all the BS you want. After you have enough edits, barnstars, and wikifriends, you can start being a dick, nobody will be able to do much about it except bitch. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your kind responses. Quite an accurate summary of what should happen, and what happens in reality. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User on his own biography edit warring, and then personal attacks

Hey there,

A user by the name of Ibbymusic (talk · contribs) seems to be having a dispute with an article that is about him (he claims he is the subject of the article Jimmy Ibbotson). He claims much of the information is incorrect and is engaging in edit wars with other users, bots, and myself to remove said information. This is the history for the article Jimmy Ibbotson. He seems to have the understanding that he owns the article because it is about him, and is dedicated to removing information of which he claims is false OR that "I personally do not want to be made public", even if the information is sourced.

I tried my best to explain to the user why his edits were being reverted by me and other users, but then he posted an attack on my user page. The user also posted a message on a Facebook page that appears to be calling to "wage a war" on Wikipedia, which also calls me out.

User has also been warned multiple times.

I'm not super familiar on situations like this, and I believe I have done all that is possible, so that's why I'm here.

Regards,

Uhai (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At least some of the material the subject is removing appears to be borderline BLP violations. I've got a user in mind who's a stickler for BLP information. I'll see if I can get him to join this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As currently written and sourced, there's no sources to back up notability of the singer anyhow—it's all cited to Wikipedia and their own liner notes. If he doesn't want the info on Wikipedia, he wouldn't mind deleting the whole lot would he? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Bugs request - yes if he is of limited note then AFD is a good place to deal with the issue. We are requested to try to address subjects issues and imo we should cut them a bit of a break because it is upsetting to find false content about yourself published through wikipedia all over the www. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article came from a user with the slightly disturbing name GrowingObsession (talk · contribs), who appears to be focused primarily The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, and posted the somewhat personal info that the article's subject objects to. The details about the kids are especially concerning, as there's no indication they are notable in their own right. I didn't check to see if they're adults yet, and if not, that would also be an issue. In any case, most of the article seems to be about his work with the band, so it's kind of redundant. As Rob indicates, nominating for deletion might be the right approach here. I note that GrowingObsession has not edited anything in almost 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to redirect him back to his main band but he does look to be independently notable (I have only skimmed) - I also have not viewed the exact issues but if the subject is upset about false content or claims of false content - consider having a good look at his worries and issues, if in doubt, get it out - so to speak.Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll leave the article alone, but bots and other users are still going to probably revert his edits anyway. This still doesn't solve the personal attack against me, his edit warring, and then the Facebook post (if that's relevant). -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to see it from his point of view. How would you feel if you were him and had your children put into an encylopedia article? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring over an article about ones-self, is a breach of COI. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but BLP violations override most all other concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations should be corrected immediately. Subjects of minor Wikipedia BLP articles are often put in a difficult position, as they do not know wikiprocedures, and (for example) correcting errors without supplying an appropriate source (i.e. not themselves) leads them into conflict with editors who insist on procedure above common sense. If the children are not notable in any way, then there is no need for them to be noted. A little understanding can help, lest people go out and tell their friends that all Wikipedia editors are a bunch of jerks. We have enough trouble with Wikipedia editors doing that already. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a case for ownership too. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@Theresa Knott: I would be upset, but I wouldn't go around calling the people who are reverting my edits, and I quote, "arrogant", "piss ant"s, and then saying "Get a life, away from this wikipedia shit, and stop trying to take control over things, and people, when you so clearly DO NOT HAVE A CLUE." I revert vandalism and unconstructive edits, and I don't appreciate this type of flak for it. If a user persists that he is not trying to cause problems, then I would try to ask somewhere to get another opinion. I told the user that I would ask around to find out exactly what needs to happen, and to prevent him from getting blocked for his edit warring, suggested that he do not edit in the meantime, and then he posts a rant on my talk page (the one which contains the words above). Additionally, he posts a Facebook message calling me out so now I'm concerned that there will be even more vandalism, and that I may be a target (ie, my user page and talk page). For that response to be posted on my talk page when all I wanted to do was to see what could be done, I find that unacceptable. If after all this you truly find his response acceptable, only because he's upset about misinformation and personal information (that has apparently already been released elsewhere, hence it being on Wikipedia), then so be it. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the editor is (identity not confirmed), he/she needs a time-out. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to confirm that the editor is in fact the article's subject? Keep in mind that, as far as we know, the subject himself did not write the article. The best solution might be the carpet-bombing approach: (1) block the article's author for BLP violation; (2) block the alleged subject of the article for incivility; and most importantly, (3) delete the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think option #3 was used a few years ago, when an editor demanded that his bio article be deleted (after alot of threatening). GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is everybody forgetting that the article lacks reliable sources, which means we can't verify any of the information - from either side - about this living person? I've been bold and removed any and everything that isn't sourced. GiantSnowman 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Good move. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work! The information is still available by looking at the previous versions, and if properly sourced, may be re-added. We should try to keep subjects of BLP articles happy - maybe they will become productive editors on articles that impact on their own life spheres. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, good move.AerobicFox (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so is the user innocent on the whole attacking me and Facebook thing then? Shouldn't someone at least issue a warning? It should be general knowledge and common sense that the behavior he exhibited is inappropriate, regardless of what's going on with the article. Also maybe someone should let him know what has happened with his article. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It looks to me like you were the unfortunate scapegoat of his wrath (understandable wrath, if he is who he says he is, which appears to be possible), after first going to the article's author, who has disappeared. At the risk of putting ideas in his head, I note that he made nothing resembling a legal threat, and made no attempt to out you in real life, he merely quoted you from wikipedia, which of course is a public source. Maybe you or someone could post a comment on his user page saying that the BLP-violations and other unsourced info have been removed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here. Whenever an editor posts obnoxiously on one's talkpage, the 'revert' button comes in handy. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a frequent occurrence? Loud and disturbing noises might be a sign that something is wrong under the hood. It pays not to ignore these things too much. Tape over that blinking oil pressure lamp, keep driving, and you might find yourself off the road for a year. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly tough on pushing block per WP:CIVIL, but that newbie editor was rude. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment about pots and kettles on your talk page a while back. Perhaps it was too subtle. Newbie editors should be accorded some slack. They don't know how things work here. Yet. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is so poor, the entire article should be deleted. The subject of the BLP was understandably upset about Wikipedia editors using poor sources to write about his life. That editors are calling for sanctions against the subject rather than examining their use of poor sources to justify an article we should not have, is the real problem. Viriditas (talk),

I've little sympathy for any subject of a Bio article, unless that subject shows up at my place & recommends beating me up. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Practicality can outweigh strict adherence to the letter of the rules. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I'll let him know, if someone hasn't already. And I'm not sure what you mean by "quoting you from Wikipedia". He basically just accused me (of following Wikipedia's policies) using colorful language. To the person who implied that I didn't use common sense on this (Pete I think), I did. The sources that are now removed seemed acceptable to me (my mistake if they weren't), as I was using good faith and more aimed at preserving the status quo of the article because his edits were blatant and controversial, and did not make use of the edit summaries. In my opinion, he should have just taken the concerns over his article to a lawyer or publicist rather than handling it himself and confusing vandalism fighters such as myself, bots, and other users. If he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article that has not yet been deleted, then he should have a lawyer who handles issues with false information and libel. That's just my two cents, though. Let me remind you again, before I get blamed any more, that I only reverted 2 of the edits on the article in question - the rest being by bots and other users. Before I go, I'll just let you know I have a very low tolerance for uncalled for disrespect over an issue that could have been handled with a simple and civil discussion, and this is the reason for my posts here (although I also thought that the edit warring need to stop and his concerns over the validity of the article needed to be acknowledged.) Thanks. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your bringing this issue up was important, as it needed some airing in order to let the admins determine how to handle it. Ironically, you seem to be saying that Ibby should have made a legal threat, which I assure you would have resulted in his immediate block and probably even more angry escalation. Keep in mind that BLP is a very important concern for the owners of wikipedia, as it's one thing on a very short list of matters that have potential to do real harm to both individuals and to wikipedia. Both you and the editor in question acted in good faith, as it looks currently, albeit with some emotion involved. There's still a notability issue about that article, and unfortunately the real "culprit", its original author, vanished after the 24th. Posting a comment on Ibby's page would be good for you to do, and if he continues to rant and rave, that will be another story. Deleting the article might be the best thing, as it would erase the possible BLP violations that are currently visible in the history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhai, Ibbymusic is a wiki newbie who has made less than 30 edits, and you suggest he should have got a lawyer to fix the article!!!!! Ohmigawd. If you read what Viriditas said five pars above this one it sure didn't register. Moriori (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhai has already posted some comments on Ibby's talk page, which seem fair and reasonable. Keep in mind Uhai is relatively new here also. It's better to ask here, or somewhere, than to get into a protracted edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying, if I was a person of relative fame (who has never edited Wikipedia before) and I saw incorrect or libelous information here, my logic would be to contact my lawyer or publicist so they could contact the Wikimedia Foundation, not necessarily with any threats, but with a request that the information be removed. I don't see the concept of "taking it into my own hands" working well with a biography on Wikipedia for someone of whom the article is about. And clearly it hasn't worked well, because I had to make this post here. And yes I am relatively new. I've been registered for four years but have in the past two months become considerably active, so please forgive me if I'm a little "rough around the edges". I enjoy countering vandalism, because that's what I'm good at. When someone posts on my talk page with a strange situation regarding my edits (in this case, a person questioning me about article of which he is the subject), that's when I get a little shaky. And don't take my comments regarding a lawyer too far, that's just my two cents. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a caution note for User:GrowingObsession about adding poorly referenced controversial information about living persons. Personally I don't see the reaction of User:Ibbymusic as especially surprising or especially problematic. GiantSnowman has done exactly what needed doing with the article, now we'll see whether Ibbymusic has any further comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find ironic in all this is that [76] comes under a "reviewer granted" message. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is that ironic? -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)